Sitting of 8 June 1978

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read the Third time and passed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (SELBY) BILL
Order for consideration read.
To be considered upon Tuesday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL
Order for consideration read.
To be considered upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Television Broadcasting
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next proposes to meet the Chairmen of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now technically possible to superimpose instantaneous and verbatim captions on live television programmes, and that these can be beamed specifically on to the sets of deaf people without being beamed on to all television
    342
    sets? That has great significance for deaf people, because it means that television is now available to them for the first time. It is a British breakthrough and could have significance to deaf people throughout the world. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the BBC and the IBA to consider the possibility of financial support?
    Mr. Rees: Research is taking place at Southampton and Leicester for the BBC and the IBA, and the programmes which the BBC is already showing, and which the IBA proposes to show, indicate that both organisations are considering the matter. I have no responsibility, because it should not be for me to tell the IBA and the BBC what to do. However, I shall talk about the matter. I know that the organisations are seized of it and of the great technical changes that are now opening up before them.
    Mr. Stokes: Before the right hon. Gentleman meets the two gentlemen concerned, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is widespread public concern about the amount of sex, violence and swearing on these television channels? Unless the institutions deal with that themselves, some form of censorship will become inevitable.
    Mr. Rees: First, it is a man and a woman, not two men, but that is by the way. There are problems. When I publish the White Paper on the Annan Report, the question of censorship, or at least control, and how it should be imposed, is clearly a matter to which the House will have to give its attention. However, it would be wrong for the House to censor programmes transmitted by the BBC, the IBA, or any other organisation.
    Mr. Aitken: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most worrying problems of the BBC and ITV companies at present is that there is between £3 million and £5 million worth of brand new high technology equipment lying around unused and untouched because the unions refuse to handle it? Does he realise that it is partly due to the sharp edges of the Government's pay policy that the unions are using quasi-Luddite tactics, the employers being quite powerless to strike a productivity deal with the television unions even if they wish to do so?
    Mr. Rees: Whatever the differences may be on the precise matter, pay policy is a matter which it has been right for the Government to pursue in the fashion that they have. It is not my responsibility—I do not believe that it should be the responsibility of the Home Secretary —to get involved in negotiations between the trade unions and the organisations concerned. I know that in all spheres of life, whenever people feel that new techniques will put them out of jobs and when they are not in the kind of professions where they can pick up jobs easily, problems arise. However, I know that the organisations are concerned about this matter.

    Television Licences (Pensioners)
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has now received about the regulations on television licences for pensioners.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): During the 12 months to 15th May about 300 representations have been received.
    Mr. Walker: Is it not time that my hon. Friend and the Home Office considered concessionary television licences for pensioners, as many pensioners who live in sheltered warden accommodation receive concessionary television rates? Is it not necessary that some form of system be worked out so that all pensioners qualify for concessionary television licences?
    Mr. John: My hon. Friend will know that this matter will form part of the consideration of the Annan Committee's recommendations. Annan recommended not only that no further concessions be introduced but that those in existence should be phased out. It is the Government's task to bring before the House a White Paper on this matter, and they will do that in the near future.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will the Minister take on board the minority view that it is extremely dangerous to move from concessionary fares to concessionary television licences and that the real solution to the problem posed by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) is for a substantial increase in the pension, thereby leaving the individual pensioner to do
    344
    with it as he or she would? Does the Minister accept that not all pensioners wish to travel and not all pensioners necessarily wish to watch television?
    Mr. John: I accept that there is always an argument whether cash benefits rather than benefits in kind are preferable for pensioners, but for the hon. Gentleman to put it as he did was ridiculous. This Government have done more for pensioners than any other Government, and certainly more than the Conservative Government of 1970–74.
    Mr. Woodall: Is my hon. Friend aware that already a wrong interpretation has been put on my right hon. Friend's memorandum on concessionary television licences? Is he aware that, for instance, in Hemsworth some of my constituents who live within a warden scheme are being denied the concessionary television licence because they live in houses, rather than in purpose-built dwellings? Is that not wrong, and should not the postmasters responsible be told so?
    Mr. John: My right hon. Friend will certainly look at that matter. As my hon. Friend will know, a concession which involved a further 100,000 pensioners was announced in the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 6th April.

    Broadcasting (Annan Report)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the White Paper on the Annan Report on broadcasting to be published.
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish his plans for the future of television broadcasting.
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to announce future policy on local radio.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now announce the date for the publication of his White Paper on broadcasting.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Government are still considering the many issues raised in the Annan Committee's Report. I am not yet in a position to say when our

    345
    proposals for the future constitution, structure and organisation of broadcasting will be ready for publication.
    Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the section in the Annan Report on television licensing was totally unsatisfactory, and virtually glossed over the subject? Is he further aware that there is a strong feeling that television licences should be abolished and that they should be paid for out of taxation?
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Ashton: Will my right hon. Friend take account of this matter in his White Paper, together with the fact that many people feel strongly on this issue?
    Mr. Rees: I certainly will take that matter into account. It is one of about 174 matters which have to be brought before the House of Commons. We might as well face this matter before the discussion takes place. The BBC feels very strongly that if it were financed directly from the Treasury, it would inhibit its freedom and the kind of development which has taken place over the years. When we bring forward the response to the Annan Report, it will be an admirable subject to discuss in November, December, January, February, March and April.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that although we wish to maintain the independence of the BBC, a growing number of people feel that there should be a method of raising finance other than the licence? Will he look closely at this matter? It would be a most attractive proposal to put to the country—another method of raising revenue for the BBC, rather than the licence—as most households now have television. Will he also tell us, prior to the announcement of the complete proposals, what proposals are contemplated for the fourth channel?
    Mr. Rees: There is a problem about the fourth channel, and a channel for Wales. We shall give our views on Annan in the White Paper. I tried to indicate earlier that the merit of a White Paper following the report was that there would be room for further discussion, because practically every issue that comes up in Annan is capable of being discussed and divided upon. In my view, the legislation will make devolution look very simple.
    Mr. McCrindle: Dealing directly with the matter of local radio, is the Home Secretary aware that, while we await the Government's reactions to the Annan Report, there are vast areas of this country, particularly in East Anglia, which have no local radio station, either BBC or independent? Will the Home Secretary turn his attention to the possibility of dealing with this matter, possibly on an interim basis?
    Mr. Rees: I think that in whatever form we answer the proposals in the Annan Report, which will be relatively soon, we can make a move well in advance of the major proposals on local broadcasting.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Home Department's gestation period for this matter has been rather longer than that of an elephant? It has been hard on those of us who were trying to impregnate the beast in the first place. Will he give an undertaking that there will be time for a debate on the White Paper before the recess and that there will be proposals, either in the manifesto or the Queen's Speech, as the case may be, particularly in view of the cynical attitude of the Opposition in embracing the commercial lobby which wishes to extend the present duopoly?
    Mr. Rees: I cannot give a commitment about the manifesto; that is a long way ahead and we need not put our minds to that. Whether there will be a debate is not a matter for me, either. I am keen to publish the White Paper. We certainly need an extensive discussion before I bring forward legislation next year.
    Mr. Fairbairn: On the question of licence fees, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), does the Home Secretary appreciate that it would be abominably unfair to make those who watch television have their licences paid out of taxation, as if taxation were paid by God and licences by man? Will he also look again at the more important unfairness that those in rural areas, such as Kinross and West Perthshire, who do not get reception even on one channel, neverthless pay the full licence?
    Mr. Rees: On the first point, which is not easy to resolve, there will be great discussion.
    As regards reception in different areas, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been on to the Department. If there is any particular point, perhaps he will let me know. There are difficulties in this respect, but some of the technical changes and reallocations of frequencies this year should deal with many of them.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is it not correct that there has to be a decision about an increase in the BBC licence revenue before January, February, March and April of next year? In those circumstances is it not right that we should consider whether the licence fee should continue or should be paid out of taxation or the revenue from the levy on ITV?
    I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for braying my "Hear, hear." I apologise also to the new Cromwell of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Price). This seemed to be a perfectly proper way of assenting to the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—a proposition which carries a much larger measure of approval than the Home Secretary seems to think.
    Mr. Rees: Whether it is donkeys or elephants, I do not follow the analogy completely. My hon. Friend is wrong about the time scale of licences. Certainly I could not leave the BBC, dependent as it is on licence money, deficient in funds, without passing new legislation.
    The White Paper will be out soon. We shall have a discussion and we shall have to take the matter from there. It would be wrong to believe that there are clear views between both sides of the House about the licence fee and whether it should be paid for by taxation.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Do not this afternoon's Questions make it clear to the Home Secretary that the Government's prolonged delay in producing the report and their White Paper on Annan is damaging to the future of the television industry? Is it not extremely important that they produce the White Paper as early as possible?
    In view of the remarks of the Home Secretary the other day, in which he said that he was against creating further
    348
    bureaucracies, may we be assured that when the report is published it will not propose another bureaucracy for the Open Broadcasting Authority?
    Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman can be sure that I shall not make the mistake that his Administration made when it introduced local government reform and built the biggest bureaucracy of all. The right hon. Gentleman knows that bureaucracies are not created by Labour Governments. We seem to inherit them. I shall watch the situation.
    The Annan Report contains 500 pages and 174 recommendations. We shall publish a White Paper on them. We shall do better than the Opposition. They leak a document every weekend to solve the major problems of the day in two or three pages.

    Illegal Immigrants
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people detained as illegal immigrants have been released pending investigation into their cases in 1976, 1977 and 1978.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): The information requested on illegal entrants who have been detained is not readily available on an annual basis. On 22nd May, 35 illegal entrants liable to detention solely under the authority of an immigration officer had been released temporarily while arrangements were being made for their removal or while the Home Office looked into representations made on their behalf.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that most of these people are citizens who have been here since before 1st January 1973 and who have jobs and homes? They are respectable people who have never been in trouble with the law, so that there is no difficulty or danger involved in releasing them. Does my hon. Friend agree that many of them are being treated worse than prisoners who have received sentences? Is she aware that many of them are being detained in their cells for 20 hours a day and are not able to take the one-hour exercise which should be available to them each day?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can assure my hon. Friend that temporary admission is

    349
    granted when there are substantial and compassionate considerations or when it is considered that an illegal entrant is unlikely to disappear. But prison offers the only secure accommodation available.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is the Minister aware that security is not a problem in most of these cases? Does she not agree that it should be easy to find alternative ways of ensuring that such people do not evade the law?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member must bear in mind that these people are illegal entrants and that they therefore have a powerful incentive to disappear if they are released.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is not my hon. Friend concerned about the length of time that some of those who are charged with offences under the Immigration Act are detained in prison, particularly since a significant proportion of them are subsequently allowed to stay? Can she take urgent steps to speed up the procedures?
    Dr. Summerskill: We are taking steps to speed up the procedures. The reason why people are detained for some length of time is that in many cases representations are made by the individual or his representative. That is right, but it prolongs the detention. In many cases there is also delay in securing valid travel documents, particularly when inquiries have to be made abroad about citizenship or nationality.

    Violent Crime (Birmingham)
    Mr. MacKayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable on measures taken to prevent violent crime in Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Summerskill: We are aware of the chief constable's concern at the level of violent crime. Arrangements already exist for my right hon. Friend to be kept fully informed on the problems facing the police and the measures being taken to deal with them, both in the West Midlands and elsewhere. I must stress, however, that responsibility for operational matters rests with individual chief officers of police.
    Mr. MacKay: Is the Under-Secretary aware that in Birmingham many innocent,
    350
    law-abiding people dare not walk the streets at night for fear of being mugged? Is it not time that this disgraceful state of affairs was changed and that the Minister took action? Is she aware that we are 750 police officers short in the West Midlands? Surely the most important deterrent is detection, but there are not enough police officers to detect violent criminals.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the chief constable recently. I am assured that the chief constable is taking every possible step that he can to deal with the rise in violent crime in that area. He has mobilised additional support for his area and there are a special patrol group and a robbery squad.
    The strength of the force in the West Midlands has increased by 527 since it was formed in April 1974. I agree that every effort must be made to recruit more policemen.
    Mr. Sever: Is my hon. Friend aware that recently, following representations to the chief constable by local Labour councillors in the Soho area of Birmingham and by the Member of Parliament for that area, the situation has improved to such an extent that, with the additional police officers who have been drafted into the area, the crime rate has been substantially reduced? In the light of that, will my hon. Friend accept the view of most people that whatever can be done must be done, in addition to the existing measures, particularly about the recruitment of police?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am pleased that my lion. Friend appreciates that efforts have been made by the chief constable of the area and generally to counteract the rise in violent crime. Still more must be done. The real answer lies in increasing the strength of the police force in the area.
    Mr. David Howell: Would not one way to help the fight against crime in Birmingham and elsewhere be to release more police to fight crime and to spend less police time on administrative burdens and chores? Has the Minister noted the remarks of senior police officers that a torrent of Acts and regulations is making the administrative burden on the police intolerable? What steps is the Home

    351
    Office taking to review the legislation and to see what can be done to reduce the administrative burden on the police?
    Dr. Summerskill: I agree that it is essential to release more police officers to fight violent crime. Recently the number of civilians in the force has been increased to deal with the problem.

    Police Federation
    Mr. Goodladasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Police Federation.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I met Mr. Jardine at the Association of Chief Police Officers' joint conference yesterday. I have no plans to meet him again at present.
    Mr. Goodlad: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the Police Federation, will he discuss the continuing trend of experienced policemen and policewomen retiring and resigning prematurely and the remedies to the problem? When is the Edmund-Davies Committee likely to report? Will it be before the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Rees: I hope to receive the report shortly. Premature retirement from the police is a major problem. But, as I said at the ACPO conference yesterday, we have 7,500 more police today than we had four years ago. Recruitment is high. Wastage is a problem, but resignations normally happen during the probation period. We shall have to look at that problem. I hope that when there is a substantial increase in pay shortly we shall not believe that that will necessarily solve the problem. Pay is a major part of the problem, but it might well prove that there are other factors to explain why young men do not stay in the police force.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is it not the case that the proportion of women officers in police forces has never been higher and that the chairman of the Police Federation yesterday publicly disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman and expressed the view that in many cases this factor was preventing the police from dealing effectively with violent crime? What is the Home Secretary proposing to do about that?
    Mr. Rees: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman supports the chairman of the Police Federation on this matter, although there are other views on it. Women represent 7 per cent. of the police force. I do not regard that figure as too high. I believe that the problem is not concerned with the recruitment of women but that we ought to recruit more men. The Government have set about that problem with a deep-seated inquiry to examine the major factors and to replace the inquiry of 1961. That is a better approach than having given 10 per cent. plus a little bit more last year, which would not have solved the problem. Our inquiry will handle the matter in the proper way, and I shall bring the Edmund-Davies Report before the House very shortly.
    Mr. Christopher Price: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Police Federation, will he discuss with him the problem of co-operation between the police and the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedures on the experiments that the Royal Commission wants to carry out, particularly into tape recording? Such an experiment could be as helpful to the police as it could be to the courts in the saving of time. Is my right hon. Friend sure that sufficient co-operation exists so that these experiments will be properly concluded and the Royal Commission will be able to take cognisance of their results?
    Mr. Rees: I hope that the Police Federation gives its views on this matter to the Royal Commission. However, it is most important that those who run the police force should give their views. The Police Federation does not run the police force. I am sure that both the federation and the chief officers will give their views to the Commission, and I want to do all I can from the Home Office to speed up the experiment.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is not only the question of pay that is causing frustration in the police? Will he look at the complaints procedures? I support them, but the bureaucracy in the right hon. Gentleman's Department is causing concern to the police. It is taking chief officers and others way out of their own areas for long periods of time. Surely this could be simplified, and this would lead to

    353
    fewer policemen leaving the service over complaints which turn out to be trivial.
    Mr. Rees: I object to trivial complaints, and I agree that they present a problem. But it is right that, for example, I should ask a senior officer from well away from Lancashire to look at the serious matters that are under investigation there. In such circumstanstances, it is important to get senior officers from elsewhere. I accept the hon. Member's comment about frivolous complaints, but it is important to the police for serious complaints to be investigated.

    Lambeth By-election (National Front Meeting)
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he remains satisfied with electoral law, in view of the fact that during the Lambeth, Central by-election, at a public election meeting for the National Front candidate the meeting was held up until National Front members arrived in coaches and only selected members of the general public indicated by Mr. Martyn Webster to the police, were allowed in, as a distinct minority; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am reviewing the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1949 relating to election meetings.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that throughout the country it is believed that at election time public meetings are open to the general public? Is he further aware that nothing is more conducive to disorder than the sort of events that occurred at Lambeth, Central on that occasion? Will my right hon. Friend expedite his inquiries so that when the elections take place we can be sure that if such situations occur again people generally can go into the meetings to assess candidates and, in the case of the National Front, vote solidly to keep them out?
    Mr. Rees: That is not an easy matter to resolve. Legislation on it goes back to the Local Government Act 1894. That and the 1918 legislation referred to schools. The Representation of the People Act 1949 extended the law to other buildings. I know, having spent all my life in the Labour Party—I make a narrowly political point here—that one
    354
    of the advantages of this legislation is that any candidate can get a hall. In my early days local authorities did not allow Labour Party people access to such accommodation.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: And the British Legion.
    Mr. Rees: Perhaps it was the British Legion, too, but that is not my responsibility, I am glad to say. In these matters it is important, when we have the legislation, not to deal only with one aspect and then limit the freedom of other people to cherish that freedom, which took so long to secure.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the Home Secretary accept, and with the possible exception of all-ticket meetings, that election meetings held in public premises during campaigns should be open to those who wish to hear the candidates speak?
    Mr. Rees: I agree with that. I have been considering carefully just what is a public meeting. That definition has not been tested in law, and it is not an easy question to decide. There is the point that under criminal legislation—and we are talking so far about civil offences—the chairman at a public meeting has the right to call the police, via the stewards, to eject people. The question arises whether, if that happens, the meeting ceases to be a public meeting. This is a complicated matter at a time when tensions are high, and I cannot promise that there is an easy solution to it. I am concerned, however, that the National Front people tarnish school buildings when they use them and that when they retire from them the people know that the National Front has been there.
    Mr. Greville Janner: However great the need for electoral reform undoubtedly is, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the recent drubbing of the National Front in the local elections gave a clear indication that, whatever its behaviour may have been at the sort of meeting we are discussing, and whatever violence it might produce or provoke, the British public now recognises the Fascist and violent nature of the organisation and its leadership?
    Mr. Rees: The best way to deal with any organisation of this nature, whether

    355
    of the extreme Left or the extreme Right, is at the polls. That is when we hear the message of what the people want. Some time in the next 18 months the people will decide.

    Vandalism
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with chief constables about steps to reduce the level of vandalism.
    Dr. Summerskill: This is not a problem which can be solved by the police alone; the public must also play its part. From his discussions with chief officers of police my right hon. Friend knows that they are aware of the concern about vandalism, and give as much priority as they can to tackling it in conjunction with the other individuals and organisations involved.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: If the Minister says that this is a matter for the public, what are the Government doing about launching a massive anti-vandalism campaign to warn the public and perhaps the local authorities about the problem and to give some guidance on security measures that they could introduce?
    Dr. Summerskill: That has already been done by the Home Office in advice to the police and the public. The police themselves are organising public support locally. They are holding meetings with local authorities, with schools and with parent-teacher associations, and are impressing upon the public the need to report acts of vandalism. This is a joint matter between the police and the public.
    Mr. Stoddart: Does my hon. Friend agree that television scenes depicting gross vandalism and violence encourage such behaviour among the population, particularly among the young? Does she also agree that the media ought to be told that their attitude in glorifying violence and lionising its perpetrators does not help solve the problem of vandalism and violence which daily they condemn in their columns?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am sure that most hon. Members will agree with my hon. Friend. No doubt the media will note his comments this afternoon.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is the Minister aware that the public would be more co-operative with the police in stopping vandalism if it could be more confident that the Government were taking every measure to try to strengthen the forms of punishment available for dealing with the vandals once they have been caught?
    Dr. Summerskill: Further provisions of the Criminal Law Act which come into force next month increase the maximum fine for offences of this type, on summary conviction, to £1,000 for an adult, £200 for a young person aged 14 to 16, and £50 for a child under 14.

    National Front (Public Meetings)
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the representatives of the National Front about violence at public meetings.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: None, Sir.
    Mr. Brotherton: Bearing in mind that the National Front is an extreme Left-wing party, sharing many of the aspirations of right hon. and hon. Members below the Gangway on the Labour side, and bearing in mind that the vast majority of political violence in this country is perpetrated by the National Front and other Left-wing organisations such as the Socialist Workers' Party, does not the Home Secretary now believe that the time has come to tell the National Front, the Socialist Workers' Party and the rest of that ragbag of the Left that if they cause political violence they will have to pay for it and pay for the time of the police forces involved in controlling their meetings?
    Mr. Rees: I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misconception. It would be just as well for me to say that the Socialist Workers' Party is an extreme party of the Right. They are both parties with which I disagree. They are both parties which cause trouble in their different ways. The Question asked whether I had met them. No, I am very careful about whom I meet.
    Mr. John Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the creed of the National Front is a violent one? Will he, therefore, give consideration to

    357
    amending electoral law to ensure that at the next General Election, the National Front is not allowed radio or television time to air its poisonous views to the British people?
    Mr. Rees: I am glad to say that that is not a matter for me. But I say to my hon. Friend that already what has been shown is that the best way to beat organisations of this kind is by argument. They are being beaten by argument. The more they are seen to be what they are, the more they will lose votes.

    Firemen (Working Hours)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the failure to implement the 42-hour week for firemen; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Summerskill: The National Executive Council of the Fire Brigades Union came to see my right hon. Friend at its request on 9th May when it expressed its continuing and increasing concern about the lack of progress towards the 42-hour week. I understand that at the meeting of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades on 2nd June the Employers' Side tabled detailed proposals which were discussed by the two Sides, who are to meet again on 9th June.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that the Tory-dominated local authorities which are dealing with this settlement are to some extent trying to wreck it? Is she aware, for instance, that some of the proposals are for reduced fire cover and for introducing more part-time personnel, as distinct from recruiting the 6,000 or so who are needed in order to get the 42-hour week implemented? Will she and her right hon. Friend give a guarantee that every dot and comma of the firemen's settlement of last winter, which was supposed to be honoured by the Government, will be implemented?
    Dr. Summerskill: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government remain committed to their desire to see put into effect the agreement concerning the 42-hour week, which ended the recent dis-
    358
    pute. My right hon. Friend has seen both sides in the negotiations and is ready at all times to help in any way that he can, and he is keeping in close touch with developments.
    Mr. Whitelaw: If this agreement is to be implemented in full, can the hon. Lady give a guarantee that the Government, through the Treasury, will deal with the local authorities financially, to make sure that they have the money in order to implement the agreement?
    Dr. Summerskill: It is understood by both sides that the Government, through the rate support grant, are willing to meet their share of the cost of introducing the 42-hour week.

    Police (Pay)
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Edmund-Davies Committee will report.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I hope to receive the reports on negotiating machinery and on pay by the end of this month.
    Mr. Durant: Does the Home Secretary appreciate that this is a matter of some urgency? The crime figures in Reading are up 12 per cent. in the last quarter, and a number of police officers are awaiting this report, holding their resignations back to see what the Government do. Will the Home Secretary now categorically say that the Government will implement the Edmund-Davies Report when it is received?
    Mr. Rees: I think that the hon. Gentleman does an ill service in talking in that way. Last year the Police Federation was told very clearly. It wanted this deep-seated investigation. We have said that we shall accept it, and that the phasing is a matter for discussion. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that if he does what the Tory Party did on defence—bring law and order into the market place in the way in which he is doing—he will do no good service to this country.

    Prison Population
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the capacity of prisons without overcrowding in England and Wales; and what is the present prison population.
    Mr. John: On 30th April 1978 the certified normal accommodation of Prison Department establishments was 37,764 and the prison population was 41,929.
    Mr. Knox: In view of the serious overcrowding in prisons, does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government's plans to produce fewer than 5,000 additional prison places in the next five years are adequate? Does he not think that a bigger provision than this is necessary if rehabilitation is to be a meaningful reality?
    Mr. John: To the 5,000 places must be added a new prison which will be started in the 1981–82 period. Certainly we are concerned about overcrowding. The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to talk to his hon. Friends and spokesmen for his party who are calling for harsher treatment for people in prison.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the prisons which is not overcrowded at present is Parkhurst, and that the time is long past when the dispute there with the officers was resolved? It is also causing great problems for the civilian workers in that prison, and people who wish to visit inmates. Will he do what he can to settle this dispute?
    Mr. John: I shall certainly bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the nature of the dispute.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: In view of the excessive amount of overcrowding, is it not now time to take steps to remove from our prisons those, such as alcoholics and mentally abnormal offenders, who have no place in prison in the first instance, and to take steps to clear our prisons of the petty and trivial offenders who have no access to parole? We can do this by introducing a system of remission, as, indeed, was the case in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. John: As to the last part of my hon. Friend's remarks, he will know that we are looking at the matter. We have some sympathy with what he says. Concerning the question of alcoholics, as my hon. Friend will know, the Criminal Law Act removed the penalty of imprisonment for simple dunkenness. As for mentally disturbed prisoners, we are doing what we can with the Department of Health and
    360
    Social Security to see that what my hon. Friend suggests is brought about.

    CORNWALL
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Prime Minister, if he will pay an official visit to Cornwall.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to visit Cornwall.
    Mr. Pardoe: I am sorry to hear that. If, at some time during the months remaining between now and the General Election, the Prime Minister is able to visit Cornwall, he will find that Cornwall's economy and the public services generally are suffering greatly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—from lack of public expenditure. Will he, therefore, listen to the cries of Conservative politicians in Cornwall for more money for roads, for water and sewerage services, for private industry and for hospitals? Will he explain to the Cornish people how this fits in with the cries from the Leader of the Conservative Party for cuts in public expenditure?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that I could find it a very interesting hour to go through all the proposals for increased public expenditure from the Conservative Party—which, by coincidence, I have in front of me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Surprise."] It is a surprise. I did not know that the hon. Member was going to say that. But it is quite clear that the Conservative Party cannot at one and the same time call for reduction in taxation against the increases in public expenditure that they are proposing.

    PRIME MINISTER (MANCHESTER SPEECH)
    Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smithasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in Manchester on 11th May 1978 concerning the Budget.
    The Prime MinisterI did so on 19th May.
    Mr. Johnson Smith: Does the Prime Minister recall that in that speech he said that the Government had an inescapable responsibility for the nation's finances? In view of the fact that the measures

    361
    announced by the Government today are an attempt to restore some confidence in the Government's management of the nation's finances—measures which, I calculate, involve the equivalent of an increase in the basic rate of taxation of 4p—does he not agree that the truth of the situation is that the Government have got their Budget strategy wrong again for the fourteenth time?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir; the very reverse is the case. I would have preferred a situation in which the Opposition had not pressed their amendments in order to reduce taxation. Then we would not have to introduce the proposed clause that we shall table in due course to recover it by means of the national insurance surcharge. In other words, the Budget was balanced but the Opposition unbalanced it, and now we are putting it back again.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that those people who believe that the City of London has now taken over the government of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is now widespread belief that many money brokers, who are enjoying the greatest bonanza in their history, are demanding from the Government that the minimum lending rate be at least 10 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."]—and that they believe that the Treasury will concede their demands for 10 per cent. Has not the time now come for the Government to stand up to these people and for us to pursue the policies in which we believed during the 1974 General Election campaign, which were based upon a cheap money policy sand the reflation of our economy?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should place the responsibility where it belongs, as I did in my speech on 11th May, to which this Question refers. I said then
    "I call on the electors"
    —of Hamilton—
    "to show that they disown both the Tory Party and their allies in the Scottish National Party who yesterday combined together in cupidity and irresponsibility."
    I also said that
    "whatever happens in the Division Lobby of the House of Commons, the Government has an inescapable responsibility for the national finances, and if it proves necessary to take
    362
    action to offset whatever has beau done we shall not hesitate to act".
    That is what we have done today. The manifesto on which my hon. Friend and I fought the election said that the conquering of inflation was the first and major task that we had. It is in pursuance of the success that we have had so far on that matter that I intend that measures shall continue to be taken in order to ensure that our success is maintained
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister may convince himself by his own complacency, but he will convince no one else. May I put a few points to him? First, this is the fourteenth Budget during a Labour Administration, but the first one to be announced outside the House of Commons. Can he name any other occasion on which a proposed increase of taxation of £1,500 million—the equivalent of 4p on the standard rate of tax—has been announced to the Press but not to the House of Commons? Second, is he not aware that this latest economic crisis—[HON. MEMBERS "Which one?"] The one which has given rise to these measures—began when his Government announced an increase in public expenditure this year of £4,000 million over last year, as a result of which he had to announce an increase in the standard bank rate on Budget day? That was followed by a further increase in bank rate of 1¼ per cent., heralded by a total loss of control of the money supply—all before the reduction in the standard rate of tax of 1p. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for his actions?
    The Prime Minister: The new clause which will be tabled on Report in due course will be debated on the Floor of the House, and the House will then be able to come to a conclusion on it—as, indeed, was forecast by my right hon. Friend when he advised the Opposition—they rejected his advice—not to press their amendment on income tax some weeks ago. We then informed the House that we would table any necessary clauses to recover the situation. That is what we are doing. As for the amount involved, it is about £500 million this year, which is a measure of the degree of irresponsibility of the Opposition, reflected in the votes which they forced on that day. The right hon. Lady is quite correct that if it were carried

    363
    through to next year the amount involved would be £1,500 million, but I must remind her that we are discussing this year and not next year.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Will there be another Budget in July?
    The Prime Minister: There will be another Budget next April, I can promise the right hon. Lady.
    As for the borrowing requirement, it is true that both last year and this year it was estimated at £8·5 billion. Last year, it turned out to be about £5 billion, or perhaps a little lower. Because of the difficulties of estimating these borrowing requirements, no one can say to what extent it will be accurate this year, but £8·5 billion is a reasonable figure to take and to work on. No one can say at this stage that it is likely to be over the top —certainly not by comparison with the past two years.
    As for what the right hon. Lady calls the bank rate, the minimum lending rate is, of course. 10 per cent. now. I would only like to remind her that when she left office it was running at somewhere between 12 per cent. and 13 per cent.
    Mr. Jay: Is it not now perfectly clear that the Opposition amendments to the Finance Bill were wildly irresponsible and highly damaging to the country?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has put it succinctly. We said this to the House at the time. We regret very much the necessity now to introduce the national insurance surcharge on employers. It would not have been necessary if the Opposition had not voted to reduce taxation in the way they did.
    Mr. Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that with the 1 per cent. increase in minimum lending rate announced today, we have now seen 11 alterations of MLR in under six months? This makes our long-term financial security massively unstable. Will he therefore try to take some action to rectify that situation and perhaps to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of his actions, to be put out to grass?
    The Prime Minister: With respect to the hon. Member, who I think is trying to put a helpful question, this is the way in which the market works. It is the market which has ben fixing these rates
    364
    during the last two or three years. These short-term rates do not necessarily, of themselves, affect the level of investment or the degree to which people go for investment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in theory—I should like to see more stability in rates—but as long as the market has been operating them we must rely on the market so to do. Last year, there were 19 such changes. I do not welcome that, but that is the inevitable consequence of the policy which the Opposition support.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
Mr. NeubertQ3. Mr. Neubert asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 8th June.
The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. I also bade farewell to the Prime Minister of India on his departure for Washington. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
Mr. Neubert: Has the Prime Minister seen the Chancellor's Written Answer to me in today's Hansard, which shows that, within nine months of the statement that inflation was at 8·4 per cent., it was six times higher than that, that in only nine months of this Government has inflation been, on that basis, less than 8·4 per cent., and that it is now already in double figures, at 11·2 per cent? Will the right hon. Gentleman now retract the statement that he made last Tuesday and admit that much the same would be likely under another Labour Government?
The Prime Minister: On the last point, I should not like to retract what I said last Tuesday; I should prefer to emphasise it, and to say that it is necessary to maintain the conditions under which a single-figure inflation rate can be maintained. However, I outlined the necessity for doing this because of our competitive position and I outlined the factors which would be necessary. I said that some were fiscal, some were monetary—we have taken action today on monetary levels to keep those figures down—and that the third group of factors related to wage settlements.
I must make it clear that our people have had great benefits this year from

365
the moderation in wage settlements over last year. They are higher than I wanted. We wanted no more than 10 per cent., and it looks as though the rate will be above that. Next year, if we get a lower figure than we have had this year—I hope that it will be a substantially lower figure—the people of this country will get a greater benefit than they would from double-figure wage settlements. That is what I am going for.
Mr. Stoddart: If he has time today, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the British public that if the mortgage lending rate goes up tomorrow it will be as a direct consequence of the attitude and actions of the Opposition in upsetting the Chancellor's balanced Budget? Will he also make it clear that if the mortgage rate rises by 1 per cent., people will have lost more as a result of the Opposition's tactics than they will have gained from the 1p reduction in the standard rate of income tax?
The Prime Minister: Mortgage interest rates must, I think, reflect the capacity of the building societies to attract savings. If their rates are out of line, in accordance with the policy which this Government intend to follow we do not intend to massage them to get a result which would be misleading and deceptive. I said at the beginning—I have gone on on this basis—that we would act to preserve the best interests of our people. As for the Opposition, it is true that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) has suggested that there should be an increase. I do not criticise him unduly for that, but if we get these rates in agreement again we shall, I believe, see a period of declining rates, providing that we can keep inflation down. That seems to me the right approach.
Sir G. Howe: If today's crisis measures are said to be a consequence of the tax cuts imposed by the House of Commons on this Government, why is it that minimum lending rate had to be increased after the date of the Budget and before the tax cuts were introduced, by 2¼ per cent.? Was that not a consequence of the Government's deliberate and reckless decision to increase public spending by £4,000 million earlier in the year? Will the Prime Minister tell the House by how much today's crisis measures will
366
increase unemployment and by how much they will increase the cost of living? Will he not acknowlege that today's fourteenth —unannounced—Budget from this Government is the final proof of the incompetence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
The Prime Minister: I think that what the Opposition are irritated about is the fact that we have not got a crisis on our hands. The Opposition may have a crisis, but the country has not. The Government are acting in all of these ways to ensure that there is a steady economic policy, by putting right what the Opposition did in their sheer, reckless irresponsibility. As for unemployment, we should give the Opposition credit, to this extent: because of the reduction in taxation, their measures would have had the effect of reducing unemployment below what it would otherwise have been, because of the increased consumption. What the national insurance surcharge will probably do, as far as we can estimate, is to put unemployment back to where it was, in other words, to offset that. It cannot be calculated, but the net effect is probably very little, with one offset against the other.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12TH JUNE—Supply [19th Allotted Day]: debate on the First Report from the Expenditure Committee, Session 1976–77, "Preventive Medicine", House of Commons Paper No. 169, and the Government's observations, Command No. 7047.
TUESDAY 13TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the State Immunity Bill [Lords] Bill and of the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Bill.
Proceedings on the Tuvalu Bill [Lords], and on the Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Bill [Lords] and the Oaths Bill [Lords], which are consolidation measures.
Motion on EEC documents R/95/76 and R/467/78 on non-life assurance.
WEDNESDAY 14TH JUNE—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: until about 7 o'clock, a debate on fishing, followed by a debate on the Official Secrets Act.
THURSDAY 15TH JUNE—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: debate on the Royal Navy, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 16TH JUNE—Debate on reports from the Select Committee on Violence in the Family, House of Commons Papers Nos. 553 and 329, and the Government observations, Command Nos. 6690 and 7123.
MONDAY 19TH JUNE—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: the subject for debate to be announced.
Mrs. Thatcher: The Lord President will be aware that earlier today I put through a specific request to the Prime Minister's Office for the financial changes to be announced in the House of Commons in the usual way. That request was specifically refused, and the Chancellor and the Prime Minister chose not to make their announcements to this House. The business for next week was arranged before we knew about that statement. When may we have a full economic debate upon what the Chancellor has proposed outside the House?
Mr. Foot: What the Government have proposed, what was said in the reply sent to the right hon. Lady, and what the Prime Minister said a few moments ago is that of course these proposals by the Government will be discussed in the House in the normal fashion. It is misleading for the right hon. Lady to try to give the impression that there is something abnormal about debating amendments to the Finance Bill in the time that is normally provided. The right hon. Lady has made a wrong suggestion. We debate these matters on the Finance Bill. She and her party propose amendments. The Government will put forward their proposals on the Bill according to the normal provisions.
Mrs. Thatcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that under a Labour Government it is abnormal to expect a
368
financial statement to be made in the House of Commons?
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady is quite wrong in the matter. When a Finance Bill is before the House and when amendments are carried in Committee which the Government may wish to seek to alter, the normal House of Commons time for doing so is on Report.
Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a complete breakdown between the steel committee of the TUC and the British Steel Corporation in the talks over the future of the Shelton works, among other matters? Can he say whether his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will be coming to the House next week to announce Government intervention in the tripartite agreement to get the discussions moving again and people talking to one another?
Mr. Foot: I have read the reports on the subject to which my hon. Friend refers. I certainly recognise the importance of this matter. I cannot say whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will make a statement next week, but I shall certainly discuss with him the issue which my hon. Friend has raised.
Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying a fortnight ago that it would be of great help to the House if, at a reasonably early date, there were a debate on the past and future consequences of New Commonwealth immigration? If opportunities for this debate are not afforded by the official Opposition, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that before long a day is fixed by the Government?
Mr. Foot: I shall consider the proposal from the right hon. Gentleman and from others. Many hon. Members thought that it might be for the Opposition to select such a subject. The Opposition have selected the subjects that they wish to debate next Wednesday and I am much too good-natured a person to criticise what they have done.
Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for an early debate about the proposals of the Church Commissioners to increase house rents on property belonging to them by up to £900 a year?
Mr. Foot: I do not know whether we can have an early debate on the matter but I shall certainly look into this question.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since the Government are in difficulty about finding enough business to bring to the Floor of the House, why do they not introduce a shortened Merchant Shipping Bill, which would receive all-party support, so that Britain can sign the conventions to prevent collisions and pollution at sea? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the absence of a new Merchant Shipping Act we cannot sign the conventions? Why will the Government not do this?
Mr. Foot: I fully accept that we should like to bring before the House a Merchant Shipping Bill. The Bill has been fully prepared by the Government for presentation to the House. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that the Government have difficulty about the legislation to bring before the House. We have a great deal of legislation to get through the House before the end of this Session. It seems that it is the Opposition who have difficulty in deciding on which matters to bring before the House.
Mrs. Renée Short: With regard to Monday's debate on the Expenditure Committee's Report, may I ask my right hon. Friend to tell the House how many speakers we are likely to have from the Government Front Bench during that debate? If there are to be two, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that that will reduce the time available to Back Benchers? As there are likely to be a large number of Back Benchers who want to take part in this important debate, for which we have waited so long, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether he is prepared to reduce the number of Front-Bench speakers?
Mr. Foot: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, even though she did not declare it herself. I believe that she will have every opportunity of introducing the debate. I shall represent to my right hon. and hon. Friends the representations which she makes, very altruistically, on behalf of her other hon. Friends, to ensure that there is adequate time for them.
Sir David Renton: The right hon. Gentleman said in answer to my right
370
hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the right time for the Government to bring forward their further proposals on the Finance Bill was on Report. I respectfully agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Will he, therefore, explain why it is—and what justification there was for it—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, well in advance of the Report stage, made such a statement outside the House? What precedent and what justification are there for that?
Mr. Foot: It is often the case that Government Departments make statements on their approach to these matters. It is not the case that it is necessary or usual for Goverment statements always to be made in the House about future proposals that are to be put down on Bills which are currently passing through the House. What the Government are doing in this respect is absolutely normal. It is quite wrong for anyone, including the right hon. Lady, to try to give an opposite impression to the country. I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for correcting the matter.
Mr. Hooley: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Early-Day Motion asking that the House be informed 10 days in advance of the business it is proposed to transact instead of six as at present? This would be at least some concession to the interests of Back Benchers, which have been pretty thoroughly ignored in the past few years.
[That this House requests that the weekly statement of Business by the Leader of the House should in future include the Business for two weeks.]
Mr. Foot: That proposition has been put on a number of occasions. I am doubtful whether it would entirely be for the benefit of the House as a whole and of Back Benchers if that were done. It would also make the programme much more cut and dried. Therefore, I am doubtful whether it is a wise suggestion. However, as much as possible we try to give indications to the House of how it is to proceed at a later date. As it is the House now gets longer notice than it was given many years ago.
Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the present foreign affairs debate, rightly, has been

371
mainly concerned with East-West and Third world problems. Will he assure the House that there will be an opportunity to discuss international economic and financial problems before the Summit meeting in July?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate before then, but I shall take into account the right hon. Gentleman's representations, as well as the representations of others.
Mr. Thorne: Will the Leader of the House, who is well known for his libertarian views, seek to arrange a debate on the deportation of Mrs. Saroj Khullar, which has now been confirmed by the Home Secretary and which illustrates his own lack of compassion in this situation?
Mr. Foot: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says about the Home Secretary. A day or two ago, my hon Friend sought to use one parliamentary means of raising the matter. I have no doubt that there are other parliamentary opportunities which he can use to try to raise it.
Sir Bernard Braine: In view of today's reminder in the current issue of the consumer magazine "Which?" that the drink and driving laws of this country are being broken on a huge scale, and that this is a major factor in the continuing and tragic loss of life and limb on the roads, will the Government now find time to debate the sensible proposals of the Blennerhassett Report, which have lain far too long without any regard being paid to their importance and relevance?
Mr. Foot: I do not seek to pass judgment on the importance of the report. I agree that it is an important report which, along with others, we are seeking to give time to discuss. I cannot give an early promise to the hon. Gentleman with regard to this report.
Mr. Faulds: Is there not a conceivable way in which my right hon. Friend can get the Stationery Office to pull out its finger and get those three missing copies of Hansard printed before we all disappear into the Summer Recess?
Mr. Foot: I shall see what we can do in that direction. I appreciate the inconvenience to the House. We are seeking to overcome it.
Sir Frederic Bennett: I return to the explanation given by the Leader of the House why we are not having a statement on economic affairs. He has given as his reason that we can discuss these on Report. At what part of the Report stage can we refer to the drastic increase in the lending rate and the new credit restrictions? Under which clause shall we be able to do that?
Mr. Foot: I am sure that the rest of the House was aware, even if the hon. Gentleman was not, that I was referring to the proposals—which certainly can be covered by the Finance Bill—for the increase in the national insurance rates. There are various opportunities for the House to discuss these other matters. Previously we have had increases or decreases in the minimum lending rate without any demand from the Opposition or anyone else to have any debates at all. Therefore, what we are doing is no novelty, and no such impression should be given to people outside the House.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Given the fact that thousands of young people will be leaving school in the next few weeks on Merseyside and Knowsley, and the fact that a large proportion face the very bleak prospect of going straight on to the dole, will the Lord President arrange an early debate about economic prospects on Merseyside so that we can hear what new and additional proposals the Government have for that area?
Mr. Foot: Like my hon. Friend, and others of my hon. Friends from Merseyside, we recognise the importance of this problem. We also recognise the importance of the proposals which have been made by the Department of Employment and which will come into operation this year to assist with that part of the problem. I do not say that they will solve the problem, but they are a major contribution. I shall bear in mind the requests that have been made by my hon. Friends for a debate on these subjects as they affect the regions. I am not quite sure what is the best way to have that debate, but I am fully aware of the representations that my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and others from Liverpool have made.
Mr. Hordern: Since the measures announced today involved a good deal more than the simple raising of revenue, and since the Labour Government's economic panic measures are generally announced in July rather than in June, should not the House be given the opportunity to debate these measures and the state of the economy next week instead of next month?
Mr. Foot: If they had wished, the Opposition could have chosen to use a Supply Day for these matters. I am not criticising them. I think that they have chosen very wisely. I thought they believed that there was a crisis. If there was a crisis, they could have had a debate. But perhaps they did not think there was a crisis, and all they want now is to have a debate on these particular measures. These measures will be debated according to the normal provisions of the House of Commons.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend spell out to the Leader of the Opposition that she has the power to select the subject for debate on the 19th of this month? Will he now call upon her to get to her feet and say that we shall have a debate on the economic situation? We know that the action taken today constitutes consequential amendments to the action taken by the Opposition during the Budget debate. We on this side would welcome such a debate.
Mr. Foot: I am sure that my hon. Friend is trying to help. I do not know whether I can assist him, but these are matters for the Opposition to decide.
Mr. Higgins: Can the Leader of the House tell us of any other occasion when it has been necessary for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary all to back him up during questions about business next week? Is it not the case that the measures which the Government have now proposed go far beyond anything necessary to offset the defeats on the Finance Bill? Is is not further the case that two out of those three measures at least will be out of order for discussion on the Finance Bill? The initial answer of the Leader of the House was, therefore, totally phoney.
Mr. Foot: I have already dealt fully with that point in my previous reply. The
374
right hon. Lady was suggesting that in some way or other a statement had to be made from this Dispatch Box—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—about changes forecast in a Bill which is now before the House. That would be a quite extraordinary way, rather than the ordinary way, of dealing with the business of the House.
Mr. Skinner: Instead of concentrating too much attention upon the problems of the Tory Party with regard to today's difficulties and the so-called crisis, would it not be better to have a debate next week on the whole question of the growing power of patronage of Government in order to ensure as a democratic Labour Party that we diminish the number of appointments made to national and regional boards, not only by the TUC but the CBI and the City? Some newspaper chiefs, who are currently critical about this, are only too glad to get hold of a job if ever they get the chance.
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is suggesting a rather comprehensive debate and I doubt whether we could fit it in very neatly next week.
Mr. Marten: Has the Leader of the House noticed the regrettable tendency of Ministers to go to Brussels and not make oral statements to the House on their return? Both the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Energy made important statements by Written Answers when they should have made oral statements. Will he agree that this hands more power over to the Executive and takes it away from Parliament? Will he look into this matter and encourage his colleagues to make verbal statements to the House so that they can be questioned?
Mr. Foot: In all the discussions and debates that we have had on this matter I have acknowledged that we want to do everything we can to ensure that such statements are made orally to the House. I shall look into this matter. However the House must take account of the fact that if oral statements were made consistently on such occasions, the amount of parliamentary time taken by them would be considerable. We must take that into account. But that does not qualify what I said previously, and I shall look at these particular cases.
Mr. Christopher Price: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the relationship between the debate on official secrets next week and the forthcoming White Paper that the Government have promised on this subject? Shall we have the White Paper before the debate, or will the Government use the debate to reorganise their thoughts about the White Paper?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise the White Paper before the debate. I would point out that the choice of the debate on that day was made by the official Opposition.
Mr. Tebbit: How is it that the right hon. Gentleman's usual quick wits have failed to allow him to grasp the fact that our concern about lack of statements today is because the Government's crisis measures mark a complete turnabout in economic policy? Does he not understand, even if the Chancellor has not got this point yet, that the measures announced today cannot be a part of the strategy for the industrial regeneration of Britain? Nor can they be aimed at job creation, and they do little to re-establish confidence in the Chancellor's handling of our affairs. Will the Leader of the House promise us a statement next week?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has based his questions on a false premise. The measures indicated by the Government today, which will be brought forward at the proper time, are fully consistent with the Budget. Had it not been for the action that he and his hon. Friends took—I have not checked his voting record but I am willing to guess it—we would not have needed this part of the proposal.
Mr. Flannery: My right hon. Friend was kind enough to deal sympathetically two weeks ago with a request from me for a debate on oil tanker catastrophes. In view of the fact that it has taken a prolonged time to get over one catastrophe and that there was nearly another of major proportions, will he consider seriously having a debate—no matter how short—on the whole subject of the catastrophes of oil tankers?
Mr. Foot: I accept the importance of this subject, but I am not sure of the best way to provide a debate on it. I shall take account of what has been said and consider how we should proceed.
Mr. George Gardiner: Does the Leader of the House not understand that today's announcement was not simply a routine amendment to the Finance Bill, but a second-thoughts Budget? In these circumstances are we to be denied even a statement, which will give us a chance to question the Prime Minister and perhaps get the answer—which he ducked this afternoon—about how many jobs will be lost as a result of this increase in jobs tax?
Mr. Foot: This will be an appropriate matter for debate when the proposition comes before the House. The House of Commons does not do its business by having constant statements after Question Time about proposed amendments to the Finance Bill or any other Bill. That is not the way that we proceed with our business. If we did that, the official Opposition would be the first to complain about our taking up time that had already been allocated under the normal procedures.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not a matter of importance to the fishing industry, consumers, producers and many small economies in Scotland and England that next Wednesday's debate is very short and is due to finish at 7 o'clock? Will my right hon. Friend consult his Government colleagues to see whether it would be possible to place in the Vote Office or the Library a summary of the up-to-date position so that we can have a more informed debate on a matter that is of vital importance to the future of this country?
Mr. Foot: I recognise the importance of the subject. I do not know whether it is possible to do what my hon. Friend has suggested. I shall consult the Minister of Agriculture to see whether it can be done.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I have a very long list of hon. Members who are hoping to catch my eye in the next debate and no doubt there are others as well. I hope that hon. Members will keep their questions very brief.
Mr. Gow: Are not the measures announced today a massive indictment of the Chancellor's policy in the Budget, only two months ago? If the result of our amendment to the Finance Bill was the

377
cause of today's measures why has it taken five weeks for the Government to announce the measures that they need to take?
Mr. Foot: Had the hon. Member followed the statement that was made following the vote, he would see that it was perfectly clear that the Government said that they would consider the matter and come forward with proposals designed to remedy the situation. That is what is happening.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Before we have the Report stage of the Finance Bill, may we have a statement showing that, in pursuit of a naked class interest, the Opposition, with their amendments, are proposing to give handouts of £1,100 million to wealthier people in the community, irrespective of the increase to the public sector borrowing requirement and the cost to the sick and elderly?
Mr. Foot: These are facts of the kind that the Opposition are trying to conceal. I am sure that my hon. Friend and others will illustrate the truth when the debate takes place.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is it not a gratuitous offence to the House to try to deny us a debate on the highly debatable points that both the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister have made today? Will the right hon. Gentleman continue, for the next three weeks anyway, to continue to deny the opportunity to debate the increase in unemployment which the Prime Minister himself announced today, and will he continue to argue that a 1p reduction in income tax has caused the increase in the MLR, the imposition of the credit squeeze and the equivalent of 4p on income tax?
Mr. Foot: I have not made any such suggestions on this matter. The hon. Member has got it wrong about unemployment. The official Opposition have brought about this situation and have called on the Government to take action to compensate for what they have done. Of course we are dealing with it in a different way, but we are dealing with a normal situation, and it is wrong to suggest that our methods are abnormal.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: On the minimum lending rate, does my right hon. Friend not think it odd that some Con-
378
servatives who are associated with or are partners in leading firms of money brokers in the city should have been calling for the increase in the MLR and then should complain about the action of the Government who have conceded this request?
Mr. Foot: If I were to spend my time commenting on everything that is odd in their behaviour we would never start today's debate.
Mr. Aitken: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his answer to the excellent suggestion of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who called for a debate on the increase in patronage and the ever-increasing proliferation of QUANGOs such as the furniture councils and others?
Is the Government not aware that about £20 million of taxpayers' money is now being paid in part time salaries and expenses to political appointees, many of whom are already trade union officials? If the Labour Party is to become the party of jobs for the boys, ought not this House to debate the matter?
Mr. Foot: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is the best person in the House to dilate on the subject of jobs for the boys. He can smear other people but he does not like to have a counterattack. It would be a good idea if the House were to consider this matter on some future occasion, but if the Opposition or the hon. Gentleman would like to seek a debate on the matter, he knows how to do it.
Mr. English: Does my right hon. Friend recall that about 11 months ago the Government were handed a copy of the Expenditure Committee's report upon the Civil Service? Does he recall also that it was the then Lord President of the Council, now Lord Peart, who withdrew the Government's decision, for reconsideration by the Cabinet, to deal with the question of the possible corruption of civil servants by offering them jobs after their retirement? When shall we get the answer?
Mr. Foot: Not next week, but it may be some time after that.
Mr. Channon: Is the Lord President saying that the announcement made this morning about increasing the revenue by

379
£1,500 million is not worthy of a statement in this House? Is it not a parliamentary disgrace that we have not had an opportunity to question the Chancellor of the Exchequer about these very important matters?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman, who understands the procedures of the House, knows very well that when a Government have proposals to make changes in a Finance Bill, the proper way to do it is in accordance with the procedures already laid down by the House for dealing with it.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to publish the White Paper in relation to the reform of the Official Secrets Act at the earliest possible moment? May we then have an assurance that there will be a full debate in the House on the matter? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members, and also the working party of the national executive committee of the Labour Party, are very concerned to have a Bill dealing with freedom of information introduced in this country at the earliest possible moment, based upon the legislation which already exists in the United States of America and in Sweden?
Mr. Foot: I am fully aware of the very great interest taken by my hon. Friend and other Labour Members in this subject. I think that the time to consider how we should proceed to a debate, and what should be the next course of action, will be after the White Paper is published. But I am fully aware of the views of my hon. Friend and others on the matter.
Mr. David Price: In view of the fact that the Leader of the House earlier, in answer to a question, told us how good natured he was, and in view of the fact that the Government are obviously broken-backed and lame, will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Prime Minister to announce next week the dissolution of this Parliament and the holding of an immediate General Election?
Mr. Foot: I thought that the Opposition were perhaps not so much interested in parliamentary procedure as in trying to make propaganda out of the subject. The hon. Gentleman's question only confirms my suspicion in that respect.
Mr. Molloy: In view of the questions which have been put by Opposition Members this afternoon, and in view also of the questions put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which clearly show the attitude of the Conservative Opposition, I appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider that perhaps we should have a debate, in the national interest, in order to try to discover what is the psychological factor which causes them to cry about the milk which they have spilt?
Mr. Foot: We shall see when the debate comes.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call the four hon. Members who have been standing. I hope that they will be brief.
Mr. Rost: Will the Leader of the House at least have the honesty to admit that the Government are ashamed to make, or afraid to make, a proper statement in the House about the latest Budget crisis because of the fact that they know that they have to face the run-up to a General Election?
Mr. Foot: I repudiate entirely what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. The country will learn perfectly well in good time that we are dealing with this Finance Bill in the same way as other Finance Bills have been dealt with.
Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman has refused absolutely to have a debate on the economic position arising out of the announcement made today. Is it not a fact that the Government have borrowed in all $8·55 billion from abroad and that $4·26 billion of that money was borrowed last year? If the economy of the country were so much on course, why was it necessary to borrow this large amount of dollars from overseas? This money has to be repaid in dollars. Why was this done when North Sea oil was beginning to flow?
Mr. Foot: There are many general subjects involved in that question which have been discussed in the House on many past occasions, and I am sure that they will be discussed in many future debates. A Finance Bill provides a full opportunity for the House to discuss a wide range of financial questions. The Bill is now going through the House. I am sure that when the House has had

381
second thoughts and is able to understand it as a whole, it will realise that we are proposing that the Finance Bill should take into account in the usual manner the proposals that the Government will make at the Report stage.
Mr. MacKay: Bearing in mind that today's crisis measures announced by the Government through the Press include a jobs tax, which will create increased unemployment in my constituency and elsewhere, is it not a disgrace that we are not to have a statement or debate about it and that we have to await the Report stage of the Finance Bill? Will the Lord President reconsider his decision and allow us to have a debate or statement next week?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has got it quite wrong. I suggest that he should go away and read the warnings that were given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by others in the debates that took place on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and in regard to the amendments that were subsequently carried in Committee. Those discussions will be renewed during the Committee stage and on Report in the context of the proposal which the Government will be bringing forward then.
Mr. Brooke: I am genuinely grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, in view of my constituency interests, for calling me last. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the malaise in the financial markets of recent weeks has been caused by uncertainty? Does he further recognise that that uncertainty might conceivably—I emphasise conceivably—be diminished if we were to have a debate on the Government's decision?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman knows that, as I have said many times this afternoon, the Finance Bill is now before the House and it is for the House to discuss it. If the House wishes to have irregular debates on the matter, that is a matter also for the Opposition, if they wish to make a selection of subjects. But the course we are following is that which the House of Commons usually follows, and for anyone to say differently is misleading.

