Sitting of 4 May 1978

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

    Taxicab and Private Hire Car Trades (London)
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will implement the Maxwell Stamp Report 1970.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): Two of the Maxwell Stamp Committee's recommendations, on compellable hirings at Heathrow and more stringent control over signs carried on unlicensed vehicles, have been implemented. Consultations with the Greater London Council about the committee's main recommendation for the establishment of a statutory board to control both taxis and private hire cars in London are still in progress.
    Mr. Finsberg: Is the hon. Lady aware that that is a totally unsatisfactory answer and that until two weeks ago there had been no contact at ministerial level with elected members at County Hall for a period of two and a half years and no consultation at official level for several months, as stated in her letter dated 19th April to the Greater London Council?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed in his allegations. The lack of progress has been caused by fluctuations of opinion and party on the GLC. Progress was being made until May last year, when the new Conservative-controlled Council decided not to proceed with assuming control over London taxis. I have had it confirmed in a letter this morning that that is still the Council's
    422
    position, although those responsible are prepared to consider control of private hire cars.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of recommendation 70 of the Maxwell Stamp Committee on compellable hirings between Heathrow and central London, is my hon. Friend aware that many of us who use Heathrow regularly, albeit that we ourselves travel by Tube, nevertheless tend to be inundated with complaints by visitors about the whole situation affecting taxis at Heathrow? Is there not a case for examining the matter seriously, because there are probably two sides to the argument?
    Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend will give me details of the complaints made to him, I shall examine them.

    Prison Population
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the size of the prison population.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): The Government wish to see the use of imprisonment reduced, and legislation to that end was contained in the Bail Act 1976 and the Criminal Law Act 1977. We shall maintain and develop the wide range of non-custodial measures available to the courts, particularly community service. But the prison population reflects the rising volume of crime and is subject to the sentencing decisions of the courts.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Given the excessive and intolerable level of overcrowding in our prisons, may I ask my hon. Friend to accept that it is now time that more purposeful action was taken? For example, will he consider extending remission of 50 per cent. of sentences to all those petty and inadequate offenders who are currently clogging up our prisons but who are not eligible for parole?
    Mr. John: One of the possibilities in removing the incidence of imprisonment or reducing the length of sentence relates to short-term prisoners. I am sure that my hon. Friend read the recent remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the subject. We are studying the matter in the light of the inquiry into prisons by the Expenditure Committee.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: Does the Minister agree that there are two broad alternatives? One is a sharper and shorter sentence in appropriate cases for those for whom there is no alternative but imprisonment, and the other policy alternative is to build more prisons. Does he agree that the former is the cheaper and more acceptable policy, and will he please re-examine the proposals made by the Conservative Party about the need to cut down the prison population by accepting policies involving shorter and sharper sentences?
    Mr. John: By 1981 there will be 4,700 extra prison places available. I agree that offenders should be in prison if there is no alternative for them in the penal system. Although I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about short sentences, I have never yet understood what the Conservative Party means by "sharper" sentences. I wish that somebody would define the phrase instead of trotting out these totemistic statements.
    Dr. McDonald: In view of Lord Devlin's remarkable reassessment of the Cooper-McMahon case and the public disquiet expressed in today's Daily Mail and the Sun over the continuing imprisonment of these men, will the Home Secretary now carry out a thorough review of the case and reduce the prison population by releasing these two men immediately?
    Mr. John: If my right hon. Friend were to review the situation, it would not be to prejudge it, as was done in the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Certainly, he will again consider the case in the light of the recent pronouncement by the Court of Appeal on the point which he referred to it about that case and about the further representations of the solicitors.
    As I understand the lecture, although I freely confess that I have not read it in full, Lord Devlin's point was chiefly about the procedure adopted by the Court of Appeal. We shall naturally examine this, but I must say that the case of these two men has already created legal history in that there have been more references on it to the Court of Appeal than on any other case.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister agree that another way in which to try
    424
    to cut back on the prison population is the provision of more accommodation for ex-prisoners, beter hostel accommodation and better workshop provision? In this connection, may I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the excellent work of the Burnbake Trust near Salisbury, which has applied to the Manpower Services Commission for financial aid? Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with his colleagues in the Department of Employment to see whether they can push this forward?
    Mr. John: Bail hostels, after-care hostels and similar things are certainly well worth while. I shall take up with my colleagues the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
    Mr. David Howell: Does the Minister accept our view that shorter sentences clearly should not apply to violent criminals and those from whom society must be protected? While there is a case for shorter sentences in some circumstances, we believe that they should be sharper, and we are not deterred by the hon. Gentleman's view that it is not possible for sentences to be firmer than at present. Will he also accept that, if there are to be shorter sentences, rather than put the full weight on the shoulders of prison governors in making discretionary decisions, the best way is, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) has already suggested, to think about changing sentencing policy and penal policy? Is it not time that we had action in these matters?
    Mr. John: I think that the hon. Gentleman feels that reiteration of the same point clarifies it. He still does not define "sharper". No one defines it. Until the hon. Gentleman defines it, we cannot take him seriously.

    Licensing Law
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why there are no plans at present to introduce measures to implement the Erroll Committee's report on liquor licensing.
    Dr. Summerskill: The committee's major recommendations raise complex and controversial issues on which the Government have as yet reached no conclusions.
    Mr. Knox: How much longer will the Government sit on the Erroll Report? It is now five and a half years since the committee reported. Is it not high time that the very sensible measures it suggested were legislated for? Is it not true that the Clayson Committee's report on Scottish licensing laws was legislated on two years ago? Does not this show that the attitude of the Home Office to the Erroll Report is a characteristic example of the dilatory attitude it takes on everything?
    Dr. Summerskill: Since the Erroll Committee reported in 1972, offences of drunkenness have increased and so has the problem of alcoholism. The Government's Advisory Committee on Alcoholism and the Expenditure Committee, in its report on preventive medicine, have both recommended that there should be no relaxation of the law at present.
    Mr. Farr: Does the Minister agree that there is an alternative way, which is to proceed by way of voluntary agreement, such as has been so successful in recent months in relation to the control of beer prices and greater distribution and freedom of access to publicans' houses?
    Dr. Summerskill: The matter of prices is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. There is no pressure for implementation of the Erroll Report, certainly in this House. In fact, the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) showed that there was great division on the subject.

    National Front Election Meeting (Brixton)
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were present on duty at a National Front election meeting in Brixton on 15th April; how many were injured; what was the cost of their time; and whether the National Front is to be asked to pay the bill.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells us that 2,462 police officers were deployed to keep the peace in Lambeth on 15th April, and that in minor disturbances during the day eight officers were slightly
    426
    injured. The cost of these policing arrangements could not be obtained without disproportionate effort and expense. It is not the practice for candidates at elections to be asked to meet policing costs occasioned by election meetings.
    Mr. Brotherton: Does the Secretary of State agree that virtually all the political violence in this country now is caused by the National Front—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and other parties of the extreme Left? Will he take steps to ensure that the Marxists, the Trotskyites, the Socialist Workers Party, the National Front and the rest of the rag-bag of the Left are made to pay for the havoc that they cause?
    Mr. Rees: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is not only parties of the rag-bag of the Left or the Right, as he puts it—
    Mr. Brotherton: No—the Left.
    Mr. Rees:—that have to have police protection. The question of police protection arises at meetings for people putting forward mainstream political views. To attempt to work out cost on the basis of the views put forward by candidates would be the wrong approach.
    It is rather like football matches. Some people say that the football clubs should pay for the number of police that are outside the ground. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It would be difficult to try to define in law how that should be done. It would be grossly unfair on some football clubs, particularly if the crowds causing the trouble came from away. In political meetings, many of the people who come to cause trouble are nothing to do with the candidate who has arranged the meeting.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton), who regards the National Front as Left, has been somewhat left behind? This week—May Day—we saw a massive police force at the side of a National Front demonstration which nobody had ever heard of, which seemed to be concealed. In Leeds, for instance, May Day was not held properly, because the National Front merely stated that it would march and thereby cancelled all the marches of the working people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that something should be

    427
    done about that, when the National Front can dictate whether the working people will march in the streets?
    Mr. Rees: Speaking as a Leeds Member, I can say that there was an all-party approach from the Leeds City Council—
    Mr. Flannery: A Tory council.
    Mr. Rees: It was an all-party approach. In Leeds we can manage without any advice from Sheffield. On the general approach, it is the case that small bodies of people from isolated groups in parties can cause trouble for people who want to set about marching perfectly respectably. This causes problems, as was seen in Ilford and at meetings in Lambeth.

    Attendance Centre Sentences
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and boys were in 1977 sentenced to attend at attendance centres on Saturday afternoons; and how many of them were sentenced for football ground offences.
    Mr. John: Figures for 1977 are not yet available. In 1976, 9,467 male offenders under the age of 21 were ordered to attend at an attendance centre. It is not possible to say how many were ordered to attend on Saturday afternoons, although the majority would have been, or how many were sentenced because of offences committed in connection with football matches.
    Mr. Janner: Does my hon. Friend agree with the statement made by the Deputy Chief Constable of Leicestershire after the disgraceful incidents following the Leicester v. Newcastle match on Saturday that fines are no longer any deterrent to football hooligans, payable as they are by a whip-round at the Kop? Does he not feel that the right answer is to send all convicted football hooligans to an attendance centre every Saturday for a year, so as to keep them away from the matches where they disturb other people's enjoyment?
    Mr. John: There are a number of easy assumptions in that supplementary question which must be challenged. First, it is at least arguable that to confine attendance centres to football hooligans
    428
    robs magistrates of a very useful place for many other offenders.
    Mr. Janner: I spoke about Saturday afternoons.
    Mr. John: Secondly, it increases the risk of absenteeism and consequent distraction of the staff at the centres in trying to trace absentees. Thirdly, my hon. and learned Friend will surely have heard about mid-week football matches. What happens then?
    Mr. Sims: Is the Minister aware that the decision to extend certain junior attendance centres for the older age group has been warmly welcomed by the magistracy and many in the House who feel that the most effective way of dealing with football hooligans is to take them out of circulation on a Saturday afternoon? Is he also aware that the two existing senior attendance centres, which were set up as an experiment about 20 years ago, received very little attention from the Home Office until recently? Will he assure us that he will keep a careful watch on the experimental opening of the junior attendance centres and that if they prove satisfactory he will not wait until the end of the three-year experimental period but will extend the system as soon as possible?
    Mr. John: One of the purposes of setting up the centres and extending them in age group is to record not only the number of orders made but the type of offence involved. Let us see whether the magistrates are using them for football hooliganism or what they are using them for. Let us consider whether the rate of absenteeism is still acceptable and whether the putting of older people with the younger boys in the same centre is unduly disruptive of the regime and leads to a larger turnover of staff. Those matters will be essential parts of the experiment. If the experiment is successful, we shall consider its extension.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Make them come here to listen to devolution debates.
    Mr. Monro: When will the Government take a much tougher line about football hooliganism? Has the Minister seen a difference in sentencing policy since the introduction of the Criminal Law Act last year? Will the Government cease to hide behind various committees—under

    429
    himself or the Minister responsible for sport—which never produce any action? Can we have action now?
    Mr. John: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, whose rare excursion into Home Office Questions is welcome, will realise that the Criminal Law Act has been put on the statute book and that penalties for the offence that he calls football hooliganism, although there is not a specific offence of that nature, have been increased greatly.
    I have constantly said—this has sometimes been accepted by Conservative Members but not when cheap popularity is indicated—that it is our duty as a House of Commons to give magistrates adequate penalties at their disposal. It is for them to impose those penalties. There is no reason why we should depart from that procedure.

    Easter Act 1928
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reopen discussions with the Churches with a view to laying before Parliament a draft Order in Council to bring into operation the Easter Act 1928.
    Dr. Summerskill: The date of Easter has been discussed in recent years by the Churches in this country and abroad. My understanding is that for the present the Churches are unlikely to agree on the dates provided for in the Easter Act 1928, and we would not think it helpful in these circumstances to propose the laying of a draft Order in Council.
    Mr. Shersby: Is the Minister aware that the purpose of the Easter Act was to provide a fixed Easter holiday in the middle of April and to enable the public to have the pleasure of enjoying some spring weather? Does she not think that 50 years of consultations is long enough, even by ecumenical standards, and that the will of Parliament, expressed by our predecessors in 1928, should now be implemented? Will she therefore reconsider the matter and reopen discussions with the Christian Churches along those lines?
    Dr. Summerskill: Our predecessors in 1928 said that regard should be had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body. Successive Governments have taken the view
    430
    that there should be wide agreement between the Churches before moving in this matter. So far, that agreement has not been forthcoming.
    Sir G. de Freitas: Should not the Government take the initiative to see whether they can encourage more discussion before all the conditions in Western Europe change? Does the Minister realise that already in France there are more Muslims than Protestants? Will the Government not act until they have to have a fixed Ramadhan?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can assure my hon. Friend that discussions have been taking place between the various Churches of various countries since 1928, but with no agreement.

    Subversion (Definition)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will adopt as his Department's administrative definition of subversion Lord Denning's definition as the attempt to overthrow the Government by unlawful means.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: In my view, the essence of any definition of subversion must be the intention to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that parliamentary democracy cannot be upheld if lawful activities are subjected to surveillance by the secret police? Will he give instructions that his Department will not regard that which is lawful as subversive?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend makes assumptions and draws deductions from them, using terms such as "the secret police". The Special Branch is a part of the police in the normal sense of the term. I have a responsibility in another respect. We are not concerned with political opinions, even offbeat political opinions, which might upset a large number of people. What is subversive is another matter. If there is any slip-up from that, I shall want to know.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does the Home Secretary therefore agree that his definition covers the behaviour of the four hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side who raised the name of

    431
    Colonel B before the House the week before last?
    Mr. Rees: No, and, frankly, I would not take the hon. Gentleman's advice on matters of this kind.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, according to the definition that he has offered to the House, the Special Branch is indeed distinct from other parts of the police force in that he is inviting it to monitor activities that are lawful'? For the avoidance of doubt, will he give the House an illustration of what he regards as subversive whilst being a lawful political activity, which is clearly included in his definition?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) painted a picture of the role of the Special Branch which is one that I do not recognise after a certain amount of experience in this matter over the years. If anyone has any example of the Special Branch acting in this way, the matter should be brought to my notice. If there has been a slip-up, I shall see that the matter is dealt with. However, fairy stories about it do not help any investigation on my part.
    Mr. Fairbairn: May I invite the Home Secretary, in making his definition, to have regard to the law of Scotland? After all, ours is a United Kingdom Parliament. The definition that he has given represents treason in the law of Scotland and not subversion. Could we in future have a little more regard paid to the law of part of the country when we have a United Kingdom Parliament?
    Mr. Rees: I realise the expertise of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand that definitions are matters for the law. Judgments that I have to make are not legal judgments. They are broader than that. What is subversion and what is not subversion probably changes from time to time. In cases that reached the courts, people who acted in a subversive fashion to this country held political views that were rather different in practice from those that they expressed on the surface. We have to consider the types of school to which they went and all sorts of other aspects of the matter. I am not picking on any particular school. I am simply pointing out that
    432
    people who have been subversive have come from the most curious stables.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that not all of us who have had experience of the workings of the Special Branch or of the security services are necessarily as sanguine about the use which is made of the information which they obtain? Does he recognise that when the South Australia Government asked for an investigation into the security service, which was headed by the former Chief Constable of the North Riding of Yorkshire, it found that there were many reasons to query the sort of investigations and the information that was held on file?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend was a Minister at the Home Office but—and I say this with no contempt for him—his knowledge of this matter was very small. This is a matter for the Home Secretary of the day. My hon. Friend was involved on the fringe, his involvement was extremely small and he should not draw conclusions on that basis. As Home Secretary—and this is true of my predecessors—I was and am concerned about this matter. Because of my responsibilities, I have made a firm investigation of what I am responsible for, and I am content with the way in which these matters are carried out in this country.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his very difficult duty of maintaining the security of the State he will have the full support of this side of the House? Is he also aware that those of us who have some experience of these matters have the highest regard for the way in which our security services at all levels carry out their very difficult duties?
    Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but I add to it because there is a serious discussion involved here. He agrees with what I said. If ever there is a departure by anybody from the strict rules governing matters of this kind, wherever it comes from, it will be dealt with firmly.

    Metropolitan Police (Injuries from Assault)
    Mr. Alan Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have suffered

    433
    from injuries from assault in the course of their duties in each of the years 1974 to 1977, inclusive, in the metropolitan area.
    Dr. Summerskill: The number of Metropolitan Police officers reporting injury as a result of being assaulted while on duty was as follows: 1974, 2,925; 1975, 2,990; 1976, 3,550; 1977, 4,030.
    Mr. Clark: Are not these figures the most disturbing of all the criminal statistics? Can the Minister say that she shares the concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself at what seems to be the increasingly casual attitude of the courts towards this particularly serious offence? Would she not agree that it is the attitude of some courts towards this offence, rather than the physical risks involved, which plays a considerable part in lowering police morale?
    Dr. Summerskill: I share the concern about the numbers, but I cannot comment on the way courts use their powers. They have considerable power under the new Criminal Law Act, and Parliament has decided that the offence of assaulting a constable is more appropriately dealt with at a magistrates' court than at a Crown court, except for the more serious assaults of grievous bodily harm.
    Mr. Newens: While I hope that we would all utterly deplore assaults on the police and support any action necessary to bring them to an end, may I ask whether my hon. Friend has seen the film shown in this building to Members from both sides of the House about the behaviour of the special patrol group at Grunwick? If she has not seen the film, will she take steps to do so, because it shows unjustified use of violence by the special patrol group, which can only bring the genuine behaviour of other police officers into disrepute? Would she agree that we must denounce excess violence when it is used by the special patrol group?
    Dr. Summerskill: I understand that the film showed violence, but I must remind my hon. Friend that violence was also inflicted on police officers and that, as a result of that dispute, many police officers ended up in hospital for treatment of their injuries.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the hon. Lady give some suggestions as to the cause for the increase in assaults on police of 15 per cent. last year and 16 per cent. the year before?
    Dr. Summerskill: I would say that it is associated with the general increase of crimes of violence which are occuring against civilians as well as against the police.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would have been very many fewer injuries to policemen if the Government had fallen in with the request of the three hon. Members from Lewisham to ban the National Front march last August, as they did the later march in Ilford? Will she congratulate the Inner London Education Authority on refusing to let schools to the National Front and agree that the Representation of the People Act in regard to provocative National Front meetings at election times needs to be looked at?
    Dr. Summerskill: The banning of marches is a decision for the chief constables in the areas for which they have responsibility. They have to make those important decisions. The same applies to the banning of halls for National Front meetings. It is a matter to be decided locally according to local conditions.
    Mr. David Howell: While it is obviously not for the Minister to intervene with the courts, would she not agree that it is for herself and her ministerial colleagues to give full, continuous and open support for a stronger police force? How does she feel that that squares with the present situation in which the police force in England and Wales is still shrinking?
    Dr. Summerskill: This matter is covered by other Questions. Certainly there is every expectation that when the Edmund-Davies Committee reports, its recommendations will lead to greater recruitment into the police.

    Metropolitan Police (Recruiting)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about recruiting for the Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is

    435
    satisfied with the current level of police recruitment for the metropolitan London area; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am concerned about the serious deficiencies experienced in certain forces, in particular the Metropolitan Police, where total strength at 31st March was 21,859—more than 1,100 more than in March 1974. While pay is not the only factor it is very important, and that is why the review which the Edmund-Davies Committee is carrying out is most important. In addition, the Government have allocated additional sums which will allow about 3,000 more cadets to be recruited this financial year in London and elsewhere, and provision is being made for additional civilian staff to release police officers for operational duties.
    Mr. Goodhart: As the people of London are not receiving adequate protection against crime and violence, and as resignations from the Metropolitan Police have reached record levels, how can the Home Secretary justify present restrictions on Metropolitan Police overtime and the retention of any remaining restrictions on the recruitment of civilian staff to help the police?
    Mr. Rees: In regard to civilian staff, I have said what we are about to do. I have taken no decision on overtime and I would not do so. It is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I invite the hon. Gentleman, as a London Member, to talk to the Commissioner. I support the Commissioner in what he does. It is wrong to put the blame on the Government in regard to overtime. There are more policemen than there were three or four years ago, and when the hon. Gentleman talks as he does about the problem in London he overlards the situation. There is a real problem, but the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a good political issue and he is not concerned about the realities.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trend towards increasing numbers in the Metropolitan Police, small though it is, is very welcome? Has he heard of the proposal, apparently from the Leader of the Tory GLC, that the Metropolitan Police should be put under the control of the GLC? Does my right hon. Friend know whether that is official
    436
    Conservative policy or simply a maverick suggestion?
    Mr. Rees: I cannot speak for Conservative Party policy, but it is polling day today and nothing more will be heard about that proposal after tomorrow morning.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is there not a link between this Question and the attitude of the courts as revealed in reply to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark)? While it is, of course, true that in individual cases specific penalties are a matter for the courts, is it not also a fact that, from time to time, the Lord Chancellor gives appropriate guidance to magistrates and justices? Is this not a case for doing so in view of the deplorable situation revealed by the Under-Secretary's answer to my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Rees: I am not sure how this arises under a Question about the police, but, with regard to advising magistrates about how they should interpret law for which my Department has been responsible. I would not do it.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: I said that the Lord Chancellor should do it.
    Mr. Rees: That is another matter, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion will be passed on. It would be a grave error for the House to interfere with the judiciary in any shape or form. Magistrates must take the decisions themselves.
    I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. It is a matter for the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary and it should remain there, otherwise we should be following a royal path which has been followed in other countries with dire results.
    Mr. Greville Janner: I fully agree with my right hon. Friend's last answer that the job of the judiciary should be left to the judiciary, but does he not feel that recruitment to the police would improve if the job of the police were left to the police and if politicians took decisions on political matters, such as the banning of marches that cause danger to the police and the private citizen?
    Mr. Rees: I would not like to have taken a decision this week in London when nine marches took place. If I had

    437
    made a judgment about those people who were marching and whose views I disagreed with, I would have taken a different decision from that taken by the Commissioner of Police. The judgment that was taken at the weekend was the right one. There were marches in all parts of London and they passed off with remarkable peacefulness. Other parts of the world could well look at that. It is not a job for a Home Secretary, and it is certainly not a job for a local authority.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Reverting to the question of recruitment, will the Home Secretary draw to the attention of the Edmund-Davies Committee two facts that he has given to the House this week? First, while the retail price index has shot up by 108 per cent., the pay of senior constables has increased by only 75 per cent. Secondly, policemen are quitting the service at the rate of one sub-division—120 men—every working week.
    In view of these facts, will the Home Secretary give an assurance that when the Edmund-Davies Committee reports and recommends an increase in police pay, it will not be treated in the same shabby fashion as the Armed Forces were treated after their independent pay review?
    Mr. Rees: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about the Armed Services and the recommendations made by the Review Body. I have told the Edmund-Davies Committee on behalf of the Government that we shall accept what it says. I say to the hon. Gentleman, with his other quite proper responsibilities, that I have stated on behalf of the Government that I will accept whatever the Edmund-Davies Committee puts forward. I hope that those who have given evidence to it will accept its report in the same way, because there may be some recommendations made by it which will not necessarily be highly regarded by police forces in all parts of the country.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The Home Secretary will have heard his Under-Secretary say that she placed great reliance upon the report of the Edmund-Davies Committee for stemming the losses in the police force. I agree with her about that, as I am sure the whole House would agree. If that were the case, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us when the Edmund-Davies Committee is likely
    438
    to report, since, clearly, from what the Under-Secretary has said, this is a matter of considerable urgency? Second, if that report is to lead to the results which the Under-Secretary wants, does the Home Secretary agree that much will depend upon the way in which the Government decide to implement the report when it comes?
    Mr. Rees: The implementation will be from 1st September, the beginning of the pay year. It cannot be implemented before then, whatever happens. When the report comes, much will depend on the length of time between then and the date of implementation. Orders have to be made. They need not necessarily be made while the House is sitting. We have looked into all these eventualities. Our job is to implement the report. The Edmund-Davies solution will be far better than 10 per cent. plus something which we were being asked to provide last year. The report will provide a fundamental review of police pay, which is something the Police Federation greatly welcomes.
    Mr. Whitelaw: When will the report be made?
    Mr. Rees: I have explained that there is time to make the orders in the recess, if needs be. I am not prepared to tell Lord Edmund-Davies the speed at which he should work. Lord Edmund-Davies wants to provide a report that will stand the test of time. That may take a long time rather than a short time. The committee feels that to bring forward something that is slipshod would be bad for the police. I agree.

    British Nationality Act
    Mr. Channonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has had to amend the British Nationality Act.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Since the beginning of this year I have received 39 letters from representative bodies and others, commenting on some of the suggestions put forward for discussion in the Green Paper on nationality law published in April 1977.
    Mr. Channon: Does the Home Secretary recognise that the British Nationality Act, which was passed in 1948, is now

    439
    wholly out of date, a fact widely recognised on both sides of the House? Since the Government's Green Paper was issued over a year ago, may I ask the Home Secretary to tell us when the Government propose to take action?
    Mr. Rees: There certainly will not be legislation soon. It was rushed in 1943. That was based on years of development, but it has not worked out in the way that the then Government thought it would. I thought that the Opposition could help us. The right hon. Member for Pennth and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who leads for the Opposition on these matters, made a speech recently saying that a Bill was ready, or nearly ready, to be put forward if the Conservatives had won the 1974 General Election. What an excellent idea that is. Why should we not see it? That would enable us to move much more quickly. The right hon. Gentleman prefers not to do it that way. I think it would be a good idea if we could see it.
    Mr. Edward Lyons: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that in any new Act there should be transitional provisions to protect all existing rights of people living in Britain at the time the new legislation comes into force?
    Mr. Rees: I said in the Green Paper that that would be the case. What is desirable is that we should have a concept of citizenship in this country that is not based upon nationality or upon the concept of an empire that is now over. I remember, and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will remember, that this was the view we expressed in 1971.
    Mr. Powell indicated assent.
    Mr. Rees: If that had been done, we would not have had the nonsense of patriality, which is meaningless—except in law—in the sense that it is not based on anything that is sensible.

    New Commonwealth Ethnic Population
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what estimates of the proportion of the New Commonwealth ethnic population to the whole in Inner London and in England at the end of the century he based his
    440
    replies to hon. Members on 6th April 1978.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I had principally in mind the estimate that the proportion of our population of New Commonwealth and Pakistani ethnic origin was less than 3½ per cent. in 1976. I also took into account projections of figures for later this century.
    Mr. Powell: If the Home Secretary cannot be more precise than that, how can he assure the House that the problem at the end of the century will be "very small", to use his own words? Is he aware that the evidence of the registration of births bears out the view expressed many years ago by one of his predecessors in office that this population would represent up to one-third or more of the population of some of the principal cities in England?
    Mr. Rees: The point about the concentration in certain areas does not arise out of projections concerning the size of the population at the end of the century, except in so far as the right hon. Gentleman has raised it in his Question. That is unrelated to the size of the population at the end of the century. Estimates of the size of population have been made, but they are only intelligent guesses. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the fertility rate of those who come here changes in accord with the social patterns of this country. When they come here, they tend to be young and, therefore, the birth rate tends to be high. This is true of any estimate that is made, on the evidence of Professor Brass or even on the evidence of Franks. Since Franks, I notice that the position has been corrected.
    The right hon. Gentleman asks how I can know that the problem at the end of the century will be relatively small. I put a similar question to him. How can he know that it will be relatively large at the end of the century? The discussion must be between us. I believe that it will be relatively small on the evidence that we now have.

    RHODESIA
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Prime Minister if he now has any plans to visit Rhodesia.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have no plans to visit Rhodesia.
    Mr. Winterton: When the Prime Minister finds the courage to visit Rhodesia, may I ask him whether he is aware that he will find a country which is prosperous and peaceful, where black, brown and white people live and work together? Will he therefore support the internal settlement, which, for all its possible deficiencies, is a dramatic advance on the situation 12 months ago and which will lead to black majority rule at the end of the year? Or is the Prime Minister—
    Mr. John Mendelson: Speech.
    Mr. Winterton: —wishing to see the hammer and sickle of Soviet-Marxist motivated and manipulated tyranny stamped on yet another African country?
    The Prime Minister: That seems to be more a declaration of faith than a question. The position is clear for the Government. I would go part of the way with the hon. Gentleman in saying that the position has advanced a lot since 12 months ago. It is a pity that what has happened did not happen 12 months ago, and it is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman was not encouraging people to go as far as that 12 months ago. What is also pretty clear is that this internal advance does not act as a substitute for the Anglo-American proposals and that the internal advance is certainly not sufficient to reconcile some of the most prominent nationalists in Zimbabwe. The best thing is that they should get together, preferably on the basis of the proposals that we have made, to try to ensure peaceful progress for the new Zimbabwe on the basis of majority rule.
    Sir G. de Freitas: Will my right hon. Friend, if he has the chance, remind the blacks and whites concerned, inside and outside Rhodesia, that today, 15 years after the independence of Kenya, blacks and whites live and work together under the rule of law under a black Government in Kenya?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has considerable experience on this matter, having been High Commissioner in Kenya and responsible in the early days for much of the progress that
    442
    took place. I hope that what he has said will be heard in Salisbury.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: In the time that the Prime Minister saves by not visiting Rhodesia, may I ask him to consider the idea of using some now disused open prisons, as weekend prisons for adult offenders—a matter about which I wrote to the Home Secretary? [Interruption.] Does he accept—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I could not hear the hon. Lady properly. Was she asking about Rhodesia?
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I was asking about the time the Prime Minister is saving by not visiting Rhodesia and seeking to ask the Prime Minister a question which I have already put to the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Fairbairn: On the subject of Rhodesia, may I ask the Prime Minister to direct his attention to those black people there whom the hunger campaigns are trying to help and who are not receiving financial assistance from the British Government? Could he tell us, now that events have advanced as much as they have, whether the Government are willing to give aid for Freedom From Hunger in Rhodesia, which is working for black people, since to deny it on political grounds to such people but not to deny it to the people of Vietnam on political grounds seems an indescribable discrimination?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised an important question. There is to be a debate on Rhodesia today, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be able to say something about it then.
    Mr. Whitehead: As one of the places where black and white seem unable to work together in Rhodesia is in the interim Government under the so-called internal settlement, will my right hon. Friend seek an early opportunity to see the Minister who was so peremptorily dismissed from that Government, who can tell him and the House what a mockery the settlement is?
    The Prime Minister: I do not wish to intervene in this matter. If my right hon. Friend thinks it necessary to see him, I am sure that he will do so.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (SPEECH)
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy to the conference of the Institute for Workers' Control in Sheffield on 16th April regarding the influence of the trade unions on the Government represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did not speak from a text, and I understand that he made no statement of policy, but he did discuss some future possible roles for trade unions in matters of plant closures, the organisation of higher income groups, industrial investment and accountability.
    Mr. Latham: When the Prime Minister next tries to persuade British business men that the Government are not totally hostile to them, will he admit that the Secretary of State, in his speech to that extreme Left-wing organisation, said that trade unionism was an essential part of an alternative strategy of workers' control? Is that the Prime Minister's view as well?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen that statement, so I am unable to comment on it. But I do not think that all these matters need detailed textual examination. The hon. Gentleman's question is about the influence of the trade unions on the Government. My answer is that the trade unions, like anyone else who talks sense, have influence on the Government. Indeed, sometimes even the Opposition might.
    Mrs. Castle: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a far more urgent question concerning energy supply is the effect of the steep increase in electricity prices on those who have to live in all-electric homes, as thousands of my constituents do? Will he give an assurance that next winter the Government will renew the winter fuel rebate and extend it to a much larger number of people?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the consequences of having turned the electricity generating and supplying authorities into bodies that are capable of supporting themselves and of financing their own new investment, and that this has
    444
    borne hardly on some people. I understand that that period is now over and that the extent of further increases will depend on the extent to which we can curb inflation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is right to call attention to the great help that has been given through the fuel abatement scheme, and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to come forward with new proposals on how he plans to handle next winter.
    Mr. Pardoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that although the Secretary of State for Energy spoke from notes, his speech was reported fairly extensively in the Press? Does he recognise that in this matter of workers' control, as in most others, his own son-in-law is a far wiser man than the Secretary of State for Energy? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his son-in-law has suggested that we need workers' control in order to counteract over-strong trade unionism? That is precisely the opposite of the view expressed by the Secretary of State. Which view does the Prime Minister accept?
    The Prime Minister: I am always being asked to impale myself on some Morton's fork or other and decline to do so. The Government will shortly be publishing our views on industrial democracy. I regard it as a very important next step to take, and I hope that the House will give the matter very full consideration when our views are made known.

    STREATHAM
    Mr. William Sheltonasked the Prime Minister if he plans to make an official visit to Streatham.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to visit Streatham.
    Mr. Shelton: As the Prime Minister is no doubt aware, polling is taking place today in the local government elections. Is he aware that a considerable number of Left-wing extremists are standing as official Labour Party candidates and that, as a result, the Labour leader of the council, in a statement to the Press last week, said that he feared the outcome might be
    "a Marxist dictatorship in the borough"?

    445
    Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to warn the people of Lambeth?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should go and do some canvassing if he holds views as strongly as that.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might be a pleasant surprise for Streatham to have a change in that area, even if it was Marxist?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance, but I make it clear that I do not believe that a Marxist Streatham would be any better than the present Conservative Streatham.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister himself used to speak to the nation of infiltrators into his own party who used the party for their own ends. Will he, therefore take this opportunity to condemn Marxism wherever it occurs in the Labour Party?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Lady is making some interesting excursions into political philosophy, but she really should begin to learn that China, too, her current hero, is a Marxist State.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Why is the right hon. Gentleman incapable of giving a straight answer to a straight question on political parties in this country? Will he condemn Marxism wherever it occurs in his party? I condemn it everywhere.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I regard the right hon. Lady's question as too silly to address myself to.
    Mr. Canavan: Reverting to the theme of local elections, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the Scottish local election results earlier this week, when, contrary to the predictions—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a long way from Streatham. [HON. MEMBERS: "So was China."] Yes, I know that China, too, is a long way from Streatham.
    Mr. Canavan: As the people of Streatham are voting in their local elections today, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the Scottish local election
    446
    result earlier this week, when, contrary to the predictions of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), the Labour Party secured a significant dual victory by not only thumping the Tories but also hammering another nail into the coffin of the Scottish National Party?

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Loydenasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4th May.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House. I shall be holding further meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Mayor of Delhi. I also hope to attend a reception being given by the Prime Minister of Guyana.
    Mr. Loyden: Will my right hon. Friend take some time today to look at Early-Day Motion No. 392, standing in my names and the names of my hon. Friends regarding the pay of industrial civil servants? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should be a model good employer? Is he aware of the outrageous conditions which in some cases prevail in Government employ?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is "Yes". I think that the Government should be in the first flight of employers. I hope that my hon. Friend will address the second part to the appropriate Civil Service Departments which, I am sure, will look into it—and the Civil Service unions will no doubt seek to negotiate improvements.
    Mr. MeCrindle: Can the Prime Minister find time today to telephone Mr. Peter Parker and congratulate him on the better results from British Rail over the last year, and express the hope that some of that money might be devoted to maintaning the level of commuter fares rather than that the colossal burden of recent years should continue—and perhaps that some might even be devoted to improving the reliability and quality of commuter trains?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I will telephone Mr. Parker on that

    447
    matter, but I will certainly pass on to the Secretary of State for Transport what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend find some time today to send a rather sharp note to the Shadow spokesman on defence who has accused him of telling lies? Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is exceedingly honoured, as usually that right hon. Gentleman accuses only the dead?
    The Prime Minister: I have a feeling that we might as well leave this correspondence where it was. I was quite happy with the result of it.
    Mr. Watt: Will the Prime Minister find time during the day to have a quick look at the report of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee on the fishing industry, in which it recommends that the Minister of Agriculture should stand firm on the demand for a 50-mile limit for fishermen? Will the Prime Minister assure his colleague that the entire Cabinet takes that view?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he can be quite certain that my right hon. Friend will continue to fight the battle as he has done on behalf of our fishermen.
    Mr. Dalyell: When the Prime Minister meets the Prime Minister of Guyana, will he make it clear that the British Government are against any ceding by Belize of territory to Guatemala?
    The Prime Minister: I have discussed this matter with the Prime Minister of Guyana and I think that we both understand the position very well.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House 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 8TH MAY—Progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.
448
TUESDAY 9TH MAY—Third Reading of the Wales Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10TH MAY—Further progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 11TH MAY—Second Reading of the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Bill. Command Paper No. 7188 on the British Steel Corporation and EEC Document R/540/78 will be relevant.
Remaining stages of the Co-operative Development Agency Bill.
FRIDAY 12TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 15TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, motion relating to the Town and Country Planning (Windscale and Calder Works) Special Development Order.
The House may wish to know that, subject to progress of business, it is hoped to propose that the Spring Adjournment will be from Friday 26th May until Tuesday 6th June.
Mrs. Thatcher: Is it the Lord President's intention before we rise for Whitsun to provide a day's debate on the Armed Forces' pay award?
Mr. Foot: I shall certainly look at the representation made by the right hon. Lady, but I cannot give any guarantee at the moment.
Mr. Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that very large numbers of children have been very seriously damaged by hormone pregnancy test drugs and that the committee on the safety of medicines has been negligent, after warnings of the dangers were given publicly, and that the Department of Health and Social Security is covering up vital information which is of very great importance to this House?
In view of these allegations, which are very serious, and in view of the fact that the Secretary of State has rejected four demands for a public inquiry into these serious allegations, is it not possible to have a debate on the issue next week?
Mr. Foot: I shall look at what my hon. Friend has said, without, of course, accepting any of his allegations.
Mr. Pym: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House how he will help the House in the matter of parliamentary papers, in particular the printing of Hansard for the last four days of the Budget debate?
The right hon. Gentleman has announced that there is to be progress on the Finance Bill in Committee next week. It is extremely difficult to conduct that exercise as it should be conducted on the basis of heavily amended copies of Hansard. All hon. Member would wish to have properly printed and fully prepared copies of Hansard before the weekend so that they can attend to their business on Monday in the proper manner.
Mr. Foot: I fully acknowledge to the right hon. Gentleman the inconvenience to the House which arises from this situation. As I told the House on 13th April, the industrial difficulties at the St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press are currently the subject of a conciliation exercise conducted by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
The House authorities will continue to do everything in their power to ensure that hon. Members have those papers necessary for the conduct of the business of the House. I understand that these will include the material relating to the Budget contained in the outstanding issues of Hansard for 12th, 13th and 17th April, which will be available by Monday and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Mellish: First, on a non-party point, will my right hon. Friend say when it is likely that we shall have the legislation required to deal with Members' pensions? Will it come before Whitsun?
Secondly, recognising that we as Members of Parliament are always the very last in any pay queue, will my right hon. Friend say when we are likely to get an increase in salary?
Mr. Foot: Under the 12-month rule, the date for the increase in the salary of Members of Parliament would be in the middle of June, and we shall, of course, bring forth proposals to the House to deal with that aspect of the matter. As I have indicated to other hon. Members who have raised the matter with me previously, the question of the Bill to deal
450
with parliamentary pensions is another matter. Of course, we must bring it forward. I am committed to bringing it forward in this Session of Parliament. I cannot say that we shall necessarily be able to present it before the Whitsun Recess, but we are committed to bringing it forward in this Session.
Mr. Jopling: As the Leader of the House has now told us when the debate on Windscale will be, will he give us an assurance that we shall know what the Goverment intend to do about Mr. Justice Parker's recommendations before that debate takes place?
Mr. Foot: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Perhaps I may underline to the House that the debate will take place on Monday 15th May. It is the case that the order will have run out by that time, but we are making arrangements that those who have sponsored the Early-Day Motion will be able to make the latter motion effective on that date. There will be a longer time, therefore, for the debate than there would have been if it had been solely on the order, under the one and a half hours procedure. I hope that that arrangement will meet the undertakings that we have given to the House in order that we should have the full possibility for the House to debate the matter.
[That an humble address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (Windscale and Calder Works) Special Development Order 1978 (S.1. 1978, No. 523), dated 3rd April 1978, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd April, be annulled.]
Mr. Terry Walker: Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to having a debate before the Spring Bank Holiday Recess on the future production programme of British Aerospace? This is an urgent matter which needs looking at because of the fact that British Airways is pressing to buy foreign aircraft, and we must know which aircraft are to be produced by our own State-run industry.
Mr. Foot: I cannot give a promise of a debate, although I fully recognise the importance of the matter raised by my hon. Friend. Representations are made on the subject to the Minister who is responsible. I cannot give a promise of

451
an early debate, but I will certainly look at the matter raised by my hon. Friend.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call those hon. Members who have been standing up. I have a very long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the main debate. It includes six Privy Councillors. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will be as brief as possible.
Mr. Tebbit: On the subject raised by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), will the Lord President say whether he believes that the passage of the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill would enable a case to be made for a productivity rise in hon. Members' salaries this year?
Mr. Foot: I am sure that the people of the whole of the United Kingdom are very glad to see the excellent progress made with those Bills, and I am very glad to accept the hon. Gentleman's congratulations.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will the Leader of the House accept the gratitude of those who have signed the Prayer against the Windscale order for having made arrangements for the order to be debated, and to be debated outside the normal framework for an order? Is he aware that over 50 hon. Members have now signed that Prayer and that many of them are anxious to speak in the debate? Will he consider exempting the debate on the order for one hour after 10 p.m.?
Mr. Foot: We have provided a longer time than usual and I thought that it was meeting the general representations that we had from the House before. Under the proposals that we are now making, there would be a three-hour debate. I do not think that it would be helpful for the House as a whole to alter that arrangement, but if representations were made from different parts of the House, I would take them into account and we would take some time to consider it. But, on the whole, I believe that the best way to proceed is along the lines that I have indicated, and to have the debate and the vote at 10 o'clock on the Monday.
Mr. Hastings: Has the Leader of the House noted Early-Day Motion No. 322
452
in my name and the names of some 100 right hon. and hon. Members, which was put down just before Easter, on the subject of the need to preserve good agricultural land and the alarming rate of its loss at the present time? Will he do his best to arrange a debate on the subject?
[That this House, gravely concerned at the continuing annual loss of between 40,000 and 50,000 acres of agricultural land in Great Britain to urban development or mineral extraction, and noting that a very large acreage of derelict or unused land is available for development in urban areas, much of it already owned by public authorities, and welcoming the increased emphasis placed on the revitalisation of inner cities, believes that the preservation of agricultural land should be regarded as one of the highest priorities in deciding upon planning applications submitted by public or private sector developers; and that the Ministry of Agriculture should take a much more active role in preventing further land loss.]
Mr. Foot: There have been some debates on agriculture in fairly recent days. I cannot give an immediate promise of a debate on agriculture generally, but I shall look at the possibilities. No doubt, there will be occasions when the matter will arise. However, I repeat, there was a debate on general agricultural matters only a few weeks ago.
Mr. Ted Fletcher: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to Early-Day Motion No. 400, now signed by about 150 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, asking for time to be given to complete the remaining stages of the two Bills relating to employment protection? Is he now in a position to make a statement to the House on this matter?
[That this House considers that it is urgent and important to remedy some defects which have appeared in the operation of the Employment Protection Act 1975 and which have handicapped the work of the Advisory, Conciliation and Advisory Service and have limited the protection which the Act is designed to give to workers; and therefore urges Her Majesty's Government to provide time for the remaining stages of the Employment Protection Bill and the Employment Protection(Amendment) Bill.]
Mr. Foot: I am not in a position to make a statement on the matter, but I have certainly noted the motion in the name of my hon. Friend and the very strong backing that he has received for that motion. We have still some days of Private Members' time before the House and I think that we should await those before making any further decision. I have no doubt that other representations will also be made.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that after fairly long experience in the House I believe that the people of this country do much better when Members of Parliament, and Parliament itself, have a long Recess? Under the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends, government has got worse as holidays have got shorter. Will he give us three weeks' holiday at Whitsun, instead of one week, because that will benefit the country greatly?
Mr. Foot: I shall certainly view the hon. Gentleman's suggestion more sympathetically than I have viewed pretty well any other proposal that I have heard him make in the House. Even so, I doubt whether I shall be able to meet it.
Mr. Greville Janner: As a General Election is likely, at least within the next 17 months, has not the time come when we ought to have a debate on General Election arrangements, including permitted expenses and deposits? Can my right hon. Friend say when it is proposed to reconvene Mr. Speaker's Conference?
Mr. Foot: There is no proposal to reconvene Mr. Speaker's Conference at present. But certainly the other matter raised by my hon. Friend is a matter to which the House will have to direct its attention in the fairly near future. I do not say that it can cover all the subjects that he has raised, but it should cover some of them.
Mr. Farr: In view of the shortened recess, can the Leader of the House assure us that he will introduce immediately after the recess a Bill to give effect to the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference relating to the electoral position in Northern Ireland? This
454
is a much-needed Bill. It is urgently required and it need be only a short one.
Mr. Foot: I do not think that I have anything to add to what the Prime Minister said on this subject a week or so ago. The premise made by the hon. Gentleman—that this is an especially short recess—is not the case. There have been a number of occasions when the Whitsun Recess has been even shorter—if I may put it that way—than that which we are now proposing.
Mr. Canavan: Can we have a debate, or at least a statement, about the proposed Lonrho takeover of SUITS, which should not be allowed to go ahead, especially when the Director of Public Prosecutions is still considering the Department of Trade report about the activities of Lonrho in Africa and the vice-chairman of SUITS is still to face criminal charges in the Scottish courts?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate, but I shall look at the whole question that my hon. Friend has raised to see whether I should discuss it with the Minister responsible.
Mr. Fairbairn: Now that Afghanistan is the latest portion of the earth—and the people of Afghanistan are the latest people—to be overwhelmed by a bloody tryanny in the name of international Socialism, can we have an urgent debate on the implications for the West of this latest advance of Russian tyranny?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an early debate on this subject. I have no doubt that hon. Members who wish to raise the matter in the House can do so.