FINANCE BILL (AMENDMENTS)
Mr. Speaker: On a point of order, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for calling me. May I ask for your ruling? Is it not the case that attempts to debate or move amendments either on minimum lending rate or on bank special deposits would be out of order either on Report or on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) had better ask me tomorrow. I must say that I always look at amendments as they are tabled and rule accordingly. The hon. Gentleman may well be right. I must say that I do not want to give a ruling now.
Mr. Foot: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will give full consideration to the matter, but I hope that you will take into account the occasions on previous Finance Bills when references have been made to minimum lending rate. I submit to you, off the cuff, Mr. Speaker, that it would be in defiance of past practices if such references were to he ruled out of order.
Mr. Higgins: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, therefore, that you will rule perhaps tomorrow or at an appropriate time on this? Particularly in view of the Lord President's statement, would you also tell us whether there has ever been any precedent for such an amendment being moved? Would you deal with that when you give your ruling?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Worthing is asking me to rule on a hypothetical matter, but I shall consider it, of course.
Mr. David Price: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In considering the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), and in making your statement tomorrow, will you consider also that, certainly to my knowledge, charging minimum lending rate has never required legislation? It has always been a matter of executive action by the Government or the Bank of England. I therefore suggest, with great

383
respect, that its position within the Finance Bill is irrelevant.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you bear in mind that the minimum lending rate has been reduced on at least eight occasions in the last year or so and that there has been no request by the Opposition for any comment on those occasions?
Mr. Speaker: I shall bear everything in mind.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), may I tell the House that a very large number of Members wish to speak? I make an appeal to Privy Councillors, as well as to the other hon. Members, to make their speeches as brief as possible, otherwise many hon. Members who want to express their point of view wig not have a chance to do so.
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Luce: It is perfectly natural that the debate so far should have focused on East-West relations and also more specifically upon the problems which exist today on the continent of Africa. There is always the danger in a roving foreign affairs debate that the debate will tend to become very disjointed in that so many disjointed issues may be raised. In the second part of my speech, I propose to address my remarks more specifically to how I believe that we in Britain and in the West as a whole should adopt a moro cohesive approach to the problems in Africa. Before doing that, however, I should like to follow through one or two other matters which have been raised in the debate so far and which to no; mind are extremely important.
  Perhaps I may say in passing that it is regrettable that the Foreign Secretary, who carries overall responsibility for foreign affairs, was not here last night for the winding-up speeches and is not here today. I hope that he will find it possible to attend as much this debate as possible.
  I want first to refer to the position of the United Kingdom in the world today. Yesterday we had the privilege of hearing what I thought was a most eloquent and impressive maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for

  385
  Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) based on his very broad experience in dealing with foreign affairs matters. He described how, in his experience, Britain's voice in the world today was weak, muted and unconfident. I agree with my hon. Friend, and I think that we should be questioning why that should be the case.
  I think that it is because we as a country lack self-confidence. We have for a very long time been a demoralised nation. It is because we lack the domestic strength that we should have to exercise more influence in the world today. I refer specifically, of course, to the lack of strength in our economy. It is also because we have a misplaced inferiority complex even in our subconscious mind about our empire, which is now long past. There is, too, a lack of real faith in our democratic system and our way of life.
  We feel that we in the West are on the defensive and that the Soviet Union is exploiting our weaknesses. In consequence, for a long time now—throughout this decade and for much of the 1960s—we in the West, especially we in Britain, have been introspective and ineffective in our foreign policy. In my experience and, I am sure, in that of many other right hon. and hon. Members, this has been a source of great sadness to many of our friends in other parts of the world.
  The position which I have analysed is both unjustified and harmful to the nation. It is time that we as a country entered into a new era of self-confidence with regard to our foreign affairs. We need to go on to the offensive both politically and diplomatically, in conjunction with our allies, of course. We need to base this new approach upon the duty, which is the duty of any Government, to protect and defend the interests of the British people. We need to be on the offensive based on a renewed faith in our democratic system and the belief that it is superior to any other system in the world and is the system most likely to lead to peace in the world. We need to go on to the offensive, as we must in the 1980s, based on a stronger economy and a stronger faith in ourselves.
  We need to move on to the offensive because I find wherever I go—in all parts of Africa, in the Middle East, in Latin America and elsewhere—an enormous
  386
  ground swell of good will towards the United Kingdom. I believe that we should acknowledge this and that we should seek to use what influence we have in the world to the advantage of both ourselves and our allies.
  Let me pick up one significant factor which has been brought out in this debate. A number of Government supporters have accused the Conservative Party of being hysterical and of exaggerating the dangers of the Soviet Union and its policies. Indeed, we have been accused of trying to introduce a new cold war and of trying to bring an end to detente. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The Opposition's objective is the objective of any sensible Member of this House. It is to seek the relaxation of tensions between different nations. We want detente as much as anyone else in the world. Our objective must be to live in peace with all nations. It must be to try to obtain a friendly relationship with the Soviet Union, to trade more with it and to have more exchange with and more understanding of each other.
  Last year, I had the privilege of visiting that country with a number of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House. I was impressed by a number of factors. One of them, which I had not acknowledged before was that in the last world war the Soviet Union lost no fewer than 20 million people killed. Of course, the people of the Soviet Union have a genuine desire to defend themselves. But we cannot ignore the facts. There are certain areas in which the Soviet Union clearly is seeking confrontation with and provocation against the West. One area is in human rights matters, where, despite the fact that the Soviet Union has signed the Helsinki agreement, it is demonstrating a gross abuse of human rights. Another is in military matters, where we see a growing strength both in naval and in conventional forces. Another is an area already much debated—that of Africa.
  It is not the West but the Soviet Union which has broken detente. We in the West want detente. It is the Soviet Union, by its policies, which is breaking the policy of detente. It is a dereliction of our duty as politicians if we fail to expose the real dangers and the threats which face

  387
  us and if we fail to respond in a robust manner to those dangers.
  In the last few weeks, we have seen the danger of what I call the ostrich syndrome—the desire to bury one's head in the sand. The Russians understand and respect blunt speaking. They respect blunt action still more. I believe that real peace in the world will come only when we act in that sense through strength.
  Perhaps I may be permitted, having in my opening remarks criticised the Foreign Secretary for not being present, to welcome his arrival and to repeat my hope that he will listen to as much of the debate as possible.
  I believe that the Opposition were right to criticise the Prime Minister in the last few days for implying in certain statements made both in this House and in the United States that although there was a danger from the Soviet Union the British Government intended to take no action. I believe that his reference to "certain Christopher Columbuses" in the United States was patronising and insulting to certain individuals in the United States and, moreover, totally discouraging to a nation which after Vietnam and the Watergate affair has been through an understandable period of introspection. At a time when the United States Government are trying to evolve a more robust approach to the problems in the world today, they should be receiving encouragement and support and not discouragement.
  I want in passing to mention one continent which is in danger of being forgotten. I refer to Latin America. In the last century the United Kingdom had a close and important relationship with that continent. We helped many of the nations there to achieve their independence and to reach a level of democracy. We also helped them economically in investment and the improvement of their standards of living. In that continent there are many examples of the amount of good will that exists towards us.
  I believe that with the EEC we need to enter into a new relationship with that continent in political and economic terms. We have only a 3½ per cent. share of the total trade there. There is much we can do in trade, aid and investment to help the people to develop their countries and
  388
  to close the gap between rich and poor. By using the influence that we build up, there is much we can do to persuade them that gradual evolution to a democratic way of life, with greater respect for human rights, is in their interests as well as ours.
  Mr. Christopher Price: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman spoke of his belief in democracy as being the best method of keeping peace in the world. Does he agree that we must be as critical when our values of democracy and human rights are infringed in certain Latin American countries as we are when they are infringed in the Soviet Union and the Communist world?
  Mr. Luce: That was precisely what I was trying to say when I picked on the Latin American continent. I believe that the credibility of our approach to human rights depends on our ability to be totally objective. If we in this House share a belief, as I hope we do, in the crucial importance of democracy and the right of individuals, a regime that is Right-wing, totalitarian or Fascist is as objectionable as a Left-wing dictatorial regime. The whole survival of the policy of human rights and its credibility depend on that kind of approach.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly explain why the Conservatives in the European Parliament felt unable to support the demand for a hearing on Argentina and the abuses of human rights that take place there every day?
  Mr. Luce: Since I am not a Member of the European Parliament, I am not in a position to answer that question. However, if we begin to go down that road we shall have to have inquiries into 99 out of 100 countries. I am sure that other hon. Members, if they have the opportunity to take part in this debate, will seek to explore that matter further. I wish to emphasise that I deplore the abuse of human rights in any part of the world.
  I wish to turn quickly to two interrelated problems—the Middle East and Africa. Many hon. Members yesterday mentioned our relations with the Middle East. It is not only a question of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is also important that we maintain what are already

  389
  extremely good relationships with the Gulf States, with which we have strong and historic ties. It is important that we should try to bring about stability in that area and that economic and political development should take place.
  Two days ago I had the privilege, with a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House, of meeting the Shah of Iran. We had an exchange of views not only about the important progress he is making in his own regime in Iran and in bringing about economic progress and liberalisation in that regime but about the important ties that exist between our two nations. Iran, together with Pakistan and India, has a political role to play in helping to maintain stability not only in the Gulf but in the area of the Indian Ocean. I believe that the visit of Her Majesty the Queen this winter to the Gulf States will do much to cement the bonds between us.
  I now wish to deal with the Arab-Israeli dispute. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) referred to this matter yesterday. There have been no fewer than four wars in that area in a period of 30 years. That area has been unstable, and that instability is a problem not just for the Arabs and Israelis but for us. Indeed, another war could be catastrophic not only for Britain but for the West.
  I believe that the basis for progress must remain United Nations Resolution No. 242, which is based on the key suggestion that the Israelis must withdraw from occupied Arab territories, that there must be recognition of the rights of every State to live within secure boundaries and that there must be a just settlement to the Palestinian problem. We face in the Middle East, as we face in Africa, the problem of people's anxieties.
  I think that we should acknowledge as strongly as we can the enormous courage shown by President Sadat in visiting Israel last November, and we should also pay tribute to the people of Israel for their willingness to receive the President and to discuss long-standing problems. But it is also a tragedy and a condemnation, not only of the people of the Middle East but of ourselves too, that President Sadat so far has been unrewarded in his efforts to seek peace in the Middle East.
  390
  Time is running out, and President Sadat only yesterday expressed anxiety about the serious situation in that area. We in Europe must do all we can to help the sides to get together and to keep up the momentum of the discussions. In my view, it is regrettable that insufficient support was given by his neighbours to President Sadat's initiative. Equally, as many Jews in this country and in the United States would agree, it is regrettable that the Israeli Government should have persisted with a settlements policy in regard to the occupied Arab territories. I very much hope that we in Europe can do more than we have done so far to facilitate discussions between the two sides.
  Finally, I wish to deal with the subject of Africa, which has already been dealt with at length. The Middle East and Africa are closely intertwined. I believe that the Arabs have an important role to play in Africa itself. They have a major role to paly in the development of the Third world countries in Africa. They also have a great role to play in providing investment finance, in which we in Europe can help to assist by giving technical expertise. I also believe that they have a role to play in helping African States to build up stability. We have already had one or two examples demonstrated by the actions of the Egyptians and the Moroccans.
  The Prime Minister told the House on Tuesday in the course of exchanges that the problems of Africa go much deeper than that thrown up by the East-West confrontation. Of course they do. Anybody with any knowledge of Africa knows that what we and most Africans want is that the African nations should have their own independence and should develop their own way of life. We acknowledge the complexities of the problems of Africa. But it is the activities of the Soviet Union and its Cuban mercenaries that are forcing the East-West problem and the confrontation aspect of cold war into Africa. It is not the West that wants to see this happening. It is Soviet policies that are aimed at bringing this process about.
  I believe that the African continent is likely to be unstable for a long period ahead. The African scene is highly complex. There are problems involving tribal animosities, border disputes, many

  391
  of them inherited from our colonial days, and internal civil unrest. Anybody who has been to the Horn of Africa recently will know what a jigsaw puzzle of complexity that area is. But the Soviet Union and Cuban mercenaries are fishing opportunistically in the troubled waters of Africa. This is a new form of imperialism.
  We must be penetrating in our analysis of the situation. The Russians take the view that we in the West are on the defensive in Africa. They believe we are in that position because we have a colonial past and because they would like to think that we support a white racialist regime in South Africa. They are trying their best to make us look as though we in the West are the baddies and that they are the goodies. They say that their policy is aimed at supporting liberation movements—the criteria for liberation being left open to assessment by the Soviet regime.
  In practice, however, the Russians are using the Africans as pawns in a ruthless game of chess, bringing devastation and destruction in their wake for the African people. Their arms sales to the Third world have doubled in the last four years—twice as much as those of the United States. They are merchants of death. They arm Somalia and then they pull out of Somalia and arm and support Ethiopia. They encourage the two sides to commit atrocities on each other. They are largely responsible for much of the death and destruction that have taken place in the Horn of Africa.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the three major suppliers of arms throughout the world to other countries are the United States, France and the United Kingdom? It is hypocrisy to talk about arms sales in terms of the Soviet Union unless we consider what the West is doing throughout the Third world.
  Mr. Luce: I want to say something further about how the West should approach the problem of arms sales. What I said was that the arms sales of the Soviet Union to Africa in the last year were twice as much as the arms sales of the United States to Africa.
  Another factor is that the Soviet Union is supporting regimes such as the Ethiopian regime, which shows no respect for human rights. The Soviets are largely
  392
  responsible in many parts of the continent of Africa for the creation of refugees as a result of bloodshed and warfare.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) said yesterday, in an excellent speech, that there were about 3 million refugees in Africa today. The Soviet Union gives virtually no economic assistance to the African continent. Its assistance, if we can call it that, is destructive and military. In 1976, the aid given from Communist countries amounted to only 1 per cent. of the total receipts of the developing countries in terms of the flow of resources from the more developed world.
  The Western response must be to demonstrate that our interest and that of the African continent coincide that is to say, to bring about stability. We need to move on to a new political and diplomatic offensive.
  First, we must demonstrate the indivisibility of detente. We must say to the Soviet Union and the Cubans that until they withdraw their military intervention in the continent of Africa it will not be possible for us to pursue detente in other areas. The subject of credit facilities has been brought up in the debate. It is not right that we should provide concessionary credit facilities for trade with the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union is undermining us in Africa.
  Secondly, why have the Government not raised in a forceful manner the fact that the Soviet Union is an international threat to peace in the continent of Africa? What is the United Nations for unless we can raise such matters at the United Nations?
  Thirdly, as to the Organisation of African Unity, we in the West and in Britain must work closely with Africa to draw up guidelines with a view to preventing destructive military intervention by non-African outside Powers. We must help the African countries to devise a more even balance in the principles which they hold in regard to self-determination and non-African intervention in the context of the need to preserve territorial integrity.
  Fourthly, we should encourage regional solutions of the problems that exist in

  393
  Africa, whether they are in Eritrea, in the Ogaden, in North Kenya or in Zaire. Many Arab countries can help us with those solutions.
  Fifthly, as to Southern Africa, which is one of the most major problems, we must continue and do more to encourage the achievements of the internal regime in Rhodesia and to build on the achievements which it has begun to obtain in working towards majority rule. The internal regime must—the sooner the better—keep up the momentum by announcing measures to end racial discrimination as soon as possible. We must encourage a settlement in Namibia based upon the work of the five Western Powers.
  In South Africa we face the stark choice of how we can best help it to evolve peacefully a final settlement of its racial problems. Here we face the stark choice, which we shall have to face at the United Nations and elsewhere, between economic sanctions and using our influence in a constructive manner. The only way, based on the experience of this century, is to use our influence constructively, to maintain our investment and our trade, to try to improve the standard of living of the Africans and to enable them to get on a more equal basis with the whites in South Africa.
  We in the West must devise, with the OAU, a policy of restraint in the sale of arms to African countries. We in the West must take the lead, and it must be based on agreed criteria between ourselves and the Africans.
  We need to evolve contingency plans to deal with emergencies. There are two distinct problems. There is the question of rescuing expatriates who serve in Africa. Here we must learn the lessons of Zaire. Then there is the question of devising machinery to help African nations to maintain stability. The contribution of African and Arab troops to regional problems is the right one, but they are entitled, if they so wish, to have modest Western help.
  I come finally to an extremely important suggestion that we, led by the EEC, must adopt a more cohesive approach to aid, trade and investment in the African continent to demonstrate that we want to help Africans to improve their
  394
  own standard of living. We must harness Arab financial support and we must reach a mutual understanding, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) rightly said yesterday, on the important role that the European expatriate corps can play.
  All these policies must be based upon a solid European foundation. We cannot do it on our own. We can only do it together. We in Britain must be more robust than we have been in the last decade or so in our foreign policy. We must say what we believe is right and we must do what we believe is right We must demonstrate our faith in the liberty and the rights of the individual. We must let our voice and the European voice be heard, and we shall be respected for this. Charles Peguy said:
  "The worst of partialities is to withhold oneself, the worst ignorance is not to act and the worst lie is to steal away."
  4.38 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): I intend to devote the majority of my remarks to subjects that have not been the subject of debate so far but I would like first to answer a few of the points made by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce). The hon. Member made a charge against my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for not being here for the winding-up speeches last night or at the opening of the debate today. Last night, the Foreign Secretary was present at an extremely important dinner given by the Indian Prime Minister, who is paying a visit to this country. It would have been the height of discourtesy for the Foreign Secretary not to have been present then. This was explained, and I hope that it was understood by the Conservative Opposition.
  Mr. Luce: I fully understand now the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman was not here last night. It was not explained to me. That is why I criticised him when I started my speech. I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman came in soon after I rose to speak.
  Mr. Luard: I was referring only to the situation last night. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend had an important engagement with the Zambian Foreign Minister, which explains why he was not present at the beginning of the debate.

  395
  The hon. Member for Shoreham began his speech by suggesting that Britain was a demoralised nation, introspective and ineffective in its approach to world affairs. I totally reject that suggestion. It reflects much more demoralisation and introspection on the part of the Conservative Party than on the part of the country as a whole.
  The hon. Member for Shoreham referred to yesterday's speech by his hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). I join him in congratulating the hon. Member for Wycombe on his maiden speech, but the hon. Gentleman said that he felt that there was a lack of self-confidence in Britain's policy at present, and that his view was based on long experience of foreign affairs.
  I have been engaged in foreign affairs for more than 25 years—quite as long as the hon. Members for Wycombe and Shoreham. I travel around the world a great deal, particularly to the United Nations and other international gatherings, and I can remember no time in recent history when the regard in which this country is held was as high as it is now. The reason is precisely that the Government have departed from the sort of policies that the hon. Member for Shoreham and the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) have been advocating that we should pursue. They are policies that are difficult to distinguish from neo-colonialism and the cold-war attitudes of the past. I know that the right hon. Member rejected this charge, but I shall show why I believe that the Opposition reveal many signs of wishing to return to the attitudes of the past. We stand in higher regard today than at most times because we are willing to approach other countries, especially developing countries, on the basis of equality and not on the basis of the patronising superiority that is inherent in many of the policy proposals of the Opposition in the debate.
  Second, the hon. Member for Shoreham criticised the Prime Minister for remarks that he made in the United States which were designed to inject a greater sense of realism into the debate that was taking place at that time about the response of the West to events in Zaire and to cool the somewhat feverish atmosphere that existed then.
  396
  No one could suggest that there was anything in what the Prime Minister said that could be taken as desiring or advocating any sort of appeasement towards the Soviet Union. In fact, it is well known, and was reported in the Press, that in his main statement to the NATO meeting in Washington my right hon. Friend expresed downright criticisms of the Soviet Union on three scores—the massive build-up of arms in the Soviet Union, its intervention in Africa—precisely the point about which the Opposition are concerned—and the violations of human rights in the Soviet Union.
  My right hon. Friend doubted, as I and many thinking people in this country doubt, whether the right response to events in Zaire was overt intervention by military means, particularly on a collective basis. The wisdom of what the Prime Minister said has already been endorsed by two facts. First, President Carter, in a speech yesterday, clearly reflected views that were much closer to those of the Prime Minister than to those expressed in the House by the right hon. Member for Knutsford and other Conservative speakers. Secondly, the Paris meeting, which was held to discuss precisely the problem that we are debating, also adopted a position very much closer to that taken by the Government and the Prime Minister in his Washington statement than to the position advocated by the Opposition. Both these facts totally endorse the Prime Minister's position.
  My final comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreham relates to the attitude taken by the Opposition on the events in Africa, particularly Zaire. I find surprising and extraordinary the proposal that the EEC might take collective action with the Lomé countries for the defence of Africa. I have read the speech of the right hon. Member for Knutsford with great care, and that is precisely what he was advocating.
  Mr. John Davies: I made this point so specifically clear that if the Minister says that he has read my speech I do not understand his incapacity for understanding English. I made abundantly clear that it was not a question of defending Africa; it was a question of providing adequate safeguards in order

  397
  to ensure that there was not such disruption of individual countries as to undermine their economies. Surely the Minister understands that.
  Mr. Luard: I have read what the right hon. Gentleman said. He appeared to be implying, and the newspapers took him to be implying, that these arrangements would include some arrangements for collective defence. What concerns me about this attitude is the patronising approach that is taken towards countries in Africa. It seems to be assumed that they cannot make their own decisions about what action is required to be taken for their defence.
  There is a considerable difference between a particular African country calling for the assistance of a particular European country, such as France, as was done by Zaire in recent weeks, and the idea that there should be collective arrangements between African countries and European countries as a whole. There is no doubt that this will be taken by large numbers of African countries as an attempt to reimpose a form of neocolonialism. Such collective arrangements would cover only a small proportion of countries in Africa—those that would be willing to accept them—and would be seen as a means of dividing the countries of Africa.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said yesterday and I read his speech. I do not wish to argue about details, but the Minister is speaking from the Front Bench on behalf of the Foreign Office and what he has said in no way accurately reflects what my right hon. Friend said. The Minister should withdraw his remarks.
  Mr. Luard: I can quote one passage of the right hon. Gentleman's speech immediately. I should like further time to look at the rest of the speech. This passage is an indication of the sort of approach adopted by the right hon. Member for Knutsford. He said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 7th June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 234.]
  398
  That is a suggestion that the Lomé Convention could be used as a means of securing political stability of countries within Africa. That will be taken by many countries in Africa as an attempt to use economic leverage to influence the political situation in particular African countries. If the right hon. Member does not recognise that, or does not understand that this is how it will be taken in Africa, he has a limited knowledge of the way that African Governments react and feel about such matters. That is why the meeting in Paris turned down the idea of proposing such arrangements.
  I turn to other subjects that have not so far been mentioned in the debate. There are, as has often been pointed out, many unsatisfactory features in general foreign affairs debates of the kind that we are engaged in. Discussion tends to flit from one topic to another with alarming rapidity and often no single subject secures adequate attention or debate to cover it in any depth. Such a debate does, however, have one advantage; it provides the opportunity for the discussion of certain topics that are not, perhaps, central or immediate enough to demand separate debates of their own and which otherwise would therefore never get discussed at all.
  I wish to devote most of my remarks to three subjects of this kind. They are not, perhaps, of such burning and topical interest as those that were debated yesterday, such as recent events in Africa, or developments in East-West relations, but none the less they are topics that may be of equal importance, in the long term, to the future peace and well-being of the international community. These subjects are the United Nations, the Conference on the Law of the Sea, and our policy on human rights questions—all subjects which I believe deserve an airing here from time to time and which since I have personal responsibility for them within the Foreign Office I am glad to have the opportunity to introduce, this afternoon.
  Many hon. Members probably feel towards the United Nations in much the same way as do many of the public outside, that is, as a subject of pained disappointment. Most people want to believe in it and to give it support and want others to do so. They recognise that the world needs such a body and

  399
  that it could and should be an important force in securing the peace of the world, but they feel let down and disillusioned that it has not, in their eyes, achieved what it was originally hoped to achieve—above all, to secure for us a safer world to live in than we have today.
  I understand this sentiment; indeed, I think that we all share it, to some extent. We all wish to see the world become a more peaceful place than it has been in the past 30 years, and we should all like to see a better, stronger and more efficient United Nations, equipped to keep the peace more effectively than it has in recent years.
  I share that feeling, but I think that it should be tinged with a sense of realism. The United Nations is not a sort of ideal, amorphous entity floating somewhere in space, which can suddenly transform the nature of the world, the nature of States and the nature of human beings. The United Nations is simply the sum of its member States. It is as good or as bad as they are. It is inevitably a mirror of the world as it is. If that world is divided, so is the United Nations itself.
  It would no doube be a great thing if all the nations of the world were agreed in their attitude to all the international crises that emerge in every corner of the world and could immediately join in a common response, within the United Nations, to resolve those crises. However, the sad fact is that the nations of the world are not united in that way. Governments have many differing views on the way that crises should be met. Within the United Nations they express these differing views and so often frustrate effective action by that body to keep the peace.
  We do not yet have a supranational body that can intervene to impose an enforced peace on the world. The original hope that the United Nations Security Council could dispose of its own armed force, with which it could keep the peace of the world, which was enshrined in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, was disappointed almost immediately after the United Nations was set up. The negotiations that took place concerning the constitution of that force in 1946–47 broke down within a year. From that moment it has been clear that the United Nations would not enjoy the superiority
  400
  of power over individual States that would enable it to enforce peace all over the world.
  Since that time the United Nations has had to be dependent on moral force alone—on persuasion, on the formulation of principles of peaceful co-existence which might influence the conduct of States and, above all, on seeking conciliation among member States themselves, especially the great Powers among whom mutual understanding is particularly important. Given the major differences in political philosophy and national objectives among different States, it is scarcely surprising that that has been a difficult role for the organisation to play.
  In the light of these proposals I do not think that we need be too despondent about the way in which the organisation has evolved or about its record of performance so far. Although enforcement powers have not been available to it it has been able to develop alternative techniques and institutions lo help maintain the peace of the world. Perhaps the most important technique has been the development of peacekeeping forces.
  The United Nations has new established seven different peacekeeping forces on different occasions in various parts of the world; from Cyprus to West Iran, from Syria to the Congo. Though not normally expected to fight, these various forces have performed an invaluable role in maintaining the peace in bitterly-contested areas and so helped to prevent a recurrence of fighting. It is a matter of considerable encouragement to those who believe in the United Nations and its role, as do the Government, that at the current Special Session on Disarmament there has been much discussion of ways to expand and strengthen the United Nations peacekeeping capacity.
  The United States Government, for example, have made an imaginative proposal for the establishment of a United Nations peacekeeping reserve to which member States might contribute contingents and which would make it easier for the United Nations to respond rapidly and effectively in future crisis situations. The Prime Minister has welcomed these ideas and we ourselves have put to the Session related proposals for a study of ways in which to strengthen the United Nations peacekeeping capacity.

  401
  But we believe that improvements in the availability of United Nations forces of that sort are not enough. Peacekeeping forces are mobilised only after peace has already broken down. Their use is to some extent an admission of defeat, an admission of a failure to maintain the peace. We believe, therefore, that it is also necessary for the United Nations to be in a position to use its influence ear-her to try to prevent such situations arising in the first place. In other words, we think that the organisation needs to improve its capacity for crisis-anticipation. That means that it should have the capability for keeping all possible crisis areas under regular review so that if possible action may be taken by the Organisation to reduce tension in the area or to promote a settlement before the stage of fighting has even begun.
  The proposals that we are putting forward for the consideration of the Special Session therefore suggest the consideration of ways to achieve that capability. One step forward might be to try to ensure that there are regular meetings of the United Nations Security Council to keep such situations under review instead of waiting, as at present, until war has broken out before the Council meets. Such meetings should perhaps sometimes be in private and could sometimes be at the level of Foreign Ministers.
  Finally, however, even that is not enough. If such meetings of the Council are to achieve anything, they must do more than merely debate the issues. It is necessary that in addition the Council should have at its disposal techniques that will enable it to go to the root of the problem and to promote a settlement of the dispute concerned among the parties. That means, for example, techniques of conciliation or mediation, the appointment of a representative of the Secretary-General to try to sort things out and the setting up of missions of inquiry and conciliation. In other words, the whole series of techniques, often called peaceful settlement of disputes.
  Thus the third element of our proposals is that the United Nations should consider ways in which its capabilities may be improved and strengthened so that it may become not merely an organisation for keeping the peace, or for restoring the peace after it has broken down, but for making peace; that is, for resolving
  402
  the underlying problems that are in dispute between member States.
  We believe that between them these three proposals—peacekeeping, crisis anticipation and peaceful settlement—represent an important complement to the measures of arms reductions which are at present being discussed at the Special Session in New York. Unless alternative means of resolving disputes are known to be available, it may be that States will be less willing to agree to reduce their armaments. Conversely, as States learn to place greater trust in the procedures for a peaceful settlement they may feel it less and less worth while to devote huge sums to maintaining large piles of destructive weapons of war.
  I turn to another quite different area of the United Nations activity. It is one that rarely features in our debates in this place though it could be of huge importance to the history of the world and could determine the future use and distribution of a large part of the world's remaining resources. I refer to the Conference on the Law of the Sea.
  I know that it must seem to some that the conference is a permanent feature of the international scene and that its meetings go on interminably from year to year with endless discussion of highly abstruse supbjects without any signs of appreciable progress. I can understand that feeling. It is true that it is now four and a half years since the conference began and that it has already passed through seven sessions without arriving at a conclusion.
  It is not the case that no progress has been made during that period. Given the complexities of the subject, the magnitude of the issues and the radical differences of interest among States, it is perhaps remarkable how much progress has been made. We do at least have the draft of a complete treaty, even though it is only what is called a negotiating text, to which no country is committed and which we ourselves would not be willing to accept in its present form. Moreover, it is the draft of a treaty of huge scope, covering an enormous range of separate subjects from some fundamental issues that have been contested literally for centuries, such as the breadth of the terroritorial sea and the rules of innocent passage, to novel but equally important questions relating to marine pollution, marine scientific research, the economic

  403
  zone, and such esoteric but not insignificant topics as the law on archipelagoes, the access of land-locked States to the sea, pirate radio stations, and rights over archaeological treasures beneath the oceans.
  On the majority of these subjects there is a considerable measure of agreement and it is unlikely that the treaty will require significant amendment. Unfortunately, there are one or two questions—they are among the most important on which there remain considerable differences. It is on these that recent discussions have concentrated, including the session that has just ended at Geneva, part of which I attended. Most important of these is the system of exploitation to be established for the resources lying in the deeper parts of the ocean beyond the jurisdiction of any individual State—in other words, in the international area of the oceans. Even here there is a measure of consensus. It is agreed that there should be an international sea bed authority that will oversee the exploitation of the mineral nodules that are the main resource in the area, and that exploitation should take place under the so-called parallel system—
  Mr. William Shelton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it permitted for the Under-Secretary of State to read his brief without any attempt to speak to the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): It is the practice of the House to allow Ministers, for the sake of accuracy, to read their speeches. I notice that occasionally the Under-Secretary of State has raised his eyes.
  Mr. Luard: It is agreed that there should be an international sea bed authority to oversee the exploitation of the mineral nodules which are the main resource in the area and that exploitation should take place under the so-called parallel system, under which production will be in part by individual companies, whether private or public, against payment of a royalty to the international authority, and by an international enterprise which will be fully multinational and will give an opportunity for developing States to take a part in the development of these resources. What is not yet
  404
  agreed is the precise way that this system will operate.
  As a consuming nation which possesses few of the resources concerned, we have a close interest in ensuring that the system will not unnecessarily inhibit the proper development of these resources for the benefit of mankind as a whole. After all, most nations are consumers and share this interest with us.
  We also recognise that these resources are generally seen as the "common heritage of mankind" from which all States, poor as well as rich, small as well as big, expect to benefit. Therefore, we support the view that exploitation should be internationally regulated and that the benefits, including the opportunity of playing a part in exploitation, should be shared among the international community as a whole.
  We agree that the enterprise should get financial and technical assistance to make that possible. However, we wish to be assured that no unnecessary restrictions are placed on undersea production, whether through production controls or excessive financial burdens; that, so far as possible, essential decisions are taken on a basis of consensus, or at least widespread agreement, not simply imposed by a majority vote; and that we should secure a satisfactory definition of the edge of the continental margin on which the Soviet Union has now come forward with a new formula which is quite unacceptable to us.
  There was progress on some of these points at the recent session of the conference at Geneva, and we hope that there will be more when that session is resumed in New York in the middle of August. Though all participating States have been willing to be patient until now, that patience will not last indefinitely. Pressures are building up in some countries in favour of domestic legislation which would permit exploitation in the area by private companies, at least on an interim basis, until a treaty comes into effect. Therefore, it is important that progress should be made on the remaining points within the reasonably near future.
  I suggest that this is an important topic. It is not often debated here, but it would be of some value if we could debate it

  405
  here on some occasion. We have important interests in this conference. It is a vital matter and it is important that the details should be right. We would like to think that it may be possible to reach final agreement on a treaty at the next full session of the conference, which will probably take place early next year, and we shall certainly do all that we can to help to bring this about.
  Finally, I turn to the much discussed and disputed subject of human rights, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Shoreham—in particular, the policy which the Government are seeking to pursue. I believe that there is general acceptance in the House that human rights questions in all parts of the world are a legitimate subject of international concern and public discussion in other countries. It is no longer possible for any Government to try to hide behind the wall of national sovereignty and to tell everybody else to go away. The wall dividing States has now become transparent. With the decline in distance and the increase in communications which has taken place, we are all too well aware of what is happening in other countries to remain indifferent to what happens there.
  Individuals and organisations, and even Governments, will inevitably express their own deeply-held views about violations of human rights which they know are being committed by other Governments in other countries. Members of the House have within the last year or so on a number of occasions expressed their views in no uncertain terms about actions which have taken place in South Africa, Cambodia and the Soviet Union which have aroused their outrage and indignation. I am sure that this will continue to happen. The Government believe that it is their duty to reflect in their own actions the views, feelings and values which are widely spread in our society.
  Sir Bernard Braille: In view of that very clear statement, why do the Government continue to enter into arms deals with countries where violations of human rights are well known to the Government and to the world at large? I have Indonesia particularly in mind. How do the hon. Gentleman's words square with the Government's actions?
  Mr. Luard: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have on a number of occasions cut off arms sales altogether to countries in which particularly flagrant violations of human rights have taken place.
  Sir B. Braine Sir B. Braine rose—
  Mr. Luard: I shall not give way again I have already given way a number of times. We did that, for example, over Chile, South Africa and Uganda.
  Sir B. Braine: And E1 Salvador under protest from this House.
  Mr. Luard: And E1 Salvador. We do it on particular occasions. But clearly this is a major action for any Government to take and we have to consider each case carefully on its merits.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreham expressed great concern about human rights—I know and accept that he has a genuine concern about these matters—but he also mentioned the importance of maintaining good relations with two Governments which are not universally known for their respect for human rights—Iran and Argentina. I accept these are difficult problems. They are problems for the House as a whole. It is for the Opposition to say whether they believe that we should cut off arms supplies to any particular country, including those two countries. We would take account of views expressed in the House, but I do not undertake that we shall cut off arms supplies immediately to any country where there are reports of violations of human rights.
  We shall certainly continue, especially within those organisations which are specifically concerned with such matters—this includes the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the conferences which are taking place under the Helsinki agreement—to make clear the views of our own people on matters of this kind.
  I do not need to make much reference to our actions concerning the Soviet Union and East Europe, since this matter was discussed yesterday, except to say that we regard it as a basic corollary of the Helsinki agreement that the behaviour of the Soviet and other East European Governments to their own nationals is

  407
  a legitimate subject for discussion by Western Governments, above all when considering the implementation of that agreement.
  Far from expressions of concern on that subject being in any way in conflict with the process of detente, detente itself depends on the Governments who are parties to the Helsinki agreement continuing to observe its provisions regarding human rights. If the Soviet Union, as it declares, is concerned to maintain the process of detente, it should be in no doubt that actions, such as the recent Orlov trial and those said to be planned against Shcharansky and Ginsburg, by the effect that they have on public opinion in the West, must put the whole process of detente seriously at risk.
  So far as other parts of the world are concerned, the main international body is the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It was partly in response to strong expressions of opinion in the House, as well as to the feelings widespread in the country as a whole, that the Government decided to take up within the Commission the question of widely attested and particularly brutal violations of human rights in Cambodia. That was almost the first time that the actions of a particular Government in violation of human rights had been taken up as a separate agenda item in the Commission's public proceedings, though it has frequently considered individual complaints under confidential procedures.
  We were therefore gratified that a number of countries supported the protest that we made on the subject and that the Commission eventually decided to ask the Cambodian Government, who are not members of the Commision and were not present, to provide some reply to the charges that we made. In the light of that reply, consideration of the matter will he resumed in the sub-Commission which will be meeting in Geneva in August. I hope that that body will be prepared to reach a substantive finding in the light of the evidence which we and others have produced, or, if not, at least to decide to send a commission of inquiry to look at the situation in Cambodia on the spot.
  I know that many people believe that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is an ineffective or a politically biased body that has not per
  408
  formed the role that it should have done in this area. It is true that in the past the Commission has sometimes been somewhat selective in the attention which it has devoted to human rights violations, concentrating particularly on two or three countries, such as South Africa, Israel or Chile, while turning a blind eye to equally appalling violations committed in other lands. I believe there are some signs that this is changing.
  At its last session, the Commission considered the situation in nine different countries all over the world under its confidential procedure. As a result, according to Press reports, the Ugandan Government have agreed to accept a mission to be sent by the Commission to examine the human rights situation in that country. These are welcome steps in the right direction.
  Mr. Christopher Price: My hon. Friend has mentioned detente and the United Nations Commission. He has not mentioned the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers of which has had before it for over three years a specific report about violations of human rights in Cyprus and which all the Western countries have so far done their best to prevent seeing the light of day, although it has been seen in newspapers in this country and in Greece.
  I understand that the Committee meets again in September. What will the Government's attitude be when the Committee considers the report again?
  Mr. Luard: My hon. Friend's intervention proves that it is not a good idea to give way as often as I have today. His question was not closely related to the subject about which I am talking. I agree that the European Commission on Human Rights and the European Court are the most effective institutions which operate in this area. I shall not comment on the Cyprus case. Neither this Government nor any other, so far as I am aware, have tried to suppress the report. It will come up in due course.
  There are other signs of renewed activity and greater boldness on the part of the Commission. There are proposals, which we support, that it should meet twice a year instead of only once, as at present, or at least that it should meet for a considerably longer period. There are suggestions for the establishment of

  409
  regional commissions of human rights where these do not already exist, for example, in Africa and Asia. This is also a valuable idea that we favour.
  The long-standing proposal for the appointment of a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has secured more widespread support in recent years. A convention on torture is now being discussed in the Commission and there is a working group looking at the rights of those in detention and another considering the rights of patients in mental hospitals, a subject of great importance in view of the actions of certain countries. All these are signs that the Commission might be beginning to move in the right direction. We shall continue our efforts, whether we are ourselves represented in the Commission or not, to use it as a more effective watchdog for the protection of human rights all over the world.
  But perhaps the most important thing that we can do is to continue to emphasise in our public statements and even more perhaps in our private representations the importance which we attach to human rights and to raise it to the top of the international agenda. This is an important support to those within each country where rights are being violated in seeking to protect themselves and to bring about the changes necessary within their own society. It may even eventually affect the attitudes of Governments in such countries and lead them to recognise and attach a higher degree of importance to the preservation of human rights in relation to other national goals.
  I have mentioned three particular areas involving human rights and United Nations activity. I stress that the Government have attempted to make the United Nations the centrepiece of their foreign policy. In doing that we have the support of the Labour movement and of a wide section in the country. They recognise and support the determined efforts that we have made to attach greater importance to the United Nations and to strengthen the United Nations institutions. I believe that this is the right policy for us to have pursued.
  I deliberately decided to devote my remarks today to subjects that do not normally feature prominently in our debates here, at least in Front Bench
  410
  speeches, because they are not the subject matter of headlines or the latest news bulletins, nor of such urgency as other features of the international scene. But I hope that no hon. Member will suggest that on those grounds they are matters of little consequence which are scarcely worth debating in this House.
  My own belief is that over the long term the matters that I have been discussing—the development of the United Nation's peacekeeping capacity, the negotiation of a new system of law governing the oceans, a new international regime for exploiting ocean resources, and the international protection of human rights—can be of greater importance to the future history of the world, and the future welfare of individual human beings, than many of the more immediate topics that we sometimes discuss.
  The action that we take in these areas can, if only slowly and indirectly, affect the whole structure of relationships among States and the character of the international community within which we live. If we do not often debate them it is no doubt partly because they are long-term rather than immediate, but nobody would suggest that the long-term does not matter.
  It is also perhaps partly because each of these questions is so complex, and the difficulty of securing progress so apparent, that it is not always easy to know what any single Government can do about them that will have any effect. It is true that it is no easy matter to secure agreement to changes in the procedures or structures of international organisations, still less to influence the behaviour of Government in their policies towards their own peoples, as we attempt to do through human rights policies. But this does not mean that it is not at least worth attempting to do so.
  The ultimate benefits to be gained through advances in any of these spheres are so enormous that even small steps forward can be valuable. A series of small steps can add up to quite a considerable advance. I hope that the House will agree that, whatever the difficulties, therefore, and whatever the differences among Governments about the way forward—and they are considerable—we should continue our efforts to make progress in these areas, which, if successful, may eventually help create for ourselves

  411
  and our children a more peaceful, a more just and a more humane world.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: In view of the early exchanges between the two Front Benches I have apologised to the Minister who will reply to the debate that because of a constituency engagement I might not return in time to hear the whole of his speech.
  As I listened to the debate, and particularly to the Foreign Secretary yesterday, I came to the conclusion that we are becoming totally bemused by words. We are beginning to ignore facts and actions. In particular, there is the word "detente". I thoroughly detest it. I do not know what it means. I do not believe that anybody knows what it really means. It tends to mean whatever the person using it says that it means. That is not a good basis for a sensible discussion.
  If we look at the relations between nations we find that there is a wide scale of different degrees of relationship. If relations are bad they can range from actual hostilities, through preparation for war to hostility by all means short of war. If relations are good they can range from tolerance, perhaps indifference, or positive dislike, through willing cooperation to genuine friendship. There is an enormous scale of relationships.
  Where does detente fit in? I do not know. I do not understand and I do not believe that anybody can explain it to me.
  Mr. Hooly: Will the right hon. Member allow me?
  Mr. Maudling: Certainly. Good.
  Mr. Hooky: The process of detente is proceeding precisely through the one extreme to the other which the right hon Member so skilfully defined. Relation ships range from extreme hostility to close friendship. Detente is the process by which one tries to move in that direction.
  Mr. Maudling: That is slightly vague as a guide to action. I do not know what point on the scale of detente we are talking about. It is important to know exactly what one is talking about, because uncertainty and misunderstanding are dangerous. Nothing is to be
  412
  gained by the two great forces in the world shouting at each other across a void of mutual misunderstanding and mistrust.
  The world is divided into two main groups, both of which possess, first, the power to destroy the greater part of mankind and, secondly, an ideology of their own. That is a word which I do not like much, but I think that we know what it means. Ideology is something which both sides would like to spread throughout the world because they believe in it.
  We must not underestimate the total change in warfare which has been brought about by nuclear weapons. In a modern war involving nuclear weapons the only victor will be Death himself. We must never forget that. The Prime Minister was absolutely right to say that either we live together with the Communists or we die together. But that does not mean that we have to appease them. It certainly does not mean that the peaceful conflict of ideas should be halted. It does not mean that either side should cease to promote their own ideas and interests by all legitimate means.
  We must be realistic, against the background of what an all-out war would mean, in the measures that we intend to take to meet the dangers that must be defined as precisely as possible.
  There are three dangers. There are practical means of two kinds for dealing with those dangers. The first is of a limited and local nature. The second is by the general reaction—the withdrawal of co-operation over the whole field, in particular, for example, the withdrawal of economic co-operation. These are quite different forms of action—limited and local on the one hand, or general on the other. We must apply to each problem that which is appropriate.
  It has been generally agreed in the debate that we face three main dangers. These are the build-up of the armed forces of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union's attitude to human rights, and Soviet-Cuban activities, particularly in Africa. I shall deal with each in turn.
  On the first, we must continue to press for disarmament. To break off disarmament talks, either on nuclear or conventional weapons, would be counterproductive. It would not lead to the Soviets building less, and it would not

  413
  reduce the danger of war. But with continuing negotiations we should build up our own nuclear and conventional strength.
  On the nuclear side there is a certain misunderstanding. It is not necessary to have as many nuclear weapons as the Soviet Union. We have to have enough of a quality adequate for the Russians to know that if they attack us they will be destroyed. It is an adequate deterrent for a man to know that if he attacks he will be destroyed. There is no great gain in persuading him that he will be destroyed three times over.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point clearly. One needs to demonstrate that one can destroy one's enemy. However, since we can already destroy him up to three times over, how can we deter him by offering him the possibility that we can destroy him five times over?
  Mr. Maudling: That is what I was trying to say. There is no additional advantage in telling one's enemy that one can kill him three times over.
  On conventional arms, I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister say recently that the lime had come to build up the conventional strength of NATO. His conversion appears to be a little late, but we should welcome it.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of my right hon. Friend's eloquent statement in The Times some months ago, would he approve of the American President's agreeing to build and deploy the cruise missile and the neutron warhead as a means of countering the enormous conventional advantage of the Soviets in central Europe?
  Mr. Maudling: I think that ultimately peace will depend on the Americans having weapons adequate to convince the Soviets that any attack upon us would be mutually destructive. I regard the neutron weapon, which kills human beings without damaging property, as the ultimate insult to God. But if it be necessary in order to preserve peace and mankind from nuclear war, it must happen. Above all, it is our responsibility in the West to make it absolutely clear that we are adequately armed to deter any Communist aggression. That is our first
  414
  and foremost responsibility to ourselves and our children.
  I hope that we shall not rely too much on China. It is no doubt convenient that the Chinese are also hostile to Russia. However, I am old enough to remember the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, when their two great dictator countries, which had been snarling at each other, suddenly shook hands and unleashed Hitler across Western Europe. Let us not rely on China to support us. This is a welcome friendship, but we must rely on our own Western resources to provide an adequate deterrent.
  I come to my second point, which is human rights. There is a great and genuine difference of outlook on this matter between West and East. I remember talking to Mr. Gromyko a year or two back, when I asked why he would not allow more Soviet Jews to leave his country. His reply was "Mr. Maudling, we in the Soviet Union accord to almost all our citizens the privilege of leaving their country." I replied to him that to leave one's country was not a privilege, but a right. It is this gap between us which prevents the Soviet Union from understanding how deeply shocked we in the West are by the treatment that the Soviets have given to men such as Orlov. Until they understand how deep is our concern they will not understand how important it is for them to make a move in this direction.
  I welcome the Government's action in pressing upon the Soviet Union—and building up world opinion on the matter—how much damage the Soviets are doing to themselves by neglecting the issue of human rights, an issue which means so much to so many people throughout the world.
  Finally, I turn to Africa. We must take more definite action in that continent. We must put more support behind the internal settlement in Rhodesia. I hope that it is still possible to bring Mr. Nkomo into the agreement, but I am deeply shocked by the remarks attributed to him today about how the killing of white people must go on, especially when that is followed by the headline in today's newspapers saying that a young white schoolteacher has been killed by the guerillas. That is not conducive to a settlement in Rhodesia. We must do

  415
  everything we can to make a settlement possible.
  In a wider African context, we must support our friends more openly and not be afraid of doing so. If we do that, I believe that we shall earn respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) referred to the enormous amount of good will that still exists in Africa for this country. It would be enhanced, not reduced, if we showed more determination to support our friends. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary indicated that he wanted to be impartial in all these African matters. That may be the ideal approach, but the Soviet Union and the Cubans are not impartial. If they support their friends I am afraid that partiality, in the form of supporting our friends, must be our watchword.
  The Soviets go in to help friendly Governments who ask them. They go in to help friendly political parties that ask them and declare them to be Governments—as they did in Angola—in order to legitimise their claim to enter those countries. If we receive an invitation to help a friendly Government we should give that help, not only in economic terms but through supplying their requirements to maintain their position.
  It is asked whether we should shore up those inferior, doubtful and questionable regimes in Africa, of which I imagine there are a number. Does anyone believe that the substitution of a Communist regime for any of them would produce a better, less corrupt or more humane government? Of course not. That is a bogus argument. We must go in to help our friends. The trouble is that we still suffer from the Western hang-up, of Vietnam in the case of America and of colonialism in the case of this country. Such thinking is out of date. It is not we but the Soviets who are the colonialists, and the people of Africa are beginning to realise that.
  The right way to organise this approach is on a European basis. We should stress more than we do the enormous aid that we are giving to countries in Africa. It far outdistances anything that the Russians do. The proportion is absurd. The vast bulk of aid to developing countries comes not from the Communists but from the West. If we stress that and
  416
  if we are seen to be helping our friends we shall win respect. We shall deserve success and we shall gain it.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point? He spoke of dubious regimes. If such regimes were our friends would he support them without regard to the abuses of human rights or other matters that they may be perpetrating? Would he support the South African Government in spite of its adherence to apartheid?
  Mr. Maudling: If we think that Government are abusing human rights we are far more likely to be able to influence them into adopting better behaviour if we are their friends than if they become Communists. That is the simple answer.
  Is it true that detente should be—as Lenin, I think, said of peace—indivisible? Does it make sense, to use a frivolous metaphor, to rub noses with a man in friendship at one end and then to kick him in the shins at the other? Does it make sense to have these differing attitudes between two groups on different things and to call that detente?
  I think that it does make sense. I think that for the time being, at any rate, we must continue with a situation where the move towards better relations is patchy and difficult, and we must deal with local problems by local solutions and particular solutions of the kind that I have been putting forward. It may come to the point when the whole effort to achieve peace and friendship will collapse, but God forbid that that day should ever come.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I am afraid that the House is sometimes a little impatient when in a debate of this kind one Privy Councillor rises after another. However, I suppose that I may, in a kind of inverted way, claim the indulgence of the House, as this may be the last occasion when I shall talk in the House on foreign affairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] That depends, of course, on a number of eventualities.
  The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said that the object, and the sole object, of foreign policy should be to protect the realm and further the interests of the British people. I suggest that that definition is like an

  417
  unstable element—the moment that one planks it down, it starts to transmute itself into something else.
  When one speaks of protecting the realm, one is obliged to think in terms of alliances, and one has to consider what are the main dangers that threaten the world. Then one has to decide what one's attitude is to be towards the causes of those dangers. If one speaks of furthering the interests of the British people, after a little reflection one realises that in the long term, the interests of the British people are the interests of mankind.
  There are short-term occasions in, say, an argument about fisheries or an argument in the EEC about agricultural policy, on which one can say "Here is a conflict of interest between ourselves and another nation". It is extremely important in foreign policy always to try to minimise that kind of thing.
  In the long term, I suppose for any nation but peculiarly for a nation that lives by international trade as much as we do, our main interest is the establishment of canons of just and civilised behaviour between nations. That was the importance of the concluding part of the speech today of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
  Therefore, even if we start with a conventional definition of foreign policies protecting the realm and furthering the interests of the British people, we find that we are obliged in the end to consider detente, the United Nations, Africa and all the rest of it. From whatever point of definition we start, we find that we are in the world, part of it, and have responsibilities and opportunities in it.
  I mentioned recognising the dangers that there are in the world. I do not think that it can be disputed that the main danger—not the only danger—is the confrontation of the two vast armed camps that we call the East and the West. There are other factors to be considered as well, but that is where the main danger lies. It is that we may not be able to keep the peace permanently between those two groupings.
  In my judgment, that conflict is basically a conflict about ideas. Some speakers have argued as though the present attitudes of the Soviet Government were simply a continuation of Tsarist imperial
  418
  ambition. I think that there may be something to be said from that point of view. It was said of one Communist leader once that whatever kind of Government exists in Russia, one still has to go through the Dardanelles to get from the Black Sea to the Aegean. There are certain factors of geography that cause some continuity of policy despite changes of regime and ideology. But I think that we must now add to that the fact that the Soviet Union has a view about how human affairs ought to be run, and a view, following Marxist philosophy, of how they probably will go, which is in conflict with what we believe in our country about human liberty and human rights. It is, at bottom an ideological conflict.
  Much has been said in the debate about the importance of standing up for human rights. However, we must notice this: a private individual or a group of private individuals can and ought to proclaim their belief in human rights emphatically, decisively and without reservation. I ask the House to consider, however, that the attitude of a Government must at times be different from that.
  Suppose that our Government are faced with, say, a gross denial of human rights by another Government towards one of our citizens. Our Government must then ask what kind of attitude would be most helpful to the unfortunate man. Is the help to be attempted by private representation? Is it to be done by public protest? Are we to think of any form of trading sanction in order to get what we want? In all these matters, the Governments are obliged to think of not only what is noble but what is prudent. That is why I think that we are unwise to try to set down absolute rules about how Governments ought to behave about trading with countries whose regimes we dislike and about selling arms to them.
  I believe that in each case one has to ask what course of action is most likely to help the human beings involved and to make it more likely that the denials of human rights will become less severe.
  That, of course, is a much more difficult job than making general proclamations about how one ought to behave towards Government with whom one disagrees, but it is a job which, if one takes foreign affairs seriously, one must undertake, and Governments are having to

  419
  undertake it all the time. I shall refer to that matter later, giving one or two particular examples.
  It seems to me that to deal with what I have described as the main threat, not only to the protection of our realm and the interests of the British people but to mankind, we must deal with the uneasy balance of terror between East and West. I still believe, despite all that has been said against detente, that the right policy for us now is to make the best we possibly can of detente. In response to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), I shall try to state one or two of the things that I think that this means.
  It means, first, a resolve to make relations as normal as possible. If a particular incident arises, we should seek to deal with it quietly and patiently by diplomacy and not to let it flare up in headlines. It means also the encouragement of trading and cultural relations between ones citizens and the citizens of the country with which one is trying to pursue detente.
  In that connection, I was pleased to see that the Foreign Secretary referred to cultural exchanges. It may seem a small matter in view of the great issues involved between the Warsaw Pact and the NATO Alliance. I am not sure that it is all that small. I believe that wherever human beings from either side meet together to discuss literature, the arts, drama, science, or whatever it may be, wherever there is a chance for them to meet and discuss freely, that is likely to redound to the advantage of the free society.
  As we are in a situation in which we cannot, by some brilliant stroke of policy, remove the danger threatening mankind overnight, we have got to plod away in anything that is useful, because we have got to continue—if we can; if the world does not take a turn for the worse—the policy of detente, the mixture of patience and firmness, for decades. That is why something that seems at first a small item, such as cultural exchanges, may prove extremely valuable. We must bear in mind that this is something with which we can go on and on for a long time.
  The Government have been told to pursue more robust action, but too little definition has been given to the word "robust" in the criticism of the Government.
  420
  Another thing that we can do is in the area of disarmament. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the position of what are euphemistically called strategic weapons is not unhopeful at present, but the arguments about trying to reach a balance of conventional weapons are still in an unsatisfactory state. Our attitude there must be to make it clear that we are ready to reduce our armaments if multilateral agreement can be reached and that if it cannot we have both the will and the power to match the conventional armaments of the Warsaw Pact. That also is something that we must make clear all the time, in the hope that in time it will be heard.
  In some of the criticism of the Government's policy towards armaments it is overlooked that we are doing exactly what our NATO allies are doing and what they want us to do. If the Opposition intend to go on making cracks about the Government's policy on defence, they should tell us whether they want the Government to go further than the present plans approved in NATO. I do not think that any responsible critic really wants that.
  It is almost an inevitable transition to move from the main East-West confrontation to Africa, although the Foreign Secretary was right to remind us that we should not talk of Africa as if it were mainly one of the fields of East-West confrontation. That is the kind of mistake that our education system used to make, in encouraging British children to grow up with the idea that the history of India started with the battle of Plassey. Africa had its own place in the world and its own relations with Europe long before we were talking about the present East-West confrontation.
  We must try to see this problem, so far as we can—again, it is not easy and requires a great effort of imagination—through African eyes. When one tries to do that it will appear that one of the first things that politically-minded Africans, responsible for the government of their countries, want is that their frontiers are respected, that they are not attacked from outside and that attempts are not made to dismember their countries.
  Admittedly, those frontiers were drawn for them by the imperial powers in the last century, but they have decided—I

  421
  think rightly—that those frontiers must be the basis on which Africa should work. Otherwise, the continent may be torn in pieces by tribal rivalries. I think that they are firmly convinced of that.
  Now they face increasing threats to those frontiers, threats to chop off parts of a country, threats of invasion by rebels of one country using a neighbouring country as a base. In asking what we should do about that, we must admit first of all that this is primarily Africa's problem and that any attempts to solve it for them over their heads will only make it worse.
  It is fair, if we do not lecture too much, to suggest to them that the problem is theirs but to add that we are not merely denying our own primary responsibility but are pointing out that it is a problem and that things will get more difficult for them if they do not find a solution. It may be that in finding a solution, occasions will arise when they will want help from particular European countries—even, in some circumstances, although I hope not too often, military help.
  The role of European countries must be to stand ready to help if it is clearly the wish of Africa that we should help. If anyone thinks that that is too humble a role for Europeans, that is simpjly Nemesis at work. In the last century much could be said about the good and ill done by European rule in Africa in the last century, but one thing has to be admitted: whether it was good or evil, it was carried out mainly for European purposes. If it benefited Africans, it did so incidentally. Europeans now must be prepared to wait a bit and help to serve African purposes. As I say, that is the Nemesis of past policies.
  Mr. Hooley: I am following my right hon. Friend's argument carefully and I agree with much of it, but surely when he says that African countries may need defence help, it is a mistake to talk in terms of Europe rather than the United Nations, because it is the responsibility of the United Nations—of course Europe plays a powerful part—to give defence assistance under the authority of the Security Council. It is not a European responsibility.
  Mr. Stewart: I think that, certainly the first time I mentioned the matter, I
  422
  referred to "European countries", thinking of them individually. If I later used the shorthand "Europe" I agree that that was an error. I should like to think that the United Nations could step forward readily and quickly to help when wanted, but we know how difficult it is. For the time being individual European countries may have to help—as indeed we gave a modest amount of help when we allowed the Nigerian Government to purchase arms in this country when it was dealing with one of those attempts to dismember Africa, the Biafran rebellion, which could have done so much injury to the whole continent.
  I cannot agree with the view of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) that all this could be done through the mechanism of the Lomé Convention. He really said:
  "In my view, such a force"
  —he was clearly speaking of a military force—
  "particularly in Africa, would be formed within the framework of the discussion between the European Community and the African members of the Lomé Convention".—[Official Report, 7th June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 237.]
  If that means what it seems to mean, it is totally the wrong way of going about this matter.
  If the first thing that Africa wants is respect for her frontiers and the avoidance of aggression and disruption, another thing that she wants is modernisation, the technology which can bring her into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and help to bridge the immense gap between their standards of life and ours. Of course African society contains people at the very simplest level of subsistence and people who are aware of all that modern technology can give. Not all in these communities live in complete ignorance of the possibilities of the world. Some still live at a low level, but others are fully aware of what can be done by wise economic policy and technical aid.
  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) for suggesting that the Community might be involved in any force provided. He quoted column 237 of the Official Report in support of that criticism. Would it not have been fairer also to quote from

  423
  the preceding column? My right hon. Friend said:
  "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".—[Official Report, 7th June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 236.]
  Surely my right hon. Friend was there making it clear that any question of a European involvement in the provision of a force was concerned with the possible rescue of Europeans in danger of massacre in African States. It would have been fairer if the right hon. Gentleman had pointed that out.
  Mr. Stewart: Even if I accepted—I am not sure that everyone who read it would accept—that interpretation of that paragraph, it would not alter the fact that the vehicle through which the right hon. Gentleman wanted it done was the Lomé Convention. All I am saying is that I think that the right hon. Gentleman got it wrong. The hon. Gentleman should not be so upset about it. It is a legitimate opinion on what I think was an error of judgment on the part of the right hon. Member for Knutsford.
  Turning to the question of the modernisation of Africa, Europe has to stand ready to help where possible. But wherever we do that, there is the danger of being accused of paternalism. If we try to monitor the giving of aid, to see that it is not wasted in inefficiency or through corruption, there is the suggestion of neo-Imperialism. What is needed is the creation of a greater measure of trust between European and African.
  I am sure that one of the legacies of Imperial rule was a deep scepticism on the part of the Africans as to the good intentions of Europe. I think that sometimes they overdo that scepticism. How can we gain such trust? One thing is clear. We must make clear the uncompromising opposition of this country to racial policies. If we do not do that we shall get nowhere. That means, I am afraid—for the sake of the Opposition—that we cannot play about urging the Government to put all of their money on the internal settlement in Rhodesia. It will not work. The attempt to thrust the prestige of the British Government
  424
  behind it will destroy the trust which we hope to get from the African people.
  The plain and terrible fact is that if the internal settlement merely goes on as it is the war will not stop. Those who are trying to make the internal settlement are those who will be defeated, with dreadful results for Rhodesia and perhaps wider afield. We must do what the Government are trying to do, namely to get all of the parties together. I do not know whether that will be successful. To attempt to do this on the basis of the internal settlement alone will fail in itself, and will create a profound distrust of British intentions.
  Similarly, we must look at some of our policies at home. I believe that the way in which we handle racial problems at home is noted in African countries. It was extremely unfortunate that a few months ago, in pursuit of ephemeral electoral advantage, the Leader of the Opposition should have made a statement which was bound to create between black and white people in this country. It was deplorable for this country and unhappy in its effects on our position in Africa. It is unfortunate too, that the Conservative majority on the greatest local authority in the country, the Greater London Council, is apparently beginning to introduce some form of apartheid into its housing policy. I hope that the Conservative Party will consider the implications of that, and how it may be interpreted.
  Mr. Douglas Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is usually fair. Can he say, with regard to that last reference, at whose request this arrangement has been considered?
  Mr. Stewart: It is at the request of the Bangladeshis.
  Mr. Rifkind: That makes a difference.
  Mr. Stewart: It does not make a difference in that, although I can see the reasons why a well-intentioned person might accept this policy, I still say that it is a disastrous one. It is an attempt to deal with a short-term difficulty in a way which will magnify difficulties in future and damage the reputation of this country.
  Foreign policy can sometimes be pursued by great striking acts that alter the whole current of events; sometimes, but

  425
  not often, particularly if a country is not a super-Power. For the most part, it must be pursued by the steady and persistent maintenance of the right policies and the right principles, the maintenance by us of a belief in human liberty, in the rule of international law, in the attempt to make detente a success, in the struggle for racial equality—and by doing all of this through the groups to which we belong, the United Nations, the European Community, the North Atlantic Alliance.
  It was once said that we had lost an Empire and not yet found a role. I suggest that the continuing pursuit of those principles in the various fora open to us is a role worth pursuing. If we lose an empire and have that role instead we benefit by the exchange.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said that this might be the last speech that he would make in a foreign affairs debate. Without wishing to probe too delicately into his prophecies and into the knowledge that he has, may I say that I hope that it is not and that between now and October we shall have other foreign affairs debates in which we shall hear him speak. I agreed with him when he said that he thought that the cry for robust policies from the Opposition had not been very well defined. We certainly had a robust speech from the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) last night which seemed to have more to do with the Tribune Group than with foreign affairs.
  The speech reminded me of an incident concerning a colleague of mine at the United Nations who found the speech of a Russian delegate. Fortunately, he was able to read Russian. The speech had in the margin "Weak point. Shout". It is easy to be robust in foreign affairs by shouting. No one would accuse the Minister of State of having shouted in his speech. There was no need for him to start with an apologia of the United Nations, saying "Everyone thinks it is so awful. I do not go along that way but I can understand peoples reservations" and all the rest. I prefer to be much more robust about the United Nations. I hope that I shall be so.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Shout.
  Mr. Thorpe: Yes, I may shout—so that the hon. Gentleman can not only hear but comprehend.
  I say to the Under-Secretary, for whom I have respect and regard, that fortunately his speech was a lecture in monotone as opposed to oratory in technicolour. If it had been the latter, it might have been more damaging in its references to the United Nations than it was. Many parts of his speech were difficult to follow. I hope that in future the Foreign Office, when it gives us speeches, will do just that and not give us lectures.
  Since the debate started, we have had the speech of President Carter in Annapolis in which he said that the stark choice for the Soviet Union was between confrontation and detente. What is also enormously important, and it is something with which I totally agree, is that the pursuit of genuine disarmament is so vital in its own right that it should not be subject to a veto on the basis that we disagree with the Russians in other spheres. In other words, the issue should stand on its own merits.
  If the political will for detente is there on the part of the Russians, we shall be able to test it very soon in the disarmament negotiations at various levels. We shall be able to test it in Vienna with MBFR. I would have liked to hear more from the Foreign Secretary as to why he had a basic optimism about this matter. It seems that progress has been very slow indeed. We have had a joint declaration between Mr. Brezhnev and Chancellor Schmidt about the acceptance of parity and equality being a sufficient defence for each side. But, apart from that, I have not seen any very great move in the direction of optimism. I hope that I am wrong and that, if there are optimistic indicators, we shall hear about them later.
  There is also the Special General Assembly in New York. I remember Henry Kissinger once saying that there was a new factor in disarmament which was that the intelligence possessed by both sides was now so refined and so expert that when the Russians told the Americans how many nuclear warheads and missiles and submariens they had they were usually right. Likewise, when the Americans tell the Russians how many they have, they, too, are usually right. Therefore, the capacity for cheating has

  427
  been considerably reduced in the past 20 years. This gives us some basis for working upon realistic figures. It will be the political will of the Soviet Union that will be tested in the disarmament talks. We have already achieved a test ban treaty in the United Nations. If the political will is there, this could logically be extended to a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing.
  Then there is the extension of nuclear-free zones. This was something put forward for Europe by Mr. Rapacki many years ago. It was shelved then for Europe but it has already been achieved for Latin America. I see no reason why it should not be achieved in the Indian Ocean.
  The possibility of a settlement on SALT II again is dependent upon political will. Confidence-building measures have already been tested in Sinai, where we have refined surveillance methods. The Prime Minister, in his speech to the General Assembly, suggested that that might be extended to a wider field.
  Then there is the question of the restriction of the sale of conventional arms. I fear that this is the area where we are most unlikely to have success. The number of wars in the world kept going by arms being sold to both sides by the richer nations is an appalling commentary. I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman up the Biafran path, but that was not a happy part of our foreign affairs.
  But, if it be correct that the political will of the Soviet Union will be tested in the disarmament talks, it would also be right that we should make disarmament a matter which is not subject to a veto because of our disagreement in other areas. Nevertheless, I think that it is still right and relevant and that we are entitled to probe Russian intentions in other areas to test their credibility. I refer here briefly to human rights and to Africa.
  There is no doubt that the Russians have been in flagrant breach of Basket III, dealing with human rights. The trial of Orlov was a travesty even by Russian law; it was in a closed court; he had no opportunity to have a counsel of his own choice. The reason why he was unrepresented was because he could only get someone on what is called the "dubov", the list kept by the KGB of people who
  428
  are approved for political trials, and even if a defendant has one of these counsel assigned to him he has to plead guilty.
  We do not know what the fate of Shcharansky and Ginsburg will be. It is also quite interesting that even one of Russia's most distinguished citizens, the cellist Rostopovich, who has had his critizenship arbitrarily withdrawn, has yet to receive any official notification from the Soviet Union. He learnt about it, and assumed it to be correct, on French television.
  I believe that the issues of human rights are issues on which public opinion in this country can exercise just as much pressure as the Government of the day, and sometimes more effectively That is why I believe—and here I agree with the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—that it is vital to indicate to the Soviet Union, as, indeed, to Latin American and other nations, that human rights is something to which we in the West attach immense importance.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's thesis that public opinion in this country can affect the Soviets. I hope that that is so. I think that I must be the only person in the House who has actually been in Soviet custody. While I was in the custody of the Red Army, I wondered how public opinion in this country and the United States, which was most certainly exercised at the time—I was in Budapest—would lead my gaolers to release me. I can see no way, in a country that has no free Press, whereby public opinion in other nations can influence the policies of the Government of that country.
  Mr. Thorpe: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that if one speaks to those who have come out of the Soviet Union—people like Bukovsky, Ludmilla Alexeyva and Amalrik, all those people who have been within the Soviet Union—one finds that there is no case that has been made more difficult as a result of pressure from without. In almost every case, they say that public opinion from abroad was helpful and that it is not merely registered by the Government of the country but filters down. When I met Bukovsky, who had been in prison for a very long time and was apparently denied all access to information from

  429
  outside, I found how incredibly well informed he was about what was happening in the world within a matter of two or three days of his arrival.
  Quite clearly the information filters down, and the Helsinki monitoring groups, who are, alas, being arrested in increasing numbers, have in Kiev, in Moscowo, the Ukraine, and various other parts of the Soviet Union had an immense effect on informing Russian public opinion. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the information about public opinion abroad does filter down. That is certainly the view of those who have been adversely treated by the authorities.
  I turn now to the question of Africa. There are two factors which I think we sometimes ignore. First, the OAU, understandably but ironically, is determined to regard the colonial frontiers which have been drawn as inviolate. Indeed, as the Prime Minister pointed out in the General Assembly, those frontiers very often cut across tribal and ethnic groupings and even families. There is a great fear in the continent of Africa of balkanisation. The only peaceful chance in any frontier that has taken place since the Second World War was in the case of the Cameroons. The British Cameroons decided by referendum to secede from Nigeria and join the Cameroon Republic. Eritrea is in a slightly different category, and I accept that something similar was done in Somalia, but it was not on the same scale.
  It was that fear of balkanisation that led to the intensity of the war in Nigeria and to the lack of support from the international community for Eritrea at the moment, for the initial attempted secession of Katanga under Tshombe and, indeed, for the present position of Shaba province, where I accept that new dimensions have been brought in as well.
  The second factor is that Africa is a continent within measurable flying time from the major Powers of the world. It is no longer—to paraphrase—a far-off continent of which we know little. That is a new factor. What is the position, and what should we he doing about Zaire?
  Clearly, in part, the invasion of Shaba province is a continuation of the civil war which followed the independence of the old Belgian Congo, although this time it has had Cuban backing. There is no
  430
  doubt that if it had been successful it would have caused a collapse of the economy of Zaire, because the main wealth of Zaire is concentrated in Shaba, and that it would have caused the fragmentation of Zaire itself and the balkanisation of that country.
  Initially, the intervention by the Belgians and the French to protect the lives of their nationals was perfectly correct, but I must confess my relief that the forces now taking over are pan-African in origin, broadly speaking, as opposed to European, because, if there is a case for stabilising the position in Zaire, it is certainly not on the basis that we regard President Mobutu as a showpiece for Western democracy. We should be very foolish if we were to be credited with that motive. Presumably it is to maintain the integrity of this country and it is to defend the economic interests of that area.
  For how long that area will be safe, if it is the subject of persistent war, is another matter. But the Belgian and French paratroopers are being pulled out, the Moroccans are moving in, American transport planes are standing by to go to Senegal and Gabon, there is intense Chinese diplomatic activity, and we now hear that Egypt is to supply arms.
  This is the dilemma. If one is opposed to the concept of military expansion, which we have clearly seen in Angola and has been attempted in Zaire, what is the answer? This is clearly not a NATO problem. Indeed, if NATO were involved, that would be the quickest way to produce a confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact Powers which could be evolved, and we should probably end by shoring up unpopular and corrupt regimes for our trouble.
  I turn now to the question of the Lomé Convention. I want to be fair to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). It was because yesterday I took the view that he was going beyond a rescue operation merely to protect nationals but had a longer-term object that I asked him what he had in mind. I said:
  "NATO is over-extended. Does he have in mind a European force, a United Nations force or an OAU force?"
  The right hon. Member for Fulham quoted the first part of the right hon.

  431
  Gentleman's answer. But it went on to say:
  "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 …"—[Official Report, 7th June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 237.]
  It is for the right hon. Gentleman to spell it out.
  However, I must confess that many of us felt that Lomé was to be extended in its scope not merely for economic cooperation but for fire-fighting protection and perhaps border and military protection as well. If the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to convey that idea, of course the House would immediately accept that. But it is only fair to say to him that that was the impression given to some of us, certainly to me. I believe that it would be a very dangerous extension of the Community's political activities were we to adopt it.
  What will be the answer in these troubled areas? I personally hope that we shall never be in a position that we shall automatically go in to prevent the status quo from being changed. I can think of many regimes which I should dearly love to see changed. I do not have merely President Amin in mind. There are clear cases where we have a treaty obligation, as in Tanzania. There are obviously clear cases where, if there was a threat to friendly Commonwealth countries, such as Zambia and Botswana, there would be very little difference between us. If Kenya was invaded by Somalia, likewise, although there was no treaty obligation, I believe that there would be very general agreement in the House.
  My own view is that the best move—here I agree with the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce)—is towards regional arrangements. As the Foreign Secretary said, the meeting of the three Presidents—President Neto, President Kaunda, and President Mobuto—is probably the best hope of getting a regional pan-African group.
  I should like to mention one other equation which has not been mentioned except by the Minister, if I heard him right. That is the United Nations. It has
  432
  generally escaped attention that when Israel invaded part of Southern Lebanon it took the United Nations Security Council only 48 hours to get agreement upon a mandate for the dispatch of troops to that area. It took a further 48 hours, by which time those troops were actually in position. That indicates that when the nations of the world wish to use the Charter of the United Nations it is there to be activated. It is perfectly true that there were troops nearby—in Golan and Sinai—and there were not enormous ballistic problems. Whenever there is the political will, the United Nations can be used. I believe that particularly developing countries—the Third world—are coming increasingly to prefer an international force to protect their security than one from one of the big Powers.
  At present there are United Nations forces in Cyprus, Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanon. Observers are still in Kashmir. There is the suggestion that they should go to Rhodesia during the transitional period if we get agreement for independence and that they should be in Namibia to oversee elections and maintain the peace. What other international body is likely to be acceptable to West and East alike? I therefore believe that we must bring very much more pressure to bear in the United Nations and take up the suggestion of Vice-President Walter Mondale that there should be a peacekeeping reserve force. If it happens to be very regionalised, it is none the worse for that. That is why I think that perhaps a regional peacekeeping force under United Nations aegis may be the solution for some of the troubled parts of Africa.
  It is for Africa itself—here I agree with the right hon. Member for Fulham—to decide what sort of assistance is needed. It may well be that our assistance will be more ballistic than in terms of manpower. In 1969 the President of the United States said that America would help but that basically the responsibility for providing manpower rested within the country itself. In May 1972 there was a joint declaration of principles signed between the Soviet Union and the United States. It said that
  "both sides recognise that efforts to obtain unilateral advantage at the expense of the other, directly or indirectly, are inconsistent with the objects of detente."

  433
  I hope that we can move and make real progress if there is the political will in the sphere of disarmament.
  If Cuba and the Soviet Union are not prepared to accept the independence, the right of neutrality and the non-involvement of many countries in Africa, I hope that Africa itself will realise the importance of moving towards a new international form of peacekeeping under the aegis of the United Nations. If we can do that, we can build on success. If not, I see the cold war becoming very much colder and, conversely, the continent of Africa in flames.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. John Lee: I do not propose to follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) save only to say that I agree almost entirely with everything he said. I would echo one thing in particular—his references to the need for United Nations involvement wherever possible.
  I wish to confine my remarks to one particular part of Africa where I had the pleasure of being a few days ago. One of my first observations would, I believe, tally with what the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks indicated. I was part of a delegation, led by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), to Ghana. It is a country which I know well but which I had not visited for a number of years. It will serve to illustrate—it is perhaps a microcosm—the kind of problems that we in the West can most constructively help to assist in solving.
  My first observation is that the present Government of that country is not a democracy. It is an authoritarian regime, although a very mild one by African standards. Indeed, it is a very mild one by the standards of many underdeveloped countries. Although there have been a number of coups in that country, so far from the people who were unsuccessful being imprisoned, or worse, I came across more retired generals in Accra playing golf seven days a week than anywhere in the world outside of Camberley.
  When I was talking to General Acheampong, the present President, there were a number of things about which he was sensitive and there were a number of things which he asked us to investigate. He was as good as his word with regard
  434
  to allowing us to see round his country. He made the observation—this is something which Conservative Members might wish to hear repeated, because it comes from a self-confessed friend of this country who is unambiguously pro-Western—that he was just as adamant in his condemnation of the French and Belgian adventure in Shaba, just as incensed at what he regarded as an impertinent throwback to imperial force majeure, as any country which might be stigmatised as being pro-Soviet. It is just as well that we choose not to offend their friends, because that is the kind of thing that will be done if European countries behave in the high-handed way in which the French and Belgians undoubtedly behaved a few days ago.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: How does the hon. Gentleman describe as "highhanded" an operation which was designed to save, and did save, the lives of a large number of European subjects who otherwise would have been done to death?
  Mr. Lee: The Government made no attempt to involve other countries in any way. One of the principal countries involved was Belgium, whose record in Africa, as we all know, stank to high heaven.
  I now turn to more uncontrovesial questions. The hon. Members who formed the delegation to Ghana were of all kinds. We largely agreed upon the kind of assistance that we should like to see. I should like to spend a few minutes talking about economic assistance, because we have heard enough about the military aspects. It is, therefore, reasonable to turn to other matters. We were all unanimously of the view that this assistance should be directed in the main towards agricultural projects. This is no criticism, because the Commonwealth Development Corporation has done yeoman work in this regard, as have all the other agencies, in many parts of the developing world. However, in recent years there has been too much attention to such things as tourism and urban development and not enough realisation that the vast majority of people in all the underdeveloped countries, almost by definition, are engaged in agriculture. Indeed, in many cases they are still at a subsistence level. If we wish to maximise the impact of any assistance that we give, it should be in the direction of

  435
  agriculture. We should assist the infrastructure in order to help to convey agricultural produce away from where it is grown.
  Among the things that the Ghanaians want are more cotton gins and better storage facilities for their cocoa, groundnuts and rice. A great deal of produce is wasted because it cannot be removed from the remote parts of the country. A great deal of the wealth of Ghana is in grave danger of being lost. There has been a continuing loss for some time because of smuggling across to the Ivory Coast.
  I was interested to hear the sensitive and civilised speech yesterday of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), in contrast to some of the speeches we have heard from other Conservatives. He spoke about African aid and he spoke in most commendatory terms about the Ivory Coast. Perhaps much of what he said was justified, but it is widely felt among the Ghanaians that the Ivory Coast is privy to the large-scale smuggling of cocoa across the Tano River to the detriment of the Ghanaian economy—particularly as Ghana has such an acute exchange control problem. The Ghanaians feel that some of the riches of the Ivory Coast are illicitly gotten.
  Among other things that were raised with us was the need for irrigation. Ghana has the largest and most ambitious irrigation and hydro-electrification project in the Volta scheme, which has produced the largest artificial lake in the continent. Although originally the reason for thinking about that project many years ago was the quest for smelting aluminium when it was ultimately decided upon, it was not primarily for that purpose but was for the purpose of promoting electrification. It does not require much imagination to realise how important electrification is for the promotion of a suitable infrastructure, without which no country can hope to be modernised.
  There were other irrigation projects which I had the privilege of seeing, one particularly at Tono, near Bolgatanga in the upper region of Ghana—a place which I have not previously visited in the seven years that I was living in that country. There is no doubt that this project is a great success. It has helped
  436
  to provide water in an and area. That part of Africa has suffered acutely from drought in the past few years, although I am happy to say that this year it has had the best rains for some time.
  The people working on that project were worried because there did not seem to be the same degree of urgency and realism over the need for post-project supervision of agricultural husbandry, which is undoubtedly necessary. In particular, there is need for supervision of the swamp rice farms that have been built below the dam area. The fear is that, unless there is someone there to supervise, the irrigation channels may be mismanaged and may silt up, as has happened at Wea, a few miles away. If that happens, the rice products will he that much less valuable and, above all, there will be a sense of disillusion and demoralisation if an imaginative project turns out to be disappointing to those who looked to it for a means of removing them from a very low standard of living. This project should be the beginning of the impulse towards modernisation of the country.
  Ghana is one country which is not the centre of attention at the moment. There are many small countries in West and West-Central Africa which fall into that category. They are not yet at the take-off point, and there is an opportunity here for us to provide a great deal of assistance.
  Of course, there is another way in which we could help if we were not members of the EEC. We could renegotiate the kind of bulk purchase agreements that were so successful in the war and immediately after the war in providing primary supplies for this country. These could provide a long and sustained source of revenue for countries where income tax collection, by virtue of illiteracy and backwardness, is not such that the Government can realistically rely on income tax for revenue. I believe that this is still the most important contribution that we can make.
  I noticed with interest that Barbara Ward—I believe that she is now Baroness Jackson of Lodsworth—in a characteristically sympathetic article in one of the Sunday newspapers, called upon the West to approach the question of the underdeveloped world with the same sympathetic imagination as was forthcoming

  437
  from the United States at the time of the Marshall Plan.
  If all the wealthy countries of the world, both inside the EEC—an organisation which is at best an irrelevance—and outside, devoted 2 per cent. of their GNP to this end, we would provide a lasting impact which would not only help to bring those underdeveloped countries out of the continuing cycle of poverty and deprivation which they have suffered for centuries for many reasons but would give us the friends that we deserve. In that way, we would do far more to head off the Russians and the Cubans and all the others who might wish to treat Africa as a Tom Tiddler's ground. That is one way in which this country could make an impact that would do us credit and reduce the influence of those countries of which so many hon. Members on both sides of the House are rightly apprehensive.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) say that because of his dislike of Mobutu's regime in Zaire he condemned the rescue operation carried out by France and Belgium. Both those countries went to the aid of Belgian, French and British citizens who were in extreme peril. The hon. Member's stance is very unusual for someone who describes himself as a social democrat. It does not seem in tone with the general remarks of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in this debate about the current situation in Africa.
  I want to comment on the Foreign Secretary's speech yesterday. It was an important statement of Government intention and policy, particularly on East-West relations and the current situation in Africa. The best summary of that speech came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who said that he was totally bemused by the Foreign Secretary's words.
  The Foreign Secretary spent a long time on and had much to say about various aspects of foreign policy, but throughout his speech it was hard to find a policy for Britain. The whole emphasis was on neutrality, particularly British neutrality towards the situation in Africa.
  438
  Obviously that is extremely desirable, but it must be totally impossible in present circumstances. If we have any desire at all to look after our economic and commercial interests and the defence interests of the West, it is impossible to imagine how we can pursue a policy of neutrality.
  Perhaps I have misunderstood the Foreign Secretary's words, but if it was not a speech pleading for British neutrality in Africa I know of no other policy which the Foreign Secretary was trying to put forward to the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman had a great deal to say about human rights, detente and the complexities of Africa. Nobody would disagree with his sentiments, but they are no substitute for a policy. There was little evidence in his speech of any leadership from Her Majesty's Government. I believe that Britain still has a role of leadership to play in the West and in the world. However, it appears that the right hon. Gentleman is content to trail behind the initiatives of France, Belgium and, now, the United States.
  Even as the Foreign Secretary spoke yesterday, President Carter was making what today's edition of The Times describes as one of the most important speeches of his presidency. In that speech, President Carter denounced the Soviet Union on its African policy and its attempts to export a totalitarian and repressive form of Government.
  I was interested to hear the Foreign Secretary yesterday refer to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. He said:
  "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."
  It may be that there is no smell of burning in Africa at present, but we should distinctly see that there is at least smoke on the horizon.
  It is gratifying that the President of the United States now sees that smoke, because in his speech yesterday he was following the tradition of John F. Kennedy at the time of the Cuban crisis and was employing similar language. Let me remind the House of the statement made by John F. Kennedy in September 1962:
  "It continues to be the policy of the United States that the Castro regime will not he

  439
  allowed to export its aggressive purposes by force or by the threat of force. It will be prevented by whatever means may be necessary from taking action against any part of the Western Hemisphere."
  Those remarks by John F. Kennedy in 1962 are just as relevant today.
  We should also recall John F. Kennedy's words in his dramatic broadcast on 22nd October 1962, when, announcing the presence of Soviet missile bases in Cuba, he said:
  "The 1930s taught us a clear lesson. Aggressive conduct, if allowed to grow unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war."
  Again, those words are just as relevant today as they were then.
  I remember at that time in October 1962 the panic and hysteria that gripped the Left in British politics and caused such tremendous scenes in Grosvenor Square, when mounted police were hard pressed to prevent hordes of people trying to tear the American Embassy apart because they were afraid that President Kennedy would be tough and would take a strong stand against the Soviet Union. They were ready to give way and to learn nothing from the lessons of the past.
  It seems from everything that has happened since then that those on the Left in British politics have no more guts today than they had then. If Cuba in 1962 was a more obvious threat to the West, events in Africa today, although perhaps less direct, are no less dangerous. That is why I found the words and attitude of the Foreign Secretary disappointing and out of tune with the gravity of the situation.
  The right hon. Gentleman put tremendous emphasis on detente, but we shall not achieve a solution to our problems by constant repetition of that word. It has taken over the position occupied by the CND 10 or 15 years ago, although without the marches in the street.
  I remember talking recently to a distinguished gentleman who has devoted a great deal of his adult life to the cause of CND and who had just returned from a visit to Russia. His view was that nuclear disarmament was the only way to cool things or to have any hope of peace in the world. Somebody in the company then asked him the simple question "What is the Russian equivalent of CND?" Despite all his experience, his
  440
  visits to Russia and his work in the cause of CND, he had to admit that there was no answer to that question, because no such equivalent exists. It is hard to imagine that there is any Russian equivalent to detente.
  The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) referred to our colonial interests in Africa as being entirely self-interest. I am sure that he would not want to spend too much time dealing with the history of our past interests in Africa, but, if we ask ourselves what our interests in Africa are today, the answer must be that they are essentially economic and that our objective, so far as it is political, is to see the development of independent and stable countries in that continent.
  What is the Russian interest in Africa at the moment? It is almost entirely political because, unlike Western countries, the Russians have virtually no need for raw materials from Africa. Their economic interest in that continent is to gain power over our supplies of raw materials.
  Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary chided us for looking at Africa in the context only of East-West relations. It might be worth while quoting what he said:
  "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."
  However one may wish to argue the point, it is fortunate for us that at last President Carter now thinks differently from the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary also said yesterday:
  "the Government stand absolutely firm on their belief that African problems are by far best dealt with by African nations."—[Official Report, 7th June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 209–17.]
  That is all very well, but what happens when those nations call on us for assistance and when the lives of British and other Europeans are in danger in Africa? Do we simply hope that somebody else—perhaps France and Belgium again, or the United States—will act for us? Is that why the Foreign Secretary turned down the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) when he referred to the possible use of NATO or the EEC?
  Much has been said about the impracticability of using NATO or the EEC in this context, but if the Government have any proposals to make on the United

  441
  Nations I hope that we shall hear them tonight. Surely, if there is any way in which we should try to find a solution to this problem, it is in the course of this debate.
  I find it difficult not to get the impression that the Foreign Secretary is afraid to dirty his hands in taking any initiative in these matters. For example, he reminded us that in 1954 the EEC failed to agree on a defence arrangement. However, a lot has happened since then. It is time to try again. A lot is happening in the Community now because it is changing rapidly. It is time that we recognised that the EEC cannot expand its membership and integrate economically at the same time.
  The political interests must dominate. Such a political interest is capable of spreading to the problem that exists in Africa. We have, after all, the economic connection with Africa. We have the humanitarian interest in Africa. It is not too much to expect the EEC to exercise some political and, if necessary, military interest in Africa.
  In summing up, I can do no better than quote from an article in The Times of 29th May this year by a former Labour Minister of State for Disarmament, which I believe was the title that Lord Chalfont then had. He said:
  "It may well be that President Mobutu of Zaire adopts ruthless and authoritarian methods to keep himself in power; but he is not alone in this, and while the West agonises about human rights the Soviet Union goes straight and unwavering to the strategic heart of the matter.
  Let no one doubt that if Mobutu is overthrown—Bishop Muzorewa in Rhodesia, Mr. Vorster in South Africa or the Shah in Iran—in a bloody and anarchic revolution, it is the Soviet Union which will reap the harvest; the West will reap only the whirlwind."
  That is the heart of the problem in Africa, a problem which, I fear, the Government do not have the heart to face.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am always mildly worried by hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) on the Conservative Benches who ask for initiatives and leadership at the same time. We should occasionally recognise that Africa is a large continent which is capable of asking for assistance when it requires it, but it is not up to us to in this country to
  442
  decide how we should react without being asked by the Africans.
  I may be unduly cynical, but I suspect that the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) let out the real reason why the Conservative Party is so concerned when he said:
  "Europe's deep dependence on Africa's natural resources, be they mineral or food, is one side of the equation."—[Official Report, 7th June, 1978; Vol. 951, c. 235.]
  He went on to say that Africa needed white managerial skills, which I do not doubt is one way in which we can assist its people. However, I suspect that that is at the root of the involvement of the Conservative Party with the future of many of the African States.
  I have been horrified by the suggestion that Lomé was to be a suitable vehicle by which to produce a police force or monitoring force to involve itself in African politics. The reason is simple. Lomé is basically a trade-and-aid convention. That is its role and that is the reason why, when it comes to the renegotiation, there will have to be a certain number of basic changes.
  In Grenada last week with the ACP States I had the opportunity of listening to those African, Caribbean and Pacific delegates who were talking precisely about the role that they felt the West should be playing particularly in the continent of Africa. It became clear that they would resent any suggestion that the Lomé Convention should be widened to take in the sort of political initiative that Conservative Members are talking about.
  In Lesotho in December the EEC and the ACP between them in the joint committee decided that they would like to include some commitment on the question of human rights. It was noticeable and mildly discouraging in the Caribbean that already there are a number of African States who are beginning to worry very much about the form of such a committee and to look hard at whether it is a demonstration of the West's desire to involve itself in the internal affairs of Africa. I do not believe that that is what a commitment to human rights would be.
  Already one African State after another is entering caveats saying "It is all very well for you, but Lomé is a trade convention. Why are you seeking to

  443
  widen it? Why are you seeking to change its application?" If that is their attitude towards a minimal commitment on human rights, we have every reason to believe that they would bitterly resent any suggestion that Lomé should be used as a means of creating a force to intervene in internal African affairs.
  Occasionally even inside the EEC we have not made up our minds what our attitude should be towards African States, particularly in trade terms. Under Lomé we give a considerable amount of assistance to agriculture infrastructure. The EDF funds are used in precisely the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) was asking that they should he used, namely, to develop agriculture industries and to provide money for the creation of new agricultural farms and for assistance, and for monitoring the spending of moneys that have already been granted.
  In terms of the marketing of the products, many of which have been produced with financial assistance from the EEC, we do everything we can to stop those goods from getting easily and efficiently on to European markets. Throughout the ACP conference there was a recurring theme of the difficulties that the African States are encountering in commodities. They are deeply worried about the sugar convention. They cannot understand the continuing barriers against products such as rum and are very concerned about the way in which the banana agreements are working.
  On the one hand, the EEC is saying "Here is your help. We will do all that we can to put money in to develop your agriculture industries." On the other hand, the EEC is saying "But please do not market your produce anywhere in the Community where it might conceivably in some way distort our trade." We have not even thought of the logical conclusion of our own actions. If we put money into mechanisation—the EEC has created an institute for industrial cooperation, presumably with this in mind—what will we do if those developing States produce goods which are in competition with our traditional internal industries? Will we then call into operation a safeguard clause and say "We are sorry, but we did not think that you were going to try to sell your goods inside the
  444
  EEC. Kindly take all of your produce and go somewhere else in the world so that you are not in any way affecting our internal industrial situation." That will not do as an attitude, and it is an attitude which is being increasingly questioned in virulent terms by the ACP countries.
  There is one aspect in which the EEC is seeking to change the Lomé Convention. It is seeking to include an agreement on cultural affairs. This is a subject that has been widely debated by the ACP. It demonstrates one of the fundamental problems that we are facing within that organisation. No one likes to discuss it, but there is a deep divide between the Francophone African countries and the Anglophone African countries. The attitude of many of them towards the French and Belgian intervention in Zaire was very much dictated by the background that they had to their own political situation. Many of the Francophone African States have come through a period of colonial history to regard themselves as closely linked to France in a way that Anglophone African countries never have. They regard the creation of a force which invades another African State in defence of its own nationals as a justifiable attitude.
  That is not the general view of other African States, many of whom believe that the Government of Mobutu was not one that the democratic West should be seen to be supporting. They did not believe that that was a way in which the furtherance of democracy would be assisted.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Lady surely cannot use the word "invasion" when the Government of that State, whatever other States may think about it, invited in the force and when the object of that force was to save innocent lives.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a great point about innocent lives, but many Africans were killed not only in the recent invasion but in the invasion that took place a year ago. I would feel more comforted if I heard the same degree of defence of African lives lost in this incident that we have heard in respect of European lives. I deeply deplore the loss of any human life, black or white, and that point

  445
  should be made much more strongly by Western Governments.
  I do not believe that we shall do anything to assist political stability inside Africa if we seek to create what is, in effect, a policing force from outside the African continent, or even use what are seen by many African States to be subsidiaries to Western interests with an ex-colonial involvement. If we even discuss the suggestion that the Lorne Convention should be used as this sort of vehicle, we shall be distorting the attitude of many ACP countries that most need this sort of trade and aid assistance.
  The right hon. Member for Knutsford, who threw this suggestion into the arena, far from assisting, was confusing the issue. I believe that Britain has taken exactly the right attitude. Where we can give aid and assistance, particularly medical assistance, and where we are asked to do so by the people concerned, we should do so. To suggest that it is only by using force of the sort that Army units must constitute that we have a role to play in Africa is to ignore all the most important prejudices and involvements of the African people.
  The Lomé Convention needs to be renegotiated within less than two years. Already many African States have strong doubts whether they should remain within the convention. They are already beginning to question the positive benefits and to say that they require much greater evidence of good will on the part of the EEC than they have seen demonstrated in the trade arrangements up to now.
  Why, for example, is the EEC, which could easily import cane sugar from outside and is eternally giving various commitments to the cane-growing countries, still prepared to support the growing of sugar beet and the creation of other forms of sugar inside the Community? If it genuinely believes that it should assist developing countries it must give practical demonstrations of that belief.
  When we renegotiate the Lomé Convention, the worst thing that we could do would be either to suggest that cultural agreements should be included, because they would widen the scope of the convention, or to ignore the need for just a minimum commitment on human rights. Human rights in Africa will always be a sensitive and worrying political subject
  446
  and this House would be failing in its duty if it did not say plainly that it believes that a great deal of the destiny of Lomé countries is in their own hands, but that Britain believes that it should support those countries when they are seeking to move towards democracy and would welcome the inclusion of even a minimum commitment to human rights within a renegotiated Lomé Convention.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Amery: The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) obviously speaks with considerable knowledge of the Lomé Convention and the States that make it up. I would not presume to pronounce in any definite way on whether the Lomé Convention is the right vehicle for a force of intervention, but it is a travesty of the facts for the hon. Lady to suggest that the motivation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) was neo-colonialist. President Houphouët-Boigny and President Senghor have both made clear that they regard it as one of the responsibilities of the West, and of Europe in particular, to help defend Africa against external aggression from Soviet and Cuban forces.
  The hon. Member for Crewe pointed out the difference in the reactions of the Anglophone and Francophone African States. Perhaps the Francophone States are more realistic, more Cartesian in their approach. They have been spared the infection of Fabian thought which has infected the leaders of some of our former colonies. Seriously, though, it is absurd to suggest that the Mobutu regime is regarded as one that we should not support in the interests of democracy.
  I hold no brief for President Mobutu or his system. The economy of Zaire has been in chaos for a long time, but so was the economy of Zambia and the political regime in Zambia is as open to accusations of inefficiency and corruption as is the regime of Zaire. We should not allow ourselves to dwell too much on these aspects of the problem.
  The question is whether African countries can be allowed to evolve in their own way without external intervention and, if there is to be external intervention—as there is—what are we to do about it?

  447
  Turning to the Foreign Secretary's speech, I am told that some years ago Anthony Eden and Ernest Bevin crossed the Atlantic by boat together. When they got to the other side, Lady Violet Bonham-Carter, the mother-in-law of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked Mr. Bevin "How did you get on with Anthony?" Mr. Bevin replied "I like Anthony very much, but his talk is 'clitch, clitch, clitch'". That is a good description of the speech of the Foreign Secretary. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). What is meant by the continuous references to detente? The Foreign Secretary told us that detente has made considerable progress and that the Soviet Union is sincerely and deeply committed to detente. He said that he believed in dynamic and not passive detente.
  I have been trying to think where there has been any detente at all. It seems to me that there is a great deal less detente than when I was at the Foreign Office between 1972 and 1974. The only area in which there seems to be some optimism is the SALT II negotiations. It seems that there is a chance that agreement will be reached there, but I share the anxieties of Chancellor Schmidt, who has said that it is all very well for the Americans and Russians to reach an agreement that may enhance their mutual safety but it is not much good if that increases the danger to Europe and China.
  Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman was not at the Foreign Office at the time of the expulsion of the 105 Soviet diplomats in 1971. Without raising the rights and wrongs of that affair, I think he would agree that from 1972 onwards relations between this country and the Soviet Union were not at their best.
  Mr. Amery: I found them extremely cordial. I saw a great deal of the Soviet Ambassador—
  Mr. MacFarquhar: Making protests.
  Mr. Amery: —and other ambassadors of the Eastern bloc. I visited Poland, Hungary and Romania and was well received. I cannot complain about the atmosphere in those days. It was the
  448
  pre-Angolan period. We should not for one moment apologise for of hesitate to congratulate ourselves on the expulsion of the spies who proliferated in Britain.
  Where else has detente made any progress? It is true that we have fed the Soviet bloc and some of its satellites. We have done so cheaply. However, I read this morning that the poles are having trouble paying for the grain with which they have been supplied. We have supplied the Soviet bloc with a great deal of technology on credit, and at lower rates than those at which our own people can borrow. The debts that have piled up with the Eastern bloc now total about 55 billion dollars. It remains to be seen how those debts are to be paid. On the whole the credit record of the Eastern bloc has not been bad, but an extremely large sum remains to be paid. No one quite knows how it is to be covered.
  We know that there has been a steady build-up of conventional forces throughout the Eastern bloc, which gives it a great preponderance in Europe and in the Far East. There has been a similar buildup of tactical weapons. That is an area in which the Eastern bloc had previously not advanced so much. It has now developed the SS20 and other weapons that are a standing danger to Britain and are not covered by the SALT Agreement.
  We have seen the advance of Soviet imperialism in Central Asia—in Afghanistan—as well as in Africa.
  In an extraordinary comment the Foreign Secretary said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 7th June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 209.]
  I was in a sensitive defence post at that time, and I must tell the House that it never crossed my mind that there could be war over the Cuban crisis. That was because the Americans had complete nuclear supremacy.
  The whole object of the Soviets in putting missiles into Cuba was to be able to reach areas of the United States that they could not reach from the Soviet Union. There were only two problems that caused us anxiety. I think that I saw most of the telegrams and messages that went between us and the Americans. One problem was if the Americans should

  449
  flinch, and the other was if we left no way out for a reasonable retreat on the part of the Soviets.
  In fact, we left a way out. We are now paying the price for it. The way out that we left was an assurance by President Kennedy that he would do nothing to destabilise the Castro regime. The peoples of Angola and Ethiopia are paying for that today.
  It is naïve to think that we have made progress since that time. In fact, we have gone back. In the days of Khrushchev there were elements in the Soviet Union that were prepared to stand up to the military. They no longer exist. The military-industrial complex is, alas, in almost total control of the Soviet Union's policy. As a high-grade Eastern European commissar told me not long ago, even if Brezhnev had wanted to stop the Angolan adventure he could not have done so.
  The Foreign Secretary should look a little deeper into the problem and should study the causes of Soviet imperialism and not merely the symptoms. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Opposition exaggerating the symptoms in Africa and not examining the causes. He should consider the causes in the Soviet Union. He should consider the strength of the military-industrial complex and the growing anxiety within the Soviet Union about its energy shortage. It will be a net importer of oil in two or three years. He should bear in mind the difficulties that it has with its subservient or subject nationalities.
  The situation is not all dark. There is good news about NATO. It seems that we are all slightly to increase our effort to defend ourselves against the growing multiplication of tanks and aircraft from the other side. It is good news that Mr. Brzezinski has been to China and that the Americans and the Chinese are strengthening their relations. It is good news that the Japanese seem likely to conclude a peace treaty with China. I believe that that can be done without any sacrifice of old friends such as South Korea and Taiwan. At present the Chinese are still militarily weak. They need American support, just as the Americans and Japanese need their presence. I believe that there is a foundation for substantial understanding
  450
  among the United States, Japan and China. It will be up to the Japanese to strengthen their military effort in the years to come so as to take on rather more of the responsibilities than they can today.
  The real danger to the world is not in Europe or in the Far East—that is my hope—but in the area between. It lies in the threat to the trade routes of the world and in the threat to the sources of raw materials. The exits from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean is already under Soviet control. I saw that for myself when I flew out of Djibouti the other day. As the aircraft in which I was a passenger moved a little to the right. Russian air traffic control at Aden said "If you come any nearer, we shall shoot you down." We moved a little in the other direction and air traffic control in Ethiopia, Russian again said "We shall shoot you down if you come any nearer." That exit is no longer free.
  The exit from the Persian Gulf, where the oil comes from, is still free. However, it is interesting that the nearest Soviet-controlled airfield is only 300 miles from the Straits of Hormuz at the east end of the Aden Protectorate, and with the absorption of Afghanistan into the Soviet Central Asian system it is only 300 miles from the south of Afghanistan to the Straits of Hormuz.
  The Straits of Malacca, which were protected for a long time by Britain and Australia, are now not protected by any naval power. The Cape route is still open, although from Luanda, Maputo and Nacala it can be threatened. What I have said about the threat from Aden to the Straits of Hormuz is enough to indicate the danger to our vital oil supplies.
  I turn to Africa. I think Sir Winston Churchill once said that the purpose of recrimination is to prevent the repetition of error. More than two years ago in a debate on Central and Southern Africa, when it was thought that our interest was only in what might be called European-led Southern Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) and I both said that we thought Zaire would prove to be the next victim on the list. It very nearly has been, and it still may be.
  I understand the Foreign Secretary's argument that we must not consider

  451
  Africa as exclusively an East-West problem. We know that. Anyone who has studied the history of British or French imperialism knows perfectly well that most inroads were made by using and exploiting tribal disputes and divsions. The Soviets are doing the same. However, what the Foreign Secretary said on the subject was juvenile. He said that the central problem is economic social and political and that the military problem is merely the symptom. Unfortunately, it is the other way round. What he was saying was either naive or cynical.
  There would be no serious disturbance anywhere in the African continent without Soviet intervention. There would have been no MPLA Government established in Angola without. There would have been no Agostinho Neto Government established in Angola without Soviet-Cuban intervention There would be no serious guerrilla movement challenging the status quo in South-West Africa or in Rhodesia unless it had been equipped and indoctrinated by the Soviets. There would be no war—the Foreign Secretary was the first to admit it yesterday—between Somalia and Ethiopia if the Soviet Union had not equipped both sides. First it backed Somalia, only to change sides and support the Ethiopians. The resistance in Eritrea is largely fomented by arms given to the Eritreans originally by the Soviet Union. There is even the same situation in the South Sahara.
  None of these conflicts could have escalated to the dimension that has been achieved today without Soviet intervention. It is perfectly true that the basic problem that must be solved is economic, social and political. I could not agree more. But let us think of what is involved in the relationship of the military to the economic, social and political account.
  It took the French and Belgian paratroops 48 hours to recover Kolwezi. It would take—I speak with some experience of these matters having been at the Colonial Office and seen something of administration—a dozen years to restructure Zaire and make it into a viable, modern State.
  Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary took credit for his policy in the Horn of Africa. He said that, because we had stood back, not intervened and not encouraged the invasion of the Ogaden, that
  452
  had strengthened our position for intervention in Zaire. I wonder whether it crossed his mind or the minds of his colleagues that if there had been resolute action in the Horn of Africa the Cubans and the Soviets would not have dared to authorise the raid into Zaire. It was the appeasement policy steadily pursued by the West in Angola and in the Horn of Africa which encouraged the new adventurism. Every time that we appease and stand idly by and allow these things to happen, there will be more aggression.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked a lot about principle. What principle was he advocating? It was not clear to me. He said that our policy was to be based on principle. At one time the principle was majority rule. We threw over the idea of majority rule in Rhodesia several months ago with the Anglo-American plan. We are concerned not with getting majority rule, but with getting the Patriotic Front included in the settlement. It has been the same with South-West Africa.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet pointed out, Mr. Nkomo's little speech at his birthday party yesterday was not encouraging for the kind of solution that we want to see. It seems odd that the Foreign Secretary should denounce Soviet-Cuban aggression in Africa and say that it is unacceptable but not indicate what he intends to do about it and that he should at the same time continue to give support to political leaders who spend half their time in Moscow and the other half in Cuba.
  I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary read about the dissident leader from the SWAPO movement, now in England, who yesterday said that we should accept and stand by the agreement reached between South Africa and the five Western Powers. It looks for all the world as though we are trying to run out on it and to make the South African raid into Angola the excuse for going back on that agreement. I hope that this is not true, but it looks as though that may be the case. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will be able to clear up that matter.
  The new policy seems to be not about principles but about dealing with people who have the power. Well, Vorster and

  453
  Smith have the power, but the Government will not deal with them. The right hon. Gentleman protests too much. He is talking not about principle but about expediency—anything to avoid the dreaded confrontation with the Soviets.
  The situation in Africa is not lost by any means. If we were to give genuine help to the Somalis and to the Eritrean Liberation Movement and if the French were persuaded to stay in Djibouti, the Soviets would find themselves with their Cuban allies in a landlocked Ethiopia and have little choice but to negotiate the evacuation of Cubans from that area.
  Zaire can be saved by the necessary mixture of whatever African forces—Moroccan and Egyptian—are now moving into the country, with French help. I should like to hear more generous praise for the action of the French. It seems to me that they have spoken for Europe in this critical situation.
  We have to think not only of economic, social and political change, which is slow, but of some military measures. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford was absolutely right to insist on the importance of this aspect.
  I do not know whether the Minister has seen the new proposal which has emerged about Rhodesia. I gather that Mr. Sithole has proposed that the British Government should appoint an observer to sit on the Executive Council, the Ministerial Council and even on the military Security Council, not to intervene, not to sabotage what they are doing but just to see and to report back whether this is a genuine operation. Mr. Graham and his American colleague are in Salisbury now. It would be interesting to know the reaction of the Government to what seems a constructive proposal. Will the Minister also make clear our attitude to the South-West African settlement agreed with Mr. Vorster not long ago? Are we standing by that or are we giving it up because SWAPO does not seem to be co-operating?
  It is difficult to escape the impression that Her Majesty's Government are following what might be called the weaker strand of American policy—that they are, as it were, helping Ambassador Young, whom some of us had the opportunity to hear privately in committee recently and to form our own judgment
  454
  on his views, against the slightly stronger line advocated by Mr. Brzezinski.
  Frankly, we are seeing a new situation. I say "a new situation", but it has been developing for three or four years. From the end of the war for a generation, American leadership and American economic and military power assured the prosperity and security, broadly speaking, of the free world. Then came defeat in Vietnam, devaluation of the dollar and the Watergate crisis.
  Defeat in Vietnam meant that the Americans were no longer prepared to undertake any large-scale military commitments overseas, except perhaps in Europe. Devaluation of the dollar meant that, although they had at last achieved their ambition of making the dollar the only reserve currency in the world, the Americans were not prepared to administer it with the disciplines necessary to make it a valid reserve currency. Watergate meant that the authority of the White House, as we had known it from Roosevelt to Nixon, had been eroded and would no longer command the same importance in the world, at any rate for several years to come.
  We are facing what I might call 1947 in reverse. In 1947, Ernest Bevin in office, Winston Churchill in Opposition and West European leaders turned to the Americans and said "You must come and help us." NATO, the Truman doctrine and the Marshall Plan grew out of that. Now it is the other way round. The Americans are signalling to us and to the Japanese to play a larger part than we have played so far. If we fail to respond, it will be at our cost and at the cost of the whole free world.
  Of course, Britain cannot carry the burden alone, but we have had a traditional role—that of being the nucleus of alliances. We have the European Community, we still have some connections with the Commonwealth and we still have some special understanding with the United States. We have been enabled in the past to stand up to threats of hegemony by the Spanish, the French and the Germans.
  We know where the danger comes from today. What Sir Neil Cameron said in Peking was perfectly true. Everybody knows it and no one in his heart can criticise it.

  455
  We need to give a lead to Europe and to the United States. We must persuade the Americans not to become the policemen or the bankers of the world again but to give strong support to policies which we in Europe, given a year or two years, are caable of undertaking by ourselves and which Britain can play a major part in shaping. The Government are not doing that.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. May I, on behalf of the 21 hon. Members who are still hoping to speak before 9 o'clock, express their appreciation for any brevity which can be introduced into the speeches which are to be made?
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: I am happy to follow the right hon. Member in one way; I acknowledge the value of the operation conducted by the Belgian paratroopers who succeeded in saving, among many others, the daughter of two of my constituents. I am happy to acknowledge the importance of that action. I shall not deal with the arguments of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), partly because of your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nor do I wish to recriminate. The right hon. Member's error is too deep-seated for reform. In many cases our analysis of some aspects of Soviet activities might be the same, but we would disagree about how we should approach a solution. With respect for the right hon. Gentleman's many years in the House, I submit that many of the methods that he suggests—although he does not always give concrete substance to them; he talks about robust responses, without specifying them—would be too simple and too dangerous to put into operation.
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who stressed that if Iran or other countries "went", as Lord Chalfont said, the Russians would gain, that this is the type of remark that was made—with some temporary justification—when Farouk went. Certainly, Egypt did for a time go under Russian influence. I do not wish to rehash the unhappy episodes of that period. Egypt, which has experienced the problems of a
  456
  relationship with the Soviet Union, has now come out of that relationship.
  The right hon. Member for Pavilion might remember the speeches that he probably made about China in the middle and early 1950s. Today, he said that American and China should be great friends. China was Russia's greatest coup and greatest loss. Today the right hon. Gentleman celebrates that Soviet defeat, which has nothing to do with us, by saying that the Americans and the Chinese should get together. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to sit back, relax, keep their nerve and remember that history has shown us that the Soviet Union is not as all-powerful and all-knowing as some Opposition Members suggest.
  I shall stick my neck out, as did the Minister, by not addressing myself any more to the question of Africa and the East-West arena. I wish to concentrate on an area which is in some ways more challenging, has been more challenging and will continue to be more challenging even than the East-West conflict, though of course I agree that there are great dangers in the nuclear and conventional arms race.
  I wish to talk about East Asia—China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, the countries of the old Chinese cultural area, which today obviously include Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. This is not an obviously homogeneous area; it cuts across many of the conflicts in the world: East-West, North-South, big and small, divide that area. But it has posed important challenges to Western industrial civilisation in the past. It still poses that challenge and will continue to do so. In history the only substantial military challenges to the modern West were posed first by the Japanese to the Russians at the beginning of the century and to the Americans, ourselves and others in the Second World War. The Chinese and the North Koreans fought the Americans to a draw in Korea and the North Vietnamese successfully fought first the French and then the Americans.
  It is easy to say that if the Americans had used all their power they might have won in Korea or Vietnam. But if we examine realistically the struggles that have taken place against Western forces and the effort by the Koreans and Chinese

  457
  in Korea and the Vietnamese in their own country, we must be convinced that this has been a military challenge to the West with no equal, other than the earlier Japanese ones.
  At present there is a major economic challenge which we sometimes debate and about which we often ask questions. What are the main threats as seen by many people in this country to our economy? The threats are seen to be coming from the Japanese through their cars, television sets and other modern equipment. But other parts of East Asia—South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan—equally pose threats to some of our industries. If the Chinese People's Republic modernises at the rate that it hopes to do in the next 25 years there might be another major challenge to our export industries.
  Everyone is obsessed with the Arab oil challenge. But that is a short-term challenge. The resources will not last much beyond the end of the century. It is a less serious challenge fundamentally, because it is based upon the fortuitous possession of a resource rather than on the massive effort of the peoples of those countries.
  The only major political challenge to the West in the last 100 years has come from China. It has posed a challenge to another Western doctrine—that of Communism as represented by the Soviet Union. Maoist-Communism is in disfavour in its homeland, in so far as it has been distorted, so it is alleged, by the Gang of Four. But China has attempted and is still attempting to evolve a distinctive form of society from the Western model which it orginally copied through Marxism.
  It is legitimate to ask why the area has posed so many challenges—in some cases successful challenges—to the West when other areas have failed to do so. The reasons include the great self-confidence conferred as a result of the long and continuous cultural tradition of this area; also because large parts of it were only partially taken over by the West. The great Chinese administrative tradition which spread to other parts of the area and which resulted in viable political structures within well-defined geographical areas emerging. Another reason is the cohesive social structures which
  458
  have been used as building blocks for modern societies. Whereas to many countries, modernising social structures means that they want to get rid of something—such as the tribal system in Africa and the caste system in India.
  As an example of the cohesiveness of social control in those countries it is interesting to examine the success of one of the most important aspects of economic development—the birth control campaign. Let us examine the records of Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and the other countries in that area. Their birth rates have now fallen to below 2 per cent., or only just above that figure. But the other super developing nations, such as Iran and Brazil, have birth rates of 3·8 per cent. and 3·7 per cent. Because they do not have appropriate social and administrative structures they have not managed to tackle the problem and to bring down their birth rates to manageable proportions.
  Another reason why this area has emerged as a challenge to Western civilisation is the enormous stress which traditionally is put on education. I have a range of statistics but I shall not use them for lack of time. They indicate the greater progress of schooling and the drive against illiteracy in this area compared with many far richer countries with more resources.
  I turn to the question of the reaction of the West to this dynamic area with over 1,000 million people. The reaction of the West has been exclusion. We attempted to exclude the Japanese in the 1920s from being one of the great military Powers. We are attempting at the moment to some extent to limit Japan and the super developing nations, such at South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, from total entry into our markets. The United States first, and then the Soviet Union, have attempted to exclude Communist China from its rightful place in the world. Exclusion is not a viable approach to this dynamic area. There must be incorporation and co-operation with the countries in it. The question is: how can this be attained?
  First and foremost, we need to study the area far more deeply than we have in the past. There is no question but that the Japanese and many other countries in the area have made a considerable study of our societies, our languages

  459
  and our markets, and that is a major reason for their success. We have not reciprocated in that way. I do not suggest that we should redirect every student of French to study Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese or Korean, but on a European basis we should look at this dynamic area and consider what we are to do to meet its countries on their terms as well as ours, so that we are not hostile to these countries with which we must live. I suggest that greater study of the cultures, languages and societies of those countries is long overdue and must be undertaken on a European basis.
  We come next to consultation. The unofficial trilateral commission set up some years ago under the aegis of Dr. Brzezinski and with the participation of President Carter and many others of his Administration is a first unofficial attempt to incorporate Japan within the community of the industrialised democratic States. I believe that we should now make an attempt to bring in the other countries of this area so that we may talk to them, discuss our problems and theirs, and avoid finding ourselves in the situation where suddenly the EEC Commission decides, perhaps as a result of an approach from the British or some other Government, or as a result of complaints by hon. Members, to impose a tariff, to exclude a particular class of goods, or to apply a quota. It should be possible for those countries to exercise restraint. That is necessary from our point of view. But it should be done in an arena of consultation, not in an atmosphere of confrontation.
  In the case of Japan this means that we should emulate the United States a bit more and have far greater dealings with Japan. We tend at present to meet Japan only across the conference table, when we are demanding that it limits its exports. It is important to have far more regular political relationships with those countries so that when economic problems crop up they are seen as part of an overall process of negotiation and relations.
  There is the need to incorporate the Chinese Peoples Republic into a relationship of greater solidarity with the Western powers. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) dredged back, quite righty, into his memory and
  460
  rebuked some of his more simplistic colleagues who say without thinking that America, the West and the Chinese must quickly come together and adopt a common anti-Soviet attitude. The right hon. Gentleman recalled the time when Ribbentrop and Molotov came together and suddenly outflanked us all. What he did not tell us—perhaps because he did not remember it—was that that pact followed several years during which the Soviet Union was seeking to make some kind of a deal with the West against Nazi Germany. It was when it failed in that attempt that the Russians decided that they had to protect themselves by making a pact with the Nazis. I do not wish to draw any exact parallels; I wish simply to point to an inexact historical analogy by the right hon. Member.
  It is important for the West to have a good relationship with the Chinese People's Republic, which I have had the privilege recently of visiting once again. If that relationship includes the sale of arms, that issue must be faced. It should be faced sooner rather than be allowed to drag on so that no decision is made one way or the other. We should decide whether arms sales to China are any different from arms sales to the other nations that we supply. We must be sure that whereas we would not want arms sales to China to make our relationship with the Soviet Union deteriorate, we do not want our relationship with the Soviet Union to dictate to whom we sell arms.
  I suggest, therefore, that in all these ways—consultation, study and political links and, possibly, in the case of China, arms sales—we should attempt to grapple with what I call the challenge of East Asia. I do not suggest that we in the West must form some kind of special relationship with those diverse nations certainly not to the exclusion of traditional ties with, for instance, India and the other nations of the sub-continent which we in this House hold very dear. But if we look beyond the crises in Africa which are important but are nevertheless to some extent transitory, to where the real challenges to the West arise—I use the word "challenge" in the sense of something to which we have to rise—we shall see that our attention should be focused on East Asia, and the sooner we, as Europeans, study them and deal with them the better.
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: Having heard every speech but two in the debate yesterday and today, I feel quite an expert on it, an honour I share with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Before trying to bring together some of the interesting and surprising threads of the debate, I want to spend a moment on a totally uncontroversial matter which is seldom mentioned in the House. Few right hon. and hon. Members today can afford, because of the high rate of taxation, to travel round the world and meet their political opposite numbers. We therefore depend very much upon the parliamentary institutions to give us the opportunity of such visits. I am thinking of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. I have not been a member of a CPA delegation—I am saving that up with rain checks for the future. In the IPU we have the extraordinarily valuable exchange visits through which are made friendships which last a parliamentary lifetime. Then there are the preparatory and main conferences which take place in the spring and autumn each year.
  The British delegation contributes a great deal in parliamentary expertise to the debates at those conferences, and when hon. Members from both sides of the House speak at them they bring a breath of fresh air to the debates because we are probably among the very few who are not reading briefs provided for us by our Government. We also learn the way in which the minds of other parliamentarians work when we attend drafting committees.
  I shall have to drop out of my speech the best two stories that I had intended to tell. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Very well, if hon. Members are to take it as badly as that, perhaps I shall just mention one occasion in a drafting committee when it was said that it must be made clear that mercenaries fighting against liberation forces were to be severely dealt with. I said "I quite agree about that, but what about saying all mercenaries'?" There was dead silence, and then a roar of laughter. The deputy from Zaire said "Mr. Page, I do not think that you understand anything at all."
  462
  Then this spring we came to a brief which condemned
  "those imperialist States which, in violation of the United Nations decisions and resolutions, continued to collaborate with the racist regimes of Southern Africa."
  I said "Well, Switzerland does a lot of trade with Rhodesia and South Africa, but I am not sure that Switzerland is an imperialist State." The representative from Zambia said "We must put it in to differentiate between countries such as us, who deal with Rhodesia, and countries such as yours." These standards have taught me a lot.
  Briefly, I think that the Council of Europe, as the Minister of State has said most eloquently on a previous occasion, is the bridge between the Nine, or whatever it is now, and the wider Europe, which is something that is appreciated. WEU is also valuable in that the French can discuss foreign affairs and military affairs outside the NATO conference.
  I now turn to the main part of my speech. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) will rattle his watch in about 10 minutes' time. A sermon with more than one text is usually particularly boring, but tonight I have four which are so good that I feel that my colleagues in the House will enjoy them.
  The first text is from the Foreign Secretary's speech, as reported at column 217, when he said:
  "the Government stand absolutely firm on their belief that African problems are by far best dealt with by African nations."
  That is one thread. Then—column 219—the Foreign Secretary said:
  "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."
  That is thread number two.
  Thread number three is—column 220 —when the Foreign Secretary said:
  "We have to live with the Government who are there."
  Whatever Government are there, that is the one we have to live with. He went on to say:
  "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".
  Those are from the Foreign Secretary.

  463
  I have just a quick one from my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), who made a remarkable speech except for the odd swipe at Rhodesia. It was a speech that I should have thought might have come from a withered branch of the British raj, such as myself, rather than from an ongoing, forward-thinking chap such as he. I was amazed by it. He was differentiating between the Francophone and the Anglophone countries in Africa and extolling the virtues of the French approach to their ex-colonial territories. As reported at column 293, he said:
  "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.—[Official Report, 7th June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 217–93.]
  My hon. Friend said that the results were astonishing.
  I thought that this was the kind of neocolonialism of which I might often have been accused and which we were all supposed to condemn. But the fact is that it all makes sense and it all rings true. The French have succeeded. Whereas the British left a brilliant civil service and ignored the politicians, the French encouraged their politicians and did not mind about the civil service. That, perhaps, is a lesson for us here as well.
  Finally, my prize, I think, is contained in column 297, and it is from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). He said:
  "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 and the Soviet State, trying to extend its influence wherever it can."
  The hon. Member went on to say:
  "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."—[Official Report, 7th June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 297–8.]
  That was good stuff, I thought, from the hon. Member for Walton. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) is not now present, because I thought that she might blanch if she heard what such an honourable sprig of the Tribune Group had said. Those are the strands which I want to join together.
  I was going to mention, turning to the whole question of Southern Africa, the
  464
  daunting speech of the Prime Minister during his amazing interview, which I think is the worst example of appeasement that I can remember since being taken to Belgrave Square as a child to watch Mr. Chamberlain coming back from Munich waving a piece of paper in his hand. It was particularly damaging, and damaging at a particularly serious time.
  On a slightly less serious note, though, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not, I think, listen to some of the trash on the television as I did during the recent recess. However, I watched the programme "Fawlty Towers". I was amazed at the attitude of the owner of that hotel. In appearance, he looked like a youthful edition of the Prime Minister. "Fawlty Towers" reminded me so much of the Cabinet. The way that the manager appeared to believe that this was the only realistic voice in a muddled world, at the moment when he was causing chaos out of order, also reminds me of the Prime Minister, who seems to give that impression. He is actually the only muddled voice in a realistic world.
  Drawing those threads together, it must mean that in the context of Rhodesia we should give full support to the internal settlement that is under way there. It is only with the internal settlement that the key workers are likely to stay. It is only in that way that the interests of Britain will be served; it is only if the Africans are allowed to make their own solution. I believe that the Rhodesians are as much Africans as anyone else in Africa. As I have said previously, to talk of them as white settlers would be as offensive as talking about the immigrants in my constituency as black settlers here.
  I turn to Namibia. There are some direct questions which I hope the Minister will answer tonight. The South Africans have agreed to leave Namibia by the end of 1978. As far as I know, they have agreed to all the terms that the five white members of the Security Council have laid down for their support, the most important being one man, one vote elections, the elections to be supervised by the United Nations, and a drastic reduction of troops on the Angola border from probably 12,000 or 15,000 now to 3,000 in all.

  465
  I am a bit of a new Columbus myself, but I think that it has done me no harm to have gone to the Angola border in Namibia and seen the terrain. It is very doubtful whether such a small number of South African troops will keep that long border secure. I doubt whether 4,000 or 5,000 fresh United Nations troops, even if they wanted to, would be able to keep the border secure from the marauders coming from Angola, where they are given help and training by Cubans and East Germans.
  This is what has been agreed. It was said that when this agreement had happened, the United Nations commissioner would arrive in Windhoek to take over the supervision of the elections and the placing of United Nations observers and so on. But he is not there, because SWAPO has said "No, you cannot come." It seems that SWAPO has a veto in the United Nations and that the five members of the Security Council are accepting that veto.
  I believe that SWAPO will not come because it is afraid that, if it agrees to take part freely in the elections under United Nations supervision, it will lose out to the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance, the multi-racial, multi-tribal Alliance which will give security to the new nation of Namibia and prosperity in future.
  What is SWAPO? There is tremendous rivalry within the organisation. About 1,200 SWAPO members are under protective arrest in Zambia, but I am delighted to hear that it seems that Mr. Shepanga, who has been in one of the toughest gaol in Tanzania, has been let out. I was delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said about his speech over here. This is supposed to be a liberating army. Who will liberate the liberators from their arrest?
  The next reason, perhaps, is that the people in Namibia know what SWAPO is about. I should like to quote from what Sam Nujona said in a television broadcast in America. The interviewer said:
  "Yes, but once there is black majority rule, there is black majority rule. Is it not so? What more do you want?"
  Mr. Nujona replied:
  466
  "The question of black majority rule is out. We are not fighting even for majority rule. We are fighting to seize power in Namibia for the benefit of the Namibian people. We are revolutionaries. We are not counter revolutionaries. You can talk to Kapuuo"
  —Chief Kapuuo, who was tragically killed by SWAPO—
  "Kerina and all those reactionaries about majority rule and not to SWAPO."
  Is that not a clear exposition about this group of people, who I do not believe represent more than a small percentage of the people of Namibia? It is these people who seem to have a veto on the whole of the United Nations and all the five Security Council members.
  When will the United Nations commissioner take up his post in Namibia? Will the British Government inform SWAPO that it does not have a veto on these elections, that the international community is satisfied with the arrangements made and that, if SWAPO does not wish to take part and leave its arms behind, it is up to no international organisation to see that it does?
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Since my appeal to the House, 35 minutes have gone by and I still have a large number of hon. Members to fit in. Brevity would be appreciated.
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I shall try to follow your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to mention only three matters.
  First, I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) is here, because there has been some misunderstanding about the new Conservative policy on the development of the Lomé Convention. I got the impression from the right hon. Gentleman's speech yesterday that he was saying that in the present negotiations for Lomé II the British Government should propose the addition to the convention of a mutual military element.
  I no longer have any connection with the European Assembly—a year was enough for me—but during my year I was rapporteur for the budget of the Development Committee and I was the Socialist spokesman at the assembly in Lesotho, when all these matters about

  467
  Lomé II were discussed. One should come down to realism in these matters. With the attitude of the ACP countries, it will be hard enough even to get any mention of human rights, never mind something which actually has teeth and would affect the automaticity of aid to such a country as Uganda, which blatantly infringes human rights.
  That will be hard enough even if the Nine behave with impeccable credentials. The ACP countries are violently divided between the Zaires, the Ivory Coasts and the Senegals on the one side and the more revolutionary countries which are desperately trying to get Mozambique and Angola to join Lomé and bring them into that sphere of influence. If the Nine were to suggest what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, any hope of a Lomé II which could be regarded as an advance on Lomé I would go out of the window.
  I do not imagine that the possibility exists, but the Opposition might just have some responsibility for negotiating the final stages of Lomé II. I am not taking that possibility seriously, but we must take everything into account. If they did, it would put the Nine into a difficult position if a British Government brought such an extraordinary proposition to Lomé II. I hope that we can get that clear.
  Mr. John Davies: I should like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) to deal with some points on this matter in winding up, and I am sure that he will. Meanwhile, it seemed right to me to point out that what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) says underlines the mutuality characteristic which I so strongly stressed. To be charged with having therefore indulged in some form of Imperialism or neo-colonialist attitude—as the Under-Secretary did when speaking of my speech yesterday—seems to me entirely inappropriate.
  Mr. Price: My charge against the Opposition is one not of neo-colonialism but of unrealism about the sensitivity of the negotiations for Lomé II. Claude Cheysson, the Commissioner, has spent nearly two years of careful preparation softening up the ACP countries to this sort of approach.
  468
  One must remember that ACP is ACP, that the States are not just in Africa. The ACP countries are conscious that there are those in the Commission who would like to divide the ACP countries and have separate arrangements with Africa, with Latin America and the Caribbean and with Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific.
  There is an argument in Europe about this. I am very much behind the ACP States in trying to maintain their unity. They feel that Europe, through its relationships with all its former dependencies in all parts of the world, has a unique role to play. The moment it is cut up into regional agreements the whole nature of the Lomé relationship is changed.
  My criticism is that while delicate negotiations are going on the right hon. Member for Knutsford ought not to walk in rather like a bull in a china shop if he were ever to be in a position of greater responsibility. That would prejudice all of the good work that has gone in the past two years. I know that Oppositions change when they gain power, but I regard this as being a necessary warning, simply because the development of the Yaoundé Convention into Lomé I and II is a slow and careful development of relationships betwen the West and the Third world. In the past the West has viciously exploited such relationships. Relationships between exploiter and exploitee are not easy and have to be worked out over a considerable period of years. It may be, come Lomé IV, V or VI, that we shall move to a political situation such as the right hon. Gentleman talks of. But in my judgment the time is not now. It would be disastrous to act in such a way at present.
  We have heard statements, such as that by the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), about fishing in troubled waters, containing accusations against the Soviet Union. It is important to understand that from the point of view of the average African there is little difference between Soviet support for Mozambique, Ethiopia or Somalia—whoever happens to be the favourite son at any particular time—and French support in Niger and Chad. The troops there appear to the African to be fulfilling roughly the same task, namely, safeguarding either the strategic or economic interests of the outside country or super Power. If we say

  469
  shrilly that the Russians are interfering in Africa when we are doing the same thing in protecting our uranium supplies for the year 2000—which in my view is what the operations in Zaire were all about—we shall lose that vital advantage which we have over the Russians. At the moment we are regarded as being in Africa basically for our own interests, as are the Russians, but in terms of aid and assistance with development we have a slightly better reputation.
  What we need to do in our relations with the African States is to insist on a human rights clause in Lomé II. We should take a firm stand on fundamental human rights, but beyond that we ought to take the techniques of developing aid very seriously and try to build on the mutual relationships which the Lomé Convention has succeeded in developing to such an extent that almost every country in Africa receiving Western aid prefers it to be channelled through Lomé rather than be operated on a simple bilateral basis. This is because aid through Lomé comes free of strings, with both parties being treated as equals. That is why I am saddened by the tone of some of the speeches in the debate. Although I agree with many of the things that have been said about Soviet intentions in Africa, the simple concentration on that point spoils the reputation and the advantage that we have in our relationships with many African States.
  I have not been present for the whole of the debate, but in the speeches that I have heard there has been no mention of the Cyprus problem. Because the Minister of State is present I want to make two points. The Turkish proposals have been put forward and the Minister of State and I met some Turkish Members of Parliament the other day to discuss these proposals. In my view they do not reach the point which would justify Dr. Waldheim in calling the Greeks in, since if that happened it would lead to another round of abortive negotiations and a further set-back.
  I ask the Minister to tell us what is the Government's attitude towards trying to improve on these proposals to the extent that Dr. Waldheim could say, with the agreement of the Greek and Cypriot Governments, that they form the basis for negotiation. If this round of intercommunal negotiations fails it is my view
  470
  that the only solution to this problem—a problem which must be solved if we are to have stability in this area—will be to tackle it on a much wider international basis. This will have greater ramifications. It is in the interests of NATO and of the Cypriot people that this problem be solved quickly.
  In September the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe will consider for the third time the report on violations of human rights in Cyprus. I know that the Minister of State takes this problem seriously. I believe that on previous occasions when the Committee of Ministers has dealt with this matter there has been a certain amount of muddle and no coherent attitude has emerged among the Nine, let alone on a broader European basis. The rules of the European Human Rights Commission are clear, in that the matter must be disposed of.
  The Committee of Ministers must send the matter forward so that it can be decided whether there has been a violation of human rights. If such a decision is made the matter must be published. So far the Committee of Ministers, for cowardly political reasons, has shelved the matter time and again. It cannot be shelved for ever. The Committee cannot continue to say that it will not deal with the matter but will wait for a Cyprus settlement. Even the Turks would would rather have this matter out of the way, even if they were to be told that they had violated human rights.
  It has been said that the only way to deal with the Turks is to hate them or love them, but never to threaten them. Over the past two years we have been threatening them with the possible publication of this report. It has been partly published in the Sunday Times and last month it was published verbatim in Kathirimeni, in Athens. The world knows what the report says. I have it here, and if I had more time I would read it. I ask the Minister to tell us what the Government's attitude will be when the Committee of Ministers considers the report.
  I had intended to go on to another subject, but I am aware that many other hon. Members want to speak so I shall leave my remarks at that point.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: In his very long speech today, the Under-Secretary of State used one phrase which I think valuable, and I should like to devote part of my speech to its theme. He said that the walls of sovereignty have no meaning when it comes to human rights. That is an entirely admirable sentiment, and I congratulate the Government on the stand they have taken on the human rights issue with the Soviet Union and elsewhere.
  Throughout the debate yesterday, however, there were repeated charges by Labour Members of Conservatives having double standards on human rights. I make no apology for drawing attention to violations of human rights, both individual and collective, in the Soviet Union —violations of the freedoms that we in the West are able to enjoy, such as freedom of worship and freedom of travel. I have made these accusations not only in private and in public outside the Soviet Union but also, when I was able, within the Soviet Union itself, as I did in the Kremlin last year.
  Those Labour Members who lecture us about double standards on human rights should read what my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) said so clearly and what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)said so emphatically and well—that oppression is oppression is oppression, no matter what race, colour or creed it comes under, and whether it be in Southern Africa, South America, on the continent of India or in the Gulag Archipelago, to those who are oppressed it is the same thing.
  Many of us—probably the majority of hon. Members—gave up almost a decade of our youth to smashing one crowd of Fascist murderers, while we were forced by the circumstances of the time to ally ourselves with another infamous tyranny. So I do not feel that we need to be lectured by anyone, least of all by the Under-Secretary of State who spoke last night, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson), who took up a holier-than-thou attitude about the approach of some of us to the question of human rights.
  The Soviet Union is the vast imperialist heir to the Tsarist regime. It was put together by force. It has since formed
  472
  a greater new empire of subjugated peoples in Eastern Europe. It has never ceased to enter any unbarred door in order to export trouble in any part of the world. Some of us feel deeply worried when we hear bland remarks by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and others saying merely that we are not going to be just anti-Soviet for its own sake but that we intend to live with the Soviet Union and not to seek artificial confrontation with it.
  Of course none of us wants to seek artificial confrontation with the Soviet Union. None of us wants enmity with the Soviet Union for its own sake. But surely it impresses no one not to draw attention to the realities of the situation. It is simply not good enough to suggest that the Soviet Union is not an empire based on expansion, and that expansion is essential to keep it together.
  Detente, whatever the word means—and I find it as difficult to understand its meaning as do some of my hon. Friends—has not meant any let-up in Soviet expansion or trouble-making in hypersensitive situations and areas in the world; it has not led to the Soviet Union letting up on increasing manpower and hardware to achieve further expansion. The Soviet Union has not let up in any way that I know of in its treatment of human beings inside the Soviet Union and in the rest of its empire.
  The obvious truth is that, like the Tsarist empire, the Soviet totalitarian regime has to exist, and needs essentially to exist, on disruption and on expansion in order to preserve its own internal empire from internal troubles or from decline. Expansion is essential to keeping its 270 million people, its 101 nationalities and its satellite empire in subjugation.
  Above all, expansion and troublemaking are essential to the self-perpetuation of the small clique of intensely privileged elderly grey men at the top of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. That has a great deal to do with what all the trouble is about. It is surely obvious that we are in a prenatal period of a leadership struggle within the Central Committee. The Brezhnev-Stalin orthodoxy may continue or there may be a new guard, a less blatantly aggressive

  473
  group, who see the perpetuation of the regime and the empire—and their way of life—as lying in some other ways, perhaps more liberal than in the past. None of us can tell what will happen.
  But whatever the way forward that emerges, surely the West has to accept that there will be a period when the powder keg—to use the Prime Minister's words—is particularly dangerous and particularly dry. We have had highs and lows in our relationship with the Soviet Union since 1945. Clearly we are moving into a low period, one in which the West has to be exceedingly careful in every respect.
  It is not difficult to understand why we are moving into such a period. There has been a misreading of detente by the West. There has been the massive buildup of Soviet conventional arms in Europe. There have been the tragic errors of the United States in its adventurist policy in Vietnam and the psychological defeat that it suffered. There has been the improvident withdrawal by our country and other NATO countries from facing up to the realities of the Soviet arms build-up and to Soviet intentions to expand in other parts of the world.
  Either way, the indecisiveness and divided counsels in the West over the Soviet build-up in Europe and the recent adventurist policies in Africa ill serve the situation and the future if it is allowed to continue much longer. What has been so disappointing in the last few days is that the West has not come up with any sensible practical proposals yet for finding a way round this mischief-making and trouble-making by the Soviet Union outside its borders. and particularly at present in Africa.
  There have been proposals and suggestions, but none of them sounds to me wholly to be the answer to overcoming this problem. Failure to come up with any positive proposals soon could seriously affect this unstable period into which we are entering in East-West relations with the Soviet Union. It could lead to a much more difficult situation than the one we face at present.
  The situation is much worsened today by Soviet meddling in areas where it would be much better if it kept away. Of that there can be no doubt. Of course
  474
  there must be a continuation of the SALT talks. There must be a continuation of seeking balanced force reductions. No one denies that at all. But, at the same time, the West must follow the lead which at last has been given by the President of the United States. It must stand absolutely firm on its guard and warn the Soviet Union that it cannot expect to continue this aggressive expansionist policy without the West reacting in ways which could only do grave harm not only to the Western world but to the people of the Soviet Union themselves.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: I very much welcomed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar). He was trying to make an assessment, for the benefit of the House, of an important part of the world to which we do not pay enough attention. I do not believe that we can have a sensible debate or discussion on foreign affairs without making some assessment of the world as it is. We must ask what the opportunities and the prizes are and also what are the limitations of our own power and influence.
  In my view, the greatest dangers and the greatest opportunities lie in the relations between the United Kingdom and the West on the one hand and the Third world on the other. Over the next 25 years, the great debate will be on the new international economic order, the North-South dialogue, the anxiety of the Western world about access to oil and industrial raw materials and the question—to which the Minister devoted a lot of time—of the enormous riches of the sea bed and whether these will be the common heritage of mankind or open to ruthless private enterprise exploitation by some companies in the Western world.
  There is also the Third world's demand for fair access to the markets of the West for its own industrial goods. It was said in the early part of this debate that one cannot divorce defence from foreign affairs. That is true. But neither can one divorce economics from foreign affairs. It was quite right for some of my hon. Friends to put forward the argument about the Lomé Convention and its part within the general context of foreign policy.