BILL PRESENTED
  HOMES INSULATION
  Mr. Secretary Shore supported by Mr. Secretary Benn, Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Joel Barnett and Mr. Reginald Freeson presented a Bill to provide for local authority grants towards the thermal insulation of dwellings; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 121,]

  RHODESIA
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  3.45 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): The central issue facing Rhodesia at this moment, and therefore facing this House—since we still have constitutional responsibility for Rhodesia—is how to end the fighting which currently ravages that country. The extent of the fighting is not often understood. To the casual observer based in Salisbury it appears that the country is relatively stable and peaceful, but one does not have to look very far beyond Salisbury to realise that Rhodesia is torn by a war which makes whole tracts of the country answerable to the authority of whichever fighting forces happen to be operating in the area at any given moment.
  So far this fighting has been a fight for independence, for freedom—a fight to end the rule of a minority white regime and replace this with a majority government. So far, despite the differences between the black nationalist leaders which have bedevilled the resolution of the Rhodesian problem, the differences have not led to organised open fighting between the nationalists. There have been many and varied differences of policy. There have been personality conflicts and clashes, but until now there has never been fighting organised between, on the one hand, one section of black nationalist leaders and, on the other, the Patriotic Front.
  The grave danger which could face Rhodesia in the coming months is that the fighting will change from a traditional liberation struggle into a genuine civil war with fighting taking place between nationalist leaders in the name of a particular path towards independence and freedom. If this happens, and one section of black nationalist leadership is identified with the white minority regime, there is a very grave danger that the other black nationalist leadership—the Patriotic Front—will seek support in its struggle, not just from countries sympathetic to its cause in Africa but also from countries outside Africa.
  456
  I do not believe that the Patriotic Front wishes to be placed in such a situation. It has constantly said that it does not want other people to fight battles for it. I have no doubt, that the front-line States do not wish this escalation of the conflict and internationalising of the war. I have no doubt that South Africa does not wish to see this escalation of the conflict or internationalising of the war. It is because many of the countries surrounding Rhodesia, holding differing political views and different forms of government, are aware of the gravity of the current situation that I have recently found growing support for Britain and the United States to continue their efforts towards a negotiated settlement.
  It is because people in Southern Africa are only too well aware of the consequences of our giving up our attempt to achieve a negotiated settlement that they believe that we should continue. Some believe that we should do so because they believe the internal settlement to be fatally flawed, wrong in concept, objectionable in character and that it should be condemned outright. Some believe that we should pursue our negotiations because, though they support some aspects of the internal settlement, they fear that it may not be sufficient and that it may not be able to achieve the necessary acceptance from the people of Rhodesia as a whole. Some wish us to continue because they believe, as I believe, that the principles of the negotiated settlement which we have been struggling to achieve for the last year are in themselves right, sound and capable of bringing about an independent Zimbabwe in peaceful and stable circumstances.
  Whatever, therefore, the motives of the people who wish us to continue our search for a negotiated settlement, I have no doubt that it is the responsibility of the British Government, with the United States Government, to continue, despite all the difficulties, to try to bring about an agreement which would permit elections under conditions of a ceasefire or, if this is unattainable, to achieve such a measure of political agreement between all the parties as would permit a genuine test of opinion of the people of Zimbabwe.
  The history of liberation struggles wherever they have taken place—and this House has had many debates about them,

  457
  whether in the past over Africa, India, Cyprus, or the Middle East—demonstrates clearly that the error of successive British Governments over many decades has never been in taking too much notice of those fighting for their freedom but repeatedly of taking too little notice of the freedom movements and feeling that their aspirations and their motivation can be brushed aside. Time and again, this House of Commons has witnessed debates where previous Foreign Secretaries or other Ministers—charged with the responsibility of trying to bring about peaceful settlements and independence to the peoples of differing countries—have been attacked for a readiness to talk to people who have been variously described as terrorists or guerrillas. Time and again, those people so described have gone on to lead their countries and have often lived to find their names spoken of in this House with respect and honour.
  I do not, therefore, seek to justify my readiness to negotiate with all the parties to the dispute in Rhodesia. I am confident that time and history will show that it is right and inevitable that I should do so. I intend to focus on the outstanding issues which have to be resolved before a negotiated settlement can be achieved. The risks of failure, as I have already indicated, are terrifying for their consequences and, though I cannot guarantee success, the one thing I can guarantee to this House is that were the British Government and the United States Government to give up now our current attempt to negotiate a settlement, the consequences that I fear would be immediate and grave. This is no idle threat, no irresponsible judgment, but a sober recognition of the realities of the situation.
  Let this House be clear, let the country be clear, and let the world be clear, that the British Government have no intention of giving up their attempt to achieve a negotiated settlement. We will not change the present situation of illegality in Rhodesia nor recognise any Government there until we are satisfied, and this House is satisfied, that what has been achieved is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. Nor shall we contemplate, before being so satisfied, the lifting of economic sanctions. For us to recognise the internal settlement, as some irresponsibly now urge, would be for Britain to go back on the Fifth Principle to which successive Governments have honourably held.
  458
  In 1971 and 1972, the then Conservative Government, even though they had negotiated an arrangement direct with Mr. Smith, felt that in order to fulfil the Fifth Principle, the acceptability of their negotiations should be measured by the Pearce Commission. Many people in Africa and some even in this House questioned whether the then Government would accept the view of the Pearce Commission. Many people wondered whether the Pearce Commission would be so arranged that it would be impossible to come to a contrary view. It is to the credit of that Government and of this House of Commons that we honoured the Fifth Principle then.
  When the Commission reported, the settlement did not have the support of the people of Rhodesia. When it became apparent that the majority of the 5 million people who lived in the tribal trust-lands did not support the agreement, the Government refused to recognise the regime or to lift sanctions.
  We learned then, or we should have learned, that the people of Rhodesia as a whole do not reside in Salisbury. They do not have access to the media. They are largely a rural population who are quite capable of making up their mind whether the form of government offered to them represents their true aspirations for majority rule.
  In 1972, the then Government were not prepared to recognise the regime until not only the proposals had been shown to be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia but the necessary changes had been made to the Rhodesian constitution and the process which they believed would lead to majority rule had been started. How can it now be seriously argued that Britain should, in the midst of a major conflict which clearly demonstrates a divided nation, unilaterally and in direct contravention of the Fifth Principle recognise the internal settlement and lift sanctions? It would be utterly wrong to do so. It would leave Britain with barely a friend in the world, discredited and despised. It would also, even more importantly, be a betrayal of the people of Rhodesia as a whole. We owe to them a debt of honour, and it is a debt which I intend to discharge.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: What form of government does the Foreign Secretary anticipate

  459
  history would record and our debt of honour would reward if Mr. Nkomo or Mr. Mugabe were to form a Government either by force of arms or by election?
  Dr. Owen: It is crucial that they form a Government, if they were to be chosen by the people of Zimbabwe, as a result of an election and not by force of arms.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Then what?
  Dr. Owen: It is a central objective of mine that the transition period during the period up to that election is one which will allow that election result to stick permanently and not to be overthrown. That is an extremely important reason why we need a stable transition period.
  We have no debts or obligations to individuals or to parties in Rhodesia, and I think that that answers the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). We have never had any interest in choosing between the different black nationalist leaderships. That is for the people of Rhodesia to decide. But we owe to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, black and white, the opportunity to become free citizens of an independent Zimbabwe in a way which they find acceptable.
  At Question Time today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked what humanitarian assistance—I assumed what was meant was humanitarian assistance through the voluntary agencies—we could give to the victims of the war in Rhodesia. This is an issue which has been concerning me for some time. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will, subject to parliamentary approval, provide £238,000 for relief work within Rhodesia as part of her programme of assistance to those affected by the political situation in Southern Africa. This money will be used to support Christian Care, an organisation established by the Churches within Rhodesia in 1967 and which provides assistance to the families of detainees and the families of those executed by the regime and which also helps to rehabilitate ex-detainees and war victims. The money will be channelled through the International Universities Exchange Fund, for whom my right hon. Friend is also providing scholarships. Other Government support, Christian Care through the International Uni-
  460
  versities Exchange Fund, voluntary bodies such as the International Defence and Aid Fund, Oxfam, and Christian Aid also provide money for it, and the grant from Her Majesty's Government will provide about 17 per cent. of Christian Care's budget this year.
  I believe that this is the right way to deal with a very genuine problem of humanitarian assistance and how it can be channelled effectively to those concerned.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I welcome, applaud and am grateful for the assistance which my right hon. Friend has announced. Will he also recognise that there are many refugees who have had to flee to Mozambique and to neighbouring Zambia? What assistance will my right hon. Friend provide for them?
  Dr. Owen: We have already provided assistance for them, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will gladly give details to the House of the way in which we have tried to channel humanitarian assistance as fairly as we can between all the differing sections in the community.
  I have made it clear on numerous occasions, not just to this House but in all my negotiations and to the world, that Britain will honour the Six Principles. Even now, faced by an internal settlement which we believe to be inadequate, which causes us many anxieties and which gives us grave doubts, were such a settlement to be demonstrably acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, despite the fact that it means continuation of the armed conflict, were elections to be conducted which were seen by this House of Commons to be fair and free, and were a new Government to be installed with a new constitution which was clearly acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, we would be bound to honour our commitment.
  However, we face a situation where it is far from clear that the internal agreement is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. There are conflicts within Rhodesia, as the dismissal over the last few days of Mr. Byron Hove clearly demonstrates. The armed struggle itself continues, and it is a brave man and, I would suggest to this House, a foolish man who would put his hand on his heart and say that the internal agreement is

  461
  acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. It is not for us to make this judgment, anyhow; it is for the people of Rhodesia. The world will watch closely to see whether, after an initial response by the liberation fighters, the appeal from Salisbury to lay down their arms and support the internal agreement, the process continues. At present, both sides are expressing confidence in their own position and in their own influence over the liberation forces, although Bishop Muzorewa's UANC clearly do not think nearly enough has been done. In this atmosphere, it may well take some weeks before either side is willing to consider compromising previously held positions.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Without recognising the internal settlement, will the Foreign Secretary say whether he agrees and supports the appeal of the internal Governments to the guerrillas to lay down their arms?
  Dr. Owen: I should like to end all the fighting. I do not believe that the way to resolve the issue is through armed struggle. I have made that clear on numerous occasions. However, the way to deal with this situation is to try to negotiate a settlement, and that means that I have to try to talk to people who, obviously, at this moment will not lay down their arms.
  For us in this House, for the British Government and the United States Government, our task is not to waver from our objective, which is a negotiated ceasefire and arrangements for a transitional administration which will allow fair and free elections and the emergence as soon as possible of an independent Zimbabwe.
  Despite shifting alliances among the parties and various swings of optimism and pessimism reflected in the day-to-day reporting from Rhodesia, it is our task to hold to the principles which we believe can bring about a negotiated settlement. The emphasis on a negotiation among all the parties to the dispute is the essence of the Anglo-American plan. The details of that plan have already been modified in negotiations from that set out in Command 6919 which was published on 1st September last year. I am not, and never have been, attached to all the details of our proposals. The only reason that we felt it necessary to put specific and detailed proposals on the table was
  462
  the inability of the parties to come together and compromise and negotiate.
  Since 1st September we have seen steady movement towards some of the fundamental principles incorporated within the Anglo-American plan. Far from the plan being dead, I see an underlying trend which is steadily moving towards an independent Zimbabwe as a result of free and fair elections. I have placed in the Library the working documents which we gave to all the parties in February. Since then we have had further detailed discussions in March and in April, and I intend to outline to the House those areas upon which we must concentrate if we are to achieve a negotiated settlement.
  Under the Anglo-American plan it was always envisaged that sanctions would be lifted at the start of the transitional period. In order to achieve international support for the lifting of sanctions, we had to ensure the irreversibility of the process towards independence. This irreversibility is fundamental if we are to satisfy others that sanctions should be lifted and that recognition should be given to any Government.
  Under the internal settlement, there is no such guarantee of irreversibility, no transfer of power and no ceasefire. The commitment to an early election under universal suffrage is crucial, as is the undertaking to release detainees and to start the process of registering voters. Regrettably, however, there is anxiety that it is the wish of some inside Rhodesia to postpone the date so recently fixed for elections and independence for the end of the year.
  I note that the UANC has commented that the release of detainees has been only a "partial measure" and that, according to reports reaching it, nothing has been done to create, in the tribal trustlands, a climate conducive to holding free elections. The UANC has also pointed out that moves have not yet been made to end racial discrimination and that—and I quote—
  "If it is expected that the guerrillas should respond to the call for a ceasefire, it must be shown, tangibly, that if they returned home they would not suffer the same racial humiliation and disabilities under which they lived before they took to the bush."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members opposite may say "rubbish", but that is what Bishop Muzorewa's

  463
  organisation thinks at the moment, and we should take this into account.
  Mr. Julian Amery: The Foreign Secretary talks about guarantees of irreversibility. These do not exist in politics. What guarantee of irreversibility was there when we gave independence to Uganda on a democratic basis?
  Dr. Owen: The task is to ensure that the transitional period will lead to an election, and one of the ways of getting as good a guarantee as possible—and I agree there are no perfect guarantees in this world—is to ensure the presence of the United Nations throughout the process. The United Nations would be observers of the election and would be committed to the election process, the lifting of sanctions, and the recognition of the Government. That is a concrete way of achieving a fundamental guarantee. This was one of the issues underlying the proposal to bring Namibia to independence. By having United Nations involvement there is a guarantee that Namibia will have elections that will be recognised by the UN. This enabled the South African Government to overcome their understandable reservations about certain aspects of the proposal.
  Against this backgronnd of danger and uncertainty it is easy to despair. It is easy to think that there is no prospect of a negotiated settlement. It is easy just to want to give up. I believe, however, that, as so often in these types of negotiations, as more people become aware of the precipice in front, there is a tendency to start making the necessary compromises to achieve agreement. Nothing I have heard over the last few weeks makes me change my conviction that round-table talks are necessary as soon as we can ensure a reasonable chance of success at those talks.
  I have no wish to repeat the experience of Geneva. I am determined to try to lay the necessary basis for successful talks by careful and detailed preparation beforehand. I do not wish to pretend that this will be easy, but the areas of agreement are now sufficiently clear for us to have a reasonable chance of building on them and, providing that all the parties will be ready to negotiate without preconditions, quietly and in detail, we could prep are for successful talks. We have had
  464
  in recent months enough public meetings with extensive television and Press coverage. We are now in a position where we can best make progress by careful preparation on the ground.
  The Patriotic Front, whilst reserving its negotiating positions on a number of important points, has expressed a readiness to come to the talks and the parties in Salisbury, though expressing considerable reservations about whether future talks will contribute to a negotiated settlement, would, I believe, be ready to participate if they could be convinced of their value.
  I have therefore decided, in consultation with the American Secretary of State, to send Mr. John Graham, the Deputy Under-Secretary in the Foreign Office concerned with African affairs, to Africa to work with the United States Ambassador to Zambia, Mr. Stephen Low, and to stay there for as long as is necessary to carry out the preparatory work for successful round-table talks.
  Both will have to travel together extensively in order to keep in continuous contact with all the parties. Their task will be to work towards round-table talks at which Mr. Vance and myself will be present and representatives of all the parties at the earliest possible moment compatible with careful preparation and the emergence of sufficient common ground to give a reasonable chance of success.
  Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether Mr. Graham will be based in Salisbury or in another part of Africa?
  Dr. Owen: That is up to the discuscusions that we have with people in Salisbury. I am quite prepared for Mr. Graham to go to Salisbury and base himself there. However, it is up to them, I do not want to force it, and I am prepared to discuss this with them.
  The main areas for detailed negotiation are now clear—first, the Council covering the transition. All parties now want to have a Council of Ministers. All parties now believe this Council should effectively have legislative as well as executive powers. The difficult areas yet to be resolved relate to law and order and the constitution under which the

  465
  Council will operate during the transition and the method of exercising its legislative authority and, of course, the composition of the Council itself.
  Law and order has been the area on which the Kissinger proposals foundered and the Geneva Conference broke down. It has always been the most sensitive issue, and it is not surprising that in Salisbury at the moment the internal settlement has found so soon law and order to be the most divisive issue.
  The Anglo-American plan had as one of its central themes that law and order and defence should be vested during the transition in a neutral authority. The front-line Presidents have always seen the validity of this argument. At Dar-es-Salaam the Patriotic Front proposed that a resident commissioner should hold reserve executive powers over defence and law and order. This is a very considerable advance and, though we still believe that these reserved powers should also cover external affairs and the recommendations of the electoral commission, and should also include legislative powers in those fields, the concept of crucial powers residing in the hands of a neutral authority has been agreed.
  It is true to point out, too, that previously Bishop Muzorewa and the Reverend Sithole in consultation over the Anglo-American plan, supported this principle and indeed both argued at various stages in the discussions over the internal agreement for a neutral chairman and saw advantages in having responsibilities in the area of defence and law and order vested in such a neutral chairman. I have no doubt that in these sensitive areas during the transition it is right for the ultimate responsibility for defence and law and order to be held by an acceptable and neutral figure.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the need for an independent chairman. Are we to assume that there is now agreement that he would be backed up by a neutral United Nations force as well? This was a great matter of difference between the Patriotic Front and the internal settlement.
  Dr. Owen: I shall go on to describe that. This is another thing which came out of Dar-es-Salaam—that, whereas we have had difficulty previously in accepting
  466
  the concept of the United Nations, we have now made significant progress in that area, too.
  Another major area is whether the Council should operate under the powers of the illegal 1969 constitution and its related Parliament or should have a new constitution specifically designed for the transition. It might be possible to explore arrangements whereby such a transitional constitution, under which the Council would have legislative authority in place of the present Rhodesian Parliament, would be set up both locally and also by legislation approved by the British Parliament. The exact composition of the Council is unlikely to be resolved until the round-table talks take place.
  In February we proposed that the transitional constitution should itself provide for the establishment of a governing council consisting of the resident commissioner and of 10, though it could easily be 20 or 30, other members, to represent the parties who participated in the Geneva Conference. In this scheme the resident commissioner would have been required to consult the governing council except in relation to certain specified subjects reserved as his special responsibility such as, at the minimum, external affairs, defence, internal security and the recommendations of the electoral commission and to accept its advice if it represented the views of two-thirds of its membership.
  In Dar-es-Salaam the Patriotic Front argued for a majority position on any council but we made it clear to them that the British Government and the American Government could not support effective control of the Council being given to the Patriotic Front, since we felt that this was totally incompatible with the concept of a neutral transitional period and a free choice for the electorate. Nevertheless, it is clear now that all parties want more authority to be vested in the Council. If there is agreement to this, the British Government can certainly accept that, though if there is to be a British resident commissioner with real responsibilities he must have the power to enable him to discharge them.
  Since then there has also been a demand by the parties to the Salisbury agreement that they should be treated as a single entity and that we should negotiate with them not as separate

  467
  parties. It may be that the pattern of future negotiations will increasingly become one between the Patriotic Front on the one hand and the parties to the Salisbury agreement on the other. This is, anyhow, a decision for the parties to take. Hitherto, the British and American Governments have negotiated with the five parties represented at the Geneva Conference. A lot will depend on the cohesion and unity of the Salisbury agreement.
  The second major area for detailed negotiation remains the defence and police forces. The ceasefire will require very detailed negotiation. All the parties have had a detailed explanation by Field Marshal Lord Carver of his proposals for creating a Zimbabwe national army and also how the arrangements for the ceasefire could operate. They have had, too, the opportunity of discussing the working of a United Nations peace-keeping force with the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative, General Prem Chand. We have circulated to them a paper describing the concept and the possible working of a UN Zimbabwe force and of how United Nations civilian police observers could be attached to the Rhodesian police force, to help assure the impartiality of any police action. The exact mandate and working of the United Nations, however, is subject to a decision by the Secretary-General and the Security Council. There would, however, be considerable merit in discussing the possible mandate with the parties in greater detail and trying to reach a greater measure of agreement than exists at present.
  These issues have always been the most controversial. It was on this issue of integration that the discussions with Mr. Smith broke down in July 1977. In the past, the concept of integration has not been acceptable to Mr. Smith and to many white Rhodesians. It is interesting now that the integration of liberation fighters, prepared to return in peace, is being discussed in Salisbury as part of the internal agreement. The concept therefore of integration, which was always inevitable if there was to be a reduction in the level of fighting and an eventual ceasefire, appears now to be acceptable. This again is an important advance.
  The police forces represent a far greater problem. It is interesting that, just as
  468
  the Patriotic Front has raised questions over the police force, so this is becoming for Bishop Muzorewa and the UANC an important issue. It has always been the view of the British Government and the American Government that a major dismantling of the existing police force in the transitional period was not a practical proposition nor desirable for itself.
  Yet it was because we recognised that there were genuine anxieties about the police forces during the transitional period that we proposed the United Nations civilian police observers who have operated in other countries in somewhat similar circumstances and have been able to ensure through their presence on the ground the impartiality and fairness of the police force. They would be answerable directly to the United Nations force commander. Their possible operation was described in the paper given to the parties in February and now placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
  It has always been an important part of the Anglo-American plan that a new police commissioner should be appointed. The running of the police is a highly professional business and we have always felt that without professional advice and without studying the position on the ground we could not make commitments as to what restructuring and other changes would be necessary in the transitional period and, of course, the period immediately following independence. One thing is vital—that the police force should be maintained throughout the transitional period as a credible and reliable force giving confidence to the community as a whole. Any transitional period must have some basic stability, which can come only by retaining the Civil Service, the judiciary and the police forces as elements of continuity during the transition.
  That is not, however, to argue that there should be no changes. In all these spheres there will, of necessity, have to be adaptation in order to prepare for independence and in order to pave the way for a majority-rule Government. I share the fears expressed by Mr. Byron Hove when he said:
  "What Mr. Smith envisages is a situation in which the civil service, the police, the judiciary, the army, and all the State apparatus remain in the hands of white people. In other words, he believes in the substance of power remaining in white hands, with the shadow of authority passing to blacks."

  469
  I hope that that is not the position, because it would make for great difficulties. Yet the necessary changes must come by agreement and by negotiation. If this can be done prior to the transition, then the stability and neutrality of the transitional period can be guaranteed.
  The thread interweaving throughout the discussion on the issue of law and order and defence is the role of the United Nations. The major benefit to Rhodesia in involving the United Nations is not just that it can monitor and ensure that what is negotiated in detail prior to the transition for the ceasefire is maintained—that is important—and that it can be a stabilising force during the period of the transition, but that involvement of the United Nations is a guarantee of international acceptance and will allow the lifting of economic sanctions to take place at the start of the transition. It also opens up for Rhodesia the possibilities of economic assistance from the World Bank and from member States of the European Community through the proposed Zimbabwe development fund. All of this can lay the foundation for a secure economic future for Zimbabwe. It is in the interests of everyone. It ensures that Zimbabwe, when it reaches independence, can if it wishes be a member of the Commonwealth, the Organisation of African Unity and the United Nations.
  A United Nations peace-keeping presence has other significant benefits, too, for Rhodesia. An essential part of any ceasefire agreement is that the liberation fighters currently based in Mozambique, Zambia and Botswana should return in an orderly and controlled way to the country. It is vital for the future security of Rhodesia that none of these forces should constitute a threat to the stability of the country as a force capable of attempting to reverse the result of any election.
  Mr. John Farr: Was consideration ever given to the establishment of a Commonwealth peace-keeping force as an alternative to a United Nations force?
  Dr. Owen: As is well known, that would have been my preference, but I think that there were formidable difficulties in it—not least the fact that many member nations of the Commonwealth would not have been prepared to partici-
  470
  pate in such a force under Commonwealth auspices, lacking all the history, framework and structure for having a force that the United Nations possesses. They would prefer to make their contribution—as I think they would be prepared to do—in the context of United Nations peace-keeping, which is how many Commonwealth countries have in the past traditionally exercised that option. I see obvious advantages in terms of acceptability and control in having a Commonwealth involvement and in preserving the concept of Commonwealth responsibility for a country which all of us hope will become a member of the Commonwealth. However, in my judgment, it was not practical politics to achieve that.
  Far from United Nations involvement being against the interests of the white Rhodesians—as many of them still think it is—it can truly be argued to be in their interests and in those of Rhodesians of all races. Whereas when the Anglo-American plan was first put forward there was in Southern Africa itself a great deal of scepticism about the possibilities of the United Nations, the Rhodesian people can now see that the South African Government have been prepared to accept a role for the United Nations in the supervision of the elections for the territory of Namibia, or South-West Africa, as some of them would call it.
  Furthermore, it has been seen by many of the people in Namibia that a United Nations force can offer them not only fair elections and international acceptance but the assurance of independence. It must be profoundly hoped on all sides of the House that the settlement proposed for Namibia will be acceptable to SWAPO and that it will be carried forward expeditiously and fairly. There can be few better examples and influences on Rhodesia than to have United Nations involvement in the attainment of independence actually operating in Southern Africa. It was a major advance—a point the right hon. Gentleman raised—that at Dar es Salaam last month the leaders of the Patriotic Front accepted the principle of a United Nations military presence.
  The final main area for discussion will be how to handle the independence constitution. There are many areas which still need to be clarified and the detailed proposals on the constitution which we sent

  471
  to all the parties in February should provide the necessary framework for further discussion. It may be that the best way to proceed over the independence constitution would be to leave this to be discussed further during the transition period, perhaps on the basis of recommendations made by an independent commission or other independent experts. It may be, however, that all the parties will wish to clarify in detail the constitution prior to the transition. The main issues have been identified in the documents sent to the parties in February and which have been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. I think that right hon. and hon. Members will see that a great deal of useful and good work has been put in on that, which will be very helpful.
  The question which now needs to be asked is how we can achieve the sort of dialogue about which I have talked and which I profoundly believe to be now necessary. I made it clear in my speech to the Pilgrims on 13th March, and have done so since frequently in this House, that no one need come to these discussions conceding in advance any of their previous positions. Attendance at the discussions carries no recognition in any way whatever. All we ask is a readiness to try to put the future of Zimbabwe first, for us all to be prepared to examine the issues objectively in a genuine search for peace. I warn now that unless we do so, there is only one alternative—the continuation of a bloody war. The situation could worsen rapidly. Britain and the United States will approach any discussions firm on principle but flexible, determined only in our belief that it is necessary to negotiate a cease fire and to provide for a transitional administration which will ensure a period of stability and peace in which fair and free elections can take place and the transition to independence and majority rule be carried out in a way which will lay the foundations—
  Mr. Michael Mates: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Owen: —for a prosperous, secure, multiracial Zimbabwe.
  4.23 p.m.
  Mr. John Davies:: Let me make it clear at the outset of what I have to say that every day that has been
  472
  lost and is now being lost in giving some positive encouragement to the immense step that took place in Rhodesia on 3rd March is a damage to the prospects of that country and progress towards majority rule in an orderly fashion.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: Not yet. Later.
  I found that the Foreign Secretary's whole speech was of a negative and an unhelpful character in terms of trying to get what we all seek so deeply.
  Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Davies: No.
  Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Davies: No.
  Mr. Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman might have the courtesy—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Mr. John Davies.
  Mr. Davies: The Foreign Secretary has continually drenched with icy water all that has been achieved in these last two months by the agreement reached on 3rd March. I think that it is, in a sense, lamentable and unhappy that we should sit here listening once again to a recapitulation of all the old discussions that we have heard time after time, without recognising the real achievements which have taken place.
  The Foreign Secretary goes on and speaks again of serious flaws in that agreement. What are they? He has not, to my mind, brought them to our attention at all. Does that agreement in any way offend against the six basic principles which we all set ourselves as an objective in this matter?
  Certainly in the course of the Foreign Secretary's speech the only issue to which he made specific reference—as I understand it—is a test of acceptability. Of course that has yet to be done. We all know that it has yet to be done. But what we should be about is bringing it about, not deterring it.
  Is it, in fact, that the Foreign Secretary has some concern about the provisions under the Sixth Principle in respect of

  473
  the minority white population? If so, he has already provided not dissimilar arrangements within the framework of his own White Paper. Indeed, let me say quite clearly that all the information that comes to me from black and white alike is about the importance they see of maintaining white confidence in the future of that country and in the ability of the white people who are there to maintain their activity, to continue driving forward the undoubted movement that the country has taken over the years towards real prosperity. That is a fundamental requirement and, indeed, it is part and parcel of the provisions now made.
  Moreover, is it perhaps the fact that Mr. Smith himself is continuing within the framework of the Executive Council? But here again, I hear from all sides that there is a strong feeling of need that he should do so, simply in order to bring about the very passage to majority rule which we are all so strongly seeking.
  Could it be argued that there is a failure on the part of those who are parties to this agreement to make progress? It is surely hard to say so. There has been formed within the space of two months—two months alone—the Executive Council. There has been formed the Ministerial Council. There has been, in fact, a major release of detainees. I thought that the Foreign Secretary made some pretty grudging remarks on that subject. On my understanding, 700 out of 900 so detained have already been released, and 200 are subject to further investigation. But surely, in the space of two months, this is not a totally negligible achievement. It is something of substantial importance. The proscribed organisations, ZANU and ZAPU, as recently as yesterday, were liberated from that degree of restraint and are open to take active part in any election process that takes place. Is that not a major step? It seems to me that it is.
  The Foreign Secretary spoke again grudgingly about the rehabilitation of guerrillas and their integration in the forces. But my recollection is that dating back from the time of the signature of the Salisbury agreement on 3rd March, there was indeed such a provision already envisaged, so it is not just recently that that has taken place.
  There is, finally, some start towards the whole process of conducting an election
  474
  in the country. I shall come back to that matter, because it seems to me that the start is as yet too little.
  Of course there is much to be done. Of course the question of the elimination of racial discriminations is an essential. Of course we understand Bishop Muzorewa and his anxiety to see that pushed forward. But in a period of two months only, what has been done is no bad record—quite the contrary.
  With reference to what the Foreign Secretary said about Mr. Hove, it is interesting that the UANC, the very party of which he is a member, only yesterday came out with an absolute declaration of solidarity to the agreement reached in Salisbury and an absolute unwillingness to see that undermined or damaged.
  In his remarks, the Foreign Secretary undoubtedly puts an immense emphasis on the question of the failure of the Salisbury agreement, as he sees it, to have a chance of procuring a ceasefire. None of us can be in any doubt about the immense importance of that achievement. It is absolutely essential.
  Perhaps I may say in passing that the constant reference to liberation fighters, however much the Foreign Secretary may have felt that it was justified in times gone by, seems to me to be singularly inappropriate when three of the major forces and the major parties in the whole of the black side of Rhodesian life have joined in this agreement of 3rd March.
  Of course, we understand, agree with and entirely support every effort made to try to persuade the Patriotic Front to forswear the use of force and to return to the negotiating table in a peaceful mind. We think that that action has been undertaken rather belatedly. We must observe that whereas the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister have frequently stressed in the past that that degree of persuasion must not be interpreted as allowing the Patriotic Front a right of veto in the operation, it seems more and more that that is precisely the situation into which we are sinking.
  If we continue steadily undermining the confidence of the people in Rhodesia about the possibility of bringing to fruition what they have achieved with such difficulty, it is left for the Patriotic Front, if it wishes, to create a situation where it can overcome by force, where it

  475
  can hang on and hang on, so that in the end the very people who are seeking a peaceful settlement are prevented absolutely from doing so.
  I fear the right hon. Gentleman's view of the matter, however much we may share his desire to integrate the dissident black interests and however much we may hope that he is successful. We must not allow that to become the absolute restricter to ability to move to the proper degree of peaceful solution.
  It seems that the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about Soviet or Cuban interference has exactly the same overtones. It is no good imagining that by insisting on the support ad ultimum of the Patriotic Front we shall avoid the involvement, eventually, of the Soviets and Cubans. It is no good imagining that they themselves have not become so involved already. Indeed, we know that it is otherwise.
  Let us consider the alternative if we do not manage to achieve a successful, peaceful passage to majority rule under the terms of the agreement that has now been reached. If the internal settlement were to fail, can the right hon. Gentleman imagine the depths of bitterness and resentment which would exist within not merely the white community but much more among those in the black community who joined in the arrangement?
  What chance of a ceasefire then? There would not be a ceasefire of the sort that may exist even today. There would be a ceasefire involving a great confrontation between black and black, with all the depths of fratricidal struggle which could only, I am afraid, bring the most agonising consequences. I am not concerned only about the struggle between the Patriotric Front and the others. We have seen evidence—it exists strongly even today—of dangers of internecine strife within the Patriotic Front.
  As for Soviet influence, the same will be true if we push on to a point where the Patriotic Front alone manages to carry its will and obtains by force what it is not prepared to obtain by electoral means. After all, whose force is it? It is the force of Soviet armament that is behind that group. However much we may hope and believe that it is possible to reintroduce Mr. Nkomo into the whole concept of a peaceful settlement,
  476
  we have only to listen to Mr. Mugabe to be most deeply concerned about his intentions. How can we imagine that if the internal settlement were totally undermined, usurpation of the country would not itself induce a basically Marxist dominated and Marxist supported organisation?
  I have the same misgivings about the Anglo-American proposals. They have always had the fundamental weakness of not providing the necessary assurances that any reasonably minded man would seek on the security issue. That is still the position. The right hon. Gentleman has sketched out in considerable detail many of the matters that have been the subject of discussion between the parties. He has placed in the Library the documents that have been submitted and we shall all look forward to reading them. However, underlying all the documents and the discussions is the fact that there is no confidence that the proposals made for the maintenance of security during the period of transition and election will be sufficient to meet the extreme situation which Rhodesia now faces.
  I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman's statement of 1st September still subsists as the basic statement concerned with the formation of the Zimbabwe army. That statement has not been modified. To all those within Rhodesia who are parties to an agreement to seek to move towards majority rule, that statement constitutes an absolute obstacle and an absolute objection. What can they expect from an army based on so-called liberation forces? Surely it is an illusion to believe that there is any possibility of those parties, who have now moved so far, starting to walk backwards into a situation that is full of grave uncertainties.
  I am sure that there is trouble ahead unless we persuade the right hon. Gentleman and his American colleagues to move away from their present view. I shall quote briefly from a statement that seemed to have much significance. From where does it come? It reads:
  "but a lasting settlement cannot be imposed from outside. It is the people of Zimbabwe who must achieve their own independence."
  Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that phrase? It comes from his White Paper. Is he now seeking that? It seems that he is not. That is something that causes us deep concern. It seems that

  477
  it is not the people inside Rhodesia to whom he is looking to achieve a settlement. The right hon. Gentleman's statement can be contrasted bitterly with that which the Prime Minister said recently about the internal settlement. He said:
  "We will not veto the arrangement entered into. Nor is it our responsibility to endorse it until we see how it is carried out."—[Official Report, 9th March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 1603.]
  There is a great contrast between the positive and helpful aspirations of the one statement and the negative content of the other.
  I have deep misgivings about the right hon. Gentleman's proposal of a general conference without preconditions. He may seek very hard to avoid the experience of Geneva being repeated, but Geneva still lives clearly in our minds. To institute a conference at which there is no basic agreement and where there are no basic elements of accord is itself to introduce I fear, a display of confrontation and disagreement.
  How can the parties to the Salisbury agreement throw that agreement into the melting pot? How can they, on the principle of there being no preconditions, attempt once again to start de novo the whole agonising process, which we all remember took them so many months of difficult argument to achieve?
  I am convinced that every reasonable assessment of the whole situation conducts us to the same conclusion. There should, of course, be an effort—and every effort upon which the right hon. Gentleman insisted—to move towards a negotiated settlement. However, that settlement wants to start with the Salisbury agreement. It should not start with a proposition which, despite all the good will that may have attended its writing, is unfortunately rejected by all. That is no basis on which to reach the negotiated agreement that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.
  There is a fatal weakness in standing by and watching the pot simmer. I fear that it will simmer down to a state of icy coldness. It will then move in another and more dangerous direction. Support is now essential. The psychological effect of a word of encouragement from the right hon. Gentleman at this moment would have an immense effect in Rhodesia. I can only plead with him to change his mind, and instead of the con-
  478
  stant dripping of dissuasion and dissatisfaction to offer some sort of positive lift to the people, who so eagerly and anxiously await that sort of expression.
  The right hon. Gentleman has said that Mr. John Graham will be moving into Africa to seek to reach the basis of the conference in which I have such grave doubts. I should be happier if Mr. Graham were going to Salisbury to try positively to assist in bringing about the very agreement that has been entered into, and to bring it to success. There is so much to do. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems of the development of an adequate constitution. It is an intensely complex problem and we can do so much to help to try to bring about an adequate constitution.
  There is the electoral question to which I referred. I plead with the Foreign Secretary to appreciate that not only his proposals but everybody's proposals and the Salisbury agreement envisage that the ultimate stage must be an election. Surely that is something to which we should be prepared here and now to work towards. We all know the problems involved in seeking to compile an electoral register and to provide all the arrangements for an election involving 3 million electors in a country which has never had an election on that scale. Why should it not be possible right now, whatever the outcome, to move towards assisting in the formation of that register and all the complex arrangements which go into the creation of an election? Does the Foreign Secretary feel that he can respond to my appeal in this respect? It seems so self-evident that that is the thing to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If he will not, I shall carry on.
  I think that the virtue of having a positive presence of a senior and competent kind in Salisbury to keep the Foreign Secretary and us informed would be of immense value. The absence of it over all these months seems to be a dismal defect in the arrangements that we have had.
  I feel that I must say a word about sanctions, to which the Foreign Secretary alluded. I am well known to be and, indeed, am on record in this House as being no friend of sanctions at any time. I believe them to be a very poor way of trying to induce people to accept unpalatable arrangements, and they have a

  479
  very dangerous and counter-productive effect.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken very sharply about sanctions. Does he recollect that the internal agreement, on which he sets so much store, begins with a statement that one of the reasons why they are entering into it is the effect of sanctions on the country?
  Mr. Davies: I understand it. I would only say to the right hon. Gentleman that my constant and absolute conviction has been that the great penalty of sanctions, to whatever country they have been applied, has been on the common people. They have always hit the common people much more strongly than they have hit regimes. I am no friend of sanctions, and in today's conditions there are very strong arguments in favour of rescinding them.
  If I look to Mr. Kissinger's original proposals in September 1976 or the Anglo-American initiative, in both instances the initiation of a transitional Government called for the elimination of sanctions. It is in no one's interests, whatever our views on the matter may be, in any way to contribute—I believe that sanctions do cotnribute—to the economic decline of Rhodesia. When there is a majority elected Government, that country will face intense and difficult problems. Therefore, anything which is done now which makes that situation worse is to my mind undesirable.
  Mr. Thorpe: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not without significance that both Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sithole have expressly said that they do not expect to see sanctions lifted, nor are they pressing for sanctions to be lifted, until independence has been granted after an election?
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt wish to hear me out. Given my views about both the efficacy and the desirability of sanctions at this stage, I still reach the view, on balance of judgment, that this is not the time to lift them. I reach that judgment solely because I believe that it would be counter-productive to the atmosphere of worldwide support, which I believe it is essential to achieve, for the settlement in Salisbury.
  480
  With some reluctance, I accept that is so. But I add that if we move forward in the autumn of this year to a position where we can see within our clear sights—I hope and believe that is possible with support and help from the Government—an election almost certainly looming quickly on the horizon, it will be with great difficulty that the House will renew the sanctions order. The Opposition would have real difficulty in those circumstances in agreeing to continue to penalise a country which was within touching distance of its own majority rule.
  I finish as I began. There is no case for standing back on this issue. It could prove absolutely catastrophic to the future of Rhodesia in which all of us, whatever the differences in cur views may be, have a deep and abiding interest. I appeal to the Foreign Secretary, for the sake of the future, to change his approach to this problem, to hold out a helping hand to these people who are sincerely seeking to move towards a new situation of majority rule in that country, and not continually to visit them with what I can only call the frozen mitt.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Approximately 30 right hon. and hon. Members are anxious to take part in this important debate. I feel compelled to make an earnest appeal for brevity.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Unlike the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), I think that the policy being pursued by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is the right one. I believe that if he followed the advice given by the Opposition there would be civil war. I shall come back later to the possibility of civil war.
  Many of my hon. Friends know that I have for a long time taken the view that there can be no peaceful solution of the Rhodesia problem until Mr. Smith removes himself from the position of power and responsibility. I know from my own experience that he cannot be trusted. Ministers of both Labour and Conservative Governments and many others have good reason to share my view.