  475
  In the course of his opening speech yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
  "the concept of human rights is such a powerful concept in foreign policy."—[Official Report, 7th June 1978, Vol. 951, c. 215.]
  That is certainly true with regard to the Third world, because it has been passionately concerned about human rights in terms of racialism and the vicious effect of racist policies in certain parts of the world which have affected the Third world very directly and very deeply. As well as the question of racialism, which is a profound matter of human rights, there are also the right to food, the right not to starve, the right to work, the right to decent homes, the right to medical care and the right of people to live their own lives without bullying and meddling from multinational companies or squalid interference from bodies such as the CIA. These are the rights in which the Third world is interested. These are human rights to which we have to pay more attention in future.
  I must remind the House that when we use the shorthand term "the Third world"—in many ways it is a vague term—we are talking about two-thirds of mankind. We are talking about the great populations not only of Africa but of Asia and Latin America as well. We have got to pay attention to the human rights to which those countries and peoples attach deep and profound importance. I do not minimise the importance of the rights that my right hon. Friend was talking about. The right to dissent, the right of free speech and the right to have free trade unions are all very important in our own context, but they are not the priority rights of the Third world countries, which want food, rising living standards and, above all, freedom from racist societies and racist oppression.
  In the context of the argument about human rights and the relationship between the West and the Third world, there are two great flashpoints which could cause serious disruption, danger and war in the world. These two areas are Palestine and Southern Africa. It is not altogether a coincidence that there is now developing a military and diplomatic alliance between Israel and white South Africa. That is very dangerous. I think it is very
  476
  foolish of the Israelis. It is not entirely surprising, because in some ways in Palestine and Southern Africa there is a mirror image of the same problem. We have minorities of European origin oppressing and exploiting indigenous people on the basis of racist ideologies.
  There is apartheid and racial discrimination in Southern Africa and there is Zionism in Palestine. Every Palestinian Arab today is an exile from his own country or is living under foreign alien rule. Four-fifths of his homeland has been taken away. If the Palestinian Arab is lucky enough to live in the other one-fifth, he is living under a military Government which can deport him at any moment without charge, without trial and without appeal. In fact, it does so on many occasions. His possessions can be confiscated.
  A process of colonisation is going on not only in Palestine itself—this has been criticised by both sides during the debate —but in the territories of Syria and Egypt. We have seen the kind of brutalities that can be committed. In the recent assault in the Lebanon, 1,000 innocent civilian people were killed and 200,000 fresh refugees were created in that unfortunate part of the world.
  What is to be the reaction of the Palestinian Arab to this situation? If he fights, he is denounced as a terrorist. If he stands up and fights for his land—and it is his land—he is told that violence is wrong and that he must not fight or defend himself. Let us suppose that he says he wants to negotiate, as the PLO has done. What is he told? He is not admitted to the conference table because the Israelis say "We shall not talk to those people." He is not allowed to fight or to negotiate. Therefore, what is he supposed to do?
  The West generally, and the United Kingdom particularly, would do well to pay attention to the many principles laid down in varying resolutions of the United Nations over the past 30 years—resolutions which have commanded almost unanimous assent from the Third world. These countries recognise in the Palestinian situation the same situation from which they have only recently escaped. They know the problem of alien rule, of fighting for their own liberation and seeking the right to negotiate an honourable status for themselves and

  477
  an honourable independence. That is why the Palestinian cause is gaining greater appreciation throughout the Third world, and the West should pay greater attention to that fact.
  In Southern Africa the situation is similar but more complex. There we find the final ultimate logicality of racism, which is the absolute basis and core of the whole structure of the society of South Africa. This is admitted by the South African Government. They make no apology for the fact that their whole society is based on racial discrimination and differentiation—they make no bones about it. The fruits of this doctrine have been the brutal murder of Steve Biko, which enraged the world, and the savage shooting down of unarmed schoolchildren when they protested in Soweto.
  The South African Government have taken the theory even beyond that. Their Bantustan, or so-called homelands policy, means that 20 million black South Africans have become aliens and foreigners in 87 per cent. of their own land. The South African Government are saying that in 13 per cent. of South Africa these people may run their own affairs and have some sort of rights, but in the other 87 per cent. they have no civil, political or economic rights. They are allowed to work for white people in a quasi-industrial form of slavery, on terms that the Government graciously permit, but they have no civil rights, political rights or rights to organise themselves into trade unions. The Government tell these black citizens that these things are forbidden to them in nearly nine-tenths of their own country. That is South African policy.
  If we are to lecture the ACP countries in Lomé on human rights, naturally they will turn round and ask us what we are doing about human rights in South Africa, where we have such close economic involvement. What about British Leyland, British Nuclear Fuels Limited and the British Steel Corporation, which are directly involved in the economy of South Africa? We should do something about that before we lecture the ACP countries on human rights.
  The problem extends beyond South Africa into Rhodesia and Namibia. South Africa has agreed—very reluctantly and on terms that suit her—that she might condescend to give up her
  478
  occupation of Namibia. The Western Powers should be quite clear of the terms of the judgment of the International Court, which said that the occupation of Namibia was absolutely illegal and that South Africa had no rights whatever in that territory and must withdraw completely from Walvis Bay without condition, in accordance with the terms of the unanimous resolution by the Security Council of 30th January 1976. That resolution made Walvis Bay an integral part of Namibia and required the unqualified evacuation from and handover of Namibian territory by South Africa.
  In Rhodesia we have had the proposed racist constitution under which a 3 per cent. racial minority would have 28 per cent. of seats in Parliament. This would be entrenched in the constitution. Imagine if someone suggested that the 3 per cent. immigrant minority in this country should have 28 per cent. of the seats of the House of Commons. There would be roars of laughter and the suggestion would be dismissed as ludicrous. Yet, when that proposition is put up by Smith in Rhodesia, Conservative Members fall over each other to say that we must accept it.
  It is not only a question of politics. We must face the fact that there has been the brutal savagery of the massacre at Chimoio by Smith's forces and the even more vicious massacre carried out at Kassinga in Angola, where South African paratroopers were landed inside Angola and proceeded to slaughter men, women and children indiscriminately in this massive camp of refugees.
  That sort of thing is made possible by the oil from Western oil companies—oil to lubricate and finance the war machines of Smith and Vorster. The Western world must stand up and acknowledge its responsibilities in this respect and not try to hide behind all sorts of excuses for its involvement in apartheid and in the Southern African problem.
  What should be the United Kingdom policy on these matters? We should pay closer attention to the terms of United Nations resolutions in the General Assembly and, indeed, in the Security Council, because they point the way to a solution of the problems of the Middle East and of Southern Africa.
  We should recognise the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and the absolute

  479
  right of the Palestinians to an independent State of their own. We should demand the unconditional withdrawal by Israel from occupied lands and a halt to the process of colonisation. If Israel continues to stall, block and refuse to come forward to meet the great initiative taken by President Sadat, we should point out that the special arrangements that she enjoys with the European Community will be in danger of being terminated.
  We must demand the unconditional withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia, including Walvis Bay. We should disengage from our own unhealthy economic involvement with the system of apartheid. We should press on with the Anglo-American plan for Rhodesia which, I believe, forms the basis —a very proper basis—for an eventual peaceful settlement of that problem.
  I believe that not only should we look at the problems and difficulties but that we should reach out to grasp the unparalleled opportunities that we have in the present-day world. We should take the opportunities offered to us by the machinery of international co-operation which is unprecedented in the history of mankind. I am thinking of the great organisations such as the World Bank, UNDP, the International Monetary Fund, GATT, WHO, FAO, UNICEF, UNCTAD and the ILO. The great apparatus of the United Nations and its agencies provides an enormous opportunity—and a particular opportunity to a smaller country such as ours—to promote and develop international co-operation.
  I was glad to read what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the recent disarmament conference about peacekeeping. I was also glad to read what he said about the building blocks for peace. I think that the concept of a standby United Nations reserve peacekeeping force is very important. It is, of course, not a new concept. It is something for which some of us in the United Nations Association have been arguing for 10 or 20 years, but it is important that countries such at the United States have now recognised it. I very much welcome the support that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to this concept and I hope that it will be worked out in practice.
  480
  I should like to see a little more vigour and energy on the part of the Foreign Office in following up the concept of the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace. Discussions between America and Russia have been taking place on this idea, but not much effort or interest has so far been shown by the United Kingdom. This concept of zones of peace, of nuclear-free zones, is one of the building blocks of peace to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred and which are of enormous importance in creating a more peaceful world.
  There are great limitations on our part, but we have influence within the Commonwealth. We have influence within Europe, and we have influence within the United Nations. I believe that we should use that influence especially to bring the Third world and the West into a closer and closer understanding on those matters that are of crucial importance to both sides.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next hon. Gentleman, I appeal to hon. Members to be brief. Ten-minute speeches would be very acceptable and would help quite a number of hon. Members to get into the debate.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): Having waited for about seven and a half hours to speak, I shall speak for seven and a half minutes if I possibly can.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) made a profound mistake. He put forward a new idea, and all the progressive, liberal, advanced thinkers on the Labour Benches have done nothing but try to condemn it. No one can suggest that the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend in any sense smack of neo-colonialism or militaristic intervention. What he did was to try to advance a modest practical suggestion for dealing with an extremely difficult situation.
  Nobody imagines that he got it all right. No Opposition can possibly have all the details, but the Minister should have said that although he recognised the difficulties he would take advice and consider the matter. He should not simply

  481
  have come to this House, egged on by his hon. Friends, and said "No". It is that impression of helplessness and hopelessness that damages the reputation of this country in its conduct of foreign affairs.
  I shall make four brief points. First, I wish to ask the Minister for an assurance. Few countries have so many of their nationals serving overseas in dangerous and difficult circumstances as does the United Kingdom. In many cases it is impossibe for the British Government to provide them with protection, because they are scattered in isolated communities and our power to help them is limited. But there are some areas where large congregations of British people are serving national interests, often at the request of the British Government. For example, there are 40,000 such people in the copper belt of Zambia, and many thousands in the Gulf, in Nigeria, and elsewhere.
  I ask for an assurance that in the event of circumstances occurring similar to those that took place in Shaba, where a Government loses control and guerrilla forces or others create a situation in which the lives of large numbers of British nationals are at risk, Her Majesty's Government will undertake to go to their aid. Do we have the implements, the long-range aircraft and other equipment, to deal with such a situation? I doubt it. Do we have the parachutists? Again, I doubt it. Do we have the political will? That is the crucial question. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance to the House that British nationals who are serving our country and facilitating our exports abroad, many of them servants of the Crown, will be able to rely on being assisted by Her Majesty's Government in time of need, as the French and the Belgians relied on their Governments.
  Secondly, I wish to deal with the subject of Cuba. I visited that country a little less than a year ago and I was impressed by its economic development, its schools and education, and its rural water and electricity schemes. I was impressed by the advance of the bikes—Castro's principal achievement. I was depressed, however, by the lack of human rights. There was only one party, one Press, and one set of commandments that all must obey.
  482
  We must consider seriously the external activities of the Cuban nation. The Cubans now bestride parts of Africa as a paper colossus. How have they achieved this? Economically, they are poor; financially, they cannot afford it. But they have done it—not as Hessians of the Soviet Union but because they are fired by the same revolutionary zeal that brought Castro's forces down from the hills into Havana, a zeal which has carried them across into Africa.
  They are evangelists, and they believe that they are restoring to Africa something which they brought from Africa. It is a powerful feeling among many Cubans. However, the Soviet Union has perverted that feeling for its own purposes. I believe that it will be necessary for the West, notably the United States, to make plain to Premier Fidel Castro—for whom I have some admiration and a great deal of detestation—that Cuba must stop its aggression in Africa. We must tell Cuba to get out and take its soldiers home, for they do not belong in Africa, where they are a danger.
  My third point relates to the great country of Iran. I am chairman of the British. Iranian parliamentary group. I have travelled there frequently over a period of 25 years. I have met the Shah and most of his Ministers, and I have seen that country develop. There are many features about Iran that I do not like, but many more that I do. I admire the way in which that country has developed its economy and the way in which the Shah has brought about many important internal reforms.
  I recognise in Iran an enormously powerful trading partner which this country needs for its oil and its markets. I recognise in Iran our strongest ally in the Middle East.
  However, today the Shah of Iran feels isolated and surrounded. He has domestic problems. He sees Turkey moving out of the NATO orbit and possibly out of the CENTO orbit. He sees to the north the great power of Russia. He sees Afghanistan moving into the Soviet orbit and with it Soviet influence brought within 300 miles of the Straits of Hormuz. He sees to the south, in the Horn of Africa, the Western position crumbling, and he sees what is happening in Pakistan, where if, as I pray will not happen, Mr. Bhutto

  483
  were to be executed it would be difficult to avoid a civil war.
  Is it not surprising that the Shah of Iran sees crumbling all around him the system of alliances on which the security of his country and the substantial Western interests depend? Is it not surprising that he sees them coming under pressure, and at risk? A message should go from this debate to the Shah of Iran that we support what he is doing, that we back Iran in trade, investment and in credits as and when they are needed and in the provision of such weapons of which he may stand in need.
  I lived and worked in the United States for 15 years. President Carter's statement in Annapolis is important, but I wish that he had made it before. I have had the pleasure, as a journalist, of interviewing all of the American presidents since President Truman, except Mr. Carter. I am bound to say that up to this time he has given an impression of weakness. He has by his weakness encouraged the Soviet Union in its arms policy, in its African policy, to undertake adventures which it ought not to have done.
  If the President's statement means that he will act, together with his allies, in a more effective manner to contain Soviet pressures, a great change will have taken place, and one that I welcome. But I shall judge the President by his actions and not by his words. He is a man above all to whom the medium is the message.
  President Carter was wrong to cancel the B1 bomber. I believe that he made a mistake not to continue the development of the cruise missile and the neutron warhead. Above all, he was wrong so to conduct the foreign policy of the United States as to encourage the Soviet Union into believing that they were dealing with Mr. Softy. If, now, at Annapolis, the President has changed his stance, it will be a gain for the West. I believe that the right policy for our country is to support the President and those in his Administration who at long last have recognised the danger and are prepared to do something about it.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Michael English: I am sorry that my right hon.
  484
  Friend the Foreign Secretary has not returned to the Government Front Bench. I do not usually speak in foreign affairs debates, and only the Foreign Secretary's more foolish remarks which appeared in the Press yesterday have inspired me to do so. One of the reasons for my not speaking in foreign affairs debates too often is that in such debates one often hears good, honest and sincere speeches, which do not, as did the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), recognise that we speak in the Chamber of a legislature of what is, in world terms, a small Power. We are a Power which, even if it had the will, does not have the power to repress a rebellion in Rhodesia or to carry out its international obligations and defend Cyprus from invasion. We are a Power which cannot even shift a few illegal immigrants from a Falkland Island. That is roughly the extent of our will and power at the moment.
  There are a few things left in the world over which we can have an influence. The Foreign Secretary sits on the EEC Council of Ministers. He has a reputation of not being above playing to the gallery. He once had to get his excellent information department to say that it was not 20,000 photographs of his boyish face which had been distributed throughout the world but some lesser number.
  My right hon. Friend certainly played to the gallery the night before last, if reports in the Press have any truth in them. He said that the proposals for the pay of European Assembly Members were nonsense. He said, in effect, that because hon. Members were low-paid, European Assembly Members should also be low-paid.
  My right hon. Friend failed to notice the very good principle of the United States Congress that no civil servant should be paid more than any member of the legislature. That seems right and proper. In the United States they take the view that the legislature makes the law and determines, ultimately, what the Government do. That is in a State where the President is not technically responsible to Congress in the same sense that the Government are responsible to this House. The federal legislature is restricted because it is a federal State. It has fewer powers than has this House, but the United States values the doctrine

  485
  that the people in power should be those elected by voters rather than those who are employed civil servants or Ministers. I notice that the Foreign Secretary did not suggest that his salary was too high. He was complaining only about the salaries of elected members elsewhere.
  The Foreign Secretary also made the extraordinary and rather nice suggestion that he was a bit upset by the prospect of EEC taxation levels being applied to the salaries of European Assembly Members. He felt that they should be taxed according to the laws of their own country. That seems right and proper, but why did he not mention that European civil servants should be treated in the same way? I should like to see my right hon. Friend stop playing to the gallery and make a positive suggestion that Roy Jenkins's £64,000 salary should be taxed at a little more than the 16 per cent. which we hear is the approximate rate of taxation under EEC law for its civil servants.
  I hope that the Foreign Secretary will bear in mind the outcome of the sort of policies he advocated in one of his popularity-seeking moments. In one of the articles that I read, I noticed that an anonymous person was quoted as saying that it did not matter what salaries were paid to European Assembly Members because they would make as much as £250,000 a year out of consultancies. I think that this figure is a gross exaggeration, but many hon. Members will have heard the right hon. Member who leads the Conservative Party delegation to the European Parliament say that some Assembly Members are likely to make twice their salary in consultancy work. If the salary is £25,000, that means that they may he making an extra £50,000.
  The more we reduce the salary, the more we shall concentrate the minds of those elected to the Assembly upon earning money outside. I would far rather see, in this House and in the Assembly, a large but honest salary, paid by taxpayers to people whom they have chosen to elect, than see people being forced to take money from outside sources. Some of those sources may be reputable, but there may well be among them sources that are not reputable, and to encourage that sort of thing is wrong and improper.
  The Foreign Secretary could have done a good job if he had said "When I go
  486
  to the Council of Ministers to discuss European Members' salaries I shall advocate a register of their outside interests as has the House of Commons for its Members". If he had said that, he would not have been playing to the gallery. He would have been unpopular in some quarters of the European Assembly, but he would have been doing a great service for the countries of the Nine. That is because he would have been advocating in Europe a principle that 'we are slowly trying to introduce in this place, namely, that there should be a register of outside interests so that the people may determine for themselves whether they are proper for a Member to hold.
  It is possibly not utterly unconnected with the fact that the economies of some other countries are better than our own that they pay their politicians adequately. It is possible that they have matters right and that we have them wrong. In the end, people often get the Government that they deserve. Are the Governments of Western Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Italy and America all that much worse than ours? Is it possible that one of the reasons for their success in some directions, such as economically, is that they have been paying those who represent them a little more than we do?
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). That is partly because I do not think that his remarks were wholly relevant to the debate and because I am on my mettle to speak more shortly than my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page).
  I wish to touch upon a theme that has not been taken up except by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). The debate has generally concerned itself with the growing Russian imperialism, which has been on a par with the aspirations of Palmerstonian jingoes of the nineteenth century, except that they operated in an overt fashion whereas the Soviet Union operates through Cuba, its proxy.
  The other theme of the debate has been the effect of the withdrawal of the United States from its former world role following Vietnam and Watergate. That

  487
  calls for a major rethink on the part of Europe. I mean Europe as a whole and not merely the EEC.
  I shall speak briefly about an area that has not really been mentioned—namely, the Mediterranean. I do so because I am rapporteur for the Defence Committee of the Western European Union. In the course of my duties, I have recently been visiting a number of European countries. In the eyes of many, it is a tranquil, agreeable and probably a tourist area. However, it is protected by NATO which on paper is militarily strong.
  There are potentially grave policital dangers in the area. I shall cite three. First, there is the Arab-Israeli conflict. I do not want to talk about that, except to say that I agree with the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce). Secondly, there is the Greece-Turkey situation, and thirdly there are the question marks hanging over Yugoslavia.
  The Greece-Turkey situation can be described only as absurd. Both countries are democracies and both countries recognise the dangers that exist from the Warsaw Pact forces that are on thir borders. Both countries have a vital part to play in the NATO alliance. However, Greece is not fully integrated into NATO and Turkey is hamstrung by the United States embargo, which the United States Administration seems incapable of persuading its legislature to lift. It has had some most serious effects.
  The economic situation in Turkey is grave and the effect of the embargo is having a serious effect upon its air force especially. Beyond that, the Turks have tended to lose faith in the United States, their ally. Although I do not believe that they will embrace the Russian bear, it is worth noting that only a few weeks ago the Soviet Chief of Staff paid a visit to Turkey. He is alleged to have said to the Press that the two countries should
  "benefit from the possibilities offered by a military relationship."
  The Turkish Defence Minister, quoting the general, said:
  "Russia does not harbour any ambitions over Turkey except those of mutual friendship … should Turkey require arms Russia could examine ways and means of giving aid."
  488
  I do not believe that Turkey will embrace the Russian bear, but we can hardly blame the Turks for feeling disillusioned with the support that they are getting from the United States in particular and the negative attitude—of which, if I had more time, I should complain—of the British Prime Minister in answer to a supplementary question which I put to him only a few weeks ago. I have written to him and hope to get an answer.
  I suppose that the situation revolves around Cyprus. I noted what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said on that subject. The Greeks allege that the Turks have infringed human rights, and the Turks allege that the Greeks infringed human rights earlier. All this has to be investigated and brought into the open.
  The problems of human rights, boundary lines, property and constitution are dwarfed by the dangers of a breakdown in NATO strength in the Mediterranean and the possibilities of military conflict in that area. Human rights must take second place to that major consideration.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, I believe that reasonable proposals have been put forward by the Turks and that they are at least worth discussing. There is an opportunity for negotiation between the two sides under the auspices of Dr. Waldheim of the United Nations. I believe that talks between the two sides should resume without delay as a matter of urgency. That was the overwhelming view of the majority of the Council of Europe when it discussed the matter only recently.
  The situation in the area is like that of a football team in which, because there has been squabbling between two of the forwards, the captain has made one player stand on the touchline, half on and half off, and has tied the other's ankles together. That is a ridiculous situation between allies.
  I shall not say anything substantial about Yugoslavia. There are question marks hanging over that country, which is in a critical position both geographically and politically. Any change from the independent status that it has built up so remarkably and uniquely would be profoundly dangerous to the stability of the world and to the Mediterranean in particular.

  489
  There are question marks about what will happen when President Tito goes—and he is 86. There are problems over Yugoslavia's balance of trade. It is engaged in negotiations with the EEC to try to improve its balance of trade with the West, because it does not want to be wholly dependent on Russia. I hope that the Minister will take that on board, not necessarily now but when he reads my speech. Yugoslavia also needs help with defence equipment. I believe that we should proclaim the unequivocal commitment of the West to the independence, territorial integrity and unity of Yugoslavia in its continued non-aligned status.
  Generally, if peace and stability are to be maintained, we need greater unity in the Western Alliance. We must encourage Greece, Spain and Portugal to join the EEC. We must get the arms embargo lifted. I should like to see Spain a member of NATO. I want to see Greece a full member of NATO. We must pull the allied team together. The divisions in this area encourage only those who are hostile to the ideals to which we all subscribe.
  9.4 p.m.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: My speech will be even shorter than it was going to be, because my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), with his particular reference to the Turkish danger, has made the points so well that it is unnecessary to go over the arguments again.
  As president of the Turkish Association in this country, I am even more worried than my hon. Friend at the present tense situation in Turkey. If the Turks continue to suffer disillusion with our allies, the situation may become even more tricky than we envisage. I hope that we are both wrong. However, I do not think that there is much time left to prevent serious developments from taking place in Turkey's arrangements.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) began his remarks on a slightly different aspect of our foreign policy and dealt with the payment of Members of the European Parliament. He complained about the arrogance and conceit of the Foreign Secretary. There are more serious charges against the Foreign Secretary than his attitude towards European Members' pay. His failings are
  490
  having a serious effect on the prospects of a settlement in Rhodesia.
  It is strange that after years of successive Governments begging Mr. Smith to introduce majority rule, to give up white minority rule and to have free elections, the present Foreign Secretary should be making it as difficult as possible for Rhodesia to do what successive Governments have been begging it to do for many years.
  Only now is the right hon. Gentleman's almost malevolent reaction to the announcement that there had been a settlement beginning to change—not necessarily for the right reasons—into a reluctant acquiescence. It seems that he now realises that he must be a little less bloody-minded about the internal settlement because it looks as if there is a good chance that there will be elections and that a majority Government will be elected. In that case, I cannot believe that even the present Foreign Secretary will go denying recognition to a black majority Government elected by a majority in that country.
  I turn to the question of an African peacekeeping force. I asked the Prime Minister a question yesterday because he was coy about the Paris talks between officials. I did not receive a satisfactory answer. I hope that the Minister will say more about that. I do not believe that those talks were limited to the question of Zaire. I believe that originally the talks were intended to cover the question of how to introduce a greater element of security in Africa by the use of African forces, sustained when requested by the Western Powers. This has happened in some of the Francophone countries. If we could encourage other moderate countries in Africa, such as Nigeria and Sudan, to proceed along similar lines, that would be preferable to the type of last-minute operation with which we must deal at present.
  I cannot understand what the Prime Minister meant when he said yesterday that these things have been discussed but that there was no agreement. Was there no agreement because the British would not go along with it? If that is so, why would we not go along with it? The French have shown not only that they have a fair degree of determination but that a number of African countries go along with them.

  491
  If the Soviet Union did not act in the way that it does, there would be no need for United Nations forces. I believe that in the United Nations the Soviet Union would veto any proposal which resulted in interference with its projects.
  On more than one occasion, the Prime Minister has said that we should not view what is happening in Africa in an exclusively East-West context. That is over-simplification. Of course, the problems are there. They derive from the colonial past and from unreal tribal boundaries. But the exploitation of these problems exclusively is a Soviet Union affair because of its antagonism to the West and its determiniation to establish hegemony in Africa.
  If any Labour Members believe that this is a white reactionary Tory attitude, they should study carefully the remarks made in this context by the Foreign Minister of China in Zaire. He represents a country which in no circumstances could be called neo-colonialist or a sympathiser of South Africa, but he came out and spoke in more vigorous terms than I have heard any British Minister about the Russian-Cuban exploitation of the difficulties endured by Africa.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Hurd: I begin by apologising to the Under-Secretary for my failure to hear the first half of his speech. I had a meeting with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence which, for various reasons, I felt unable to get out of.
  One of the themes running through the debate, yesterday perhaps more than today, has been that of human rights. That is inevitably in a world in which, unfortunately, tyranny is almost normal, and the infringement of human rights apparently more common than their respect—[Interruption.] I am sorry for any misunderstanding that may have occurred. I was following what I thought were the indications. Perhaps I may continue with my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I found one aspect of the discussion about human rights encouraging, and I say that in all sincerity. Labour Members below the Gangway came out strongly and repeatedly in their con-
  492
  demnation of what they saw as oppression behind the Iron Curtan. They were perfectly right and entitled to make the point that the corollary of that condemnation on their part was that there should be a willingnes on our part to condemn and criticise the regimes in the non-Communist parts of the world where similar breaches of human rights occur. I think that their call to us on that point was well responded to by my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and Shoreham (Mr. Luce).
  Mr. Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd)—in other circumstances I would call him my hon. Friend —saw me rise to speak. He knew that the Chair was willing to accord me five minutes, and I was willing to make a speech in five minutes. I regret very much my hon. Friend's conduct.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but that is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Hurd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like through you, to apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). If it is in any way in order for him to intervene for five minutes, when I have sat down and before the Minister replies to the debate, I shall be delighted to curtail my remarks accordingly.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: By the custom of the House, once the winding-up speeches have begun they should continue for the allotted time.
  Mr. Hurd: In that case I can only confirm, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my apology to my hon. and learned Friend. I was following what I thought was the arrangement, but clearly that was a misunderstanding on my part. I have no desire to prolong my remarks or to take more of the time of the House than had been proposed.
  I was referring to the willingness of those on the Opposition Benches to criticise breaches of human rights by non-Communist regimes. However, there is a difference and I think it is a vital difference. The Soviet Union and its friends not only rule their peoples in a way that we find repulsive—and they are not alone in that—but they believe

  493
  in the inevitable triumph of Communism and in the duty of every Communist to aid and abet that triumph. There is no secret or dispute about that. It is documented in what the Communists say or write, and it is documented in the history of the last 30 or 40 years. Therefore, when one is talking of a balance in human rights, it is most important to bear in mind the imbalance in the intentions of these groups of countries.
  Two happenings of recent years have mainly informed the debate. The first is that there has been much discussion of detente and a whole series of specific negotiations with the Soviet Union. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in that respect. We should pursue these different negotiations and we should put real energy into them in the hope that actual agreements of advantage to us and to the peace of the world can be reached.
  I mention that because a certain amount of nonsense has been talked by Labour Members about our attitude to these matters—not least by the Under-Secretary who wound up last night. He referred to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and her references to China. I shall quote from the speech which my right hon. Friend made in Peking, because it is necessary to set the record straight in view of the inaccurate suggestions that have been made. My right hon. Friend said there:
  "It is entirely natural that we should seek to influence Soviet policy and to impress on Soviet leaders our determination to protect our freedom. I do not say this because I believe that we should be in any way provocative towards the Soviet Union or anyone else. We do not seek a confrontation.
  Of course we wish to have reasonable day-to-day relationships with the Soviet Union and her friends. But we do not believe that simply because the language of detente is fashionable throughout the world we can afford to neglect the realities of power or the lessons of history."
  That seems to me to be an entirely balanced statement, and I do not think that any Minister on the Front Bench would disagree with it or, indeed, with its formulation. Therefore, I think that we should have a truce to this stuff which the Under-Secretary was talking yesterday about my right hon. Friend's attitude in that respect.
  But there is an important question that I hope the Minister will deal with tonight.
  494
  As these specific negotiations continue—I am thinking particularly of SALT II, possibly continuing into SALT III—the interests and security of Europe will become very closely involved with them. Will the Minister say a little about how he sees the interests of Europe, not presumably represented directly at the negotiating table in the SALT discussions, being protected as the subjects under discussion become more and more relevant to the specific defence of Europe?
  The other thing that we have seen, apart from these negotiations, is a worsening in the terms of the ideological struggle between the West and the East in the outside world. We have been accustomed to rules in this struggle, and these rules have been changed. In the jargon, I think that this can correctly he called a destabilising factor.
  Of course, we know, and we do not need the Foreign Secretary to tell us, that African problems originate in Africa. They are not invented by the Soviet Union. We also know that in the end it will be Africans who shape the future of Africa, and that, therefore, we should be particularly careful and skilful in our approach to these problems when we have to approach them.
  On all that, I think that there is common ground. But the change which has occurred—a change of which we have to take some notice—is that the Soviet Union has discovered a means of encouraging by armed force, by proxy, those groups in Africa, African groups, which share the Soviet Union's particular objective, which is to bias and force events in Africa in a way which is destructive to Western interests.
  That is the new factor, and that is where I think the otherwise reasonable analysis of the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) fell down, because he simply did not take account of this new factor which has been brought into events, principally in Africa but also in other continents.
  This is a very low-risk strategy on the part of the Soviet Union. The sad fact is that there is no reason why it should not continue indefinitely, until the West finds some way of dissuading them from such adventures.
  In this, the strength and attitude of the United States is crucial. I should like to

  495
  refer particularly to what was said on this point by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), with shocks and agonies, the United States is now clearly moving towards a new definition of its policy, and the President's speech yesterday at Annapolis, which we welcome, is the latest manifestation of that.
  The United States, being a very open society, accustomed to very open debate, is also open to suggestions from this country and its other allies. This particular time, when obviously policy is being formed and reformed, gives us an opportunity. It is a pity that the Prime Minister, using this opportunity during the NATO meeting last week, gave his encouragement to and came down on the side of those who favoured a passive and inward-looking American policy. He gave the impression, in a series of phrases which I think he should regret, that these things—he was mentioning Africa in particular—were rather too complicated and difficult for the Americans and that they would do better not to worry about them too much.
  I think that, in this, there is not only an encouragement to those who are passive, but just that hint of patronage which Englishmen fall into rather too easily in discussing things with Americans, and which is particularly resented.
  Once one decides that it is better to do nothing, there are all kinds of intelligent-sounding reasons why nothing should be done. We have heard many from Labour Members during this debate. But those reasons are not always a sure guide and can sometimes be a disastrous one. We are in danger of living intellectually in an era which is past.
  We have lived in an extraordinary era, during which the United States was prepared, for perhaps 25 years, to take a lead in many different parts of the world to preserve the peace and the kind of societies in which we live. They took a lot of stick and they made mistakes, but they soldiered on. I do not believe that that time will come again. It was an extraordinary and abnormal time, when the United States was prepared—not entirely alone, but almost alone and sometimes quite alone—to put up that
  496
  performance. I do not believe that the Americans will return to an alert and vigorous policy, which it is very much in our interests that they should, unless they now see a matching performance from Europe.
  That is what this debate has rightly concentrated on. What does that mean?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Yes—what does it mean?
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady is entirely justified in her query, which she also put in her speech. It means obviously the building, or to be more accurate the rebuilding, of our defences. The Foreign Secretary spoke of that with enthusiasm yesterday, and we share that enthusiasm.
  It is a pity that the prelude to this great build-up should have been a whole series of remarkable run-downs by this country in particular. That is a poor prelude for the Foreign Secretary's taking credit for what we now agree is necessary. There has not been a great deal of argument on that first element in the matching performance.
  Then there is the whole question of the political activities of the European Community. I am talking now of activities within the treaty, activities of the Community as a civilian power taking trade and financial decisions across the world. We have discussed this before and it would not be right to go into detail now, but the Community gives the impression of an adolescent, having a good deal of power, able, indeed forced, to take decisions collectively which are of great political importance to many countries outside the Community, but, rather like an adolescent, unable to control its own strength, to take its decisions in its own best interests.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), in an excellent speech, dealt succinctly with the problems of the Eastern Mediterranean. That is a classic example. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) made a similar point.
  When one thinks how the EEC has handled the economic problems of Cyprus and the whole relationship between Greece and Turkey and its relationship with Turkey in particular, one cannot be confident that the politics, the strategy, the general sensitivity of the

  497
  Community to politics and likely developments in that area is yet acute enough. One feels exactly the same about Australia and New Zealand, which are outposts of the West and of Western democracy in the South Pacific.
  In all these areas, one feels that decisions of great political moment are being taken without a full realisation of what is involved. That is within the treaties; it just requires a greater sensitivity by those who take decisions for the Community. It is not enough simply to deal with the matter in terms of economics—a tariff here and a quota there. The politics of the countries involved need to be considered.
  However, the thesis of this party is that that in itself is not enough and that recent events in Zaire show why. The pattern of history exposed by several Labour Members below the Gangway yesterday in particular was of people across the Third world, right through Asia and Africa, struggling everywhere towards the light in an irresistible surge against oppression. I do not see how one can square that simple analysis of what is happening in the world with recent events in Shaba province.
  One does not have to be an admirer of President Mobutu to believe that it would be a great step backward if Zaire were to dissolve into a series of warring provinces subject to the kind of atrocities practised in Kolwezi recently. I thought that at this point the Foreign Secretary was a little disingenuous in his speech yesterday, when he said that he did not quite understand what all the proposals various people were putting to him were about. He echoed the reaction of the Prime Minister at his Washington Press conference.
  On the question of rescuing nationals, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred, there seemed to be a fairly strong agreement within the House, recognising that what the French and Belgians did was correct and questioning the Government about our own intentions in that area if, unfortunately, something similar were to recur. I hope that the Minister will say something about our own and European nationals.
  On the wider point, there is the question of African States being willing and able to go to the help of other African
  498
  States against the kind of adventures we have ben talking about, produced by this new Soviet tactic and ability which we have not been able to match. The point we have made is that it would be wrong to leave such African countries without the means of support, without the ability to carry out that kind of operation, if we and they decided that it was necessary.
  The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) rightly referred to the peacekeeping ability of the United Nations. We have watched with admiration what the United Nations has done in the Lebanon with difficult terms of reference and a remarkably difficult situation. It has done very well.
  The limitation on United Nations peacekeeping, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) has said, is that although, techically speaking, a United Nations peacekeeping force can be set up by the General Assembly—it is possible to circumvent the Soviet veto—in practice it is unlikely that this would happen again. In practice the United Nations peacekeeping role is not effective in the circumstances on which we have been concentrating in this debate.
  Mr. Lee: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that there was such a peacekeeping force not long ago, after the Belgians walked out of the Congo in the most cynical and irresponsible way, in the worst possible conditions?
  Mr. Hurd: I do remember that. I remember the immense difficulties there were, with the Soviet Union refusing to pay. I think that it still refuses to pay. The Secretary-General risked and lost his life in the course of that operation. There were great difficulties, because it ran up against Soviet opposition. I do not think that we shall find the United Nations repeating that exercise.
  Mr. Luard: The Soviet Union did not veto the creation of that force.
  Mr. Hurd: The Soviet Union accepted it, but it attempted to undermine the force, and refused to pay for it. Generally it made the life of that force rather difficult. So there are limitations upon United Nations action here. That is why we return to the Community, believing that unless Europe can do something to match a possible United States performance we

  499
  are likely to suffer greatly from the lethargy and passivity which will result throughout the West. We have been saying that the European Community as a whole should be willing and prepared to do the kind of thing which the United States and France have done by themselves in the past few weeks.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me briefly, under what aegis the United Nations would do such a thing, and how it would create such an army when it has no right and when there is little indication of political will?
  Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) suggested that as the Lomé Convention was now being renegotiated it might be sensible to insert into those negotiations a discussion of this theme—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Impossible.
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady is entitled to her view, just as my right hon. Friend, who is in touch with these matters, is entitled to his.
  At any rate, the point about Lomé, as the hon. Lady emphasised, is that it is a matter for negotiation. There can be no question of imposing an arrangement of this kind; we are in a negotiation. Whether this is the right context remains to be seen. In view of the renegotiations now beginning, it is possibly a natural context. If it turns out to be the wrong context, however, there is another available—the whole political co-operation set-up of the EEC. One should not worry too much about the lack of existing machinery. What we are seeking is the political will to find some way in which the EEC can help solve this problem with African States and with the United States. That is what we are seeking. That is the trust of our case which has been sustained by a number of speeches by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  The Soviet Union obviously dislikes this whole move; that is clear in the comments from Moscow. But the remedy is in the Soviet Union's own hands. If the Cubans were to go home, the situation would subside. We would be left with the situation that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary rightly prefer —back with the old rules, whereby the
  500
  African problems are basically solved in an African context. But unless we can match in some way this new, unstable factor we shall find that the cards are constantly played against us.
  The same principle applies to Namibia and Rhodesia. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has picked up an interesting proposal that there should be British observers from now on watching the development and evolution of the internal settlement in Rhodesia, to see whether the accusations and criticisms made so freely are justified, or whether something is happening there in that there is a gradual and effective movement towards majority rule—in other words, to monitor the situation. If that proposal has come authoritatively from within the internal settlement, it would be right for the Minister of State to express a first reaction, if only a cautious one, to it. It seems to be a useful suggestion.
  Mr. Amery: The proposal comes from Mr. Sithole. I do not know whether it is yet endorsed by the other members of the Council. It is that there should be an observer on the Executive Council, on the Ministerial Committee, and even on the Security Council. My hon. Friend may like to ask the Government what they will do about it.
  Mr. Hurd: I have already done so. I hope that the Minister of State will deal specifically with the proposal.
  The arguments advanced from the Opposition have been all of one piece. We feel that the Foreign Secretary's speech, although strong on analysis and interesting to listen to, was rather short on policy—I endorse the critique of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). We feel that inactivity is not always masterly. We suspect that we are moving, as The Economist pointed out in an interesting article last weekend, into a new chapter of world affairs which is neither cold war nor detente, as some people hoped that it would develop. It is something in between the two, but we have to reckon with it and devise new rules for it. We feel that this important new stage into which we are entering will require rather more energy and imagination that has been evidenced so far in the ministerial speeches.
  9.34 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Frank Judd): This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. It has covered a great deal of ground, but it presents formidable difficulties for any Minister in trying to do justice to the speeches. I shall try to deal in detail with as many points as possible, but I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if it is not possible to treat them comprehensively. I shall try to follow up in correspondence points that it is not possible for me to include in my reply in the time available.
  One of the difficulties of this kind of generalised debate is that we are not able to go into any one subject in the depth that it deserves. For example, there was the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), who brought his considerable experience of Asian affairs to bear. We could with great benefit have a full-day's debate on the relationships with Asia alone but, obviously, that has not been possible.
  I hope that I shall be forgiven for suggesting it, but possibly we need to look at the form of these debates to see whether there is some way in which the House could perhaps have slightly more frequent and more closely focused debates which would stimulate a greater interest in depth among the general public.
  I should now like to deal with the special points as far as I can. I turn to the point made by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) with regard to détente. Of course, détente has underlain a great deal of our discussion during the past two days. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was never quite sure what détente amounted to. I think that a fairly clear and concise definition is possible. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, it is essentially about the need for a closer working relationship between the two major super-Powers in the world. In a nutshell, it is about the art of crisis prevention as opposed to crisis management.
  Does any hon. Member seriously want to risk a return to the situation at the time of the Cuban missile crisis? Of course not. We must, therefore, foster relations between Western countries and the Soviet Union. In this way I believe that we shall be able to forestall, through
  502
  effective relationships, the development of crises which could overtake us.
  Mr. Amery: The Minister asked whether we want to return to the Cuban missile crisis and said "Of course not". I tried to argue that the situation was very much safer at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, when the Americans had a clear supremacy, than it is today. Perhaps he would like to comment on that point.
  Mr. Judd: The right hon. Gentleman has always had his idiosyncratic views. I very much doubt whether many hon. Members would totally share that particular analysis. With regard to détente. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) referred to the value of cultural exchanges. The Government very much endorse what he said.
  The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet also talked about the importance of continuing with disarmament talks and negotiations. There are many reasons for doing this. One, which I hope we shall never overlook, is the gigantic use of resources which could be put to alternative constructive use. Another is the risk of accident, which is always there as the capacity of overkill develops in this advanced technology. We need to minimise that particular risk. It seems to me that it is an inescapable objective for a civilised nation to continue working for disarmament.
  In saying that, I recognise that it is easy to become cynical about the chances of success. There can be a tendency to treat disarmament as an intellectualised game, but I believe that this tendency has to be resisted. In my view, the hallmark of the values of our society in this respect will be our refusal to give in and our determination to keep trying within the context of an effective defence system.
  Reference was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) to arms sales. I would not for one moment argue against the proposition that global expenditure on armaments is far too high. It certainly is. British policy is one of responsible restraint. We have pressed strongly for international discussions

  503
  aimed at limiting the build-up of conventionel weapons throughout the world. I suggest to the House that President Carter's May 1977 statement on restraint in future American sales of conventional arms was highly welcome. The only way of effectively achieving a genuine reduction is through multilaterally agreed restraints by both suppliers and customers. Some proposals for this are in the Western draft programme for the current United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.
  On Rhodesia there have been several observations, by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, the hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) and others. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with this in detail yesterday, as he did with the point about the observer, which is not a particularly new idea. I should like very briefly to emphasise that we are convinced that the Salisbury agreement is an inadequate basis for a settlement. We believe that all parties—and I mean all parties—must be brought together in round-table talks if the tragedy of full-scale war in Rhodesia is to be averted. This is the basis of the joint Anglo-United States strategy and a policy which, I believe, everyone in the House will recognise has the wholehearted support of President Kaunda and President Khama.
  The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) emphasised his own thoughts in this respect. I should like to make the point that if we were to participate in any arrangements under the Salisbury agreement we would be aligning ourselves with one side in the conflict and would thus lose any power we have to bring the parties together or to mediate.
  There have also been references to Namibia by the right hon. Member for Pavilion, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) and others. I put it to the House that the five-Power proposal offers a fair and reasonable settlement. It meets the legitimate concerns of all the parties, and South Africa's acceptance of it is a major and welcome development. In saying that, we must understand that the South African raid on Cassinga proved a severe and serious setback to this process. Inevitably there will be a delay
  504
  in progress towards agreement. We are urging all involved to help curb the spiral of violence and to refrain from unilateral actions which can only lead to more violence.
  An internally agreed settlement would not be in the best interests of Namibia. We must do all we can to achieve an internationally acceptable settlement.
  Mr. Amery Mr. Amery rose—
  Mr. Judd: I am replying to points made by a number of Members, and I cannot do justice to them all if I give way. Perhaps we could continue this matter in correspondence.
  There has also been reference to Cyprus and to some of the wider Mediterranean issues related to that country. This point was made by the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), some of whose speech I heard. I shall read it with great interest. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), the Government are very concerned at the continuing lack of progress towards a political settlement in Cyprus. We have made it clear to the parties involved that, together with our partners, we are ready to help in any way that might be considered useful. The Government believe, however, that a just, lasting and viable settlement must be negotiated between the two communities in Cyprus who have to live with the terms of such a settlement.
  The intercommunal talks remain, in our view, the best means of progress because they bring together the two sides in the dispute. Therefore, we warmly welcome the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to bring about a resumption of the talks. It is perfectly clear that the question of the American arms embargo on Turkey, now before Congress, is a complicating factor. Timing is important and obviously could be difficult. However, we shall continue to urge the parties to show a willingness to negotiate and to adopt a constructive and flexible approach to negotiations. The point was made to Mr. Ecevit last month and, indeed, will also be made to President Kyprianou later this month.
  The issue of human rights in this context has also been raised. I emphasise how much we feel that we must remember the unique role of the Council of

  505
  Europe in upholding human rights. If we recognise the importance of the Council of Europe in this respect, we must be on our guard against the erosion by political expediency of this precious task that has been charged to it.
  I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will do their best to ensure that a just decision is reached in this matter in accordance with the convention. Under the normal procedure the consequent resolution would, of course, be published.
  It is important to say a word or two about the Middle East. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) made a new contribution to this discussion, and one should comment on it. The tragic events in South Lebanon have been a cruel reminder of the human cost of the Arab-Israel conflict. More positively, they underline the importance of the role that the United Nations can play in effective peacekeeping in the Middle East, as the right hon. Gentleman said.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has long advocated a United Nations force to provide stability on the Israel-Lebanon frontier. I myself had an opportunity to discuss this with President Sarkis of the Lebanon in October of last year. Prevention would certainly have been better than cure, but with the impact of Israel's incursion the Security Council moved with commendable speed, under the skilful chairmanship of our permanent representative, Ivor Richard, to establish the United Nations force in March. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the United Nations Secretary-General and his staff on their efforts in moving the force into position. It will reach full strength in the next few days as Royal Air Force aircraft fly in the remaining troops of the Fijian contingent.
  Now that Israel has agreed to withdraw her forces by 13th June, work can proceed on the reconstruction of shattered villages in the south, and the Government are considering how they can help in this task. We are also in touch with a number of Arab Governments to urge them to use their influence with the PLO to prevent further attacks on the United Nations force and attempts by the guerrillas to infiltrate the South. If the United Nations force can prove its worth, the value of United Nations peace-
  506
  keeping guarantees in the context of a peace settlement in the Middle East will certainly be enhanced.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley also raised the problem of the Palestinians in the context of the Middle East. I should like to emphasise to him that the Government believe that it is possible for an agreement to be worked out, which both Egypt and Jordan could support, which would give the Palestinians the right to participate in determining their own future, and which would not jeopardise Israel's security. Representation of the Palestinian people must obviously be effective if any peace negotiation is to work. The Government do not believe that the Palestinians should be excluded from the negotiations, but, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, it would be very much easier to have a dialogue with some Palestinian groups if they would at least formally recognise the State of Israel.
  I now move to the issue which has continued today to dominate the debate, as, indeed, it did yesterday. I refer briefly to the affairs of Africa. First, taking up the theme of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), I should like to speak about detente in the context of Africa. Local conflicts and periodic instability are not new features on the African scene, but it would be idle to pretend that progress on detente can remain unaffected by Soviet and Cuban exploitation of this instability.
  The British Government subscribe to the OAU principles that pre-independence boundaries should be adhered to and that African disputes should be settled by Africans themselves, but every country has the right to call on another for help in safeguarding order and, indeed, prosperity. We cannot, however, overlook the fact that such a move might have consequences in an East-West context. Such help must be directed at assisting African States to solve their basic economic and social problems and not just at tackling the current consequences of those problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) was right to stress this matter in her remarks.
  We are now engaged in examining the recommendations by officials after their meeting in Paris last Monday. We hope to agree with the other countries involved a common approach to the problems that

  507
  arise when African States ask for help in order to maintain their integrity and to pursue economic development. We must, however, make it more attractive for those African States which need help to seek it from the West rather than from the East.
  In the meantime, in the context of East-West relations, we must recognise the need for both sides to exercise the same restraint in Africa as they have exercised in Europe and to some extent in the Middle East. Africa, in our view, must be removed from the arena of East-West confrontation. The Governments and peoples in East and West must be made to realise the frightening consequences if this is not done.
  With great respect to the sincerity of those who argue against the Government's position, I believe that it is absurd to describe this objective by the Government as one of weak-kneed neutrality. It is a positive and, I believe, far-sighted assessment based on considered analysis rather than instantaneous gut reaction to highly emotional developments. African problems are not susceptible to instant solutions and the possible consequences for East-West relations make it all the more important that our solutions, when arrived at, are the right ones.
  I wish to say a few words about the comments of the right hon. Member for Devon, North about a Pan-African force as a sort of United Nations regional force in the area. The Government support efforts by African States to assist one another to promote stability and economic development in the continent. We see the OAU as an important focus for African co-operation, and we want to help to develop that element. We note with interest the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion of a United Nations regional force, but that is a matter for the Africans themselves to consider.
  I wish to turn to the suggestion of a European military intervention force in Africa. The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) referred to that matter, as did the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). We had a powerful contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and a thoughtful contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West on the subject.
  508
  Although I understand today's modification of what may have been conveyed to the House by the Opposition yesterday, I wish to refer to the contribution of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), who had a good deal to do with originating this idea. What he said cannot be glossed over. His words were:
  "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."—[Official Report, 7th June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 296.]
  I suggest that at least in emphasis that proposition yesterday was put forward by somebody who played a prominent part in the authorship of the idea and should be compared with the kind of interpretation given by the Opposition today.
  Let me seek to underline, in the most constructive spirit possible, our anxiety. We feel that to promote a European force, or even a force of Africans based on the insistence of the EEC in the form of the new Lomé Convention, to intervene in Africa would bring us into conflict with the policies and principles of the Organisation of African Unity and its member States. It would increase the element of East-West confrontation which we and the African States want to avoid. It would cut across the African view which was most recently emphasised by President Nyerere—a view that we support—namely, that African problems are best dealt with by African nations. It would be divisive and would prejudice our relations with the African States rather than encourage negotiations and co-operation, which we believe should be our aim.
  A European or European-initiated itervention force would be different in nature from isolated Services-assisted evacuations for humanitarian purposes in an emergency. Such activity, referred to by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), to protect our citizens when in danger is a different proposition and more generally accepted to be justified.
  However, in dealing with Zaire we have also to consider the economic dimensions. It has wisely been pointed out

  509
  by several right hon. and hon. Members that the economic problems of Zaire, which are serious and complicated, cannot successfuly be solved unless the Government of Zaire tackle effectively their political problems. Thus, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in his speech yesterday, our first priority is to encourage the kind of discussion which has already begun between President Kaunda on the one hand and Presidents Mobutu and Neto on the other about the stability and political problems of the area. We want essentially to help this process.
  Our aim is to assist African States to help each other wherever possible, as provided for by the OAU charter, and not ourselves to intervene in Africa. This is a basic principle of our policy in Africa and, as with other principles of that policy, I assure the House that we intend to stick to it.
  I should like to deal with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottinghamshire, West (Mr. English). As I informed the House on 23rd May, candidates for direct elections are entitled to know what emoluments they will receive before they are nominated, and even more so the voters before they go to the polls. Some of the figures currently being bandied about in the Press are grotesque. As the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon has rightly said, nothing could do more harm to the Community's reputation in this country than the feeling that it is a "rich and expensive gravy train". The final decision on emoluments will be that of the Council of Ministers acting unanimously. The Government are determined to resist the inflated salary levels that are being talked about.
  My right hon. Friend, because of this strength of commitment on the part of the Government, informed the Council of Ministers earlier this week that it was essential that this issue should be settled in the near future.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend nevertheless accept that we are, except for the Irish, the lowest-paid Members of Parliament in Europe, and that it is likely that salaries will be fixed in accordance with German salaries and not with our own?
  Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend has made plain that we are resisting the
  510
  concept of salaries which are out of relation with salaries paid to our own Members of Parliament in this House.
  Mr. English: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Judd: No.
  Mr. English: The Cabinet has broken its pledges on Members' pay.
  Mr. Judd: May I deal briefly with another point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon on the SALT talks? He asked whether I would clarify our approach to SALT II. I emphasise that the outline SALT II agreement responds to the security interests and concern of NATO members. It would enhance strategic stability and maintain deterrence. The Americans have consulted their allies closely throughout the negotiations. The agreement will protect important European interests.
  In his speech this afternoon, the hon. Member for Shoreham talked about the wider significance of foreign policy and about the morale, the role and the purpose of Britain. I agree that Britain has been through difficult times in recent years. These times have been economic in form and largely characterised by an economic crisis which has affected us all. However, it is wrong to suppose that Britain's underlying difficulty is exclusively economic.
  There is a problem of self-confidence. The hon. Member for Shoreham is a fair and just man. I put it to him that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, by the lead that they have given on human rights, on defence, on disarmament, on Southern Africa, on their determination to play a positive role in the EEC, on the issue of the enlargement of the EEC and on the greater significance for consumer interests in the context of the common agricultural policy of the EEC—whether we like to consider the wider international issues or the more limited international issues of the Community—have in the past year provided exactly the kind of determined leadership for which the hon. Gentleman called. I believe that this has been recognised by the British people. It has enabled them to start going about their lives and tackling their work with a greater sense of self-confidence, and I believe that this

  511
  recognition will be well represented when the nation goes to the polls—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (HOUSING MANAGEMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
  10 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: There are clearly only a few hon. Members who are interested in the points that I wish to make. I am aware that housing is basically a local authority matter, but we are concerned nationally about standards of provision. The Department of the Environment is in business to help local authorities, where possible, to improve their housing stock and to advise in many areas, including the management of stock.
  The background to the problems of the inner town area of Preston cannot be covered in depth in a short speech, but part of the history must be told. In 1955 the council embarked upon the first slum clearance programme affecting a part of the town known as Avenham, between Manchester Road and Frenchwood Street. When clearance was under way and the cost of land was known to be £32,000 an acre, Preston was pressed by the then Minister, on financial grounds, to build upwards.
  Two multi-storey blocks, Lancaster House and York House, were opened in about 1960. They were closely followed by Cumberland House, Westmorland House and Northumberland House. To people in need, these represented acceptable residences. In 1962, further blocks, Carlisle House, Richmond House and Durham House, closely followed by Kendal House and Penrith House, provided a total of 849 dwellings of mixed types including bed-sitters and one-, two-and three-bedroomed flats.
  In 1965 the housing committee was faced with complaints by tenants of heavy condensation and various attempts were made through the construction industry to remedy those defects, without notable success. It subsequently came to
  512
  the notice of the council and certain social and behavioural problems were also appearing within these blocks.
  The housing committee sought, as far as practicable, not to rehouse into those blocks families with young children, but it must be reported that this policy has failed. I am not involved with many of the families with young children in these multi-storey blocks who want to get out as quickly as possible for a variety of reasons, but mainly because of the difficulties of providing children with play facilities and the mischief that children can clearly get into in that sort of environment.
  The financial problem for the local authority has been immense in terms of cost of building, landscaping maintenance, and so on, and rents have varied over the years. The conditions in these dwellings deteriorated noticeably in about 1970, when vandalism became rife and the behavioural problems produced the fouling of lifts, excess noise, bad neighbour relations and damage to windows and other property within the buildings.
  Attempts were made by the local authority to control these aspects through meetings with tenants and the scheme for locking up in one block, Kendal House, fairly early at night. That produced a pattern of breaking and entering, and was not a success.
  The operation of the lifts has produced a loss of several thousand pounds in refurbishing, and the lift suppliers have clearly lost interest in maintaining an adequate stock of spares to keep the lifts running.
  Under the Fair Rents Act an attempt was made to have the blocks valued in such a way as to provide for a reduction in rents on the ground of inferior accommodation, but that was unsuccessful. Indeed, they were rated at about £10 more than comparable properties in much better areas.
  Various suggestions have been considered by the housing committee, political control of which has changed over the years, as to alternative use. Investigations have been carried out concerning criteria for entry—for example, no young children, executive-type employment, or student occupancy through the Preston Polytechnic. The latter presents considerable difficulties in terms of finance.

  513
  There is about £9 million owing for the next 40-odd years, and any release of accommodation for students would, I believe, not rank for grant or loan. A rent for a flat may emerge at about £20 a week. Modifications have been estimated in respect of one block to amount to £120,000. As students normally require accommodation for only 40 weeks a year the other 12 weeks' rental presents a problem. Additionally, it must be recognised that some of the present occupants wish to remain in the buildings. One suggestion was made that the blocks be used for elderly people, but discussions with Age Concern soon dispelled that notion.
  After the decision to reduce the number of families with younger children had been taken the numbers of families wishing to transfer crystallised. There are now about 130 families seeking a transfer in a situation in which there are 2,563 families in Preston seeking a home, many of whom—it is estimated at over 50 per cent.—are priority cases.
  The house building programme of the present Conservative-controlled council is 100 houses for rent this year, with the hope that housing associations will supplement that figure. An area cleared for rebuilding, known as Maudland Bank, is presently being developed. Wimpeys are building thereon 72 houses, most of which win be for sale to local authority housing list applicants. In Ingol, about 200 units of accommodation are planned. Within Ingol and Grange Estate there are many families becoming increasingly discontented in two-, three-, and four-storey flats where they have young children and where there are problems of vandalism and anti-social behaviour.
  The Central Lancashire New Town has a role to play in urban renewal and it would be interesting to know whether it can assist in the particular area to which I refer. It is possible that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to comment on that. Recently the council has employed staff to knock on doors to sell houses. The end-product is likely to be 1,000 fewer houses for rent. During the past six weeks a further 270 families have been added to the priority list and the trend suggests that by the end of 1978 there are likely to be 3,000 on the waiting list in Preston. That will be the highest figure ever recorded in the town's history.
  514
  My purpose in raising these extremely difficult problems is to seek my hon. Friend's advice on their solution. I recognise that that is not an easy proposition. Is there any way in which a local conference of Ministers, housing committee members and officers, Members of Parliament, community representatives within the social service sector, the probationary service, tenants and residents associations and others, could be set up to consider how in a collective way we can overcome the difficulties and plan a progressive housing policy at Preston?
  I should welcome my hon. Friend's advice on that score. As I have taken only 10 minutes, and have done so deliberately, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) will be allowed to say a few words to supplement the points that I have made which I am sure the Under-Secretary will find little difficulty in accepting. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise these matters.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) for allowing me a few minutes to make a contribution to this short debate.
  We suffer from changing fashions in planning. In the 1950s and early 1960s planning opinion favoured high-rise flats as the answer to problems of land scarcity in town centres. These blocks today are almost universially condemned by the same planners. Tenants are refusing to live in them as being unsuitable for their familities or for other reasons.
  It is a pity that we cannot anticipate, or even to want to anticipate, the wishes of those who have to live in the buildings that we plan for them. This lack of consultation is also evident in modernisation. For example, some tenants are forced to accept central heating which they cannot afford to cope with and are advised to keep their windows open when condensation or fungus appears on the walls.
  There is a need for consultation and a freer choice in all housing matters. Housing authorities provide better houses, but not always better communities. The authorities do not ask grandparents whether they want to be segregated, with others, away from their children and grandchildren. They do not ask parents

  515
  whether they would like gran—the best and cheapest baby sitter—to live in a street nearby.
  We in this House deliberate in our Select Committees and discover that violence in the family is often due to the break-up of family ties which in the past made a family secure and a community balanced. High-rise flats are unsuitable for children, and couples need to move when they have children. How can we have a stable community in such conditions?
  There is much to be said for good old-fashioned houses to replace the old streets which are being demolished. When I was a member of the Preston Borough Council, I advocated that, as the houses in the Wilbraham/Geoffrey Street area were being pulled down, the rebuilding of the street should proceed soon afterwards, enabling those who wished to do so to remain in the neighbourhood. If the Tories had adopted that Labour policy, we would have seen houses rising on what is now waste land which attracts vandals, rubbish and vermin.
  It saddens me to see Tory district councils wanting to rid themselves of their most important remaining function—their housing services. In Preston, the housing waiting list has now reached 2,576. It has increased by 105 in the last few weeks. That total was already much too high. But, apart from not carrying on the programme which Labour started, the Preston Council is waiting for others to get on with the job of building on waste land that has been waiting for houses too long. Good housing is the most important factor in social improvement. We ignore it at our peril.
  10.13 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) for raising this very live issue. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I used to believe that education was the key to everything. I must say that my experience in the Department of the Environment with some of our housing problems leads me to agree with my hon. Friends' comments about the basic necessity of good housing for the family and for the com-
  516
  munity and for all the things that we regard as being essential to the good life.
  Housing authorities have an obligation to meet the genuine housing needs of the local community. The new Government policy on housing investment programmes affords the opportunity of achieving a comprehensive housing strategy which is sensitive and responsive to the local situation.
  In two constructive speeches tonight, we have been reminded that the solution to our housing problems is something more than we used to believe. We used to talk about the physical provision of units of accommodation. We are talking about homes, the environment, people and families. There can be no more important subject. Sensitive management is essential if we are to overcome many of our housing problems. I find it reassuring, therefore, that there is a growing awareness of this amongst local authorities, with which the day-to-day responsibility for housing management rests.
  My hon. Friends spelt out plainly the responsibility of local authorities. But the Government have views about housing priorities, and we also have some responsibility and involvement. I believe that my Department has its part to play in disseminating advice on the best practice, and the recognition of this by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South tonight is welcome.
  By drawing particular attention to multi-storey flats, my hon. Friend has raised again a problem that has received a great deal of publicity. For many of us, the mention of high-rise dwellings brings to mind all that is worst on the contemporary housing scene. Life in high-rise dwellings can be difficult, and, naturally, there is frustration when things go wrong. We all understand that. Unfortunately, practical solutions to these problems are not easy to find, and I shall be talking later about ways in which we in the Department are trying to help.
  When we were considering how we could help raise the standard of housing management, we decided that we should look first at the Department's own organisation. That was how the housing services advisory unit has come into being. It will be a valuable source of professional advice for the Department

  517
  and will also give us a new channel of communication through which good practice can be spread.
  The Department's housing services advisory group will also continue to make a substantial contribution. It includes local authority officers and members, representatives of the voluntary movement and researchers, and it has already gone into a number of important topics with great care. Six reports are already available, and it is currently coming to the end of a study of how local authority housing is allocated.
  My hon. Friend has pointed out that in his constituency families with young children are still living in multi-storey blocks. This is often where the trouble begins. We expect the HSAG's report to touch on the steps that local authorities should take, through the allocation process and in other ways, to alleviate this and some of the other problems of high-rise living.
  We must not forget, however, that some high-rise flats are successful and popular—believe it or not—with tenants. It is just as important to learn from success as from failure. Some tower blocks are well designed, excellently finished and well landscaped. But, at least as importantly, careful thought must be given to selection of the occupants.
  In some cases, for example, tall blocks are reserved mainly for old people, with a certain leavening of families without young children so that the friction which can and does arise between the young and the old is avoided as far as possible. My hon. Friends have implied that local authorities are being advised against arrangements like these, but there have been a number of cases where this sort of solution has proved acceptable to them and their elderly tenants.
  In other cases young, single people in groups, or students, have gone into these dwellings. I can reassure my hon. Friends about the worry they expressed about the loss of loan or grant in such cases. Local authorities will not lose housing sibsidy provided that the management of the dwellings remains under their direct control. It is for them to fix rents according to whatever criteria they choose, and rebates are, of course, available to tenants who cannot afford the rents asked.
  518
  Security, as my hon. Friends rightly stressed, is vital, and the installation of entry-phone systems has helped to prevent damage and nuisance by outsiders and to reduce lift breakdowns associated with vandalism.
  As for families with young children, the Department's policy is to recommend local authorities to put them into ground-level dwellings, preferably houses. I am glad to say that we have evidence that this advice is being heeded.
  In some places, however, a complete removal of all families with children is not possible, and our social research division, which has for some time been studying the whole question of children living off the ground, has been interviewing families which took second-best solutions, such as the lower floors of tower or walkup blocks. We expect to learn from this fairly soon whether such moves have been successful or whether new problems are emerging.
  Where transfers are not possible, we hope that local authorities will consider the provision of compensating facilities such as playgroups, mother-and-toddler groups and so on. The social research division is now looking at this question, and we hope in due course to give advice to local authorities based on best practice.
  Some multi-storey estates are also those where dwellings are becoming progressively more difficult to let. My Department is looking at ways in which we can help, and the findings from a series of studies are to be published later this year. They should give some valuable insights into the problem. Where specialist advice is needed, we hope that authorities will contact the housing services advisory unit through the Department's regional office. In addition, housing authorities have to determine for themselves whether this harder-to-let accommodation fits into their housing strategies—perhaps, for example, as accommodation for young single people willing to share. Demolition is not necessarily the best or the only solution. There may be cases where it is unavoidable, but it should be regarded as very much a last resort.
  Vandalism is a problem which seems to afflict worst those very areas which are already run-down and unattractive. I believe that while we can certainly give vandals fewer opportunities by care in

  519
  the way we design and the materials we use, to get at the causes we need to go deeper and look at ways in which we can develop community interest and responsibility in the neighbourhood concerned. The Department is already keeping in close touch and exchanges information with the Home Office and the Department of Education and Science. In the short term, we hope to issue advice to local authorities later this year. The anti vandal exhibition which was organised by Council magazine and which I opened this week is another example of ways in which useful experience on the subject can be disseminated.
  Many of the problems encountered in housing management are due, at least in part, to the breakdown of established communities. Many people feel overpowered by the scale of their estates and remote from the management of them. There is a great deal of scope for bringing housing management closer to the neighbourhood level, with easily accessible estate offices and local co-operation between other services and the housing staff. In this way, housing managers can develop a deeper knowledge of their estates and their tenants and become much more in tune with their problems. By looking at housing on a human scale, we can start to re-create communities which people can identify.
  I listened most carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South said about the Avenham estate, which, as he recognised, is the responsibility of Preston Borough Council. The Department would be happy to give such
  520
  advice and assistance as is in its power. This could probably best be done in the first instance by informal consultations between the council's officers and the Department's regional office. This is also just the sort of situation in which the new housing services advisory unit might be able to help. The regional office would be ready to bring in the unit's director as necessary, if the local authority should decide to follow this course.
  We are tackling other aspects of housing management in various ways. But what I have said tonight illustrates the need for a new approach to housing management. To succeed, it must be comprehensive, purposeful and sensitive to the needs of individuals. As our work in the Department progresses, we shall continue to issue advice based on our findings. But it can only be advice. Day-to-day management must remain the responsibility of local authorities. We want to work with them and draw on their experience.
  I am most grateful to my hon. Friends for giving me this opportunity to give an account of our efforts to date on this important social issue. I shall read with care what has been said in this debate, and if I have missed any point I shall certainly write to my hon. Friends. I assure them of our continuing concern to meet the genuine housing needs of the community, and any co-operation or advice that we can give will be readily available.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Barry Goodwin
  Barry Goodwin
  Prisoners (Representations)
  Prisoners (Representations)
  Television Licence Fee
  Television Licence Fee
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  Crime Rate
  Crime Rate
  Pornography and Capital Punishment
  Pornography and Capital Punishment
  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation
  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation
  Pornography
  Pornography
  Local Lotteries
  Local Lotteries
  Juvenile Crime
  Juvenile Crime
  Sex Discrimination Legislation (Police)
  Sex Discrimination Legislation (Police)
  Police (Expenditure)
  Police (Expenditure)
  Television (Fourth Channel)
  Television (Fourth Channel)
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Burglar Alarms (Broadcasting Licences)
  Burglar Alarms (Broadcasting Licences)
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Blood Sports
  Blood Sports
  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  Union Jack
  Union Jack
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
  Terrorist Activities (Suspected Persons)
  Terrorist Activities (Suspected Persons)
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Electorates)
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Electorates)
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Sentences
  General Election (Service Personnel Spouses)
  General Election (Service Personnel Spouses)
  Police (North Yorkshire)
  Police (North Yorkshire)
  Entry Clearance Certificates
  Entry Clearance Certificates
  Crossbows
  Crossbows
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Prisoners (Correspondence)
  Prisoners (Correspondence)
  Illegal Immigration (European Community Directive)
  Illegal Immigration (European Community Directive)
ENERGY
  Gas
  Gas
  Wave Power
  Wave Power
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Housing Advisory Committee
  Scottish Housing Advisory Committee
  Scottish Home Ownership Forum
  Scottish Home Ownership Forum
  CORONER (DUDLEY, SOUTH)
  CORONER (DUDLEY, SOUTH)
  PERSONAL INJURY (LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION)
  PERSONAL INJURY (LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION)
  CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT
  CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT
  MR. LIDDLE TOWERS
  MR. LIDDLE TOWERS
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
WALES
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Homoeopathy
  Homoeopathy
  National Insurance Fund
  National Insurance Fund
  Radiation Hazards
  Radiation Hazards
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Spinal Injury Services
  Spinal Injury Services
  Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis (Appeals)
  Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis (Appeals)
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
  LEGISLATION
  LEGISLATION
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VOTES OF CONFIDENCE)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VOTES OF CONFIDENCE)
  PRIME MINISTER (MINISTERIAL BROADCAST)
  PRIME MINISTER (MINISTERIAL BROADCAST)
  PRIME MINISTER (ORAL QUESTIONS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ORAL QUESTIONS)
  ZAMBIA
  ZAMBIA
ENVIRONMENT
  Children's Playgrounds (Safety)
  Children's Playgrounds (Safety)
  Building Developments (Gas and Electricity Supplies)
  Building Developments (Gas and Electricity Supplies)
  Government Contractors
  Government Contractors
  Radiation Hazards
  Radiation Hazards
  Youth Organisations (Birmingham)
  Youth Organisations (Birmingham)
  National Water Council and Water Authority Chairmen
  National Water Council and Water Authority Chairmen
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Companies (Take-over Bids)
  Companies (Take-over Bids)
  Eye Cosmetics
  Eye Cosmetics
  Overcharging
  Overcharging
  Fuels and Services
  Fuels and Services
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Pakistan and Bangladesh (Natural Gas)
  Pakistan and Bangladesh (Natural Gas)
  Aid
  Aid
  Niger
  Niger
  Aid Expenditure
  Aid Expenditure
  Departmental Office Space
  Departmental Office Space
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Castlereagh (Amnesty International Report)
  Castlereagh (Amnesty International Report)
  Lame (Port Security)
  Lame (Port Security)
EMPLOYMENT
  Pay Policy
  Pay Policy
  Food Price Index
  Food Price Index
  Central Arbitration Committee
  Central Arbitration Committee
  Slate Quarrymen
  Slate Quarrymen
  Micro-Processors
  Micro-Processors
TRADE
  Airports (Security)
  Airports (Security)
INDUSTRY
  Raw Material Prices
  Raw Material Prices
  Manufacturing (Capital Investment)
  Manufacturing (Capital Investment)
  Manufacturing (International Comparisons)
  Manufacturing (International Comparisons)
  Postal Services (Christmas Cards)
  Postal Services (Christmas Cards)
  Post Office (Dispute)
  Post Office (Dispute)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxes
  Taxes
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Child Tax Allowances
  Child Tax Allowances
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Corporation Tax Forms
  Corporation Tax Forms
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  International Peacekeeping
  International Peacekeeping
  USSR (Human Rights)
  USSR (Human Rights)
  Dominica
  Dominica
  Diplomatic Staff (Child Education Allowances)
  Diplomatic Staff (Child Education Allowances)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
DEFENCE
  Defence Personnel (Medical Examinations)
  Defence Personnel (Medical Examinations)
  Radiation Hazards
  Radiation Hazards
  Army Cadets and Air Training Corps (Birmingham)
  Army Cadets and Air Training Corps (Birmingham)
  Parachute Forces
  Parachute Forces
  RAF Personnel (Retirement)
  RAF Personnel (Retirement)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR Oil the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

MERCHANT SHIPPING LEGISLATION
Lord SHINWELL: 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, as the new Merchant Shipping Bill is likely to be non-controversial, time can be found for its passage this Session.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, unfortunately there is insufficient Parliamentary time for this substantial Bill this Session, but the Government remain committed to it and will introduce it at the earliest suitable opportunity.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is complete unanimity about the need for this Bill? —particularly because of the safety regulations abroad merchant vessels. Is he aware that the British Council of Shipping want it, the navigating officers' union want it, and the National Union of Seamen want it? There is practically no opposition and the Bill could go through almost "on the nod". In view of the enormous number of casualties that take place on board merchant ships —in fact, there are more than in the mining industry, apart from fatalities, which are greater in the mining industry —the urgency is paramount. Will the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend to reconsider the matter and try to push this Bill through?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the noble Lord's remarks, but I am certain that there are many other desirable pieces of legislation also in the pipe-line, and I
1380
can only take advice. "There is no time in this Session to pass this Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, apart from the fact that the Bill is broadly acceptable to all the organizations which are most concerned, can the noble Lord confirm that it needs to be enacted soon in order to meet our international commitments and also to validate what the shipping industry and the navigational and pilots' services are all ready to put into effect? As it is most unlikely to be politically controversial, will the Minister confirm that it should not take very much time going through Parliament?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, on the second point, I could never give such a guarantee; all sorts of strange things happen during the passage of a Bill. However, I can say that the Government's commitment continues, which is indicated by the fact that the draft clauses of the Bill were recently published in a White Paper entitled, Action on Safety and Pollution at Sea: New Merchant Shipping Bill. This was raised on 15th May. It is clearly an important measure, but there is not time for it this Session.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, if the whole of your Lordships' House all voted in favour of this Bill, could the noble Lord explain why we could not for once have our way, instead of the Government having their way?

CHILE: DEFENCE ATTACHES
3.10 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: 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 which of our NATO allies have either a naval or defence attaché at their embassy in Chile.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, of our NATO allies the United States,

1381
France and the Federal Republic of Germany have naval or defence attaches at their embassies in Chile.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am asking this Question in the interests of our own country and the general NATO defence system? I gather that the number of our staff in the Chile embassy is very meagre indeed. Is there any hope of it being improved?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the position is kept closely under review in the light of the circumstances which my noble friend the Chief Whip described so well in previous exchanges with the noble Baroness. We are represented by an excellent charge d'affaires in Santiago, and he has an adequate staff to assist him in the discharge of the full duties of the embassy.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain to the House why his noble friend said on that occasion, in his unavoidable absence, that the ambassador had been withdrawn from Chile because of the British Government's disapproval?—and yet the next day, in answer to a Question about Mr. Orlov and the Soviet Union, his noble friend said that it was absolutely imperative to keep:
"all avenues open…—cultural, economic, and every other kind—in the hope of influencing them [Soviet Russia] on the human rights issue". —[Official Report, 24/5/78; col. 958.]
What is the difference between our policy towards the Soviet Union and that towards Chile, other than perhaps in the Government's standards?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the previous British ambassador to Chile was withdrawn at the end of 1975 as a protest against the disgraceful way in which a British subject—Dr. Sheila Cassidy—had been treated in detention. We can point to no such identical case in the Soviet Union. In any case, the larger point raised by the noble Lord is covered by the answer that I have given from this Box from time to time; that is, that we look at each country and each case on its merits. The position in Chile is different from that in the Soviet Union.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Government would not then agree with
1382
the noble Baroness that it is important that:
"we should keep all avenues open…—cultural, economic and every other kind—in the hope of influencing"
countries on human rights?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Government are keeping all possible avenues open in order to influence the Government of Chile in the direction which the noble Lord has described. The avenues in one country differ from those in another country, and differ from time to time. In fact, the Government would very much agree with my noble friend in the answer that she gave.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to keeping all possible avenues open. How does that square with keeping the embassy in the charge of a chargé d'affaires and not an ambassador? Surely that is short of all possible measures.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with all respect, it is not. The possible avenue, diplomatically, in the circumstances that I have described, is the presence of a chargé d'affaires and the withdrawal of the ambassador to mark our strong resentment and condemnation of the way in which a British subject was treated. That is the possible avenue in those conditions.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure that he is—that one defence attaché, or military or naval attaché or any other kind, has certain functions which are outside the normal processes of diplomatic representation? Is the noble Lord aware that one of the main points upon which we must base our attitude to any other country is accurate information? Are we not denying ourselves one of the most important channels of accurate information in not having defence, military or naval attaches in Santiago?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with every respect to what my noble friend has said, as he has considerable knowledge and experience of these matters, both militarily and diplomatically, I would say that we are not disadvantaged from the point of view of getting all the necessary information

1383
in this area, as in others, by the fact that our representation in Santiago is as I have described.
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEIN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Chilean Navy was founded by a Scotsman, that it was modelled on British lines, and that very close connections between the two Services have existed ever since? These must be debilitated by the lack of a naval attaché in Santiago.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am well aware of our traditional friendship with the Chilean people and the close ties between our two Navies. We look forward to an early resumption of those close ties with a free and democratic Chile.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that we have been given a considerable amount of employment in producing naval vessels for Chile over the years? Surely it would be of great benefit to this country—and to employment in this country—if we did at least have naval attaches there to encourage orders similar to those which we have had in the past.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not say that the presence of a naval attaché—whose functions have necessarily been reduced by the circumstances and developments I have described —would in any appreciable way assist the motivation which the noble Lord mentioned. We continue to discharge our contractual obligations in this field to the Chilean Government and other interests there. What we have said is that we have banned new arms sales to Chile since the supplanting of the democratically elected Government and the assassination of its Prime Minister in the presidential palace.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, this morning the newspapers reported that we were not fulfilling our contractual obligations with regard to parts for aeroplanes.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I understand that an application has been made for the export of those parts, and the matter is under consideration.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the type of argument being used by members of the Party opposite—and indeed by those on the Cross-Benches- if accepted in principle, would place Her Majesty's Government in a position of being unable, by their acts, to disapprove of acts of any other country, and would deprive them of the right to show their disfavour in all cases?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that my noble friend put it very well. I would say that this or any other Government would need to be able to judge, as I have said, from country to country, from case to case, and from time to time, precisely how to react to certain actions by certain Governments.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that diplomatic representation has got nothing to do with showing favour, or pleasure or displeasure, or disfavour, between one country and another? It serves British interests.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is a British interest to make absolutely clear to a Government of this sort—this Fascist junta—what the British public and the great mass of Members of both Houses of Parliament think and feel of what has happened in Chile.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, why not the Communist countries?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is equally in the British interests appropriately to make our views known in regard to actions in any other country, of whatever political colour.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that many people are anxious that we should retain our markets in these countries, so far as we can, in spite of ideological differences of opinion? In this connection, has the Minister noticed, from his own reply, that the French and the Americans appear to have kept their service attaches there? I have no doubt that they get the orders which we might otherwise have been having.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no evidence to confirm what

1385
the noble Lord said in the latter part of his question as to the action of others of our friends and allies in the Community. I am not responsible for their actions. As I said in my substantive Answer, two of the Nine and the United States have naval or defence attachés to their embassies in Chile. I would not venture the observation that the rest of the Nine are somewhat in default of their own national interests for that reason.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware—and perhaps it would be to the advantage of this House to know this—that in Chile their own Church (Chile being a Catholic country) and the Episcopalian Conference, about a year ago, condemned the Government for everything that had been going on for some time?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is a fact that the Christian Church in Chile has taken a very courageous stand against the enormities perpetrated by the Chilean Government.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is possible in any case to exaggerate the cultural influence of this country on the Chilean Navy, given the well known fact that they have been marching with the goose step since before the First World War?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would not venture to dispute the cultural achievements of naval attachés.

HS146 AIRLINER
3.21 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 on what date British Aerospace submitted their request for approval to develop the HS146 airliner.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I understand that Lord Beswick wrote to the Secretary of State for Industry on 22nd March reporting the decision of his Board to recommend go-ahead on
1386
the HS146. This letter was followed in April by the detailed arguments in support of this decision, and it is on the basis of this latter information that the Government are considering the recommendation.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Would he not agree that the delay in making a decision must be inconsistent with an efficient business policy? Further, would he agree that British Aerospace are quite capable of funding this project without Government aid? Lastly, would he agree that this particular project has no hearing on any collaboration or plans that British Aerospace may have with Europe and/or the United States?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot comment on the last two points made by the noble Earl. I think that it is much better to get the right decision than a quick decision. After all, it is under two months since the arguments were put to the Government.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, would the Minister agree that even if it is under two months since the plans were put forward by British Aerospace the whole project has been under consideration for a much longer time than that?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords, but it was in fact closed down by Hawker Siddeley itself, and it is only now being brought alive.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, what is the tenor of the argument put forward by British Aerospace in favour of reviving this project? Is it that they now have more orders than were originally envisaged, or that they have somehow managed to recalculate cost prices on a more favourable basis?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer that question because I have not the answer.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, was it not hoped that one of the advantages of having British Aerospace as a nationalised industry would be that decisions could be reached more quickly and would not be delayed?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that that is absolutely right, but six weeks is not a long time.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister one more question? In view of the delay, could he please try to give some assurance that a decision will be made in the very near future, and, hopefully, a favourable one?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords. I simply cannot say more than I did—that is, that it is better to have the right decision than a quick decision.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SCOTLAND BILL
Further considered on Report.
Clause 20 [The Scottish Executive]:
3.25 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 9, line 33, after ("Secretary") insert ("another as Legal Secretary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying what the drafting effect of these Amendments would be. Clause 20(1) would read:
"There shall be a Scottish Executive one of whose members shall be known as the First Secretary another as Legal Secretary and the others as Secretaries of the Scottish Executive".
Subsection (2) would read:
"Any reference in this Act or in any Act amended by or under this Act to a Scottish Secretary is a reference to the First Secretary the Legal Secretary or any of the other Secretaries of the Scottish Executive".
Under the Bill, the Scottish Executive is to consist of a First Secretary and an unknown, or at any rate an unstated, number of Scottish Secretaries. The question is whether the person appointed, to quote subsection (6) of this clause,
"to perform functions corresponding to functions performed by a Law Officer of the Crown",
should be just another Scottish Secretary perhaps performing not only those functions but also other functions; for
1388
example, those corresponding to Treasurer, or the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, or whatever, or, alternatively, whether he should be like the Lord Advocate and his assistant, the noble and learned Lord himself.
This is a much wider question than the one we considered in Committee, which was treated by the noble and learned Lord as little more than a drafting Amendment. If this Amendment is carried, it may be desirable to amend subsection (6), although, as every member of the Executive is called a Scottish Secretary, whether he is the First Secretary or another Secretary, and although powers in this Bill are, in the main, conferred upon a Scottish Secretary, this would not seem to be strictly necessary.
I recognise that it is unlikely that it will prove necessary to appoint as Law Officer, or as the assistant to a Law Officer, a person who had not been elected either as a constituency or an additional Member. I say that because it seems to me that one advantage of having a legislature in Edinburgh—and there are advantages and disadvantages—is that more advocates and solicitors will feel it both worthwhile and practicable to stand for election knowing that they will be spared the journeys to London which make it so difficult for them to continue earning a living at their professional careers and which interrupt those professional careers in many cases.
However, if it should be necessary to appoint a Legal Secretary from outside those who have been elected in one way or another, surely it would be wrong to assign to a non-elected person duties other than those corresponding to the functions of a Law Officer. Even if an elected person is appointed to perform these duties, should he perform other functions as well? The functions of a Law Officer of the Crown are, as I understand it, to advise the Cabinet on legal matters and also to represent the Crown in court where he thinks it desirable to do so. I believe that this is in his discretion. I am told that that has not always been so, and that up to a matter of 100 years ago an Attorney General was a practising barrister as well as a Law Officer of the Crown. He continued his private practice at the same time. However, that is another matter and does not seem to be envisaged in the Bill as drafted.
It would surely be anomalous if the Law Officer were to have another portfolio; indeed, I doubt whether, in United Kingdom terms at any rate, it would be constitutional. It seems highly desirable, if not essential, to have a distinct and distinguishable member of the Executive to perform the functions of a Law Officer of the Crown—or, rather, functions corresponding to those of a Law Officer of the Crown—that he should be appointed as such and that he should be performing those functions alone. I appreciate that the Amendments do not cover that last point—about performing those functions alone—but if this were accepted, it would be desirable to move such an Amendment at a later stage.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has an important point here, because under the Bill as drafted there will be a number of Scottish Secretaries and one of them can have the powers of a Law Officer as well as having other powers for a Department for which he is responsible. It would appear wrong that a person who is in the nature of a Law Officer should also be in the position of having a Department. The practice in Westminster is that a Law Officer is separate from all Departments and his duty is to advise the Government; presumably a Law Officer in the Scottish Executive should advise the Scottish Executive, and it would seem wrong to confuse the two.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will no doubt tell us whether we are correct in the assumption that, as the Bill is at present drafted, a Scottish Secretary can be responsible for a Department and can also be responsible for advising the Scottish Executive on matters of law. If that were the case, it would almost be akin in the Westminster Parliament to a Departmental Minister finding himself with the responsibility of law, and of course a Law Officer can prosecute in the courts. To take the analogy of Westminster, one could have the situation where a Government Minister could be prosecuting in the courts. If that were to happen in the Scottish Assembly, a Scottish Secretary responsible for a Department could also possibly be prosecuting in the courts. I should be delighted to know whether I am wrong about that, but as the Bill is drafted that would appear to be the situation.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, and the House will see that my name is added to the Amendment. In Committee, Lord Drumalbyn moved for me an Amendment directed to this point and somebody observed to me afterwards that I had invited him to go fishing for a trout and he had caught a whale. The discussions which flowed from his moving my Amendment on that occasion raised many issues which I freely admit I had not envisaged when I drafted my Amendment, which was designed to deal with a drafting point which I claimed would, if unamended, make the subsection in question inoperable. In view of the many points that were raised in Committee and the number of difficulties noble Lords foresaw arising from this unique person within the Scottish Executive, it is important that we should come to a more exact way of dealing with his involvement with the Executive.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, these Amendments stem from a point which was made in Committee when I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was a little surprised to discover what the clause contained. I do not know why he was surprised, because if one looks at subsection (6) it is plain that the person who would be awarded functions corresponding to functions performed by a Law Officer of the Crown might receive other functions because the words in brackets are:
"…whether or not he is to perform also other functions".
It has, therefore, always been quite plain on the face of the Bill that a person falling into this category might get other functions which were not traditionally functions performed by a Law Officer of the Crown.
I should, in the light of the remarks that fell from the lips of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, say that the Scottish Law Officer could not prosecute because the prosecution function is reserved under the Bill; the only person who will be able to prosecute in Scotland, as now, after devolution, will be the Lord Advocate, and the prosecution function is not devolved. The Scottish Law Officer will not have any prosecution function. I am also given to understand that English

1391
Ministers with Departments sometimes prosecute because in England there is private prosecution and a Minister may —as a Minister, but really by reason of being a private individual—bring a prosecution if he has an interest to do so.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I certainly confirm that, my Lords, but of course the Minister does not himself appear in court. I said the Scottish Legal Secretary might from time to time have to appear in court; that is, in civil actions in which the Government are involved. He would appear personally and not through his Department.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I was not disputing anything the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said. I was answering the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I agree that the Scottish Law Officer would be likely to appear in court in person on behalf of the Scottish Executive or one of its Departments. Nor do I think it particularly surprising that a Law Officer should have a Department because at present the Lord Advocate, who is a Scottish Law Officer, has a Department; it is called, not surprisingly, the Lord Advocate's Department. Within that Department he has people who do drafting and he has legal secretaries. He exercises his prosecution function, but he has other functions. Indeed his functions were enlarged under the previous Administration and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will recall signing a transfer of functions order in 1972, under which the Prime Minister transferred additional responsibilities from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Lord Advocate. Thus, the functions of a Law Officer are not fixed. In fact, they are not the same in Scotland as they are in England, and there is no set constitutional pattern to determine what the functions of a Law Officer are.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord again, but I wonder whether he can make the point quite clear. Were these functions which were transferred similar to those performed by a Law Officer of the Crown in Scotland? Obviously they were additional functions, but were they of that character?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I have sent for a copy of the Transfer of Functions Order, because it is quite complicated. As I recall it, it contained a number of different matters. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that one of them was a rule-making power in relation to certain tribunals. Another related to certain responsibilities regarding the law of criminal procedure. These are matters which might properly be transferred to a Law Officer, and thus become functions of a Law Officer, although they were not so before. If the copy of the Transfer of Functions Order arrives before the end of this debate, I may be able to enlarge upon this point.
The whole scheme of the clause is that, technically, any one Scottish Secretary is able to perform any of the functions of any other Scottish Secretary. I believe that that has always been plain on the face of the Bill. Under this clause the office of Scottish Secretary is a unitary office, in the same sense as at present at Westminster the office of Secretary of State is a unitary office, and the great majority of functions which are exercised by any one Secretary of State can, technically, be exercised by another. Technically I think that in law it would be possible for the Secretary of State for Wales, for example, to do things which, in fact, daily are done by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is only in relation to certain property rights that one commonly finds that the title "Secretary of State for Scotland", as distinct from the title "Secretary of State", appears in legislation.
The kind of scheme which obtains at Westminster greatly facilitates the arrangement of responsibilities as circumstances may require, and it enables the Prime Minister to reorganise the allocation of responsibilities in the light of his view of how the machinery of government ought to operate. That does not mean, and this clause does not mean, for example, that the Scottish Secretary responsible for education will normally undertake any functions or duties ascribed to the Scottish Secretary who is to perform Law Officer functions, but there is to be no statutory barrier against a sensible distribution of functions within an ordered departmental type of organisation.

1393
The Government do not consider it necessary, therefore, for the Scottish Secretary who will be appointed to perform Law Officer functions to be given, in the Bill itself, a title different from that of the other Scottish Secretaries, though it seems likely that each Scottish Secretary will be identified according to the particular portfolio that the First Secretary decides to give him. The Secretary performing legal functions might come to be known as the Scottish Secretary for Legal Affairs, or some such title; but it would not be a title contained in the Act. After all, as I have indicated, the Secretary of State for Scotland discharges in Scotland some of the functions which are exercisable in other countries by a Minister of Justice; and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will be able to confirm that.
For example, the Secretary of State for Scotland has oversight of the whole criminal law. He has oversight of the law of evidence. Indeed, he has oversight of the law generally. He also has oversight of the prison services. I do not suggest that it is desirable that a person who is appointed Scottish Law Officer should start to run the prisons, or run the criminal law, but it might make sense that he should be given a certain oversight over parts of the law, and in particular over parts of the criminal law. For example, I have in mind in particular the law of procedure, whether civil or criminal.
So these matters are not fixed and set. I do not think that any deep constitutional principle is at issue here. I should add as a technical matter that at the present time we have someone called a Legal Secretary. In fact, careful readers of the Birthday Honours List will have observed that the holder of this office was the other day awarded the honour of Companion of the Bath. We have a Legal Secretary, and we also have an Assistant Legal Secretary, and it would be rather a pity if these titles came to be confused by this Amendment to the Bill.
There are a number of Amendments at which we have to look, so I should take this opportunity of explaining the position. What the clause is intended to achieve—and we believe does achieve—is to make provision for a situation in which the Assembly does not have among its elected Members, or among its additional Members
1394
if that is the system which obtains, any lawyer suitably qualified to discharge the Law Officer functions. The Scottish Executive will still need legal advice of the kind that a Law Officer commonly gives, and unless the adviser can be given the status of a Scottish Secretary, and the powers and duties that go with such a status, he would have no higher standing than that of, say, standing counsel to any Government Department.
Clause 20(7) enables a Scottish Secretary, or Assistant, to perform Law Officer functions, albeit he is not an elected Member of the Assembly. We have looked carefully at the drafting in the light of the criticisms made at the Committee stage, and I propose to advise the House that we are content to accept two Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. I think that these are Amendments Nos. 59 and 61. We are content with these Amendments.
I undertook to refer to the Transfer of Functions Order, and now I can say that it is No. 2002 of 1972. As I indicated, it transferred a number of functions from the Secretary of State to the Lord Advocate. In order to give the flavour of the document, I should like to read paragraph 2 to your Lordships:
"There are hereby transferred to the Lord Advocate the functions conferred on the Secretary of State by the following enactments; namely, Sections 27 and 29 of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886".
That is described as the making of regulations and the approval of forms of procedure in connection with applications to the Scottish Land Court. There were similar matters in relation to the Lands Tribunal and the Iron and Steel Arbitration Tribunal. The Lord Advocate was also given responsibility for the appointment of members of the Scottish Law Commission and the Council on Tribunals, as well as the Scottish Committee of the Council.
There were also transferred to the Lord Advocate certain functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Transport Act 1962. Those, too, related to the approval of procedural rules. I am looking at the explanatory note to the document now, and I see that he was also given the function of laying before Parliament memoranda proposing corrections and minor improvements in any

1395
enactments in order to facilitate the consolidation of those enactments. That was a function which I think somewhat corresponds to one which the Lord Chancellor has in relation to the law at Westminster. I believe that those points make good my case, and we consider that this clause is properly drafted, subject to the Amendments that I am prepared to accept. I think that we can live with them, and perhaps they make things a little clearer.
3.47 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I were to speak next, as the noble and learned Lord has been referring to a transfer which was very much a brainchild of mine. It was worked out, and the Prime Minister of the day then put it into effect. As the noble and learned Lord has said, the reason for that transfer was that the Secretary of State for Scotland is already responsible for so much in relation to courts and Home Office affairs, and indeed has a number of the functions which the Lord Chancellor exercises in England and Wales. I am perhaps one of those rare people in public life—or certainly in politics—who were happy to relinquish powers, rather than to try to get more. It certainly seemed to me that the Secretary of State had an enormous amount for which he was responsible in the legal field, whereas the Lord Advocate, though a busy man, when it came to actual responsibilities was very restricted at that time.
The noble and learned Lord, and my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn are of course both right in saying that immense care had to be taken in that operation to ensure that the kind of function that was transferred was the kind for which Law Officers are normally responsible, and the kind of function which would preserve the independent position of a Law Officer. I am speaking from memory, and I am not a lawyer, as I believe all noble Lords in the House know, but I was very much made aware at that time that the position of the Law Officers in England and Wales is different from that of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland. Their functions are similar, yet they are different. For example, there is no
1396
Director of Public Prosecutions operating north of the Border, and therefore the Lord Advocate is the initiator of prosecutions, operating through gentlemen known as procurator fiscals, and so far as I know, there is no counterpart to that south of the Border.
My Lords, we shall shortly be coming to an Amendment, Amendment No. 58, in the name of myself and of my noble friends. But I wanted to say at this point that it looks as though the Bill as drafted could produce a situation in which a Scottish Secretary who was the Legal Secretary and had these functions known as Law Officer functions (no matter exactly what they are at this stage) could also be in charge of education or of health; because it is apparent that the Scottish Secretaries, unless there are going to be 20 or 25 of them, which we all agreed was far too many, are going to have to share subjects in the same way as junior Ministers at the Scottish Office now are responsible for a combination of subjects; so that you get a junior Minister who is responsible for roads, local government, electricity and water supplies, and who may indeed be responsible for health or education as well. But the noble and learned Lord, if I understood him right, said that this is not the intention of the Government: the intention of the Government is that the Legal Secretary should be someone who does not have an administrative Department. However, I think the noble and learned Lord must agree that, as the Bill is drafted, it is possible for this to happen. We therefore thought that this was one of the flaws in the Bill as drafted; and at the Committee stage I thought the noble and learned Lord had accepted that.
Now he has said that he is prepared to accept two Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Gray. Word of this had already reached me; but I had understood it was Nos. 59 and 60 that he was accepting, whereas I think he said Nos. 59 and 61. I will give way if he will let us know.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should have said Nos. 59 and 60, yes.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I thank the noble and learned Lord very much. It makes quite a difference because No. 61

1397
is considerably longer. But I know that at the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was unhappy about this clause in respect of the Legal Secretary, and I do not blame him because it is exceedingly difficult in a Bill to draft for the kind of person we have in mind—a Law Officer who would be part of a new Scottish Administration and operating in relation to the Assembly in the way that the four Law Officers operate in relation to Parliament at Westminster here. Recent cases over the last two years (without naming any of them) have indicated how difficult it is for many people, not just the general public but people inside Parliament, to follow exactly the independence which the Law Officers have. They have a certain independence in order to leave them free to carry out the kind of tasks to which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn referred. Therefore, it is exceedingly difficult to try to reproduce in a Bill something which is understood here at Westminster; it is very difficult, I think, to put it into words in a Bill.
However, I think that both sides of your Lordships' House are aiming at the same thing, which is to have a Legal Secretary, if there is to be an Assembly and an Executive, in the Executive, but we must he clear what his duties are; and we on this side feel that if he is to be a Law Officer in the same way as the noble and learned Lord is, then he should not also be in charge of a Department and, therefore, be concerned with the administration and government in the way that a Minister or a Scottish Secretary would be.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thought that we might get assistance from the Cross-Benches on this clause, but perhaps not. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said. I do not think I would wish to press this Amendment, but I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would look again at the sentence in brackets, "(whether or not he is to perform also other functions)", because it is quite plain that it has misled some of us regarding the intentions of the Government. Also, it could leave the way open for a First Secretary to do something in his appointment which I think we would not wish; that is, as my noble friend has said, to, as the French
1398
say, "cumulate" functions which are not akin. For example, if the noble and learned Lord were to put in the word "comparable" before the word "functions"—"whether or not he is to perform also other comparable functions "—or something of that kind, that would be fine; but the examples which the noble and learned Lord has given seem to be totally irrelevant to what I was driving at in this Amendment.
The fact that you extend the functions in certain comparable ways to matters in the sense that they all have to do with tribunals, courts and the like, whether by arranging procedure for them or by making appointments towards them, has nothing to do with what the words say here, which is "other functions". The noble and learned Lord really must try to see the thing from points of view other than those of a Government which know clearly, I hope, what their intentions are and therefore may not quite make their intentions plain. I thought the noble and learned Lord was going to intervene, and I was about to give way to him.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am reluctant to speak more than once, but with the leave of the House let me make this clear. The purpose, and the whole purpose, of subsection (6) is to permit a person to be appointed a Law Officer although he is not an elected or additional Member of the Assembly. That is its whole purpose. Now let us suppose that there was no such clause or subsection in the Bill. Then, a lawyer who was elected to the Assembly could be appointed a Law Officer with any number of other functions. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that at all. So the noble Lord's concern does not derive at all from subsection (6); it derives from something that is inherent in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a Law Officer who is an elected or additional Member of the Assembly being given any functions at all. The noble Lord is really shooting at quite the wrong target.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I am shooting at the wrong target—
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not customary to make only one speech at Report stage?
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are on Report stage.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I asked a question. Is it not customary, at Report stage, to make only one speech unless you ask the leave of the House?
Lord DRUMALBYN: I understood it was the custom of this House that the person who moved the Amendment could wind it up.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord DRUMALBYN: And we welcomed the intervention of the noble and learned Lord to clarify a point. My Lords, the noble and learned Lord says that I have been shooting at the wrong target. I do not think that exactly conveyed his meaning; but, if it was the wrong target, would he get a hold of the target that we ought to have been shooting at and make certain he gets a hull's-eye? I invite him, between now and the final stages of the Bill, to do just that; I hope he will do so, and at the present time I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
3.59 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 10, line 3, leave out ("If") and insert ("Whenever").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is Amendment No. 55, which is on page 10, line 3, to leave out "If" and insert "Whenever", with which, perhaps, your Lordships would agree to take Amendment No. 56, which is on page 10, line 4, after the word "be" insert the word "forthwith". My Lords, this would mean that the subsection would read:
"Whenever the Assembly has nominated one of its members for appointment as First Secretary that member shall be forthwith so appointed; and in appointing the other Scottish Secretaries the Secretary of State shall act on the advice of the First Secretary".
I appreciate the compressed nature of the drafting here, but compression can go to a point beyond which it can be positively misleading, and certainly can give the impression, even, through compression, of casual drafting.
There is no statement in this Bill that it should be the right or the duty of the Assembly to nominate a Member as First Secretary. All subsection (4) says, in effect, is that if the Assembly sees lit to do so the Secretary of State must appoint the person nominated First Secretary. After that the Secretary of State must appoint the other Scottish Secretaries whom the First Secretary may nominate, and any other Scottish Secretaries I suggest, and on that point I recall the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that the Secretary of State has no discretion whatever. Also the Secretary of State must appoint as many Scottish Secretaries as the First Secretary cares to nominate. The nomination by the Assembly of the First Secretary is not unimportant.
At the Committee stage I suggested that there should be a firm obligation placed on the Assembly to choose the first Secretary for appointment by the Secretary of State. I also feel that that has come very well in the initial standing orders: that the first thing an Assembly should do is to appoint a presiding officer and next to appoint a First Secretary. In those particular circumstances the wording would be quite perfect, but it goes further than that.
I also suggested at the Committee stage that there should be a prescribed procedure for getting rid of the First Secretary. The noble and learned Lord argued that it was unnecessary to lay down such procedure because, as the subsection now stands, all the Assembly has to do as often as it cares to is to nominate another First Secretary. The word "if" therefore has not one-case application but is a continuity of possibility. As it now stands, if the Assembly then nominates another First Secretary, you have two First Secretaries, one of whom the Secretary of State must—just wait; the noble Lord shakes his head violently —one of whom the First Secretary must appoint in replacement of the other, because the other will he told that he has ceased to enjoy Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not think this is a very good way of drafting even though I suppose it could be supported, as I said, on the case of the first occasion.
The least we ought to do, in order to make the matter tolerably clear, is instead

1401
of "if", to echo the sense of what the noble and learned Lord himself said, to put in the word "whenever". As the Secretary of State has no discretion as to whether or not to appoint a Scottish Secretary whom the First Secretary has nominated, and as all he could do in that case would be to delay the appointment, let us also put in the word "forthwith". At the moment there is no reason why lie should make the appointment at once; the provision merely says he must appoint him. I bee to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am really rather puzzled by the concern expressed by the noble Lord. He seems to believe that it would be possible to have more than one First Secretary, but Clause 20(1) reads:
"There shall be a Scottish Executive one of whose members shall be known as the First Secretary…",
so one really could not have that. All I was suggesting was that, under subsection (5), a Scottish Secretary, which of course includes the First Secretary,
"shall hold office at Her Majesty's pleasure".
So he may be removed from office instantly. The way f envisage that this would work would be that, if he ceased to command the confidence of the Assembly, he would resign or be removed from office. At the limit, if he stubbornly clung to office, then the Assembly would proceed to nominate one of its Members as First Secretary, and under subsection (4),
"that member shall be so appointed".
Accordingly, that member would be appointed First Secretary. I really do not follow the difference between "if" and "whenever" in this context. I am sure that the wording is quite mandatory and the Member shall be appointed under the terms of subsection (4) following the resolution and nomination by the Assembly.
In relation to the question of delay which the noble Lord also mentioned, suggest that it is difficult to see how any unreasonable delay could arise under the Bill as it now stands. The terms of subsection (4) give the Secretary of State no freedom of action in the matter. When or if the Assembly nominated, the Secretary of State would then appoint. There would be nothing whatever to he gained from delaying an appointment, and any
1402
attempt to do so would surely create quite unnecessary friction between the Government and the Assembly. It is difficult to see what interest there would be not to appoint as First Secretary the person nominated by the Assembly to hold that office.
On another level, if one puts in the word "forthwith" that could create practical difficulties. As I understand it, the word "forthwith" means immediately, without delay, and it might not in every circumstance be possible, even with the best will in the world, for this requirement to be met. The First Secretary might be nominated by the Assembly late before a break of some kind, at a time when the Secretary of State could not be available to make an appointment, and accordingly if a gap of that kind opened up there could be difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Statute. I believe that, reasonably and properly read, this subsection fulfils the function which I described it as having. I would urge the noble Lord not to press this drafting Amendment, which he would otherwise be pressing not only against my advice—to which I attach no weight—but against the advice of counsel to whom we have put all these points and who are quite firm in advising us that the Bill as it stands will work.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord might have said again that I am shooting at the wrong target, but I did mention the target I was shooting at; namely, that I think the Bill could have been more explicit. If it had been more explicit it would not have given rise to the misunderstanding to which it has given rise. I have never seen a constitution—if this is a constitution—drafted in this way, and I have seen a great many constitutions. The "if" was intended to meet particular argument which the noble and learned Lord put forward at an earlier stage when he said in effect that the Assembly could do this again and again if it wanted to whenever it was not satisfied with the First Secretary. The fact remains that I was perhaps exaggerating a little in saying that there could be two First Secretaries. But there is this curious point and nothing whatever is said as to how the Assembly is going to get rid of the First Secretary. He just appears to lose Her Majesty's

1403
pleasure. Again, I am not aware of any laws regarding appointments where things were expressed in this way, let alone Governments and Ministers.
I feel that this is unsatisfactory. The noble Lord assures me that from the legal point of view it is satisfactory and that his advisers are unwilling to change it. All I can say is that I hope that the explanatory literature which will no doubt come out explaining how the Bill will work will make this clear and that they will get good legal advice from the noble and learned Lord and his advisers as to how it is all intended to work, and how the interpretations put upon the Bill will work. I myself regard it as unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
4.11 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 10, line 10, leave out from first ("A") to end of line and insert ("person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords; I beg to move Amendment No. 58 in the name of my noble friends and myself. I tabled this in order to ensure that this subject would be raised at Report stage following our discussion at the Committee stage. At the end of the debate at the Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, seemed to agree with us that the drafting in this area of the Bill was unsatisfactory. I think it can be said that this is the target area of this Amendment because this was the part of the Bill about which the noble and learned Lord himself said he was unhappy and which he was good enough to say he was going to go away and consider. He has indicated that he will accept two Amendments of my noble friend Lord Gray and we are grateful to him for that. But we shall not know until we reach them how significant is his acceptance. Therefore, I must spell out at this stage the point of my Amendment No. 58.
We have already been ranging over this subject and I think it is clear that the Legal Secretary can be outside the proposed Assembly, as indeed Scottish Law Officers can be outside Westminster, and
1404
have been so in recent years. Then there are also arrangements so that, in that case, the Legal Secretary can take part in the proceedings of the Assembly though he is not to vote. That is somewhat similar to the Standing Orders in another place where Standing Committees are concerned. A Lord Advocate, if he is a Member of Parliament, can attend a Scottish Standing Committee even though he is not a Member of it and can speak but not vote. So, again, one can see that it is not exactly the same hut that the experience at Westminster is being drawn upon in outlining the functions and the kind of person the Legal Secretary can be.
This Bill also enables the Legal Secretary to be in charge of part of the administrative side of Government as well; and the noble and learned Lord said just now that there is nothing in the Bill to stop a Scottish Secretary who is a Member of the Assembly from being also the Scottish Secretary in charge of Health or Education or, perhaps, the Home Affairs side. What I want to ask the Government to make clear is whether they think that that is right. I believe the noble and learned Lord indicated that he thinks it unlikely and probably inadvisable, but in that case should it not be written into the Bill? Does the noble and learned Lord really see a situation in which it would be wise for the person who has this very special status as the equivalent of a Law Officer also to run part of the Government administration? Could there not be a clash?
I should like to have a definite answer from the noble and learned Lord on that point. If it cannot be given now then perhaps he may be able to give it on the subsequent Amendments of my noble friends.
The noble and learned Lord has also indicated that the Legal Secretary can be in the House or in the Assembly. It is quite clear to me that he ought not to be in charge of a Department if he is not in the Assembly; but if he is in the Assembly it seems that he can be. My Amendment is a straighforward one, somewhat similar to an Amendment which was put down at the Committee stage, and it would enable a person to he appointed who was not a Member of the Assembly in the first place—somebody who had all the qualifications to he a Legal Secretary

1405
and part of the Administration—whereas the Bill, as it is at the moment, appears to provide only for the situation of an existing Member of the Assembly being appointed in the first instance.
This may be a matter of interpretation. If the noble and learned Lord can indicate that that is not so, then I think I should be satisfied on that score. I think that this is one point that he was unhappy about at the Committee Stage: the Bill provides in one place that the Legal Secretary need not he a member of the Assembly or that if he has lost his seat or for some other reason has left the Assembly he can continue to he Legal Secretary although he is not a Member. On the other hand, it looks as though he has to be a Member of the Assembly on appointment. That is the second point on which I would seek clarification. I beg to move.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I wonder whether, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, comes to reply to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, he could comment on what I believe to he the situation—namely, that, since the person who is appointed under this subsection does not surrender office on the dissolution of the Assembly because he is not a Member of the Assembly, he could—and this is the point raised in Committee—perhaps carry out all executive functions on behalf of the Executive during any interregnum, whether this arose for technical reasons or over difficulties in appointing a new Executive following an election of the Assembly.
4.17 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, may I take the last point first. I think that under the Bill the answer is, Yes. He becomes so for a moment, reflecting the great history of the office of Lord Advocate, in which the Lord Advocate was for a long time very much the Government of Scotland. This is not to suggest that that is a good thing or that we should endeavour to return to it; but the history helps to demonstrate that perhaps there are no fixed functions attaching to Law Officers. There was a time—long before the Secretary of State came in and gradually enlarged his empire, diminishing that of the Lord Advocate—when the
1406
Lord Advocate ran the Government of Scotland.
There has been reference, and rightly, to the very special position of the Law Officer. I think that one of the most important features of the Law Officer in Scotland, which gives him a special position, is that he is the public prosecutor. In his other functions he is slightly less special. In so far as he is an adviser to the Government on constitutional matters or on legal matters, he is special and he is advising on the borderline between policy and law. His emphasis, of course, is on law, but it is not always possible to draw a sharp line between policy and law. The Law Officer looks at it as a lawyer from a legal angle, but he must he given access to the policy considerations, not with a view to influencing his legal judgment but in order that he might know the context in which he is called upon to exercise it. That is rather special.
What is important is that he should be able to preserve his independence. When it conies to functions of the kind that were transferred in 1971 and other similar functions, he is getting more like an ordinary departmental Minister—not entirely so, but more like one. I would remind the House that the Scottish Law Commission itself which submitted a very interesting memorandum—and there was a second one as well, but I am thinking of the first one—on the whole subject of devolution, I think, in 1975, recommended the setting up of a Department of Legal Affairs in Scotland. That was analogous to the kind of Ministry of Justice or Department of Justice that one finds in many other countries, particularly on the Continent. If the Scottish Assembly appoints a Scottish Law Officer who does not have a prosecution function, it may be that it would be seen by them as a sensible and convenient arrangement to give that Law Officer certain functions of that kind that would properly come under the heading of the Department of Legal Affairs and give a rather wider responsibility in relation to the law and to procedural matters than the present Law Officers now have.
The Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is basically designed to elicit this type of explanation. I hope that I have answered

1407
all the points. I am afraid that I was concentrating on one of them when the noble Lord asked me a question which I did not quite catch. With the leave of the House, perhaps he would remind me what it was.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the second question was whether the Law Officer would have such functions if he was outside the Assembly; whether it would be right for him to have an administrative Department if he was not a Member of the Assembly. But the noble and learned Lord may need more time to answer that.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the context in which we are discussing this matter allows the Law Officer to be a Member of the Assembly, albeit not an elected or additional Member of the Assembly. So I do not see that that difficulty would arise. I think that I am advising the House correctly if I say that the purpose of Clause 20, and this provision contained in subsection (6), is to ensure that the Assembly will not be deprived of the opportunity to appoint the best available person to be a Scottish Law Officer by the mere fact that he is not a person elected to the Assembly. Accordingly, that is what subsection (6) allows. It is envisaged that he would become a Scottish Secretary and would have a Department, but that Department would not be given functions which were not suitable to be exercised by such a person.
I may add something that I think is of some force: it was certainly a point made to me by Members of another place who were rather concerned about the notion that there should be a non-elected Member of the Assembly. I believe that the political control would be such that elected Members would not readily tolerate a First Secretary according to a non-elected lawyer—albeit a Member of the Assembly—functions of a kind not really appropriate to be handled by a lawyer. It is not just the Bill itself; it is the whole political context which would ensure that this lawyer did not become an overweening presence.
4.23 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, in giving an explanation, the noble
1408
and learned Lord has opened up a very interesting line of thought which I think will be relevant to the Amendment. It is important that one should make this point because, with the noble and learned Lord's proved ability and expertise, he is going to be more and more important so long as this Government remain in power. So the noble and learned Lord is going to be a very important person to lobby if one thinks that certain things are happening hick are not in the general good.
The part that interested me in the explanation that he has given was the apparent acceptance by him that he could see Law Officers merging into being ordinary Ministers. There is a danger there, and we should try to remove this point from the noble and learned Lord's mind. If a Law Officer is appointed as a Law Officer—for example, like the Attorney-General in the other place—it should be known that he is there as a lawyer, as a Law Officer, that he is going to give advice, as an attorney should, on the basis of the law and the words in the Act as he sees it.
If he is going to merge into viewing these things not only as a lawyer but as a Minister too, with all the generalities of thought that go with that, I can see a danger. I am alerted to it because it has already happened. When he had the Attorney-General giving advice recently on a matter of some considerable concern which looked as though it was likely to develop into industrial conflict—I think I paraphrase him correctly—he virtually said that the law as he saw it would be this, but he said that he had to take into account the social circumstances surrounding what would flow if he merely gave the legal advice as he saw it as a lawyer. In doing that recently—and the instance may well be in the minds of your Lordships—I think it caused Government action to be taken which I do not think was in the general good.
The one Law Officer—if he can be called that—who is entitled to he something wider than a legal thinker for the Government is the Lord Chancellor. He sits in the Cabinet as a lawyer but also as a Member of the Cabinet forming the policy of a Government. A Law Officer, as distinct from the Lord Chancellor, is quite different. I personally would not like to think that the noble and learned

1409
Lord was suggesting that one could have a Law Officer being rather more than a legal thinker and adviser. Was the noble and learned Lord saying that? I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can answer under the rules of the House; but it does not really matter if he keeps in mind what I have said. The noble and learned Lord is going to be important and have a lot of influence. He has shown ability and he ought to have responsibilities. I hope that he will not be advising the Government but will be advising an Opposition, which is just as important on some occasions. I should like to keep him a pure lawyer when thinking in terms of a Law Officer, and not merging his position over this wider field which, as I have been trying to explain, I think carries dangers.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I raise a point that I raised on the Committee stage and which is still relevant? One does not like to criticise drafting which has been carried out by experts; but I should have thought that by far and away the best way of expressing this subsection would have been to say, as this Amendment does:
"A person"—
then we come to the next Amendment—
"who is to perform functions corresponding to functions performed by a Law Officer of the Crown may (whether or not he is to perform also other functions) be appointed a Scottish Secretary or Assistant to a Scottish Secretary notwithstanding…".
I should have thought that that was the natural way in our language to express this thought.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this Amendment has enabled the noble and learned Lord to explain what the Government have in mind in the provisions of Clause 20 as they stand at the moment. It was of interest to me to know that the Government were thinking that the Legal Secretary would have only additional administrative tasks, limited to a kind of Department of Justice or Department of Legal Affairs. This would be following practice in some countries abroad, but it would be something of a departure for this country. I am not raising objections to it for that reason, but I should like to draw attention to it.
1410
May I also say that the idea of a Law Officer being outside Parliament is something which has developed in Scotland. Up until 10 or 15 years ago the Law Officers of Scotland were always in Parliament. Certainly it was 10 or 15 years ago that the number dropped to one. It was about then that it was recognised that it might not be possible for a Scottish Queen's Counsel to be elected to Parliament in the Party which at that time was in power, and also that it might be required to have only one Law Officer in your Lordships' House if there were none in the other place.
At present both the Law Officers are in Parliament, one in another place and one here; but there was a period when both were outside the House. It happened under a Labour Government when qualified lawyers were not available in Parliament. At other times there has been only one in Parliament. It is a very good reflection on the way they carried out their functions that, so far as I know, no criticism was ever levelled at the way they were carrying out their duties, in view of the fact that they could not be Members of either House of Parliament. So the system has been carried on and has worked in Scotland, even though the Law Officers were not in Parliament. Again, I recognise that this should be possible in a new Assembly.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has drawn attention to the dangers of the Legal Secretary accumulating administrative tasks, and to the possible conflict that might arise. I hope the Government will heed what he has said and that any future Administration, if it is set up under this Bill, will bear it in mind. However, we have the Government's clear intention that any administrative section which is attached to this Legal Secretary should be limited to legal affairs.
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has dictated what he thinks—and when I say "dictated" I mean that he spoke the words slowly: I am not suggesting that he was instructing us in dictatorial terms —to be the best drafting of this in order to carry out the purpose that the Government have in mind. That should appear in Hansard and I hope the Government will take note of what my noble friend said, because he is trying to make it easier for

1411
those who are to carry out the purposes of the Bill. I think that the wording he suggested is better than the wording of the Bill, but this is a drafting question and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.33 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("appointed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 59. Your Lordships have already heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, indicate that this Amendment and Amendment No. 60, which is associated with it, are acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. It is perhaps ironic that, were they not going to accept these Amendments now, it is my view that the appointments about which my noble friends have been so concerned this afternoon could not take place.
Clause 20(6) has certainly lived up to the reputation it acquired in Committee. These two Amendments of mine to leave out the word "appointed" on page 10, line 11, and to leave out "so" on page 10, line 13, derive from a concern that I had that the subsection as written would be inoperable. I saw, and still see, dubiety in the wording, because the words "so appointed" in line 13 can only refer to the words "who is appointed to" in line 11; and that phrase can only refer to the words which immediately follow it. Hence, in the sentence as written, the individual concerned has to be a Scottish Secretary or an asssitant to a Scottish Secretary before his appointment can be made.
That is impossible in view of Clause 20(3)(c) which lays down that any person appointed as a Scottish Secretary or an assistant to a Scottish Secretary must be drawn from within the membership of the Assembly. Since we have heard that these Amendments are to he accepted, I shall not extend these arguments further, but I thought it proper to remind the House at this stage of my reasons for tabling these Amendments. I shall be quite happy to see them taken up in a new Amendment perhaps, along the lines which my noble
1412
friend Lord Drumalbyn has just suggested. Before I sit down, I should like to acknowledge that it was he who in Committee moved an Amendment on my behalf which has led to this small success today. I should like also to thank in advance the noble and learned Lord who is to reply.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, had I been opposing the Amendments, I would have sought to demonstrate that the reasons given by the noble Lord for putting them forward were not sound; but as I am not, I will not. I will merely confine myself to thanking him for giving us the opportunity to make the clause, as I read it, a little simpler to understand and to operate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 10, line 13, leave out ("so").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 10, line 21, leave out from ("Assembly") to end of line 23 and insert ("who is a Scottish Secretary or an assistant to a Scottish Secretary on the dissolution of the Assembly—

(a) shall continue in office until the declaration of the election next following; and

(b) shall not be treated as having ceased to be a member of the Assembly if he is again elected at the election following the dissolution of the Assembly.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61. This Amendment follows one which, again, was moved on my behalf by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn in Committee on the one day when I was unable to be present. I sought then, and seek now, to cover a point which I will endeavour to explain as briefly as I can. It deals with my concern about the drafting and whether that drafting in fact will stand the test of practical application.
I fully understand, and am in agreement with, the continuity objective of this subsection. The subsection, as noble Lords will see, deals with what is to happen when the Assembly is dissolved and, because of the scheme in the Bill, the Members of the Executive cease to be Members of the Assembly and therefore would have to be reappointed if they were re-elected. That is basically the Government's case for having this Amendment.
I was concerned with the subsection as written because it did not and does not secure this continuity of office. The only reason I was worried about this was the possibility that the validity of Executive actions might be challenged in certain circumstances. I was thinking not simply of the extreme case which I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred to in Committee: that of an outgoing Scottish Executive which had none of its Members re-elected. Nor was I thinking particularly or especially of the few hours that will elapse between the dissolution of the Assembly and the election of the next Assembly. I thought, and I still think, that there is the possibility of an interregnum considerably longer than those few hours between dissolution and the election, which could arise in certain circumstances.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, may say that my point is too obscure for us to concern ourselves with. But when we were discussing Clause 2 yesterday, and in particular subsection (2), I withdrew my Amendment at the end of our debate, although I was still unconvinced that the postponement of election provisions in that subsection do not contain several rather strange features which could lead to difficulties here. Also, I am worried that I was told that, in an emergency, United Kingdom emergency powers legislation would probably be used to deal with a Scottish emergency which might immediately precede and span the day of an election for the Assembly. In that case, the day of the election would have arrived, the Assembly would stand dissolved—I do not want to go into the difficulties which we had last night with "stand" and "eve"—and I see a possibility here that in an emergency situation the Members of the Scottish Executive would not legally be entitled to carry out the duties which the Assembly expects.
My starting point for looking at this whole question was comparison with the Westminster model, and I am sure that all our problems have arisen from the difficulties that we have had in getting to know and understand the Government's basic scheme for the Assembly—its structure, election, life and so on—which is in the Bill. The status and tenure of office of the various different grades of
1414
Scottish Secretary depend on the interrelation of quite a number of different subsections. I shall not quote to your Lordships, but in writing to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey I have explained my point here.
As I was considering this matter, I was puzzled by something else. Scottish Secretaries are to hold office at Her Majesty's pleasure, and this point has already been referred to this afternoon. Therefore, it strikes me that the first part of subsection (7) of Clause 20 is, perhaps, what is creating the difficulty here. If that first part referred only to assistants to Scottish Secretaries, then the Scottish Secretaries could go on at Her Majesty's pleasure and the matter could be dealt with along Westminster lines. What my Amendments seek to do is to insert, in place of those words in the Bill, words which I believe put beyond doubt the matter which I have been discussing.
I am asking the House to accept that, at the end of line 23, we should insert,
"who is a Scottish Secretary or an assistant to a Scottish Secretary on the dissolution of the Assembly".
The Amendment then goes on in two paragraphs to say that he,

"(a) shall continue in office until the declaration of the election next following; and

(b) shall not be treated as having ceased to be a member of the Assembly if he is again elected at the election following the dissolution of the Assembly ".

I had a special reason for choosing the words "having ceased" in paragraph (b) of my Amendment, as opposed to the Government's choice of "as ceasing", because I still have a feeling that the person in question is, pre-election, being asked to speculate on what will be the outcome of his election. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, in my submission, this Amendment is quite unnecessary. Subsection (7) provides that Scottish Secretaries and assistants, other than those appointed under subsection (6), relinquish appointment on ceasing to be Members of the Assembly. Assembly Members cease to be Members on the eve of an election, but a Scottish Secretary who is re-elected will be regarded as having continued in office during the period of the election.
Continuity of office of Scottish Secretary is thus provided for by these provisions.