  481
  In 1965 I thought that Mr. Smith had accepted as a basis of settlement for Rhodesia the Five Principles which were laid down by the Conservative Government. My predecessor, Lord Sandys—we were in constant touch about the Rhodesia issue—said to me "If you could see your way to accept those Five Principles and to present them to Mr. Smith, he would think that he was getting off lightly and I believe that he would accept them." I was encouraged by that. Therefore, in 1965, when the Lord Chancellor and I went to Rhodesia, I spelt out the Five Principles to Mr. Smith at a private meeting and he accepted them. Before I left Rhodesia, I took the Lord Chancellor with me so that he, too, could hear what had been said. Mr. Smith denies that he ever accepted the Five Principles. I think that I can say that I had a pretty reliable witness.
  The Africans have even stronger reasons for mistrusting Mr. Smith. Their freedom has been taken from them. Their organisations or associations have been destroyed. Their political leaders have been imprisoned, without trial in many cases, and many hundreds—whole tribes and families—have been forcibly removed from their homelands.
  The intransigence of Mr. Smith—a litter of unkept promises, harassment and killing of black people, many of them non-combatants—continues. To see photographs of the dead lying in police station yards does not encourage respect or trust.
  There are good constitutional reasons for Mr. Smith being asked to stand down. He lied to the Governor of Rhodesia about the state of emergency and he rebelled against the Crown. Let us not be mealy-mouthed. He encouraged soldiers, who had sworn an oath of loyalty to the Queen, to follow his guidance. He really is a traitor.
  Mr. David Crouch: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that perhaps I understand his view more readily than other Opposition Members. Is he not dwelling in the past? Does he accept that Mr. Smith has now accepted the Five Principles and the Six Principles and that we have to think of the present and the future?
  Mr. Bottomley: I shall be dealing with that matter immediately. Let us examine
  482
  the present Administration. I believe that it stands no chance of succeeding, in spite of Mr. Smith's claim that the three black nationalist leaders represent between them the majority of black Rhodesians. This assumption cannot be tested in the present situation of divided opinion and widespread intimidation of the Africans.
  Who are the majority? The right hon. Member for Knutsford obtains his views from a different area. The younger generation despise their parents who are prepared to address the white man as "master". Every year thousands of young school leavers fail to get work. They have become unruly corner boys and material for the militants.
  Many of the more intelligent young people listen to Mozambique Radio and are stirred by revolutionary idealism. They are avid readers of black protest literature. By exploiting divisions among the Africans for his own ends and discrediting each faction in turn Mr. Smith has weakened the influence of moderate and informed black African opinion.
  A former Prime Minister of Rhodesia whom I was privileged to count as a friend, Sir Godfrey Huggins, was a farsighted man for his time. He said that education would be the basis for a peaceful settlement. He provided education far in advance of that provided by any colonial Power, including Britain. When most other African countries achieved their independence they could count the number of African graduates in dozens. In Zimbabwe they can count them in thousands. Either we persuade those informed people to take a part in trying to build up a peaceful Zimbabwe or we turn them into revolutionaries to destroy everything for themselves and for everyone who lives in that pleasant land.
  Because I speak to Africans, I know that there is still much good will towards the whites, despite the whites' contemptuous neglect to encourage it. Rhodesia is now infiltrated by freedom fighters and their agents. Many relatives and sympathisers are now working against the internal leaders. In some ways, although the white man does not appreciate it, the white man is living in an enemy country.
  It is unrealistic to think that there can be a peaceful settlement of the Rhodesian crisis without the involvement of the

  483
  Patriotic Front. That is why I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is doing all that he can to bring members of the Patriotic Front into active co-operation. He is not misled. He knows the difficulties. It would be wrong to under-assess the strength of Nkomo and Mugabe. They both have strong support in the rural areas. Nkomo has an advantage: he also has support in the urban areas. The freedom fighters upon whom they can call are not insignificant in numbers. I am told that when news is given about the success of freedom fighters the Africans in Zimbabwe openly applaud it.
  From my contacts I know that many Africans have a growing feeling of hatred and bitterness against the white man. I find that they resent me in a way which they never did before. The highly efficient Rhodesian armed forces and police can contain the situation for some time, but they cannot do it for ever. Rhodesia, like the rest of the world, is suffering from a recession. The arms struggle is taking a heavy toll of the economy. There is an urgent need for a settlement to avoid the Rhodesia problem becoming an international issue between the great Powers.
  If that should happen the Patriotic Front would be united and its forces effectively joined together. It would be the end of European influence in Rhodesia. That would be regrettable for the future development of Zimbabwe. European skill and craftsmanship are required for farming and industry. It would be unjust to the Europeans, particularly those who were born in that land. Amongst those citizens are many of the most liberal-minded Rhodesians, black or white.
  An early settlement of the Rhodesia problem is vital. We should put Robert Mugabe in a category similar to that in which we put Mr. Smith. I would not trust him to bring about peace and harmony for the people of Rhodesia as a whole. An early settlement is vital if we are to stop him from achieving his proclaimed objective of a one-party State—and that is more possible if we follow the Opposition's strategy. We should do everything that we can to encourage Joshua Nkomo to co-operate. He is a senior nationalist leader. He is probably the most respected and best-known
  484
  amongst the Africans. He has a vital part to play in bringing about a free and independent Rhodesia.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Like the right hon. Member, I regard Joshua Nkomo as a friend. Over the years I have admired him. Like the right hon. Member, I have asked Joshua Nkomo to come into the settlement in Rhodesia. But, if he will not do so, for whatever reason, is the right hon. Member saying that the war should go on and that the killings of black and white should continue?
  Mr. Bottomley: I think that it is possible that he will come in. I shall explain later why I believe that. I think that Nkomo recognises that if there is to be a free and independent Rhodesia he must play a part. The principle for which he fought all along—majority rule—has been achieved. He told me that that was his ambition and he has therefore got more or less what he wants.
  I turn to the way in which the Foreign Secretary has handled the Rhodesia problem. I hope that he will continue his efforts to persuade the Patriotic Front leaders and the interim Administration in Salisbury to work together. My right hon. Friend is engaged in intricate diplomacy. By keeping the talks going he provides an opportunity for the internal settlement to develop. While that is going on the Patriotic Front acts as a pressure on Mr. Smith and his colleagues. By that means the internal settlement can be used to apply pressure on the Patriotic Front.
  Robert Mugabe will remain opposed to any agreement. He has said that he believes that there can be a settlement only by armed conflict. There is one hope of avoiding a civil war. It is for the Owen-Young plan to be implemented.
  If Mr. Smith was a statesman and farseeing, he would recognise that there is one European in Rhodesia who alone can command the support of the majority of Africans. They trust him to bring about majority rule. That man is the former Prime Minister Garfield Todd. If Mr. Smith could see the wisdom of asking him to assume leadership, it would be revolutionary and would stop the likely civil war.
  Another action must be taken. Bishop Muzorewa should invite Joshua Nkomo

  485
  to join him to bring about the great new nation of Zimbabwe. Together those two men represent the main groups of Africans. They would therefore be all powerful. Some may think that it is naive, but, in my judgment, unless we are prepared to do something striking, away from what is going on at present, civil war is inevitable.
  The so-called Rhodesian traditional Government have got off to a shaky start. Mr. Byron Hove, the first Minster of Law, left a thriving practice in the Inner Temple to assist in the peaceful emergence of his people to their rightful place in society in Rhodesia. When taking up his duty he made the very reasonable proposition that more black people should be included in the police forces and that there should be a positive discrimination in favour of some black policemen who should be promoted within the service. This at once resulted in Mr. Hove's dismissal from his ministerial post and his return to England. It appears that even the Bishop was not consulted about the matter.
  I conclude with the words with which I began. I am very pessimistic about a peaceful settlement. The only hope we have of securing that is if Mr. Smith were to take a lead and stand down.
  5.1 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: I shall try not to trespass on the indulgence which the House accords courteously, if somewhat reluctantly, to Privy Councillors. I find my task all the easier, however, because I so wholeheartedly agree with the fine and compelling speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). So far as it is within my power, I implore the Foreign Secretary to use all his efforts and his undoubted talents and abilities to make the internal settlement succeed. If it does not succeed, the alternative is chaos and disaster.
  If the settlement falls apart, it will take many years and much bloodshed before it can be put together again. There are currently difficulties within the coalition. No one in his sane senses expects everyone to agree on everything straight away. Our job, however, is to try to help solve those disagreements, and anyone who tries to exacerbate them is playing not
  486
  only with fire but with fire and brimstone.
  The internal settlement surely meets all the criteria that have been established over so many years—the Foreign Secretary has not denied that—with the one exception, which still has to be met, of general acceptance to the people of Rhodesia. The proof of that could come only from a free and fair election. Surely above all it is our job, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford said, to do everything we possibly can to help such an election to come about. We must make it clear that if the people of Southern Rhodesia freely back the internal settlement, we shall support them, come hell or high water.
  I recognise the Foreign Secretary's difficulties. It is clearly desirable to get the agreement of the Patriotic Front. But does the Patriotic Front want free and fair elections? That is a fundamental question. Mr. Mugabe clearly does not want anything of the kind. He has said so. It is hard to judge about Mr. Nkomo. Understandably, he wants power. I have a great respect for him, and I hope very much that efforts will continue to persuade him to support the internal settlement and to put himself and his followers to the test of free and fair elections. That achievement would be an enormous prize. It is worth trying repeatedly to secure it. But Mr. Nkomo should not have a veto. No one should be allowed a veto.
  We hear a great deal about freedom fighters. In their view they are freedom fighters, but their tactics are those of terror and their methods are brutal, bloody and indiscriminate murder. All the liberation movements that I can think of have their violent wings. It has been said at times, though it is hard to say whether it is true, that the end can justify the means. But the end has been achieved. Agreement has been reached on majority rule, on free elections and on universal adult franchise. What possible justification can remain for the use of murder, terror and violence?
  If the Patriotic Front will come in and take part honestly and openly in free elections, that will be the cause of great joy for the people of Rhodesia, as it will for all men of good will throughout the world. If, however, it intends to use its force to prevent free elections, if it intends to try to impose its power by

  487
  the use of guns—and Russian guns at that—I hope that to that the British Government will be openly, avowedly and implacably opposed.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Before I deal with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, let me say that, in view of his courageous, simple and clear statement of our responsibilities for trying to get the white settler regime in Southern Rhodesia out of its dangers, it was unbelievably irresponsible of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) to make such a partisan and unrealistic appreciation of the problems in Southern Rhodesia.
  My right hon. Friend's speech was excellent. Although I have not always seen eye to eye with him on matters connected with Southern Rhodesia, I believe that in his speech this afternoon he was brilliantly precise about what needs doing and about the contribution that those who care about developments in Southern Rhodesia can make to a possible peaceful solution. I say "possible peaceful solution" because the more I hear of the Opposition arguments, the less likely it seems to me that we shall avoid the holocaust of which my right hon. Friend spoke.
  I was pleased and relieved to hear my right hon. Friend make it clear this afternoon that there will be no lifting of sanctions. It would be absolute lunacy to lift sanctions when the combination of sanctions and the guerrilla campaign—and this is an important element in the change of mind of the white regime—have combined to push that regime into abandoning its entrenched racist position. The Southern Rhodesia economy is in a poor state. To allow its succour and revitalisation to take place before the international community is assured that majority rule is truly established would be quite irresponsible.
  We know Smith from previous experience. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) knows him from personal contact and has spoken of his "honesty" and "responsibility." The lifting of sanctions would give him the chance to slip out of the commitments he has undertaken. It would enable him, being the man he is, to continue the life of his illegal regime, backed, as some
  488
  of the Opposition forget, as he still is with the forces under his control. His record of deceit and deviousness must surely prevent any of us here from giving him the benefit of the doubt.
  When the internal settlement of 3rd March was announced and questions were put to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I commented that the agreement would not work. I think that my words are now being borne out. The internal arrangements are hardly showing signs of working. The sacking of Byron Hove, a man who was prepared to work this internal agreement, is an indication of what I mean. He made the point that Africanisation of the police forces was an essential element in moving towards a settlement, and it was for that that he was sacked. His sacking hardly suggested that the Smith regime was prepared to abandon its ability, which it still possesses, to impose its will through the use of those powers it still holds.
  The meeting this coming Sunday of Muzorewa's political organisation may well cause him to decide to abandon his involvement. But whether it does or not, sooner or later it will dawn on the responsible black leaders—I say that because I am not sure that Chirau can be spoken of as such—that they are parties to a charade of independence in which the real power still lies in the wishes of Ian Smith and the forces at his control.
  Some hon. Members with less knowledge of Southern Africa, borne up by the euphoria of inexperience of it, seem to believe in a settlement in which that arch twister Smith is involved—(HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] I repeat, that arch twister Smith, because that is what he has repeatedly proved himself to be. The naivety of those who believe that any arrangement in which such a man is involved could possibly come to successful fruition is extraordinary. It is all the more extraordinary that they are prepared to exhibit their naivety by that sort of intervention. Sadly, there will be no possibility of a peaceful solution of Southern Rhodesia's problems while Smith is still involved in whatever internal arrangements there may be.
  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best contribution towards a peaceful solution in Southern Rhodesia would be the removal, the dismissal by

  489
  whatever means, of that gentleman, be cause he is the first and biggest obstacle to a peaceful solution. It is ridiculous and destructive of any hope for the future of Zimbabwe if we believe that we in Britain, we in this House, can wearily wash our hands of our responsibilities there by agreeing to recognise whatever independent State comes out of this current series of talks in the internal settlement.
  This afternoon my right hon. Friend made clear that he would accept the outcome of elections arranged in fulfilment of the internal agreement if the Six Principles were met. But I ask him to consider that, if the external forces of the political organisation of the Patriotic Front are not included in that ensuing election or in the arrangements for those elections, the Six Principles will not have been met, because not all the parties to the political future of Zimbabwe will have been involved in those elections.
  I am sorry to state my one disagreement with my right hon. Friend, but it is a profound one. I believe that he was wrong and was gravely ill advised to say any such thing. He may wish to get the British Government shot of the whole long drawn out, wearying, damaging dispute and he may feel—this is an element which unfortunately in his position he has to consider—that he could not convince the House of the ill wisdom of accepting the outcome of such an internal agreement, since there is such a body of Opposition Members, as they have exhibited in this debate, who are blind to the realities of the dangers to Western interests in Southern Africa.
  I wish to impress on the Foreign Secretary that, whatever his difficulties with the House, if he were to reject an unbalanced internal settlement, that would be as nothing compared to the difficulties he would face with Britain's foreign friends if he were to accept such a settlement.
  One of the remarkable things about the Carter Presidency is that he and his national security adviser, whose name I never dare risk, and the admirable Andrew Young, have all come to a full realisation of how damaging the white regimes in Southern Africa are to the real interests of the West. The very existence of those white regimes and their close economic ties with the West enormously advance the philosophies and the policies
  490
  of the Marxist countries. The only way we can prevent the peoples of that area from falling into the hands of the Communist powers is to help the people there actively, by political and economic means, to evict the white regimes and to set up their own democratic Governments.
  Africans who want true independence have already seen that Russia and Cuba have no qualms whatever about intervening militarily to help impose antidemocratic Governments—of the extreme Left, of course—as they have done in Angola and Ethiopia. If we in the West do not help these Africans who want true independence, they will be forced, however much they may detest and see the dangers of this new imperialism of Marxism, to turn to those who will help them. Some of us in the House—some of my hon. Friends who are with me this afternoon—had the foresight to warn of that danger many years ago, and long before it became as apparent as it now is.
  If some hon. Members do not understand or accept that argument, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary understands that one Government that does is the United States Government. Most countries will not be prepared to recognise an independent Zimbabwe half free and half in thrall still to the remnants of the Smith regime. I am sure that my right hon. Friend must understand those matters better than most of us do. We shall be isolated in our recognition of that settlement, and that self-inflicted isolation would damage Britain morally and economically.
  Finally, let me deal with the matter of the justice demanded by an independent Zimbabwe. As the world knows, there has been much suffering imposed on the Africans by the Smith regime and its various agencies. Many dozens of fighters have been judicially murdered, many hundreds of men, women and children have been brutally slaughtered, and I adjure my friends among the leaders of the independent Zimbabwe—when we get it—to remember the example we set at Nuremberg. I do not think they need my advice, because I suspect that they are already resolved to bring to book and to wreak justice on those in the regime who have been responsible in the judiciary for political murder by hanging, and those in the military who have been responsible

  491
  for the mass killing of non-combatants by the Selous Scouts and other such dishonourable military organisations.
  I hope that these matters will be remembered by the leaders of the independent Zimbabwe, and that, wherever such men who have done that dirty work on behalf of that illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia may seek their funk-holes throughout the world, action will be taken to bring them back to justice in the country where they committed their crimes—in Zimbabwe.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: If the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) will allow me to say so, I do not think his final remarks are likely to bring about harmony and a settlement in the peaceful Zimbabwe that we all wish to see.
  I speak as one who has listened to every debate on Rhodesia ever since UDI, and I can claim, somewhat immodestly, to have participated in each one. There is nothing unusual in there being a difference between the two major parties in the House, but there are differences which are to the benefit of the discussion of this subject.
  The first is that we have seen an exciting and encouraging move towards a peaceful settlement in Namibia—a move for which credit must be given to Mr. Vorster, to the United Nations and to the five permanent members of the Security Council. I re-echo the hope expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary that SWAPO will see fit to accept it as well. I believe that in that case everything which everybody has wanted to achieve could be achieved within the framework of that Western initiative. That is a new development. Therefore, there is the possibility that in part of Southern Africa at least we shall get a peaceful solution.
  Another useful and helpful factor in regard to Rhodesia is that there is no need to argue the case for African majority rule. Those in this House who believed in the inevitability and permanence of white supremacy have moved as far as Mr. Smith appears to have moved, and that is a very great improvement indeed.
  492
  Therefore, we are discussing not the end result but how to achieve it. There is no disagreement between the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and the Foreign Secretary that what we all want to achieve is peaceful independence, and an independence which will not result in fighting for the first five years on a Malaysian scale—which is not impossible if we get the position wrong politically.
  There seem to me to be certain options. There are those—I am not referring to the right hon. Memer for Knutsford—who say that we should give outright recognition not to an independent Zimbabwe but to the internal settlement. Although I accept that there is no group with any other right of veto, I believe that if that course were pursued any hope of getting the Patriotic Front to negotiate and to get round the table would immediately be dashed. The Patriotic Front would feel well justified in continuing to train troops because there would be no alternative to a military solution. I am referring not merely to those who are in Mozambique, Botswana and Zambia but to those who are being trained by the Cubans in Angola. Therefore, I believe that option should be firmly ruled out.
  There are those who then say "Why should not the internal settlement be the basis of talks between the Patriotic Front and the parties to the internal settlement as opposed to the Anglo-American proposals?" The reason I believe that suggestion is misguided is that the Anglo-American proposals contain certain features which are in the interests of Zimbabwe. I refer particularly to the transitional arrangements which require a strong international presence, which is a far greater guarantee that we shall have a transitional period in which we can go to independence in peace.
  One hon. Member was right to ask what guarantee there was that any constitution would survive. There is none. There was no guarantee when Mr. Smith asked Sir Humphrey Gibbs in 1965 "Will you please sign a declaration of emergency?" and the Governor said "Prime Minister, will you assure me that you are not doing this as a prelude to UDI?". Mr. Smith replied "I give you my firm assurance to that effect." No

  493
  sooner had he got the emergency declaration signed than he declared UDI. There is no guarantee in any situation.
  There is no guarantee, but the best hope is if one can move to a peaceful transitional period towards that form of majority rule. Therefore, I think that the Anglo-American proposals have the built-in guarantees of the United Nations presence. My only qualification is that it should be strong enough and large enough. Here is a point that I think the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has perceptively raised in the House. The United Nations is under risk of being very gravely stretched, if it has to have a presence in South Lebanon, Sinai, the Golan Heights, Cyprus, possibly Namibia and possibly Rhodesia as well. That is a problem to which we must address our minds.
  In the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Carver, the proposals would also mean that there would be a far greater British presence than has been suggested by the Patriotic Front or by the internal settlement. Therefore, I believe that it has certain built-in advantages which are more likely to bring about a peaceful transition.
  I find some difficulty on the question of what should be the position of Mr. Smith. Emotionally, one would say "Let's have a clean slate." Certainly, in the Anglo-American proposals it is suggested that he must go. When I saw President Kaunda a few weeks ago there was no question but that this was paramount in his mind—that Mr. Smith was the symbol of white supremacy and must go. I understand that President Nyerere of Tanzania takes the same view.
  I do not take that view. Whatever may have been the sins of omission and commission, if the European vote is to be, so to speak, delivered for any form of settlement on 31st December, I can think of no other European politician who could lock in and deliver that vote. That is one factor on which I find myself in some disagreement with the Anglo-American proposals.
  There are those who say that sanctions should be lifted. In fairness to the right hon. Member for Knutsford, I should say that, when he was kind enough to give way, if I had contained myself for another
  494
  minute and a half he would perhaps have answered the question that I put to him.
  First, it is impractical to think that there would be any vote in the United Nations for lifting sanctions. There would not. Secondly, when I last spoke to the three African leaders who were parties to the internal settlement they realised that it was an impractical proposition unless and until there had been independence and recognition. But, as the right hon. Gentleman said, if there is a United Nations presence during the transitional period, and therefore a United Nations and international acceptance of what is happening, the chances of getting sanctions lifted are very much greater, even before independence. That is why, in my view, the Anglo-American proposals yet again have something to commend themselves over and above the internal settlement.
  Therefore, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to do everything in his power to try to bring the parties together in discussion. Heaven knows, if that had succeeded in the case of pre-independence in Angola we should have a very different situation there. I remember seeing the four leaders of the four delegations going in to see President Kenyatta in Mombasa, when a very distinguished political adviser to the President said "If there can be agreement between these four, there will be a peaceful Angola. If not, they will have five years of civil war." That is the sort of problem we face in Rhodesia.
  I do not underestimate the enormous change of heart which has taken place in Rhodesia. Let us recognise it—the acceptance of the concept of majority rule and universal adult suffrage, the release of the 700 detainees, the lifting of the ban on ZANU and ZAPU, the request for the end of fighting, although I would wish that it had been a properly worked out amnesty.
  But we must realise that this has come about not because Mr. Smith has had a blinding flash of the obvious on the road to Damascus, like St. Paul, but because of the combined effect of sanctions, what has happened in Angola and Mozambique, and the activities of the Patriotic Front, which is not in control of but is certainly operating up to 150 to 200 miles from the frontier around the whole of Rhodesia. There is also the fact

  495
  of the pressures upon the European population in terms of military training of up to six months, the slow-down in investment and the enormous rate of emigration. That is what has brought it about.
  But, having said that and having wholeheartedly welcomed this tremendous advance, I think that Mr. Smith may try to delay the election. That would not surprise me. But I do not think he can go back on the process, because he has nowhere to go back to, unless the inevitability of what he has recognised is actually getting worse. Whether he has left it too late, remains to be seen.
  However, I do not believe that we have gone far enough on an amnesty. I have seen—here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—no move which encourages me on elections, on producing the conditions in which elections can flourish, particularly in the tribal trust areas. I am very suspicious not merely about the fact that Mr. Hove was dismissed but about the issue on which he was dismissed, which was to state what I would have thought was the obvious, that law and order, the police, the army and the judiciary must have a far better balance between the different races.
  Therefore, whilst I believe that we are right to say that the internal settlement marks a substantial move in the right direction, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary must realise, as he does, that he must bring the two sides together. If he does not, civil war is utterly inevitable. I do not believe that in such circumstances any internal settlement will work.
  I do not know where the conference would be held. I hope that it might be in Kenya, that it might be in an African country where there is a respected Head of State who might at least convene the conference and then hand over to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I hope that no individual Zimbabwe leader would hope to exercise the right of veto to go to Kenya. I think that a Commonwealth country might be appropriate.
  Of course, the internal settlement is an enormous step in the right direction. Just as we cannot give anyone a veto, we cannot give exclusive recognition to any particular settlement. I think that the Anglo-American proposals are the right
  496
  ones. There is much that the internal settlement has in common with them, so I see no difficulty in getting the two sides together. I hope that they do get together. So long as the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary goes on trying to get both sides together, and therefore trying to avert the alternative, which is the inevitability of bloodshed, so long he is entitled to the support of the House.
  5.28 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: Those of us on the Labour Benches who have followed the saga of the long night of developments in Southern Rhodesia since UDI have argued for many years that the liberation forces, the guerrillas—or the terrorists, they are called by Conservative Members—would lay down their arms if they were absolutely satisfied that there was on the table a proposition which would bring about human, economic and social rights and political power for the majority of people in Southern Rhodesia.
  It was Bishop Muzorewa himself who said last July that nothing would stop the guerrillas, nothing would stop the fighting going on, until people were satisfied that there was a Government who were not hand-picked by Ian Smith. The test of what is taking place over an internal settlement in Southern Rhodesia is the question of who are the people who have come together to bring it about why they are there and what are the implications for developments in the future.
  Before the Geneva conference the Rev. Sithole was rejected by his own followers and replaced by Mugabe. Having lost his position, the Rev. Sithole decided to return to Southern Rhodesia. But, as every hon. Member should be aware, because it has been well documented, permission for him to return to Southern Rhodesia rested upon his giving certain undertakings to Ian Smith's regime. One condition was Sithole's rejection of what Ian Smith and Opposition Members call terrorism. To the great disappointment of large numbers of his followers who allied themselves with what they and I call liberation movements, Mr. Sithole accepted these conditions and is now a member of the Executive Council.
  As has been said, the leaders of the Patriotic Front took no part in this internal settlement and totally reject it. If it

  497
  is allowed to develop, the tragic reality is that the black people of Southern Rhodesia, under the internal settlement, will have only one seat out of four on the Executive Council and three portfolios out of 18 in the Council of Ministers.
  In buying this agreement Mr. Sithole and Bishop Muzorewa have sold out the interests of those whose support they gained because they had promised that they would protect those interests. Mr. Ian Smith has 28 Rhodesia Front seats and for at least a decade, on an analysis of the agreement that is being put forward, they would have the power in Parliament to veto any constitutional change.
  The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said that this was a step forward because it gives people more than they had before. On paper this is true, but we have to consider how the balance of power within the internal settlement would be likely to work. The full terms of the agreement drawn up on 3rd March run to about 1,500 words and those terms are open to interpretation, as everybody who has discussed them would agree. They bristle with problems.
  One of the first matters that was mentioned and needs highlighting is that the agreement that there will be no political interference in the composition of the public services, the police, the defence force and the prison service.
  Any changes and that this must be accepted was accepted within the internal agreement. Therefore, any necessary changes in the transfer of power—because it is also an argument about the transfer of power—and the change of an economic order are, by virtue of what is said in relation to the control of those forces, bound to be blocked. Any power to be transferred from the minority to the majority will not be allowed to take place in those very important areas.
  The agreement says
  "Judges will have security of tenure."
  That means that those judges who collaborated with the Smith regime in its illegal declaration of independence and who have sentenced to death those who fought against that illegality will be protected in their present positions. That is not acceptable to those who have been fighting for something which gave them
  498
  a little more dignity and a little more right than that.
  When Mr. Byron Hove accepted Bishop Muzorewa's invitation to become joint Minister for law and order, he had either not read the agreement or did not understand what he was agreeing to participate in. He did not understand what "free from political interference" meant. Mr. Hove soon recognised that if the agreement was to be made accepable to the people as a whole, if it was to try to bring in and to keep Bishop Muzorewa, to bring in Joshua Nkomo and to keep Mr. Sithole, but particularly to bring in Joshua Nkomo, the internal agreement would have to point the way forward to real change.
  First, Byron Hove attacked the indemnity law which protects security forces against legal action by civilians and said that he would waive it wherever and whenever necessary. He also said that the structure of the police force and the Civil Service needed complete overhaul. He said:
  "The black members of the force are at a complete disadvantage. No sensible person can expect a black man to tolerate this."
  That was the voice of the people, in my view, trying to woo Joshua Nkomo and others to enter into this agreement.
  However, three days later his joint Minister, Mr. Hilary Squires, gave an official reply to what Byron Hove had said. He said:
  "There is, it is true, a movement towards a new political order in this country in response to the circumstances presently dominant in the world in which we live, but the outline for that blueprint for that order, is the agreement signed on March 3rd. This agreement provides there will be no political interference with the disciplined forces of the State. I wish to make it as unmistakably plain as possible that there will be no political interference with the disciplined forces of the State. It follows that any talk of reconstructing the police or fundamentally altering the present make-up by means of political directives would be a flat contradiction of that agreement."
  He went on to say:
  "The suggestion is such a gross departure from what was agreed, it should not be countenanced for one moment. Indeed, such statements should be positively dismissed … such statements merely sharpened the resolve, if it needed any sharpening, to see that such departures cannot happen."
  That was reported in the Bulawayo Chronicle of 20th April. Mr. Byron Hove was dismissed on 28th April.

  499
  The internal settlement is, therefore, open to wide interpretation. When Mr. Byron Hove accepted the invitation, he believed sincerely that if and when the internal settlement was agreed, it would be possible to use it in order to involve the majority of people in Rhodesia in the sort of deal for which they had argued for so long.
  The right hon. Member for Knutsford spoke about the release of detainees. Mr. Byron Hove, on 19th April, also spoke about the release of detainees. Barring unforeseen problems, he saw them all being released before very long. But Mr. Hilary Squires said:
  "The release of detainees depends on the security situation. If they do not constitute a threat to public safety any longer they will be released. The guiding factor so far has been that they support the internal agreement. People who obviously do not support that agreement will just stay where they are."
  That was reported in the Bulawayo Chronicle of 21st April. If this agreement is supposed to carry with it the means whereby the majority of people will have the right to say whether they want it, and if it carries with it the release of political detainees, that release should not depend upon whether they accept an internal settlement to which many of them now in prison have not been and could not have been party.
  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Will not the hon. Member accept that, so far as I am aware, not one of the 700 detainees who have been released has suggested that he had to give an assurance that he accepted the internal settlement? The only assurance that they had to give, according to the detainees, was that they would not return to terrorism once released.
  Miss Lestor: What the hon. Gentleman says may well be true. However, I am not for the moment dealing with that. We say that we have an agreement and we have two co-Ministers interpreting that agreement and both of them and the right hon. Member for Knutsford say that it is great that so many detainees have been released. But if the only ones to be released are those who support the agreement, we are in the position that we were in before, namely, that those who disagree with the agreement and want to criticise it will not be released. This
  500
  is bound to cause considerable suspicion, agitation and concern on the part of the people who will lay down their arms only when they are convinced that they have achieved at least the Six Principles for which we all argued for so long. I doubt very much, within this agreement, that they have. It was said when the agreement was made that it must lead to an end to the fighting or it would have failed. That was one of the prerequisites and one of the argument made when the agreement was drawn up.
  Mr. Sithole said that he had the power to stop the fighting. He said first that he would do it when the date for the setting up of the new Government was announced. Then he said he would do it upon the setting up of the Minister's conference. So far he has not been able to do it simply because he does not control the guerrillas. He is not in a position to tell the guerrillas to lay down their arms. Until there is as a party to the agreement someone who is satisfied that what the guerrillas are fighting for has been assured, they will not lay down their arms, whether we like it or not.
  It has been claimed that the agreement meets all the Six Principles. I do not have time to go into the arguments on that, but a lot has happened since the Six Principles were drawn up and it may be that if a proper agreement in Southern Rhodesia is not reached soon, proposals such as unimpeded progress towards majority rule will be seen not to be giving enough to people in the immediate future. It may be seen that the balance struck in the Six Principles, which did not meet the requests of all the people in Southern Rhodesia, is lost by default because the argument for more is bound to go on.
  One of the tragedies since the Six Principles were drawn up is that there has been so much violence, mistrust and harassment and so many problems that the atmosphere in which the principles were drawn up has, to a large extent, been destroyed. We must find ways of getting back to the atmosphere that led to the discussions taking place on those principles.
  Mr. Smith bears a very grave responsibility for all the violence that has taken place in Southern Rhodesia. His unilateral declaration of independence

  501
  brought Rhodesia and all her people great physical suffering and tremendous economic problems. Many people have been killed and thousands of young people, in particular, have lost opportunities that they should have had. The whole population has become brutalised because of the fighting and because of the widening gaps that exist in the various arguments.
  It is a tragedy for us all because Rhodesia was fortunate in having large numbers of white people, many of whom have now left, who were prepared to contribute to work for the well-being of Southern Rhodesia and, after independence, for Zimbabwe, on a fair and proper basis.
  I agree very much with something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). Ian Smith is seen as a symbol of white supremacy and suppression of large numbers of people who have been detained and have suffered because of him. I do not believe therefore that leaving Ian Smith in a position where he has to be negotiated with will bring in anyone like Joshua Nkomo or will have any appeal to those people who have suffered as a result of Mr. Smith.
  The first of the Anglo-American proposals was the surrender of power by the illegal regime and a return to legality. I still support that proposal, but that statement alone cuts like a knife through the internal Salisbury agreement because there is no return to legality and no basis for involving the overwhelming majority of black Africans in that discussion. Until that takes place and we recognise the legitimacy of the cause that Joshua Nkomo and others are still arguing, the internal settlement cannot lead to peace.
  I therefore believe strongly that within the Anglo-American proposals we cannot continue to give Ian Smith a place of prominence that he does not merit and has not earned. We have to start fresh negotiations—certainly on the Anglo-American proposals, but certainly not including Ian Smith.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the debate, but the Foreign Secretary said that he had placed in the Library docu-
  502
  ments that had been produced during the discussions in Salisbury. I have just, at the earliest opportunity, been to the Library to obtain a set of the documents and it is important that the House should know exactly what they involve. There are about 100 pages of detailed constitutional proposals affecting the proposed Parliament, the Presidency, the Public Services Commission, procedures, legislative powers, the summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament, the judicature, public service finance and citizenship.
  Our debate would have taken a very different form had there been more than two copies of these documents placed in the Library, had hon. Members had some indication of their importance and significance, and had they been made available to us sooner. It is extraordinary that a debate on Rhodesia can take place and that documents of this significance and importance should be made available only casually by the Foreign Secretary in his speech one and a half hours ago.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that there is little help that I can offer the hon. Gentleman. It is not a matter for the Chair. It may be unfortunate, but it is not something that the Chair can deal with.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Walters: You have reminded the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many hon. Members are waiting to address the House. I have therefore undertaken to Mr. Speaker to keep my remarks as brief as possible.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) will forgive me if I do not comment in detail on her speech, except to say that she was very negative, as most hon Members opposite have been. I particularly regret that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), with whom I frequently agree, made such a provocative speech.
  I shall make only some main points. Few, if any, would question the desirability of bringing the Patriotic Front into the Rhodesian settlement, and few would disagree with the proposition that such a development would make the internal settlement more likely to succeed. Meanwhile, one can and should

  503
  criticise the Government for their halfhearted response to the internal settlement, in spite of the enormous step forward that it has signified. With the full support of the British Government, its chances of success would be greatly improved.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said in his eloquent and forceful speech, until now there has been far too little indication of that support. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will be much more forthcoming than was the Foreign Secretary.
  Have the Government taken such a lukewarm position as a result of their own considered assessment of the situation or in order to keep in typically negative step with the present, and probably transitory, policy of the United States in Africa and, in particular, with that of Mr. Young?
  It is interesting to contrast the attitude adopted by the United States and the British Governments to the Palestine Liberation Organisation and their stand in relation to peace negotiations in the Middle East with the attitude adopted to the Patriotic Front in the Rhodesian peace talks.
  It is beyond dispute that the PLO commands wide support from the Palestinian community, both from those Palestinians under Israeli occupation and those in exile. With the exception of a few fringe extremist groups, the PLO is in control of the resistance guerrillas fighting against the Israeli occupation. The PLO has been unanimously recognised by all Arab States as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. It has been recognised by the United Nations, and the chairman of the PLO addressed the United Nations General Assembly and his speech at the time received wide acclaim. Despite this, the Government of the United States do not accept that the PLO should participate in peace negotiations and refuse to deal with it or to have any contact with its representatives. Such policy is carried to absurd lengths when United States' diplomats are forced to avoid representatives of the PLO when they meet them at official functions.
  The position of the British Government, although not quite so extreme, is also unrealistic. It certainly contradicts the comments made this afternoon by the
  504
  Foreign Secretary about his attitude to resistance movements in general. The contrast between the attitude adopted to the PLO and that adopted towards the Patriotic Front is quite remarkable. After all, it is not in question that the Patriotic Front guerrillas have indulged in acts of brutal violence, nor that the representatives of the internal settlement command greater support within Rhodesia than do the leaders of the Patriotic Front.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walters: I would rather not, because I am trying to be brief.
  Having drawn attention to a particularly glaring manifestation of double standards, I say this in conclusion. It is not in dispute that the participation of the Patriotic Front in the settlement is highly desirable, even though Mr. Mugabe's remarks about his determination to create a one-party Marxist State were hardly particularly encouraging. It is generally agreed that every effort should continue to be made to persuade Mr. Nkomo to rethink his attitude. In the meantime, however, should there not be wholehearted recognition of the remarkable achievement which is the internal settlement and should not, whatever we may decide about sanctions, the more burdensome and irritating restrictions imposed on Rhodesian citizens be eased immediately?
  There was a time, not long ago, when Mr. Smith said that he would not contemplate majority rule in his lifetime. He has changed dramatically and signed the document which makes majority rule a certainty, and which could make it come about in a matter of months. The British and American Governments should have the vision and the political common sense to recognise the significance of the progress made and to act accordingly.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I have listened with interest to some of the strictures on the internal settlement and upon Mr. Ian Smith which have come from my hon. Friends. I can only say that from the beginning of this dispute in 1965 I have taken the view that the people of Rhodesia as a whole, which means mostly the African people of Rhodesia, must decide for themselves the kind of Government that they want. Our role has always been to ensure that they

  505
  did that freely and that they made a choice which was satisfactory to them. For that reason, I could not accept the original attempts made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) to reach an agreement which I regarded as a sell-out, first on "Tiger" and then on "Fearless". I opposed those settlements. For the same reason, I did not think that the Home proposals of 1972 were right and I opposed them.
  I would have been prepared to accept any of those settlements if there could have been seen to have been overwhelming majority support from the people of Rhodesia as a whole, particularly the African population. On every occasion, as I recollect it, the Opposition were unanimous in their view that we ought to have accepted whatever agreement we could get because that was what the African people wanted, because it was in their interests.
  The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) came very near to saying that because the internal agreement was good for the Africans it ought to be accepted. Indeed, at one stage he said that the African people were actually supporting the internal settlement. The truth of the matter is that none of us knows what the African people support or which leaders they support. All I say to my hon. Friends is that if the African people supported Mr. Smith as the Prime Minister of a new Zimbabwe we would have to accept that settlement. All I say is that the African people must exercise their undoubted right to choose for themselves. We have no right to force upon them any kind of settlement which we think to be preferable, which we think is in their long-term interests. It is a matter for them.
  I do not, therefore, trouble myself about the details of the internal settlement. If I were an African I would be sceptical about them. An agreement which entrenches the propery rights of whites in a country where the ownership of land is the most dominant political issue—and entrenches them over about 10 years—is something that I would view with a great deal of scepticism. If the African people want to accept that as the price which they think desirable for a peaceful settlement and a peaceful transition, that is a matter for them.
  506
  I would go along with anything that the African people choose freely and voluntarily. Before I get to that stage, there is an enormous leap to be made from the current position. Of course I accept that for Mr. Ian Smith to accept, even in theory, that the country might move into a state when it was, within a few months, governed by a black Government elected upon a national franchise and dominated by a majority vote of Africans is an enormous step forward.
  I suggest to Conservative Members that Mr. Smith would never have got to that stage if we had not got sanctions and if there had not been the threat which came from his borders from the freedom fighters. I still choose to use that term because I believe that that is what they are. People tell me that they are murderers and terrorists. That is exactly what could have been said of the Maquis in France; it is what could have been said of the guerrilla movement in Yugoslavia during the war. They used the same techniques as are being used by the freedom fighters in Africa. It is all a question of one's point of view. If one agrees with them, they are freedom fighters. If one disagrees with them, they are murderers.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: The hon. Member has said that the techniques of the Maquis and of the freedom fighters in Rhodesia are similar. I know of no instance where the Maquis butchered young children.
  Mr. Lyon: The hon. Member's memory is, I think, a little defective. There is a good deal of evidence that some of the tactics used by the freedom fighters in Europe against Hitler were not particularly palatable to decent people. They were regarded as necessary and justifiable. We cannot differentiate between the methods used by freedom fighters in one part of the world and those used elsewhere. What we can do is differentiate between the support for their objectives. I support the objective of an independent Zimbabwe governed by a black majority Government elected upon a universal franchise. If that is the choice of the Africans, so be it.
  How are we to determine what is the choice of the Africans? Conservative Members are now claiming that they

  507
  know because Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sithole are supporting the internal settlement. It is not long ago that Mr. Sithole was derided by the Opposition as being one of those militant terrorists whom they now seek to clothe in the guise of Mr. Mugabe or Mr. Nkomo. Mr. Nkomo at that time was the Opposition's great favourite because he was one who was engaged in discussions with Mr. Smith about a settlement which was derided by Mr. Sithole, by the bishop and by Mr. Mugabe. Then they said that Bishop Muzorewa was a naïve cleric who had little following inside the country and, since he had left Rhodesia at the time, was of no standing in any future settlement. That was apparently disproved when he went back to Salisbury and was greeted by the biggest turnout of Africa opinion, at Highfields, that had ever been seen.
  Then Bishop Muzorewa suddenly became a significant figure. When he agreed to join in discussions with Mr. Smith, he suddenly became the dominant figure in Rhodesian politics. All one can ask oneself is whether we, having made a mistake about the nature of African opinion in the past—and a great many people did it markedly at the time of the Pearson Commission—can say that we know the state of African opinion now. I do not think that we can.
  The dismissal of Mr. Hove was significant not simply because he sought to do what I think most of us who want to get a sense of racial justice in Zimbabwe want to do but because of the reaction that came as a result of his dismissal. The leading African newspaper in Rhodesia was inundated with letters of support for him from all over the country from Africans saying that they supported his stand and the attitude he had taken, which was diametrically opposite to the views of the white Minister of Law and Order and, apparently, since he got the sack, to the views of the Executive Council, supported by Mr. Smith and the three African leaders.
  In those circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that Bishop Muzorewa, whether he was at that meeting or not, has had to back track upon whether he was supporting Mr. Hove or supporting the Executive Council. The truth is that the bishop has seen the force of opinion
  508
  from the country which might undermine his position and the position of the African National Council in the part that it is now taking in the internal settlement.
  No one can doubt that, of the three African leaders in the Executive Council, Bishop Muzorewa is likely—I put it no higher—to have the greatest degree of support within the country. If he finds that that support has been eroded by his participation in this internal agreement by the measures which the Executive Council has failed to take to advance African rights, I think it is very possible that African opinion will be decisively against him, against the ANC and against the internal settlement.
  On Sunday, we may see some kind of compromise in the meeting of the ANC which is to consider its future participation in the agreement. I have not the least doubt that some kind of settlement will be made and that the ANC will go on. But no one can doubt the significance of Mr. Hove's dismissal. Whether he was a newcomer from England, whether he was a thorn in the side of Mr. Smith and the white members of the Executive Council or whether he acted entirely in a balanced and moderate way, all these are matters for discussion. But what cannot be doubted is that to dismiss him was to fly in the face of a good deal of African opinion.
  Therefore, if we were to take a clear appraisal of African opinion at this moment, the possibility—again, I put it no higher—is that it would not support the internal settlement and that it would want there to be a continuation of the guerrilla war. In such circumstances, I find it difficult to understand the point of view of the right hon. Member for Knutsford. If that possibility exists, why is it that he comes constantly to the House inveighing against my right hon. Friend to give some word of encouragement, or even to go further and endorse the internal settlement, when in fact we do not know that that is what the African people want?
  How are we to know? I think that this is the most important issue—far more important than the mixture of the Army with the military forces outside or than the future role of the police force, or than any of the other factors which are at present a matter of acute discussion.

  509
  The real issue is what steps are we to take to ensure that we, and, indeed, everyone else, know that the Africans want a particular course to be followed. At the moment, what Mr. Smith and the internal settlement are offering is an election in due course on a universal franchise after a referendum of white opinion, conducted with all the organs of publicity in the control of the present Executive Council and with no attempt at any impartial arbitration by someone from outside, whether it be Field Marshal Lord Carver, the United Nations, a Commonwealth force or whatever. It is to be done within the present structure of society, with the present police force and the present armed forces. It cannot be doubted what the result of the white referendum will be, but what would the result be if we had a completely impartial referendum of African opinion, which is not even on offer?
  I can well understand that some people in the present Rhodesian Government, among them Mr. van der Byl, are quite willing to have a referendum of black opinion on the understanding that it is conducted within the present system, with the present forces of law and order administering it. That cannot be accepted by African opinion. I would not accept it as a genuine expression of opinion by the African voters in Rhodesia.
  What I would want before I could be sure would be that the referendum was conducted by some outside agency such as the United Nations. If Mr. Smith is genuine that he now wants a peaceful transition to black majority rule and that he wants the internal settlement to succeed, I cannot see why he would resist a United Nations force being in the country to administer a referendum of African opinion. If we had that—and it would have to come after a period of completely free propaganda for anybody taking part in the referendum debate, which would have to include the Patriotic Front as well—I think I could accept that the internal settlement, backed by such a vote, is the one that ought to be the basis of any constitutional settlement that we would endorse in this House.
  If those steps were accepted and put into practice, I would accept it even if it meant that Mr. Smith was to be the Prime Minister of the new Zimbabwe. I would
  510
  certainly support any move to call on the Patriotic Front to give up the fighting thereafter. But, until we get that clear expression of opinion, I cannot foresee an occasion when I could say that the Fifth Principle had been endorsed.
  Therefore, I hope that in any future discussions that go on as a result of the initiative announced by my right hon. Friend today, in Zimbabwe or anywhere else, this will be one of the main features of any amendment of the internal settlement agreement.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Amery: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) made an extremely important point, both at the beginning and at the end of his remarks, when he said that what mattered was that the solution should come from inside Rhodesia. He pointed out that the "Tiger", the "Fearless" and the Home-Smith proposals came from outside. Whatever may be said about it otherwise, the internal settlement has come from inside. It has not just been a deal between four political bosses. At each stage in the lengthy negotiations, beginning last November, they have continually consulted their party committees and the grass roots.
  Nothing can be said to be firmly acceptable to the Rhodesian people until there has been an election, but certainly no settlement has ever been produced or adumbrated which had such a volume of support from such very different organisations as this one. I agree, therefore, with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of the first point—that this ought to be an internal settlement coming out of Rhodesian political life.
  I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's statement—other speakers have said it in this debate and on other occasions—that it was the freedom fighters who brought about the present situation. Yes, they did, but not in the way that the hon. Gentleman meant. It was the prospect of an Nkomo-Mugabe takeover of power and of a kind of Mozambique-type or Angola-type dictatorship which brought the leaders of the African majority to the point where they were prepared to forget about the past and to think that the danger of the new imperialism from outside was a great deal worse than the vestiges of the old imperialism which still remain.