1415
Like the office of Secretary of State, the office of Scottish Secretary is, as I explained earlier, a unitary office and any Scottish Secretary can perform the duties of another Scottish Secretary. This has the effect that, during a period when the Assembly is dissolved and until such time as a new Administration and new Scottish Secretaries are in office, all actions of any Scottish Secretary are carried out under the proper authority conferred by this Statute. In the unlikely event that no Secretary is re-elected, then a new team will have to be appointed as soon as possible under Clause 20(3).
Certainly, therefore, there is the possibility of a modest gap, but we manage to live with such a gap at Westminster. As we know, when one Prime Minister resigns there is, at least, a short gap before another Prime Minister is appointed. Accordingly, we can live with such a gap. In fact, if there is a Scottish Law Officer appointed under subsection (7) then, as I said earlier, he will be a Scottish Secretary and he does not relinquish his appointment. Accordingly, he could continue the executive authority until other Scottish Secretaries were duly appointed.
I think that the noble Lord's concern is carried to an extreme here. We are content and, again, I ask the House to accept the advice of Parliamentary Counsel, whose attention was drawn to all these matters when they were properly discussed in Committee. The letters which the noble Lord was good enough to write to me have also been placed before Parliamentary Counsel. They have advised me—and I am satisfied with their advice and urge the House to accept it—that these clauses work perfectly well as they stand.
The Amendments themselves make a bit of a nonsense of the Bill, because, first, No. 61 contains the expression "the declaration of the election". That does not mean anything. There is really no such animal as "the declaration of the election". Secondly, if one put this Amendment into the Bill, the poor Scottish Secretary who wanted to resign would not be allowed to do so because, by Statute passed by Westminster, he,
"shall continue in office until the declaration of the election "
whatever that may be. So that, in drafting terms, these Amendments are a nonsense.
1416
Given the advice of Parliamentary Counsel and these criticisms, I urge the noble Lord not to press these Amendments.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. I rise not to comment upon the Amendment, which was covered so ably and fully in his address to your Lordships, but to comment on the reference by the noble and learned Lord to the advice of Parliamentary Counsel. I may be quite wrong about this—the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am and your Lordships will agree with his correction—but I should have thought that the advice of Parliamentary Counsel was of no real significance to us; what matters 'is what the noble and learned Lord says. I should have thought that anyone behind the scenes was largely a matter of indifference to your Lordships. I have been puzzled on a number of occasions by this commendation of the advice of Parliamentary Counsel, those mysterious figures whose language is esoteric and who loom in the background and for whom all of us who have had any experience of them have the most tremendous respect; their knowledge of the law is second to none. But surely their advice to the noble and learned Lord should not be urged upon your Lordships as a reason for rejecting any Amendment which is put before the House by one of your Lordships.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for answering and also for the letters in which, very reasonably, he has sought in the past few weeks to show me why I should agree with him and why he should not agree with me. I am uneasy about this. The noble and learned Lord has certainly pointed out to me that my drafting is defective, and I am not at all surprised about that. In the circumstances, I think that it would be appropriate for me to accept the reasoning which the noble and learned Lord has advanced. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.52 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 10, line 27, at end insert—
("Provided that he has obtained the consent of the First Secretary and the Minister for the Civil Service for those appointments").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 62 which stands in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Strathcona. This Amendment would require the consent of the First Secretary in the Scottish Executive and the Minister for the Civil Service at Westminster to set up Departments and to appoint those who would be responsible for manning them.
This clause was not discussed at all in another place—nor was Clause 65, as it now is, which outlines the role and functions of the civil servants who will man the new Executive. At the Committee stage, therefore, I put down a probing Amendment to take out this passage. As a result, we received an explanation from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, of what the Government had in mind and what these parts of the Bill are supposed to do. It was the first explanation which had been given in Parliament.
We learned that subsection (8), together with Clause 65, are designed to create an unknown number of Departments which will be manned by an unknown number of home civil servants who would be employed on the same basis as the home Civil Service. The number of Departments is unknown because the number of Scottish Secretaries and their Assistants is unknown. We had a debate about whether it was wise to put in a limit or to put in a specific number. Your Lordships recognised that there is a problem, but the Bill still does not contain any number. Therefore, this innocent looking passage in the Bill is the trigger for the setting up of a mini-Whitehall in Scotland.
Under the terms of the Bill, each Scottish Secretary can build up from scratch his own empire—apparently, as the Bill is now worded, on his own judgment alone. The only curb and safeguard—as explained by the noble Baroness at the Committee stage—is financial. The money for salaries, pensions and the other expenses of staff, including accommodation and offices, must come from the Scottish Consolidated Fund. The Scottish Assembly will therefore have to decide how much of the
1418
block grant is to be allotted to Departments and to the civil servants working in them.
The argument of the noble Baroness— see that another Minister is due to reply today and I make no complaint about that, but naturally I must refer to what the noble Baroness said—was that the Scottish Executive will have a proper sense of priorities in deciding how to allocate the block grant. She argued that the Scottish Executive will not employ extra, unnecessary civil servants at the expense of expenditure on, say, health, education or housing. However, the only curb is this financial curb, and it is not specific. If there are to be more civil servants, then there will he less money to spend on services—and vice versa. That, apparently, is the thinking behind this clause.
There are two special features about the proposed Assembly which I submit the Government and your Lordships must have in mind when considering this clause. First, the new Assembly will have money which has been granted by Westminster. Not a penny of the money which is available to it will be raised by the Assembly by way of taxation or local rates. Secondly, in those circumstances the Assembly is almost bound to be complaining continuously that it is not being allotted enough money by Westminster. It must be part of the role of many of those who are elected to the Assembly to urge that more should be done in particular fields, and if that money is not made available they will say that Westminster has not allotted sufficient to the Assembly.
Therefore, this Assembly will be a spending institution, arguing within its own forum about the priorities upon which the money is to be spent. It will be considering the allocation of the available finance to many subjects which are thought to be desirable. No doubt there will be Assemblymen who will think that not enough money can ever be spent on, for example, new schools, hospitals and the expansion of social services. The Assemblymen are bound to have particular interests, many of them admirable, and to suggest that perhaps enormous amounts of money ought to be spent on, for example, pensioners and the disabled.
The noble Baroness and her colleagues on the Front Bench opposite, and I am

1419
sure their Government colleagues in another place, would no doubt be responsible in such circumstances and would not continuously be asking for more money from Westminster. However, I must ask them to visualise the kind of situation which could arise in Scotland. If over-large Departments were to be set up, without any control from Westminster over their size, a large hole would be made in the block grant. In that situation, a majority of the Assemblymen are likely to say that what is left is too little for the other subjects—education, housing, roads, or whatever they may think are the principal devolved matters. The Assembly's idea of the number and size of Departments in the new Executive could be very different from our idea here at Westminster.
During the Committee stage debate, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn pointed out that at Westminster United Kingdom Ministers must have the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service about the size of their Departments, and also if they wish to increase the size of their Departments. If there is a difference of opinion with the Minister for the Civil Service, the matter goes to the Prime Minister. It is something which is controlled within Westminster.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said at col. 1282 on 19th April that the intention is to give to the Scottish Administration as a whole power to control the number and deployment of its staff. That is why I have proposed in this Amendment that the assent of the First Secretary should be required. At least it seems that the First Secretary, the head of the Executive, should give his consent to the size of the Department and the numbers to be employed.
I ask the Government and your Lordships to consider also another situation which can arise in Scotland, and it is a special one for Scotland at the present time. The Scottish Nationalist Party had about 30 per cent, of the support of the Scottish electorate at the 1974 Election, and according to the opinion polls they still have support of that order. The percentage goes up and down a little but it is roughly of that order. We all know that there could be a situation in which they could gain control of this Assembly.
1420
It may not be within its first five years but at some time, with the swings of politics, this could be so.
I draw attention to the fact that the SNP had their annual conference last month. The first part of that conference was to consider in detail what they would do upon independence, and I am now quoting from a newspaper report:
"In the opening sessions delegates had solemnly to consider the draft articles for a Scottish Constitution. Come the day, Caledonia stern and wild would keep the Queen but be a separate sovereign State within the United Nations with its own navy, army and air force".
That was an article by a well-known, experienced and distinguished Parliamentary correspondent, Mr. Robert Carvel, himself a Scot. It was in the Evening Standard; I am only sorry that it was in a newspaper which does not circulate in Scotland, because he went on as follows:
"Tomorrow, having settled the shape of a Scottish Cabinet, the Nationalists will get down to post-independence economic strategy. And a right cartload of nonsense that is".
There is somebody who knows Scotland, who is a Scot and was writing about the first sessions of the SNP conference.
We have, however, to recognise that that Party has as its only reason for existence the aim of secession, of breaking away from the rest of Britain; and if they were to be the Party in control in a new Assembly of course they would be getting down to Departments on the scale of a Scottish Cabinet or to consider economic strategy. They would be Departments far bigger and on a quite different scale from what the Government have in mind. So I ask the Government to bear in mind that a Scottish Administration could be controlled by the SNP, who have said that they regard this Assembly only as a stepping stone to secession, only as a means on the way to breaking away from, and breaking up, Britain.
It seems that the Departments as set up initially under this clause can then be expanded at any time, so it is not only a question of the Initial size of the Departments when an Assembly and Executive are first being established, but also there is nothing to indicate that the size of the Department could not be doubled if a Scottish Secretary decided that this was necessary, even though perhaps everyone

1421
else in the country thought it was unnecessary. It is a formula for empire building. Because it is necessary in the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster for the Minister for the Civil Service to be consulted and to give his assent to the size increase of departments, all the more should it be necessary for this to be done when Departments are being set up in the first instance, as under this Bill—Departments employing, as we have already heard, the very same kind of home civil servants as are to be employed South of the Border for the Secretary of State, in his continuing office, and completely interchangeable with other home civil servants. So I ask the Government to accept that it is necessary to have added to this clause the safeguards contained in my Amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, answers I should like to ask him one question: can he tell me whether Clause 28 is in fact governed by Clause 65(1), which says,
"Service as an officer or servant of a Scottish Secretary or of the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General shall be service in the home civil service …"?
I should like the noble Lord to answer that question specifically because it answers some of the points which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has made so strongly.
5.6 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, in moving this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has made perfectly clear the two main concerns which seem to underly it. First, it is feared that there would be insufficient control over the selection of individuals for appointment by Scottish Secretaries. Secondly, and more important, there is expressed a fear that there will not be control over the total number of civil servants to be employed by the Executive. In the Government's view, by requiring the consent of both the Minister for the Civil Service and the First Secretary, for appointments, the Amendment would lead to confusion and a conflict between Whitehall and Edinburgh.
So far as control over individual appointments is concerned, the Amendment provides for consent by the Minister for
1422
the Civil Service. This is unnecessary. The Bill provides that offices and servants of Scottish Secretaries shall be civil servants and as such they will need to have been certificated by the Civil Service Commissioners. Individuals who work for the Scottish Executive will be part of a unified Home Civil Service and will be recruited according to the standard procedure. That is a very plain statement, and I hope it is a clear reply to the point put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. Temporary appointments will also be possible—as is now the case—subject to a maximum of a five-year term. After appointment, all officers and servants of Scottish Secretaries will be subject to whatever controls the Government may apply to the terms and conditions of civil servants generally. This seems to the Government to provide adequate safeguards against the possibility of the appointment of a totally unsuitable individual as a civil servant of the Executive.
But the Amendment also provides for consent to individual appointments by the First Secretary. What is the purpose of this? Is it to ensure that there can be no question of an individual Scottish Secretary having an individual forced upon him by the Civil Service Department against his wishes? I doubt this because the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has not emphasised that point, but it occurred to me before he rose to speak. I can say to the House that a Scottish Secretary will be free to accept any individual for an appointment so long as he fulfils the civil service requirements, or he can reject him.
The Amendment can give the First Secretary the right to veto the appointment of an individual but, in the view of the Government, that should not only be a matter for the Executive itself to determine. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, argued that the consent of the Prime Minister is required for the appointment of senior civil servants in Government Departments—or at least he touched on the point. It may be that the Scottish Executive will wish to follow that practice by making appointments subject to the consent of the First Secretary, and of course there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from doing so. But the Government do not think it right to impose a requirement of this kind. The Government think that this is a matter which the

1423
Executive itself should properly be left to decide. As to the control over the total numbers of civil servants employed in the service of the Scottish Executive, the Bill deliberately does not provide for any kind of direct Government control.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made reference to statements made earlier in Committee by my noble friend Lady Stedman and I think she made this point clear at Committee stage. In the Government's view, the Assembly would no doubt regard such control as an unwarranted interference in their affairs. They are being given substantial powers, and it is surely up to the Assembly and the Executive to decide how many staff the Executive needs to carry out its powers. The manpower implications of that policy, as the Government mentioned very clearly at Committee stage—and the point was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, a moment ago—will have to be weighed against the staff costs which will have to be contained within the block fund.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made much play of an excess of numbers and a scale of Departments which might be of a kind not known within the Westminster syndrome at the moment. My reply to that point is that the Assembly will be working within the ambiance of Scottish public opinion. The media will have a very clear lead to the Assembly; the Assembly will be well reported and its deliberations will be the concern of most of those who live in Scotland. I believe that the Assembly will behave in an entirely responsible manner in this regard.
The Amendment also provides that the number of individuals appointed should be subject to the consent of the First Secretary. Again in the Government's view this is something which the Scottish Executive should be left to work out for itself. So it comes down, does it not, to a point which we have made on certain other Amendments, particularly at Committee Stage. In the Government's view, the line is being drawn at a point where the Assembly will have maximum freedom within the devolved powers allocated to it. It is worth reflecting that Government do not act today in the field of local government in such a manner as the noble Lord is proposing. There is no suggestion
1424
in the field of local government that an individual authority is not free to determine its staff numbers, and I think your Lordships should at least reflect that the Assembly will have a more important status than in some aspects does our local government structure at the moment. For these reasons I would ask your Lordships not to press this Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I must first make it clear that I was not in this Amendment raising the question of the suitability of individuals. That was what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, replied to first. It was the question of the size and shape of the new Departments. Where individuals are concerned, I would expect simply the normal process which happens at Westminster; that is to say, Ministerial consultation where the appointment of a Minister's Private Secretary is concerned, or the head of a Department. Clearly, the Civil Service Department and the head officials give Ministers a certain amount of choice and consultation where such appointments are concerned. I was not expecting anything different in that field. What I was referring to was the establishment. There is no establishment; that is the point. For Whitehall Departments there is an establishment, hut under this Bill there is going to he no establishment for this new Executive. I would expect the Minister for the Civil Service to approve that a Department should be a certain size, it having been suggested to him that there should be so many undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, principals and so on. That would produce a scale, and that is the way it is done at Westminster.
The noble Lord then said that this would be controlled by public opinion; and he also made what I thought was an unfortunate reference to local government, because the one thing that is quite clear to many of us in Scotland is that public opinion in some areas of Scotland has been outraged by the empire building of some of the new councils in the reorganisation of local government. At the cost of repeating what I said at an earlier stage, before I left office in 1974 I had made certain preparations to try to ensure that when the new councils were established they would not be set up on a large scale. In fact I had set up

1425
a staff commission with the special task of trying to find good alternative jobs for the local government officials who were going to be made redundant. What happened in fact after I departed from office—the Government that succeeded were no doubt very preoccupied with other matters—was that some of the new local councils did enormous empire building, and that has been greatly complained about in different parts of Scotland. But it has not had very much effect so far in causing them to change their minds or to reduce their empires. So this has been within our recent experience in Scotland with the reorganisation of local government. It is a real problem. The reference the noble Lord made to this in fact underlines and reinforces the case I am making.
Those concerned in local government at least are accountable to the ratepayers for how they use the money. If they are spending what the ratepayers think is too much money, or certain councillors are recommending that their empires be expanded, at least they have to be accountable to those who elect them. In the case of this Assembly it is spending money which has been raised by United Kingdom taxpayers and not directly by its electorate. Therefore, they need have no feeling of direct responsibility for setting up overlarge empires. Individual Scottish Secretaries may be carried away by enthusiasm for their individual tasks, as often happens with Ministers in Government who think they have been given some particularly important tasks to carry out and need a staff and resources with which to do it. This is a human characteristic. Scottish Secretaries could come in feeling that they had some great reform or some great task to carry out which required a large Department and considerable resources, but this might not be the opinion of most of the people in Scotland. As the Bill is drafted, there is no control over an individual Scottish Secretary; he can set up his own empire. So I do not think that the example of local government is a felicitous one at all where Scotland is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has not answered my point about the Minister for the Civil Service. This was raised by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn at Committee stage. Ministers at Westminster cannot expand their Departments
1426
or set up new Departments without the assent of the Minister for the Civil Service or the Prime Minister. But Scottish Secretaries are apparently going to be specially privileged persons who can do this. No answer has been given to that question at all. Surely what applies to a Minister at Westminster must also apply to this new form of Scottish Secretary.
My Lords, as I mentioned, another place has not had an opportunity to consider this clause at all, and this question of the setting up of new Departments and the money to be expended on it is very much their business. I feel it is important that we should give them an opportunity, which they have not had so far, to discuss this. They have not been able to discuss Clause 65, which goes with it, which sets out how the Home Civil Service are to be found for the new Departments. If we send this Amendment to the other place they can change the wording, if it is not perfect in carrying out my intention, and return it to us. I certainly believe that we ought to send this Amendment to them, and I think the Bill does need something of this kind to ensure that there is proper control over the number and size of the new Departments of the Scottish Executive.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, I rather hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, could think again about this matter. T find his reply on the situation of the individual civil servants to be convincing, but that was not my noble friend's real anxiety. I could not help thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, rather belittled the possibility of the Executive of the Assembly seeking to proliferate Departments, although perhaps not on purpose. But the temptation for a new and inexperienced Assembly to do so would be, in my view, quite large because it would feel that it wanted to assert its importance and so on. I hope that the noble Lord will think about this matter because it is, after all, a discipline of reference to the Minister for the Civil Service which is accepted by the Westminster Parliament and it helps to keep the Government economic. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will think again, otherwise, as this is an important point, I hope that my noble friend will divide the House.
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 21 [Executive powers]:
5.30 p.m.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, I have
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104: Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Alport, L.

Elles, B.

Monson, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Amory, V.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Sourton, L. [Teller]

Ampthill, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Newall, L.

Avon, E.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, B.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrier, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Berkeley, B.

Forbes, L.

Perth, E.

Birdwood, L.

Fortescue, E.

Platt, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Robbins, L.

Carrington, L.

Garner, L.

Rochdale, V.

Cathcart, E.

Glasgow, E.

Romney, E.

Chesham, L.

Glendevon, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Clancarty, E.

Gray, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Cockfield, L.

Haig, E.

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Selkirk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Hawke, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Sharples, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Somers, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton, L.

Spens, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Killearn, L.

Stamp, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kimberley, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Cromartie, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinross, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea, L.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Tenby, V.

De Freyne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Terrington, L.

Denham, L.

Luke, L.

Torphichen, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller]

Tweeddale, M.

Dulverton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Margadale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, E.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Shepherd, L.

Balogh, L.

Gregson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Banks, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson, L.

Stedman, B.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Stone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

David, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

White, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wigg, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Dowding, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

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

Parry, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Rochester, L.

to call the Committee's attention to the fact that if Amendment No. 63 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 64.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 10, line 33, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we had a discussion on this point during the Committee stage, and I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for agreeing to the next Amendment which stands in the Marshalled List, in which the word "prerogative" is omitted. I should like to thank him very much for that step. I think that he had an overwhelming authority of the highest character in taking that decision. In fact, I think that he had very little option, but had to do so.
He is now trying to distinguish in Clause 21(1) between the prerogative and the executive powers. Curiously enough, this was one of the first questions which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross raised when he spoke in Committee. He asked whether there is a difference. Of course, he received no answer; in my opinion there is no difference, and I think it will become quite clear that there is no answer at all to that question.
My noble friend asked another question: can the Government say what is included in "executive powers"? Again, he received no reply, because to all intents and purposes there is no answer. I should like to remind the Committee of this because this is one of the occasions when one is entitled to do so. In his great work, The Law on the Constitution, Dicey gave a warning about the danger of not paying sufficient attention to the law of the constitution. He said that the danger is now of greater importance today than it was before.
In this country we have a Constitution on which no one can put his hand. It is written nowhere. It is composed of statutes, common law, prerogative and I suppose I must add, to some extent, custom. No attempt has ever been made to define it properly, except I believe in the Law on the Constitution. This is the point which I want to put clearly, as I have before. Dicey has said that the prerogative consists of the residue of arbitrary and discretionary powers remaining with the Sovereign. That is every power that the Sovereign has. The noble and learned Lord has to make up his mind, whether he says that the executive power is part of the prerogative, or whether he says it is separate. I think that he will have difficulty in justifying either
1430
of those, but it is quite clear that anything to do with arbitrary or discretionary power, by or on behalf of the Sovereign, comes under that heading.
Is there a halfway house between statute law, on the one hand, and prerogative on the other? That is what the noble and learned Lord has to argue. Somewhere there is a halfway house which is not prerogative but which somehow comes into the category of executive. This is really fundamental to the whole evolution of constitutional Monarchy. The story is the gradual extension of statute law which has taken over from the time when we had a Monarch—a sole ruler—to a time when we have a constitutional rule. Just as soon as prerogative is taken over by statute, it ceases to be prerogative—just as darkness disappears when one turns on the light; one cannot have the two together.
I am supported in this by some remarks made by the late Lord Reid who said:
"Prerogative is only available for a case not covered by statute".
That I think is the basis. When anything is put on the Statute Book it ceases to be prerogative, and therefore, one cannot use it. I contend that the executive power is contained in the prerogative. I shall take it one step further. Let me examine Dicey's second rule of the Law on the Constitution, which is refusal of the courts to recognise any Act as done by the Crown which is not done in a particular form—in general, the affixing of a particular Seal by a Minister; that is part of the Constitution which is not there.
Therefore, I should like to summarise. This is the residue of the power of the Monarch which cannot be devolved and which cannot be touched by statute. It cannot be recognised, except when it is done in a particular form. I very much suspect that the Government seek a degree of solace in this rather difficult country in the Nothern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That, of course, was a peculiar Act; it was the institution of direct rule into Northern Ireland. The first subsection of Section 7 says that the executive power shall be vested in Her Majesty. That is quite enough. The remainder of that section, in effect, is no more than declaratory. There, I think, for the first time the Government find the words "perogative and other executive powers" put together.

1431
However, it is a complete distortion to pretend that that has anything whatever to do with what we are doing now. First, as one of the Queen's advisers, naturally the Secretary of State has the perfect right to use the prerogative power. Secondly, it is specifically delegated to him. Whether or not it is good constitutional practice, it is unnecessary; but it is delegated, whereas in this Bill there is no question at all of delegation. In the 1973 Act there is no attempt to divide between what is prerogative and what is executive.
Therefore, with great respect, there is really no kind of precedent which could justify it. If I may say so. I doubt whether there is much in Ireland which would constitute a very good precedent for anything. We always regard Ireland as very sui generis and not to be compared with other parts. Last time the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor acknowledged that it was a very poor precedent, and so it is. Indeed, it is no precedent at all. Even if it was, the present Act distorts it completely. Perhaps I could remind the Committee of what it does. It seeks to pass, by statute—which I contend is wrong—to an unknown temporary occupant of an office, the powers of the Queen. By definition that man has no access to the Sovereign whatever. He may not even tell the Sovereign what he is doing in her name. That is what stands in the statute. Quite frankly, I think that it is a constitutional abomination. This is carrying it too far. We have a duty to see that we do not do this. Nothing of this kind has ever been done by statute in this country. I shall go further and say that in point of fact it is totally unnecessary and, I believe, undesirable. Every one of the things that is needed to be done can be done perfectly well already, or can be arranged to he done.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor quoted two things, one of which was the compensation of the victims of crimes. We have already been told that if the Scottish Assembly wishes to take that up it can pass an Act of the Assembly. There is no difficulty about that. It can equip itself with the powers in order to exercise its function on these matters contained in Schedule 10. There is no difficulty about that. So it can get all the powers it wants from doing
1432
that. The same applies to the arts. The third question he mentioned was disabled war personnel, which does not count because it is not devolved. However, all the powers required for the other two can perfectly well be done by statute under Schedule 10. Further—and I am not altogether sure that it is wise to do it, even if it is appropriate and even if it is possible—is it really desirable to give the Scottish Secretaries unknown powers which they do not derive from the Assembly at all—the Assembly to which they are responsible? Is it a wise thing to do, even if we could do it? I must therefore say that I think this proposal in the Bill is inappropriate. It is not necessary and it is unwise. Until we have a written Constitution in this country I would say that we have, as Dicey told us, a high duty to conserve the Constitution of what we have got.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask one question for my information? Are these criticisms directed to subsection (1) as it stands, or to subsection (1) upon the basis that we accept Amendment No. 64, which deletes the words "prerogative and other"?
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, it is directed entirely to subsection (1), after having accepted the prerogative. I say this. I may not have made myself adequately clear. If so, I apologise. The noble Lord must say that executive power is separate from the prerogative. Is executive power part of the prerogative, or is it outside the prerogative? I do not think it matters which side we take it. Those executive powers, apart from prerogative, do not exist. Therefore, the criticism of the prerogative applies with equal force to the executive powers which remain in subsection (1). If we take the executive powers out, then subsection (1) inevitably falls.
5.43 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I think that I should add a word on this. I had rather hoped that some noble and learned Lords might add their voices to this, because it is clearly a very difficult matter. I am grateful to the Government for having indicated that they would he prepared to accept the next

1433
Amendment. They have indicated that privately. I do not think that is any secret. However, my noble friend has gone further.
As I have attempted to do on previous occasions, I shall seek to tell the Government that we are not, in raising this matter again, trying to achieve anything different from what the Government are trying to achieve. It is perfectly plain to me that there must be granted, by some means, to the Scottish Secretary the necessary powers to act in relation to devolved matters in the same way as United Kingdom Ministers at the present moment act. There is no dispute about that. It must be done. The question is how to do it. Although I am not able to lay down precisely what are the right ways of doing these things, I believe that in this area of constitutional law there are dangers in writing provisions into Statutes which do not have to be written in.
I would not go so far as to say that, merely by mentioning "prerogative" or "executive powers" in an Act, that thereby translates them into statutory powers and removes them from the realm of the prerogative or the executive. I do not think that one needs to go as far as that. But this particular provision does not just declare that what may be done, anyway, is something that is sanctioned by the Statute. It actually has, as I understand it, an effective action. It transfers, in so far as devolved matters are concerned, the exercise of those matters from the Ministers of the Crown, who have them at the moment. At least they have the ability directly to advise the Sovereign how she shall act in this particular respect. That ability to advise the Sovereign is being devolved, in its turn, and transferred to the Scottish Secretaries, who have not got the ability directly to advise the Sovereign how she shall act, except, I suppose, through the Secretary of State.
It has been suggested to me that one way whereby we could do this is to take it out of the Bill. There is nothing wrong with subsection (2). We are only dealing with subsection (1). We could take it out of the Bill and make it a matter in itself of executive statement—formal, definitive, executive statement; not a matter of legislation, but in itself an exercise of the prerogative by United Kingdom Ministers.
1434
They would be setting up a new convention, as I understand it. They would say "We are now about to make a pronouncement about the way in which we the United Kingdom Ministers who have access to the Sovereign, will in future advise the Sovereign to act. When it is a matter that is devolved under the Scotland Bill, and is a matter of prerogative or executive power that we have hitherto exercised, we shall in future advise Her Majesty to act upon the basis of what the Scottish Secretary says should be done." That will produce a convention which will have exactly the same effect as Clause 21(1) of this Bill. But what it will not do is to enshrine in a Statute something which may in some way undermine or vitiate the pure existence of the prerogative and executive powers themselves.
This is where I think we are all in doubt about this matter. Certainly I am not enlightened by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said last time. We are not quite sure of what we might he doing by virtue of subsection (1). If we can do it another way, which is bound to do no harm—whereas this procedure in the Bill could conceivably have a deleterious effect—would we not be wiser to use the method which is bound to he harmless?
I would not expect the Government to be able to give a complete answer to this today. They would no doubt need to look at some precedents—I think there are some—whereby they might make the kind of definitive statement about which I have spoken. For all I know they will come to the conclusion that they cannot. My personal inclination would be to ask whether my noble friend Lord Selkirk might be persuaded, today at least, to leave this matter over so that we could at least take out the reference to the prerogative under the Amendment that I know the Government will accept, and perhaps give the Government an opportunity to listen to what must have been conceded by all to be a weighty speech coming from my noble friend, who, after all, exercised the prerogative himself, as a Governor-General, as well as being a distinguished Scottish lawyer. That is a good combination to form the basis from which to talk about this particular matter. I hope that the noble and learned Lord has not finally made up his mind on this point. It must be too difficult ever for anyone finally to make up his mind upon it. I

1435
hope that what I have suggested might give us further opportunity for thought, and perhaps a way of resolving this difficulty.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is lie saying to the House that he accepts the offer by the Government to accept Amendment No. 64, but he reserves his freedom later on to ask for the whole subsection to be removed?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, yes. That was exactly what I was going to suggest. But it is not for me to say anything much about it. The matter is in the hands of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, whose Amendment it is.
5.49 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: My Lords, I feel that I must take part in this discussion again. I find myself a little embarrassed because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to inform me that the Government were likely to accept Amendment No. 64. When I received that information I accepted it and did not make any further objection. I feel therefore that I am morally barred from pressing any objection very strongly. At the same time, having heard the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I find myself so in agreement with what he said that I should like to associate myself with what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has just said, and ask whether the Government might not, even yet, be persuaded to think about this further.
The noble Earl was clearly right when he said that there is no intermediate power which could be caught by what is going to be left of this clause after Amendment No. 64. Clause 21(1) refers to,
"Such of Her Majesty's prerogative and other executive powers …".
If the Amendment is agreed, "prerogative and other" will be left out. That would leave standing:
"Such of Her Majesty's … executive powers…".
I think that, as a matter of law, it is not open to argument that Her Majesty has only two sorts of executive power. One is the common law power derived from
1436
the prerogative; that is the residue of what was the King's autocratic power to govern the country at his will long ago. The only other source is statute. The Crown has a lot of statutory powers. If we take out the words "prerogative powers" and then leave in "executive powers" that seems to imply that there is a power which is neither statutory nor prerogative. I do not believe that there is any such power. If the noble and learned Lord can tell me of one, I should be interested to hear it, but I doubt whether he can.
I suspect that the distinction which he will try to draw is between those prerogative powers which involve the personal intervention of the Sovereign and those prerogative powers which do not involve her personal intervention. That may be a practical distinction, but it is not a legal distinction. Therefore, it seems to me to be an unsound distinction on which to base leaving Clause 21 standing as it would stand after being amended. I think that the Government ought to think about this further.
From a practical point of view it seems to be dangerous to delegate to unknown people powers which, so far as I am aware, nobody can define: the executive powers of the Crown, which are presumably not to include the prerogative powers—at any rate not to include those which involve any personal intervention by the Sovereign. If one could have any sort of intelligible list of them, one might not view this with so much apprehension, but there is no list available.
I believe—and I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was quite right about this—that this is really unnecessary. This could all be done better—and I have already made my view known to the noble and learned Lord—by a formal statement from the Government. That was how it was done in somewhat similar circumstances when prerogative powers were, in effect, being delegated to the Dominions. In 1930 this kind of thing arose. The question was how Governor Generals of Dominions were to be appointed. That is done by the Crown as an act of prerogative.
At the Imperial Conference 1930 a statement was made that in future the appointments should be made on the advice of the Dominion Government

1437
concerned and not through, or in any way with the support of, the United Kingdom Government. That was made as a statement of what in fact would in future be the practice. Something on those lines would be the appropriate way of dealing with this problem. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord might not be willing yet to take this matter further into consideration.
5.53 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, may I say that I do not think that this is just a lawyers' point. We have had distinguished lawyers who have put a strong case to the Government, but there is something wider than the strict legal points they have been arguing on this. It is similar to my Amendment which will come after this. When you upgrade the Scottish Secretary you are downgrading the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the sense that the prerogative and the devolved powers that are being talked about at the present time rest in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I am relieved that my noble friend on the Front Bench made it clear that, while he will be accepting the offer to remove "prerogative and other", he still reserves the right, subject to the reply of the noble and learned Lord and perhaps further consideration before we get to Third Reading, to do something about the whole subsection. I think that my noble friend Lord Selkirk was right in wanting to remove the whole of the subsection. This puts the Assembly on the level of a Parliament. I have made this point before. Before we know where we are we shall be having the case that our gracious Queen is the Queen of Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the Assembly of Scotland. That is what it is almost upgrading the Scottish Secretary to, and, as has been pointed out, upgrading a Scottish Secretary who is not known and with powers that have never been tried. Most of this Bill is designed to placate extreme feeling in Scotland and we must be careful indeed that in placating the immoderates we are not downgrading Parliament, which has passed the test of centuries and which flows from both the Constitution and statute law which has been tried and well tested.
1438
I make the point, as I shall later on argue, that we must not downgrade the powers of Members of Parliament—that is what my Amendment to follow is all about. In this case we must not downgrade the Secretary of State for Scotland. The whole of the results that will flow from it, and particularly from this subsection being discussed now, can give the impression that in building up the one you are putting down the other. That cannot be good.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I must confess myself somewhat dismayed at the dissatisfaction which noble and learned Lords, and the noble Viscount, have displayed at the subsection as it would be if the Government accepted Amendment No. 64. The noble and learned Lord. Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, kindly referred to the fact that he himself had not raised the point which he now supports for the reasons that he has explained, and I had understood that the noble Viscount was pleased with Amendment No. 64 and satisfied with subsection (1). It may be that I am being unfair.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, may I just say that nobody is ungrateful for Amendment No. 64. It is just that, after having heard what my, noble friend Lord Selkirk said, it seemed to me—and I think perhaps it also seemed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton—that there was still an area to explore. We are not being tiresome or inconsistent. It is just that we think there is still something left that needs looking at. I hope it is not too much to ask the Government to do so.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I was not suggesting that anybody was being tiresome. I was merely suggesting that I was dismayed. I am sure that the House will understand that. I believe that it is important to look at the precise wording of subsection (1), and I shall do so, leaving out the words in Amendment No. 64, which we propose to accept. What is left begins with words which are important; the words "Such of". That wording makes it clear that Her Majesty has certain powers, and we only refer to such of them as fulfil a certain qualification.

1439
We go on to the next important words:
"Such of Her Majesty's … executive powers as would otherwise be exercisable on behalf of Her Majesty …".
There is an important distinction there in the words, "on behalf of", because there are powers which Her Majesty herself exercises on the advice of Ministers; for example, she may appoint a judge, she may sign a Royal pardon, and she will do either of these things, or similar things, on the advice of Ministers. But we are not talking about that kind of power, but executive powers now exercisable on behalf of Her Majesty by a Minister of the Crown.
Then the further qualifications that appear from the subsequent words are:
"… shall, if they relate to devolved matters and are exercisable in or as regards Scotland …".
If all these qualifications are fulfilled, then they may be "exercisable on behalf of Her Majesty"—again the words "on behalf of" are important—"by a Scottish Secretary". All the words in the clause deserve attention and also weight. I suggest that, if one looks at the clause in that sense, the difficulties are not real.
I make that point forcefully because I listened with great care to the noble Viscount, who specifically referred to the dangers and possibility of undermining something. I waited to be told what the danger was; I wanted some specification and I wanted to know what it was that was being undermined, but he did not tell us. I understand exactly why, namely, because he does not know; he cannot point to anything that this subsection would achieve that would somehow undermine the position of the Crown, the Constitution or anything else.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, surely it undermines the powers of the Secretary of State. If he were having given to him only the powers that the Secretary of State has, willingly given by the Secretary of State, that would be one thing, but it is being given directly from the Queen without coming through the Secretary of State, so the one being injured is the Secretary of State, and he is answerable to Parliament.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I do not want to give way too often on Report, my Lords,
1440
and I do not think that would be the answer which the noble Viscount would offer me. I am saying that in the speeches to which we have listened, no noble Lords put their finger on a precise danger or possibility that they can identify and say, "That is made good"—or, "That is made bad," if you like—by the wording of the clause with Amendment No. 64.
Let me approach the matter quite generally. The subject matter of the clause is the devolution of executive powers of a certain kind and of a certain limited character to Scottish Secretaries. The Bill can be specific in identifying those powers only to a limited extent. That is because so many of them lie within the generalised wording of the groups in Part I of Schedule 10. Our object in proceeding with this subsection is to pick up the whole corpus of ministerial executive powers lying in the field of the devolved matters specified by Clause 61(3) and devolve them to Scottish Secretaries. As I have indicated, these powers are exercised now on behalf of the Crown by Ministers. They will continue to be exercised on behalf of the Crown and I believe this, as a critical proposition, is properly stated as a matter of constitutional law.
The powers in question are not limited to those conferred directly by any existing enactment. I am conscious of the weight of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, when he said he thought there were only two kinds of power, the residue of the King's autocratic power and statutory powers, but I believe that every noble Lord who has held ministerial office will know how often a Minister relies not on a statutory power but on a general executive capacity; that is to say, in a sense, his capacity to do as a Minister anything that he as an individual can do.
Consider, for example, the position when a Minister sets up an advisory committee; if a Minister decides to promote an exhibition; if he intervenes to conciliate in a dispute; if he promotes an advertising campaign, although for that matter he might need funds and might therefore have to go to his legislative authority or somewhere else to obtain those funds. Those are all matters which are not specified in a Statute, and if they fall to be described as coming within the category of the residue of the King's autocratic

1441
power, then I should have to accept that, but I believe that would be to give them a title and dignity which they perhaps do not properly deserve.
I believe that the Amendments here offered—and I am considering both Amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl—would produce a radically different picture. They would simply devolve on to Scottish Secretaries ministerial powers derived from any enactment; that would be the effect of deleting subsection (1) and of the other Amendment. That would be much closer to the pattern to be seen in the Wales Bill. But of course that Bill is quite different from the Scotland Bill in its whole conception, the principal point of difference being that there is no legislative devolution. In this sphere, that Bill only transfers to the Welsh Assembly a long list of specified ministerial powers, each of which can be, and is, identified with precision. There is therefore no room for doubt or ambiguity; one simply looks at the list. Above all, there is no reason to doubt that the powers remain exercisable by the Welsh Assembly on behalf of the Crown, and it is as unnecessary to spell that out as it would be if powers were being transferred from one United Kingdom Minister to another.
In Scotland and, as I have tried to explain, under this Bill, the devolution of executive power is in wider and much more general terms. We cannot list all the powers. Certainly we can identify some powers—and we do so in Schedule 11; they exist already in Statute—because there we achieve executive devolution only, and to that extent we follow the pattern of the Wales Bill. But we must think also of those powers covered by, and inherent in, Part I of Schedule 10 and the general executive powers and other powers which are to be found, for example, in Royal Charters. The Bill would not achieve its purpose if it referred only to those powers which are derived from enactment, though that is precisely what Amendment No. 65 would do.
Therefore in the Scotland Bill, in this clause as it stands, we have the more elaborate formulation which the Amendment would have us drop. And because the exercise is more elaborate than that in Wales and because it results in the devolution of this wide spread of powers, we
1442
emphasise—the wording does that in the way I have drawn attention to—that the powers will remain exercisable on behalf of the Crown. I would perhaps seek to take a slightly different approach to the matter, but I do not think I am saying anything very different. Clause 21(1) as amended seeks to devolve those non-statutory powers which are exercised by Ministers, and I have drawn attention to the wording. It does not seek to devolve any powers exercised by Her Majesty on the advice of Ministers—that is the point I sought to make earlier—and there is no question of access being provided to her Majesty by Scottish Secretaries.
I believe it is wrong to over-dignify the powers I am talking about by describing them as part of the traditional and historical powers of the King; they represent in substance a general executive competence Which these Scottish Secretaries should have if they choose to do the kind of thing of which I gave instances in advance of specific legislation passed by the Assembly in the exercise of its legislative competence under Part 1 of Schedule 10.
The Assembly, as the noble Earl rightly pointed out in relation to the example of compensation for victims of crime, will be able—because it has the legislative competence to deal with that—to give powers in that field statutory form, and in doing so to elaborate, codify and restrict them in any particular area. But until it does so, some gaps might arise in the necessary authority of Scottish Secretaries within the devolved fields and within Scotland, and they could be handicapped in dealing with devolved matters in a way which Ministers at Westminster are not handicapped. We believe, therefore, that it is prudent and sensible to provide for the transfer of those, which are in practice limited, powers which Ministers now have and which have no precise statutory basis, notably those, which were instanced in Committee, to give public support and encouragement to certain public activities; an example was given then and the noble Earl referred to it.
It is true that Her Majesty's executive powers which are now exercised on her behalf by Ministers are nowhere precisely defined, but that is because they are incapable of definition, just as nobody could define what a private individual can do; one can assert the negative and say

1443
that an individual cannot do this or that. An individual, for example, cannot impose regulations or make some kind of penal sanction. One can say what he cannot do, but to provide a list of the things that he can do would be impossible.
In this field we are simply seeking to ensure that when the Scottish Secretaries exercise their functions in Scotland in relation to devolved matters, and in advance of any legislation passed to give them precise powers, they may do this kind of thing which at the moment may be done in the same fields in Scotland by Ministers on behalf of the Crown. That is all. I do not believe that this clause as worded—subsequent to accepting Amendment No. 64, which we propose to accept—creates constitutional problems of an insoluble kind.
I have been asked to say what attitude the Government would take to the suggestion which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, made at the Committee stage, and which was repeated by the noble Viscount and by the noble and learned Lord himself today. The Government have given this matter very careful consideration. The noble Viscount said that there can be no finality in these matters, but there has to be finality in the context of a Bill of this kind. We have to reach a conclusion. The Government have reached their conclusion, and that conclusion is subsection (1) with the three words deleted from the first line. I have to rest on that answer, and I invite the noble Earl not to press the Amendments.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I am no lawyer, and I am very much out of my depth. However, I have listened to the noble and learned Lord speaking, and the first point that occurs to me is that everybody is trying to arrive at a right answer. This is not a Party point. This is a case where those who have spoken in favour of the noble Earl's Amendment have done so from the standpoint of genuine worry about what kind of result may follow what is proposed by the Government at the present time. We heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, that they are worried. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said that they have not
1444
been specific on what their worries may be. All right—they have not at this time. However, very often the very fact that someone who has the experience of these noble Lords is worried means that there is a point which should be looked at. If I am right in that, it seems to me that it would be wise for the Government once more to weigh up what has been said today: not to undertake to accept any change, but to see whether, for example, the solution put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, has some merit in it, and in that way at least give comfort that this question is not being decided too quickly.
Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, by using the phrase "with the leave of the House", will make it clear that this matter is to be thought about some more. Of course that would in no way commit him to accepting anything different. As I said, I do not understand this fully, but I am impressed by the arguments and the anxiety of those who want to do the right thing as much as the noble and learned Lord on the Government Benches does.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, at the invitation of the noble Earl, and with the leave of the House, I wish to say that we have given this matter immense consideration. I cannot say to the House that we will give it further consideration in the light of the debate, because nothing has been said in the debate that was not already brought to our attention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, and the others who have spoken, and by the correspondence to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred. All these points have been before us, and they have been considered with great care. We have to reach a conclusion, and, as I have said, we have reached this conclusion—it is in the Bill—and I will not undertake to take the matter back for a further examination.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is simply challenging me to divide the House, and I must think it over as to whether I should. He made a reply which does not meet the point at all. Let us he quite frank about this. This is one of the most complicated Bills that we have had before this House for a long time. We have had this appalling

1445
Schedule 10, and the Government say that this is not enough. We are told that we must have many more undefined, utterly unspecified powers handed over to the Assembly, because it cannot work otherwise; there might be a gap in its legislation.
Let us ask the noble and learned Lord a question. Let us suppose that we were in America, or in Australia, where there is not a Queen. How would one handle a matter like this? How would one get on without a Queen? Many countries do get on without a Queen, and they seem to run very satisfactorily. Are we really saying that we must have undefined powers in order to carry on the limited government of Scotland? This is nonsense—just nonsense.
Despite all that the Government say, we must ask them to think about this matter. I know that there are very real disadvantages in dividing at such a stage of a Bill, and I do not like doing it if I can possibly help it. I consider that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should read the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. We should leave the matter at that for the moment. I do not want to make this question a division between Parties. I believe that this is a profoundly important constitutional change. It is something that has never been attempted in the Parliament of this country in 700 years, and I think we should have a little opportunity to think about this again. I believe it is a matter on which we can come to agreement, despite the rather dogmatic views which the noble and learned Lord has expressed—I will not put it higher than that. I must warn the noble and learned Lord that I am not going to leave the matter at this, but I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment now. I always believe that there may be a chance that sinners will repent, and on those lines I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("prerogative and other").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not think that I need say very much about this Amendment—except that I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, before the question is formally put, I should say that I have made it plain that we accept this proposal, and we are happy that the noble Viscount has persuaded us of the wisdom of doing so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
6.17 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS moved Amendment No. 65A:
Page 11, line 3, at end insert—
("(3) No powers, rights or duties, whether legislative, executive or representative, and whether formal or informal, shall be exercisable by a Scottish Secretary or by any member of the Assembly if they relate to matters which are not devolved or which are properly the province of a Minister of the Crown or of Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to say a few words before the noble and learned Lord leaves. I had reason to compliment the noble and learned Lord on his manner—and I meant it—but on this occasion I have to offer serious criticism of his manner of a few minutes ago. He seemed to show that superiority of the lawyer which is not in keeping with the general manner he has shown in the past. I refer to that superiority of the lawyer which has caused the lawyer Members of Parliament to be the most unpopular Members of Parliament in the past. I say this because of the way that he seemed to suggest that on matters which he deems to be legal matters only comments from legal luminaries in your Lordships' House ought to be listened to. The noble and learned Lord, in dealing with a point which I still think has some substance in it, said that the answer given was not the kind that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, would have given. I hope that if, in our consideration of this Bill, a certain matter is deemed in the minds of some to be a legal matter, this place will not be a playground, or a debating chamber, for only the lawyers themselves—
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I was not suggesting that the noble Lord's opinion upon these matters is any less valuable than anyone else's. If he reads very care-

1447
fully what I was saying before he intervened, and what I said afterwards, he will see that no offence was intended, and I hope none was given. If some offence was taken, then plainly I have not expressed myself with the clarity that a lawyer ought to have, and I would apologise for that. I was simply saying that I was endeavouring to answer a point that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had made, and the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, offered to me was not the answer that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, would have offered. That is all.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: We do not know, my Lords. When he reads it, perhaps he will try to make the same point with all the force of his legal training behind him. I naturally accept what the noble and learned Lord says, but it was out of keeping; and as one of those who sometimes feel that we pay the lawyers and then at the end of the day have to pay the price of the mistakes of some of the lawyers, I do not feel I have to how down to them with quite the same alacrity as is sometimes expected by some lawyers, although I do not suggest that the noble and learned Lord is one of those.
However, I tie my own Amendment to that because they are not dissimilar. The arguments that we have just had are a denigration of the powers of the Secretary of State, and I want to preserve the powers of the Westminster Parliament. If the powers are to be taken from the Secretary of State and given to a Scottish Secretary, then he is being downgraded. My Amendment flows on from that. I want to make certain—and if the words which I have on the Marshalled List are accepted, then my Amendment will go some way towards doing it—that the Members of Parliament who are elected in Scotland to the Westminster Parliament are not downgraded. I do not want the powers and the facilities that they have by being Members of Parliament, and the privileges and the perks that go with it, to be removed from the elected Members at Westminster and given to the elected Members of the Scottish Assembly. I do not say that with any denigration of what the status and standing of the Scottish Assembly will be if ever it comes into being, but, even with this, I believe it is vital as well as right that we should not
1448
remove the responsibilities, the powers and the privileges that go with that great compliment that is paid to anybody who is elected to sit in the Westminster Parliament, which rules over the country.
There is some doubt at the minute whether or not that is going to happen, and the thing that puts the doubt in my mind, if I may quote it, is that we had a very interesting episode in another place when Mr. Tam Dalyell, who is an expert on these matters and who has really gone well below the surface to understand what they are all about, said that he was very disturbed when he heard a comment made by the Foreign Secretary, when, in Edinburgh on 25th November 1977, the Foreign Secretary said, in effect, that the Assembly should be consulted as an Assembly in respect of the United Kingdom's relations with the European Community. I do not believe we ought to run even the slightest risk that the Assembly is going to have a contact with the European Community without it going through Parliament itself; and if any elected Members go to the Community to further Scottish points, they ought to be the Westminster Members of Parliament, who have always done it. My words, if this Amendment is accepted, would make certain that that indeed will happen.
I give your Lordships another quote which caused me to put this Amendment down. We had Mr. John Smith, the Minister of State at the Scottish Office, saying on 11th January 1978, as officially reported:
"If we devolve agriculture, the Minister of Agriculture would be representing the Scottish Assembly's interests when matters were discussed in the European Community".
That is all right; but then he went on:
"He might take with him a representative from the Scottish Administration. That would be on a grace and favour basis, rather than because the Scottish Administration had a right to be represented".
I do not believe that he ought to take Member from the Assembly. I believe that if he needs the support and advice of any elected Member, it should be the elected Member of Parliament at Westminster.
When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was dealing with a point similar to this which I made at the Committee stage, he said:

1449
"I think we have got round this dubious problem",
as he called it.
"In fact, there is nothing in the Amendments to stop anyone being consulted on matters which are devolved or which impinge on matters devolved".
I accept that; I do not think there ought to be anything. Indeed, in part of the noble and learned Lord's speech he said that I was nodding agreement with him when he was making that point. Indeed I was. I do not believe the Secretary of State or the Assembly ought to be prevented from consulting with anybody who they think has some contribution to make in arriving at what they hope will eventually be the right decision. I would not want that; but what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not say, and what disturbs me, is that it is one thing to be consulted but it is another thing to he taken as part of the official team outside the boundaries of this country to arrive at a decision which is going to affect us.
I believe that that is upgrading the Assemblyman, to the detriment of the elected Member of Parliament, to a degree which can be, I believe, unhealthy and, indeed, dangerous at the end of the day, because there is a risk of causing conflict between the elected Members of the Assembly and the elected Members of the Westminster Parliament. Those of us who have had a little experience of this matter of one's jealous feeling towards one's own constituency will know exactly what I mean. If, in another place, someone asks questions or deals with matters affecting your constituency, you are very concerned about it and you go to great lengths to put him in his place and to see that he does not step into what is your field of authority. If you are going to run the risk, even, of the Assemblyman impinging on the territory which has for centuries been the territory of the elected Member of Parliament at Westminster, then you may well affect the good working of this Bill, if it ever becomes an Act, by bringing about that sort of conflict between the elected Assemblyman and the elected Member of Parliament.
I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will say that there are other parts of the Bill which will perhaps answer this point, and that it is very clearly laid out. There are some parts of it which, I agree, do to some extent try to deal with
1450
the point that I am making; but, having read them in some detail and tried to look at them from a reasonably impartial point of view, I do not think that what is in the Bill really does that. But even if the noble and learned Lord himself feels that there is enough in the Bill to prevent the conflict that I am talking about, it would not do any harm to accept my words in order to make sure. It is common now, if one has a valuable jewel, not to rely on the pin of the jewel to keep it safe; you attach an extra safety chain, because the jewel is valuable enough for you to go to that sort of trouble to make sure that you do not lose something which is of great value. I believe that this power of the elected Member to Westminster, his privileges and his rights and his special recognition as being the only spokesman for his electorate, is a jewel which deserves the extra chain which my words would give to it.
This is not a matter, perhaps, which will be understood to the same extent by people who have not experienced, if you like, the feelings of responsibility that go with being elected to another place along the corridor; but I believe it is that feeling of jealousy, that feeling that it is your responsibility and a responsibility which you feel deeply, which makes being a Member of Parliament the really worth while job that it is, as compared with the boredom and the very unsatisfactory other points that go with it. I do not think we ought to disturb that, and so this Amendment runs very closely to the one with which we have just dealt. Do not undermine the value of the Secretary of State, because in doing that you are undermining the value of the Ministers in the Westminster Parliament. Do not run even the most minimal risk that you are undermining the standing and the powers of the ordinary Members of Parliament. My words are designed to ensure that, and I believe this extra chain is one which ought to be accepted.
If this Amendment is not accepted by the noble and learned Lord I shall not want to push this to a vote on my own calling, because I know jolly well that if any individual Member of any Parliament gets the reputation of always wanting to push to a vote his special point of view without having the support of his leaders—and I am talking about the two Front Benches on this occasion—then he soon becomes a bore and one who is not listened

1451
to. But if it is that other Members of your Lordships' House think that there is enough in this to warrant this safety chain that I am recommending, if it is that they call for it when the Question is put I shall not withdraw it—then I would welcome joining them in the Lobby; and I hope that that is how some will feel about it. But if they do not, then it will merely be negatived without the necessity of us tramping through the Lobbies. But with that as a recommendation—based upon, as I say, an experience which is not shared by all, but which is shared by many in this House—I commend the Amendment to your Lordships in the hope that you will give it serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, only yesterday an attempt to limit the number of Scottish MPs in another place was defeated in this House. I presume therefore that your Lordships feel that they are to be there for some purpose. I feel that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is very necessary in order to preserve their right to deal with the matters which are not devolved. During the preliminary years of the Assembly there is bound to be a certain amount of confusion as to what the Assembly may deal with and what remains the right of Scottish Members in Parliament, and I think it is an excellent thing that those matters which are not devolved—and that is clearly laid out in the Bill—should remain in the hands of the Members of the British Parliament.
6.32 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, if the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is to preserve the right of Members of another place, of course he is battling on behalf of a lost cause, because over the years the other place, through Parliament and through its functions by Members of Parliament and its work outside, has given that power away. The power to govern these Islands rests now not in Westminster but in Whitehall. What is done is decided by the mandarins in Whitehall. For a very brief period—and we are coming up to such a period—there will be the preliminaries to a General Election. Before the Election is over a number of sets of papers will have
1452
been written by the mandarins. One will have a blue tab on it in the unlikely event of the Conservatives winning; another set will be written in the event that the Labour Party remains the Government, and then there will be subsidiary sets, on perhaps half a sheet of paper, against the widly improbable happening that the Liberal Party may get more than ten votes. This is broadly the situation. The day that Sir Alec Douglas-Home ceased to be Prime Minister, when he knew the result and went to the Palace, all his papers were put on one side and a new lot were produced. That was the Queen's Speech, the basis on which the Government would be run.
The heart of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is in the right place, despite the fact that his body is in the Tory Party. He comes from the Midlands and, because he comes from the Midlands, he talks blunt, plain English and he is trying to limit the erosion. He does not want it to spread to this new Assembly. I am entirely at one with him as long as we recognise what we are doing.
I should like to tell your Lordships a little story. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, were here because it concerns him. I became his Parliamentary Private Secretary while still serving in the Army in 1945. In my innocence I thought that of all the subjects upon which the Labour Party had come to power it was on the nationalisation of mines. So when I went to see Manny Shinwell, as he then was, he told me that the Prime Minister had asked him to nationalise the mines. In my innocence I thought—after all, I had been a member of the Labour Party since I was 18—that there were libraries, rooms stacked out as the result of the thinking of the late Harold Laski and others—all worked out in detail. The only document that existed was a pamphlet in Welsh written by Jim Griffiths. The truth is that the basis upon which the mines were nationalised in this country was not as a result of work in the backroom by the Labour Party, but as the result of decisions worked out in Smith Square, not across the other side but in the offices of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. It was worked out by the civil servants. And what is true of the mines is true of every other subject. When we discussed the defence policy and we attacked Mr. Mulley, that was nonsense; what we were

1453
attacking was some obscure person in the Civil Service.
Next week I am going to deal, I hope, with an Amendment which I have got down in connection with betting, gaming and lotteries. The Minister came to the Dispatch Box and was hopelessly briefed. I was aghast at what he said and I had some sympathy with him. But who made the mistakes? Not the Minister; this was the utter nonsense written in the Home Office. It was passed to him and nobody noticed what was wrong. That is what is happening. The Government have now come along with this Bill. It has not been thought out.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, tonight is obviously very upset at what he sees as a possibility of this Bill going through because of the passing of power into realms which have not previously, as it were, been defined. What the poor man is up against is the fact that the Government have produced a Bill—or it has been produced for them—which is just so much thinking. It has been worked out to deal with a specific political situation. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, speaking yesterday afternoon, said,
"I wonder what would have happened if we had waited until after the Hamilton by-election".
Noble Lords may ponder on that. Of course we would not have seen either this Bill or the Wales Bill, because there would have been no need for them.
All of us need to be more careful. We may do one thing and then somebody wakes up a generation later on and sees as the result of our actions all sorts of consequences which we never thought about. Those of us who object to this Bill in principle, I believe are objecting to the fact that we see this Bill ill-thought out, cutting into the concept upon which for the last 1,000 years these Islands have been able to stand the strains and stresses and hold their position in the world.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, made a remark yesterday which was inaccurate. It was not very generous. He introduced as an argument that all those of us who supported a certain Amendment were opponents of the Bill. We are none the worse for that. But he is not a better man for taking an opposite view, and because we are opposed in principle to the Bill it does not mean that we have put our thinking
1454
out and that we should not seek to amend it. After all, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, can produce exactly the same argument against the noble Lord, Lord Hamar-Nicholls, in relation to this Amendment and in relation to myself for supporting it, because my name is on it.
But it is unfair. We are pointing out, and we shall be failing in our duty if we do not continue to point out, the dangers which may flow from the fact that Members of another place and of your Lordships' House have given away at every stage our effective control of the Executive. Having given it away, what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is afraid of is that somebody may come along and take it for grabs. Before you know where you are you will find that the Assemblies, because they are new to it and it is something new to public opinion, have grabbed hold of powers that another place and this House have surrendered.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that in a sense I was not critical. I recognised their honesty of purpose, though I do not have to agree with it, but perhaps it is worthwhile pointing out that all those who spoke last evening on that Amendment were of a particular opinion. I think it is right for the House to know that.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, if that is to be used in argument then let us put a cross on our foreheads that we are against it; and I will preface all I say by saying, "Yes, I am opposed to the principle on which this Bill is based." But, on its merits, I want to point out through my words that I support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, but for reasons which go wider than this. Let me refer to the functions of this House. Why is it that this House lacks effective power? It is because by its own actions it has ceased to control the Executive. Every time a Member of this place puts down a Question for which a Minister is not responsible, by that action the authority of this House has been diminished. Day after day it goes on. Hardly a day goes by when there are not Questions put on the Order Paper, supplementary questions asked, and Ministers replying—on subjects utterly irrelevant to and nothing to do with their responsibility.

1455
Indeed, the whole function of a Member of another place or of this House is to check the Executive when it is wrong or when we think, either as individuals or collectively, that a Member of this place or of another place is exceeding his authority or is not acting as we think he should act in the public interest. What the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is worried about, if I read his Amendment aright and I have caught his meaning, is that this new Assembly—because its purpose is ill-defined, because its purpose has not been thought out, where you have new Members coming along—before we know where we are, and before they know where they are, for the most innocent reasons will have started to discuss and bring pressure to bear on Ministers far beyond those which are being exercised in another place or in this House, because neither House is doing its job in controlling the Executive.
If we do not control the Executive and do not bring them to account, we have completely failed to understand our British system. Our British system is not a talking shop; it is to elect a dictatorship for a period of five years and to give it sufficient power to carry through a programme during its life until it returns its mandate to those who gave it, to the electorate. During that time, in the way it operates, through debates on Supply, Questions and Answers, through the exercise of a Vote, and all the other paraphernalia and procedures of both Houses, we can call the Executive to account.
Now you are going to have a hydra-headed monster which is going to operate in another way—not by calling Ministers to account in another place or here, but through a new force in British public life, through the exercise of an uninformed public opinion expressing itself through the media. This is really a dictatorship of the worst possible kind; it will be a dictatorship without purpose, without a brain and without a head. All that it would have is power and no purpose. That is the kind of society which, if we have not got it, we are well on the way to getting. For that reason, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, whether he presses this Amendment to a Division or withdraws it, has performed a very useful service in saying that this new Assembly, whatever it does, should
1456
do nothing to weaken the authority of either House of Parliament.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, I am left wondering whether he would like this House abolished or would like its powers reinforced, the better to check the Executive. If the latter, we are in agreement. Checking the Executive is clearly a function of Parliament all the time, every day, day and night, Sundays and weekdays. But perhaps he rather overlooks one feature of a House which has influence rather than power; and that is that when we make speeches in this House, we are not only addressing the empty Benches opposite and the uncomprehending Front Benches of either side, but addressing the civil servants who find much to read and ponder and who are always athirst for a new idea and watching for something which can be pushed and which is practical. However inadequately we may check the Executive, speaking in this House, a House of influence not power, we do, in fact, perform a useful function. I hope that we shall have more of Lord Wigg's support in the future when endeavours are made to abolish or cut down this House even further.
This is wide of the Amendment, which relates to the position of Members of the Commons. Members of the British Parliament are, I think, different from Members of any other Parliament in the world. When I was a Member in another place and travelled to other countries on Parliamentary delegations, I never observed the same relationship between MPs and their constituents that we know here. In France, perhaps a local mayor who has a position of great local eminence certainly does not have the intimate connection with people that our MPs have. He does not hold regular "surgeries" and carry out all the other undertakings which form a link, a kind of pastoral link, almost like a mini-bishop between the Member of Parliament and his constituents.
We all know that the work of the Member of Parliament—and it is most interesting work; when I was an MP it was interesting—among other things, is to go about knocking at anybody's door and

1457
saying, "Any complaints? What can I do for you?" That is a function which is peculiar to the British system of Parliament and the position of Members of Parliament, and it is one that we must safeguard. With regard to going back to the mandarins of Whitehall, the MP has the right of access at any time, without notice, to the Minister relevant to his problem. He knocks on the door of, say, the Minister of Transport. The man is busy, but he sees his senior Under-Secretary. The effect is the same. The MP has access to the mandarins of Whitehall and any MP worth his salt knows how successful, very often, those interventions at that level can be on behalf of some individual. It is because the MP has this special position in the United Kingdom that I believe it is very, very important to make sure that it is not eroded.
Here the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, about the loss of power of this Parliament to the Parliament of Europe is a very serious one. I believe that it is exaggerated, but it is there. The very fact that the Scrutiny Committees—of this House, certainly; I do not know about the other one—have given much attention to the problem of the relationship between Westminster and the European Parliament is an indication of the concern that Parliamenteers must properly have to make sure that our essential functions are preserved.
If this arises, and is seen to arise, in relation to the European Parliament, equally it arises with regard to the Scottish Convention—as I still wish it called itself; but "Assembly" is what is is called meantime. Whether this particular Amendment goes very far to secure the preservation of the position that I want, I do not know; but I think it is a valuable contribution to the debate and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, replying with all his experience of local authority government, will be able to express some generous sentiments. He will know, and we all know, how jealous local authorities are of MPs intervening in their area. I think I see a slight smile of reminiscence playing about the lips of the noble Lord, the distinguished Provost of Aberdeen, who has suffered more than once under the lash of local Members. But, just as local authorities are jealous of their own prerogative and sensitive when MPs attempt to interfere, so, with that
1458
background and experience, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will see that there is a point here in the opposite direction which needs to be secured. Whether this is the way to secure it, I do not know; but the point needs to be made and I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has served all our interests in bringing this matter forward.
6.50 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, it is some time since I have been able to agree with a sentiment expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale; but I agree with the sentiment which he expressed, which was to the effect that although the speeches of both the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and my noble friend Lord Wigg were indeed interesting, they were nevertheless somewhat wide of the mark of the main point of the Amendment. It is my responsibility from this side of the House to direct your Lordships to the object of the Amendment, which is to keep Members of the Assembly and Scottish Secretaries out of matters with which they should not, as the mover of the Amendment sees it, be concerned. I submit that the Bill already does all that is required and that the terms of the Amendment would simply cause confusion. Clause 22(3) provides that, subject to exceptions provided for in Schedule 3, where power to make or confirm an order is transferred to a Scottish Secretary and that order would otherwise have been subject to the Westminster procedure, the order will be subject to such special procedure as may be established by the Scottish Assembly in its own standing orders.
In the Government's view this is entirely appropriate. It would be inconsistent with the whole approach to devolution incorporated in the Bill to preserve special Parliamentary procedure to Westminster in relation to matters which are to be fully devolved as the Amendment proposes. At present this is done in Schedule 3 by reference to specific enactments. But the Government are introducing Amendments (these are numbered 66 and 67) to alter the form of Schedule 3 so that it is expressed in more general terms applicable to any enactment providing for special Parliamentary procedure.