  511
  The hon. Gentleman referred, as did the Foreign Secretary, to the dismissal of Mr. Byron Hove. Perhaps the multinational Rhodesian Executive was showing an excessive belief in the doctrine of collective responsibility—a rather stricter one than is sometimes observed on the Benches opposite. I understand that the matter is to be investigated by a commission on which there will be six representatives of Bishop Muzorewa's party and two representatives from each of the other three parties to the national Executive. It could not be much fairer than that.
  The Foreign Secretary also referred to differences between Bishop Muzorewa and his Executive about the ceasefire. My goodness, if other people refused to recognise a Government because the Executive and the Prime Minister did not always agree, there would not be many ambassadors left in this country. I think that we ought not to take this too seriously. These are, I think, little local difficulties. The troubles in Portugal and Spain when democracy returned to those countries were far worse than anything we have seen in Rhodesia so far.
  I want to put a point to the Minister of State which I think is important and which I should like him to answer. At the very outset of his remarks, the Foreign Secretary said that the security situation had not yet reached excessively serious proportions but that he was very worried about a civil war between blacks. I came back from Rhodesia on Monday. What struck me most during my visit was that race has ceased to be the central political issue in Rhodesia. It is now ideology, politics—call it what we will. It is not race any more. The leaders of the African majority have joined forces with the leader of the European minority to establish what they think is a pro-Western plurist democracy and to resist the advance of what they regard as Soviet imperialism.
  No one wants a fight or a confrontation, but, if there has to be a fight, I would certainly much rather that it was a political and ideological fight than a racial tight. I should like to hear that the Foreign Secretary confirms that view, because Mr. Andy Young has said that the worst thing would be a "black on black" confrontation. I am all against
  512
  any confrontation, but I would much rather that it ceased to be a racial confrontation. This, at least, seems to me to be a step forward.
  The Foreign Secretary reverted to the Anglo-American proposals. He said that he stood by the principles involved and by the conference which he proposed. We ought to be clear as to the basic flaws in the Anglo-American proposals. The first is the installation of an Anglo-Indian raj. Field Marshal Carver and General Prem Chand are to take over the supreme security control. This is a colonial system such as Rhodesia has never had. The second is that the security forces are intended to operate under it.
  It is quite clear that this proposal will not be accepted. It was never acceptable to Mr. Smith. It might have been accepted by the black leaders, now in the transitional Government, when they were in opposition, but they would not look at it today. They are in the seats of power today. They have at their command a sophisticated economy, a most efficient civil service, and very powerful security forces. They will not hand them over to an Anglo-Indian junta. It is inconceivable to think that they would. This is a going political reality. The transitional Government are a political reality. This is something which the British Government must understand.
  It was a little disingenuous, frankly, for Mr. Secretary Vance and our own Foreign Secretary to say that the leaders of the transitional Government could go to a conference without commitment. What would they have discussed? It is quite clear from what was said at the meetings in Salisbury—and, indeed, before that in Pretoria—that they would have discussed whether the Anglo-Indian junta should have been in control of the security forces, exactly how this would have been manipulated and what influence would have been given to the Patriotic Front.
  Had they gone to the conference, they would have been accepting a discussion on their own possible abdication. They would have been putting in question what they regard as a definitive settlement. They thought—and I do not blame them—that the Foreign Secretary and his American colleague were trying to sabotage the internal settlement and to reopen the whole question. I take it that

  513
  this was in the hope of getting a wider agreement. But I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary and his American colleague really measured the consequences of the internal settlement breaking down as a result of the conference. European confidence was assured, but, if African confidence in the internal settlement had broken down, Rhodesia would have been heading for anarchy on a disastrous scale. There could have been a grotesque barn dance. People talk about it freely in Salisbury, so why not here? There could have been a grotesque barn dance in which different elements in the internal settlement and in the Patriotic Front would have been joining forces to fight against each other.
  The Foreign Secretary still seems to have his fixation on the Patriotic Front. The Patriotic Front is itself a fiction. It is a loose alliance punctuated by internecine killings both inside the country and outside it. There is a good deal of disaffection both in Mozambique, in the ranks of Mr. Mugabe's forces, and in Zambia, in the ranks of Mr. Nkomo's forces. Indeed, it would be fair to say that there are about 10 times more political prisoners among the Nkomo forces in Zambia and that almost as many—perhaps more—executions have taken place in both forces than there have ever been in Rhodesia as a result of the law against terrorism.
  In their public declaration, the Patriotic Front leaders affect a Marxist view. It is not only Mr. Mugabe. Mr. Nkomo has made speeches of exactly the same kind. In private they may say something different. The Foreign Secretary will know that at the conference in Salisbury, when questioned about the motives of the Patriotic Front, Ambassador Andy Young said "Of course, they are out for personal power." We can take our choice. If they are out for Marxism, I do not quite see why we should fight all that hard to promote their interests. If they are out for personal power, is it really such a noble cause that we should attach importance to it?
  It was made quite clear to me by Mr. Smith, by Bishop Muzorewa, by Mr. Sithole and by Chief Chirau that they are still perfectly prepared to welcome Mr. Nkomo and even Mr. Mugabe if they are prepared to lay down their arms and join the Executive Council. There is
  514
  an empty chair for one of them, and there are two or three chairs on the Ministerial Council for the rest. What Mr. Smith and the three African leaders will not do is reopen their own settlement. Lord knows, it was reached with very great difficulty. They are only prepared to accept and welcome the people who have been killing their women and children and their men on equal terms with themselves.
  I do not think it likely that either Mr. Nkomo or Mr. Mugabe will accept. There are many reasons for this. One of them can be put at the door of the Government Front Bench. I say to the Foreign Secretary and to the Minister of State that if they had not run after Mr. Nkomo quite so hard, they might have got him a bit cheaper. But they have inflated his ego to an extent that even the photographs suggest that it has affected him physically. What is more—and this is more serious—he has the backing of the Soviet Union. After what has gone on in Angola and Ethiopia, it is not very likely that he will throw that over for the backing of the right hon. Gentleman and his American colleague.
  I should like to say a word about sanctions. The Foreign Secretary said that we ought to keep up the pressure in order to get the election carried out quickly. That is not the view of the African leaders. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) spoke about it. He said that, so far as he knew, neither Bishop Muzorewa nor Mr. Sithole was in favour of lifting sanctions. The right hon. Gentleman has told me since that he saw them only before they were in office. Now that they are in office they are feeling a bit differently. They have both told me that they thought sanctions ought to go as soon as possible.
  This is part of the old vendetta against Ian Smith. The great joke in Salisbury, among blacks as well as whites—perhaps more among blacks than among whites—is that the Foreign Secretary, with all the energy and vigour of his youth, should have spent half an hour trying to tell Mr. Sithole about the deviousness of Mr. Smith. But who is the greatest expert in the world on Mr. Smith? It is Mr. Sithole. He was for years his prisoner, he was convicted of trying to murder Mr. Smith and he was fighting

  515
  against him before the right hon. Gentleman knew how to do up his fly buttons. It really is a bit absurd that the right hon. Gentleman should have conducted this kind of conversation. Of course, all Salisbury knows about it and it is the joke of the place.
  Sanctions plus the recession lead to deficit financing, which leads to inflation. We in this House all know about it. That means lower living standards, as we have had here when real wages have been cut because of inflation. It makes the situation worse. It makes the security situation worse, because more people are discontented. The effect of maintaining sanctions is to help the Patriotic Front—to help the guerrillas. It will not defeat the transitional Government. It did not defeat Smith. But it makes it harder to hold the elections in a reasonable climate and it makes the long-term situation more difficult.
  Under the Kissinger agreement, and under the Anglo-American proposals—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) pointed out—the sanctions would have been lifted. They are not to be lifted now, because the leaders of the majority of the blacks and the leader of the white minority have got together without the consent and permission of the Foreign Secretary and the pro-Soviet elements. This is regarded as all very shocking. But they have accepted the Six Principles. They have done all the things that have been talked about, yet they must go on being punished because they have not had the consent of the Government Front Bench and the pro-Soviet forces. There is no legal difficulty here. For several years Senator Byrd moved an amendment which exempted chrome and other metals. It has now been rescinded from the sanctions resolution. But not a dog barked in the United Nations while it was in force.
  We all accept that de jure recognition cannot be given until the elections have come about. But is there not a case for de facto recognition now? Any competent observer would assure the Foreign Secretary that the transitional Government has the support of the great majority of African people. But the right hon. Gentleman need not take my word for it. Cannot we devise a rapid method of
  516
  taking a rough check, not to give de jure recognition but to give de facto recognition? Would it not be quite a good idea to send out an all-party parliamentary delegation from this House to have a look and to report before the House rises for the recess on whether, in its judgment, the situation was at least good enough to give the transitional Government the benefit of the doubt and to lift the sanctions so that the economic situation might in itself improve?
  The transitional Government has not proposed an all-party delegation, but in its reply to the invitation to the conference it has asked "Cannot you make a test of acceptability before the elections to see whether the situation would not warrant your lifting the sanctions, as proposed in the Kissinger and Anglo-American proposals?" The invitation is there. The transitional Government have said that it is up to us to propose the kind of test that we would think useful. I put forward this idea of an all-party delegation—we could have a commission, or even a referendum, but that would take longer to organise—in all seriousness and in the knowledge that it would be accepted by certainly three of the four members of the Executive Council. I think that it would probably be accepted by all, but I was able to consult only three about it.
  Mr. Faulds: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give any idea of the numbers of hon. Members of this House whom he suggests should go on the delegation who would actually be able to assess the feeling of Africans through discussing these matters with them in the African dialects or African languages of Southern Rhodesia.
  Mr. Amery: I am not suggesting that we would get a really detailed account. I am not suggesting a commission such as the Pearce Commission. What I am suggesting is that a certain number of hon. Members should go. The House of Commons has a remarkable expertise in almost every matter. I would not have thought it too difficult to put together an all-party delegation which would come back and say "It looks as if the present transitional Government command the general allegiance and obedience of the country and, therefore, the sanctions could reasonably be lifted."

  517
  The Foreign Secretary has claimed that he does not take sides as between the transitional Government and the Patriotic Front. That is not true. He has taken sides all through. If one looks at the list of the meetings he has had at the Foreign Office, one will see that the door has always been open for the Patriotic Front leaders, rather less for Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sithole and only with great difficulty—at my own insistence—for Chief Chirau. When it comes to the United Nations, Mr. Nkomo was allowed to appear before it and not a voice was raised. But with regard to Bishop Muzorewa, who was believed to be the spokesman of the great majority, at least we could have asked for him to be heard. We did not even do that.
  With regard to sanctions, the Soviets are helping the Patriotic Front not only with arms but with money. I am not sure what the figure is. I am told £14 million, although £20 million is a figure that is bandied about. Continuing sanctions means that the Patriotic Front is getting massive external support while we are doing everything possible to prevent external support reaching the transitional Government. In fact, we are working for the Soviets against the democrats.
  I should like to say a word about security. Everyone knows that security has been deteriorating for several months. However, one should not exaggerate this. I spent last Saturday and Sunday on a farm in Rhodesia, surrounded by barbed wire defences. I spent the whole day driving around in an area of 100 square miles. The place was crowded with happy holidaymakers who were fishing and picnicking. The only difference between them and an ordinary European holiday crowd was that most of the men, and some of the women, were armed. However, I think that the situation may be about to improve.
  It is very rash to make a forecast about these things. But Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sithole have been for some weeks now in close touch with several of the guerrilla leaders, with the help of the local security forces. There are several areas where there is, in fact, a de facto ceasefire, monitored by the security forces themselves—that is, monitored officially, because there are liaison officers with the guerrillas who are watching what is
  518
  going on. They have been negotiating the modalities of a ceasefire and now we shall see whether it works.
  I say only that the pretty sceptical, tough elements in the Rhodesian Special Branch and so on think that perhaps the black leaders know what they are talking about and that rather more guerrillas will come over than previously have been expected.
  However, the danger of escalation is very real. I am told by the general staffs in both South Africa and Rhodesia that there is no indication yet of a massive build-up for a conventional war operation on the Ethiopian model. But the facilities exist in Mozambique at Nacala—port facilities, airfield facilities and basic cadres—and after Angola and Ethiopia nothing would be entirely unexpected.
  What is the Government's position, supposing that Cubans appear? I learned from American sources that, when in South Africa—the Foreign Secretary may well have been present—Mr. Vance told the South African Foreign Minister that if Cubans appeared in Rhodesia the United States Government would be "very concerned" if the South Africans responded. We must ration our contempt; there are so many people who deserve it. But what do we do if this threat materialises? If we are to do nothing, there is no point in our having this debate at all. If Rhodesia is a British responsibility, we cannot accept foreign intervention of a Cuban or other type. I believe that the South Africans will respond. That is the impression with which I came away.
  But it would help if we gave support to the internal settlement. It would give the Soviets pause. It would make them think a little bit before involving themselves in a confrontation with the forces of a Government which we had recognised, even if only de facto. It would help the ceasefire too. There are quite a lot of guerrillas who would be more likely to cease firing if they thought that there was Anglo-American acceptance of the internal settlement. By refusing it, the Government are encouraging them to go on with their war. It would help the prospect of holding free elections. It would help other African States—and there are several of them—which in private have expressed appreciation of the

  519
  internal settlement to come over. Mr. Kaunda naturally is still shell-shocked by the weakness of the West over Angola, where we left him in the lurch. But there are powerful forces in Zambia who would very much like to see the frontier opened and to have traffic flowing again down to South Africa, if not to Mozambique.
  Surely we have to face the fact that there is no chance of the Anglo-American proposals being accepted or of the kind of conference which the Foreign Secretary has proposed.
  What, then, is the Government's policy? It is really one of "wait and see". This is the negation of statesmanship. There is a transfer of power already, and it is irreversible in the sense that I can conceive of no political circumstances in which it could be taken back. It is based on the Six Principles, and it is heading for free elections.
  I cannot see in these circumstances why sanctions are maintained or why we continue the fiction that this is an illegal Government. There are rumours in Salisbury, on which I hope the Minister of State will comment, that Bishop Muzorewa will not be allowed to come to London when he asks to come quite soon because he is a Minister in an illegal Government. I hope that that is not true. But if it is not true, why should not some of the white Ministers be allowed to come as well?
  The same applies to representation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford has always urged very strongly that there should be British representation in Salisbury. However, if there is any question of reciprocity here, the Foreign Secretary has always said that it is not acceptable. Why not?
  Moscow gives cash to the Patriotic Front. The front-line Presidents treat its leaders as Heads of State. We go on regarding the transitional Government as illegal and maintain sanctions against them. We are taking sides; yet we have before us the best opportunity that there has been for years in Southern Africa—the best opportunity since the collapse of the Central African Federation. If it succeeds, it will not just bring independence and peace to Rhodesia. It will provide an example of how white and black can work together to South Africa, to Zambia, to Mozambique, to Angola
  520
  and to everyone else. But, if it fails, we shall be plunging into anarchy the whole area going beyond the borders of Rhodesia, as we have seen in Angola and Mozambique. It will go into South Africa, with all the implications to the vital interests not only of this country but of Western Europe as a whole and Japan.
  The decision depends mainly upon the people out there, but it also depends a great deal on the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and on whether they give support to the remarkable achievement which has been made or whether they withhold it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I have a list of 23 right hon. and hon. Members who hope to catch my eye between now and 9 o'clock.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) used to have a reputation for being a statesman. I think that the views which he expresses are widely read outside this House. I believe that they are widely read in Africa. However, I think that people are beginning to realise that he is now little more than a poseur.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech today was disgraceful for someone of his ability and supposed integrity and for someone who seeks to give advice to the Government. He could not conceal his contempt for the leaders of African opinion with his fatuous reference to photographs and to the physical stature of an individual who is widely respected throughout Africa and who is, as I hope even the right hon. Gentleman will concede, widely respected in Zimbabwe itself. If there is any comfort in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks for Mr. Nkomo, it is that not so very long ago in this House the right hon. Gentleman was describing Mr. Sithole in similarly contemptuous terms. The right hon. Gentleman described him as a terrorist and a murderer, but now he clasps Mr. Sithole to his bosom as a moderate. Therefore, I think that we shall see in the future that even the right hon. Gentleman will rue his remarks today and that he will find that those for whom he has

  521
  no time will eventually be the leaders of the new Zimbabwe.
  It is not my responsibility to decide what type of constitution sould be set up for the new Zimbabwe. It is not for me to express a preference for the kind of Government and the kind of social policy or philosophy that will be most suitable for the new Zimbabwe. I have my views, but they are not important. The important views which have to be expressed and which for so long have been silenced in Zimbabwe are those of the African people and all the other people who live in that country. Only they have the right to choose the kind of Government they want and to decide the future of that country. It is for them to decide how it shall develop.
  The problem with the right hon. Member for Pavilion and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends is that they have always failed to recognise the real purpose of trying to get a transfer of power in Rhodesia. It has not been to avoid Communist influence. It has not been to avoid Cuban intervention. It has been to recognise the rights of the people to democracy.
  The reason why the views of the Opposition are discounted in Africa is that they have never once taken the standpoint that the views of the African population are of prime importance. If we go back through history, we find that this was true with the estabilshment of the Central African Federation. At no time were the Africans consulted about this.
  We all learn from history and from experience. With hindsight, I believe that it was probably a mistake to break up the Central African Federation, despite the way in which it was established. At that time we thought that the very strong influence in Southern Rhodesia was such that we could see enough progress towards democratic majority rule in the three territories in the federation until it was broken up. We believed that the establishment of an independent Malawi and an independent Zambia would lead to sufficient pressure to bring about change in the situation in Southern Rhodesia. On balance, it may have been a wrong decision to break up the federation. But that is neither here nor there.
  Throughout the period since the establishment and break-up of the Central
  522
  African Federation, there has been total failure to bring in the views of the African people on any proposals. That is one reason why the Anglo-American proposals have been treated with such suspicion. The last people to be told about the contents of those proposals were the leaders of the Patriotic Front, or Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sithole. All kinds of other people were told. Certainly, the leaders of the front-line States were told in advance. Eventually the views of the Patriotic Front were taken, but by then it was too late because they should have been taken at the beginning.
  Even the proposition put forward by the British Government through the Anglo-American proposals is, perhaps, too little and too late. Unfortunately, there is a long record of our saying that we would do something to deal with the illegal regime and the fact remains that we have never actually done anything. In saying that, I am not referring to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who spoke of the regime being brought down by sanctions in "weeks rather than months". I am talking about the last 12 months when evidence became available after 10 years or more about the way in which oil was being transferred from South Africa to Rhodesia to break sanctions and keep industry in Rhodesia going.
  Naturally the Foreign Secretary was upset when that evidence totally exposed the situation, and an inquiry was set up to establish the facts. It is almost exactly a year since that commission was established to inquire into oil sanctions being broken. What has happened to the report? Recent parliamentary Questions suggest that it may never be published.
  The right hon. Member for Pavilion complained that the Government are taking sides. My complaint is that they are not taking sides hard enough. If we are determined to press for a peaceful solution, we should be using peaceful methods of pressure, persuasion and influence and taking measures to stop oil getting into Rhodesia. We all appreciate that that cannot be done directly. We have to apply economic sanctions to South Africa.
  Leaving aside the general principle of whether applying sanctions to South

  523
  Africa is desirable, the Government have been seeking, together with other friendly Powers, a settlement in Namibia. In doing so they are playing two different games at the same time. They have been unable to take appropriate action against South Africa because they have sought South Africa's good will both in Namibia and as a kind of honest broker to try to put pressure on Rhodesia.
  The Government are not doing enough even now. While I understand perfectly their position, and take the view that by and large their approach is right, they are doing insufficient to bring home to Smith and the illegal regime that at the end of the day his regime will have to end and majority rule must be established.
  We have had a lot of debates and discussion about the position of the liberation forces. How powerful are they and what are their prospects of success? Perhaps it is self-evident to say so, but as each day passes their prospects of success grow stronger. I do not necessarily welcome that possibility, but if there is no other way of the people of Rhodesia gaining their independence other than by continuation of the fighting and a final military victor, so be it. I support that without any hesitation. However, I would much prefer that we had a proper negotiated settlement and a proper transfer of orderly power, because that is the best possibility of stability once we have an independent Zimbabwe.
  The right hon. Member for Pavilion told us about all his perambulations around Rhodesia last weekend. He spoke of holiday crowds and the happiness of the people. But he told us nothing of the unhappiness of the people in the tribal trust lands or those who are living in protected villages—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: They are not unhappy. That is why.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has a record of collusion with the Smith regime that is unparalleled in this House or, indeed, in the country. If he says that he has been to the 209 protected villages in which there is a populaion of about 580,000, where people have been resettled after their homes were destroyed, where cattle were killed and confiscated and
  524
  crops were ruined, and if he insists that these people are not unhappy, he is living in a totally different world from those who have to survive under the system.
  Mr. Winterton: I have not been to all the protected villages, but I have been to some. I wonder whether the hon. Member has been to any. In the ones that I have visited, the people in those areas indicated that they needed to be there for their own protection and to safeguard their lives because of acts of terrorism of the guerrillas of Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe. These villages were in fact provided for the protection of black citizens by the Government. The Government took the request of black citizens seriously and provided protection.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member is so gullible that it is unbelievable. If he is telling me that the 580,000 people in protected villages went to the Smith regime and asked for protection and the Smith regime was so anxious for their welfare that it provided villages for them, he is very naïve. If the Smith regime is so concerned about black citizens, why has it resisted for so long progress towards majority rule?
  Mr. Winterton: Has the hon. Member been there lately?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I have not been to Rhodesia recently.
  Mr. Winterton: I thought not.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Member really saying that he went into these villages unaccompanied? Is he saying that there was no one there with him to interpret and assist him? He should know the answer to that from a recent example from a different country. When a programme was made about South Africa and the conditions of workers there, the company concerned produced affidavits which said that people who had taken part in the programme denied stating the views expressed by them on that television programme. It was later discovered that the affidavits were taken by the security police of South Africa. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might reflect that the views expressed to him were offered in the knowledge that the security forces would be on the spot the moment his back was turned to pick up and arrest those who had expressed contrary views.

  525
  If it is such a free society, why is it that university students who attempted to demonstrate against the internal settlement were set upon by the police, dispersed or arrested? The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman, as with many others before him, visits a country that is in a certain situation and views it with blinkered eyes. I recall some of his hon. Friends coming back from Mozambique, Angola and Guinea-Bissau in the days when the MPLA and Frelimo were fighting the Portuguese colonialists and telling us the same story about protected villages in Angola and Mozambique. They told us that the villages had been created at the behest of the local population. We were told that everyone was happy and that the Portuguese would win the colonial war. We were told that the liberation forces would never free Angola and Mozambique.
  I wish that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends would study history and consider their record. The villages in Rhodesia are under curfew. They are behind barbed wire. The security forces take charge of them. It is said that another 20,000 people are to be moved into new protected villages.
  On the one hand, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion paints a rosy picture of the security situation. He tells us that there is liaison between the two sides with the objective of coming to a ceasefire. He says that there is no real possibility of the liberation forces winning the war. On the other hand, there are about 600,000 people in large areas of Rhodesia who need protection. There is something wrong with the logic of some right hon. and hon. Members. Either the guerrilla forces are being successful, are in the country in fairly large numbers and have a considerable influence in the countryside, or they are not and have not. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) has told us about the things being done by the security forces not only inside the borders of Zimbabwe but inside Mozambique and Zambia. One wonders what sort of civilisation it is for which we stand. One wonders why it is that some Opposition Members prepared, apparently, to condemn out of hand those who have tried every alternative to achieve the transfer
  526
  of power. Every peaceful alternative has been tried, but agreements have been broken and words have been broken.
  Why is it that there are those who are opposed in such root-and-branch fashion to those who seek a transfer of power? It is because Opposition Members have the fixation that there will be a spread of Communist influence. They have the fixation that somewhere there are thousands of Cuban troops waiting to be embarked on ships or aircraft to be taken to Rhodesia or Zambia. There is the fixation that intervention in Africa as a whole has been only from one side. However, there is strong evidence that the South Africans have already intervened on the side of Smith. They withdrew about 2,000 para-military forces in 1975.
  Evidence is coming forward from neutral sources—I have also had this evidence from my own sources—that South African troops, military personnel and advisers are now returning to Rhodesia and assisting Smith's forces. The South Africans have never hidden their intervention outside their borders. We must remember that the Cubans did not go to Angola until the South Africans invaded.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: Rubbish.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish" from a sedentary position. He will recall a debate which took place some years ago on Angola. In that debate I asserted that the Americans were assisting both UNITA and FNLA. The hon. Gentleman shouted "Rubbish". He denied that the Americans were giving that assistance. Is he now saying that he always admitted that the Americans were assisting FNLA in Angola?
  Mr. Wall: I agree that the Americans assisted both the FNLA and UNITA until they were sabotaged by Congress stopping them from so doing. They were asked to do so by the leaders of Zaire and Zambia.
  Mr. Hughes: I cannot recall that the leaders of Zaire asked Congress to stop the assistance to the FNLA. I have in mind the close relationship in Zaire between the FNLA and the leaders of that country. However, I acquit the hon. Gentleman in that respect. He will know,

  527
  of course, that others have said that it is rubbish to suggest that the Americans were assisting to the extent that others have suggested. However, we find the South African Foreign Minister admitting in the South African Parliament that he saw American aircraft delivering equipment.
  To imagine that we in the West generally have not interfered in Africa, are not trying to extend our influence in Africa and are not trying to operate in Africa to further our own interests rather than those of the indigenous population is to play exactly into the hands of the Russians. I am the last person in the House to want to see Communist influence spread over Africa. I want to see a democratic advance. I make no apology for saying that I want to see Socialism advanced in Africa as in this country, but not in the model of the rigid system that applies in the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about Angola?
  Mr. Hughes: Angola does not have the rigid system of the Soviet Union. I do not want to swap visits with the hon. Gentleman. I have never taken the view that we have to visit a country before we can express a view on it. If that were so, very few hon. Members would be able to express views about Uganda, Russia, Poland, the GDR or anywhere else. It is a curious view that we can express views and ask questions on foreign affairs only if we have visited the countries concerned once, twice, or three times. If the hon. Gentleman were to visit Angola, I believe that he would not find there the system that is operated in Russia. He would find an altogether different society. If there really was a little man sitting in the Kremlin trying to plot a way in which the Communist advance could be furthered, he would have little work to do. He could leave it to Opposition Members to put forward the sort of propaganda that would help extend Communist influence.
  Opposition hon. Members have never shown any capability of understanding the situation in Africa. They show no sign, even at this moment, of recognising what the situation is all about. The virtues of the so-called internal settle-
  528
  ment are extolled from all sides. The sacking of the black Minister, Mr. Hove, is dismissed as a small local problem, an aberration. There is the rumbling of the United African National Congress of Bishop Muzorewa. It is upset about the slow progress that is being made. It is upset about the sacking. It does not believe that the settlement will work. Its reservations about the settlement working are dismissed as being of no importance.
  I cannot make precise forecasts, but I should not like to forecast how long the so-called internal settlement will hang together before there is a breakdown. My right hon. Friend should pursue with all vigour the chance of getting a peaceful settlement. He knows that if he can get all the leaders together to arrive at a settlement that will end the war that is now going on and end the killings, he will have my wholehearted support.
  As I said, there is much more that we could be doing. I echo only fleetingly the words of some Opposition Members who said that the prize in Southern Africa of obtaining a peaceful negotiated settlement is very great, because it can have repercussions in Namibia. If Namibia comes first, it can have repercussions in Rhodesia. There can be repercussions in the longer term in South Africa itself.
  I am sure that all hon. Members believe in democracy, in a free Parliament and in the right of individuals to live their lives to the best of their ability and to have the opportunity to benefit from the great riches which are abundant in society, particularly in the southern half of the African continent. All concerned, irrespective of colour or political life, who want to share in riches of that kind and want to see the African population become part of a democratic society which can contribute to the future development of society in Africa can only hope that there will be a peaceful settlement.
  All who look back over history and recognise the aftermath of war and the scourge and the difficulties that it brings would not wish to see that happen in any part of the world if it can be avoided. But the Africans who have seen HMS "Tiger", HMS "Fearless" and the Smith-Home proposals dashed to the ground see the situation in Vietnam, in Angola and in Mozambique as being the

  529
  key to their success. They believe that the only way in which they can win their freedom is by fighting for it.
  Smith has shown no signs of being willing to change his mind and to transfer power. Unless we in this House are determined to see that there is a transfer of power and a democratic society, the Africans will continue to fight, and as long as they continue to fight I shall continue to support them.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In the last hour we have completed two speechcs. That means that in the remaining two hours we shall be lucky to get in another five speeches if this rate of progress is maintained.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Brotherton: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief intervention in this debate.
  It is now 12½ years since UDI was declared. Obviously little has happened in those 12½ years to increase interest in this subject on the Government Back Benches.
  In November 1965 the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) sent his emissaries scuttling across the Atlantic to the Security Council to complain about what was happening in Southern Africa and to tell the world that Rhodesia was a threat to world peace. I believe that in the Security Council Rhodesia is still regarded as a threat to world peace. Russian and Cuban intervention in the Horn of Africa, in Mozambique and in Angola has not been discussed in the Security Council. Russia, of course, is not a menace to world peace. Russian intervention in Africa is obviously seen as the Russians going their philanthropic way helping the backward people of that continent.
  Surely the time has now come—here I must disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies)—as the noble Lord, Lord Home, said some years ago that the time might come, to go to the United Nations and to say "Sanctions have failed. Sanctions should be dropped." I believe that sanctions should be dropped now, because sanctions, if they hurt anyone, hurt not the white minority but the black majority. Therefore, we should go to
  530
  the United Nations and say "Enough is enough. No longer will this country support the imposition of sanctions."
  After all, two years ago we went to the United Nations and said that the Beira patrol was no longer feasible, that we would cease mounting that dreary patrol of ships steaming up and down a patrol line, boring the Navy to death and spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on a most futile exercise. Why, of all the countries in the world, should we impose sanctions against Rhodesia but against none other?
  If Russia is not a threat to world peace, then Sir Neil Cameron was wrong in Peking the other day. However, I believe that he was entirely correct. We know the way that the Russians treat not only their own people but the people of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the Ukraine. But does anyone in the United Nations in the Afro-Asian bloc think that he should put a motion before the Security Council saying that sanctions should be imposed against Russia because of the way that it conducts itself? Of course not. That merely shows the double standards of the United Nations and the double standards and duplicity of Her Majesty's Government in the way that they treat the people of Rhodesia and in their approach to the problems of that country.
  About 18 months ago we had the great breakthrough—the Kissinger initiative: the Anglo-American proposals. The late Foreign Secretary, Mr. Tony Crosland, acted with great propriety at that time, in marked contrast to the conduct of his successor in office today, the right hon. Member—how the words stick in one's mouth—for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
  The Anglo-American initiative 18 months ago was a great breakthrough. Events have now overtaken even the Anglo-American initiative. We have in Rhodesia a multiracial set-up. The internal settlement has been agreed between black and white. Muzorewa, Sithole, Chief Chirau and Ian Smith sat down together round the table and hammered out a settlement in Rhodesia. I implore Her Majesty's Government to do all they can to give assistance to that internal settlement to make sure that it works. This is an opportunity to show to the world—Rhodesia is showing to the

  531
  world—that it is possible to have a multiracial society in Central Africa and that it is possible for black and white native Rhodesians alike to work together, to live together and to make their country happy and prosperous.
  I believe that the Foreign Secretary is a medical practitioner. Therefore he is presumably interested in and dedicated to the preservation of life. I ask him, in his absence: why does he wish to deal with the forces of murder all the time in Rhodesia? Why does he consider that the Patriotic Front, so called, represents the people with whom he should treat? Why does he believe that he should deal with Mugabe, a man who has many times said that he is dedicated to the imposition of a one-party Marxist State in Rhodesia, and with Nkomo, another apostle of murder, rather than with the moderate black Africans who are dealing with Mr. Ian Smith at the moment?
  I ask the Minister of State to convey this message to the Foreign Secretary: "Please, please, why not be sensible about Rhodesia? Please, please, put away your pique. Grow up. Try to become a statesman, if such is possible, and do three things. Go to the United Nations and say 'The British Government now say that they want no more sanctions.' Go to the Patriotic Front and say 'Stop murder; otherwise we shall not deal with you'. Above all else, go to Ian Smith and the three moderate leaders of African opinion and say 'Her Majesty's Government support you, and we shall do all in our power to help'." Further, I suggest that, as opposed to £250,000 for Rhodesia and £17 million for the murderers in Mozambique, we should give Rhodesia a decent sum of money and cut off all aid to Mozambique until that nation stops supporting the forces of murder and tyranny.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) is one of several Opposition Members who can be relied upon in a debate of this kind to come out unequivocally on the side of reaction—
  Mr. Brotherton: Moderation.
  Mr. Hamilton: —and on the side of the people in Africa who, if they got their
  532
  way, would embroil that enormous continent in massive bloodshed.
  The problem of Rhodesia must be seen in the much wider context not only of Africa but of world conflict as a whole; not only between black and white, but between poverty-stricken people and those who, for too long, have had too much privilege and power.
  When the Foreign Secretary spoke this afternoon, I thought that most hon. Members were impressed. They should have been impressed by an obviously carefully considered and prepared statement of policy which, no doubt, was fully approved by our American partners. I hope that no one in the Opposition will deride it on that count. To me and to most of my hon. Friends it seemed to be a balanced, sober approach to an extremely delicate problem which to date has been approached by the House in a bipartisan manner.
  Two successive former Tory Prime Ministers took the view that the Five Principles, and later the Six Principles, must be adhered to. We are not convinced yet that the Fifth Principle will be adhered to in the internal agreement. I recall that successive debates on the continuation of sanctions throughout a decade have led to bipartisan agreement, apart from the lunatic fringe on the right of the Conservative Party. Everyone else has either gone home or supported the continuation of sanctions.
  One must add that over that period, ever since the unilateral declaration of independence by Mr. Smith, there has been repeated deception, double talk, and every conceivable action which is bound to lead us and every form of moderate opinion in the world to distrust that man. One simply cannot believe a word that he says. His mind has been known to change almost from hour to hour, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) recounted from his own experience. That is why we and the Foreign Secretary take our present view.
  The response of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) to the Foreign Secretary's speech was a disgrace. It must have been a great source of comfort and satisfaction to Mr. Smith but to no one else, except some Opposition Back Benchers who have expressed approval in measured terms.

  533
  The right hon. Member asserted that the present Government should accept immediately, without condition, the settlement which apparently has been reached in Rhodesia. That reminded me of the immediate willingness of the Tory Party to accept the riddance of Obote by Amin in Uganda. Hon. Members should read in Hansard how Amin deposed Obote. The Tories said what a marvellous thing this was. They used the same arguments. They said that Obote was a Marxist, a Communist, and a puppet of the Soviet Union. They said that he should therefore be replaced by this highly respectable soldier, Amin. When they now say that their policy should be accepted and that the internal regime in Rhodesia is satisfactory, we suspect their judgment and ignore it completely.
  No one, even in the Opposition, could say with conviction that the internal settlement has been achieved by the genuine conversion of Mr. Smith and his cohorts to the principle of one man, one vote, majority rule and the rest. There is no need to recall yet again the unsavoury record of Mr. Smith and his party. It has been a record not only of deceit and double talk but of repression and murder—a word that has been repeated often in other contexts in this debate. It has been a record of racialism and imprisonment without trial. These have been the hallmarks of the Smith regime in the last decade.
  Every Summer Recess we find the Tory Members on the Rhodesian gravy train. They become the guests of this man Smith. They then make the most outrageous statements in defence of the regime. Many of those statements are reported in The Sunday Times when they return. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) went to Rhodesia. They came back and became the Tory equivalent of the Rhodesia Front. They became the spokesmen in the House for the Rhodesia Front.
  The right hon. Member for Knutsford said that we should accept the internal settlement. I agree with him to a certain extent. It seems that Mr. Smith has accepted defeat. After all, he said that black majority rule would not come within a thousand years or within his lifetime. Since he has accepted the inevit-
  534
  able, we should see just how certain we can be that the majority of black Rhodesians accept what is now proposed. That is the crucial issue that must be decided in the debate. I would not trust the machinery for ascertaining those views to Mr. Smith. A prerequisite is that Smith must be got rid of before that process starts.
  If he has any influence or control over the machinery for a referendum or election, it will be suspect and will not be accepted by international opinion nor by moderate opinion inside Rhodesia. There must be some form of international supervision. The media in Rhodesia—the newsapers, radio and television—must also be under the control of independent outside bodies. People such as Nkomo and members of the Patriotic Front must be allowed to campaign freely without any infringement of their rights subject to international supervision. The same applies to the police force and the internal security forces. They must not be seen to be, nor be, in the hands of the Rhodesia Front or any body remotely like it.
  We do not know when the next election will come. We do not know when the blow-up will take place in Rhodesia. We are sitting on top of a volcano and we do not know how soon or late the explosion will occur. Assuming that we have time for a General Election before that catastrophic explosion, I hope that the Conservative Party will do and say nothing that will give comfort to a regime which has been a traitor to the Crown. I am the best person in the world to say that. The regime has been a traitor to the Crown, and the Tory Party of Britain has been solidly behind it for a decade. I hope that the Tory Party will not go to the country on that prospectus. If it does, our future in Africa—our enormous trade with Africa and the under-developed world—will be put at risk.
  I end where I began. This problem is much bigger than just Rhodesia. It is part of a world problem. We had better understand that and be seen to be on the side of the under-privileged, whatever the colour of their skin.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan; There is an old story of the tourist who was walking down Downing Street and

  535
  asked a policeman on which side was the Foreign Office. The policeman replied "Ours—I hope." After the deplorable and defeatist speech of the Foreign Secretary, I do not hope—I doubt. It was a curiously racist speech in which he depicted the whole problem in terms of black and white, seeming to see things more in terms of the United States Government's interest than of the interest of the United Kingdom. It was an oddly unrealistic speech. He did not seem to realise that we in Britain do not have the power to force any settlement within Rhodesia.
  However, the British Government can make it more likely or less likely that a settlement will be achieved without fighting. They cannot even guarantee—nor can anyone—that if there is a peaceful settlement there will not be fighting. Equally, no one can guarantee whether those freedom fighters who are Cuban mercenaries are fighting for the Six Principles or for supremacy in Africa. Anyone who does not recognise that potential danger is failing to recognise a fact.
  We are faced with a coalition Government in Rhodesia which has agreed to discuss its enlargement by the inclusion of Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo, and I hope that Mr. Nkomo especially can be persuaded to come to the discussions and to participate in the internal settlement. The parties to the internal settlement have, however, refused to accept that in the course of this discussion they must agree to reopen examination of all the problems they faced when, over a long and difficult period, they were reaching agreement between themselves.
  Many Labour Members have suggested that nothing will be achieved unless Mr. Smith is removed. However, I suggest that if Mr. Smith were to be removed the white community would be in danger of being as disunited as is the black community. One thing that Mr. Smith can do is to retain white unity. That is his great value in the view of his partners in the internal agreement, and it is also of great potential value to Mr. Nkomo, if Mr. Nkomo can be persuaded to participate. After all, that sort of arrangement has come to be accepted in our domestic policies. The Government may not like the policies of some of our
  536
  union leaders, but the Labour Party has to accept that they can deliver the support through the block vote at the party conference.
  The Foreign Secretary has shown that he has lost his sense of timing and balance in dealing with this problem. The internal settlement is there. It is perfectly reasonable to say that we should start working on it and try to include in it the good parts of the Anglo-American proposals if we could secure acceptance for them during the interim period. Meanwhile, it is in the interests of both black and white throughout Africa that the British Government should positively encourage with its backing the internal settlement.
  The interim Administration seeks means of satisfying, through a freely conducted General Election, the Fifth Principle, enabling sanctions to be lifted. However, I hope that the Government will follow up the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), that we should help to carry these matters forward in a way which will enable us to lift sanctions sooner.
  Above all, I beg the Foreign Secretary in what he is doing to think of the future of Europe and of this country. He should bear in mind that if the Soviet Union were in a position to inhibit or interfere in any way with the supply or cost of raw materials from Southern Africa as a whole, the European Community and Japan would be threatened with grave crisis and in danger of losing, if not their political, at least their economic independence. Those are the sort of stakes for which he is playing. I wish that he had given the House some indication when he opened the debate that he recognises that fact.
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I shall be brief, but I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since it is four weeks to the day since I and my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) returned from a two-week visit to Rhodesia. It was the first time I had been there. I went with a completely open mind. I went as a bitter opponent of UDI and as someone who had always

  537
  supported the use of sanctions. I was extremely cynical in my approach to Mr. Smith. However, I returned with the view, in spite of my convictions when I went, that the white population in Rhodesia was totally genuine in its commitment to the handing over of power to a majority Government by the end of this year.
  That fact is of vital importance. It is a major shift in the minds of those people in Rhodesia. The internal settlement is a fact. I do not believe that there can possibly be any going back on what has been achieved. I also believe that, in spite of the doubts that many Africans obviously have about the sincerity behind what is happening, the vast majority of them support the internal leaders. I believe that Bishop Muzorewa, Mr. Sithole and Chief Chirau are accurate in claiming that they have the support of the majority. I hope that the efforts that they have made will enable a de-escalation of the war to begin. The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to do all he can to attempt to persuade Mr. Nkomo to take part in what is happening. However, I say with great respect to him that when he talks of a conference without preconditions he is in danger of ignoring the facts of the last few months. While he appears always to hark back to the original Anglo-American proposals rather than to be willing to build on the agreement which has been reached internally, I fear that the will be unsuccessful in his attempt.
  I do not see why it is in any way impossible to attempt to build on the agreement that has been made and at the same time continue to encourage Mr. Nkomo to return. I fear that if we do not give tacit support to what has been achieved internally we shall, perhaps unintentionally, undermine the international credibility of what has happened.
  What do I believe should be the role of this country? The first thing about which we should be clear is that our interests and those of the Africans exactly coincide. We must wish to see a peaceful transfer of power to a moderate black leadership that is basically pro-Western and basically pro a free economy. I believe that, if those are our interests, the best way we can help now is by being actively involved in the scene in Salisbury.
  538
  We have always said from both sides of the House that any Government who take over in Rhodesia must be shown to meet the principles laid down by this House. Since the present internal agreement claims to meet those principles, I believe that the best thing we can do is to have a substantial diplomatic presence in Salisbury, watching what is happening and assisting towards that transfer.
  I do not believe, as some of my hon. Friends believe, that at present it would be right to attempt to recognise the internal Government as it stands. There are still too many doubts in the eyes of many Africans. I do not believe that it would be right at this moment to remove sanctions, but I believe that it would be right to say to those who are trying to achieve the transfer in Rhodesia "We will come in and we will assist—particularly in attempts to achieve a fair test of opinion in Rhodesia—and if we are satisfied that the result of that test of opinion is a genuine transfer of power to black leaders who speak for the majority of people in Africa, at that moment we will go to the international community, we will invite the removal of sanctions and we will undertake to give recognition to the regime that takes over."
  I do not see why at the same time it is not possible to take an active, progressive, positive view towards the internal agreement while still trying to widen it by persuading Mr. Nkomo to return. But if in trying to achieve the latter we fail to achieve the first, we shall be in danger of ending up by losing everything that has been achieved.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) makes it easy to debate with him because he always says something that can be debated. That is more than can be said of some of the contributions we have heard in this debate.
  I could not suppress a sense of irony when the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) was battling through a number of formulations to the final threat that, if by the autumn there is no change in the attitude taken by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will find it difficult to vote for the continuation of sanctions. He was given loud