1459
The policy I have already described is unchanged by these Amendments, though we believe the new approach will have advantages over the existing Schedule 3 and we will remark upon that when we get to that stage in the Bill. I have attempted to make it clear that the Government believe it appropriate that where orders at present subject to special Parliamentary procedure fall entirely within the range of devolved matters, and the objections to them do not involve the special United Kingdom interests protected by Schedule 3, they should be subject solely to such procedures as are applied by the devolved Administration. The Government also believe that the Bill provides adequate safeguards to protect the reserved interests. For those reasons, it would be impossible for me to accept Lord Harmar-Nicholls' jewel, or indeed an additional chain which might attach to it. I ask your Lordships not to press the Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has done a great service in putting this Amendment down, because he has highlighted the fears that many people have over the powers and influences of the Scottish Assembly, the Members of the Scottish Assembly, and how they may conflict with Members Parliament's powers and indeed the powers of the Ministers of the Crown. Underneath all our fears and worries, whatever we may feel about devolution, is the fact that in the end this is going to provide conflict of one nature or another, and the difficulty is how best in the passage of a Bill like this to minimise that conflict. My noble friend has put down this Amendment and it has raised the very spectre which many of us feel worried about.
I should have thought that my noble friend's Amendment, while trying to make it crystal clear that there shall be no involvement by Members of the Scottish Assembly over things which do not affect them, is almost so wholly embracing that it would make it difficult for Members of the Scottish Assembly to do anything at all. If one looks at his Amendment, where he says:
"No powers, rights or duties, whether legislative, executive or representative … shall be exercisable by a Scottish Secretary or by any
1460
Member of the Assembly … which are properly the province of a Minister of the Crown,"
there I think he is absolute right. Where he goes on to say:
"or of Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies,"
I do not see how one could include those words.
One of the great problems of this Bill is that there are going to be occasions where the conflicts of Members of the Assembly and the conflicts of Members of Parliament are going to meet. What happens if a constituent in Scotland is concerned about health, education or the state of his roads? To whom does he go? Does he go to the Member of the Assembly or his Member of Parliament? One might well say that Members of the United Kingdom Parliament have total authority over subordinate Assemblies. But is it really right to say that this should be so compartmentalised that Members of the Scottish Assembly cannot do anything which might conflict with a Member of Parliament? This is one of the real dangers and I think that this may well be so. My noble friend has done a great service in raising this matter.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must apologise to your Lordships for a gross oversight on my part. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I inadvertently replied in the main to an Amendment which we have not yet reached but which we are just about to slip into, although probably that will happen after dinner, so it is entirely correct that I should express my apology. The matter arises because there is a division of labour on this side and pieces of paper occasionally circulate in not quite such an effective manner as one would wish. Although I do not wish to detain your Lordships at the dinner hour, it is only right that I should respond more formally for the sake of the record and out of courtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
There is an old maxim that nothing creates more doubt than a provision designed to avoid doubt. I understand the motives which underlie this Amendment. The Bill is constructed in the Government's view on a series of positive propositions. In particular, it describes devolved matters with as much precision as the subject matter allows. I do not

1461
think that I should treat the House to another discourse on devolved matters, and I pass on to the main point: the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, now seeks to write into the Bill a negative proposition, or so the Government aver. My contention is that that proposition will give rise to considerable doubt.
I can understand the position on powers, rights, and duties, and I refer to them together as "functions". Now let me take a further classification. What legislative functions are exercisable by a Scottish Secretary? Or by a Member of the Assembly? I see none. But they must exist, or the noble Lord would not have referred to them. Then there are executive functions. A Scottish Secretary has no executive functions in relation to matters which are not devolved. I ask the noble Lord why he thinks otherwise on that point?
Then we come to the question of representative functions. I doubt whether the courts could make anything of that. I do not think a court could make much of the words "whether formal or informal". What is an informal representative function exercisable by a Member of the Assembly relating to a matter which is not devolved? There are more points which I could make but I will not do so on this occasion. I think the Amendment would make readers look in the Bill for things which simply are not there, and I think I might rest my reply, with a further apology to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he would now agree that the Civil Service does indeed produce papers on all Amendments for all seasons?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I make just one remark to the noble Lord; that is, that we entirely understand the complexities of people working on different Amendments. Periodically, papers do get muddled up, on our side as well as on the Government side. When the noble Lord was making his original speech, I wondered whether he was on the right Amendment. The idea did cross my mind, but when he rose to speak so quickly after I had been speaking, I thought that I had been speaking on the wrong Amendment!
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I may say that for the
1462
very first time during my membership of your Lordships' House I felt completely in control of my brief. I thought: "What a superb mind I have got on this occasion." It was not to be!
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I should say that I speak as one who favours a Scottish Assembly and who would like to see a measure of devolution, though not necessarily this one. It may also be that my noble friend's Amendment is couched in terms that are far too wide-ranging. Nevertheless, I thought it was very disappointing that the noble Lord the Minister in replying for the Government, in whichever of his speeches, was not able to show that the Government are more concerned about Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster being to a very large extent emasculated, if one may use that word.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I should like to say that I have every sympathy with the noble Lord and I understand his mistake with the brief. I must confess that when I sat in a position similar to his, with about the same amount of authority, I did exactly that. It is an experience that, providing you admit it, is accepted and I am sure that we all wish him the best of luck. However, I must say to your Lordships that it really was not an answer either to the Amendment or to the speeches in support of it. At the end of the day, I think the decision should be left to those of your Lordships who have listened to the arguments. I think it ought to be left to them as to whether or not these words should be included in the Bill.
There is one last point to which I should like to refer, which really came from my noble friend. Perhaps the most damaging argument against accepting my Amendment came from my noble friend. He seemed to suggest that administratively the words I have got down could not operate—how could these things informally be done? This has not been put down without a little thought, and what I think would flow from this is exactly the situation which flows from the setting up of the Ombudsman. You cannot have a matter put to the Ombudsman as to whether or not a citizen is being treated against the statute without its going through a Member of Parliament. Anybody who

1463
feels that he has been injured by any misdemeanour in the operation of an Act cannot go direct to the Ombudsman. I am certain that, if an Assemblyman has any points he thinks should be taken into account, instead of his having direct contact either with the Queen, as was discussed in connection with the last Amendment, or with the senior Ministers who are responsible, the matter ought to go through the local Member of Parliament, as with the Ombudsman.
This would have a double effect: it would keep the Member of Parliament informed of what was going on in his constituency and it would also allow the Member of Parliament, who has a better understanding of the Westminster procedures than the Assemblyman can have, to sort out the matter before it was eventually dealt with. I think that, if the noble Lord will look at the words in that light, he will find that that administratively they are not only workable but indeed desirable. I do not want to add to the arguments that were adduced at Committee stage. I am not going to withdraw the Amendment, but mine will not be the voice which calls for a vote. If any of your Lordships feels that the argument is strong enough for it to be tested by the House, although it was not acceptable to the noble Lord speaking for the Government, I should be happy to join him in the Lobby. So it would be the voices of your Lordships and not my own which would decide whether the Amendment is pressed or not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL
7.5 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
The Lord AMHERST OF HACKNEY The Lord AMHERST OF HACKNEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Co-operative Development Agency]:
Lord ROCHESTER Lord ROCHESTER moved an Amendment:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("and such other persons or representatives of other organisations as he may think fit.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the Amendment before us is simply to record in the Bill an assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, speaking on behalf of the Government, was, as I understood it, kind enough to give to me at Second Reading, when he responded to the hope I then expressed that in appointing a chairman and members of the Co-operative Development Agency, the Secretary of State would prove willing to consult not only, as is now provided for in Clause 1(3),
"…with persons appearing to him to represent the interests of the co-operative movement",
but also with others having the interests of the co-operatives at heart, even though they might not themselves be members of that movement.
In replying to the debate on that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, assured me that the Government were sympathetic to the views which I then expressed, and he confirmed that the Secretary of State's consultations would not be necessarily or exclusively restricted to those having a formal connection with the Co-operative movement. This Amendment, therefore, is deliberately framed in terms as wide and permissive as I could muster, so that it is left to the Secretary of State to determine who are the people or the representatives of organisations other than the Co-operative movement whom he might consult, and then only if he thinks fit.
It may be said that, since I have already been given this verbal assurance, that

1465
should suffice for my purpose. It is not that I mistrust the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—on the contrary I have every reason to trust him thoroughly following our connection on a number of matters that have been debated recently—but Governments come and go and Ministers with them. I therefore prefer to put the matter the other way round and to submit that since an assurance on the lines of the Amendment before us has already been given by the Government, there seems to be no good reason why the recording of that assurance in the Bill should be resisted.
There is a further small point to bear in mind, but I do not want to make much of it. During the short time when the Agency is expected to be dependent for finance on the Government—and we must all hope, as was said on Second Reading, that within a period of three years or so the Agency will be able to stand on its own feet—its members may need, for one reason or another, to he replaced by other people. Presumably, once established, the consultative procedure that I am now proposing in this Amendment would serve as a precedent in the case of any such new appointments that prove necessary. Throughout the time that it is in a dependent state, the Agency can surely only gain from the proposed widening of the area of consultation concerning its membership, so that as much relevant experience as possible is available to the Secretary of State in this regard.
I think it will be accepted by all members of the Committee who took part in the Second Reading debate on this Bill that both my Party and I myself are wholeheartedly in support of the Bill in principle. In my view, it is important that we should, if possible, maintain a consensus in the passage of the Bill through all its stages in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I very much hope that no dispute will arise among us on this question, and indeed that this Amendment will be supported by other members of the Committee and will be willingly accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
7.12 p.m.
Viscount LONG: Now that we have the Chamber to ourselves, we can debate this Amendment very quietly while everybody else is having dinner. Before I
1466
turn to the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I should like to correct something that I said on Second Reading. I believe that I put several noughts after the figure four, and I apologise to the Committee for not correcting myself. I think that it was my hearing that was at fault, and of course I meant not 400, but only four.
Having said that, I should like to say that I supported this Bill on Second Reading, although there seems to be a certain amount of criticism levelled at me for not doing so. What I wanted to say, and what I did say, was that I wholly supported the idea, because I believe in free enterprise and in groups of people being able to get together somehow or other to form small joint ventures in industry or whatever it may be. So I did agree to this Bill, but was probably misunderstood.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the Amendment before us, and I quite understand the way in which the noble Lord has put it. His Party has argued about it in another place, and there is a great deal of thinking behind it. I understand that, under the Bill, the Secretary of State will be able to appoint,
"persons appearing to him to represent the interests of the co-operative movement,"
which rather suggests that that is as far as it goes, and the idea behind the Amendment is to be able to include persons in other organisations in order to advance the situation in regard to the Agency. It is important to realise that what we have been doing in industry in past years is trying to get the young and new brains into the boardrooms, in order to make industry in this country more progressive.
Where I am a little nervous—and, as I said, I support the Amendment—is about whether, if the movement wished to borrow money or to be granted a loan through the Secretary of State, someone might say, "I know someone who must come in on this." In that case, the movement might have its arm twisted and be forced to take in someone it did not want. If great care is not taken, some kind of industrial whizz-kid could be brought in, which could be very harmful to the Co-operative movement or to the Agency. I am trying to see the worst side of what could happen.

1467
I am hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who was very kind to us all on Second Reading, will be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and will see whether he can agree, in some way or another, to this Amendment. It will be helpful to the Co-operative movement if this Amendment can be allowed, but the Bill states that the Secretary of State can nominate certain persons and, for the sake of safety, that is as far as it should go. Although I am not against the Amendment, I should like to add that caution. I am anxious only that we should not destroy a very great movement by adopting a too flexible attitude and allowing someone to come in who could harm it. I leave it at that. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, says, and I hope that he will be able to strike a balance.
7.18 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for his contribution and for his Amendment, which I shall deal with in a moment. But may I first deal with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Long. With all my connection with the Co-operative movement, which is not so deeply entrenched as that of some noble Lords in this House, I simply cannot visualise a whizz-kid entering that movement. So many people have risen from the ranks to managership and directorship that the whole set-up is contrary to the whizz-kid concept. Therefore I think that the noble Viscount can be completely assured on that point. Another point which is affected by this Amendment is that, once the Agency is established, it can itself from time to time suggest changes in its operations and procedures. It can make its suggestions for the approval of Ministers and of Parliament. That point was made on Second Reading.
May I now come to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I completely sympathise with the objective of the noble Lord, which is entirely in line with the Government's intention that the Secretary of State should be able to consult with persons outside the Co-operative movement about appointments. I made that point on Second Reading. There is no question whatever about that.
1468
Consultation will be widespread. The Government welcome constructive suggestions from any organisation or any individual.
There is, however, a conceptual difficulty about the Amendment as drafted. One might describe it—I assure the noble Lord that no offence is intended—as a logical nonsense to impose upon the Secretary of State a duty to do what he sees fit. A duty to do what he likes is hardly a duty in any meaningful sense. However, I fully appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has moved the Amendment. It is a serious attempt to strengthen and improve an important aspect of the Bill. Therefore, in the event of the Amendment being withdrawn the Government would be prepared to have another look at this point. I must make it clear, and I am sure that the noble Lord will accept this, that the Government would do so entirely without commitment. If, however, we could on reconsideration devise an appropriate form of words to incorporate the noble Lord's intentions, a Government Amendment would be put down for consideration on Report, and we should welcome any helpful assistance that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was able to give.
I am somewhat doubtful as to whether we shall be able to overcome the difficulty to which I have referred, but I make the offer to reconsider the matter in good faith and hope that this course will commend itself to your Lordships' Committee. I know that it is difficult to prepare legislation, and the Parliamentary draftsmen have a tremendous task and responsibility. There are times, however, when complications and difficulties can be solved by a simple suggestion. That is where laymen can sometimes come into the picture, and I very much hope that this will be the case.
The Government would like to find a solution because we know what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, wants and we welcome the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, who supported the general idea. I shall leave it at that. The Government will do what they can before the Report stage to achieve the result which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, wants. There are difficulties, but I think that it is possible that we may be able to overcome them.
Viscount LONG: I apologise for having used the phrase "whizz-kid". These "fly-by-nights" in business worry me, and we have seen a great deal of this. I apologise for using that word, but I think that the sense in which I used it was fully understood.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Yes, it was.
Viscount LONG: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord ROCHESTER: I am most grateful both to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for the way in which they have received this Amendment. If I may deal with one or two of the points which were made by the noble Viscount and correct a misapprehension or two, this Amendment was not argued in another place. To the best of my knowledge, nothing on precisely these lines has until now come before either House. Indeed, had the matter been argued in another place I do not think that I should have been putting forward the Amendment. It would have seemed to me to be an improper course, because it would have meant that there had already been argument on this issue in another place and that we in this House were seeking to override the conclusion reached there. So this is a new point.
Secondly, the Amendment has to do only with the process of consultation that goes on over the appointment of the chairman and members of the Agency. It has nothing to do with the financing of the Agency and it has nothing to do, per se, with the composition of the Agency. Therefore, it does not create any danger, as I see it, of anybody coming into the movement who may be averse to it. It has to do only with this limited process of consultation.
I was glad to hear that both the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and the Government are in complete sympathy with the principle that underlies the Amendment which I have moved and with the intention to which it seeks to give expression. I am bound to say that I do not quite recognise the force of the difficulty to which the noble Lord referred, but I should be the last person to claim
1470
for myself any expertise in the matter of Parliamentary draftsmanship—far from it.
If, indeed, it is the case that minds more accomplished in these matters than my own see a "logical nonsense", as I believe the noble Lord put it, in the precise terms of this Amendment, then I am only too happy to grasp the hand that I think he held out to me. If an accommodation can be reached between us which enables another Amendment, having the same purpose but framed in a somewhat different way, and upon which we may all agree, to come before your Lordships at the Report stage, then I shall be only too happy. For I meant what I said. I believe that it is important that throughout the passage of this Bill there should be a consensus among us.
I want this Bill to be placed on the Statute Book without delay. I do not think that there is even the need for me to reserve the right in some sense to come back to this question on Report. Because of the terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has spoken, I believe it is understood that we shall return to it then, and I hope very much, together with the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that we may then reach agreement. Having said that, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Powers of Agency]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ROCHESTER: This is the moment at which I should like to give the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, the opportunity to comment, if he will be so kind, on a further point which I raised in our debate at Second Reading and which, he will recall, had to do with the question of whether the Agency could be empowered to make loans or grants for what might broadly be called educational purposes.
I shall not repeat all that I said at Second Reading. However, I instanced

1471
as an example of what I had in mind that the need might arise for the Agency to promote some informative activity concerning co-operative enterprise; yet, as the Bill now stands, under Clause 3 the Agency appears to be prohibited from making loans or grants for any such acitivity. It was this deficiency that I hoped it might prove possible for the Government to remedy by means of a suitable Amendment.
I recognise the difficulty that the Government are in. It is hard to empower the Agency to finance educational activities without opening the door to other activities in a way that may be politically inexpedient. However, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, will recall that at Second Reading he undertook to inform me of any progress that it might be possible for the Government to make in this matter. I wonder whether he can hold out any hope that, when the Report stage of the Bill is reached—next week or whenever it is—the Government might themselves table an Amendment covering the point I have in mind. I would certainly welcome any such statement.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for his remarks. It is a difficult situation for me to explain at the moment. As I indicated on Second Reading, the position is that the Minister of State will be meeting the Liberal spokesman, Mr. Wainwright, who put forward the interesting proposal in the first place. The Minister of State is very anxious, but unfortunately the private arrangements of Mr. Wainwright have been such that he has been taking a well-deserved holiday, and I do not begrudge him that, in anticipation perhaps that his constituency will be heavily engaged during the Summer Recess—who knows? So the situation is that at the moment I cannot make any definite statement, but I can say that the Minister of State will be meeting Mr. Wainwright on 14th June so that they may discuss together and find out in detail what Mr. Wainwright has in mind. He put forward this suggestion in another place.
Once they have sorted themselves out for better or for worse, if I may use that phrase, then I hope—and I can say no more than that—that on 15th June when, all being well, we shall have the Report stage of this Bill, I may be able to say something.
1472
I cannot say anything now because whether the talks will be finalised on the 14th June remains a matter between the Minister of State and Mr. Wainwright. We are very much in their hands. I can say quite frankly that there are some considerable difficulties over this suggestion; but, as I said before, difficulties have a way of being resolved one way or another and I will report to the House, if it is at all possible, after the discussions between Mr. Wainwright and the Minister of State on the 14th June.
Viscount LONG: I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. However there does not seem to be a great deal of time for the noble Lord to be able to get a report and then bring it to the House. That being the case, I wonder how we are to obtain the information, which sometimes takes a week or more. We shall be very lucky if we get it straight away. I do not want to press the noble Lord, but I think it would be helpful if we could get some information.
Lord ROCHESTER: I see the difficulty to which the noble Viscount has referred. On the other hand, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for what he has said. I do not think that it should be beyond the bounds of possibility that some Amendment could be brought forward at the Report stage, even at such short notice; but I am a child in these procedural matters. Later still, of course, there will be the Third Reading, so in one way or another I hope that it may be possible to reach some accommodation in principle. I recognise the difficulty to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has referred; but if it is possible I hope that we can reach some satisfactory solution on this point. If it is appropriate for me to say so, I am satisfied with the assurance that has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and I do not think that I can reasonably ask for more at this stage.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: If I may make one more remark, one of the benefits of this House is the fact that we have so much informal and personal contact, and if it is at all possible for me to get any "tips from the stable" that I can pass on, I will willingly do so; but we shall have to see how we get on and

1473
do the best we can to cope with the situation.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and the Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.37 p.m. until 8 p.m.]

SCOTLAND BILL
8.2 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
[Amendments Nos. 65B, 65C and 65D not moved.]
Clause 22 [Subordinate instruments]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 11, line 32, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 35 and insert ("where the power is exercised in any of the circumstances specified in paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act or is such a power as is mentioned in paragraph 4 of that Schedule and is exercised as mentioned in that paragraph.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment paving the way for Amendment No. 67 to which we shall be coming next. Both Amendments are concerned with special Parliamentary procedure. Generally, the orders to which special Parliamentary procedure applies are those which make provision of a kind which might otherwise have required the passage through Parliament of a local or private Act. Clause 22(3) provides that special Parliamentary procedure be retained in those circumstances set out in Schedule 3. For other circumstances, the Assembly is empowered to devise its own special assembly procedure, if it so wishes. At present Schedule 3 is set out in two columns; the first lists enactments which make provision for special Parliamentary procedure, and the second column sets out in each case the circumstances
1474
where special Parliamentary procedure is to continue to apply after devolution.
The Government are proposing in Amendment No. 67 to alter the form of Schedule 3 so that it is expressed in more general terms applicable to any enactment providing for special Parliamentary procedure. Its effects, however, will be broadly the same. This Amendment, No. 66, alters the wording of Clause 22 to take account of the proposed new Schedule 3. It is entirely a paving Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Powers of Scottish Secretary to make or confirm orders subject to special parliamentary procedure]:
8.5 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 47, leave out from beginning of line 36 to end of line 38 on page 48 and insert—
("Circumstances in which special parliamentary procedure applies or may apply
1. If objection in pursuance of the enactment conferring the power is made by excepted statutory undertakers or by a navigation authority.
2. If the power is exercised in relation to land of excepted statutory undertakers or land held by a local authority for the purpose of reserved functions.
3. If the power is exercised in relation to the rights, or apparatus, or powers and duties of excepted statutory undertakers.
4. If the power is a power to make or confirm a compulsory purchase order and is exercised in relation to land belonging to the National Trust for Scotland which is inalienable under section 22 of the Order confirmed by the National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act 1935.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords your Lordships have just accepted Amendment No. 66, which of course paves the way for this Amendment, and I can advise your Lordships that this Amendment involves no change in policy. Schedule 3 is concerned with special Parliamentary procedure. The Bill devolves powers to make and confirm a number of orders which are currently subject to special Parliamentary procedure. Some of these orders, although dealing with devolved matters, may adversely affect the interests of statutory undertakers and other bodies operating in reserved areas. It is important to ensure that where this is the case special

1475
Parliamentary procedure should continue to apply in the same way as at present, so that the bodies operating in reserved areas have the protection of Parliament. As your Lordships will be aware, special Parliamentary procedure may involve an order coming before a Joint Committee of both Houses, before which interested parties may appear.
The purpose of Schedule 3 is to set out the circumstances where special Parliamentary procedure will continue to apply after devolution. The present Schedule 3 lists, by reference to particular enactments, the circumstances in which orders affecting reserved bodies will continue to be subject to special Parliamentary procedure. These bodies are, first, excepted statutory undertakers. These are defined in Clause 79(1) and are, in broad terms, statutory undertakers for whom Government Ministers will continue to be responsible; examples are the Electricity Boards and the Post Office. Then, secondly, navigation authorities, which are also defined in Clause 79(1); thirdly, local authorities acting in respect of reserved functions set out in Schedule 15. Perhaps I might make the point at this stage that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who is not with us at the moment, will be pleased to note that in paragraph 2 of the new Schedule the Government have anticipated his Amendments to change the references to reserved functions for the purposes of Schedule 15 to "scheduled functions". I think this will meet the noble Lord's point. Another body is the National Trust for Scotland, in respect of its inalienable land.
The new Schedule 3 which we now propose has precisely the same effect as the existing one in respect of the enactments listed there. But instead of being expressed by reference to particular enactments it is expressed in plain words by reference to specified circumstances. I would suggest to your Lordships that this has two advantages. First, it is by its nature more complete; there is no danger of any enactment being omitted. Secondly, it sets out more clearly on the face of the Schedule what it is designed to achieve; there is no need to look up particular enactments to discover what its effect is. Put quite simply, when an Act contains provision for special Parliamentary procedure one must check against the circumstances set out in Schedule 3 to
1476
see whether special Parliamentary procedure will continue to apply after devolution.
My Lords, if the entries in the present Schedule 3 are examined, each is now caught by one of more of the paragraphs in the proposed new Schedule. For example, the old entry for Section 222 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 is now caught by paragraph 3 of the proposed new provision. All the other entries stand up to similar examination. The new Schedule 3 will, therefore, continue to preserve all the rights to special Parliamentary procedure itemised in the old provision. And it will do so, I suggest, in a way which is more complete and will certainly be more helpful to the reader of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Alport): My Lords, in view of the passing of Amendment No. 67, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 67A or 67B.
Schedule 4 [Statutory powers exercisable with concurrence or subject to consent or approval of a Minister of the Crown].
8.9 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 49, line 31, at end insert—

("The New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968, section 36.

Extension or modification of powers and duties of excepted statutory undertakers.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a series of Amendments which deal in one way or another with what the Bill terms as "excepted statutory undertakers". It is a minor technical Amendment, as are most of the other Amendments. It might be for the convenience of the House if, in proposing this Amendment, I explain in general terms the approach of the Bill to excepted statutory undertakers, particularly in relation to planning matters. I shall then be somewhat briefer on subsequent Amendments.
Unlike other bodies which might be affected by planning decisions, statutory undertakers by definition have statutory duties to fulfil; for example, to provide households with gas or electricity. Existing

1477
planning legislation, therefore, contains special provisions to ensure that the statutory duties of undertakers are taken fully into account before decisions are taken which might affect them. These provisions are to be found particularly in the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and the Community Land Act 1975. Many are common form provisions which are simply repeated in each Act.
After devolution some statutory undertakers will be operating in devolved areas for example, the Scottish Transport Group. But many others such as British Rail and the Post Office will be entirely reserved and will continue to be responsible to Ministers. These undertakers are defined in Clause 79 of the Bill and are termed, perhaps not too elegantly, as "excepted statutory undertakers". Town and Country Planning will, however, be devolved as a general matter by Group 6 of Part I of Schedule 10 and it is necessary therefore for the Scotland Bill to provide a protection for the interests of excepted statutory undertakers where planning matters affect them.
For ordinary planning applications and appeals the protection is the general intervention procedure of Schedule 14. But there are a number of other matters where more specific treatment is required. Fortunately the Scotland Bill is able to borrow from the structure of existing legislation. Generally, planning legislation provides that decisions in respect of statutory undertakers should be taken either by the "appropriate Minister" (for example, the Secretary of State for Transport in the case of British Rail) or by the appropriate Minister and the planning Minister acting jointly.
In general terms, the approach of the Bill is to reserve in respect of excepted statutory undertakers any power exercisable solely by the appropriate Minister. Joint powers are more difficult because it would be constitutionally wrong for the Bill to require the appropriate Minister to act jointly with the Scottish Secretary responsible for planning. In most cases the solution to this problem adopted by the Bill is to devolve the provision outright to the Scottish Secretary, but then to make the exercise of the powers concerned subject to ministerial consent. For that reason Schedule 4 is very important in
1478
dealing with the position of excepted statutory undertakers after devolution.
The Government have been reviewing all the entries in the Bill relating to excepted statutory undertakers and the upshot is that a number of technical Amendments are required to ensure that the policy is correctly achieved. The first one, which is before us now, illustrates the Government's approach. Section 36 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 provides that where an order to wind up a new town development corporation affects the duties of a statutory undertaker, then the order should be made jointly by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the appropriate Minister. Schedule 10 to the Bill devolves the power to make an order under Section 36, but the Amendment secures that where the order affects the duties of an excepted statutory undertaker it should be made only with the consent of a Minister. That is a brief explanation of the Government's general approach and the reason for the series of technical Amendments which will follow. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I apologise for not having been in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, began to explain these Amendments, but we are grateful to him for explaining them in the way in which he has done. I should like to express, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, his appreciation of the fact that the Amendments which he had put down have, in fact, been incorporated in the Government's Amendments. We are most grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.13 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 49, line 31, at end insert—

(" The Transport Act 1968, sections 7, 8 and 29.

The making of a scheme or order for the transfer of any property, rights or liabilities to or from the Scottish Transport Group or any of its subsidiaries.

The Transport Act 1968, section 135(6).

If the exercise of the power relates to a case where the Scottish Transport Group is a compensating authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 69. This is the first of a series of technical Amendments concerning the relations between the Scottish Transport Group and other nationalised transport industries. Again, it might be for the convenience of the House if, in explaining this Amendment, I also make some reference to later Amendments which are related to it. They are Amendments Nos. 74, 141, 142 and 203. The Amendments are necessary because the Bill as it stands fails to reflect accurately the policy requirements relating to a series of complex statutory provisions.
The Transport Act 1968 is concerned primarily with the organisation and re-organisation of the nationalised transport industries. Of these industries the Scottish Transport Group, whose activities include bus, road freight and ferry services, is to be devolved. But British Rail, the National Bus Company and the National Freight Corporation are to be reserved.
The provisions of the Act dealt with in this Amendment need special treatment because they are all concerned with relations between devolved and reserved transport industries. Sections 7 and 8 are both concerned with schemes between the industries for their reorganisation or for the transfer from one to the other of property, rights or liabilities; those parts of Section 29 which are not spent are concerned with the transfer of ferry services between British Rail and the Scottish Transport Group; Section 135(6) is concerned with compensation by transport industries subsequent to reorganisation.
All of these provisions currently contain ministerial powers exercisable jointly by the Secretary of State for Scotland (who is responsible for the Scottish Transport Group) and the Secretary of State for Transport (who is responsible for the other industries). After devolution it is necessary to ensure that both the Scottish Secretary responsible for the Scottish Transport Group and the Secretary of State for Transport participate in these powers, but in a way which does not require them to exercise the powers jointly. The Government regard any joint exercise of powers by a Minister and a Scottish Secretary as constitutionally unsatisfactory, and this is always avoided in the Bill.
Our proposed solution for these provisions is in three stages. First that they should be amended in Schedule 16 so that the requirement for the joint exercise of powers is deleted (Amendment No. 203). Secondly, that they should be devolved in Schedule 10 so far as the Scottish Transport Group is involved in any transfer of property (Amendment No. 141 achieves this and Amendent No. 142 deletes previous unsatisfactory provisions). Thirdly—and here we come at last to the Amendment under discussion—that the powers may only be exercised by a Scottish Secretary if a Minister—in practice the Secretary of State for Transport—consents.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this arrangement takes account both of the Scottish administration's interest in the Scottish Transport Group and of the Government's interest in the other industries concerned. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIKKHILL Lord KIKKHILL moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 50, column 2, leave out lines 3 to 6 and insert—

("The making of an order against an excepted statutory undertaker.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 70. This is another in the series of technical Amendments dealing with the position of excepted statutory undertakers to which I referred when introducing Amendment No. 68. Section 219 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 is concerned with orders, made subsequent on a compulsory purchase order, to extinguish a right of way of a statutory undertaker or to remove his apparatus. If the undertaker objects, then the acquiring authority requires the approval of the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister.
The Government's intention is that the ministerial powers of approval should be devolved, but made subject to consent in cases where the rights or apparatus concerned are those of an excepted statutory undertaker. The present Schedule 4 entry achieves this. But it also goes wider than intended, by providing for consent even where the excepted statutory undertaker is the acquiring authority. This is not the

1481
intention and the Amendment puts the matter right. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I could not help wondering what the "apparatus of an undertaker" was: I assume that it is not a coffin!
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRK HILL Lord KIRK HILL moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 50, column 2, leave out line 24 and insert—

("The making of an order against an excepted statutory undertaker.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 71. This is another Amendment in the series of technical Amendments relating to excepted statutory undertakers. This Amendment achieves precisely the same effect as the previous Amendment about which we have just spoken—Amendment No. 70—but this time in relation to the parallel provision which appears in paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Community Land Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 50, line 25, leave out ("paragraph 17") and insert ("paragraphs 17 and 18(1)(b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 72. This is another technical Amendment in relation to excepted statutory undertakers. It concerns the exercise of the power in paragraph 18(1)(b) of Schedule 4 to the Community Land Act. This is a power exercisable jointly by the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister. It is closely linked with the joint power in paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Act, the exercise of which is devolved, but subject to ministerial consent where an excepted statutory undertaker is concerned. The Amendment provides that the power in paragraph 18(1)(b) is likewise to be subject to consent in the same circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I have to advise your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 73 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 73A.
8.20 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 50, column 2, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert—
("If—

(a) the land in respect of which the order is made, or an interest or right in the land, is held by an excepted statutory undertaker for the purposes of its undertaking or by a local authority, or any body formed by local authorities, for the purposes of reserved functions; and

(b) the undertaker, authority or body have duly objected to the making of the order and have not withdrawn their objection.").

The noble Lord said: Once again, this is a technical Amendment and is primarily concerned with excepted statutory undertakers. The last entry of Schedule 4 provides that any devolved power to make or confirm a compulsory purchase order should be subject to ministerial consent if it concerns land held by an excepted statutory undertaker or by a local authority for the purposes of a function listed in Schedule 15.
The Amendment alters the entry in three respects. First, it extends it scope so that it relates not just to land but to other interests and rights. Second, it ensures that ministerial consent is required in respect of the land of excepted statutory undertakers only where the land is held for the purposes of their undertaking. This is a formula used in other legislation which ensures that recreational land et cetera is not given any special protection. Thirdly, it ensures that ministerial consent is not required if the excepted statutory undertaker or local authority affected by the order have not actually made, and failed to withdraw, an objection to the order. Thus there will be no need to involve Ministers in uncontroversial orders to which there is no objection. The purpose of the Amendment is to lend greater precision to the entry for compulsory purchase orders. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, this Amendment incorporates the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and to his colleagues for having accepted the principle of my noble friend's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 73A not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Enactments conferring powers exercisable concurrently]:
8.22 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 50, line 40, leave out ("sections 29(5) and") and insert ("section").
The noble Lord said: This is another in the series of technical Amendments concerning the relations between the Scottish Transport Group which is to be devolved, and other nationalised transport industries which are to be reserved. It is related to a number of other Amendments including Amendment No. 69 to Schedule 4, which has already been discussed.
Section 29(5) of the Transport Act 1968 is concerned with the transfer of ferry services between British Rail and the Scottish Transport Group. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for the Scottish Transport Group and the Secretary of State for Transport, who is responsible for British Rail, may act jointly to make orders in respect of such transfers. It is necessary to ensure that after devolution both the Scottish Secretary responsible for the Scottish Transport Group and the Secretary of State for Transport have a say in the making of orders under Section 29(5) so that the devolved and reserved interests are both represented. The Government's view is that this is best achieved by devolution subject to consent. This is achieved by Amendment No. 69, which we have already discussed, and Amendments Nos. 141, 142 and 203, which we shall come to later.
The purpose of this Amendment is to delete from the Bill an alternative approach which the Government on reflection do not consider appropriate. As the Bill stands, the power to make orders under Section 29(5) is concurrent. Unlike the other entries in Schedule 5, this is not an apt use of concurrency. It would enable a Scottish Secretary to make an order against the will of the Secretary of State for Transport in a matter which has important implications for reserved matters. In the Government's view devolution, subject to ministerial consent, as provided for in the other linked Amendments, provides a better protection for the reserved responsibility for British Rail. I beg to move that your Lordships accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.26 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 74A:
Page 51, leave out line 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving Amendment for a later Amendment to Schedule 16—Amendment No. 204. There is a further related Amendment to Schedule 11, Amendment No. 159A. The Amendments all relate to Section 7 of the Local Employment Act 1972, which concerns ministerial grants and loans for infrastructure services for industry in development and intermediate areas.
As my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey explained in the debate on Schedule 5 during Committee stage, the Government's policy is that Ministers should, after devolution, continue to be able to make grants and loans under Section 7 of the 1972 Act in respect of all infrastructure services within the scope of the provisions of that section. This is appropriate because the Government will remain responsible for industrial development and regional policy. However, the Scottish Executive will, in other contexts, be responsible for certain infrastructure services, such as roads and sewers. It is, therefore, appropriate that they should have a concurrent power to make grants and loans under Section 7 of the 1972 Act in respect of those particular devolved services—but not in respect of services, such as gas and electricity, which are to be reserved. The power in Section 7 is limited to the making of grants and loans, and therefore there should be no risk of conflict between the Government and the Scottish Executive.
This policy is achieved in the Bill as it stands by the entries for the 1972 Act in Schedules 5 and 11. The Schedule 11 entry executively devolves to the Scottish Executive powers under Section 7 so far as they relate to devolved services; and the Schedule 5 entry is intended to give the Government a concurrent power in respect of those devolved services, in addition to the power they alone have in respect of reserved services. However, it is open to argument that the Schedule 5 entry is technically defective. The difficulty is in the wording of Section 7

1485
of the 1972 Act, which confers powers on:
"a Minister in charge of any Government Department in respect of a basic service for which the Department is responsible".
After devolution the reference to a Minister will, by virtue of Clause 80(1), convert, as required, to a reference to a Scottish Secretary. My noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey made this point when replying to a probing Amendment to Schedule 16, proposed during the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whose Amendment, of course, has directed our attention to this problem. The Government now accept that it is not clear whether the wording of Section 7 would allow a Minister to make a grant or loan in the devolved area because his Department would not, as required by Section 7, be responsible for the service concerned.
Because of this difficulty, the Government now propose to achieve what is required by a specific Amendment to the Local Employment Act 1972 in Schedule 16 to the Scotland Bill. Therefore, the Amendment that I am now moving deletes the Schedule 5 entry, and a later one—Amendment No. 159A—deletes the Schedule 11 entry. The policy remains as before, but these three Amendments taken together achieve it in a more direct and positive way. Of course, the Government reflected on the earlier points made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for acknowledging that I have been of some service in this. It is an interesting point because it illustrates the difficulties that will be involved in combining the operations of Ministers of the Crown and Scottish Secretaries. However, it looks to me as though the Government have found formulae in order to do so in this particular respect. That is very much to be welcomed.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I do not know whether other noble Lords present have had the same experience as I have. We hurried back from dinner, and in the last 20 minutes we have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, speaking at a great rate from a brief. I have no objection to that but, unless one is very expert, it seems to me that the remarks
1486
made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, earlier in the evening were exactly right; namely, that at this moment in time we are entirely dependent on what the civil servants are deciding.
It may well be that these Amendments—nearly 10, if not 10 of them, which were reeled off at an enormous rate—are useful and good. I am quite incapable of following what this is all about. I suspect that, on examination, that would be true even of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I hope that, as these are Amendments, somebody in another place will have an opportunity to read what they are all about, study the matter, and see whether what we have let go by is right or wrong. I am sure that what I say applies to almost everyone in this House at present. I have not understood a word of what this is all about.
8.31 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should like to ask one further question. I am not in any way an expert on the matter that we are discussing or on the Bill as a whole. I suppressed myself with enormous restraint last night when the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, discussed certain aspects of the relevance of the EEC to this Bill. However, I can contain myself no longer, having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, had to say on this matter today.
As I understood what the noble Lord said, he indicated that certain matters are devolved in connection with grants and loans. This is what I should like to ask him. What is the mechanism for ensuring that the grants and loans which the Assembly may see fit to give are in conformity with the policies of the European Economic Community? If I may be specific, the competition policy lays down that matters such as temporary employment premia et cetera have to be considered within the context of the policies of the Community as a whole. The regional policy of the Community tries to ensure that national administrations do not start giving grants and loans which distort the equality of treatment between the various regions of the Community.
May I ask the noble Lord this question, which may well not be apposite to the point that he discussed. If so, I freely

1487
confess my ignorance. Could he reassure me that there is some mechanism for making clear to the Assembly that it must be careful about the provisions of the regional policy, and what the competition policy involves? Could the noble Lord explain how these policies will be taken into account when the Assembly is framing the grants and loans that he has told us it will be allowed to do under this Bill?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, by leave of the House, may T say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that I did not intend to speak too quickly. If that made my remarks rather more incomprehensible than they are normally, I of course apologise. I agree with the noble Earl that these Amendments —which are of a complicated technical character, and which are largely, indeed almost invariably, of a drafting character—are of a type which reward close study in print, but which are difficult to pick up as one speaks. Certainly it would have been wiser had I been rather more slow in my delivery. I shall do my best to slow down from this point onwards. Amendment No. 74A is the last of a batch at this time.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords—
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, as we are on Report I do not wish to bob up and down at this stage. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, whether I could direct his attention to the specific references in the Bill. This I can do by asking him to consider Clause 19(1)(b) on page 9 and Clause 62(3)(a) on page 30. Any grants or loans which may be given by the Assembly, I can additionally advise him, must conform with requirements laid down by the Community. Those requirements will be known to the devolved Administration and the appropriate arrangements will be made.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I wished to ask a question. I was present at the beginning when the noble Lord explained what "statutory undertakers" were—which, like the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I thought must have something to do with funerals. Apparently it does not. My impression was that many of the Amendments which the noble
1488
Lord put through with such rapidity were caused by the discussions which we had in Committee on a good many of these matters in Schedules 4 and 10. Perhaps I was wrong. However, it seemed to me that the noble Lord was talking about something that had already been discussed by us in Committee and that the Government were taking advice from other people and the House as to what we have said.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, by leave of the House, the rapidity of my delivery was occasioned by my inner thought that the matters were of a highly technical character and were not of a type that would occasion discussion. It was an attempt on my part, albeit misplaced, to reduce the corporate boredom of your Lordships as you had to listen to me.
In relation to the question of the noble Baroness about statutory undertakers—these are bodies upon which public duties are devolved, such as the Gas Board, the electricity boards, and those kinds of bodies.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I do not need the leave of the House to speak at this stage. I gathered that the noble Baroness was fishing for a compliment, not necessarily to herself but to her noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. That compliment was given but, if it has not been properly noted, certainly our attention was drawn to certain matters, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. We have looked at these matters and a number of Amendments flow from them. We have changed the form of them. That was what my noble friend Lord Kirkhill explained. We are happy to acknowledge our debt. We have no reluctance at all to do so.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say one more thing. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, was critical of the activities of the Civil Service in this regard. In my experience, matters such as this generally arise on Schedules. They are extremely difficult to follow at the time. They must always be looked at afterwards. They are examined very closely by the Civil Service, but they always come back. I am sure I am right in saying that they always come back to Ministers for consideration before they

1489
are presented to Parliament. I am sure that the noble Lord will have done this, too.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I was not meaning to be critical in making the point and saying that I hoped that the matter would be examined most carefully when it goes to another place, in the light of the speed with which it has been considered and its complexity.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.39 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 75:
Before Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
Presiding Officer
(". The Standing Orders of the Assembly shall include provision for—

(a) the election of a presiding officer from among the members of the Assembly and for his tenure of office; and

(b) the election or appointment of a deputy presiding officer or deputy presiding officers and for his or their tenure of office.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 75 seeks to insert a new clause at the head of page 13 of the Bill, under the heading "Standing orders—particular provisions." I discussed this matter last night at a similar late hour when moving earlier Amendments which were attached to it. The Government at that time, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, indicated that they were entirely with me in spirit about my plan for rearranging some provisions in the Bill, but they felt that the lengths to which I went in this Amendment, by inserting into the clause the requirement that the standing orders should lay down rules for the election or appointment of the deputy presiding officer or deputy presiding officers, and for their tenure of office, went beyond what Her Majesty's Government feel should be in the standing orders.
We discussed this last night. I can only invite Her Majesty's Government to indicate whether they have had any thoughts overnight. They were certainly friendlily disposed towards the matters in my Amendments Nos. 27, 28, and this Amendment. They just felt that they were unnecessary. I have moved these Amendments briefly, but the matter was fully discussed and T thought it proper to issue my invitation to Her Majesty's
1490
Government and to enable any other noble Lord who might wish to speak to this to have the opportunity of doing so. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will have considered the point made by my noble friend overnight because the Government said—I think it was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—that of course it would be the intention of the Assembly to have a presiding officer, and of course he would have to have a deputy presiding officer. It seems reasonable therefore that these facts should be in the Bill. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will have considered this point with great care, and I am sure he will agree that it should be put into the Bill.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, an Act of Parliament is not an instrument for giving glimpses of the obvious. The point I would seek to make in confirmation of what was said last night is that of course we regard it as essential to make it mandatory for the Assembly to spell it out in their standing orders that there should be a presiding officer to be elected, and provision must be made for his tenure of office. That is done by Clause 7 which refers to standing orders, and, in Clause 7(2), to the standing orders which must include provision for the election of a presiding officer from among the Members of the Assembly.
To return to the point on which I opened, of course it is for the Assembly to decide that it may want a deputy presiding officer, or more than one. That is something which the Assembly ought to be able to decide on its own. If it cannot decide that, it cannot decide very much. I am not suggesting that this is the acid test of the competence of the Assembly, but it ought to be left to do something on its own, and we regard this provision, charitably though it is intended, as being unnecessary. In the light of these explanations, I do not think that the noble Lord will press it.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I acknowledge that the question of the appointment and tenure of office of the presiding officer himself is already in the Bill. I hope that, to borrow a phrase from the noble and

1491
learned Lord, the Assembly will glimpse the obvious, and surely it will. It will not be able to do without a deputy. My concern was that if it was not laid down in standing orders that the matter should be dealt with there, we might get a situation which we here would consider undesirable. But, in view of the discussion last night and what has been said this evening, I think it would be appropriate if I were now to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Provisions in Assembly Bills requiring Crown's consent]:
8.43 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 51, line 20, at end insert—
(" 4A. Any provision—

(a) conferring on any person any privilege or immunity of the Crown;

(b) depriving any person of any such privilege or immunity;

(c) requiring or enabling any person to exercise any functions on behalf of the Crown; or

(d) securing that any functions exercisable by any person on behalf of the Crown are no longer so exercisable by him.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should explain—and I hope I shall not go too rapidly for those who are present—the object of Clause 26 and Schedule 6. The Assembly, when legislating within its competence, is to have the capacity to bind the Crown. I think this was all explained fully at Committee stage. If this were not so there would be a serious gap. To give an example that illustrates the point, hospital land is Crown land, and if the Assembly could not legislate with regard to hospital land the devolution of health would of course be incomplete and inadequate. But this capacity is not to be unlimited. Consent is required whenever a provision in an Assembly Bill falls within the categories listed in Schedule 6. Therefore, Schedule 6 is essentially protective in character. Indeed without Schedule 6 one would have to contemplate that the Assembly could purport to bind the Crown without the Crown's consent. Of course, we do not say that the Assembly will necessarily
1492
want to make such provision when legislating on devolved matters, but it is necessary to cater for that possibility.
I turn to this particular matter. We have now identified another case which could usefully be added to Schedule 6. The question whether any particular body is, or is not, a Crown body is always a difficult one, and the way in which it is decided will have implications for the status of the staff of the body. The Amendment now proposed would simply ensure that whenever a provision of an Assembly Bill would bear on the Crown status of any body, that provision requires Crown consent along with all the other provisions listed in Schedule 6 as it stands in the Bill.
The Amendment here uses the term "person" and not "body" because the term "person" can properly be construed as including "body" by virtue of Section 19 of the Interpretation Act 1889. I have looked at the new Interpretation Bill, to which we gave a Second Reading yesterday, and I find the same words repeated in the Schedule to that Bill. The Amendment in no way affects the capacity of the Assembly to create new bodies within its competence, or to reorganise existing bodies. All it does is to ensure that provisions conferring Crown status on a new body, or taking Crown status away from any body, are subject to consent. I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend an elementary question to clarify my own mind? Are we extending the power of the Crown? Let me give a concrete and elementary lay example. If a person is knocked down on Crown land, or when working for the Crown, has that person the right of bringing a case for compensation, or are we extending privileges against whom the commoner cannot bring any case for compensation? Has my noble and learned friend got the point I am trying to make?
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps it would help if the noble and learned Lord could give us some examples. I quite realise the difficulty of giving an example for the creation of a privilege or immunity which is not in existence, but at any rate he possibly could give us an example of a case where Crown

1493
immunity is enjoyed and might be taken away. What was it that drew the Government's attention to this? There must have been some specific examples and circumstances that came to mind, and I dare say that he may have information about some of them.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, could we be told the mechanism by which the Crown's consent is in fact to be obtained? We may have had this information, and I apologise if we have, but we ought to know just what is the mechanism which this Bill proposes for the Crown's consent to be given.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, may I take these points in the order in which they were put to me. As regards compensation, these provisions make no difference whatsoever. The relevant clause is Clause 24. These provisions in Clause 24 and Schedule 6 are simply protective. They are not intended to extend any privilege of the Crown; they are merely intended to ensure that in so far as the Assembly seeks, within its own legislative competence, to affect privileges of the Crown then of course the Crown's consent should be obtained.
With regard to privilege, I am asked for only one example, which is fortunate because at this moment I can think of only one. The example that comes to mind is that in relation to the production of documents in a court action the Crown can assert certain privilege. If, under the competence of the Assembly, it was sought to affect that kind of privilege, I believe that is the kind of matter that would be affected. In relation to certain bodies, the staff of certain bodies may be accorded certain privileges which are Crown privileges, and if they were to be affected then plainly this new provision would be one that would enable the consent of the Crown to be obtained if that consent were appropriately to be given.
Regarding the machinery, the position is that Crown consent will be sought from Her Majesty through the Secretary of State. In other words, there will be no direct access, and that is consistent with the whole principle of the Bill; that there is no direct access to the Crown. Therefore, it will be sought from Her Majesty through the Secretary of State
1494
and of course conveyed by the same means. I do not think I can go further because the Bill does not seek to identify some specific method whereby that is vouched and verified, but presumably it will simply be done by letter, and that letter would, if required, be able to be proved before a court where the matter would ultimately come to be decided.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can help me regarding paragraph 3, which says:
"…in trust for Her Majesty, or affecting property belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall or the Principality and Stewartry of Scotland".
Would he consider adding after "Stewartry of Scotland" the words "Lordship of the Isles"? That is a title similar to that of the Duchy of Cornwall or the Stewartry of Scotland and more especially to the Principality, and while the reference in The Times this morning may have escaped noble Lords, it is one which is obviously being used by the person concerned.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I acknowledge that contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. I suspect that the matter may be covered by the earlier words in paragraph 3, but my attention has not been directed to the point. I am grateful to him for referring me to it and I will make sure, if I am wrong about the first few lines of the paragraph, that an appropriate Amendment is moved at the appropriate stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Preservation of order]:
8.53 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 13, line 10, after ("and") insert ("any standing order made by virtue of this section").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, the Government accepted two Amendments moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, which were intended to make it mandatory for the Assembly's Standing Orders to make provision for preserving order, while leaving the Assembly free to decide whether to include provision for excluding Members on grounds of order. That effect was not fully achieved and the clause

1495
as it now stands in our print of the Bill would enable the Assembly to exclude a Member from its proceedings on any ground, not just on grounds of order. The present Amendment puts this right by specifically linking the power to exclude Members to the standing orders on preserving order in proceedings. I move the Amendment to achieve that correction.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having taken note of the points we raised in Committee, for having been kind enough to consider them and for incorporating them in this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.55 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 78:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Stages of Bill
("The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision—

(a) for general debate on a Bill with an opportunity for members to vote on its general principles;

(b) for the consideration of, and an opportunity for members to vote on, the details of a Bill; and

(c) for a final stage at which a Bill can be passed or rejected.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee much concern was expressed from all parts of the Committee that nowhere in the Bill were to be found standing orders depicting the method by which Bills should be processed by the Assembly. I tabled a similar Amendment to this one in Committee as a probing Amendment to determine the views of your Lordships and the intention of the Government. I did not press it on that occasion because I thought the Government would themselves wish to consider the views which noble Lords had expressed. Noble Lords will recall that this Amendment, which is the same as that moved in Committee, is also almost identical to that which was intimated in the Government's White Paper Our Changing Democracy and to that which was actually printed in the original Scotland and Wales Bill. It does not, however, appear in this Bill.
Considerable concern was expressed in Committee that if we devolve the authority
1496
of Parliament and the authority to create Assembly Acts which will stand in a legislative capacity pari passu with Acts of Parliament it is reasonable that we should ensure that those Acts will have been subjected to at least a similar, though not necessarily the same, pre-enactment scrutiny, to borrow a phrase we heard earlier.
The only argument of substance which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, produced in Committee against the Amendment was that we should not seek to tie the hands of the Assembly. If I may say so without offence, I thought that argument was peculiarly unimpressive. The Amendment defines in only the very broadest terms the type of scrutiny the Bill should have. It merely offers the opportunity to debate the principle of the Bill and vote on it, the opportunity to debate the detail of the Bill and amend and vote on it, and a final stage when the Bill, as amended, can be passed or rejected. The Assembly would not be obliged, if the Amendment were accepted, to have the same committee, report and second and third readings as we have; they could construct their own procedure, but within these broad limits. Obviously the Government think this is desirable because, as I said, it was in their White Paper and in the original Scotland and Wales Bill. Indeed, in Committee Lord McCluskey said:
"One supposes that they will adopt this kind of structure which we regard as an essential structure".—[Official Report, 24.4.78; col. 1487.]
We therefore have the agreement of Lord McCluskey and the Government that this is what is desired. However, the noble and learned Lord added, in remarkable con-tradition:
"It is a matter for them …"—[Official Report, 24/4/78; col. 1487.]
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am looking rapidly for the words I used, but when I said we regarded it as an essential structure I should have said we regarded it as an essential system for us.
Several noble Lords: Oh?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, that was a fascinating intervention; it alters totally the context of what the noble and learned Lord said. Naturally, I understood him to say at the time that he regarded it as an essential system for the Assembly, and when I read his speech in Hansard I

1497
assumed he still regarded it as an essential system for the Assembly. He is now saying that he regards it as an essential system for Westminster. That may be so, and there is no disagreement among us about that. But if I am wrong, then clearly the Government do not consider it an essential system for the Assembly, though they did consider it an essential system when they were thinking of the Scotland and Wales Bill. They cannot have it both ways; either it is an essential system which should be written into the Bill or it is of such little importance that the Assembly can choose whether or not they wish to adopt it and what method they wish to use to process their own Bills.
In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Glenkinglas and Lord Shepherd, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and others all expressed the opinion that the Assembly should not be left totally free in this respect. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, even asked the noble and learned Lord whether he would be good enough to look at the matter again. We have often been told that Parliament should not act as a nursemaid to the Assembly, and that we should not tie the Assembly by apron strings. The inference is that we should set up the Assembly and let it carve out its own salvation in the way it wishes. However, if we are giving full legislative authority—and that is a colossal power to give to an Assembly—it is not, I suggest, unreasonable to request similar, but not identical, systems of scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was concerned that Bills should not be allowed to pass within 24 hours. I think he said at that time that it would be a pity if a Bill were produced on a Thursday and was passed into law by the Assembly on a Friday. Frankly, I do not feel unduly concerned about that. Of course there may be emergencies. One can think of such occasions in Westminster. In particular, I can think of one relating to Northern Ireland, when a Bill was passed in a matter of 24 hours. We can do this in Parliament, provided that we waive the Standing Orders so as to enable us to do so. The important point is that the Standing Orders should be there in the first place to waive, and the Amendment seeks to ensure that the appropriate Standing Orders are there.
1498
I think that, without such an Amendment as this, it would be perfectly possible for the Assembly—though I do not say it is probable that it would—to make arrangements for Standing Orders so that they should be constructed in such a way that Bills could, like Statutory Instruments in Parliament, be either accepted or rejected, but not amended. It may be unlikely that the Assembly would adopt that practice, but as the Bill stands at the moment it could do so. I do not believe it is right that it should do so, nor that if the authority of Parliament is to be devolved to the Assembly that option should be open to it. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that the correct procedure would be that the Assembly should be obliged so to construct its Standing Orders that they should, in broad limits, be within the terms suggested in the Amendment.
I was a little concerned during the Committee stage about what the noble and learned Lord said as reported at column 1498 of the Official Report. I do not think that I shall misquote him this time; indeed, I do not believe that I misquoted him last time, but I may have misquoted his intention. The noble and learned Lord said:
"…what is contemplated is that the Secretary of State will produce standing orders for the Assembly so that it conies to birth with the possibility at once of functioning in an orderly fashion".
I think that that is perfectly clear and reasonable. But if the Secretary of State is to make the initial Standing Orders, as the noble and learned Lord suggests, and if the Government regard the substance of the Amendment as an essential structure—and until the noble and learned Lord's intervention this evening I understood that they did so consider it—I cannot think why they cannot accept the Amendment. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
Much concern was expressed at the Committee stage from all corners of the Chamber. This is not a matter that ought to make a fundamental difference to the Government's intentions. It is not really holding the Assembly by the apron strings. It is merely saying that the Assembly is being given great power and great authority to produce Acts which will be in a similar standing to Acts of Parliament. It is not unreasonable to say that

1499
the processes to which they will be subjected should at least be of similar virtue and standing as those achieved in Parliament. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider that the Amendment would be a suitable one to accept. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, with regard to the first quotation that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave, during a quick glance through the appropriate volume of the Official Report I have not been able to find those words, but I certainly found words of mine reported there, which I think I ought briefly to repeat because I believe that they encapsulate the approach of the Government at this stage. I said as reported at column 1487 of the Official Report, that the Government came to the view that the provision in the Scotland and Wales Bill—of which this is virtually a carbon copy—
"was a kind of 'apron strings' provision once again; that we were seeking to tell the Assembly how they ought to conduct their business when that was a matter properly for them. The Government do not have any doubt that the Assembly, when they consider their procedures on this kind of matter, will wish to draw upon Parliamentary experience in devising those procedures and in devising the necessary safeguards ".
I went on to suggest that indeed the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, himself, had acknowledged that there was no need for the Assembly slavishly to copy what was done at Westminster.
Governments are not infallible—that is a truism that I do not have to urge very strongly upon Members of this House—and Governments are allowed second thoughts and, as I said on the previous occasion, third thoughts. In a moment or two I shall come to a change of mind that the Government have had since I spoke on that previous occasion. On that occasion I explained in some detail why the Government had dropped from this Bill the provision which had been contained, in words similar to those of the noble Earl's Amendment, in the Scotland and Wales Bill. The reason was as follows. The provisions of that Bill in this regard, and in others, were heavily criticised as dictating in far too much detail how the Assembly should organise its affairs. I can recall that not merely from detailed submissions; I can
1500
recall it from the great blast of criticism that came across through the newspapers, through the rest of the media, and by meeting people in Scotland at the time when the November White Paper was published and when the Scotland and Wales Bill itself was published.
In the light of the criticisms then made—and they were formidable—the Government concluded that to lay down in the statute the legislative procedure for the Scottish Assembly was unnecessary and, indeed, could be more than unnecessary —it could be thought to be paternalistic. Indeed, that was the criticism which was made and which the Government, in all humility, accepted. It, therefore, follows that the Government regard this suggested Amendment not as being one which is totally black, because of course they were the authors of the words, but as one which is now unnecessary and paternalistic; and I do not ask the House to accept it.
The Assembly itself will certainly need to agree upon a standard legislative procedure for their purposes, but I believe now, as I said on the previous occasion, that this is something which they should be free to decide for themselves; it is not something that we should seek to foist upon them. I am quite certain that the Assembly, in coming to determine what its procedure should be, will pay close regard to what happens at Westminster; but it may look at other models, and it may choose to adopt a slightly different system. We do not have pre-legislative committees here. If we did, we might have a different system for Committee, for Report and so on. We have here a two-Chamber system: the Scottish Assembly is not such a system. These are good reasons why we should not attempt to dictate to the Assembly how they should go about a consideration of their legislation. There was a thread in the other debate—and, indeed, it was evident again in what the noble Earl said—of a fear that the Assembly might legislate with great rapidity, but, of course, that is not a matter which is touched by this particular Amendment.
Perhaps I may go on to another point which was made then—and I think there was a slight echo of it in what the noble Earl said tonight. It was suggested that unless we laid down a system for the Assembly they would perhaps spend the early months of their existence wrangling

1501

and haggling over a system to be adopted; and certainly we accept that the Assembly will need to determine their own procedure for legislating before they pass any laws. But, equally, they will need to establish an Executive and to determine their policies before passing legislation. They will not, in our estimation, be occupied with legislating within the field of Part I of Schedule 10 from day one. In practice, we believe, there will be sufficient time for the Assembly to determine their own legislative procedure by rational debate, and this will no doubt be a matter to which the Assembly will wish to give, and indeed will have to give, priority.
I suggest that the procedure for legislating in the Assembly is more likely to gain general acceptance, not only in the Assembly but among the electorate and in the political and social system in Scotland at large, if the Assembly determines that system for itself. It is better that way than that we decree by statute that they must adopt a system modelled very closely upon that which obtains at Westminster. Indeed, it is just possible that if we were so to insist that might create resentment. If his Amendment were to be carried and we were to specify in such detail as the noble Earl would like us to do, I would remind your Lordships that we might find that the Assembly itself, after careful consideration of what its requirements are and what its procedures ought to be, might come back to Westminster with perfectly good and carefully thought-out reasons for conducting procedures differently; and then it might be necessary, almost at once, to start bringing in amending legislation to alter the Scotland Act. That, I think, would be an unfortunate beginning, because this is not a statute that we would want to be altering straightaway. It may well be that, in the light of experience, alterations will be required, but it would be a pity if we had to do that on the threshold of the existence of the Scottish Assembly. So I hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.
I referred a moment ago to what was said by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. He wondered on the previous occasion—and the noble Earl has just referred to this —whether some safeguard should not be built in to prevent the Assembly from rushing through legislation in, perhaps, 24 hours. Of course, the Amendment
1502
we are discussing would not achieve this, and I do not think, either, that we should try to include such a safeguard. All legislative bodies, of course, should have the capacity to carry through legislation quickly, if it is necessary, in order to deal with an emergency situation; but I apprehend that the concern of my noble friend was more that the Assembly might choose to legislate at that speed in the normal course of events. I believe that this is hardly practical politics, and the Assembly can be relied upon, because of the political checks upon it, to ensure that this does not happen. It would not be in the Assembly's own interests and it would not be in the interests of Scotland if they were to prevent adequate discussion of legislation, especially inside the Assembly itself. So on the whole matter I believe that we should leave it to the Assembly to determine their own procedures, and I believe that we can confidently expect them to do so sensibly.
There is one other matter to which the noble Earl referred. He referred to column 1498 on the 24th April, where I said certain things about what the Secretary of State would do in relation to the production of Standing Orders, and the noble Earl certainly quoted me quite correctly. I remind your Lordships that what I said there was:
"… what is contemplated is that the Secretary of State will produce standing orders for the Assembly so that it comes to birth with the possibility at once of functioning in an orderly fashion".
We have given further thought to that matter since I spoke in April, and Ministers have concluded that such action will not in fact be necessary. We believe now that the Assembly, in their earliest days, will not in fact be engaged upon legislation. We believe that the Secretary of State's directions, to apply during the transitional period before the Assembly assume their full responsibilities, should be confined to the minimum of matters necessary to get the Assembly down to work during this transitional period.
We believe that during that transitional period the Assembly itself should not be legislating about devolved matters but arranging for its own legislative procedures in particular. We now see that there will be time before the Assembly's full resumption of responsibilities for it to produce standing orders to regulate its

1503
whole procedures. Accordingly, after careful reflection the Government's thinking at the present time is that we shall not produce directions with a view to enabling it to legislate on its legislative competence areas from Day 1. In the light of what I said then, I thought I should make clear the Government's position.
9.15 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could be a little more specific. He has just said that the Government now see that from the time when they first assemble there will be time before the Assembly starts legislating. Perhaps he could give us some indication of what the time scale is likely to be, given a D-day when they assemble. How long will it be before they start legislating? How long does he think it will take them to prepare standing orders? What guidance does he expect that the Assembly will seek in this regard?
The noble and learned Lord also talked about the Secretary of State's direction, and said that because he did not foresee any need for the Assembly to be given directions about legislating, it would have time to prepare its own standing orders in that regard. For that reason, if I understood him correctly, the directions would not cover legislation. In other words, directions would be given in regard to appointing a presiding officer and nominating a First Secretary. From that point on presumably the matter would, to some extent, be in the hands of committees that might be set up at that state to help prepare the standing orders —something like a Speaker's Conference in a way—and also in the hands of the Scottish Secretaries themselves. We should like to know what the time scale is so that we could form a judgment about it.
There is no provision in the Bill for Parliament to have a fight on the directions which the Secretary of State is proposing to give. I do not know why this was not raised at the time —I do not remember it being raised. Would the noble and learned Lord consider some means by which Parliament could be informed of the directions that are to be given so that if Parliament wished it could debate the matter? The noble and learned Lord is
1504
quite right in saying that the procedure is likely to be different in the Assembly because of the fact that it is one-Chamber Government; but my noble friend's Amendment is in such broad terms that it is difficult to foresee circumstances in which anybody could criticise the needs that he has laid down— the need for discussion on the general principles of a Bill, the need for it to be examined in detail and the need for it to come back to the full Assembly when it has been examined in detail. These are the broadest requirements in the British tradition that one would have thought were bound to be followed.
Perhaps the question just arises whether as the noble and learned Lord has indicated it would be wiser to lay down some provision that regard should be had to the need for these things rather than saying that they shall be provided. I do not know what my noble friend's reaction to that would be. It seems to me so basic that they should follow this system. It does not matter whether one has a committee before any Bill is examined in principle, or whether there are more detailed provisions than we have in Parliament here.
Simply because this is going to be a one-Chamber Government it is bound to want more checks on legislation than either of our Houses. That is nothing to do with the broad principle laid down in this Amendment. I should not have thought that anybody in the world, let alone those as close as in Scotland, could take exception to that—but perhaps it could be put a little more tactfully so as to make certain that nobody would take offence. I think that the United Kingdom Parliament, with the responsibilities that it is going to have, necessarily, for overseeing to some extent the legislation, if only to make certain that the legislation keeps within the limits imposed by the Bill, is entitled to satisfy itself in advance that the broad lines that seem to be basic to any form of legislating in accordance with the British system should be observed.
For my part, I would not in the slightest mind if after a little experience the Assembly came back and asked for the Scotland Act (as it then will be) to be reviewed and revised and to make their proposals accordingly. In fact, I should be extremely surprised if that did not happen in some way or another. I think

1505
that on that the noble Lord has perhaps raised a fear about which we need not be too depressed. As to being paternalistic, we must, of course, accept paternity for the Bill in this Parliament, anyway; but there is a little difference between accepting paternity and being paternalistic. I hope that some middle course can be found in this matter for I believe that it would improve the Bill to insert something along the lines of my noble friend's Amendment.
9.23 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, having spent a great many years of my life in democratic government in Scotland, I should like to support this Amendment. I think that with this new Assembly having to sort itself out and with many problems, it would be so much easier and they would be so much helped if in the Bill there were these guidelines. Of course, it could be altered after a while if it was found that they did not fit the needs of the Assembly. But as they are proposed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers I do not see that anybody could take exception to them. There is nothing in them in the least undemocratic or which orders people to do things; it is simply suggested, after long experience—and no Parliamentary Government has had as long experience as we have had in this country—that these guidelines would be a good idea. I think that it would greatly improve the Bill. I am sure that those who are elected to the Assembly would be only too delighted to find that at least one thing was certin in a mass of uncertainty which we know is going to come out of this very complex Bill. I hope very much that the Government will accept the Amendment, and if they will not do so we should have it inserted in this House.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend Lady Elliot has said and to adduce a further argument in support of this Amendment, which I think has not been put before your Lordships. It is that the probable composition of the Assembly has not been considered in the light of this Amendment. The probable composition will almost certainly he such that more than 50 per cent. of the Members have considerable experience in local government. They will almost certainly
1506
be inclined to have for their administration a system and principles not dissimilar to the local government to which they have been accustomed.
Having suffered—and that is putting it mildly—some 16 years of local government in Scotland, such a prospect fills me with absolute horror. I cannot see that there will be a sufficient leaven of former Members of another place. I very much doubt if there would be more than one or two of them; and while naturally we hope that there will be a number of your Lordships who will stand for election, I still do not think that that would be a sufficient number to prevent—shall we say?—the "infection" of local government administration pervading the Assembly. That is why I support this Amendment and especially support and commend the phrase used by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood in saying that it is only sensible that we should lay down guidelines for the Assembly in this matter.
9.26 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friends who have expressed their support for this Amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has an uncanny habit of raising one's hopes to great anticipation and then dropping them down in the pit. He started off by saying that the Government had had first thoughts, then second thoughts, then third thoughts: he said, "We were going to change our mind". I thought the Government were going to accept the Amendment, then the noble and learned Lord turned round and said that they would not. This is very depressing. I wish there would be a fraction more "give".
All we are doing in this Amendment is saying what the Government said ill their White Paper: all we are doing is putting into the Bill what the Government itself put into the original Scotland and Wales Bill. At the Committee State very many noble Lords from all parts of the Committee said, "We think this is right", but the Government still say, "No, we are not going to move." That is such a pity. They could easily have accepted this Amendment. It would not have embarrassed them in the very slightest, and it would not have altered their original intentions.