  539
  cheers by a great many of his Conservative colleagues—hon. Gentlemen who have never voted in favour of sanctions. He obviously did not see the irony that he was being cheered by many of the assembled friends of Mr. Ian Smith, men who never cared tuppence whether the Africans were getting justice in their own country, Rhodesia. Those hon. Gentlemen have always opposed sanctions. Let them not be hypocritical, but let them state honourably that they were opposed to sanctions from the beginning, and that they will be opposed to sanctions in October, December, January, or any other month.
  The right hon. Member for Knutsford is battling in a difficult posiion. He largely represents a great many Opposition Members who are not here today. They are the people who normally keep away from these debates because they support Opposition Front Bench policy, which is identical to Her Majesty's Government policy, and who when a Conservative Government are in power they pursue a similar policy. But on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has behind him the assembled platoons of those who have never supported the official policy of the Conservative Party on Rhodesia but who have always identified themselves with the policies of Mr. Ian Smith.
  However, that argument does not apply to the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn. His remarks were greeted not with cheers but with painful silence. He said that he did not advise that sanctions should be discontinued. The right hon. Member for Knutsford might have been the only Conservative who cheered him, but he did it so quietly that it could not be heard by an ordinary ear. None of the other Conservative Members cheered the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that if sanctions were abandoned now it would be nonsense and would undermine the position of the British Government and the United States Government. The rest of the Conservative Party know that they want sanctions to be discontinued because they have always wanted Mr. Smith rather than the British Government to succeed.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is pursuing a policy which has
  540
  as its major aim the creation of a situation in a future Zimbabwe that would allow the people to govern themselves democratically. That also coincides with Western interests. That is a position which I believe could receive the support of both sides of the House. I see no difficulty in that position. I imagine that one or two of my hon. Friends would disagree with certain aspects of my right hon. Friend's policy. I appreciate that a few extreme Right-wing Conservatives—not necessarily Members of this House but the people who act as delegates at annual conferences from time to time; and we all know that political parties have more extreme wings in the country than are often apparent in this House—will disagree with what my right hon. Friend is trying to do. But I do not know how hon. Members who have followed the developments of this policy can be so extreme at this moment as to deny their support to the Foreign Secretary. I find that astonishing and surprising.
  We must at this stage closely examine, not the motives of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which are as clear as daylight, but what is happening in Rhodesia. Those of us who have been to Rhodesia and who know the people and appreciate their aspirations recognise that we must now see whether the present events are likely to lead to success. That would be a proper job for the House of Commons at present, instead of hon. Members trying to pick holes in what the Foreign Secretary is trying to do.
  There are a number of encouraging as well as disturbing circumstances. I do not share the pessimistic view of the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) that if Mr. Ian Smith were to remove himself from the scene there would be no European left who could carry the confidence of his fellow Europeans. That is not my experience of Rhodesia. I know many Europeans who would be able to give leadership in Rhodesia at present and who would carry a great deal of support among their fellow countrymen. Therefore, it is not such a dismal one-man situation as some Members have tried to make out.
  That is not in itself a sufficient argument for a particular politician to be removed. I am merely saying that the situation is far from hopeless in respect of additional and new leadership. On

  541
  the contrary, I know a number of industrialists and business men who over the years have always said "If only we could remove Mr. Smith, we might get a much better atmosphere in trying to reach agreement with some of the African leaders".
  That brings me to another point that should be examined in this debate against the background of whether what is happening is likely to lead to success. I refer to the difficulties which have recently arisen in regard to one of the black Ministers in the Executive Council. Many hon. Members must have heard that gentleman on BBC radio speaking about his experiences, and they were disturbing. He said that he expected his party, which is the party of Bishop Muzorewa, not to be a member of the present coalition.
  Mr. Hove said that his co-operation with the others broke down on a decisive issue. He said "If we are to make progress in reaching an agreed situation at the end of the year we must begin opening the doors of administration and government to all sections of the people of Rhodesia, or Zimbabwe." On that, he was dismissed.
  The right hon. Gentleman might have listened as I did shortly afterwards on another station to a statement by Mr. van der Byl, in which he said arrogantly "This was obviously the wrong kind of fellow, so he had to go." What has changed in the past nine months if that is the way in which Mr. van der Byl refers to one of his immediate erstwhile colleagues? He was the wrong fellow, so he had to go: there was no sign there of an acceptance of a new situation of equality between the races and all the people of Rhodesia.
  The issue is very important, because the second point we should examine is the preparation of the elections and whether, if we urge my right hon. Friend to abandon his attitude of caution, we can be so certain that there will be equality for all citizens during the forthcoming election campaign. The Minister who resigned wanted to create a certain situation relating to at least some of the sensitive positions which are important in an election campaign, where great emotions might be awakened and aroused on different sides of the argument, whatever the argument might be, in police stations,
  542
  among superintendents, among administrators who have to do with electoral and administrative law and with law and order. He was dismissed because he wanted to introduce some changes there.
  Mr. Hove might be forgiven for feeling rather pessimistic about the conditions under which Mr. Smith intends to prepare for the forthcoming election campaign. After all, I think that it will not be denied by right hon. and hon. Members that even some Frenchmen today believe that it is of some importance in a French general election which party controls the French Ministry of the Interior. You will have heard that argument in recent months, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and over the years. I know that many radicals in the radical party in France believed for years that the first thing they had to do if they wanted to be successful in the next election was to see that the Minister of the Interior was a radical in direct daily contact with the prefects all over the country.
  So it is not such an absurd view if this black Minister was concerned that in the preparation for a free democratic election campaign the doors should be open to some of his black fellow countrymen to move into some of those sensitive positions. These are the sorts of things I expect my right hon. Friend to keep his attention on, as he is doing. In our previous debate, he rightly spent a little more time on telling us about the doubts expressed to him in the United Nations and elsewhere, some of which he shared, about whether the texture of the atmosphere that was being created was the right one, and was sufficient to ensure equality among all the people of a future Zimbabwe. Those are serious considerations, which have nothing to do with ideological prejudices or undertones as to what one might eventually wish to see in a future Zimbabwe.
  Equally, the white European people in Rhodesia today will, one hopes, begin to differentiate into different groups. We hope that more and more the people will get away from the division into only having an interest in whether one is white or black. To the knowledge of all of us, many Rhodesians are prepared to do that now. That being so, surely it is good and sensible for the British Government to make it absolutely clear to all of them

  543
  that they are keeping a watchful eye on equality's really being established.
  I suggest to those hon. Members who have always been the friends of Mr. Ian Smith that at this moment they are genuinely not doing a service to the white European population in Rhodesia by urging the Government to forget all caution and rush ahead. One never quite knows what they want the Government to do. They have never made it quite clear whether they want them to go to Rhodesia now and say "Everything you are doing now is all right and we give you our blessing." How would the British Government to able to have any influence on Mr. Nkomo if they did that? How would it be possible for the Anglo-American diplomatic initiative to have any meaning to those groups that are not yet associated with the constitutional changes that are taking place if the Government did that? Even on the most primitive problems in diplomatic finesse is it not much more sensible for the British Government to be to some extent on the sidelines and to help from outside?
  This does not apply to having people in Rhodesia from time to time. As we know, the Government have sent people to South Africa and to Salisbury. They are in constant touch. It is wrong to create a picture as if my right hon. Friend has shown no detailed interest in what is going on out there.
  I would go further. I would claim that one of the best influences in bringing about what has already been achieved has been the attitude of the British Government throughout these months, particularly their activation of American policy. Recently, in the discussion about the attitude of Mr. Andrew Young, there has been a great deal of criticism of some of the statements he has made. Mr. Andrew Young is master of his own statements. He decides his own style. One will not find that sort of criticism among those who make foreign policy for President Carter. They know that what is helpful in the African context and indeed in the context of the Third world is to have an American diplomat who speaks his mind. We do not always have to agree with him. We might sometimes prefer a different kind of formulation. But it has had a very refreshing influence upon the
  544
  standing of United States diplomacy in the Third world and, in particular, in Africa.
  Moreover, it should not be underestimated. I commend this thought to the right hon. Gentleman. If progress has been made on Namibia in recent months, it is very largely due to the work of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. There should be some recognition of that in this debate. I cannot for the life of me understand why it should not be regarded as a British interest to put on record that the Foreign Secretary has had certain achievements in this extremely difficult field in recent months, and then go on urging him to do better still.
  I first knew Mr. Nkomo about 16 years ago, a few weeks before he was first interned in Rhodesia for those tragic years. I remember a conversation with him in his office in Salisbury as long ago as that. If we look back on his experience, the way in which he was treated from time to time, we can understand why he hesitates and we can understand that he feels that perhaps he has as good a claim to lead his people as anyone else has. I think that I shall carry at least some hon. Members with me in advancing that proposition.
  Surely it is to take the path of wisdom on the part of my right hon. Friend to give some public recognition to that, which he is doing, by making it easier for a man such as Mr. Nkomo to make up his mind. We are showing that we are serious, that we are not merely saying that because someone else has reached an agreement with Mr. Smith he must be the future governor of Rhodesia, that he and those associated with him must be the future Government in a new coalition. The same applies to others who are associated with Mr. Nkomo.
  I believe that the most serious problem we face at present is the test of whether Bishop Muzorewa's party, already in the present coalition, can continue to work with the other members of the Executive Council. That is the most serious immediate political problem. I believe that it will very much depend on whether that particular movement, by far the most important among the African components of the present Executive Council, comes to a firm conclusion that the experiment can successfully continue.

  545
  I suggest in all seriousness that the best way in which the House can help Bishop Muzorewa and his movement is to make sure that we shall not leave him alone and isolated, and that we shall never agree to a settlement which does not give an equal opportunity to all his African fellow countrymen. That is a much better message that should go from the House in support of what my right hon. Friend is trying to do than any that I can think of.
  7.50 p.m.
  Sir John Eden: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) began his speech with a reference to Mr. Smith. So shall I. The importance of Mr. Smith is that he is one of the four signatories to the internal settlement. I want the internal settlement to succeed. I do not believe that it would have a chance of success if any one of the four principal participants in it were to be forced out of office now.
  The emergence of a peaceful Zimbabwe would be a great prize for all of us and one of immense significance, as has been said, for the whole of Southern Africa. There is little doubt that a multiracial Zimbabwe, securing the participation and the future of the white minority, would have a welcome influence on the Republic of South Africa, encouraging reform there and the development of a more liberal attitude. There is no doubt either that success for Zimbabwe would be a setback for Russia, which, with the aid of its Cuban mercenaries, is now so intent on establishing its sphere of influence over Africa and the Southern Arabian peninsula.
  The Foreign Secretary is right to try to widen the participation in the election processes in Rhodesia. He is right to try to persuade Joshua Nkomo to change from his guerrilla tactics to participation in peaceful elections. My only anxiety is that the Foreign Secretary has tipped the scales so far too much in favour of the militants and the Marxists and in doing so has given comfort only to "our common enemy whose capital is Moscow."
  Instead of trying to undermine the internal settlement, why does not the Foreign Secretary build on it? Why does he not at the very least salute the immense advance that has been made? Something of the greatest importance has taken place. The Foreign Secretary will bear
  546
  a heavy responsibility if, through his insistence on the unrealistic proposals wished on him by the United States Administration, he precipitates the collapse of what has now been achieved in Salisbury.
  The right hon. Gentleman's policy is coming dangerously close to an attempt to replace the old white minority rule with a militant, Marxist-inclined black minority rule. The Foreign Secretary even uses some of the same slogans. He said, when opening the debate, "The fight so far has been a fight for freedom." It has not. It has been and is still a fight for power. It is not an independence struggle so much as a power struggle. That is what we are witnessing. I suspect that it is because people like Mugabe know full well that they stand little chance of winning in a free election through the ballot that they are relentlessly pursuing their aims with the bullet.
  There are three immediate essentials. The first is that the Foreign Secretary should work to ensure that the elections when they take place are free from intimidation, are seen to be fair and, if this is necessary for that to happen, are subjected to some form of international scrutiny and observation by the United Nations or by any other acceptable agency.
  Secondly, in respect of the economy of Rhodesia, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will preserve for himself some flexibility, because changes could well take place in the African continent which would undermine the slender stability of the Rhodesian economy and would adversely affect the emergence of the new independent State of Zimbabwe. The Foreign Secretary must make it quite clear that, as soon as the conditions for full free elections have been established, we will give a firm promise of future economic support for that country.
  Thirdly, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will follow the example of Bishop Muzorewa, Mr. Sithole and Chief Chirau. I hope that he, too, will swallow his pride and get the better of any personal antipathy that he still harbours against Mr. Smith. I hope that he will recognise the transitional Government of Rhodesia for the reality that it is. He should give it encouragement and use it for all it is worth—and it is worth a lot. It is the best possible hope for the

  547
  emergence in Rhodesia of a new independent Zimbabwe which would, happily, be both multiracial and pro-West.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: If nothing else the debate has shown that there would be great advantage attached to more Labour Members travelling to Rhodesia and finding out the situation on the ground. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) spoke with great knowledge of Rhodesia. However, I wonder whether even he has been there recently. The impression that I gained when I was in Rhodesia a fortnight ago was that no Labour Member had been to Rhodesia for months at least and possibly years.
  If any Labour Members went to Rhodesia they would find a situation very different from that which they imagine. They would find, in particular, that the internal settlement has the support not simply of the black African leaders, not just of Mr. Smith and his followers but, perhaps more important, of a great number of people who opposed UDI from the beginning. Perhaps of particular interest to Labour Members is that the settlement is supported by a number of white people who have consistently been supporters of the Labour Party in this country.
  There are only two courses facing Rhodesia—peaceful transition to majority rule, or a deterioration of the country into civil war, bloodshed and economic ruin. Against the background of those courses there are two reasons why the internal settlement is receiving so much support. First, it has satisfied or is beginning to satisfy five of the Six Principles. Secondly, people are supporting the internal agreement because time and the state of the economy will not allow for anything else.
  It was all very well for the Foreign Secretary to propound his views about the scene that he would like to see developing, but the time has passed when it is possible for him to have those ideas put into practice. If he thinks that it is possible to put those ideas into practice, I regret to say that he is living in a dreamland of his own. The internal settlement is the only option open if peaceful transition is to be achieved without bloodshed. I am convinced that if
  548
  what has been done were now to be undone, the ensuing delay before anything else was agreed would see a major increase in guerrilla warfare and considerable loss of life.
  In the meantime, it is not far short of a miracle that Mr. Smith and three of the most important African leaders are sitting together in the Executive Council. If that were to go, in all likelihood there would be a civil war—not between black and white, but between the different black political groups. There would, in addition, be a mass exodus of whites who would lose all confidence in their future in Rhodesia. The destructive effect that that would have on the economy would be cataclysmic and totally contrary to the hopes of the African leaders. They can judge better than anyone else the adverse effect that white emigration has already had on the economies of other African countries, and they know that if Rhodesia is to have a prospering economy the retention of white people is of very great importance.
  I am convinced that the internal settlement provides the only basis for peaceful transition. What remains to be done now is to satisfy the Fifth Principle and to obtain international recognition. If, in the meanwhile, other African countries can be persuaded to accept the huge progress that has been made towards majority rule, it will be so much easier to set the stage for the satisfaction of the Fifth Principle, but proof can come only from an election.
  Obviously there are arguments in favour of a national referendum, but the memory of the Pearce Commission is too unhappy to make that sort of opinion-sounding an option and time is too short anyway for a referendum to be held if the target date of 31st December is to be achieved. Diversions such as a referendum could slow the course of events and, in any case, before a referendum could take place there would have to be registration of electors.
  If there is to be an election, the guerrilla war must be de-escalated. No election could conceivably take place in the present security situation.
  Mr. Amery: I asked Bishop Muzorewa that question on Monday and he said that he did not see why elections could not take place now. He holds meetings and

  549
  buses carry hundreds of people to and fro. He does not see why they should not take people to the polling booths, even in present circumstances.
  Mr. Morrison: I accept what my right hon. Friend says. I was about to say that when I was in Rhodesia with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), the African leaders and the security forces were extremely optimistic about the guerrillas laying down their arms and the situation being improved much more than it has already.
  However, in spite of the optimism of Bishop Muzorewa and other African leaders, I believe that it would be extremely difficult for the registration of voters to take place and for an election to be held without detailed intimidation. There is a great difference between the bishop holding meetings attended by thousands of people and individual Africans having to be registered and voting. That is why I believe that an election could not take place unless the guerrilla war is de-escalated. Of course the bishop's own party has reacted against the appeal to the guerrillas to lay down their arms, but it is not unknown for a party organisation to expect much more than even Governments of their own party. Indeed, it is not untypical of the Labour Party.
  Obviously, if there is to be a much greater chance of success in de-escalating the war, it must stem, above all, from bringing Mr. Nkomo into the internal settlement. I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone that Mr. Nkomo has claims, perhaps in excess of any other African leader, in respect of Rhodesia and leading a black Government. However, it will be one man, one vote and he will have to take his chance alongside the others. It would be a bitter irony if Mr. Nkomo, as the father of nationalism in Rhodesia, were responsible for a civil war just at the moment when majority rule was within his countrymen's grasp.
  I wonder what effort the Government are making to persuade President Kaunda to use his good offices with Mr. Nkomo. We are told that they are very close. All the leaders of nearby African countries must have a vested interest in peace and a settlement in Rhodesia, both because it will benefit their economies and because I refuse to believe that they really
  550
  welcome a continually expanding Russian or Cuban military presence in their countries. Having rid themselves of old colonialism, it does not seem likely that they welcome the possibility of subservience to a new and, this time, oppressive and harsh imperialism. They know that that is the threat facing them.
  The sooner there is a settlement in Rhodesia, the better it must be for those leaders, and for none more so than President Kaunda. Zambia's economy is in poor shape and two of the prerequisites for its resuscitation are capital and a reopening of the railway through Rhodesia. The Government should be trying to persuade President Kaunda to see where his country's interests lie and to lend his support to the internal agreement.
  This country should offer all possible assistance with the registration of voters for an election. I have no doubt that, later, British, Common Market or Anglo-American observers of the election should be appointed. All the evidence is that they would be welcomed by the Executive Council.
  If the Government are to be fully informed about the needs of Rhodesia in respect of progress towards satisfying the Fifth Principle, it is of the utmost importance that a British mission is established in Salisbury immediately. It is an advance to know that Mr. Graham will apparently be in Africa full time, but that is not good enough. There must be a mission in Salisbury and feel that there may not be too much difficulty about reciprocity, if the Foreign Secretary thinks that this may be an awkward problem.
  On international recognition, I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said about sanctions and I agree with the Foreign Secretary, who said that Britain cannot recognise Rhodesia or raise sanctions unilaterally. It is too soon to do so.
  It would be nice to do as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) suggests and to give the transitional Government the benefit of the doubt, but we must accept that, at this stage, there is too much scepticism remaining in the outside world for us to believe that recognition or the ending

  551
  of sanctions would have any desirable effect around the world.
  Lastly, I wish to make a few remarks about the Rhodesians themselves, if I may do so without seeming presumptuous. Compared with South Africa, there is a much more relaxed racial atmosphere in Rhodesia, however much still needs to be done to end discrimination. It is clear that black people, in Salisbury anyway, enjoy a reasonable standard of living and among the black leaders there is a strong desire that the whites should stay There seems to be a remarkable lack of resentment on the part of the black leaders—as there might have been, given their long fight for majority rule and the fact that so many of them have been in detention.
  On the other hand, the bravery of the whites, particularly the white farmers, in the face of terrorism is a remarkable advertisement of their character and self-reliance. Whatever mistakes may have been made in the past, their acceptance of the realities now is a hopeful portent for the future. The lessons that have been learnt by all from the experiences of other newly independent African countries are well taken throughout Rhodesia.
  In short, all the ingredients for a successful future and a model multiracial State in Southern Africa are there if they can be gelled together and if the elections take place. Whether that happens depends upon the attitude of this Government. At the moment it is clear that they are still totally unprepared fully to face up to the reality of the situation in Rhodesia. It is no use spitting out sour grapes because events have not gone as the Government wished. The Government must be more welcoming towards the movement towards majority rule in Zimbabwe. Time is short. If the Government do not change their attitude to the internal settlement, we shall remain on a course that is bound to end in disaster.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: In following my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) I should like to emphasise the sombre context in which his debate is taking place. We are not debating simply the situation in Rhodesia. We are debating the situation in the whole of Southern Africa. We
  552
  are also debating this in the context of mounting crisis and division within the world.
  When we look back at the events of the past 10 to 14 years, we cannot help noting the tendency of many politicians, not only in this country, to have taken one side or the other, rather arbitrarily and emotionally, and to have kept to it though positions might change. This is one of the reasons why I welcomed part at least of the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson).
  As Dr. Kissinger said last week in a lecture, it is quite possible to welcome, for example, the internal settlement while at the same time recognising the realities of the Patriotic Front and the reality of the cause for which it stands. There is no necessary division between these views although they seem to be totally opposed.
  What is the purpose of Western policy in Southern Africa? It is the creation of a durable, acceptable and peaceful settlement. We must all recognise that the context is worse than it was even five years ago and is bound to deteriorate unless this present opportunity is seized. It is certainly a good deal worse than it was in 1971 at the time of the Lusaka declaration or in 1973 when President Gowon was president of the OAU.
  The key point to emphasise is that of guarantees to Rhodesia during the transition period. I disagree with the point made by the Foreign Secretary, not only today but previously, when he referred to the emphasis which he and the Government place upon the role of the United Nations peacekeeping force.
  As one with some involvement with United Nations peacekeeping forces in the past, I regard this as a totally impracticable proposal. It is not only impracticable because the United Nations is at the moment severely over-stretched. There is a total staff of only six people in New York dealing with the United Nations' peacekeeping activities. At the moment they are coping with no fewer than four peacekeeping forces, and the idea of adding to that is absolutely impractical. The real problem is that any peacekeeping force has to be created by the Security Council. At the moment in Rhodesia, a peacekeeping initiative would lie with the Western Powers. It would depend upon the vote and veto of the

  553
  Soviet Union. I know from experience that the vote would be secured at a price. In other words, it would be a peacekeeping force in the main on the terms of the Soviet Union.
  In addition, we have to confront the problems of recruitment, command and the financing of such a force. The problems that we have at the moment in the Lebanon are sufficiently formidable and are mounting daily. The problems of role, mandate and command will be key issues. Over the years the Soviet Union has relentlessly maintained its view that the Security Council, on which it has a veto, should be in command of the day-to-day operations of a peacekeeping force. The Western countries have consistently opposed this. As we saw first with the second United Nations emergency force in the Middle East and now with the Lebanon force, the Soviet principle has been carried forward. We would have a position in which, although it might be a Western initiative to have a United Nations peacekeeping force, it would have to be substantially created and run on the terms of the Soviet Union.
  Let us be realistic about this. The reason why we need a form of force or intervention in Rhodesia during the interim period is that this is not a country which is going through a mere internal series of difficulties; it is a country facing an external threat. There is also the principle that the United Nations peacekeeping forces go into areas in which there is prior agreement between the parties. This seems highly improbable in the charged atmosphere of Southern Africa.
  The one thing we all dread is another Congo. This is the one thing that the United Nations dreads. It is dreaded also by everyone involved not only in African affairs but in international affairs. The United Nations has learnt a great deal from the Congo. It has learnt of many of the perils and difficulties surrounding involvement in such operations. Above all, it has learnt that when there is a situation in which there is ambiguity about the mandate, when there is Great Power rivalry, when there is exploitation of a peacekeeping force and when it is flung into a highly volatile situation, there arise the tragedies and near-disasters which occurred previously. That is the essential point that I wished to make.
  554
  I believe that we in the West have to face up to the fact that although the internal settlement represents a considerable advance, it is not by itself enough. There will have to be some form of Western involvement, particularly on the aspect of guarantees. I believe that the United Nations route is impractical. I believe that the House and the country and the Western Powers generally have to face the fact that if they wish to play a part in the establishment of a settlement in an area vital for international peace, we cannot go on any longer trading phrases and arguments. We must recognise that we face hard decisions and that the involvement of this nation and the Western alliance in the affairs of Southern Africa is crucial for the future peace and settlement of that area as well as for international peace.
  8.17 p.m.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: I shall be extremely brief, for two reasons. The first has to do with appeals made by the Chair that we should be brief in the interests of other hon. Members who wish to speak. The second is that I thought that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and the short speech by his predecessor as Shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnett (Mr. Maudling), were completely accurate, factual and objective summings-up of the situation to which I can usefully add little.
  I confess that I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford made the best speech that I can remember on this difficult subject. It was a great advance, if I may say so without being offensive, on the speech of the Foreign Secretary.
  I do not believe that the Foreign Secretary and some hon. Members who have spoken yet realise in how much peril the internal settlement stands. If they do realise it and they are still not prepared to do something to sustain this fragile growth, the likelihood is that it will collapse. What such people have not thought through is what would take the place of the settlement. It is because of that that I urge the Foreign Secretary and the Government to review their attitude and begin to give encouragement to the settlement so that elections may be held at the end of the year and so that it does not

  555
  split but rather gets on with the job before a worse fate overtakes the country. Labour Members will be aware of the internal chaos which has affected other countries not far from Rhodesia.
  I ask those who, I believe, are putting the settlement at risk to tell us what they think will happen if the internal settlement collapses. What will be the action and reaction of the Government? Do they not realise that the longer we withhold, not necessarily formal recognition, but support, assistance and encouragement for the internal settlement, the more strength it will give to external forces of terrorism in stepping up their aggression. It has been shown also that the more bloody-minded they are the more Her Majesty's Government hold back from any form of recognition of the internal settlement.
  On both sides we are running into very grave risks if we put the settlement, which is not perfect but is a good start, at peril. If we do so, we make the situation worse every day because we have no alternative to offer except internal chaos, and because we are encouraging terrorist forces from outside to step up the aggression which has so far brought them good dividends in that now no settlement is regarded as possible unless they are included.
  The Foreign Secretary said that history shows how wrong we have been in underestimating the ultimate results and the so-called freedom fighters. He said that this had always been a mistake. He has his facts and history wrong. Whenever we have given way to violence by abandoning or handing over our responsibilities, the worst possible results have followed. For proof of that we have only to look at the present situation in the Middle East. We yielded there to the pressures of force and abandoned our responsibilities in Palestine, and everything in the Middle East situation has flowed from terrorism. The same happened when we yielded to so-called freedom fighters in Cyprus. Look at what has happened to the unhappy island.
  In Malaysia, on the other hand, we refused to yield to attempts to impose a new system by the gun. The result is that Malaysia is one of the most successful democratic States in the New Commonwealth. I suggest that those who may
  556
  stare at that statement should consider all the alternatives in South-East Asia at the moment and then keep their mouths firmly closed, for otherwise I shall be tempted to start talking about conditions in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
  I do not think that the Foreign Secretary realises the extent of the dread and dislike that there is among blacks and whites alike in Rhodesia who want to live their lives in peace. To them the terrorists from over the border are not freedom fighters. They regard them as we regard the IRA in this country. We may not think that they are the same, and we may call them freedom fighters but to the blacks and whites who have seen their wives and children murdered, whatever their colour—I have had letters from the Foreign Office admitting some appalling massacres by the so-called freedom fighters—they are the equivalent of the IRA, and for us to insist that in Rhodesia the equivalent of the IRA must come into any constitutional settlement or else it will not be valid only makes the resistance to any such arrangement all the stronger.
  I recently put down two questions. First, I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
  "if it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to insist on the inclusion of the Patriotic Front military movement in any negotiations for a Rhodesian constitutional settlement;"
  The answer of the Minister of State, was:
  "It remains the view of my right hon. Friend that all the parties principally involved should be included in negotiations for a constitutional settlement in Rhodesia."
  My second question, put down the same day, was to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I asked him
  "whether it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to insist on the exclusion"—
  not inclusion—
  "of the PIRA and IRA military movement from negotiations for a Northern Ireland constitutional settlement;"
  The answer of the Secretary of State was:
  "Yes. I have no intention of negotiating with criminals."—[Official Report, 17th April 1978; Vol. 948, c. 16–33.]
  I put it to hon. Members opposite that to those living on the spot in Rhodesia the terrorists are as abhorrent as we

  557
  rightly regard the terrorists who are making the lives of innocent people in Ulster unbearable.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Clemitson: I shall not follow the circumnavigation of the hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett), who ranged as widely as from Malaysia and, presumably, Singapore, where he claimed that there were democratic regimes, to Northern Ireland. Both areas are far removed from Rhodesia.
  I wish to refer particularly to the question of sanctions, dealing with one particular aspect, oil sanctions. I do not want to become involved in the argument about whether sanctions should continue. I am glad to hear that not only is it the Government's view that they should continue but that at least some hon. Members opposite apparently agree with the Government's position. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) agreed that sanctions should not at this stage be withdrawn.
  I make no apology for returning to the subject of oil sanctions because, arguably, they are the most important of all the sanctions. The Smith regime would not have lasted six months if the oil sanctions had been clearly and rigidly imposed. Yet the regime has lasted not just for six months but for well over a decade. Plainly, Rhodesia has been getting and continues to get oil and oil products from somewhere.
  In the last two years, two documents have been produced giving evidence of the way in which this has been done. The first was an American publication called "The Oil Conspiracy." It dealt mainly with the Mobil Oil Company and documented in detail what it called a paperchase. The second was a publication by the Haslemere Group, in conjunction with the anti-apartheid movement, which showed that British-based oil companies were engaging in similar practices. I need hardly say how serious this aspect is, since the British public, through the Government and the Bank of England, have the controlling interest in one of these companies, British Petroleum.
  Partly as a result of the publication of these documents, partly as a result of pressures in this House, and partly as a result of pressures in other countries of
  558
  the Commonwealth, the Government decided in April last year to establish the Bingham inquiry. What has happened or is happening to that inquiry? I appreciate that the subject is complex. I appreciate the need for thoroughness and fairness in looking at this problem and examining the allegations which have been made. But surely there is also a need for expedition, especially in the light of the rapidly changing situation in Rhodesia over the past 12 months, and, indeed, over the last two or three months.
  Last November my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was asked what progress was being made and he replied:
  "It is too soon to indicate when I expect to receive the report of the inquiry."—[Official Report, 25th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 949.]
  More recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked a similar question, and my right hon. Friend replied:
  "Mr. Thomas Bingham has made consider able progress with his investigation into the supply of petroleum and petroleum products to Rhodesia. I discussed the timing of his report with him today, and he is aware that I regard his task as urgent, but I cannot yet forecast when he will be ready to submit his report."
  We still have no date, therefore, for when Mr. Bingham is likely to report. The first anniversary of the setting up of the Bingham inquiry is now well past, but we still have no date and no indication of when the report can be expected.
  The reply goes on to state:
  "So far as publication is concerned, the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968, under which the inquiry was established, placed certain restrictions on the disclosure of material produced for the purpose of the inquiry. I shall not be able to reach a decision on this until the report has been submitted and considered."—[Official Report, 15th March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 201–2.]
  I realise the technical difficulties involved in the question of publication, but in a matter of this importance, where a company in which the Government have a controlling interest is involved, surely there is a strong presumption of the right to know. I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that the report, when it is ready, will be published, or at least that the major part of it will be published.
  Whatever the technical and practical difficulties about completing the report, there will inevitably be a suspicion that the Government do not regard the matter

  559
  with quite the urgency with which perhaps they ought to regard it and that they would rather that the matter would go away. I am not saying that those suspicions are justified or that they are true, but the only way for such suspicions to be removed is for the report to be completed and to be published as quickly as possible.
  I fully support the Government's view that a lasting settlement in Rhodesia is possible only if all the nationalist leaders and their various supporters are brought into the negotiations. I fully support their view that to support the internal settlement to the exclusion of the Patriotic Front leaders would be to invite disaster and almost certainly a civil war of bloodier proportions than is happening at the moment.
  I fully support the Government's attempt to act as mediator in the situation on that sort of basis, but there has been, as I see it, great difficulty in their fulfilling a conciliatory role as long as they were and are seen as, if not conniving at, at least not taking serious action against, the breaking of sanctions and particularly the breaking of oil sanctions allegedly by a company in which they have the controlling interest.
  The past is past and we cannot make good our lack of action on the subject for so many years, but I believe that it would partially help to retrieve the situation if we were seen to be treating the Bingham inquiry with seriousness and urgency. The sooner the report is completed and the sooner it is published, the more, in my view, will our credibility be strengthened. If the report finds that the allegations made against British Petroleum and Shell are well founded, I hope that the Government take speedy action against those companies.
  I wish the Secretary of State well in his extremely difficult task, but I urge him to treat this matter of alleged sanction-breaking by the oil companies with great seriousness. The more he does so the stronger, I believe, his position will be, and the nearer will be a lasting settlement in Rhodesia.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I cannot help recalling the
  560
  Labour Party conference of about 12 years ago when the then Minister of State was under great attack from Labour Party delegates for having allegedly negotiated with the illegal Smith regime. In replying to the charge, which she denied, I recall her saying—I saw it on television—" We have not negotiated with Ian Smith, and we told him so in hours and hours of talks".
  I mention that because it emphasises the somewhat surrealistic nature of the whole attitude of the United Kingdom Government—and, indeed, of successive British Governments—to the Rhodesia problem. It has been a policy which has been based on a rather curious mixture of high principles, political tactics and a sense of utter helplessness. I think that these ingredients have continued until the present day.
  There has been a significant amount of mention of the Six Principles as being the basis of the policy of successive British Governments. It is well worth remembering what exactly those principles are, because this emphasises the dramatic changes that have taken place within Rhodesia over the last couple of years.
  The First Principle, relating to a guarantee of unimpeded progress towards majority rule on the basis of the 1961 constitution, is clearly to be found within the internal agreement. Again, the fact that there have been no retrogressive amendments of the 1961 constitution is clearly not something that one would question as not being conceded. There have been dramatic improvements in the political status of the African population. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed, there have been. The political status of the African population has been dramatically improved by its participation—for the first time since the foundation of Rhodesia in 1890—in the highest organs of government.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Surely the hon. Gentleman is stretching his logic by saying that the bringing into an arrangement of, at most, 16 people out of a population of 3 million is a dramatic change in political status.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman really should visit Rhodesia, if he is allowed in. I do not know whether the Africans as well as the whites would

  561
  allow him in at the present time. However, he should pay a visit. He would discover that not only has the Land Apportionment Act been repealed—an Act which all sections of the population critical of Mr. Smith have condemned for many years—not only has there been the release of 700 out of 900 detainees and not only has there been a pledge of full majority rule by the end of this year, but that three out of the four members of the highest organ of power—the Executive Council—are now African leaders. If the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that that is a dramatic improvement in the status of the African people, he really is not interested in the facts of the situation.
  With regard to the other principles, some criticism has been made that the internal agreement will give to the Europeans a disproportionate representation in Parliament—greater than their numbers would justify—for a period of 10 years. Certain Labour Members have said that it is unfair that the whites should have a privileged minority position, even for a transitional period. This overlooks the real relevance of the situation, because for the first time in the history of mankind a small minority which had a monopoly of political power is, however grudgingly—and after however long a period—voluntarily transferring that monopoly to a different ethnic group. If the price to be paid is certain slight privileges for a minority—certain purely blocking powers over certain constitutional changes for a 10-year period—that cannot be a price which is too high to pay.
  It has been suggested that Mr. Smith is not a man to be trusted. I would not necessarily disagree with that point of view. I think, however, that that is irrelevant to the present consideration of what our policy should be. If there is one thing that can be said of Mr. Smith, it is that he has been entirely consistent. He has been consistent in that the paramount objective which he has pursued has been to protect, as best as he thinks he can, the interests of the European community.
  Until the time of the Kissinger proposals, Mr. Smith obviously believed that it was possible to contemplate a perpetuation of white minority rule in Rhodesia. Now he has accepted—for many of the reasons that Labour Mem-
  562
  bers have indicated—that that is no longer a feasible proposition. Equally, he is consistent in believing that it is now in the interests of the white community that there should be a peaceful transition to a moderate African Government in the very near future.
  I do not see that there is anything inconsistent in that approach. Indeed, I cannot conceive of a single interest of Mr. Smith's that would want him to reverse the position and the steps that he has taken over the last few months. The obvious major outstanding point is whether the Fifth Principle will be complied with and whether the settlement which has been reached is acceptable to the population of Rhodesia as a whole, both black and white. Here, I think, there is a fundamental problem.
  Although I have not the slightest doubt that both the black and white members of the Executive Council want African opinion to be freely tested, there is the practical problem that as long as a guerrilla war is going on in a large part of the country the circumstances do not permit the full, free and open determination of these issues that both sides would like.
  Here we come to a critical problem. It is one thing to say "We will in no way recognise an internal settlement or a Government who have not demonstrated and have no desire to demonstrate that they have the support of the population for that agreement." That is one position which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber probably wish to take. It is a different matter if one comes to the view that the inability to test that opinion as fully and as freely as one would like is not because of any failure of the will of the Government in question but because of the determination of a small minority of armed fighters to prevent the referendum or poll taking place.
  We have to accept that if at the end of the day the internal Government try, with all the power at their disposal, to give an opportunity to the Africans as well as the Europeans to indicate whether they support the settlement, and if all those who are able to take part in such an expression of opinion demonstrate their support for the settlement, Her Majesty's Government not only will have to accept such a settlement but will have

  563
  speedily to contemplate the demolition of the sanctions apparatus and give full economic and other support to the new Government who emerge. I accept that that cannot happen before independence on a legal basis at the end of this year, but it must be a priority for Her Majesty's Government.
  Clearly, there are conflicting African nationalist leaders in Rhodesia at present. But no one seriously suggests that the matters which divide Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe from the internal nationalist leaders concern the principle of majority rule or any basic ideological position. They are conflicting and fighting on the basis of power and of a desire to seek power. It could be said of Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe that the greatest problem is that they will not take "Yes" for an answer. They have been given majority rule—the principle has been conceded and it is an irreversible process irrespective of what the white electorate might decide in a referendum—and in the months which pass before the end of this year there will be the final opportunity available to Rhodesia to achieve what many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have sought for many years—a peaceful transition to majority rule.
  When I lived and worked in Rhodesia in 1967, if anyone had told me that P. K. van der Byl and Ndabaningi Sithole would be Government colleagues in the same Cabinet, I would not have been indignant but probably I would have fallen off my chair with hysterical laughter. It would have been an inconceivable proposition at that time. If that can happen, anything can happen in Rhodesia. Anything is possible in terms of the reconciliation of two races which have had a major conflict but which are now struggling to find an accommodation.
  There is tremendous hope in Rhodesia. I think that there is an enormous burden on the British Government to ensure that nothing they do hinders that progress towards a system of government in Rhodesia which is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Knowledge and even love of the
  564
  land which we shall call Zimbabwe is not confined to one side of the House. I have friends in Rhodesia, white and black, and some of those friends are nationalists. However, the last of a number of visits that I have made to Rhodesia was less recent than those of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and, in deference to them and to the House, I shall take only a few moments of the remaining time available to Back Bench Members.
  The hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) spoke of the inefficacy of sanctions. I never supported sanctions, for reasons which I need not rehearse. I am not starting to support sanctions this evening. I believe that the policy and diplomacy of this country should now be directed towards the lifting of sanctions, and I say "diplomacy" as well as "policy" because other Powers are concerned and the United Nations has been brought in.
  The lifting of sanctions seems to me to be the corollary of support for the internal settlement, which will not be reversed. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) is not the first of those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today to use the term "irreversible". This internal settlement will not be reversed because sanctions continue for a longer or a shorter period, and those who back a political settlement do not undermine it economically.
  I have no quarrel with the insistence of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that the internal settlement should be shown to be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. That is one of the principles which are generally accepted. The Opposition want the people of Rhodesia as a whole to choose as speedily as possible their own leaders and their future. It is that for which the settlement provides.
  The Foreign Secretary has been running after the Patriotic Front and its rival guerrilla warlords. The Foreign Secretary believes that the Russians have a right to be in Africa. I wonder what the Russians would say if we said that we had a right to be in Central Asia? The Foreign Secretary found common ground with the Russians in Moscow over Rhodesia. However, we recognise signs of progress, and I am glad that the Foreign Secretary

  565
  now disclaims any preference for a particular national party or leader.
  One such leader, under Bishop Muzorewa, is James Chakerema, of the UANC, who said in an interview in the Zimbabwe Times on 6th April:
  "If Nkomo wants to test his credibility with the people of Zimbabwe he is welcome So is Robert Mugabe and everyone else."
  That makes sense to me. I hope that it makes sense to the Government as well.
  "What exactly is the basis for our opposition to the so-called internal settlement in Rhodesia?"
  That is not my question. It was put recently by Dr. Kissinger. We are inclined to forget that he started all this. We owe much to him for the progress that has been achieved. President Ford's Secretary of State said he favoured an attempt to get all the leaders and factions to participate in the proposed elections. So do I and so do my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  In supporting the splendid speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), I urge that there should be no delay in registering electors and enabling the people of Rhodesia to choose their leaders. Britain should give as much help as is required. That is the way forward. I do not believe that a round table conference is the right course of action. It is a recipe for delay and, therefore, danger.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Blaker: I was in Rhodesia two weeks ago and I came away convinced that Mr. Smith and his colleagues are entirely sincere in their wish to move rapidly to majority rule. That was the view of everybody to whom I spoke—black and white, supporters and opponents of Mr. Smith. That is the basic assumption on which the life of white Rhodesians is conducted.
  The danger of the abusive remarks that have been made tonight about Mr. Smith and his colleagues by Labour Members is that they may prejudice the successful conclusion of the internal settlement because they may make the white population despair of getting any support from the British Government.
  What has happened is a process which cannot be reversed if the internal settlement survives. If one thing is certain in Rhodesia today, it is the fact that by
  566
  early next year there will be a majority-rule Government if the settlement survives. I can see why the Foreign Secretary wants Mr. Nkomo in the agreement. I hope he will come in. That is also the wish of Mr. Smith—he told me so himself. But the result of this Government's policies has been to give the impression that they have a bias against the internal settlement.
  That is a mistaken attitude, for two reasons. First, there is a real danger that the internal settlement may be destroyed and that would have very serious consequences. I quote what was said to me by a very well informed Rhodesian who is certainly not a supporter of Mr. Smith:
  "a collapse of the internal agreement, is really too appalling to contemplate, for there is little doubt that it will involve grave economic consequences, increasing lawlessness as fewer people are available for law enforcement, more banditry, revenge killings and a general breakdown in social and political institutions."
  I believe that it would mean a grave loss of Europeans from Rhodesia, whose continued presence there is vital for the country's economy.
  The second reason for the Government's attitude being mistaken is that they are breaking what should be a fundamental rule for all British Governments, especially when dealing with Africa: they are supporting the men of violence against the men of peace. That is a bad example in Africa.
  The Foreign Secretary has made a reputation for himself as a defender of human rights. In Rhodesia human rights are on the side of the internal settlement. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to democracy. In Rhodesia democracy is on the side of the internal settlement. The right hon. Gentleman is, in effect, signalling to the Patriotic Front that it has nothing to lose by continuing the war. He has given respectability to force.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred this afternoon to past examples where guerrilla leaders have become statesmanlike leaders of their countries. That is not relevant in this case. There is an alternative option to the guerilla leader. There is the internal settlement, which is based on peaceful progress.
  The Government should be sticking to the Six Principles. I am glad that they

  567
  have said that that is their policy. I understand that they accept that five of the Six Principles have been fulfilled.
  This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman said something of importance. If I understood him aright, he said that if under the internal settlement a new Government is formed which clearly has the acceptance of the people as a whole, the British Government will accept their responsibility and back it. The question is how the support of the people for such a Government is to be established.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) suggested a parliamentary commission. There is also the possibility of a referendum. In due course there will be an election. I am less confident than my right hon. Friend that it would be possible at present to send a commission. I take the same view as that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) that the degree of intimidation that would be likely to occur would make such a commission's task impossible.
  Nevertheless, if the Government want in due course to establish whether an election or referendum is fair, we do not need to control the election or referendum as was suggested by some Labour hon. Members, including, for example, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). All that we need to do is to send observers. If the observers report that the election or referendum is not fairly conducted, if it will be null and void and we shall go back to square one.
  I ask the Minister of State to say tonight, following his right hon. Friend's statement, whether the Government will send observers to a referendum or election, if one is held under the internal settlement, even if the Patriotic Front has not joined in. Will the Government encourage other appropriate countries to send observers too, if necessary? A statement that the Government would accept that responsibility would have a stabilising effect in Rhodesia.
  I can understand the pressures under which the Foreign Secretary feels himself to be. He is conscious, no doubt, of our growing economic interests in black Africa. There are the problems of securing international support. There is
  568
  the danger that the Cubans might be tempted to interfere. There is the importance of keeping close to the United States in our policy. All those are relevant factors. But for every Foreign Secretary with a really difficult problem there comes in the end—and I think that the stage has now been reached—the need for him to say "I will do what is right".
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. William Shelton: I think that this has been a very depressing debate. The Government Benches, empty but for the Minister, without even his PPS or a Whip, show the lack of interest in this vital matter by the Labour Party. It has also been extremely depressing from the point of view of speeches made by Labour Members. Those who have not been dragged in, those who spoke seriously, took a depressing view. The only contrast has been the many speeches made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is unfortunate and unhappy that there has been an increasingly apparent division of opinion between Labour and Opposition Members.
  I understand the difficulties that the Foreign Secretary has to face. If he supports the internal settlement, he believes that it will probably lead to escalation of the war—escalation and intervention by Russian and perhaps Cuban troops.
  We know or are lead to believe that the first deputy commander of the Soviet ground forces, General Petrov, is now in Mozambique. He was the Russian general who spearheaded and organised the Ethiopian advance into the Ogaden. He is now in Mozambique. His apparent role is to organise Cuban involvement in Rhodesia, should it become necessary.
  We understand that heavy Russian armour is being shipped in through Nacala in North Mozambique. We understand that there are MiGs at the new Sofala air base south of Beira. Therefore, the Foreign Secretary no doubt thinks that, if he supports the internal settlement, these forces may be unleashed. He also believes, with some justice, that it would gravely disturb the front-line Presidents, that it might risk United Kingdom investments, and that it would no doubt upset the the Left-wing of his own party.
  On the other hand, if the Foreign Secretary supports the Patriotic Front, he

  569
  knows that he will be supporting what is believed to be non-representative leaders in Rhodesia. We all know that, until the elections, it is impossible to gauge the support for the various black leaders. Nevertheless, those who have been there and know the country must recognise the strong tribal elements in Rhodesia. We have some knowledge of the numbers in the various tribes and, therefore, some idea of the support that the various leaders would enjoy. It is probable that Mr. Nkomo, being a Matebele, would not enjoy more than 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. Nevertheless, I hope we shall see at the end of the year.
  If the Foreign Secretary supports the Patriotic Front, he will also be supporting the guerrilla force, or whatever one may call it, which has Russian and Cuban support.
  Mr. Robert Hughes indicated dissent.
  Mr. Shelton: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I think that it is fairly well recognised that the Patriotic Front is receiving money from Russia and training from the Cubans. Therefore, it has Russian and Cuban support. There is no doubt that he would also be supporting Mr. Mugabe. It is also well recognised that Mr. Mugabe, by his own declaration, cannot be called a thoroughgoing democrat.
  The Foreign Secretary has this difficulty. What has he been doing? For the last eight months he has been hawking round Africa and other parts of the world the Anglo-American plan. I tried to calculate how many meetings he had had about it—a good many. Today we heard that he was proposing another meeting to try to sell this plan. He has not been successful so far, and it is doubtful whether, for reasons expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends, he will be successful in future.
  In those eight months I cannot believe that in all justice the Foreign Secretary can regard himself as having been neutral between the two sides. He has claimed that he has taken no side, one or the other. That is not so. For instance, why did he not in the United Nations veto the resolution condemning the internal settlement when Bishop Muzorewa was not invited to speak? At least, why did he not suggest that the bishop should be invited to speak?
  570
  Why has the Foreign Secretary not extended any hand of friendship, any word of advice or any comfort to the internal settlement by honest men, as one of my hon. Friends described them, struggling with a difficult problem and needing all the help that they might get? Why has there been no offer by the British Government to help them draft their constitution and to help with the registration for the election which we hope is to come at the end of this month? Why has no mission been sent? Why has no representation been accepted in this country?
  These are the questions that my hon. Friends have been asking again and again. Perhaps we shall hear the answers. Why should what the Foreign Secretary calls neutrality be so hostile to these people who, in world terms, are on our side?
  If the provisional Government in Rhodesia read reports of this debate, I hope that they will take the message that it would be damaging and dangerous for them to postpone the election after the end of the year. I accept the difficulties involved. I suggest that they should use the system that was used in Venezuela after the dictatorship was removed in 1957. Instead of registration, the voters dipped a finger in indelible ink and were thus unable to vote a second time. It worked well in Venezuela where an election was needed as quickly as possible.
  I say to the Foreign Secretary that if the internal settlement collapses through his pressures or interventions, through his lack of help, his lack of decision or his inaction, we shall have some type of Marxist dictatorship in that country, with the holocaust that the Foreign Secretary is so anxious to avoid. If that happens, it will not be in the best interests of the people of Rhodesia, it will not be in the best interests of the people of Britain, and it will not be in the best interests of democracy. If that happens, the Foreign Secretary will carry a heavy burden.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Hastings: My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) complained about the lack of interest on the Government Benches in the debate. One charitable explanation might be that the almost ceaseless stream of venom which Labour Members injected into the debate has been too much for their colleagues, and

  571
  that they were ashamed to come into the Chamber to listen to it.
  This is a moment of unique importance in this long and tragic story. It is also a glittering opportunity for the Foreign Secretary. I saw the beginning in July when I was in Rhodesia. When I came back, I tried to explain to the Foreign Secretary, to write about it and to speak about it in the House. We are seeing a true multiracial nation—perhaps the only one in Africa—being forged from the privation and dangers of an armed struggle. Lord Paget made a grim and correct analysis about this in a debate in another place last week. He referred to war as being the midwife of nations. So it is in the case of Rhodesia.
  So obvious is this that I came to the House convinced that the Foreign Secretary would respond to it, at least to some degree. Instead, we heard the same sour rejected arguments, the same bleak refusal to face the facts, the same deafness to reason. It was the speech of a man in a dream—in a nightmare. I came here ready to be conciliatory and to try to analyse and sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties because I thought that he had the courage to try to surmount them. But after that speech I do not think that he is even going to try.
  In a sane world, the alternatives open to the British Government are obvious and have been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. They are to encourage the settlement, or to abandon Rhodesia and her peoples to the risk of bloody chaos and subsequently to the attentions of the Soviet Union. Either we are on the side of a multiracial democracy or we stand back and accept a further extension of the Soviet empire. The Foreign Secretary knows that as well as any of us, in spite of what he said this afternoon.
  What makes the Foreign Secretary hesitate? What is behind this pious talk about a duty to get people round the table again? Certainly it is no longer an issue of principle. All the principles are met except the test of opinion and that is already planned. Indeed, the Anglo-Americans are holding it up The moral case for the internal settlement is now overwhelming. What are the real pressures on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government?
  572
  They include the following. First, there is the Nigerian position. There is the oil position. That shrewd African Kaiser N'deweni only two weeks ago said that the Anglo-Americans would sell Zimbabwe for a few barrels of oil. The remark is not inept. Why did President Carter choose to make his speech in Lagos?
  Secondly, and more important, there is the apparent fear of the American Government of any confrontation with the Soviet Union in Africa. In so far as one can make sense of Mr. Andrew Young's pronouncements and outbursts, the aim seems to be to curry favour with those African leaders who have already opted for Moscow and to appear to get them into power before the Russians do, in the hope that they will retain some residual affection for the United States. Perhaps they will. But what good will that do either to America or to themselves once they are pressed into the Soviet empire? I cannot believe that this combination of illusion and weakness can constitute American policy for long. If it does, it is our duty to disabuse them.
  Next we are told that there is a major American electoral consideration, again represented by Mr. Andrew Young, who is said to command the black vote in favour of President Carter. Sometimes it seems that the Administration in the United States is engaged in nothing more than a permanent supra-national presidential election campaign, and that United States foreign policy is no more than an attempt to make the world fit in with what those who might vote for President Carter in the future would like. This is carrying democracy to the point of absurdity. If the United States Government are so confused about means and ends, it is up to our Foreign Secretary not to go along with them but to explain the difference.
  There is of course the pressure of the Marxists within the Labour movement and the Labour Party in this place. Their motives are scarcely concealed; scarcely concealed is their support for Soviet aggression, which luckily is obvious now to the country as a whole. One hopes. One can surely count on the Foreign Secretary to resist that.
  Finally, there is what one would term defeatism in Whitehall. I do not wish to be unfair to those who cannot answer

  573
  back, but I think that I can detect or guess at the advice that the Foreign Secretary may from time to time receive. In essence it goes like this. "It would be nice to do the right thing, the brave thing, but we must tailor our foreign policy to fit our dwindling material resources. We are no longer in a position to do anything really, and it is better therefore to row along with the Americans". That is a baleful comment. If such counsel had prevailed in 1940, we should have surrendered immediately to Nazism. I fear, nevertheless, that it exists today.
  These are at least some of the true reasons for the negative speech we heard from the Foreign Secretary today. But if, in spite of everything, it is not too late, I beg the Foreign Secretary, even at this hour, to do something positive. A good many suggestions have been made in the course of this debate—the establishment of a diplomatic presence in Salisbury, the interesting suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) in a remarkable speech that a parliamentary delegation be sent out, some sort of assurance about the end of sanctions, rather like the Kissinger proposals. At least let us have an end to those petty restrictions which have acted so cruelly on innocent Rhodesians. Lord Goodman mentioned these in a debate in the other place last week, referring to visits by relatives, medical treatment and that sort of thing. It is a disgrace to this country that these things are allowed to continue.
  The courage of the Rhodesians, black and white, over the past five years has been remarkable. The courage of their leaders, particularly their black leaders now, in the face of this wall of discouragement is incredible. Surely we who have prime responsibility owe some understanding in return, something more than this cynical defence of a position which the Foreign Secretary knows perfectly well to be without hope.
  Mr. Ian Smith has been vilified in this House for years, and not least today. I fancy that history may judge him differently. Whatever is said about him, whatever mistakes it may be conceived that he has made, no one has ever suggested that he lacks bravery. His record in peace and war stands to prove it. In the end he had the courage, momentously, to change his mind. May God grant that our
  574
  Foreign Secretary, some day, somehow, has the courage, in spite of the pressures I have outlined, to do the same.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: I shall speak for only two and a half minutes and thus allow one of my hon. Friends the other two and a half minutes.
  I have just three points to make. I have never known our party, in all its wings, more totally united on the subject of Rhodesia than it was today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) on his brilliant and uniting speech this afternoon. That fact must be recorded. I wish only that the Foreign Secretary had taken his dinner as a sandwich and listened to some of the authoritative and forceful speeches of my hon. Friends.
  It is a pity that the Labour Benches were deserted with only the Minister of State present on the Government Front Bench. With the exception of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley), the speeches of Labour Members were a kind of vindictive vilification of the white man in Africa and a hate campaign against Mr. Smith. I believe that they are suffering from some kind of ex-colonial guilt complex and to gratify that complex are willing to hand over the whole of Africa to the Marxists, but I wish they would not use the British people as their psychiatrists. I am fed up with the use of the phrase "white settlers". What would the immigrant population in this country think if they were constantly referred to as black settlers?
  I believe that there has been a total change in the attitude of the countries of Africa towards politics since the arrival of the Cubans in Angola and in the Horn of Africa. I believe that the attitude of the people of Namibia and Rhodesia has changed because of this new situation. This is an opportunity which we in the West at last can seize upon. We can use Rhodesia and Namibia as examples to start rolling back the onward march of Marxism in Africa. This is a moment which the Foreign Secretary should choose to put his weight behind the internal settlement. Many suggestions have been advanced to improve some of the details. Let the right hon. Gentleman take that step, and let him also see that we believe

  575
  that there is an opportunity for genuine multiracial, multicoloured rule in Africa.
  9.13 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to make a few remarks in this important debate. I had prepared quite a speech to deliver, but time will not permit me to deliver it. Indeed, many of the remarks I intended to make have already been covered by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  In the period of almost seven years I have been in this House—and the Rhodesian situation has been with this country for very much longer than that—this is the first occasion on which the Conservative Party has been totally and completely united on the subject of Rhodesia.
  The message has gone out from this House to the people of Rhodesia that the Conservative Opposition understand the situation of the Rhodesian people and support the internal settlement. I only hope that the composition of Her Majesty's Government will change soon enough to allow us to help the people of Rhodesia to implement a successful and peaceful future—a future not just for the white people of Rhodesia, who are natives of that country too, but for the black Rhodesians.
  This is perhaps a unique occasion for me. I have supported Rhodesia in many ways, seeking though the Rhodesian Government to find a settlement which will bring about a multiracial society in that country. I was fortunate to visit Rhodesia at the end of last year. I was no part of the "gravy train" which has been described by some very Left-wing Labour Members. I received hospitality from a number of people, and part of that was indeed from the Rhodesian Government, but they did not extend an invitation to me, and it was certainly not part of any "gravy train". It was part of a duty of a Member of this House to go to a part of the world which is to an extent our responsibility in order to see how we can help to bring about a solution. That was what I did.
  As I implied in a supplementary question to the Prime Minister today, if only Labour Members went to Rhodesia and saw the basic harmony that exists between
  576
  black, brown and white in that country, those hon. Members would be singularly impressed and their contributions to our debates would be very much better informed than those which we have heard from the Labour Benches today.
  Rhodesia is a great country. It can set an example for the rest of the African continent by bringing about a multiracial society in which black and white can live together, to their mutual benefit. It can also perhaps stop the rot in Africa and can prevent the further advance of Soviet tyranny, Marxism and the dictatorial regimes financed and supported—perhaps not overtly—by the Soviet Union and its satellite countries, particularly the Cuban Government.
  This House has given a firm message not only to the people of this country but to the brave people of Rhodesia—Zimbabwe—black and white, to the effect that at least the Conservative Opposition understand their problems. Those people know that the Conservative Party supports the internal settlement and seeks to build upon it to ensure that prosperity and peace will remain in that country.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Luce: I think that everyone who has attended this debate will acknowledge that it has been one of the most important debates we have had on the subject of Rhodesia. It has been a unique and rare opportunity—all too rare—for the House to have a full-scale debate on this extremely important subject. It has given us an opportunity to try to influence the Government's approach to these problems. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) that it is very sad that in such an important debate there is an extremely poor attendance on the Government side of the Chamber.
  Not only is this a unique opportunity for us to debate the question of Rhodesia, but I believe that the debate provided the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary with a unique opportunity to demonstrate qualities of decisiveness and statesmanship and a constructive approach to the sombre situation that exists in Rhodesia today. That was the very least that we could expect from him. At any time when he demonstrates any of those qualities, he will have the Opposition's full support.

  577
  But, having listened to the right hon. Gentleman's opening speech today, if I am to put this in a gentle manner, I feel—and I believe that my hon. Friends feel—considerably disappointed that he did not match up to the qualities that are required at the present time.
  Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure he will be the first to acknowledge this—that we are not forcing a vote tonight because we wish to try to work with him to find a peaceful solution in Rhodesia. Let me assure him again that if he shows the right kind of qualities, the right policies and the right of approach, we shall give him every possible support.
  One of the facts known to all of us who have taken part in Rhodesian debates before is that we face a unique accident of history in Rhodesia. It has not been the same kind of problem as we had to face in other parts of our Empire when we withdrew.
  It is extraordinary to think that it was less than 90 years ago that the first pioneer column entered what is now Rhodesia and started to construct the country that now exists. We all know the history of the British South Africa Company. We all know the significant turning point in 1923, when internal selfgovernment—or what was then called responsible government—was granted. We are not talking about a situation similar to that of Kenya, India or any of our previous colonies. How many times have we had to remind our friends of this unique fact about the Rhodesian situation? It has been a source of great misunderstanding on many occasions.
  But we all also know that the world still looks to us to take a lead in trying to find a peaceful solution in that part of the world, if only because we still have the legal responsibility, however tenuous, and at the end of the day we have to pass the legislation that will provide recognition for the regime.
  Many of my hon. Friends—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden)—have referred to the significance of the internal agreement. This is something that many Labour Members fail to understand. They
  578
  fail to understand that, despite the fact that Mr. Smith has said over the years that not in a thousand years would he concede the principle of majority rule and despite the fact that he has said that he would never concede the principle of one man, one vote, that principle has now been accepted, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said in his excellent speech. Why cannot the whole House acknowledge that?
  We have an agreement between black and white people in Rhodesia—the people who have to live with each other in an independent Rhodesia. They are the people who matter, not us. They have reached an agreement that fulfils the principle for which we have been arguing for so long. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said, five of the Six Principles have, broadly speaking, been accepted, and now they have plans, which we must do everything to help, to satisfy the Fifth Principle—namely, the test of acceptability.
  There have been some people who like to decribe Bishop Muzorewa, Mr. Sithole and others as puppets. Many of the black leaders in the Executive Council and in the new ministerial Government have been either in prison or in exile for some offence of terrorism. That fact should be acknowledged. It is not only Mr. Sithole who is involved, but other Ministers such as Mr. Chikerema and Mr. George Nyandoro and many others have been in exile or in prison because they have believed at one stage in their lives that they had to resort to violence to achieve their objectives. Is not that in itself a reason for giving some credibility to these people? Is it not a reason for saying that they are not puppets of anyone but that they believe that they can obtain change by peaceful methods?
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) rightly suggested, the internal agreement is a foundation on which we should be helping to build. If a plant takes root, albeit in a wilderness as maybe Southern Africa is today, and we want to encourage that plant, which in this case I represent as the beginnings of a transition to majority rule and independence, we do not pour weedkiller over it. We nurture, water and encourage it. That is what

  579
  the Conservative Party is asking the Government to do today. That is what, so far, the Government have failed to do.
  Against that background, we must examine the requirements of our objectives and how they are to be achieved of independence based on majority rule within the Six Principles, holding a clear prospect at long last of peace between black and white in Rhodesia, an end to the fighting and—the implication of that—international recognition.
  A factor which has emerged from the debate is the importance of keeping up the momentum of the internal agreement. There are bound to be setbacks and disagreements as the weeks go by. We must also acknowledge, as many of my hon. Friends have done, what has happened. We have a transitional Government. We have an Executive Council. We have a Ministerial Council. We have a decision to end executions. We have a decision to release 700 detainees, with provisions to examine the position of another 200.
  We have a decision to lift the ban on the proscribed political parties, ZANU and ZAPU. We have the first offer of an amnesty to the guerrillas. We have, this week, a decision by the Executive Council to start dismantling the protected villages and allowing easier movement of people within these villages. We have a statement by the Executive Council that it plans to forge ahead rapidly with planning a register for all those over 18 years of age to hold a general election. We have an undertaking, which it is essential that they should fulfil, that there will be a general election by 31st December. We have a constitutional commission in operation and working out the details of the constitution.
  We should acknowledge all this while at the same time asking and hoping that the momentum should be maintained. Of course, we want to see as soon as possible an end to the laws that imply racial discrimination, and we want a positive reassurance that the general election will be held by 31st December this year.
  The question of safeguards for the whites has been touched on by many hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker). There is a desire on the part of all the black leaders in the pres-
  580
  ent Government for the whites to stay in Rhodesia. Mr. Nkomo is also on the record as saying that he wants the whites, will all their skills, to stay in Rhodesia after independence. The problem is finding the right balance between the aspirations of the black people for majority rule and reconciling those with the genuine fears of the whites as to what this will mean for them.
  Surely this is what the discussions that led to the Salisbury agreement on 3rd March were all about. Surely Labour Members must acknowledge that, if the whites are to stay and there is to be no mass exodus, certain safeguards must be provided. I know that the Foreign Secretary acknowledges this fact.
  When hon. Members opposite suggest that the most important requirement is that Mr. Smith should depart, I invite them to consider, whatever his record in the past—and we are talking not about the past but about the present—whether his departure would have an adverse effect upon the position of the whites.
  There is a credible argument for suggesting that the fact that Mr. Smith will stay, at least until 31st December, may be the way to encourage the whites to stay in Rhodesia and to contribute in the long term to the healthy, independent Rhodesia that we all hope will come about and to stem what could otherwise become a mass exodus of white people.
  The question of Soviet policy is profoundly important in assessing whether a peaceful settlement can be arrived at. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), in a most interesting and colourful speech, and my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) and Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) referred to Soviet and Cuban policy in Africa.
  Of course we all want peace. None of us wants war. We want to persuade the Soviet Union to work more closely with us, but we know that it is enshrined in the Soviet Union's constitution that it will support what it calls liberation movements in Africa—with the criteria for the term "liberation" being defined by itself. At the same time, it denies human rights, freedom and liberation to its own people and is seen to be supporting regimes in Africa, such as the Ethiopian regime, which perpetrate some

  581
  of the grossest abuses of human rights that one could see.
  How can we possibly attach any credibility to the Soviet Union's "genuine desire" to see freedom for the Africans in Africa? The Soviet Union is there to exploit any dissensions—and many dissensions will exist in Africa in future years—and not only to undermine stable African regimes but to undermine the West. The truth is that the Soviet Union is using the Africans ruthlessly as pawns in a game of chess. That game has nothing to do with freedom for the Africans but has everything to do with Soviet imperialism and Soviet interests.
  The Soviet Union will use Cubans as mercenaries. We know that the Russians gave $2 billion to the Cubans to undertake the mercenary tasks in Africa for them. They are poised ready to exploit the dissension that exists in Rhodesia and in that part of the world. The notice that we must serve upon them from the West is "Keep out of that part of the world." What we want is a peaceful settlement, and what they want is a violent settlement.
  I turn now to the question of the Patriotic Front, which has been referred to by many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). We can say to the Patriotic Front that, whatever our personal feelings are, if it at one time believed that violence was a way of achieving its objectives, this cannot possibly be justified in the present circumstances when the principle for which it has been arguing so long—majority rule—has now been conceded. The door must be left open for its participation in a peaceful settlement.
  But—and here I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet—the Patriotic Front cannot be allowed a right of veto over a final democratic solution in Rhodesia. A violent solution must be totally unacceptable to us in Britain and in the West generally. The Patriotic Front must forgo Russian support and it must realise that, while its freedom is important, it must not be achieved at the expense of the freedom of other Africans, black and white, who live in Rhodesia today.
  582
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), I agree that it is right for the Home Secretary to pursue his objective of a reconciliation between the Patriotic Front, the Executive Council and the regime in Salisbury. It would be wrong to do so on the basis of asking the leaders of the internal settlement to forgo the achievement of the past few weeks. It must be said to our black African friends in Rhodesia, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and others have rightly said, that unfortunately one of the banes of Rhodesia over the years has been the inability of Africans to reconcile their differences.
  Other Africans in other countries—Kenya and the Sudan, for instance—have shown great statesmanship and have overcome their tribal animosities. Sadly, this has not happened in Rhodesia with the enormous tragedies and violence affecting black and white Africans in Rhodesia. They must reconcile their differences. We must ask them to look at the example of other black African States, and perhaps we should remind them of the saying of Benjamin Franklin that:
  "We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
  I turn now to the question of the United Kingdom's role. We have to move on to the diplomatic and political offensive in Rhodesia and in Africa as a whole. We have a modest but important role to play as an honest broker in Rhodesia. We have to make it clear that we carry the legal responsibility for the recognition of the regime and that we believe in democracy and in the principle of majority rule, and that these must be obtained by peaceful means, not by force.
  We must point out that we believe in the Six Principles and that we believe it is our task to give every facility to help in fulfilling the Fifth Principle, which deals with free and fair elections. Let us allow the Rhodesians to decide their own destiny. We must make it plain, with our allies in America and Europe, that we find Soviet and Cuban destructive military intervention in that part of the world intolerable, that detente is indivisible and that if they pursue this policy we cannot pursue detente with the Soviet Union in other areas.

  583
  We must work with our black African friends in Botswana, Zambia and elsewhere to find a peaceful solution. In that connection I welcome the fact that the President of Zambia is, I understand, to make a visit to London shortly. I hope that with him we can find a peaceful solution.
  We must do everything to encourage the success of the internal agreement and to help persuade the Patriotic Front to participate in it. We must offer constructive help, whether by registration of the voters, in devising the constitution, in the provision of the trust fund or, indeed, in helping to provide observers for the elections—a matter referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge—the most important point being that the United Nations is over-stretched at present and it may not be possible for it to fulfil that task. But at least let us ask other, outside Powers to co-operate with us in this task.
  I would like to have from the Minister of State clarification about Mr. Graham's mission. As I understand it, the principle of a permanent mission in Salisbury has been accepted, but the implication of the Foreign Secretary's remarks is that Mr. Graham's tour out there is not a permanent mission. It was Disraeli who said:
  "To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step to knowledge."
  I hope that the Government will acknowledge that fact. If they do, we shall make some progress.
  It is the task of the Government to mobilise the Western world, the United States and, indeed, the United Nations in a massive diplomatic effort to get a peaceful settlement to the Rhodesian problem. The prize is tremendous—a multiracial society, a moderate force in Southern Africa and the assets of African skills, including many graduates and many competent business men, and white skills as well. This could be a great example to the rest of Africa. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and I invite the Government to put fear on one side and do their best to help to turn this land of despair into a land of hope and prosperity.
  9.38 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): I hope in my general remarks to answer the broader issues raised in a succession of speeches from both sides of the House, but I shall deal first with one or two specific questions.
  The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) asked me to confirm that race is no longer the main issue in Rhodesian politics. I notice that this is the point that he made at some length in his article in the Daily Telegraph today. He has derived that view from his own visit perhaps, but I must tell him that some of the most recent evidence suggests that race remains the great and fundamental issue in Rhodesian politics.
  Yesterday's statement by the United African National Council, Bishop Muzorewa's party—a major party to the internal settlement—three times mentions the issue of race and racial discrimination. I shall quote these three passages because people might not have been able to get hold of the full text. The first is:
  "Hardly anything has been attempted to remove racial discrimination, the root cause of our troubles."
  Secondly, it calls for
  "the Executive Council to tackle those matters against which the guerrillas left home to fight. The removal of racial discrimination would have made a greater impression than the lifting of the bans on ZAPU and ZANU, which is a cosmetic and peripheral matter."
  The third quotation was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Perhaps hon. Members opposite thought that it was his own view, but he was quoting directly from the statement of the UANC. It said:
  "If it is to be expected that the guerrillas should respond to a call for a ceasefire it must be shown tangibly that if they return home they will not suffer the same racial humiliations and disabilities under which they lived before they took to the bush."
  I do not think that I can confirm the point made by the right hon. Member for Pavilion that racial discrimination and racial matters are no longer relevant to Rhodesian political debate and argument. It would appear, on the contrary, that they are still very much part and parcel of the political issues being argued in Rhodesia at the present time.
  Mr. Amery: I am most grateful to the Minister of State for his courtesy in

  585
  answering that point. I accept that the problem is not yet one which has been finally overcome. The point that I tried to make was that I was worried that the Secretary of State might feel that it would be worse if there were a quarrel between blacks than if there were a quarrel between whites and blacks. I said that I thought the issue had shifted and that this represented a positive development. I hoped for confirmation that this was also the Government's view.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's clarification of this point, but the quotations that I have just given show that these fundamental issues are still very much in the centre of politics in Rhodesia.
  The right hon. Gentleman cast doubt on the possibility that Bishop Muzorewa would be allowed to come to London. There have been absolutely no changes in our policy with regard to restrictions of any kind. Bishop Muzorewa can, of course, come to London. The provisions governing the travel restrictions, which were laid down in 1968 by George Thomson—now Lord Thomson—remain in force. They remain the policy of the Government and they have been supported by successive Governments since 1968.
  I turn now to the general issues. The theme of the debate has inevitably revolved first and foremost around the question of Britain's role. What should we be doing now, given the developments which have occurred in Salisbury and also outside Rhodesia?
  I think that in one sense there has been a common point of agreement in almost all the speeches. There is not only the question of the transfer of power, or indeed of the achievement of majority rule and independence as quickly and as urgently as possible. That transfer of power should be orderly and stable. The result of that transfer of power should be the orderly settlement of the Rhodesian problem, and the creation of a new, independent, Zimbabwean State. The result should not just be a transfer of power but the setting up of a stable, democratic, political system under which all Zimbabweans can live.
  Hon. Members, in speech after speech today, have raised the spectre of a bitterly divided Rhodesian society—of Rhodesian
  586
  fighting Rhodesian, of black Rhodesian fighting black Rhodesian. Reference has been made to the problem that these divisions would become part and parcel of a broader global power struggle between East and West. A number of hon. Members have referred to the experience of divisions, both tribal and ideological, in newly created African States. The question of bloodshed and civil war has also figured prominently in the debate.
  Everyone has said that we must avoid this in producing a solution to the problem of the transfer of power and the creation of an independent Zimbabwe. Hon. Members on both sides have referred to this over and over again as a common objective.
  The differences in emphasis—it is a moot point whether they are differences in principle—lie in how we can best achieve this objective. I would quarrel with a number of speeches made by Opposition Members. I do not believe that we shall achieve this objective or that it will be possibly to achieve it if we ignore the present situation, and if we deny the existence of large numbers of young Zimbabweans, in the bush in Rhodesia and outside Rhodesia, who have felt the need to see a solution through the gun, or been driven to it by internal security pressures. If Opposition Members believe that that situation does not exist, they are denying something which the right hon. Member for Pavilion has admitted in his article in the Daily Telegraph.
  Considerable numbers of young guerrillas, young freedom fighters, still do not believe that the proposals which have emerged from Salisbury provide a basis for their return to and participation in the political process in Rhodesia. That is basically the position that my right hon. Friend has taken, and it is the whole basis of what we have been saying. Those who say that this situation does not exist will possibly create a situation in which Rhodesia, internal settlement or no, will become a bitterly divided society.
  The misuse of words in general debates on Rhodesia is very important. Certain hon. Members create a division between the words "internal" and "external" as if external meant foreigners. The factor which should matter to us most is that large numbers of young Rhodesians and

  587
  young Zimbabweans are not foreigners. They are not Cubans.
  They are not any external force. They may have come under influences—Marxist or otherwise—but they are first and foremost Zimbabweans who are outside the political system [HON. MEMBERS: "Abducted".] They have not been abducted. That is a nonsense. Certain Conservative Members shelter under the odd incident of 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds leaving school because the repeated presence of Rhodesian security forces has made them decide to leave and take to the gun as a solution.
  What I am saying to certain Conservative Members is that if we cannot find an answer to that problem we shall not produce either a stable transitional period or, ultimately, an orderly, stable and democratic Zimbabwe in the time-scale that we envisage. That does not mean—as my right hon. Friend has repeated on many occasions—that we believe that force is respectable or, as has been implied by certain hon. Members, that we are endowing violence with a degree of respectability. Nor does it mean—I repeat what my right hon. Friend has frequently said—that any one side can veto the process. There is no veto. The Patriotic Front has no veto over our proposals and it has no veto over the processes that we are trying to create.
  My right hon. Friend made it clear today that if a free and clear test of opinion to the internal settlement—or an alternative set of proposals—demonstrated full support, and met the Fifth Principle, this House would honour that decision. I make this point because we still believe that by far the most important task and role for the United Kingdom, in company with our American partners, is to try to bridge the gap and reconcile the differences between the two major political elements in Rhodesia. We must try to create the negotiations and endeavour to get an all-party conference going.
  Certain Conservative Members, even the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), have been rather schizophrenic about this process. There have been more than passing references to the need to bring in the Patriotic Front.
  588
  In fact, I think the right hon. Gentleman said that it was essential to bring in the Patriotic Front. But if we followed the prescriptions of Conservative Members, the chances of trying to get some sort of reconciliation—of getting some sort of negotiation going—would be dashed. Either the right hon. Gentleman was paying lip service to such propositions, or, if he was serious, I must tell him that if we pursued the course of wholesale adoption of the internal settlement there would be no hope of trying to achieve the negotiations which would bring the two sides together.
  We do not support one side or the other. I wish to reject utterly the views that were expressed by certain Conservative Members that we have been one-sided. We rightly claim that we have not taken sides. The right hon. Member for Pavilion cast a slur when he suggested that we had paid far more attention to the Patriotic Front in the number of meetings that we had held. I have not had a chance to tot them up. However, we have had no complaint from the bishop or from Mr. Sithole about the degree of discussion that we have had with or about the amount of attention that we have given all the nationalist parties. My right hon. Friend's door has been open to all, and that policy has been pursued throughout. The discussions that we have had have been extremely comprehensive, and we have never treated one side more favourably than another. I reject utterly that slanderous charge of the right hon. Member for Pavilion, as I do so much of the remainder of his speech.
  The difference between the two sides of the House is that the Government think that the major role that we can play now is to attempt to bring about a negotiated settlement. I do not think that there is any division of opinion on that. The main division of opinion is that if we endorsed, backed and supported the internal settlement, as we have been urged to do in speech after speech from the Opposition Benches, the hope that we could play a role in bringing about a negotiated settlement would be dashed.
  Mr. John Davies: That is appeasement of the worst kind.
  Mr. Rowlands: It is not appeasement. It is realising an essential basic aspect

  589
  which is missing from the internal settlement in answer to any of the genuine and serious problems of law and order and the creation of a state of affairs which will allow free and fair elections to take place.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Without wishing to be offensive, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he really thinks that he knows how these very difficult problems of the so-called boys in the bush, of law and order and of reconciliation can be handled better than the black African nationalist leaders in the transitional Government who have to live with them? If they make mistakes, they will suffer, not the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
  Mr. Rowlands: Unlike the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), I have a slightly humble attitude to these matters. This problem has seen many a Minister come and go in the past 12 years. Many British Ministers have tried to produce a settlement. We do not claim that we have found the absolute prescription, and my right hon. Friend has no amour propre for his proposals. Obviously, we are willing to consider amendments to the principles laid down in the Anglo-American proposals.
  We are saying that those proposals address themselves to the major problems, first and foremost, of producing conditions in which free and fair elections can take place. Many of the remarks of Opposition Members imply that all that free and fair elections should consist of is a couple of observers being sent out there to have a quick look at the score and to check to ensure that all is well. That has been the implication.
  A number of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), said that the holding of free and fair elections would not involve just a matter of weeks. The holding of free and fair elections will involve the general relationship between administration, authority, power, law and order and security. It will also involve some control of the position of the media in allowing free expression of debate and discussion to occur in Rhodesia in this transitional period.
  That is fundamental to the Fifth Principle. It cannot be merely a matter
  590
  of sending observers. Although at some future time there may be a role for a parliamentary delegation from this House, it cannot just be a question of a few observers going out to check the score. It is a question of the Fifth Principle, and the position of free and fair elections is much more fundamental. That is why the Anglo-American proposals—
  Mr. Amery rose—
  Mr. Rowlands: No. I shall not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I have about five minutes left to me. I think that I have done reasonable justice to the right hon. Gentleman both in answering as many of his questions as I can and in commenting generally on his speech.
  On the basis of the proposals we have put forward we believe we should try to get a reconciliation and an all party conference to produce a settlement through a neutral Administration, and through the role of the United Nations.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) raised some genuine problems and difficulties about the role of the United Nations. Nevertheless, we have seen only recently new proposals, in the context of Namibia, accepted by the South African Government, which are not dissimilar from the proposals put forward in the context of Rhodesia. Through the combination of the neutral administration and the United Nations role, we can create the circumstances in which the Fifth Principle can be tested. We can ensure that there will be free and fair elections to decide who really does represent the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans.
  I appreciate the question raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge about the practical problems of this, but I do not agree with him about the overpowering veto of the Soviet Unions to prevent any such United Nation presence. We have found, as we did with the appointment of Premier Chand, that if we can get African and international support for our proposition, it can be carried through the Security Council.
  I was asked by a number of hon. Members whether we should endorse or embrace the internal settlement. I do not think that our attitude has been a travesty of the truth. We have never condemned

  591
  the internal settlement, nor have we supported it. But we do not believe in endorsing or supporting a settlement that is flawed. There has been a succession of debates and Question Times when this issue has been presented quite clearly to the House.
  The right hon. Member for Pavilion goes to Rhodesia quite often. If one goes as he does and finds what he intended to find anyway, one returns home and portrays and describes a situation in which there are no problems and no difficulties. According to him, everything in the Salisbury garden is lovely. That was the theme of his speech today. He does great disservice to the cause that he supports. Fundamentally, we must have a sense of realism.
  Mr. John Davies: Has the Minister been there lately?
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Faulds: Of course he has been there and I have been there. I know a bloody sight more about Africa than hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Faulds: I was born there. That is more than that fat-arsed twit—
  [See Official Report, 8th May, Vol. 949 c. 791.]
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Rowlands: We believe that a sense of realism is needed. There must be a realisation that there are fundamental
  592
  problems that are not answered by the internal settlement or by the present arrangements in Salisbury. These problems need to be resolved and that is why we believe that our role to bring the parties together is the most important one that we can play. That is why my right hon. Friend announced the appointment of a senior official, Mr. Graham, to go to Southern Africa. Where he is based and where he will go are matters for further discussion.
  We feel that the most important single thing now is to prepare the ground for a conference which could bring all the parties together and achieve a complete settlement—a settlement based on free and fair elections and one which is acceptable to Rhodesians as a whole. There is no division of opinion in the House about the belief that it is for Rhodesians themselves to decide. What is needed is a situation in which all Rhodesians can make a decision on their representatives and leaders in the freest possible atmosphere.
  That is the basis of our policy. That is the reason why we should devote our efforts to the immediate task of an all-party conference which will bring the two sides together. That is why Mr. Graham has been appointed to carry out the preparations to ensure that we get a conference that is capable of gaining success. I accept the point which has been made by a number of hon. Members that we do not want another Geneva. We do not want another conference that fails. Failure now will destroy—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  MILK PRICES
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Milk (Great Britain) (Amendment) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 469), dated 21st March 1978, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd March, be annulled.
  I must begin by declaring my interest as a farmer, but not as a dairy farmer. We have prayed against the order not necessarily to oppose it or to force a Division but to seize the opportunity of inquiring into the Government's intentions about the milk industry in the year or so ahead. We feel strongly that it is necessary to have the debate in view of the serious uncertainty now facing the milk industry.
  I hope that the Minister of State has something in his brief that acknowledges that uncertainty. It is uncertainty that necessarily followed the end of guaranteed prices for milk at the end of 1977. It is uncertainty whereby the Milk Marketing Board cannot accurately forecast producers' prices as it used to be able to do for the period ahead. There is uncertainty about the whole future of the Board.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. In order that everyone shall know my interpretation of how far we may go, I advise the House that, while it would be in order to discuss the reasons for the consequences of the proposed changes in the maximum prices at which raw milk may be sold for heat treatment for subsequent resale for home consumption, it would not appear to be directly in order to debate the price of milk for retail sale as that part of the 1977 order is no amended by this order.
  Mr. Jopling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are in some difficulty. There has been a reduction in the maximum wholesale price for milk, which is the price received by the Milk Marketing Board. That has a serious implication for the whole of the milk industry. I hope that we shall be allowed to discuss the implications of the reduction in the wholesale price of liquid milk. We shall be in serious difficulty if we are not able to discuss the effect of the reduction in price on the whole of the industry, from
  594
  the milkman who delivers the milk on the doorstep to the man who gets the cows in at 6 o'clock in the morning. It is a matter that has serious implications throughout the industry and I hope that we shall be allowed to discuss them.
  Mr. Speaker: I should also have said that it would be in order to point to the anomalies that arise from the fact that lower prices are being paid to farmers while the retail price remains unchanged. I shall be as tolerant as possible.
  Mr. Jopling: Knowing your tolerance over many years, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we shall be able to proceed in our normal way. We are most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your help and your ruling.
  I was trying to explain that the effect of the order adds a good deal to the uncertainty that already exists throughout the industry. I was able to explain some of the uncertainties that have arisen.
  I was explaining how the effect of the order would add to the uncertainty that is caused, for instance, over the future of the Milk Marketing Board. That is a matter about which we have often spoken in the House. In fact, nothing brings the parties together more than our joint determination to keep our marketing boards with their vital powers.
  I hope that the Minister of State will acknowledge that the Opposition have always supported him in his efforts to preserve the boards—particularly the Milk Marketing Board. This order will make the life of the board much more difficult.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman mentioned, I think to the surprise of some hon. Members who assumed that this was an increase in the price that would be paid to the Milk Marketing Board, a decrease. Can he tell us what the decrease is, because a decrease in any price is of consequence to the Board and to the whole of its operations?
  Mr. Jopling: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the order that we are debating and the parent order—Statutory Instrument No. 2054 of 1977—he will find that in the Metropolitan police district the intention is to reduce the maximum price of raw milk on sale for heat treatment and resale by ·720p per litre, to reduce the price at a dairy situated in England and

  595
  Wales which is not in the Metropolitan police district by ·674p per litre and in a number of the outer islands, which I shall not read out, by ·68p per litre. Those figures rely entirely on my arithmetic, which is not all that reliable. If the Minister of State would confirm them later, we would all be grateful.
  In view of the effects of the order on the future arrangements of the Milk Marketing Board, we should appreciate a progress report from the Minister on how the negotiations for the future of the board are working out in Brussels. It is very close to the meat—or the milk—of this order. We have heard stories in the past few days that many of the first proposals over the future of the board are likely to be resolved in a satisfactory way. I shall not go into detail on those matters. In particular, we understand that a reduction in the percentage of liquid milk sales and fresh product sales from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. is likely and that a reduction from 150 to 25 cows for producer retailers who want to opt out of the scheme is also likely. These matters seem quite satisfactory. However, I should be grateful if the Minister of State would confirm whether these stories are correct.
  There is above that a vital issue which is causing just as much uncertainty in the milk-producing industry at all levels on both the distribution and the production sides. I wrote to the Minister of State about this matter this afternoon. I hope that he got my note. I see from the way that he is nodding that he did. It concerns the present negotiations over the future of the Milk Marketing Board.
  I know that a number of people are concerned that a settlement might be reached in Brussels which, while appearing satisfactory in the short term, would leave a serious danger that, after a number of years, the board's powers might be removed. It is felt to be essential that whatever arangement is reached should be permanent and that it should not leave the board uncertain as to its position within the constitution of the Community in future, a position that could be challenged in the courts in years to come. I am sure that the Minister is aware that this matter is causing a good deal of concern throughout the industry. There-
  596
  fore, we should be grateful if he would assure us that the Government will in no circumstances agree to a solution with these shortcomings in it.
  I turn to the heart of the order. Its effect is to stabilise the retail price of milk to housewives. At the same time, it reduces the wholesale price of liquid milk. This dual act seems to sum up most of the dilemmas facing the Government in the intricate maze of action and reaction surrounding the milk market.
  I acknowledge the fiendish difficulty with which the Government are faced in trying to stabilise the milk market using the various price structures which exist. I shall give examples of the action and reaction involved. Following the poor year for milk sales in 1977, which was caused partly by the escalation of tea and coffee prices, unfortunately there has been a further fall in liquid milk sales in 1978, following the rise to 12½p per pint on 1st January. The Milk Marketing Board told me today that it expects the March-April sales figures to be down about 2 per cent. on 1977. It would be interesting if the Minister of State commented on that figure.
  We do not argue with stabilising the price on the doorstep at this time. Milk sales are highly volatile, depending on price, and it is probably right not to raise the retail price for the time being. But the Milk Marketing Board has said that it thinks that there should be a further rise of ½p per pint at the beginning of June. This is a matter upon which we find it difficult to comment. But it would be helpful if the Minister of State told the House the Government's reaction to that proposal.
  The second interaction following the order is caused by the reduction in the level of the maximum wholesale price for liquid milk. The implication of the order is to reduce on average the wholesale price of milk by about 0·7p per litre from 1st April. It is intended to allow the distribution trade its extra costs. The House will agree that in a period of inflation, with distribution costs increasing as they are, when there is a commitment to recoup the distribution trade for these increased costs, the Government have no option but, first, to increase the retail price or, secondly, to reduce the wholesale price. They can perhaps do a little