1507
All this Amendment seeks to do—as I and many others have explained—is to give basic guidelines. The noble and learned Lord said that they might like to have a pre-legislative system. Maybe the Assembly would like such a system, but all the Amendment says is to give an opportunity for the Bill to be considered in toto, to give an opportunity for Amendments to be considered and voted upon and to give an opportunity for the final Bill to be accepted or rejected. I cannot see that that can be in any way offensive.
If it is paternalistic—if I may have the noble and learned Lord's attention for half a minute—I do not see that there is anything wrong in that. We are giving the powers to this Assembly. I think that it is right that we should say, within reasonable guidelines, how they should operate. Our great fear is that if we give all these powers to the Assembly and then say: "Get on and do what you like", the Assembly can go on very different lines to those which Government and Parliament would wish. It is perfectly true that the Assembly may wish to bring in amending legislation. I do not think for one minute that when the Assembly gets going once this Bill is enacted this will be a status quo situation. Before long, amendments are bound to be required and other legislation is bound to be brought in.
I come back to what I said at the beginning: if this Bill goes forward as it is at the moment, there is nothing to stop the Assembly from introducing Standing Orders which would allow their Bills to have the same treatment as Statutory Instruments have now, where Bills could be produced and could be accepted or rejected but not amended. The noble and learned Lord may say that that is up to them and that if they want to conduct their system in that manner we should let them do so. I do not believe that that is right; and, what is more, I do not believe that my noble friends think that is right. I should like to see whether your Lordships agree that this Amendment should be put into the Bill.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—I am intervening; I do not want to make a further speech—I should like to say that when the noble Earl thought he did not have
1508
my atttention I was consulting about what he was saying a moment ago with a view to seeing whether I could meet him in some way. I hope he will accept that from me.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, if I might have the leave of the House to speak again, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will continue his conversation with the Government Chief Whip and, if he wishes to do that, I shall continue to explain my arguments to my noble friends behind me while he has the advantage of making up his mind. If the noble Earl, Lord Perth, would like to assist the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in this way, I am sure the House will be indebted to him.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, if I may, I shall take advantage of the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. First, as all your Lordships will know, I think, I am for an Assembly and I am for that Assembly being left to work out its own procedures. But, having said that, I think we have to realise that the Assembly will be composed of "new boys". Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, may say, perhaps half of them will come from local government, but one and all will be new to the Scottish Assembly.
If that is the case, then it seems to me there must be an advantage in trying to help them in the early stages. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who threw out the idea, which I think would be well worth considering that perhaps we need not go quite as far as the clause stands at the present time. At present the clause states specifically,
"shall include provision for".
That perhaps is going a little further than "guidance", and I am wondering whether one could not follow what was outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and say something like: "In considerating its Standing Orders, the Assembly shall consider the need for" —and then one could put "a", "b" and "c", which would refer to a general debate, detailed consideration and, finally, the passing or the rejecting. I do not know whether that should be done at this point in the Bill or whether conceivably it might go in Clause 7 when it states that:

1509
"…the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating its procedure pending the making of standing orders ".
Conceivably, in giving those directions he could lay down the kind of thing we have been talking about. That might be enough.
I feel that in one way or another the attention of the Assembly should be drawn to the procedures that we follow in Parliament. Just how that is to be achieved I do not think matters too much. If you accept the Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers: fine. If you want to go half-way to that position, again I say "fine"; but some guidance should be given to the Assembly, bearing particularly in mind that this is something entirely new and therefore something which needs some help. I am not going to talk any more. I am sure that some other noble Lord will talk while the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and others, are carrying out the discussion to which reference was made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like briefly to underline one particular facet of what other speakers have said, and in particular my noble friend Lord Ferrers. It seems to me that, although I have great sympathy with the thought that we should not dictate too far to this Assembly as to how it conducts its affairs, we are giving it in fact immense powers. I think that is a very important facet. It seems to me perhaps that the Scots, when they look at what they are not allowed to do, may feel that they have not been given enough powers. I am sure that when they get going they will certainly feel that, but I think perhaps they may be tending to forget that there are great chunks and areas where they will be given almost total freedom of legislation. I think it is very important that when they start they should be given the right sort of guidelines for tackling this difficult task.
As the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, there is a risk that they might be too much guided by how local government conducts its affairs. As has been said by many people, including the noble and learned Lord earlier in the proceedings on this Bill, this is not a new form of local government; this will have considerably more powers, and that would be a very bad
1510
guideline. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that it might turn out to be something like the procedure which we have for Statutory Instruments. That, of course, would be disastrous and I hope that one day we may change that procedure for ourselves.
However, the most important point is that the Bill itself is, in a sense, paternalistic, because it has restrictions within it. If we put any restrictions on those people North of the Border, they can say that it is paternalistic. But just to put in this very sensible extra hit of guideline, as to how they conduct their affairs, seems to me to be absolutely essential for orderly government in Scotland.
9.37 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, made a very valid point when he said that the likelihood is that a great proportion, at any rate, if not the majority, of the Members of the Assembly—which I still hope will call itself a Convention—will be drawn from local authority backgrounds, and their natural recourse in thinking of procedure will be to local government experience. Every Peer in this House who belongs to Scotland has had some exposure to local government in some fashion, and I think we would all share the prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that one will be spared some of its futile, costly, extravagant and occasionally corrupt excesses.
This Amendment is in the most harmlessly broad terms; that a Bill shall be considered in principle, that it shall be considered in detail and that, finally, a decision shall be taken. Nothing could be simpler or fairer than that. I remember that Mr. Macmillan, after he had fought two Elections and lost two Elections, said, "Nothing could be fairer than that". Nothing could be fairer than saying that a Bill shall be considered in principle, in detail and, finally, a decision shall be taken. Those three requirements do not even preclude what I suspect is the darling of the heart of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, which is the pre-legislative scrutiny, of which there has been much talk in this place. It does not preclude it, it does not inconvenience it, it does not embarrass it and it does not conflict with it in the slightest degree.

1511
Standing Orders are a safeguard of freedom and, if we devolve Parliamentary responsibilities elsewhere, it is logical that we also devolve the safeguards with which they have been surrounded hitherto. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is saying is "Do not bother about all this apron-string stuff. Trust them". You may say "Trust me". We would trust the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—a very respected Sheriff-Principal—a very long way. But just the same, it is "Trust us. Trust them. Do not bother to give them any rules. Do not insult them with guidelines. Leave them to run their own way, like water spilling out of a tank". That is not a very serious kind of argument.
There is a danger, of which our experience of Parliamentary Government at Westminster in the last four or five years has warned us, which is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said earlier, you can have, in effect, an elected dictatorship for a period of five years and you can get ordinary conventions flouted. That we have seen in the other place in very recent years, and it is a shame and a disgrace. I am sometimes amazed that friends of mine, who are misguided enough to belong to the wrong Party, still continue to submit to the kind of things that have once or twice, or more, been done in the name of democracy in a democratic Chamber, making use of a temporary majority. It is that very danger of which we have seen signs too many in the last few years at Westminster. We do not want to see it repeated locally in Scotland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has certain favourite arguments on which he falls back.
The apron-strings argument conies up every time when argument runs out. When that argument fails the noble and learned Lord, or he gets tired of it, he says, "Ah, well, you can trust them to have rational debate". I wonder whether the noble and learned lord has ever listened to the proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee. I have taken part in them, and that is worse still. That Committee does not provide a model of rational debate, and anybody who pretends that it does needs to have his head examined. There was a great argument at one time that the solution to Scottish devolution was to let the Scottish Grand Committee sit in
1512
Edinburgh, and that would teach the Scots once and for all what rot it is. The argument that you can fall back on the rational debate of rational people is neither very serious nor very sound.
Then we are told, "Ah, but the Government have now had third thoughts". Like my noble friend, Lord Ferrers, my hopes rose, but then the noble and learned Lord said that the Government had listened to and been much influenced by a torrent of criticism and suggestion. Where did it come from? It came from the media. Is the media the message? Apparently it is. But the media have no more judgment of public affairs than has a cat. I shall be very happy if the BBC picks that one up! Parliament has much judgment—
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is speaking as a journalist?
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Yes, certainly, my Lords. Having, to my shame, spilled columns in the Scotsman and other papers throughout the years and looking back now and realising what rubbish I have written and what opinionated nonsense it was, I am absolutely horrified that the noble and learned Lord should take the media seriously. When I think of the poor old Scotsman now—well, perhaps it is worse since I gave up writing for it! But what the noble and learned Lord said was that the Government were much influenced by the media. That explains a lot; that is all I can say.
Then we were told that we must not be paternalistic. Are we not all rather impressed, reluctantly, by the paternalistic attitude struck by the Prime Minister? Is not that one of the sources of an apparent, obviously temporary, success in the public opinion polls? His great paternalistic attitude spreads a smile everywhere, in the light of which the Party opposite are basking continually. All right; do not let us be paternalistic, but let us at least be avuncular, and then we really shall be following the example of the Prime Minister. This business about paternalism is as silly an argument as the argument about apron strings.
Then the noble and learned Lord pointed out that there is a single-Chamber system. Yes; all the more reason for

1513
safeguards. The fact that the Assembly might want to amend the Bill when it becomes an Act is surely the great let-out for common sense on both sides. If, indeed, the Assembly proves to be as rational, sober, watchful and vigilant as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would lead us to expect—which some of us do not expect very seriously—then let the Government come forward with their amendments, which gives them something to start with. The prospect of amendment gives the opportunity for improvement in the light of experience, but the suggestion that in the meantime we should fall back upon the apron-strings argument, upon the paternalistic argument and finally upon the media leaves me more flabbergasted than ever—and that is saying something.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I be permitted to ask the noble and learned Lord one question? We were sitting rather like parched men in the desert with our tongues hanging out, waiting for the honeyed words of the noble and learned Lord saying that he was going to accept the Amendment. We were hoping that this would be so.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I was not proposing to rise to my feet to say that I accept this Amendment.
9.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 78) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47: Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS

Balerno, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mottistone, L.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller]

Carrington, L.

Gisborough, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Glasgow, E.

Northchurch, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gray, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Craigavon, V.

Haig, E.

Perth, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Henley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hylton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandys, L.

Dundee, E.

Kinross, L.

Selkirk, E.

Elles, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elton, L.

Lyell, L.

Thurlow, L.

Falkland, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Vaizey, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monson, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Kaldor, L.

Simon, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller]

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Gaitskell, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Clause 26 [Members' pecuniary interests]:
9.53 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 13, line 13, after ("pecuniary") insert ("or other").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are now dealing with the clause which deals with declaration of interest. I must say I think it is a very clumsy clause. It starts off by dealing with declaration of interest; it ends up with varying punishments which can be imposed; and in between are the standing orders. It is a very clumsy arrangement, and I must say I should very much have liked to have much more time to make a more sensible manner of dealing with it. May I say, first of all, that I tried at Committee stage to say what importance I think we should attach to this question of declaration of interest. There is nothing which has broken down democracy more than corruption. This is the sole occasion on which we shall have an opportunity here of making any contribution to this particular point.
I think the main approach on the subject of interest is correct. I do not believe in the use of a book; I think a book is almost entirely redundant—or not redundant but never complete. I believe the practice which has evolved in this House—that is, the invariable practice of all Members of declaring an interest when they speak—is the correct way of doing it. I am not very sure that the penalties are a necessary encouragement. It should be an order which is understood, accepted and recognised as a proper method.
May I turn to what the clause actually says and read it:
"The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for securing that members with pecuniary interests, as defined by the standing orders…".
In other words, the determining factor here is what the standing order says. I am asking whether a pecuniary interest—and the standing orders are confined in this matter to a pecuniary interest—by itself is enough.
When I moved a similar Amendment earlier I inserted the words,
"direct and indirect pecuniary interest".
Many people in the House thought that that was a bit too wide. It may be that it was too wide, but, even so, it is limited by the definition laid down in the standing orders. I am now suggesting that we should add:
"for securing that members with pecuniary or other interests, as defined by the standing orders".
I contend that unless we put in those words nothing but a pecuniary interest can be included in standing orders. That is the point I am making. We are confining the standing orders to what can be shown to be a pecuniary interest of a material character. I contend that there are quite a number of extremely important interests outside direct pecuniary interests which it should be within the capacity of standing orders to bring in.
I should like to deal with one or two, but there may be many others. First, the question of planning. Planning is not a direct pecuniary interest, or, if it is, it is very indirect. It may be a development in an area—the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is very familiar with such matters—in which someone may have a remote interest and may want to encourage it. On the other hand, he may want to stop it. There are two sides to the question. It is very hard to pin a land interest—a development—as a pecuniary interest. There are many occasions when that is extremely difficult to make clear.
Secondly, there is the whole range of subjects which include the Addison Rules—for example, people who are connected with various Government Departments or Government agencies. That is not a direct pecuniary interest, but in my view it is something which should be declared and made clear. There is the immense range of a new thing called a quango which I am told is a quasi-autonomous national Government organisation of which there are a very high number. Those are matters which are not necessarily pecuniary.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl means "non-Government".
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon—" non-Government". I am grateful to the noble Viscount. In any case they are matters to which attention should be drawn. There are, of course, observer interests. There are people who are asked on behalf of certain organisations to be in Parliament and to observe what is happening. In such an instance there is not merely a pecuniary interest, because the person is there to correct, if necessary, errors which may be made about the organisation. His salary—if he has one—or his retainer fee does not depend in any way on how much or little he speaks or anything of that sort. One can hardly say that he has a pecuniary interest; but he has an interest, and it is in proper regard to the Assembly that that interest should be declared.
Another matter which has been raised is blood relationship. Frankly, if one is related to a teacher and one wants to talk about teachers' salaries it is not improper to say: "I am married to a teacher". Why not? You probably know more about the teaching profession because you are married to a teacher. I do not think that we should inhibit people from talking on subjects about which they are fully familiar. However, I think that they should declare it. That is all that I am asking, and in my view it is most important.
There are other things. Corruption takes various forms which I am told are not exactly pecuniary. There are visits to St. Moritz, Cyprus and so on, which have been used for such a purpose. While those may not necessarily be matters which you declare, in my view the word "pecuniary" is too narrow. It should be wider. We have the sole opportunity now, during this period, to try to set a high standard. That is my object in raising this matter. I ask the noble Baroness to consider whether she cannot accept the Amendment as it stands. If she cannot, can she suggest how it can better be done, because I do not think that as it now stands it goes right to the heart of the matter, as it should. I beg to move.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, supporting his Amendment this time. We spoke in Committee on this
1518
matter and I spoke against his Amendment on the words precisely "direct and indirect". I wonder whether the noble Baroness would consider the noble Earl's Amendment, because I believe that as it stands the Bill places too much emphasis on the words "pecuniary interests" for definition by standing orders. I believe that the words "or other" will cover the situations as described by the noble Earl. Indeed, the only other simple example that I can give is if one of the Assemblymen were the president of a golf club which is to be used for a runway extension or motorway extension. That is not a pecuniary interest, but it is an interest which could strongly influence his decision, or indeed his behaviour, during the Assembly. Perhaps the noble Baroness could assist us here.
10.1 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall not be of very much help, and for that I am sorry. As the noble Earl has said, during the Committee stage he moved the Amendment to provide for the direct or indirect pecuniary interest to be declared. He argued—and none of us disagreed with him—that the Assembly should set very high standards for itself right from the outset. Everyone in this House would agree with that principle.
As he says, the spirit of that Amendment commanded quite considerable support, and indeed some of his colleagues felt that he ought to go even wider. We have considered what was then said, and the noble Earl has now tabled this new Amendment for "pecuniary or other interests". We appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and those expressed in the earlier Committee debate on this particular point. However, we still do not think that the present Amendment will overcome the problem. Indeed we think that it might even lead to greater confusion. It would provide that any interest must be declared, not just financial interests.
The noble Earl referred to the fact that if you were married to a teacher, you should declare your interests, and you would probably know a great deal more about education than those who are not married

1519
to teachers; I would not disagree with him on that. But how far are we going to take it? If a Member of the Assembly has a child of school age, does he have to declare an interest before he takes part in any education debate? Or, if there is a debate on the Health Service, do all the Members then have to declare an interest on the basis that at some time or other they may need the services of the Health Service? As it stands at the moment, the Amendment gives no guidance at all on what kind of interests ought to be declared.
The attitude of the Government throughout has been that we believe quite firmly that the financial interest should be declared, and that is what we have provided for in the Bill. But beyond this we believe that it is the Assembly which should make its own arrangements: for example, in specifying what should be the scope of the pecuniary interest to be declared—whether it should include in those an interest in planning considerations, whether it should include reference to the Addison Rules, whether it should include reference to observers and all the other things that have been detailed here tonight. But the scope of the pecuniary interest is something which the Assembly itself will have to declare and sort out.
In making these arrangements, we have no doubts at all that the Assembly will have regard to the local government provisions which are spelled out in Sections 38 to 39 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The Assembly will have considerable powers. Surely it is right that it will use these powers responsibly. It will be a democratically elected body. It will be fully aware of public opinion in this very sensitive field, and in the Government's view it is entirely reasonable to assume that the Assembly will make suitable provision within its standing orders to ensure that where there is any risk of a Member's pecuniary interest, however widely it is defined, affecting the discharge of his responsibilities, he must disclose those interests. However, we feel that as it stands the Bill is right and it is up to the Assembly to define how wide a scope "pecuniary interests" should cover.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the kinds of interest
1520
that worry her. She quoted having a child who goes to school, or needing the services of the Health Service. Any citizen could have that kind of interest. The interests that have been picked out by my noble friend the mover of the Amendment and by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, are special and different, such as the golf club or those quoted by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. An Assemblyman should be in the position of making up his mind whether he is just an ordinary citizen with an ordinary citizen's interests or whether he has special interests of a non-pecuniary nature. I think that is the point.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I hesitate to speak, but I think that there are occasions when one can have interests other than pecuniary ones which are far more important benefits to the person concerned and which should be known to the Assembly.
I should like to inform the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that we had a recent case in local government in Scotland where a housing convenor managed to give a very nice council house to a son-in-law. That took a lot of discovering. If it had been made explicit that she had to inform the committee at the time that it was her son-in-law who was getting the house, and had she then been liable to prosecution for failing to do so, that would have been a very good thing. As a result of concealing information of this kind one may have benefits which are not pecuniary.
10.7 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said something which has not been answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I should like help on this. He said that if the clause remains as it is now, the only interests which may he declared are pecuniary. I agree with those noble Lords who have said that interests other than pecuniary ones can be of great interest to a House or an Assembly. For example, supposing that one is deeply interested in the preservation of wild life, or a society for the preservation of birds, or whatever else it may be, it is important that this interest should be declared. If one is interested in racing as a sport one may have no pecuniary interest in it. Indeed, the fact

1521
of being interested in it can mean that one may lose money all the time because one has a flutter. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, I recall, often says the opposite, but that is his good fortune and it does not necessarily apply to the rest of us.
I feel that there is a point here on which I should like help. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that if we did not add to the words as they are in the clause at present, the whole question of interest would be restricted to pecuniary interest and nothing else. If so, I am unhappy about the provision as it stands at present.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I make a couple of short points? The first is that we are dealing here with pecuniary interests as defined by the Standing Orders. There is one danger. If the clause is left like that, "pecuniary interest" may be defined by the Standing Orders in a most unfair and intolerable way. "Pecuniary interest" means a pecuniary interest. Just that. It means dealing with money, and nothing else—not money's worth. I suspect that if we leave the words "pecuniary interests" we shall force the Assembly to define "pecuniary interest" to include money's worth, which is wrong in terms of pecuniary interest. I think that one is bound to include the other interests and allow the Assembly to define what those other interests are. We are being asked all the time to leave scope to the Assembly to do this, that, and the next. Surely this is the right course. This is where we should leave the Assembly to define what they mean by other interests in addition to the pecuniary interests.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I am terribly sorry but I cannot accept the noble Baroness's answer. She asked me what kind of interest. That is exactly what the standing orders will define. That is what they are there for. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred to money; pecuniary interest. Well, what is it? Ten pence? One hundred pence? £10,000? It has to be defined in some way whether this matters. I really do not think that we can leave it this way. If the noble Baroness cannot say anything better we must divide the House. I am sorry. I had not expected to have to divide the House tonight. If I may say so with great respect to the noble Baroness, it seems to me quite an intolerable answer.
1522
She said she has sympathy with this but cannot give way. I think this is essential. There is no possible Party interest in this. This is simply a matter of trying to set a proper high standard for this Assembly, and we are asking them to decide on a slightly wider basis. If noble Lords do not mind I must regretfully say, because I do not like to do this, that we really will have to divide on this.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I make one suggestion? Would the noble Baroness see fit to accept this Amendment, on the understanding that after she considers it further she can always take it out again at Third Reading? Perhaps this would assist the House because obviously it is a point about which my noble friend feels strongly. I do not think it is something with which the noble Baroness or the Government actually disagree. If the noble Baroness would be kind enough to accept this in order to help the House in this situation, and if on consideration the Government thought for various reasons that this was intolerable, then surely they could put down an Amendment at Third Reading to take this out, and I am sure that my noble friend would consider it sympathetically.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that the noble Earl is quite right. We have a lot of sympathy with what is behind this Amendment. However, the Government feel that the Bill as it stands at present allows the Assembly to define what pecuniary interests or other interests they need to work into their standing orders. I cannot at this stage accept the Amendment as it stands and perhaps come back to it later. What I would be willing to do would be to do it the other way round, and say that if the noble Earl would withdraw it I will have consultations with my officials and we will write to him before the next stage of the Bill to see whether there is any possibility of meeting some more favourable terms so far as he is concerned.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I never can resist the noble Baroness's approaches. I hope the noble Baroness means this. She has said already that this means other interests. In other words, it does not even change the Bill. Why does she not accept it then? The

1523
noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, told us how terribly sensitive he was to heavy criticism at an earlier stage in the Bill, and how he had to give way on things, but apparently he paid no attention to what everyone said in this House although other people apparently have immense pull on the Government. I hope that the noble Baroness will do this. I think it would be much better to come to agreement about it. Really, I must say that whoever is advising the noble Baroness is taking a very narrow view of his duties. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.14 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 13, line 17, at end insert ("and for the suspension or exclusion from the Assembly of a member who fails to comply with such standing orders.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am afraid that we have not entirely finished with the troubles of Clause 26. I am grateful to the noble Baroness who wrote in response to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Mansfield on the Committee stage. I am not sure who it was who did not get their message across, but I am afraid that one way or another at that point in time it was not entirely clear to the Government what it was we were trying to say. I have since sought to repair that by a further letter, and I hope that the noble Baroness understands what it is that worries me.
I would think that there is not a scintilla of difference between us in what we are trying to achieve. I anticipated the Government saying that, when Standing Orders which deal with pecuniary interests —or pecuniary and other interests or whatever it may be—are framed by the Assembly, they will wish to take cognisance of the fact, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk has been saying, that this area of difficulty is one of the most corrosive and undermining areas in the whole of the body politic if the sanctions are not right.
We have had some sensational trials about corruption of one kind or another, and it would not surprise me, even despite that, if it were still to continue in the future and I do not think we should be so
1524
silly as to suppose that it is impossible to occur in the Assembly at all. As one noble Lord said on the previous occasion, the best thing to do to prevent any of those unfortunate activities getting a grip is to make sure they are never allowed to start in the first place, and that means that the sanctions provided under the machinery, whatever they may be, must be extremely severe to deal with the ultimate case.
What I am worried about is the drafting of the Bill. If one sets about dealing, in the series of clauses we are now considering, with particular provisions of Standing Orders—but of course only some of the provisions of Standing Orders—the tendency is for people to wonder whether the specific terms of what is in the Bill mean that one is not able to add other things by way of Standing Orders because there might appear to be a conflict with what the Bill specifically lays down.
This is not just a lawyer's approach, although it is an extremely well-known principle of the law. I imagine legal advice will be taken in the drawing up of the Standing Orders; it would astonish me, when one has a statute that provides for particular provisions, that no lawyer should advise on how the proposed Standing Orders fit in with those particular provisions. I think the lawyers will say to themselves that they must study the terms of these clauses to see that the Standing Orders do not themselves fall outside what Parliament has laid down.
In this respect there are two difficulties. My Amendment suggests that in the ultimate bad case of corruption—whatever it may be, whether it is pecuniary or anything else—the Standing Orders should be able to provide for the suspension and ultimately for the expulsion of a Member found guilty, not necessarily in criminal proceedings but found guilty perhaps by the internal procedures of the Assembly. That must be the kind of thing the Assembly could do. Will they—I ask, looking at the terms of the Bill as it stands—be able to made a Standing Order that would have that effect? I hope it will never be used, and one assumes that it would be the ultimate sanction; but I believe it should be there. Can it be put in the Standing Orders?
There are two reasons in terms of construction as a matter of law which

1525
lead me to think that anybody advising the Assembly on the drafting of its Standing Orders would say, "No, you cannot go that far on this particular matter. You must see what Parliament has provided for the Standing Orders". In Clause 25 it provides that the standing orders may include provision for excluding a Member essentially for the purposes of preserving good order. Thus Parliament has spoken about excluding Members and has said that when one is talking about preserving good order, the standing orders in the ultimate can provide for him to be excluded. But what about pecuniary interests? On that it is silent. Surely, says the person drafting the Standing Orders, it must be significant that Parliament provides specifically that the Standing Orders can exclude somebody on order, and it is silent when it comes to disclosure, or non-disclosure, of interest. So the first alarm bell is sounded.
The draftsman of the draft Standing Orders says to himself that he is not sure that he is entitled, under the terms of this legislation, to draft a Standing Order which provides for exclusion under Clause 26, because Parliament has specifically remained silent about it, although it has mentioned it in Clause 25. Having got that far, he will have his doubts reinforced by the next point. In Clause 26(2)—and it was this to which Lord Mansfield's Amendment was attached last time—there is, very surprisingly, and I think very messily, a specific criminal sanction. Parliament has there laid down what is to be the maximum fine for taking part in any proceedings in contravention of the provisions of the Standing Orders about pecuniary interests. So, again, Parliament will have spoken about this, and it will have spoken in terms of providing a maximum penalty for the criminal aspect. It will actually have created a criminal offence for failing to comply with the Standing Orders—that shows how serious the matter is—and it will have laid down the maximum fine.
The maximum that has been laid down in this clause has to be looked at in relation to Clause 8(1)(d). There is a provision in Clause 8(1)(d) whereby, if a person does something sufficiently serious, he can be disqualified from membership of the Assembly. That comes very much to the same thing as an exclusion for failure to
1526
comply with Standing Orders, or any other form of suspension or whatever it may be. However, Parliament has stated in Clause 8(1)(d) what is the minimum penalty involved to incur disqualification. The penalty under Clause 26(2) for failure to comply with the Standing Orders is insufficient to disqualify because it does not include a prison sentence. Therefore, the draftsman says to himself, not only is nothing said about exclusion in Clause 26, whereas something is said about it in Clause 25, but Parliament has gone much further than this. It has actually laid down a maximum penalty in criminal proceedings which is not sufficient to disqualify under any circumstances. Therefore, Parliament must have meant that Standing Orders could not go so far as to exclude the Member who is, in the ultimate, found by the Assembly to have taken part in corrupt practices.
This cannot be right. It simply cannot be right that the Standing Orders of the Assembly should be constricted by this kind of implication arising from the drafting of the Bill. I do not know what we are to do about it. I am perfectly certain that the noble Baroness is to say that she will not accept my Amendment. I am sure that she has been told that the drafting is bad and that everything else about it is bad, and that not a single word is to be added to the clause. I shall have only one speech at the end of the debate in which to decide what to do. The noble Baroness sits there with a broad smile on her face, and I am sure that means that she is not going to accept the Amendment. Therefore, I must try to persuade her in advance to do something about this matter. I do not propose to invite your Lordships to divide on this question this evening, because I think that it can be handled in another way—but handled it must be, and I hope that perhaps other noble Lords who have listened to this argument would agree with me.
If the noble Baroness is advised that because there is some magic in the wording there is no possibility of change in what is in Clause 26, can we do it some other way? May I assume—and I hope that I am right here—that the noble Baroness would agree that the Assembly, in drawing up its Standing Orders, must be allowed, if it thinks fit, to take so grave a view of corruption that the Standing Orders may include suspension, or indeed expulsion,

1527
for that offence? I hope that the noble Baroness is with me on this; I should be amazed if she was not. If we cannot change the words of the Bill because, apparently, it is Holy Writ, how can we ensure that no lawyer advising the Assembly on the preparation of draft Standing Orders can posibly fall into the two traps that I have spoken about?
Can we say perhaps that, because the Government spokesman has said in your Lordships' House this evening, "No; despite these difficulties there will be no problem, no objection, no possible restraint upon the standing, orders drafting committee in putting this in", they will feel themselves free, if they think fit, to put in penalties of this sort? Is there any way in which we can do it—by debate, by statement, by circular, by Statutory Instrument, by any other device known to Government—if we are never allowed to amend these clauses?
I am trying to help the Government. I am trying to devise a method whereby what seems to me to be a straitjacket may be unloosed, if I therefore put it that way to the noble Baroness, could she think, if not tonight then between now and when we finally part with this Bill, of a method to get over this difficulty? It would be tragic if, because of a recalcitrance in those who advise on the technicalities of drafting in saying that we cannot touch the wording, we end up with a situation which really will create a proper legal difficulty in the drafting of standing orders. This is the proposition that I put to the noble Baroness. In some way or another she must be prepared to meet it. If she will not have my Amendment, will she tell me how else she will do it? I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the noble Viscount was mistaken: my broad grin indicated that I hoped we might be able to say that we would accept his Amendment, because we are in sympathy with it. But I am advised that, even so, we are still not happy (he suggested this would be one of the things I would say) with its wording, because we believe that the Bill strikes the right balance. We can see that there are dangers. We can see that there have been cases of corruption, though not so many when you think of the thousands of people who are involved
1528
in local government and other things in the country. But there have been cases of corruption, which are always cause for concern; and, no doubt, regrettably, there may still be cases of corruption, and there ought to be some means for the Assembly to deal with them.
Therefore, having said that, could we perhaps take the noble Viscount up on his last suggestion and say that we are in sympathy, that we will give further consideration to it and that we will have consultations with him before the next stage? We appreciate what he is getting at. We should like to arrive at the same sort of conclusion, but we do not think we have quite the right means to do it tonight.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, that is more than generous, and of course I will respond to it. I do not think that anybody who has listened to this debate will mind how it is done, because it is a matter of the purest technicality in order to get it right so that nobody will challenge it and nobody will he in doubt. If I can co-operate with the Government upon this I shall happily do so, but I am sure that they can do it perfectly well without me. I have no doubt that either we shall have an Amendment or I shall have a communication to show how we can do it without one. I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Committees]:
10.29 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 13, line 22, at beginning insert ("The").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, have very strong feelings about Clause 27, and it is unfortunate that consideration of it should come up at this late hour; but I am very conscious of the lateness of the hour, and I shall try to be as brief as I can in explaining my points. Perhaps it would be helpful if at the outset I pointed out to the House that the effect of my Amendments Nos. 81 to 86 inclusive would be virtually to re-write the clause that is in the Bill. I should prefer not to speak to all the Amendments together, but to speak to groups of Amendments as I go along. First, however, in

1529
order that the House may better understand my purpose, I think it would be as well if I were to read out the resulting new clause as it would appear once amended. If my Amendments were accepted, Clause 27 would read:
"The standing orders of the Assembly shall, without prejudice to the powers of the Assembly to appoint other committees of the Assembly, include provisions for—
(a) the appointment of committees of the Assembly with legislative or other functions extending to any matter which, whether in relation to the Assembly or in relation to the Scottish Executive, is a devolved matter";
and then would follow the words of my Amendment No. 86.
May I speak first to Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. Amendment No. 81 is simply a drafting point. I am seeking to insert the word "The" at the beginning of this provision and my case for seeking to do so is that it is in all the similar clauses on the page. My Amendment No. 82 seeks to make the provision in the Bill mandatory. Then it goes on to deal with the point that was raised in Committee when we discussed Clause 27. The point was this: the Assembly can talk about anything it likes; therefore many noble Lords who were then present said that if it could talk about anything it liked it could have committees on anything it liked, whether or not they had functions. By including in the clause the words,
"shall, without prejudice to the powers of the Assembly to appoint other committees of the Assembly",
I am seeking, while going on later to deal in more detail with what they must do about functions, to make quite clear that they can have committees on liaison with Westminster or whatever it may be which will not have any legislative or other functions in regard to the Assembly.
I should point out that I have chosen to use the words "committees of the Assembly rather than just "committees". I have done this for the reason that I was questioning whether the power to appoint committees was not a power to appoint committees which could consist not only of Assembly Members but of other people from outside. Reading the clause at present in the Bill I should have thought that if that is so, it is singularly inappropriate, and I have sought to clarify the issue.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85. Amendment No. 83 needs no explanation. It merely puts in the necessary "(a)" as a preliminary to the paragraph which I am creating with the other two Amendments. Regarding the first one, I have already explained why am adding "of the Assembly" to the word "committees". With Amendment No. 85 I am extending the Bill's description of functions by adding "legislative" and making it read "legislative or other functions". It is clearly the case that committees of the Assembly could have legislative functions and I thought that it was proper to make this quite clear. Here in Westminster we have committees that have legislative functions. I would not want anyone at some future date to argue that if the Assembly did set up committees with legislative functions they would be wrong in doing so.
I come now to Amendment No. 86, the last of my group of Amendments. This seeks to insert a new paragraph (b) the words of which are printed in the Marshalled List. My reasons here will be obvious. I am trying to secure, as I think, properly, that the Assembly which will be legislating for Scotland should do so on the same basis as Parliament legislates for Scotland now; and we should try to secure that the legislation and the legislative acts and functions of these committees are of a character which we would approve and, therefore, that the membership should reflect as closely as possible the balance of Parties in the Assembly.
At this point I should say that I recognise that this is a considerable package. Were I to choose from it what is, to me, the most important item, it would be my paragraph (b). This is why noble Lords will have noticed that I have joined my name to that of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn on Amendment No. 87 which would attach to the clause as it now stands words similar to those of my Amendment No. 86. I have tried to explain this briefly. It was fairly complex. I hope that I have done justice to my case. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should be quite happy to support my noble friend's Amendment although, perhaps, I attach a different amount of importance to different parts of it. If it consisted of Nos. 81, 83, 84 and 86, I

1531
should have thought this would cover the point I was proposing to make later in moving my Amendment No. 87. But I await what the noble Lord opposite has to say about this. Obviously, No. 86A would then tie in with that scheme and would, I think, make a satisfactory improvement to the Bill. In the light of what the noble Lord has to say, I can make up my mind whether or not to move No. 87.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I sense that it is for the convenience of the House if we continue to talk through this range of Amendments. Amendment No. 81, as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has said, is a drafting Amendment. The Government willingly accept the Amendment. It draws attention to an improvement which obviously should be made. Did the noble Earl wish to intervene?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, as the noble Lord was saying that he was speaking to all the Amendments, I wondered whether his acceptance went for all of them.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I had not quite got out of my Committee stage thinking or, perhaps, I would not have given way. I did not hear what the noble Earl said, but it gave me time to reflect. I am about to move on to Amendment No. 82 which provides that the power to appoint committees is without prejudice to the Assembly's power to appoint other committees.
The Government consider this Amendment unnecessary. Clause 27 is permissive and does not detract in any way from the Assembly's inherent power to appoint a committee on any subject which seems to it to be appropriate. If we are going through this stage by stage, I should indicate that I would not be able to accept Amendment No. 82. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that Amendment No. 83 is merely presentational, but I cannot accept it because I am not going to be accepting this middle group of Amendments.
Amendment No. 84 seeks to specify that committees are committees of the Assembly. Again, the Government consider this to be unnecessary. If they are appointed by the Assembly with functions
1532
of the nature laid down, they are committees of the Assembly and the Government's view is that it is not necessary at all to spell this out.
Moving on to Amendment No. 85, which provides that Assembly committees may have legislative functions, I recall to your Lordships that I explained in Committee stage (Official Report, 24th April, col. 1528) that the Government think it is right to leave it to the Assembly to decide what functions to delegate to its committees. The committees could, for example, have responsibilities for policy consideration; provision of advice on Bills prior to introduction and consideration of the detail of Bills after introduction; general oversight of the activities of the Scottish Executive; and scrutiny of the merits or vires of subordinate instruments. This must be for the Assembly to decide.
However, it would be unacceptable to empower the Assembly to give legislative functions to its committees. This is the force of Lord Gray's Amendment at that point. The Assembly and the Executive are given substantial legislative and executive powers in the Bill, and they must each he ultimately responsible for the exercise of these powers. It would be perfectly acceptable to give committees a role in the legislative process, just as the other place does with its standing committees; but that is far removed from a legislative function—which means the function of actually passing legislation.
The Government will resist Amendment No. 85 when this is further discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put down Amendment No. 87, but it is in close harness with Amendment No. 86 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. I sense that it would be appropriate for me to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, at this point, but in clear recognition that Lord Drumalbyn's Amendment follows thereafter and is on the same point. I should immediately say to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that I said at Committee stage I would give consideration to the points he raised. I have done this and consulted with my colleagues. I regret that I have no hope to offer him.
My colleagues and myself remain of the view that Clause 27 leaves the setting up of committees to Standing Orders and we consider that it should be similarly

1533
left to the Assembly to deal in its Standing Orders with any requirements about political balance on the committees. I recognise that there is a complete conflict of attitude at this point. I think that the arguments were very well rehearsed at the Committee stage and I do not think that there is anything useful that I can add at this stage.
That is the outline of the Government's view of the Amendments Nos. 81 to 86, spilling over of course to Lord Drumalbyn's Amendment No. 87.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House if, in speaking to Lord Gray's Amendment, I could make a reference to Amendment No. 86A which stands in my name, and which, if my noble friend does not press his Amendment, will disappear by default and the substance of the Amendment with it. Therefore, to some extent I suppose we are procedurally slightly incorrect, because my Amendment goes down as an Amendment to Lord Gray's Amendment.
Could the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, explain this: my Amendment ensures that no committee of the Assembly shall be appointed with functions not relating to devolved matters. We had a considerable discussion in committee on this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, felt it would be quite intolerable for committees of the Assembly to discuss Polaris submarines in Holy Loch when defence was not a devolved matter. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said that, as far as he could see, the Assembly could discuss tin miners in Cornwall or fruit pickers in Wales; and the Government's argument is that you really cannot gag the Assembly: they must be able to talk on whatever they want to.
The Amendment which I sought to put down would ensure that although committees could be set up to discuss anything they liked, they would only have functions where matters were devolved. My Amendment sought to see that wherever a committee was set up, such as on foreign affairs or the economy, the committee could talk about those matters but would have no functions. Could the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, say whether that would be the case even if no Amendment were inserted and the clause in the Bill stood as it is at present?
10.46 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and if the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is of like mind, perhaps I could say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that he will no doubt realise that Clause 27 is a permissive-type clause. We reiterate that from time to time. He may not agree that it should be, but that is a fact. Within that sort of position, it is wrong, in the Government's view, to seek to create a situation, as the noble Earl's Amendment would do, in which the Assembly could not appoint committees with functions unless those functions were related to particular devolved matters. We mentioned at Committee stage that the Assembly may wish to have committees for its own domestic purposes, for example. The noble Earl's Amendment would prevent such a possibility.
As it stands, Clause 27 is silent on the matter of committees whose functions are not specifically related to a devolved matter; but the Assembly will have an inherent power to appoint a committee for any purpose. That is ground we have covered before. I must go on to explain that these inherent powers, quite properly in the Government's view, will extend, for example, to appointing a transport committee to review activity in this partly reserved field. Many transport matters are devolved, but rail services provided by British Rail and the provision of air services are to be reserved. The Assembly, through a transport committee, may wish to see how the reserved aspects of transport fit in with those which are devolved so as to facilitate the formation of a coherent and integrated transport policy for Scotland. There is, however, no possibility that such a committee could exercise any powers in relation to the reserved aspects of transport. Under its inherent powers, the Assembly could also appoint a committee to review activity in an area which was wholly reserved but which might have a close and direct effect on devolved matters. One such example would be energy. In any case, it is difficult to see how Assembly committees could be effectively prevented from discussing non-devolved matters.
I have talked about the possibility of a transport committee. The terms of reference and functions of such a committee might relate solely to transport matters;

1535
but how could it be ensured that the committee would not discuss non-devolved transport matters? To take another example, the noble Earl's Amendment would not prevent the Assembly setting up a committee with functions relating to the use of energy in devolved subject areas. Nor would it prevent that committee discussing energy matters generally. So there are problems both ways. The Government's view—and there has been further consideration of this matter since we last talked about it in Committee—is that the inherent powers in Clause 27 are powers which the Government would wish to sustain. I should say to your Lordships that we would not willingly move from that position.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I must first thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the crumb of comfort which I received at the beginning of his speech, with the acceptance of the word "The". At this time of night, it behoves one to be very thankful for even small mercies. I am in a slight quandary here, in view of the procedural rules of the House, because if I do not press my Amendments the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Ferrers must fall. So I wonder whether it would be convenient to the House, and shorten the proceedings, if he were to receive leave of the House to indicate his feelings about his own Amendment, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, may I say from this side of the House that that is agreeable.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, if I may have leave of the House, too, I am very grateful for the opportunity to give my views. I am, of course, disappointed at what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said. I quite see that committees must discuss things. My only concern was that they should not have functions. But I do see that, as drafted, my Amendment might cause some problems and I should not be prepared to press it. Therefore, I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment if I had moved it, which of course I have not done.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I am grateful for that assistance. I acknowledge that
1536
the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, drew my attention to a flaw in my Amendment No. 85. As regards the rest, I feel that when discussing this and similar matters, as we did in Committee, we tend to get into a bit of a tangle about the words "shall" and "may". It is not the usual "shall" versus "may" argument that I have in mind here. What I have in mind is that the clause states,
"Standing orders of the Assembly may include provisions…".
That is fair enough, but if they include provisions because they have taken the permissive rule and written the standing orders, it does not mean that they shall then set them up. On the opposite side of that coin, if the Bill said "shall" and it became mandatory, as I suggest it should, then I agree that they have to write the standing orders. But there is nothing that makes them have the standing orders which govern the setting up, the membership and the rules of the committees that would be established. I feel that the arguments advanced in that regard are not valid.
Subject to anything that any other noble Lord may wish to say, I feel, as I indicated earlier, that the Amendment which stands in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, meets what is to me the most important point, and certainly carries with it quite a large part of what I was seeking to write into the Bill, but it is appropriate that I should withdraw. I should be quite ready to follow the plan suggested by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, and have Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 86, but, on the whole, I should be content with No. 87 and, when the time comes, I shall, if my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is agreeable, wish to press that Amendment. Having put forward those considerations, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 86 not moved.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Simon): In that case, my Lords, Amendment No. 86A falls. There is a manuscript Amendment, No. 86B, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Does it make any sense now?
Earl FERRERS: I am sure that the Amendment would have made a lot of

1537
sense, particularly as it stands in my name; but as I have not seen the manuscript of it I am bound to say that I will adopt the noble Viscount's view and concede that it does not make any sense without the other Amendment.
10.56 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 13, line 25, at end insert—
("Provided that in appointing members to such committees the Assembly shall secure that the balance of parties in the Assembly is as closely as practicable reflected in the membership of each such committee.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, substantially this is very much the same Amendment as Amendment No. 86, but perhaps I ought to put it in context. Clause 27 reads:
"Standing orders of the Assembly may include provisions for the appointment of committees…".
I pause here to say that obviously this is optional. It says, "may". This means that I fail to understand what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, meant when he spoke about inherent powers, because the powers which are inherent in the Assembly cannot deal with "may". If the Assembly can do it, anyway, there is not much point in saying here that it may do it. The clause continues:
"…with functions extending to any matter which … is a devolved matter ".
That is qualified by:
"…whether in relation to the Assembly or in relation to the Scottish Executive".
This means that we shall have committees dealing with the wide number of subjects which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, indicated.
I did not detect in any one of the committees where it would have been appropriate not to have applied the rule proposed here: that the balance of the Parties in the Assembly should, as closely as is possible and practicable, be reflected in the membership of each such committee. There is no necessity whatsoever for anything corresponding to a general purposes committee. There is to be the Scottish Executive, so in this sense it is not in any way like a local authority. All of the other committees ought to reflect the Parties. So I am absolutely convinced
1538
that it would be a gross abuse if the composition of the Assembly by Parties was not reflected in each committee. The noble Lord has given absolutely no reason why this should not be so. I could not detect any reason that he gave. The noble Lord said that he had carefully discussed the matter. He rehearsed the kind of committees which might be involved but he gave no reason why this procedure should not be adopted. I beg to move, and I hope that the noble Lord will now be able to say what on earth is the objection to it.
Lord GRAY: I have already advanced my arguments on this Amendment, but I must express my solidarity with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. Like my noble friend, I believe that no argument has been advanced so far which could be put before the House as a true reason for not accepting this Amendment.
Lord KIRKHILL: I prefaced my earlier remarks by saying that I thought we had discussed the matter carefully and rather fully at the Committee stage. I indicated that we on the Government side would reconsider, and I further indicated that the reconsideration from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was not at all helpful. If I may expand briefly, it may not be appropriate for there to be a Party balance on certain of the committees which the Assembly may wish to establish. It would be wrong to form a judgment until it is known for what purposes committees are set up, and in that event it is again best to leave to the Assembly the right to determine the question.
As a quick example, I would not imagine that it would be appropriate to create a Party balance in a committee which dealt with a staffing matter. But apart from the wisdom of the Assembly itself in these matters, I think it is clear from debates not only in your Lordships' House but in the other place, that the Assembly will get considerable advice, invited or otherwise, certainly as it relates to the various procedures of the Assembly. The Government remain of the view that it would be wrong to impose a requirement for Party balance in the Bill.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, for the life of me I cannot see why there should

1539
not be a Party balance in a staffing committee. I agree that it is not absolutely essential: one could manage a committee dealing with staff without a Party balance, but to give that as an indication why one should not have a Party balance where it is really necessary, seems to me to be quite preposterous. If one has to choose between not having a Party balance in those cases where it really is necessary—not being able to guarantee it and be sure of it—and to put that against the advisability of having a Party balance on a staffing committee, where does the balance lie? It must lie in making certain in those committees where it is absolutely necessary to have a correspondence between the proportions in the committee and the proportions in the Assembly as a whole. I am quite certain that there can be no doubt as to the answer. I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, and I feel that I must put it to the test of the House.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I have been following this discussion very carefully and we seem to be assuming that the Scots have no intelligence. Surely, when the Assembly is set up, the various Parties will have enough commonsense to see that no one Party will dominate it. Even minority Parties will clamour for equality of representation in ratio with their membership of the Assembly. I have the feeling that this House is taking upon its noble self functions which are completely unnecessary because we know the answer already; it is not necessary to put it down on a piece of paper like the laws of
the Medes and the Persians. We are a great people. I think in this case we are just nit-picking. I have supported quite a number of the discussions which have taken place tonight, but I think we are pressing this one a little too far.
Lord MOTTISTONE: But would not the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, agree, as happened on an earlier Amendment, that the sort of people who are to form the Assembly will not necessarily have the experience that is inherent within this Parliament? The sort of argument which he is pressing will be relevant in four years' time, but not when the Assembly is first set up.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I hate to admit to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that apparently we are not more intelligent than are the people in Wales. The problem with some of our local authorities is that unless you are a member of the governing Party you cannot be a member of certain of the committees. In other words, certain committees in local government in Scotland exclude all councillors who are not of the majority Party.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: It is very sad.
Lord BALERNO: It is very sad, I know—disgusting.
11.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 87) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Balerno, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monson, L.

Belstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Glasgow, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gray, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Henley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L.

Kinross, L.

Selkirk, E.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Dundee, E.

Long, V.

Tanlaw, L.

Elles, B.

Lyell, L.

Thurlow, L.

Elton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

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

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stone, L.

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

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.13 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 88:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
Reporting and publishing of proceedings of the Assembly
(". The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for the reporting of the proceedings of the Assembly and for the publication of the reports of such proceedings.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that the proper course would be to read out the new clause which is printed in the Marshalled List. It is perfectly self-explanatory. I believe that it would be appropriate for the provisions in the Bill which deal with what shall go into Standing Orders to include the following:
"The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for the reporting of the proceedings of the Assembly and for the publication of the reports of such proceedings".
I think that that is self-explanatory.
However, I should like to make one small point in addition to the general one to explain why I think that this Standing Order provision would be appropriate. I have in mind that "reporting of proceedings" could cover meetings which are not to be reported, meetings which might involve in some way matters which affected things which should be discussed in secret, as sometimes happens in Parliament—for instance, when the security of the realm is involved. I believe that we can deal with this ourselves in that way. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I wonder whether it would help your Lordships' House if I were to say that I shall not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, at this stage, but I have been reflecting upon its content and I want to give it some thought. I am not being insincere when I say that. If he would not press it at this stage, I shall keep in communication with him between this stage and a later stage. I do not give, and cannot give, an unequivocal assurance, but I give an undertaking to reflect upon at least one aspect of this Amendment which occurs to me.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, in view of that undertaking, I think it would be appropriate that I should beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Financial initiative]:
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 13, line 26, at beginning insert ("The").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to accept.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I just make one comment. We are delighted to see the Government's change of heart and their perceptiveness in seeing what is the real substance of the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 13, line 31, leave out ("cannot") and insert ("shall not").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is also a very simple Amendment. It was put down during the Committee stage of the Bill and it seeks to say that the word, "cannot" shall be replaced by the words "shall not", because, in fact, a Bill can pass and the Bill as drafted says that it cannot. In fact, what I think the Government mean is that the Bill shall not pass. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said at the Committee stage that he would consider this point. He has obviously considered it for a very long while, because no Amendment has been put down in his name to alter the position. So I thought that I would put it down again to ensure that it did prevail. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I undertook to look at this matter. I have looked at this matter. I undertook to put it to the draftsman and he has looked at the matter as well. The Amendment is, in my view, unsound. If one wanted to be absolutely correct, the substitution should not be of the words "shall not" but rather "should not". However, in fact, the word "cannot" is the correct word.

1543
I believe that this is a tiny drafting point. We have the advice of an expert in the form of the Senior Parliamentary Draftsman who has considered this matter at my request. He has advised us that this is correct. I believe that it is correct, and I urge the noble Earl not to press the matter.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it merely goes to show—does it not?—that draftsmen always seem to make things far more complicated than is necessary so that they are basically not understandable by the average person. I cannot see how a Bill cannot pass if, in fact, we vote that it should pass. However, I am bound to confess that this is not a matter on which at this hour of the night I shall divide the House. Therefore, I shall accept the noble and learned Lord's assurance that the draftsman has at least looked at it, even if one might beg leave to take a different view from the advice which the draftsman has given the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Members of Assembly acting as additional Commissioners]:
11.19 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 14, line 6, leave out ("Chairmen") and insert ("Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 91 and at the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 92. I have two arguments to put forward. One is that these Amendments reduce the number of words in the Bill from 30 to 20 and the second is that I believe that it is much easier to understand. I have a feeling that these powerful arguments may commend themselves to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, far from expressing my astonishment that the Bill contains so few words, I would certainly be delighted to accept Amendments Nos. 91 and 92.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 14, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.21 p.m.
Clause 32 [Remuneration of members, etc.]:
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are now beginning to move very swiftly, in accord with the Government's attitude. If the noble and learned Lord would be prepared, having accepted Amendments Nos. 91 and 92, to accept Amendments Nos. 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98, I should be glad to move them formally, if he would so indicate. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head. It is a matter of sorrow.
These Amendments make provision for the payment of pensions to the Assemblymen to be subject to the approval of Parliament and not just the Secretary of State. Again, we considered this in Committee. The Government view was, as it has been so often, "Well, let us leave this matter to the Assembly." I do not see why the Assemblymen should be permitted to set their own terms of payment and pensions without recourse to anyone and simply forward the bill to Westminster to be met.
Under the Bill the Assembly will have no guidance and no restriction. There will be no requirement for themselves to meet the cost of what they pay their Assemblymen. They may well set themselves a figure which is the same as that of Members of Parliament. Indeed, it was suggested in Committee that that would be the kind of figure that they would set themselves. What happens if they go higher—more towards the European Parliament scale? There is nothing to stop them from doing that.
I would put this question. Is it right that a devolved Assembly, with fewer powers and therefore presumably fewer duties and responsibilities than Westminster, should pay its Members more than, or even the

1545
same as, Members of Parliament without even the other place giving its approval? In my judgment, the House of Commons should have this authority.
We seek, in this Amendment, to ensure that when the Assembly makes its payments, or decides its payments, to the Assemblymen it should have the approval of the House of Commons. The Secretary of State has the responsibility of setting the first payments under subsection (2) of this clause. If these Amendments were accepted the Secretary of State would still make the initial payments, but under subsection (1), which will require him to lay the order for approval before Parliament before bringing it into effect. What levels are determined for the initial payments of Assemblymen will largely guide the subsequent levels of payment for Assemblymen. The Secretary of State, therefore, bears a heavy responsibility for the levels of the initial payment for which he is responsible. He must obviously now have some idea of what is intended.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was unable to tell us what these levels were. I said that I hoped he would be able to inform your Lordships on Report. For instance, we do not know whether the Assembly will be regarded as full-time or part-time work, what its hours of sitting will be, whether its sessions will approximate, in length of days, to those of Westminster, whether the Assemblymen will be paid expenses or attendance allowances, or salary, or whatever, or the levels of any of them. We really should know, particularly as the Secretary of State is to fix these initial figures.
Whatever method of payment is adopted I believe that it is unacceptable for Parliament to say, "Leave this to the Assembly". I do not believe that it should be left to the Assembly. I know that the Government have taken the view, "Leave everything to the Assemblymen and let them sort it out". I do not believe it is right that the Assemblymen should have the unfettered right to fix their levels of pay and pensions at whatever they like without recourse to anyone. All these Amendments suggest is that they should be subject to the approval of Parliament. I beg to move.
11.25 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I think
1546
it was indeed clear from the noble Earl's remarks that he would find it helpful if I could give some indication of the information which I might have as it relates to the Government's intention as to the initial salaries of Assembly Members and related matters. It will come as no surprise to the noble Earl to realise that I must reiterate that the overall Government view is that we should initiate the Assembly on a very light rein and that the Government believe that it is only right that responsibility for determining the salaries and allowances of Assembly Members should rest with the Assembly itself and not with Westminster. Of course, that is the divergence between this side and Members opposite, as it has been throughout much of the Bill.
It goes without saying—and this point was made at Committee—that the level of remuneration will have to be considered in the light of the Assembly Members' workload; this includes consideration of the working hours of Assembly Members and the regime required of Parties in the Assembly—matters which the Assembly itself will determine.
More generally, it would in the Government's view be insulting to give the Assembly responsibility for a wide range of important matters affecting Scotland yet to deny them responsibility for fixing their own salaries. Members' salaries will have to be met from the Scottish Consolidated Fund and there is no doubt in our minds that the Assembly will take a reasonable and practical view of the remuneration its Members should receive for the responsibilities which they discharge. It is also to be remembered that the Assembly will be an elected body and will need to respond to Scottish public opinion in reaching a decision on these matters. In my view, the Scottish electors will see to it that their attitudes on the appropriate pay for Members are not disregarded.
That said, the Government recognise that they will have to set the initial salaries and that this will have to be done in time for the first elections. Potential candidates will need to know the likely level of remuneration before they present themselves for election. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State should set the initial salaries by direction, without referring the matter to Parliament. I

1547
emphasise yet again that this is in line with the Government's philosophy—reiterated in many phases of the Bill—that decisions on Members' salaries and many other matters are properly for the Assembly itself.
It would be foolish, in the Government's view, at this stage to take a firm decision on Members' salaries before the final shape of the Bill is known and accurate estimates can be made of the workload of the Assembly. I can give the assurance that it will be known in good time for the Parties to make arrangements for the first elections. But obviously the Government have had to make some assessment of the likely costs for the purposes of estimating the costs in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. The assumption on which the Government have proceeded is that the pay and allowances of Assembly Members will be in line with those of Members of Parliament. I believe that this is a reasonable assumption to make for this purpose. But I do not think that I will be giving any hostages to fortune—I hope I will not—if I say that the Secretary of State's initial determination will be no higher than the salaries and allowances of MPs—and could well be lower. In coming to a decision on the initial determination, the Government will, of course, take into account the views expressed in Parliament and elsewhere. If, in the event, the workload of Assembly Members turns out to be markedly different from that anticipated the Assembly can he expected, in my view, to make a sensible adjustment
of the figures. I have said earlier that I certainly think that Scottish public opinion will see to it that they do. That is as far as I am able to go in your Lordships' House this evening. I hope that it has been of some assistance.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information. I am bound to say it was about the most diplomatically phrased reply he could possibly have given. The noble Lord said it was unlikely that the salaries of Assemblymen would be higher than those of Members of Parliament, and could well be lower. What less could he have said? Had he said they would be higher there would have been one unholy row; therefore it was reasonable for him to say they might be higher, though they could well be lower. That really told us absolutely nothing.
I accept that the noble Lord's argument is that this is in line with the Government's philosophy, and that is the division between us: we think the philosophy is wrong. We think it wrong that the Assembly should be given such powers as these without any recourse to Parliament at all. We say the proposals should be submitted to Parliament for its approval. Clearly there is a distinction of view here, and I urge noble Lords to support me.
11.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 93) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS

Colville of Culross, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Cork and Orrery, E.

Fortescue, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Glasgow, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gray, L.

Redesdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Sandys, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Thurlow, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk,B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

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

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stone, L.

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

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Simon, V.

Winterbottom, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.38 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 98:
Page 16, line 14, after ("may") insert ("by order").
page 16, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
Page 16, line 20, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Secretary of State")
Page 16, line 20, after ("may") insert ("by order").
Page 16, line 32, at end insert—
("(7) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 94 to 98 are all consequential upon Amendment No. 93, which your Lordships have just approved, and therefore I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
  PRICE COMMISSION: COST TO PUBLIC FUNDS
  PRICE COMMISSION: COST TO PUBLIC FUNDS