  597
  of both. They have chosen to reduce the wholesale price.
  At this time of increased distribution costs, with sales of liquid milk slightly down, we do not quarrel with the Government's decision to stabilise retail prices and to reduce wholesale prices. But this step gives rise to a whole set of new actions and interactions in addition to those I have already mentioned.
  A reduction in the wholesale price of liquid milk cuts the crucial gap between the wholesale price of milk for doorstep sales and the wholesale price for manufacturing into cheese, butter and other products. I refer to this as a crucial gap because if that gap were to become too large, it could give rise to temptations to import milk from the rest of the Community. We believe that that would be disastrous for our liquid milk market.
  If liquid milk were imported, it would go for sale primarily in the supermarkets. Those sales would erode doorstep sales. That would push up the unit price of distribution. We should then be in a vicious circle of cause and effect. What is the Government's view about the dangers of imports? What is the crucial level of the gap between the wholesale price for liquid milk and the wholesale price for manufacture which will prevent imports?
  To what extent can our health and hygiene regulations be used to prevent liquid milk imports? Although the reduction in wholesale prices that is implicit in the order makes imports less likely, we are still deeply worried and would be grateful for any information from the Minister.
  The order will have serious repercussions for the milk producers. If the wholesale price of liquid milk is reduced, the producer is paid less. That is a matter of serious concern to him. As with the distribution trade, where margins are protected by this order, the dairy farmer's prices are rising, too. The Milk Marketing Board told me today that whereas between April 1977 and April 1978 distributors' margins went up by about 12 per cent., during that same period producers' margins increased by only 2 per cent. We see here the same uncertainty to which I referred earlier.
  The order, in seeking to make good the effects of inflation on distributors' margins,
  598
  reduces the boards' income from liquid milk and puts them at a serious disadvantage. Perhaps one of the most important implications of the order, is that it puts producers at the same disadvantage.
  It will become extremely difficult for the boards to influence the seasonal aspects of milk production, which is one of their vital functions in a market so heavily weighted towards liquid milk sales. The boards will be unable to announce future prices, which means that farmers will be unable to plan properly. Previously the boards have been responsible for considering how increased costs should be handled in order to ensure a continuity of supply, especially in the winter months. Now the Government seem to have taken over that role under the order. We believe that Whitehall, with the present policy of political interference by Ministers, will not do the job as well.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: This is a most important point. As I understand it, the problem is guaranteeing producers' prices not for the term of this order but for next winter. That is the producers' main fear.
  Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I shall come to that point.
  Will the Minister explain the Government's intentions on this new level of interference with the milk price, the structure of the industry and the seasonal aspect of production, which was hitherto the responsibility of the board? He should use this debate as an opportunity to explain how far the Ministry intends to do the jobs which have been done so successfully—there is unanimous agreement on that—by the boards in the past.
  I turn to the price of the milk that goes into the manufacture of butter, cheese and other products. In that respect it is possible that the boards could do something to maintain producers' returns in view of increased costs which have caused difficulty for the board. Because of the Government's action the Milk Marketing Board has had the ground pulled from under it.
  What were the implications of the Government's reaction to the debate at the beginning of the year? The Government then refused to acknowledge the

  599
  wording of the motion agreed by the House—namely, that the green pound was to be devalued by 7½ per cent. forthwith. We still have not had a 7½ per cent. devaluation on milk. We were told in January that the 7½ per cent. devaluation on milk was likely to come into effect when the new Community prices came into effect. We hoped that that would happen on 1st May but, because the talks are dragging on, we are now told that the date will possibly be 20th May—and it will not surprise me if the eventual date is 1st June.
  The consequence of the Government's refusal to accept the will of the House in implementing a green pound devaluation forthwith has meant that masses of dairy produce, particularly butter, have flooded into this country to beat the time when a lower level of MCAs would be paid in respect of imports of dairy produce.
  That flood of dairy produce has totally depressed the market and the board tells me that it sees little chance during the year of increasing the price of milk that goes to manufacture in order to stabilise producers' returns through that method. That is a serious indictment of the way in which Government action has brought added uncertainty and prevented producers from getting a better price to recoup their high level of increased costs this year.
  Where is the producer left at the end of all this when the implications of the order come into effect? He is faced with rising costs and little chance of having them fully recouped, with no idea what price he will receive for the rest of the year. I am now dealing with the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). The producer sees the possibility or likelihood of grain and therefore feed prices being set to a considerably higher level than they were last season.
  Furthermore, the producer finds a great deal of uncertainty over whether the Government will be pressured into banning exports of live animals. I do not want to go too deeply into that subject, but in passing I wish to say that the producer sees before him a good deal of uncertainty, because he does not know whether the Government will allow themselves to
  600
  be pressured into banning live exports. Such a ban would have a serious effect on the returns of dairy farmers in terms of sales of calves and culled cows.
  I do not remember a time when there was greater uncertainty facing the dairy farmer than there is today. The National Farmers Union has already said that the dairy farmer is left as a residual legatee, as it were, since he is last in line when milk prices are considered. The Government have a good deal of explaining to do, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge this uncertainty. It will not do for the Government to say that there will be a thorough review in the late summer when maximum prices for the future will be set. The Opposition believe that the milk industry could be in a serious mess before that review is complete, and in a worse mess during autumn and winter periods.
  I do not in the least belittle the fiendishly difficult problems that the future of the milk industry sets for Government, but it is vital that the Government use this opportunity of explaining to the House, and thus to the whole milk industry from the milkman who delivers on the doorstep back to the man who gets the cows in at 6 o'clock in the morning, just what the future will be. There has never been more uncertainty, and there has never been a better opportunity for Government to explain what the future is and how they intend to reduce those uncertainties.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: It may be that the Government have some questions to answer, but the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and his friends at least cannot entirely blame this Government for the problems now facing the dairy farmer and the Milk Marketing Board, because of their advocacy of our signature to the Treaty of Rome, which makes it clear that marketing comes within its orbit.
  I have come back to this late-night debate from the doorsteps of West Ham, on which there are some of the 32 million pints of milk a day delivered by British dairies. I believe that there are about 38,000 milkmen involved nationally in this fine delivery system.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the information he gave when I

  601
  interrupted him. But I should like to direct the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to the wording of the order. When I got it out of the Vote Office last week to see what the debate was about I naturally assumed—perhaps illogically, but I think forgivably—that the schedule set slightly increased prices per litre. The explanatory note made no reference to whether the prices were either increased or decreased.
  I suggest that in pursuit of open government, in future explanatory notes the Government not only draw attention to the parent order, which one would have to look up to see whether the change was an increase or decrease, but say specifically whether it was an increase or decrease. I see no reason why they should not do that. Failure to do so is to be unduly secretive. The signatures of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland should not have gone on the order until the explanatory note was a little fuller and a little more honest in its purport.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: It is not explanatory.
  Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend reminds me that it is not explanatory if it does not include these points. Therefore, it is not what it sets out to be.
  As I understand it, the price system for milk in this country operates on four levels. There is the price to the producer, the guaranteed price as it used to be, guaranteed by statute but no longer guaranteed. One of the laws of Britain has been swept away by a simple Order in Council pursuant to the European Communities Act.
  There is the price as which the Milk Marketing Boards sell wholesale to the dairies for liquid milk, the subject of the order. There is the price at which those dairies sell retail to the consumer, and there is the price, referred to by the hon. Gentleman, at which the boards sell to milk processors for dairy products.
  All four prices are closely interlinked. If one moves, it has an effect upon the others. As I understand it, we are beginning to dismantle this closely integrated system of prices, which until this year was largely in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who-
  602
  ever he be. In doing so, we are beginning to undermine, maybe in structure but certainly in terms of confidence, the magnificent system of milk production, processing, collection and delivery that we have in this country. Dismantling this system of prices, with the unexpected method of adjusting the price, doing it only through the wholesale price, is causing and will cause increasing uncertainty. It is beginning to undermine the confidence of dairy farmers and the dairy trades more than it would otherwise have been undermined by what is happening in the EEC.
  I assume that the reason for the reduction is the seasonal reduction in milk prices which sometimes used to be reflected in the retail price index. No doubt the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who is a farmer, knows that this is so, but he did not read it into the record. With the flush of spring, down comes the price of milk. But it used to be the retail price. On this occasion the Minister has decided that it is the price to the producer that will be reduced.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us whether this has happened before. If, as I understand, it is a novel feature, will he tell us why it has been done? It will give dairy farmers and the dairy trades even less confidence and, as a result of recent happenings, they will not have very much confidence left at all if things go on as they are.
  We discussed this matter in March. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was unable to be here, but he put his name to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett). The last sentence of that amendment included the words:
  "and to press for an agreement which fully safeguards the Milk Marketing Boards and the discharge of their essential functions."—[Official Report, 21st March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 1364.]
  I should have thought that a reduction in the price paid to the Milk Marketing Boards at a time when their costs and the costs of producers are not going down was a threat to their essential functions.
  The whole House, including the hon. Member for Westmorland, supported that amendment, which was accepted by the Government. I know that it referred to an EEC document, but if the House wanted to protect the boards' essential

  603
  functions from assault from Brussels, why can it not protect them from internal assault as well? I hope that the Minister will say why he seems to be undermining the essential functions of the boards by reducing the price paid to them at a time when their costs are the same or even increasing.
  The passing of that amendment and the words "essential functions" covered a wide variety of the workings of the boards. We have heard of the difficulties within the EEC and I do not want to venture too far along that road, but I ask the Minister to tell us what functions of the boards are not, in his view, essential. If they are to get less, on what services to the farmer are they expected to economise? The Minister is asking them either to do that or to dip into their reserves. Is he suggesting that if they dip into their reserves, he will later increase the price to increase those reserves again?
  I understand that all the functions of the boards are essential to the discharge of their purposes. That is why they exist. They provide services for individual farmers, including advice, sometimes, no doubt, of a warning nature. Their transport pooling charges enable farmers, particularly those in remoter rural areas, to produce milk that they would otherwise not be able to produce because of the high transport costs. All the functions of the Milk Marketing Boards are essential. If the Minister does not agree, perhaps he will tell us which are not.
  The fact that the retail price is not to be squeezed might be helpful, because, as my right hon. Friend will no doubt say, it will help to keep up consumption. That is something that the milk industry wants. I wonder whether it is what everyone in the industry wants, or whether it is everything that the Government or the EEC want.
  I do not think that it is irrelevant to this debate to note that in Farmers Weekly of 28th April there is a news item headed
  "Out of milk—and into the money"
  It says:
  "A farmer getting rid of a 70-cow herd producing around 250,000 litres (55,000 gallons) would receive up to £23,750 in three payments.
  604
  The EEC Commission has proposed the new non-marketing and dairy herd conversion scheme to replace those that end this month. And to try to persuade more of Europe's dairy farmers to stop production it has proposed a substantial increase in the rate of grants and the abolition of the current top limit that excludes most of Britain's herds from the schemes."
  Although my right hon. Friend might argue that retaining the retail price—if it is to be retained—will encourage production, it seems that the supranational form of government is to cash in—or cash out—on the uncertainties produced by this and other measures, many of them EEC measures, to provide these colossal sums—they sound colossal to me, although they may not be so to dairy farmers—enabling dairy farmers to go out of production.
  Mr. Wiggin: Has the hon. Member not grasped the basic problem of the dairy industry within Europe, namely that in this country we produce just over half our requirements, whereas in the Community as a whole we have a gross excess? Is it not in the interests, particularly of the British dairy farmer, that that excess on the Continent should be put out of business in some way or another? The proposal which he has just read out seems to me, and to other fair-minded men, a very good one. Has he an any more positive suggestion for dealing with the problem? His continual harping on this subject does no good, either to the farmers or the consumers, whom he apparently represents.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Before the hon. Member replies to that point, may I ask whether, in view of his intervention, we can now look forward to the hon. Member for Newham. South (Mr. Spearing) championing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. We cannot have an intervention in an intervention.
  Mr. Spearing: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) in a moment. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has misunderstood my point. I have no objection to the German or French Governments, individually or together, producing a scheme to help some of their small dairy farmers to go out of dairying if there is a surplus, as there is, in those countries. We in this country

  605
  have a unique system of dairy production, collection and marketing. With the increased consumption of milk in schools, which we may get shortly, we need to keep up milk production. If these funds are available even where there is no surplus, as is the case in this country, as I understand it, the production of milk is likely to fall. Ift that happens, if the market can stand it, the price of milk is likely to rise. That would not necessarily be to the advantage of anyone. What the hon. Member is saying is logical for the two countries I have mentioned but it is not logical for the United Kingdom.
  Sir A. Meyer: I am merely making the point that the hon. Gentleman is constantly putting forward as a criticism of the common agricultural policy that it leads to the formation of butter mountains, milk lakes, wine lakes and the rest, and when proposals are produced for interpreting the policy in such a way as to reduce these mountains and lakes he is not satisfied either. Is there no satisfying him?
  Mr. Spearing: Again I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. As far as I am aware, these butter mountains and dried milk piles do not exist in the United Kingdom. What I am saying is that here we have the Milk Marketing Board, with a system of prices that apparently is now in process of being dismantled by this House and our own Ministers in our own country by our own domestic Statutory Instruments. Yet it is a system that has served the country and our dairy farmers very well over the years. Indeed, for many townspeople it has operated silently and unknown. I do not think that people will have realised what the Milk Marketing Board does. As far as they are concerned it is the United Dairies, the Express or the Co-op.
  I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that here is a very good argument, that we have a system that suits this country, suits our consumers and suits the dairy farmers. This sort of jiggling around, whether it be by the EEC or by our Minister, unless he can give good explanations, is not in the interests of either the producer or the consumer, and we could well do without it.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind hon. Members that time is severely limited.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: This order, as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), effectively reduces the prices paid to producers of liquid milk for the foreseeable future. If there is to be no increase in the retail price of liquid milk, returns to producers must come from somewhere else, since it is, I think, indisputable that producers' costs are also rising.
  The Dairy Trades Federation feels that at the moment higher calf prices, higher cull cow prices and lower costs of hay will be sufficient. But—and this is most important—these are very much dependent on factors outside producers' control. It is important to bring things into the control of producers if they are to have the confidence necessary.
  Calf prices and culled cow prices depend very largely on confidence in the beef sector, and this is dependent on Government action with regard to the green pound. The hay costs for 1977–78 were, indeed, very much lower than in the previous year. But who can say what the weather will be like this year? Who can say what the yield will be like this year?
  In addition, whereas feeding barley was last autumn £65 to £67 per tonne, this year it is expected to be in the region of £80. Fertiliser costs have increased, rents have gone up this year, and cowmen's earnings also will have to be increased in line with everybody else's, which is a reasonable expectation. These costs, together with other fixed costs of the enterprise, will have to be recovered from somewhere. They will be the X factor in the calculations.
  In the very short term, urgent Government action is called for, since the 1st May devaluation of the green pound by 7½ per cent., as agreed by this House on 23rd January, has not yet happened. My hon. Friend indicated that we shall be lucky if it conies through by 20th May. Will the Minister comment? Will the Minister be able to tell us exactly what the Government's intentions are now that they have failed to achieve this devaluation?
  This additional delay has allowed importers of butter to build up stockpiles in

  607
  anticipation. The whole element of surprise has gone. The situation will not help our own producers. Our milk producers must know very soon how they stand in this matter. Can the Minister take this opportunity to make the situation clear?
  Today, as we look at it, the consumer can be left out of the question, because the retail price is being pegged. It is the producer who is very much concerned with the outcome of the debate. It is readily apparent that the current limit of price acceptability of the "pinta" has been reached, even marginally passed. The drop in consumption in January, immediately after the price went to its present level, was 3·4 per cent.; it was 1.8 per cent. in February; the March-April average was about 2 per cent. These figures are indicative that any increase in retail price will further damage retail sales, and that must be avoided if the whole valuable structure of the liquid milk sales is not to be undermined.
  Producers' returns must be increased to cover their increased costs and, in the absence of an increase in the retail liquid milk price, that will have to come from the manufacturing sector. Delay in implementing the green pound devaluation not only increases the stocks of imported butter but those butter stocks in themselves work against an increase in returns for the manufacturing milk being feasible.
  A further devaluation of the green pound is necessary, and a pre-emptive strike on this matter, to stop the vicious downward movement, will be absolutely essential—especially since the position is now worse than it was at the time of our debate on 23rd January.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland covered the question of the attractiveness of the United Kingdom market to liquid milk imported from the Continent. This is another factor that we must take into account. Its importance must not be under-estimated. The present order is helpful in this direction, but makes it all the more important to improve the returns from the manufacturing sector. This further reinforces the need for a green pound devaluation.
  A United Kingdom market too attractive to supplies of heat-treated milk from the Continent could pose a horrific threat
  608
  to our United Kingdom market structure. Plentiful supplies of milk offered for sale in supermarkets, at a sufficiently attractive discount to overcome the distaste and inconvenience of carrying it home, could deal our distributive trade and doorstep delivery system a mighty blow.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It would be a killer.
  Mr. Shepherd: The Government must steer the course necessary to protect the long-term interests of the consumer and the producer, and balance the returns to the producer with the needs of the consumer so that this sort of situation does not arise with the attractiveness of the market to imported milk. The difference between the premium level for liquid milk sales over manufacturing milk sales is most important. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland has asked the Minister whether he will give an indication of what he considers to be an acceptable difference, and I too, shall be very interested to know that, because it is crucial to this particular factor.
  There can be no doubt that the sophisticated structure that we have developed over the years and that revolves around the Milk Marketing Boards is at the core of our high per capita consumption of liquid milk. It is worrying enough to hear from the Milk Marketing Boards that per capita consumption this year will be as low as in 1971–72. This once again indicates that the level of retail prices is as high, relative to incomes, as it can go. The growth in sales of instant milk powders does not help to allay fears for the future.
  The Government must ensure three things. First, they must not allow the situation to develop in which liquid milk imports are an alternative and attractive proposition. Secondly, the Government must agree to do nothing that will in any way alter the operation of the Milk Marketing Boards. Thirdly, the Government must provide the basis for producers to be able to work and look forward to the future with confidence.
  With regard to the second requirement, will the Minister give the House his assurance tonight that the Government will settle only for an agreement in the Council of Ministers that secures for all time—those last three words are very

  609
  important—the structure of our Milk Marketing Boards? I reinforce as strongly as I can the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland.
  I should be interested to know what steps the Government are taking to demonstrate to our EEC partners how an extension of the powers of their producer co-operatives already in existence could benefit all sectors of the milk industry there and make a substantial contribution to the bringing into balance of production and consumption of milk in the EEC as a whole.
  With regard to the third requirement, when will the Minister be bringing forward the next order—this one started on 1st April, with no end—indicating the prices for the winter months? That is the very important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) raised.
  As for the confidence factor, what consultations is the Ministry having with agriculture and with the dairy industry in all its ramifications about the need to develop a means of allowing forward planning in the industry? Is the price within the order to last a year, or what is the minimum duration for which the structure will run? These are very important questions to which the industry must have answers. We look to the Minister to give them to the House tonight.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Before commenting on the order, I should again declare my interest in that I am a farmer, although I have never kept any dairy cattle. Who knows, perhaps one day I shall change my policy, but at present I have not been convinced.
  On 23rd March the Minister said that the maximum wholesale prices would be reduced for the summer months to meet expected increases in distribution costs. He also said that the retail price of milk would be kept unchanged at 12½p per pint. This means that the higher costs of distributing milk are to be borne by the producers rather than the distributors themselves.
  That is what has been said. But if we in Britain had played our cards in the years gone by, I wonder whether there would be any need to discuss this order at all. It was a great pity that, under the
  610
  Treaty of Accession, we signed away the guaranteed price system that operated for the dairy farmers of Britain. When I meet my constituents, particularly the dairy farmers, I am asked two questions "What are you doing in the House of Commons to make sure that we retain the Milk Marketing Board?" and "Is it at all possible at this late stage to persuade our counterparts in Europe to reintroduce a guaranteed price system, which has worked so well in this country for the last 20 or 30 years?".
  As I have said before, I give due praise to the Minister of Agriculture. He has the backing of all the political parties in the House. I hope that he will not budge an inch to his counterparts in Europe. I am quite willing for him to talk for another six months about the price review negotiations so long as he will retain the marketing and support systems of which we in Britain are so proud. Who knows, perhaps one day the Europeans—the dairy farmers, the producers and the consumers in Germany, France and other countries—will persuade their Ministers of Agriculture to adopt our marketing system.
  I believe that over the past few years we have thrown away too many of our marketing and support systems. At last the present Minister of Agriculture is standing up to his counterparts in Europe. I congratulate him now, as I have before. This has nothing at all to do with the Lib-Lab agreement. It is a fact of life that the producers in this country are in favour of retaining the Milk Marketing Board, which has served us so well.
  Many of us are concerned about the cost to the distributors in the trade. Many of us are worried about the producers' returns and their cost of production, which is going up year after year. We talk about consumption and confidence. If we want the industry to have confidence—an industry which can plan ahead—we must retain our system of marketing.
  As I have said before—I hope that the Minister will comment on this in his reply—if producers are to make a reasonable standard of living from the land, we must persuade our consumers to eat what we produce. Unfortunately, the past few years have seen a steady decline in the consumption of milk, and I am wondering whether the Minister can say by what

  611
  percentage consumption has gone down in, say, the last two or three years.
  I was very interested to read in the Financial Times today a report of a speech by Mr. Steve Roberts, the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board. He said that a small increase in the retail price of milk would damage consumption as much as last year's rises. He went on to say that a futher devaluation of the green pound was needed this year, on top of the 7½ per cent. already in the pipeline, to boost dairy support prices further. I should like to hear the Minister's opinion of that suggestion.
  Finally, Mr. Roberts warned of the risks involved in the large increase in the retail price. He said that, apart from reducing sales, raising the prices could also attract imports of liquid milk from Ireland or continental Europe. If the Government of the day decided to increase the price of milk by a penny a pint, would the Irish and other dairy producers in Europe send their milk here and, if so, on what scale? Perhaps the Minister will comment.
  In my view, we ought to say as little as possible tonight. This order will run for six months. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) asked when the next order would be put before us. However, if the Milk Marketing Board is not to be retained under the present system in Europe, there will be no need to table another order after six months. In my view, therefore, it is essential to hold on to the Milk Marketing Board—the support system that we have—before looking at another amendment which will be tabled in six months. I hope that the Minister wil be successful in his deliberations.
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be very brief and speak for about 60 seconds.
  I want first to compliment my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on their very pertinent questions to the Minister. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with them, because they are of considerable interest to the industry and the consumer alike.
  I wish to direct my remarks to the producers. I represent in this House the attractive constituency of Macclesfield, in
  612
  Cheshire, in which there are many dairy farmers. They are extremely concerned about this debate, which is being held at this very late hour, and it is sad that the House is so sparsely attended, because what may appear to be a trivial matter is of considerable importance. It is a pity that there are not sufficient hon. Members present to justify its importance.
  Dairy farmers do not work a standard seven and a half-hour or eight-hour day and a five-day or five and a half-day week. Anyone who deals with livestock knows that the job entails 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Therefore, the questions which have been posed to the Minister are genuine matters of concern.
  I take up first the matters raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It may be thought surprising that an hon. Member who represents a very urban constituency should take so much interest in what is basically an agricultural matter. The hon. Member does not have any cows in his constituency, unless they are on their way to Smithfield or some abattoir. However, he has many constituents who drink many thousands of pints—not litres—of milk.
  Like the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), I meet my NFU regularly every two or three months. There are two questions that farmers and dairy producers have asked me. Shall we be able to have our milk marketing structure, as we have it today, on a permanent basis, not just until 1982? The industry needs the confidence to enable it to make the necessary investment to guaranteee a good supply of liquid milk to consumers.
  Producers also ask me whether the supply of liquid milk from our own dairy farmers will be put in jeopardy by the import of liquid milk from the Continent. If it is, it is inevitable that this milk will be supplied to the supermarkets, and in a matter of only six months the supermarkets could destroy the door-step deliveries that we have in this country.
  It is not just a question of whether we can maintain the Milk Marketing Board, important as that it. It is a question, ultimately, when we concede the health and hygiene regulations that are being forced upon us—some of which are good and some not so good—of whether our milk will be put in jeopardy by the importation of liquid milk from the Continent.

  613
  I hope that we can resist this and I hope that the Minister will give very plain answers, because farmers, producers and my constituents are gravely concerned about the future. Dairy producers work hard and they are prepared to make an investment. It is important that the Minister of State, who has shown considerable sympathy for the dairy industry, should provide the answers to ensure that the industry can continue its doorstep deliveries, and that producers and consumers can get as good a deal as they have in the past.
  11.3 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall try to be as brief as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I echo the compliments that have been paid to the dairy industry. I am constantly amazed by the skill with which dairy producers navigate their way through extremely tricky waters.
  I speak with modesty on this issue. Although I represent a great number of milk producers, my only real qualification to speak is that I much enjoy drinking the stuff. But much as I enjoy drinking British milk, I find almost all Continental milk quite undrinkable. I hope that in saying that I have established my jingoistic credentials.
  I felt certain that someone tonight would say that the EEC was out to stamp out doorstep deliveries. But nobody said that. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is a most redoubtable opponent of the EEC, is always invariably fair, and he did not misrepresent the situation. Therefore, perhaps I am here speaking under false pretences.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) clearly exposed the subtle mechanism by which doorstep deliveries might be endangered. This is due, not so much to the operations of the common agricultural policy, but to the growth of the supermarket habit and the increasing apperance of that detestable concoction, long-life milk, which some people actually manage to drink.
  It is an accepted truth on both sides of the House and in every party that the Milk Marketing Board is the most perfect organisation that has yet appeared on earth. It is very close to the Almighty. That being so, I would not for one moment venture any criticism. Indeed, I
  614
  have no possible criticism to offer. How-every, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) talked about guaranteeing its continuance in its existing form for all time, the tiniest flicker of doubt began to burn in my mind.
  I acknowledge that my farmers are mad keen that the board should continue in its present form, and I shall fight for its continuance. However, I am not certain that there is an indissoluble connection—I know that there is a valuable connection—between doorstep deliveries and the continuance of the board in its present form. I am convinced that in pursuing its milk pricing policies the Government must be ever vigilant to ensure that differential prices are so adjusted as to continue to make it worth while for the milk to appear regularly upon our doorsteps.
  I was reassured to hear the hon. Member for Newham, South telling us that as he went round canvassing this evening—I hope fruitlessly—he knocked against a great many empty milk bottles, despite the machinations of the Common Market.
  11.7 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. F. S. Bishop): This has been a useful debate. I hope that in the limited time available I shall be able to respond to some of the points that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  As the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said, the debate has enabled us to look beyond the immediate content of the order and to consider more general aspects of the new pricing arrangements for liquid milk, which came into operation at the beginning of the year following the end of the transitional period. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham. South (Mr. Spearing) has said, it is a change that has come about because of our membership of the Common Market. Therefore, we have had to make new arrangements.
  I imagine that it will not be disputed that the new arrangements represent a radical departure from our old system of guaranteed payments operated through the former milk fund. In particular, what the price producers receive now depends not on the guarantee but on the average returns made by the Milk Marketing

  615
  Boards, taking on the one hand the manufacturing market, which is underpinned by the EEC intervention system, and on the other the liquid market operating within the context of the order. To that extent we are working on a new basis, which is bound to contain less certainty than the old system. That cannot be avoided.
  Given the importance of milk in the household budget, few housewives would dispute the case for the Government continuing, as successive Governments have done, to fix a maximum retail price. Against that background, both sides of the industry were anxious to see Government involvement in the wholesale stage as well.
  The main issues raised tonight relate not so much to the need or otherwise for the order, or even to the prices that it sets, but to the general impact that the new pricing system has upon the industry. That has been made clear by hon. Members who have spoken. It also has a bearing on the position of producers.
  Perhaps I may at this stage deal with some of the points made by hon. Members. One important point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland—I am grateful to him for his prior notice of this matter—concerned the Milk Marketing Boards. I recognise, as we all do, the interest that there is in the House on this issue and the universal support of hon. Members for the maintenance of the boards. The Council of Ministers will have before it next week a proposal which differs significantly from that put forward by the Commission just before Christmas. What we now have is a considerable improvement which meets our needs on aspects such as voting procedures, producers retailers and so on, which originally caused us some difficulty. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture made clear in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) on Friday, it envisages a further decision by the Council on future Community arrangements in four years. Several hon. Members refered to uncertainty about the future.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland asked for an assurance about the Government's intentions towards the Milk
  616
  Marketing Boards. We intend to secure from the Council of Ministers a regulation which removes the threat to the boards' essential powers which stem from Community law as it stands at present by means of safeguards which cannot be withdrawn against the wishes of the United Kingdom Government at some future date.
  I remind the House of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to questions on 27th April:
  "I think that my hon. Friend and the House may take it as absolutely certain that we do not propose to be dictated to about the future of milk deliveries or the future of the Milk Marketing Board."—[Official Report, 27th April 1978; Vol. 948, c. 1638]
  I think that our position is clear. That is where we stand on the issue.
  Perhaps I may now deal with some of the other points made by hon. Members.
  Mr. Wiggin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Bishop: I have not much time to give way, because hon. Members have put a number of questions to me to which they would no doubt like replies.
  Mr. Wiggin: Perhaps the Minister will give way on the question of the future of the board. The right hon. Gentleman has made what I consider to be an important statement about the Government's position on the future of the board and about which he has rightly been asked for assurances. Is there any way in which he could possibly reveal the Government's prerequisites or points that they intend to make to the Commission, because that is what the country and the farmers are concerned about?
  Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will recall the many debates that we have had on this matter. We have made clear our position on the details of the proposals put forward by the Commission and our reaction to them. I do not think that this is the time to go into them. However, I have made an important statement to the House on how strongly we feel about this matter and the stand that we propose to take.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland asked about import restrictions and the liquid milk premium. This is an important point. I recognise the anxiety that is

  617
  felt in many areas on this matter. At present our public and animal health restrictions have the effect of keeping out liquid milk imports. That will remain the situation unless and until there are harmonised regulations throughout the Community on the quality and marketing of milk. There are proposals on the table in Brussels, but these give rise to a number of difficulties both for us and for other member States. Of course, they are some way from adoption. The hon. Gentleman also made other points with which I shall deal later in my remarks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South asked whether producer prices had been reduced before in the summer. I remind him that our system is new in that the Government did not previously set maximum wholesale prices. That they should now do so was the wish of both sides of the industry. It is not a new departure for producers to receive lower prices in summer than in winter. Indeed, this has been, and I imagine will remain, an integral part of the board's pricing policies and reflects inter alia the varying costs of production between summer and winter.
  I turn to the question of distributors. Given the particular economics of the doorstep delivery service, and the critical part that this plays in maintaining the high level of liquid consumption in this country, we thought it right to reassure the trade that we would set maximum wholesale and retail prices in such a way as to cover their costs and provide an adequate target rate of profit. I do not think that anyone could reasonably quarrel with such an aim, and I do not myself see it as a threat to milk producers. Indeed, I believe that it is very much in their interest to have a successful and flourishing dairy trade because without it their own incomes—which depend heavily upon the more remunerative liquid market—would clearly suffer. I think that that has been accepted.
  Hon. Members have asked about producers. There seem to be two principal areas of concern. First, there is the general point that, instead of setting prices separately each spring and autumn for the following summer and winter periods, we should aim to fix prices for a full year ahead. Secondly—and flowing from this—there is the more specific point about the basis on which the maximum price
  618
  will be set for the coming winter, and in particular the fear which a number of hon. Members have expressed that adjustments in the distributive margins in the autumn might lead to a further reduction then in the maximum wholesale price.
  We have, of course, discussed the first of these points at some length with the boards and the unions. I recognise that if the maximum wholesale price was to be set for 12 months at a time this might make it easier for the boards to set a seasonal scale of prices. That point has been made tonight. Despite this, we for our part have tended to the view that, by looking at summer and winter periods separately, we can make a more accurate and sensitive assessment for the industry's real needs at any given time—I am sure that that is important—and that on balance producers are likely to fare better under this arrangement than they would otherwise. We shall be sensitive to the changing situation.
  Because of the unpredictability of the weather and other circumstances, hon. Members ask whether we are aware of the serious difficulties facing a particular sector of the industry and what we propose to do about it. If one fixes a price too far ahead, one cannot be sensitive to these factors and make adjustments. That remains our view, but obviously, with the new system having been in operation barely four months, we are of course open to further persuasion on this, and indeed on other points which may emerge as we gain further experience.
  In the meantime, we face the immediate issue of what the winter prices should be—or at least what basic principles we should adopt in determining it. I hope that the House will accept that I cannot give any categoric assurance at this stage. After all, we do not yet know what the EEC common prices for 1978–79 will be. This clearly will influence manufacturing returns, which we must remember are an important element in overall producer returns. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) shaking his head. I notice that he is not nodding off, even at this time of night after his lively contribution. This is entirely separate from the liquid prices covered by this order.
  Secondly, we cannot at this stage say with sufficient accuracy what the course of

  619
  distributors' costs will be during the winter, or for that matter what would be an appropriate target rate of profit for the dairy trade after 1st October. I do not think that anyone could give the figures tonight.
  We have all recognised that this is by no means the only factor in the question. Such an approach would imply taking an immediate decision about the retail price to apply between now and next spring. As a number of comments tonight have shown, that is a complicated issue touching on a number of sensitive areas such as the level of liquid milk premium and the response by consumers to price charges. Consumer resistance to these changes is an important factor. We must take account of the Government's counter-inflation policy which is proceeding quite well at the moment, and we want to make sure it stays that way. These factors must be taken into account.
  We shall, in determining the maximum wholesale price for the winter, pay particular attention to the needs of producers to obtain adequate returns. My right hon. Friend went out of his way to stress that in his announcement of 23rd March. He made it clear that we would also place special emphasis on the higher production costs of the winter. In other words, we do not intend that farmers' returns should be squeezed, or, to repeat a phrase used by the hon. Member for Westmorland, that they should be the residual legatees under the new system.
  The hon. Members for Westmorland and Hereford asked when the next change would be. I was asked whether we should aim for a ½p increase in the summer. My right hon. Friend's statement in March made it clear that the present retail price of 12½p, which came into operation only on 1st January, will remain unchanged. I do not envisage any change this summer, and a period of stability will be in the interests of consumers and liquid sales. In turn, that is important to both elements of the industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South asked about the level of the milk premium. Of course, the premium has fallen because of the fall in the maximum wholesale price as a result of this order. The approaching 7½ per cent. devaluation of the green pound will help in that direction. I do not suggest that
  620
  there is a correct level for the premium but the liquid and manufacturing markets should not get too far out of line. That is a further reason for caution over increasing the retail price and for securing the flexibility and other factors to which I referred.
  I was asked about producers' prospects. The hon. Member for Westmorland and others asked about the dairy herd and future production. I believe that the industry is in good heart, and that dairy farmers have no cause for concern during the coming months. The fact that dairy inseminations are running well in excess of last year's figure is a clear indication of some confidence. Production is exceeding even last year's record levels. Although feed costs may well increase from their present low levels during the summer, this should be offset by increased revenue from calf sales. In short, even allowing for the lower wholesale price, I expect profitability to be as good as it has been for some considerable time.
  Reference has been made to variations in the order. There is the variation in the wholesale price for liquid milk in various parts of the United Kingdom. The reason for the variation between London and the rest of England and Wales relates to the need to take into account the higher distribution costs in the London area. Broadly speaking, the average price for England and Wales as a whole, including London, is the same as for Scotland.
  The order does not affect the maximum retail price for liquid milk, which remains unaltered at 12½p, nor does it have any bearing on the return the board receives from milk used for manufacture.
  I have already referred to the general situation. Although hon. Members have said that if there were a longer-term arrangement the board and the producers would know where they were, I wish to stress that with continued sensitivity to the changes we shall be able to take account of factors which are not now apparent.
  To sum up, I believe that we are at the beginning of a new pricing arrangement which replaces a familiar guarantee system and which involves a greater measure of uncertainty than before. This is bound to create difficulties. We are moving from the well-tried situation that

  621
  applied during the transitional period to the present position, where we have to come into line.
  We have been very much involved in consultations with the industry, with the Milk Marketing Boards, the NFUs and other bodies to obtain their views. I can well understand why the industry has certain misgivings about how things will turn out, and that is the effect of change, but we have no wish to be dogmatic in our approach.
  I assure the industry that if difficulties arise we shall be willing to discuss them. Equally, I hope that the industry will be willing to give the new arrangements a fair run. The industry has no cause for concern. The reduction in wholesale price is consistent with what we have always foreseen as the need for separate summer and winter prices to reflect, inter alia, the seasonal costs of production. Similarly, I have made it clear that in the autumn producers can expect the higher costs of winter production to feature prominently in the reckoning.
  Against that background, and with the assurances I have given, I emphasise that we remain willing to meet the industry at any time to discuss its problems. I have valued this opportunity to hear hon. Members on both sides of the House who have stayed here to express the views and misgivings of farmers. I hope that on behalf of the Government I have been able to give some assurances and a guarantee of our willingness to keep in touch with the industry on this important subject.
  Question put and negatived.

  MR. JOSEPH BEARDER (INHERITANCE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Harper.]
  11.29 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Banks: I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise a serious legal matter which is of profound importance to a constituent of mine.
  This debate concerns the outrageous delay in obtaining agreement to the amount of estate duty liability arising from the settlement of the estate of the
  622
  late Mr. Thomas B. Kitson, who died in 1959, and the subsequent sale of his shares in Standard Industrial Trust Limited, a private company. Mr. Kitson practised as a solicitor in Yorkshire, but after the 1914 war he set up Standard Industrial Trust Limited in London and prospered, notably after the Second World War.
  Mr. Kitson's will named a number of legatees, but he bequeathed his residuary estate to Mrs. Francis Bearder. His wife had died two years earlier and he had no children. Mrs. Bearder and her husband were old and close friends.
  Mr. Kitson's total personal estate amounted to over £500,000. My complaint on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Joseph Bearder, who is a later beneficiary, is that there is no excuse for a delay of some 19 years for releasing the estate from further duty obligations, and that a speedy solution must be arrived at, so that the funds may be given out to the remaining beneficiaries.
  One of the beneficiaries, a Mr. B. Bearder, died in January of this year. My constituent is an old man, now over 80 years old. He despairs of receiving his inheritance and of the seemingly endless legal wrangle. He and the others can only be onlookers.
  I am reminded of Charles Dickens's book "Bleak House", where he painted in his opening chapter a vivid picture of the fog and the mud that enveloped London, not least the densest fog enveloping the High Court of Chancery. He said:
  "Whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled has grown, possessed himself of a real horse and trotted away into the other world."
  The principal asset in the Kitson estate was a block of shares. Six months after the death of Mr. Kitson in 1959 the executors—Mrs. Bearder's husband, Mr. Francis Bearder and Mr. Kitson's secretary, Mrs. Fane—sold the shares to a Mr. A. F. de Breyne, the other principal director of the company. The share price was 75s. per share, at a cost to Mr. de Breyne of £287,000. Any further estate duty liability arising from any subsequent value placed on the shares is not—and I stress this—a liability falling on the executors or beneficiaries of the

  623
  estate. That liability stayed with the shares.
  A dispute arose between the Estate Duty Office and the solicitors, Herbert Smith and Company, acting for the executors, over a gift of cash by Mr. Kitson for the purchase of other available shares in the company, in the joint names of Mrs. Bearder and Mrs. Fane, in 1955. I do not intend to deal with this point, but the Inland Revenue conceded the argument eight years later.
  However, the Estate Duty Office later decided to apply Section 46 of the 1940 Finance Act to the shares, and this is the stumbling block. This section was designed to cover cases in which the object of a transaction in the case of the sale of shares was to evade duty—that is, selling the shares below their real value so as to reduce the rate band of estate duty on the estate, as I see it. The question is, therefore, a technical one of the interpretation and application, or not, of Section 46, and, secondly, the method of calculating a value of the shares based on the company's asset value and the revenue over the previous five years accruing to the shareholder.
  I must stress again here that any revised estate duty, whether it may or may not be levied on a higher share valuation, would not fall to be paid by the beneficiaries. If, however, such a higher value of shares were to be established, the amount of duty falling on the other parts of Mr. Kitson's estate may be raised as a consequence of the total sum of the estate coming into a higher band of duty.
  Duty on the estate of, I believe, 70 per cent. was paid to the Inland Revenue at the outset and that is indeed a rich picking. Correspondence between the solicitors and the Estate Duty Office proceeded in 1960 after an exploratory meeting. An important letter from the Estate Duty Office was, unfortunately lost in the post in 1962 and it seems that it was not until 1964 that the dialogue continued, with Herbert Smith and Co., who also act for Standard Industrial Trust Ltd., maintaining that it would be unreasonable to invoke Section 46 and the Estate Duty Office pursuing its claim and asking for information.
  In 1967 the solicitors provided some of this information and in 1968 provided further pieces of information which en-
  624
  abled the Estate Duty Office to make a calculation under Section 46. This calculation was of a further dutiable slice applicable to a revised value of the shares which had been sold. The solicitors raised technical questions on this calculation and maintained their opposition.
  Here I must go back, because in 1961, Mrs. Bearder, who had inherited the estate from Mr. Kitson, died and left her estate to her husband, Mr. Francis Bearder. He died in 1967 and left his estate to his brother, my constituent, Mr. Joseph Bearder, and others.
  During this period of eight years, no release certificate, I am told, had been issued so that none of the parties concerned is able to benefit from the funds willed to them and originating from the Kitson estate. Money in a bank account exists and remains untouched.
  In 1969, Mr. Joseph Bearder referred the matter to the Ombudsman who concluded that the failure to complete matters had not been due to maladministration. He considered that both parties had contributed to the time taken. His final sentence was that the sooner both parties got together to agree the figures, the sooner it would be possible to close the matter.
  For some extraordinary reason, this produced stalemate. In 1970, both sides resorted to litigation. The solicitors issued a writ and, almost simultaneously, the Estate Duty Office originated a summons. The Estate Duty Office, however, obtained an adjournment of the action in February 1971.
  It was not until four years later in 1975 that a reply to an affidavit from the solicitors and an affirmation by Mr. Greenfield of the Estate Duty Office, who is joint editor of "Dymond", the estate duty handbook, were delivered.
  In 1974, the last surviving Kitson executor, Mrs. Fane, died and new executors were appointed. Early in 1977, the case was heard in the Chancery Division of the High Court. Judgment was reserved, but on 6th April last year, judgment was given upholding the Inland Revenue's interpretation of the relevant estate duty legislation and ordering Standard Industrial Trust Ltd. to provide certain information needed to calculate the estate duty liability. The court allowed the company six months to provide this

  625
  information with liberty to apply for an extension of time. I can only regard this as more than generous after the 18 years in which the case had been rumbling along.
  In July the company gave notice of appeal and it was set down for hearing in the autumn term last year. This hearing has now been postponed for reasons the Minister may be able to explain. This was done at the request of the Revenue. I believe that the case may now be heard at the end of this year.
  As it is over 19 years since Mr. Kitson died, a point of concern is whether interest will be payable on any additional amount of estate duty which may be levied in a final outcome. Can the Minister clarify that point? If it were the intention of either party to this disagreement to protract this affair they have been remarkably successful. Indeed, the costs of both parties must be considerable over this long stretch of time.
  The real costs are the human costs of lost expectations, frustration and anguish. How is it that a legal system can permit this state of affairs? It seems abundantly clear that Section 46 of the 1940 Finance Act is open to interpretation fit to ridicule and should be amended. I urge the Minister to bring in amending legislation to clarify the meaning and implications of this section at the next available opportunity.
  I seek, among other things, to protect other parties from the fate of the line of beneficiaries in this case. What now is to be done? This protracted legal wrangle brings the law and its processes into disrepute. It must surely now be hastened to a conclusion. The estate which has passed through Mrs. Bearder and Mr. Francis Bearder is not a big sum. I cannot say accurately what it is now. Nevertheless, it is now frozen in a bank, I understand.
  Certainly my constituent tells me that no one has had anything in the last legacy. The reason is that a release certificate has not been issued. I ask the Minister to use his discretion and authority to absolve that part of the Kitson estate passed on down through Mrs. Bearder from any further duty liability. Whatever the liability is, it cannot be large. A total of £11,000 has been held by the Estate Duty Office, from an over-
  626
  payment of duty. I wonder what that sum, with interest, would now amount to. Will the Minister confirm that this sum has been attracting interest?
  Finally, will the Minister now issue a release certificate? A period of 19 years is too long for anyone's patience. The legal wrangle over the years does not concern the beneficiaries. They have been able only to watch and wait. Will the Minister allow Mr. Joseph Bearder, now an old man, at least some enjoyment from what is rightly due to him, and the other beneficiaries likewise?
  11.43 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): I fully understand the concern which the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) has expressed on behalf of Mr. Bearder concerning the long time it has taken to resolve this matter. I have written to the hon. Member on two occasions and I assure him that I can quite understand that Mr. Bearder is still not satisfied with the situation. The hon. Member, fairly, did not seek to place the blame upon the Inland Revenue. At one stage he chastised our legal system for allowing this to go on for so long, but I am not responsible for our legal system.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate also set out the facts of the case very clearly. The original deceased has been named by the hon. Gentleman and I can therefore mention him. One of the difficulties in a case like this is that confidentiality has to be observed and Ministers do not normally divulge these tax matters in public. The original deceased, Mr. Kitson, from whom Mr. Bearder benefits through the estates of two other people, died in December 1959. As Mr. Bearder is only a beneficiary and not an executor of the original testator, he may not be aware of the full details of the various estates though he and the hon. Member are no doubt aware of the general situation, especially as a result of the report made in 1969 by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
  The substance of the case is that as a result of transactions involving the shares of Standard Industrial Trust—the hon. Member has mentioned the company—a company previously controlled by Mr.

  627
  Kitson, the value of his shareholdings at his death was considerably reduced.
  It is not for me to say what was the purpose of the scheme, but I would have thought that clearly one of the results was avoidance of a certain amount of estate duty. In these circumstances, the Revenue suggested that the case came within the terms of Section 46 of the Finance Act 1940, which is concerned with the situation where the benefits of duties a deceased drew or had power to draw from a company are not adequately reflected in the value of the shares duitable in connection with his death.
  Although the original deceased died in 1959, Mr. Bearder's interest arose only in 1967 following a third death, so as far as he is concerned we are dealing only with the situation from 1967 onwards.
  Section 46 of the 1940 Act no longer applies for capital transfer tax. When the Government in their wisdom decided to do away with estate duty for the future, we decided not to incorporate into the new CTT provisions a provision similar to Section 46, since we believe that the mischief that it was intended to stop is being stopped now under the new CTT provisions without the need for a complicated provision like Section 46. But for estate duty cases it still applies. Thus, the hon. Gentleman's cry for amendment of Section 46 has been to some extent answered in that it does not apply to future deaths.
  When the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration investigated the case at Mr. Bearder's request in 1969, he upheld the Revenue's right to make the claim it had made, and he found no maladministration in its handling of the case. Fe commented on the long time taken to resolve the dispute and expressed the hope that the parties would get together to settle the outstanding points. There was no criticism of the Revenue administration in relation to this protracted case.
  In the event, a negotiated settlement between the executors and the Revenue did not prove possible, and litigation has been necessary to settle what is an extremely complicated point of law. Again as the hon. Gentleman said, since 1969 there has been considerable corre-
  628
  spondence between the solicitors acting for each side to settle preliminary points to pave the way for the case to be heard in the High Court.
  The hearing took place early last year and the court found in favour of the Revenue. I am sure that the House will accept that the Revenue has a duty to maintain a claim that it considers to be well founded. The court's decision shows that the Revenue's view of the merits was justified.
  An appeal has been lodged and a further hearing before the Court of Appeal is necessary. I am not sure why there is delay in relation to that hearing. Apparently the answer is that the counsel who argued the original case will wish to argue it in the Court of Appeal. Therefore, the situation may be beyond the control of both parties, as they have to employ counsel for such a complicated case.
  I can sympathise with Mr. Bearder over the long wait to get the matter settled. The Revenue is as anxious for finality as he is but not at the expense of forgoing duty that it believes to be legally due.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about release certificates. I will look into the point and write to him. He asked me whether I would use my discretion. I am wary of Ministers using discretion to relieve people of taxation. I do not want to venture far down that road. Even if Ministers have discretion in this matter, the Revenue has a duty to collect tax and it should be collected according to the law and not according to the discretion of Ministers.
  Mr. Banks: But surely after 19 years this is grossly unfair.
  Mr. Davies: There is unfairness in many aspects of our life but it does not necessarily follow that Ministers should use a so-called discretion to override the law. It may be that the law has to be changed. It is unfortunate that Mr. Bearder has been caught in a very difficult and complicated situation that is not of his own making. When these transactions were entered into in 1959, no doubt those advising at the time must have appreciated the possibility that this section might be applied to the case.

  629
  All I am saying is that it is very dangerous to ask Ministers to exercise their discretion in a matter involving law, and I would be very reluctant to do so. But I shall look into the question of release certificates and write to the hon. Gentleman to let him know the results of my inquiries.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked me about interest. I would expect that if more duty is payable, interest will become payable as well, and that will presumably come out of the first estate. To that extent, if it does, it depletes what Mr. Bearder might get at the end of the day. But again that is a matter that I had better look into.
  I have given the hon. Gentleman an assurance, which I repeat, that the Revenue has no interest at all in dragging out this matter—none whatsoever. It wishes to see the matter finalised.
  As I have said, Mr. Bearder's interest in the original estate is derived through the estates of two other persons, and he is not an executor of the original testator, Mr. Kitson. I am not able to disclose—although the hon. Gentleman has—details of the original estate nor of the way in which it has been distributed. However, as will be seen from the report made by the Parliamentary Commissioner, and as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, the shares in Standard Industrial Trust were sold after the testator's death. It seems improbable, therefore, if any benefit is still to come to Mr. Bearder, that it could be in the form of shares, because they have been sold. If Mr. Bearder wishes to have detailed information about the nature or extent of any such benefit, he should of course, consult the present executors of the original testator. It is not for me to make any statement in that regard.
  630
  The Revenue is sympathetic to Mr. Bearder's case. He has been caught up in something which is not of his own doing. He was not a party to the original scheme, but unfortunately at three removes he is a beneficiary in estates which go back to the original estate duty avoidance scheme, if such it was. We shall do all we can to ensure that the case conies forward speedily before the Court of Appeal. Whether that will be the final matter or whether there will be another appeal will be determined in the light of that judgment.
  Mr. Banks: The Minister will appreciate that my constituent has waited since 1967, which is some 11 years already. I have found little reason to hope that the case will come to a speedy conclusion within a matter of years. I wonder whether there is any formula at all that the Minister can put forward to enable at least some of the funds which are frozen to be released, so that some enjoyment can be obtained by those who are due to inherit.
  Mr. Davies: As I have said, I will look into the question of release certificates—I am not quite sure what is meant by release certificates—but I will see whether something can be done along those lines. But I stress again that this is a matter which has been dealt with according to law, and it is not for me to try in any way to circumvent the legal position. Indeed, I would not wish to do so. I hope that the legal processes will come to an end as soon as possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  LEEDS (LAW COURTS)
  LEEDS (LAW COURTS)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Certificate of Extended Education
  Certificate of Extended Education
  Migraine (Research)
  Migraine (Research)
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  School Transport
  School Transport
  School Meals
  School Meals
WALES
  District Councils (Powers)
  District Councils (Powers)
  Housing
  Housing
  Unfit Houses
  Unfit Houses
  Council of Museums
  Council of Museums
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
ENERGY
  Coal (New Markets)
  Coal (New Markets)
  North Sea Oil (Participation Agreements)
  North Sea Oil (Participation Agreements)
  National Coal Board (European Community Loans)
  National Coal Board (European Community Loans)
  Nuclear Electric Capacity
  Nuclear Electric Capacity
  Offshore Oil Installations (Fire-fighting Equipment)
  Offshore Oil Installations (Fire-fighting Equipment)
  Electricity
  Electricity
  Appliances (Consumption)
  Appliances (Consumption)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Passports
  Passports
  Diplomats (London)
  Diplomats (London)
  Hawk Aircraft (Sale to Indonesia)
  Hawk Aircraft (Sale to Indonesia)
  Chile (Ambassador)
  Chile (Ambassador)
  Hong Kong (Audio-typists' Dispute)
  Hong Kong (Audio-typists' Dispute)
  Diplomatic Service and British Council (Aid Budget)
  Diplomatic Service and British Council (Aid Budget)
  Argentina (Frigates)
  Argentina (Frigates)
  OCEAN ISLAND
  OCEAN ISLAND
  LEIGH-ON-SEA
  LEIGH-ON-SEA
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (YORKSHIRE TELEVISION BROADCAST)
  PRIME MINISTER (YORKSHIRE TELEVISION BROADCAST)
  WELWYN GARDEN CITY
  WELWYN GARDEN CITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  SELLY OAK
  SELLY OAK
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
  UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  MERSEYSIDE
  MERSEYSIDE
  IMMIGRATION
  IMMIGRATION
  RADIATION HAZARDS
  RADIATION HAZARDS
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Criminal Responsibility
  Criminal Responsibility
  Child Offenders
  Child Offenders
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  Prostitution
  Prostitution
  Police (West Mercia)
  Police (West Mercia)
  Police (House Purchase)
  Police (House Purchase)
  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Sentences
  Prisoners (Petition Rights)
  Prisoners (Petition Rights)
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Suicide
  Suicide
  Police (Greater Manchester)
  Police (Greater Manchester)
  Independent Television (Company Contracts)
  Independent Television (Company Contracts)
  Prisoners (Mail)
  Prisoners (Mail)
  Immigration Policy
  Immigration Policy
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Prisoners (Pre-release Hostels)
  Prisoners (Pre-release Hostels)
  Firemen (Recruitment)
  Firemen (Recruitment)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Immigration (Patrials)
  Immigration (Patrials)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Oldham and Kirklees (Social Work)
  Oldham and Kirklees (Social Work)
  Zoos and Safari Parks
  Zoos and Safari Parks
  Elections (Nomination Papers)
  Elections (Nomination Papers)
  Harrow (Local Government Elections)
  Harrow (Local Government Elections)
TRADE
  Portuguese Timber
  Portuguese Timber
  Accounting Standards
  Accounting Standards
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Sperm Oil
  Sperm Oil
SCOTLAND
  Hydatid Worm
  Hydatid Worm
INDUSTRY
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  National Enterprise Board (Shareholdings)
  National Enterprise Board (Shareholdings)
  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund
  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund
  Clothing (Productivity Resources Agency)
  Clothing (Productivity Resources Agency)
  Expenditure (North-West Region)
  Expenditure (North-West Region)
DEFENCE
  Service Men (Benefit Claims)
  Service Men (Benefit Claims)
  RAF Germany
  RAF Germany
  Frigates (Argentina)
  Frigates (Argentina)
  Conscientious Objectors (Advisory Committee)
  Conscientious Objectors (Advisory Committee)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Self-employed Persons and Contracted-out Employees
  Self-employed Persons and Contracted-out Employees
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Occupational Deafness
  Occupational Deafness
  Cohabition Rules
  Cohabition Rules
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Lancashire)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Lancashire)
  Kidney Machines
  Kidney Machines
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Observation and Assessment Centres
  Observation and Assessment Centres
  Community Homes
  Community Homes
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Rate Support Grant (Cheshire)
  Rate Support Grant (Cheshire)
  Home Insulation (Grants)
  Home Insulation (Grants)
ENVIRONMENT
  Vacant Council Houses
  Vacant Council Houses
  Aggregates (Construction Industry)
  Aggregates (Construction Industry)
  Gipsies (Northamptonshire)
  Gipsies (Northamptonshire)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  British Waterways Board
  British Waterways Board
  Community Land Act
  Community Land Act
  Local Authority Tenants
  Local Authority Tenants
  Agricultural Contractors
  Agricultural Contractors
  Capital Tax Offices
  Capital Tax Offices
  Housing (Half-and-half Schemes)
  Housing (Half-and-half Schemes)
  Housing Investment
  Housing Investment
  British Railways
  British Railways
  National Freight Corporation
  National Freight Corporation
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Development Land Tax
  Development Land Tax
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Dividend Control
  Dividend Control
  Equity Dividends
  Equity Dividends
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Betting and Gaming Revenue
  Betting and Gaming Revenue
  Wines and Spirits
  Wines and Spirits
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Financial Deficit
  Financial Deficit
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Farm Profits
  Farm Profits
  Child Benefit and Allowances
  Child Benefit and Allowances
  Bus Fuel Grant
  Bus Fuel Grant
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid
  Aid
  Cargo Ships (Pakistan)
  Cargo Ships (Pakistan)
CIVIL SERVICE
  House of Commons Official Report
  House of Commons Official Report
TRANSPORT
  Road Haulage Permits
  Road Haulage Permits
  A34
  A34
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
EMPLOYMENT
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Council (Cost)
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Council (Cost)
  Employment Appeal Tribunal (Cost)
  Employment Appeal Tribunal (Cost)
  Certification Office (Cost)
  Certification Office (Cost)
  Health and Safety Commission (Cost)
  Health and Safety Commission (Cost)
  Industrial Training Boards (Cost)
  Industrial Training Boards (Cost)
  Industrial Tribunals (Cost)
  Industrial Tribunals (Cost)
  Manpower Services Commission (Cost)
  Manpower Services Commission (Cost)
  National Dock Labour Board (Cost)
  National Dock Labour Board (Cost)
  Remploy Ltd. (Cost)
  Remploy Ltd. (Cost)
  Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth (Cost)
  Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth (Cost)
  Central Arbitration Committee (Cost)
  Central Arbitration Committee (Cost)
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  Safety Committees (Farms)
  Safety Committees (Farms)
  Temporary Employment and Training
  Temporary Employment and Training
  Closed Shop Agreements
  Closed Shop Agreements
  Major Hazard Plants (European Community Directive)
  Major Hazard Plants (European Community Directive)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Hydroponics
  Hydroponics
  Commonwealth Sugar Producers
  Commonwealth Sugar Producers
  Horticultural Markets
  Horticultural Markets
  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Mutton and Lamb (Exports)
  Mutton and Lamb (Exports)
  Beef, Butter and Barley (Intervention Stocks)
  Beef, Butter and Barley (Intervention Stocks)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Hearing Aid Council
  Hearing Aid Council
  Polyurethane Foam
  Polyurethane Foam
  Lamps
  Lamps
  Redfearn National Glass Ltd.
  Redfearn National Glass Ltd.
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Service Personnel and Crown Employees (Discrimination)
  Service Personnel and Crown Employees (Discrimination)
  Retirement Pensioners (Purpose-built Dwellings)
  Retirement Pensioners (Purpose-built Dwellings)
  Belfast Harbour
  Belfast Harbour
  Belfast Harbour Commission
  Belfast Harbour Commission
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Employment (Young Persons)
  Employment (Young Persons)
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
  Employment (Disabled Persons)
  Employment (Disabled Persons)
  Car Parks
  Car Parks
  Dunmurry
  Dunmurry
  New Kilroot Power Station
  New Kilroot Power Station
  Unemployed Persons (Belfast)
  Unemployed Persons (Belfast)
  LORD PRESIDENT'S DEPARTMENT (APPOINTMENTS)
  LORD PRESIDENT'S DEPARTMENT (APPOINTMENTS)

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

NHS: STAFF X-RAY EXAMINATIONS
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the relaxation of X-ray examination procedures for National Health Service staff proposed in Health Circular HC (78) 3 is justified.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, my Lords, the circular is designed to decrease the hazards of radiation dose for National Health Service employees by eliminating unnecessary X-ray examinations, while retaining examinations in cases where they are necessary for the protection of patients or staff. The recommendations contained in the circular were endorsed by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the circular was only issued after consultation with appropriate professional bodies.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information—most of which is in fact contained in the Health Circular to which I referred—but can he tell me first how much will be saved and what economies will be effected as a result of this? Secondly, in view of what I understand to be a recrudescence of tuberculosis, which very often affects the immigrant population who work in the Health Service, will the noble Lord assure the House that he will keep this matter under very careful review?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would point out that this is a circular which is issued for guidance. It does not lay down that certain things must take place within certain periods. Since the
352
issue of that circular we have, I think, had only nine letters, none of which has called the suggestions into question. They have asked for more information.
With regard to the immigrant situation, we are aware of the difficulties there. Records show that immigrants tend to develop tuberculosis after arrival in this country. This means that if they are employed in the National Health Service and this circular, which is a matter for guidance, is acted upon, then it would deal with anything of that kind.

VIETNAM: HUMAN RIGHTS
3.8 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of recent reports of increasingly severe violations of human rights:in Vietnam, including the seizure of private homes and personal possessions, the forced closure of churches and pagodas, the dispossession of small traders and the mass deportations to "new economic zones" and "reeducation" camps, they will re-consider their decision to provide financial aid to assist the Government of Vietnam in obtaining merchant ships on exceptionally favourable terms.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: No, my Lords. The Government are deeply concerned about violations of human rights wherever they may occur, but we doubt very much whether this particular aid offer, or its withdrawal, would have any influence either way. To withdraw the offer already made would lay the Government open to a charge of bad faith and imperil the commercial deal of which aid would form only a small part. We shall be helping to meet the needs of the British shipbuilding industry for new orders as well as the serious needs of Vietnam.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that, if aiding the British shipbuilding industry is the only criterion, one might as well provide landing craft to Cuba for use in Ethiopia,

353
Angola or anywhere else that takes the Cubans' fancy? Is the noble Baroness not aware that, quite apart from the recent increase in repression in Vietnam, over the past three years, an estimated quarter of a million people have been liquidated, a further 50,000 have committed suicide as a result of their treatment and many tens of thousands have been killed in various ways while trying to escape? Would she not agree that the British taxpayer would far rather that his or her money were spent in trying to assist some of the helpless refugees drifting about the South China Sea in fishing boats than in subsidising a ruthless, totalitarian régime?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think the House will feel great sympathy with the sentiments behind what the noble Lord is saying to us, though I think perhaps his language was a little over-emotional, if he will forgive my saying so. Nevertheless, I cannot speak for all the British taxpayers. One matter about which I am absolutely certain is that they would prefer their money to be used to reduce unemployment. That is what this particular offer of aid would be going towards.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept the following propositions: First, that the country of Vietnam occupies a crucial strategic position on the edges of the Free World, where it is vital for us to preserve stability; that there is no sign of that stability being preserved by Vietnam; and that the money would be better used to help the economy of Thailand, which is a free country and an ally? The second proposition is this. It amounts very nearly to misrepresentation to refer to as aid the expenditure of money to supply subsidised tonnage to a shipping market that is already oversupplied.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as the noble Lord probably knows, this is under the aid-trade contingency provision, and is not simply aid. It is, of course, an offer only at the present moment. I do not think that it ever helps the stability of the world, in however crucial a place, to leave unendurable poverty unaided. This is one of the main points of the British
354
Government's programme for aid to developing countries.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British Council of Shipping has reported—and there can be no challenge as regards what it has reported—that there is a sharp decline in the number of orders for merchant ships in this country? Why should we provide favourable terms to Vietnam the result of which will be to furnish even more intense competition against British merchant shipping? Is my noble friend also aware, as regards the incidents related by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that a reputable newspaper, the Guardian, reports that in Vietnam children are being used as spies against their parents?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the Government are absolutely aware of the present difficulties of merchant shipping and of the views of the British Council of Shipping. However, we have played a very active part in international discussions in the OECD and other places aimed at avoiding subsidy races and the worsening of over-capacity. The British shipbuilding output has been extremely stable over the years and it is those people who have brought about over-capacity who should bear the brunt of the adjustments.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, are the Government prepared, during the course of discussions on aid to Vietnam either in the form of merchant ships or any other proposals that may be made, to raise the persecution of the Buddhist Sangha and in particular the continued imprisonment of the six Bhikkhus from the An-Kwang Pagoda in Saigon, who have been detained since April 1977, who have not been charged and not been seen by the international observer? Will the noble Baroness ask the Government whether they would permit a foreign observer to visit those Bhikkhus and ascertain their present state of health?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I should find it difficult to give a commitment on the last part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. However, of course we are aware of these situations. I say

355
absolutely freely to the House, as I have said before, that it is extremely difficult to be consistent about the whole question of human rights and aid. The point is that where the poorest people in the poorest countries need to be helped, often the standards of human rights in those countries are very different from our own.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that the British taxpayers are the most exploited body of taxpayers in the world? Must we now be browbeaten into aiding our enemies? As regards unemployment, the noble Baroness is advocating the way to cause unemployment—namely, to pay our customers to buy our goods, which is economic madness.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, if that was a Question I shall answer it. We are, of course, aiding employment in the shipbuilding industries which are in the most deprived areas, employment-wise, of the whole country. The Government understand the difficulties of merchant shipping in general. However, all these matters must be taken into account and not equated but considered together.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, does my noble friend not take the view that both the Question and the number of supplementaries that have been asked have given a very unbalanced picture of what is happening in Vietnam? My Lords, although there have been happenings which all of us would denounce, the Vietnam Government have done great, constructive work in regard to education and the economy. Is not illiteracy virtually abolished in what was Saigon, and has not the production in the devastated delta reached a record during the past two years?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I do not have the detailed knowledge that my noble friend has as regards literacy and the other matters he mentioned. However, I think we must preserve a sense of proportion and a sense of justice in these matters. We must also consider commercial
356
interests, aid interests and human rights interests all together. Often they have contradictory particular effects, but there is no simple answer and it is no use anybody pretending that there is.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, does the noble Baroness in the pursuit of this equitable solution first of all have any reason to believe that the poor people, for whom she speaks and who survived this régime, are likely to receive any economic benefit from this offer? Is it not clear to her from what has been said in this House, or will it not be when she reads the record, that the offer which has been made is against both the humanitarian and the economic interests of this country and possibly also against the strategic interests and ought to be reconsidered?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: No, my Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. There is nothing strategic about the offer of cargo vessels which are only of 16,000 tons. They are small standard cargo vessels. There is nothing strategic about offering them. I think that one ought to rid one's mind of that sort of suspicion in advance.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think that we have had a good run on this Question and two Front Bench Questions have been asked as well.

INCOME TAX REDUCTIONS
3.18 p.m.
Viscount DAVIDSON: My Lords, may I declare that I have no personal interest in the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, which I now beg leave to ask.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what would be the estimated cost to the Exchequer in the current financial year if the rates of tax on the bands of taxable income over £10,000 per annum were reduced by 10 per cent. and by 15 per cent. respectively.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the full year cost at 1978–1979 income levels of reducing the rates of tax concerned, after taking into account the proposals in the Budget Statement, would be about £255 million for a reduction of 10 percentage points and £385 million for a reduction of 15 percentage points.
Viscount DAVIDSON: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that very precise estimate. Does she, however, not agree that the figures represent only about 1½ to 2 per cent. of the estimated yield from income tax in the current year, or, to put it another way, about two to two and a half days'-worth of Government expenditure? Will the noble Baroness not also agree that the citizens of this country suffer more from penal rates of personal taxation than almost any other citizens elsewhere in the world? Further, will she not agree that the very small, or comparatively small, loss to the Exchequer if these rates were to be reduced would be more than recouped by an upsurge in enthusiasm, enterprise and initiative which would be of great benefit to the economic good of this country?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Viscount has asked quite a few supplementary questions. I think he was implying that these reductions come to a trivial amount as a proportion of the cost of the Budget. However, I do not think that one can consider them as trivial in a full year cost of £2½ billion. For example, £385 million would pay for a cut of one penny in the basic rate of tax, which would, in fact, benefit a much larger number of taxpayers.
The noble Viscount referred to a comparison between tax rates in this country and in other countries. It is extremely misleading to make simple comparisons between top rates of tax—as he has done —without considering, first, the differing tax reliefs and allowances which are available here compared with those available overseas and also the heavy additional burdens—local taxes, or social security contributions—which may be faced by overseas taxpayers.
On his last point about how penal our tax system is, we must remember that, in the most recent Budget, the Chancellor
358
has tried to obtain the correct balance by helping those in the lower tax hands, by reducing the rate of tax from 34 per cent. to 25 per cent and by proposing substantial increases in the thresholds to the higher rates and the Investment Income Surcharge. Further, I would point out that a married couple earning £25,000 gain just over £750 from the Budget proposal and a man with a £10,000 taxable income—the person to whom the noble Viscount referred—in fact gains £277. Therefore it is very easy to exaggerate this.
In addition, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it quite clear that, as soon as it is possible, he intends to produce relief at both ends of the tax scale. However, this must depend on the economic situation and on our productivity generally. Finally, I do not accept that taxation itself is the only ingredient that is concerned with people's rewards and incomes.
Viscount DAVIDSON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for one of the most comprehensive replies to a supplementary question that I have ever heard in this House. I do not think that it would be acceptable to this House if I asked many more supplementary questions. However, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she is satisfied at the continuing brain drain of senior management and skilled technicians from this country, which has accelerated over the past two or three years, due to the fact that improvements in tax allowances by the Exchequer always take place about two or three years after they should take place and have not kept up with the rate of inflation.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not accept the last supposition of the noble Viscount. As to his first supposition about people leaving the country, I would point out that a great many also return. They do not regard tax relief as the only thing that counts. Therefore, it works both ways.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that those who can earn these high sums are extremely valuable to the country: in fact, more valuable than their per capita worth?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, yes, they are valuable, but everyone is valuable to the country.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, when noble Lords opposite say that people emigrate and there is a great brain drain, it is combining incentives with a touch of blackmail? Should we not say to them, "Goodbye and Godspeed", and not "Au revoir" or "Auf Wiedersehen"?
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, as regards this question of international comparison to which the noble Baroness referred, will she consult British companies who have to send their staff to serve in overseas subsidiaries for periods to see what those managers who have to serve in both countries have to say about the relative conditions?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. But the Chancellor has accepted that the top rates of tax on both earned and investment income are high. He has also been quite frank about hoping to reduce them when it is possible to do so. I can only repeat that we have to get the right balance. Also—and I apologise for repeating this—other factors are involved in living abroad compared with living in this country. These also affect people.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that wages in Europe are twice as high as they are here? A television broadcast last night showed that some highly qualified British workers go to Germany to do the most menial jobs because their earnings are so much lower here. Will not my noble friend agree that it is a wholly unwarranted assumption that material incentives are so much more important in the top stratum of society, where jobs are very interesting and where people work for the sake of social acknowledgment and social success, than in the case of those whose work is plain drudgery?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend; he has put it very well.

THE TACHOGRAPH AND UNITED KINGDOM TRANSPORT VEHICLES
3.27 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will comply with any judgment of the European Court in respect of their present refusal to insist on the installation of a tachograph in British transport vehicles.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have not yet received formal notification that the Commission has decided to lodge an application on this matter with the European Court. It would therefore be premature to speculate on the outcome of such an application.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I suppose that I should thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is it not a fact that under the Act of Accession we agreed to operate by a given date this very sensible resolution of, I think, the Council, which is designed to avoid abuses and preserve our roads and which, incidentally, is very popular in other Community countries and particularly appreciated by the unions?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, yes. It is the Government's wish to meet our Treaty obligations. However, as we have outlined in our response to the "Reasoned Opinion" by the Commission, there are fundamental difficulties here in the United Kingdom. A copy of the response is in the Library of the House.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the only people who gain from the present policy being pursued in this country are some disreputable cowboy drivers and some exploiting employers? That is why historically the trade union concerned always supported, until recently, this installation. Will the noble Baroness represent to her colleague, the Minister, that there is no reason why we should await the judgment of the European Court, and that there is no reason at all

361
why the Government should be paralysed by the temporary weak leadership of that union?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have problems, not all of which are on the union side. The tachograph is strongly opposed by the trade unions who regard it as a threat to their freedom and have, indeed, dubbed it as the "spy in their cab". The employers do not object to the tachographs in principle, but there is some opposition from them about its compulsory use, which is what the current argument with the Commission is all about.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness will be aware that the Government knew about this requirement many years ago. Therefore, why are the Government not doing something to educate public opinion about the advantages of the tachograph, especially as it affects road safety?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, yes, we knew about it, and on accession to the European Community we accepted the obligation to implement the regulation which provides for the compulsory installation and use of the tachograph in certain goods vehicles. It should have been installed and it should have been used in vehicles carrying dangerous goods, and in all the newly registered large vehicles, from 1st January 1976; but, as I said, there is this opposition from the trade unions, there is not complete support from the employers, and we have arrived at a deadlock. The lorries which go into Europe are fitted with a tachograph, and there are no problems with the unions about using it there. It is a question as to whether we can have the tachograph, or whether they will use the tachograph, in this country.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Baroness did not answer my question.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I hope that the Government stand firm on this issue against the European Court? Once you put the "spy" in the cab you have a confrontation with the Transport and
362
General Workers' Union. No matter what is said by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who is persona non grata with that union now, and whatever the Opposition says, there will be trouble if the Government do not stand firm on the issue.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are continuing, we hope, to do some education within the unions and with the employers. There is some voluntary use of the tachograph even now on lorries in this country, and we have no objections to —and indeed welcome —the voluntary use. But it is a matter for the unions and for the employers to discuss and to come to agreement about it as they wish. When we know what the decisions of the Court are then we shall have to take a decision on what action we shall take.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is not the position that in a conflict between the Court and the unions the unions win?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, you are not to suppose that at all. But if there is a decision from the Court for the tachograph, then it will depend upon the terms that are attached to that whether we can implement it straight away or whether it means implementing it later, and it is a matter for discussion and negotiation all the time.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that the compulsory use of tachographs in a domestic situation will seriously affect the earnings of drivers, and that there can be no agreement between TUC and employers on that score that is unlikely to breach the Government's Code in this matter? So is it not therefore the leadership of the Government that is required, not agreement between employer and union?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have given the leadership in Government in that we have encouraged and ensured, so far as we can, that all the lorries which proceed over to Europe are equipped with a tachograph and carry out the laws of the land concerned. Our problem is here at home. This is where we have to continue our education, if you like, or our consultation or our negotiation. But at this point of time it is a matter between the employers and the trade unions.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the tachograph was first introduced in this country by Russian Oil Products, the State-owned oil firm? Is she aware that there were objections from British drivers then, and that the popular Press then said that Britons never shall be slaves? This is not a question of the British Government; it is a question of what trade union drivers will stand for in an individual way. The Conservative Party have always argued that it is a God given right to go on strike, and the way a cab driver goes on strike is by refusing to drive his cab.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my knowledge of the history of the tachograph does not go back as far as my noble friend's, but it is certain that there is opposition at present from some of the drivers within the United Kingdom. That we have to break down, and we have to try and get the employers and the unions together to honour their obligations under the Treaty if and when it becomes possible to do so.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL
3.34 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the European Assembly Elections Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord BANKS: My Lords, we on these Benches feel that we cannot allow this Bill to pass from this House without emphasising once again how much we deplore the failure of Parliament to provide for these elections to the European Parliament to take place on the basis of proportional representation. We believe
364
that a great injustice is being done to millions of voters in this country. They are not by any means all of one Party, although naturally members of my own Party throughout the country are bitter and angry at the decision. Liberal voters do not throw bombs and they do not shoot people, but that is no reason why they should be deprived of their proper representation.
Nevertheless, although our hands are tied behind our backs by the electoral system, the Liberal Party will take part in these elections. We hope that the directly elected European Parliament will gain in influence and authority. We wish it well, and we look forward to the day when its Members from this country will be elected in a fairer and more representative way.
On Question, Bill read 3ª.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so I should like to express my gratitude to Members in all parts of the House for the help they have given us in ensuring that this Bill should make speedy progress through this House. I recognise, in so doing, the strongly held views of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and his colleagues, and indeed a number of those who voted in the Committee stage in favour of a form of proportional representation so far as these elections are concerned.
Nevertheless, it was the view of the House that regarding these first elections it was right to proceed on the basis that appeared on the face of the Bill. In addition I make the further point, as I did during Committee stage, that we recognise that this is an interim solution and that we shall have to return to this matter when the next series of elections to the European Assembly take place.
Having said that, I think it only right to bring the House up to date with the situation so far as Parliamentary approval throughout the European Community is concerned. As the House may be aware, similar legislation has now been passed in Denmark, in France, in Germany, and in the Republic of Ireland, and I understand that Bills have now been introduced in the Belgian and Luxembourg Parliaments, and that this stage should shortly be reached in Italy and the Netherlands.

365
Once the Bill has received Royal Assent the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales, will be able to make progress on the determination of the single-Member European Assembly constituencies in each country. They have naturally been giving some advanced thought to this, and should be able to publish their provisional recommendations quite soon. I understand that at least the English Commission is likely to do this by means of announcements in the national Press to enable all concerned to see how the 66 proposed constituencies relate to each other in the context of England as a whole. There will then be a period for representations to be made to the Commissions which they will consider before submitting reports with their final recommendations to the Secretary of State.
These reports will then be laid before both Houses of Parliament with a draft Order in Council giving effect to the Commission's recommendations with or without modifications. The draft Order in Council will, of course, be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure in both Houses. While the Boundary Commissions are at work the Government will be preparing the draft regulations to be made under the Bill for the conduct of these elections. There will probably be two sets of regulations. One set will relate to the conduct of elections under the simple majority system in Great Britain, and the other set will relate to the conduct of elections by STV in Northern Ireland. We propose to consult the political Parties and the local authority associations in the preparation of these regulations, and to publish them in draft, perhaps as a White Paper, for public comment. The regulations, revised if necessary in the light of comments made on them, will then be laid before both Houses and will also be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
We hope the new constituencies and the detailed regulations for the conduct of elections can have been approved by Parliament by the end of November. That would give the political Parties a reasonable period of time for the selection of candidates and the candidates a reasonable period of time in which to get to know their constituencies. When the Bill has received the Royal Assent and the Council decision of September 1976 has
366
been designated as a Community Treaty under the normal Order in Council procedure, it will be open to us to ratify the Council decision. When all Member States have similarly ratified, the decision can come into effect. We are now at the final stages of a Bill of great significance. It will greatly extend the opportunity for the peoples of Europe to exercise democratic control over the institutions of the Community. I believe this is a day of high importance to this country and to the whole future of Europe.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
3.42 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches will join me in associating with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in recording our great satisfaction that the Bill is now to be sent on its way. It will have been a long road before the Bill receives its Royal Assent. But the result of it all—that this country is now in a position to say that we have not put ourselves into such a state that we are in effect reneging on our obligations and commitments to our European partners, and that at a time when perhaps our European partners do not regard the United Kingdom as the most co-operative of the Members of the Community—is something from which we can derive great satisfaction.
I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and his Party, although I do not share his concern at the form in which the Bill is leaving this House. Perhaps it will be of some consolation to him to know that, before the next direct elections to the European Parliament take place, there will have to be an agreed method of election, and it is probable, if not inevitable, that there will be a proportional element in that second election. I have no doubt that the noble Lord and his Party will be able to bring their influence to bear to get what they consider to be a more just and equitable solution.
It would not be right not to record our satisfaction that the Labour Party have apparently announced that they too are to contest the elections. It will mean, I hope, that a well-balanced team will go out from Britain next year, not that the team that my noble friends and I joined

367
in 1973 was not well-balanced, though perhaps it was a little less democratic.
On Question, Bill passed.

SCOTLAND BILL
3.44 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 50 [Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General]:
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 26, line 4, leave out from ("Majesty") to end of line 6 and insert ("on resolutions to that effect passed by both Houses of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I suggest it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 162, 163, 164, 165 and 166. We now move, I think with not too many backward glances at some of the complications of the financial provisions of the Bill, into a matter of administration. The Amendment questions the apparently rather anomalous arrangement whereby Her Majesty appoints the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General and yet a completely different procedure exists for sacking him. When we say that Her Majesty appoints the Auditor General, presumably that is on the advice of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
It is curious that as the Bill is drafted the Assembly, in a rather indirect way, appears to have the right to sack the person who is appointed as a watchdog over it. Perhaps this is the right moment to call attention to the rather curious language that is used and the indefinite implication:
"… may be removed … if the … Secretary of State be requested to recommend …".
That, I take it, implies that the Secretary of State need not necessarily accede to the
368
request. If so, what criteria will he use in deciding whether or not to accede to the request? The danger, it seems, is that if we allow the Assembly to have a right to remove the Auditor General, they could if they were in what one might call a bloody-minded mood go on removing successive Auditors General until they found some suitable cringeing toady who could be made to be totally ineffective. Bearing in mind the Amendments which are being discussed with this one, it would seem that the Assembly could effectively refuse to remunerate the Auditor General, which I presume comes to very much the same thing as sacking him, as it is unlikely that he would be willing to serve for nothing.
What we are asking here is whether we wish to give the Assembly an invitation to attack and an excuse for obstruction if they feel in an obstructive mood, and if the Queen makes the appointment would it not be more appropriate for Her Majesty to continue to enjoy the right to remove the Auditor General in the same way? I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will not criticise the drafting of the Amendment. If he agrees with the underlying thought, we would not necessarily wish to stick to the drafting; it is designed merely to give us an excuse to discuss the underlying principle.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): I accept that it is convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 162, 163, 164, 165 and 166 because they all appear to raise the same issue, and I will come later to the precise questions I have been asked. Before doing that, I must say in general that when I hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, speaking from the Front Bench of the official Opposition and talking about the Members of the Assembly sacking one Comptroller after another in order ultimately to get some cringeing toady who will be totally ineffective, I wonder whether the noble Lord really comes from the same part of the world as I do.
What kind of headhunters does he imagine inhabit the woods north of Potters Bar? I cannot say too often, though obviously I cannot say it often enough for the noble Lord, that Scotland is a civilised country with a long tradition of democracy and responsibility. When

369
it comes to auditing—and I see the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, sitting opposite me, smiling or grimacing; I cannot be sure which—I am well aware of the fact that Scotland has a great tradition in relation to auditing and accounting. I find the whole scenario here very astonishing, and it is very difficult to follow the noble Lord in his imaginings before the Committee this afternoon.
To turn to more serious matters, I should say that the Amendments confuse the responsibility for the control of devolved spending by seeking to convert the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General into an officer of Parliament, because the effect of the Amendments taken together is that he can be removed from office only upon Resolutions of both Houses of this Parliament; in other words, not by the Assembly.
The Scottish Comptroller's independence of the Scottish Administration of the day is symbolised by the fact (as we see in Clause 50(2)) that he is appointed by Her Majesty, and that his remuneration is charged directly on the Scottish Consolidated Fund, just as the salary of the United Kingdom Comptroller is charged directly on the Consolidated Fund here. But the Scottish Comptroller stands in a close relationship with the Scottish Assembly. In our view, it is important that he should be seen to be the Scottish Assembly's man, and not Parliament's man. His remit—let us be quite clear about this—extends only to devolved spending. He has no responsibilities whatsoever in relation to what I might call United Kingdom spending. He reports on devolved spending to the Assembly, and he will have to work with the Assembly Accounts Committee, which is provided for in Clause 54, which we shall reach shortly. Of course, it is essential for him to hold the confidence of, first, that Committee, and secondly, of the Assembly as a whole.
Any provisions such as those contained in these Amendments, which enable Parliament—to which the Scottish Comptroller is not responsible for the exercise of his functions—to block his removal from office against the wishes of a majority in the Assembly would, if applied in practice, inevitably destroy the Comptroller's authority and weaken the opera-
370
tion of the audit and accounting arrangements provided for in Clauses 50 to 55.
Let me make this quite clear: there would be no point in including an Amendment of this kind, and substituting this kind of procedure, dependent upon Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, unless it was intended that, from time to time, the will of the Assembly should be resisted. One may think it an astonishing proposition that the two Houses of Parliament, who really know nothing about the accounting arrangements in relation to devolved moneys, should have the sole responsibility for deciding whether or not he shall be removed from office.
Accordingly, arrangements of the kind contemplated by these Amendments, treating the Comptroller as, in effect, an officer of the House of Commons, would similarly be bound to damage the relationship of confidence between the Comptroller and the Assembly and that basis of confidence is surely a necessary basis for the effective operation of the system provided in these clauses of the Bill.
I ought to mention what the system is. The audit and accounting arrangements in the Bill depend on giving responsibility to the Assembly to exercise, through its Accounts Committee, a close scrutiny of the financial dealings of the Scottish Administration, and the interest of Parliament and the United Kingdom taxpayer, as the provider of the block fund, lies in the development of a strong Back-bench watchdog in the Assembly, and in encouraging the Assembly to carry out its scrutiny functions in a mature, responsible, and self-confident way.
By contrast, all these Amendments would derogate from the Assembly's responsibility by making the Scottish Comptroller a Parliament man. It is to the Assembly that the Scottish Administration is, in practice, responsible for its continuing existence, and only the Assembly, therefore, can ensure that it is held to account for its actions. In our view, it makes sense to make the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General answerable to the Assembly in respect of the accounting and audit arrangements.
To answer the first question that I was asked, I should say that the Auditor is appointed by the Queen upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State.

371
That would doubtless be after consultation with the Administration. When it comes to removal, the arrangements contained in the Bill are modelled exactly on those for the appointment and dismissal of the Comptroller and Auditor General for the United Kingdom. But as the Assembly does not have direct access to the Queen, a Petition for removal must be channelled through the Secretary of State. That is the usual type of provision for access to Her Majesty by, or on behalf of, the Scottish Assembly or Executive.
Whether or not the Secretary of State accedes—in other words, whether the word "may" gives him a measure of discretion—is, I believe, largely a hypothetical issue. He would certainly be reluctant to refuse to pass a Petition of this kind if it was clear that the Comptroller and Auditor General had lost the confidence of the Assembly. Indeed, if the Comptroller and Auditor General in Scotland had lost the confidence of the Assembly so much that it had resolved he should be removed from office, surely it would be almost a formality that he would be removed. I think that that answers the questions that I have been asked, and that it describes the general position. So, unless one is to take a very different view of the nature of the entire arrangements, the Amendment should not be accepted.
Lord LYELL: The noble and learned Lord has drawn second blood. First, he mentioned that cringeing toadies may have been suggested as candidates for the role of Comptroller and Auditor General over the Assembly. Then he wondered what kind of persons inhabited the great city of Edinburgh, or might fill this role of Auditor. He said that the Scottish people were indeed civilised, and he then said that we were not head-hunters—the noble and learned Lord looked in my direction. I regretfully must wonder whether the noble and learned Lord had not followed in my footsteps, when I used to study under the noble Lord, Lord Blake (who is not here). When I had finished giving my essay, the noble Lord used to say, "Yes, you've done a great deal of work, but you don't really seem to have answered the question." The question which has been in my mind, and which I believe is
372
behind Amendment No. 161, is: To whom is this Auditor General responsible? The noble and learned Lord may not be under a misapprehension here, but the Committee and other laymen, and non-accountants and non-auditors, may be. From what the noble and learned Lord has said, it seems to me that the Auditor General will be nothing more than a glorified accountant, since he will merely look at the accounts which are drawn up by the First Secretary. He will not do what I submit an auditor should do; namely, to vet and to check the accounts.
The noble and learned Lord seemed to think that it would be inconceivable and unreasonable that an Auditor General should come into conflict with the Assembly. There is an analogy here in the normal commercial and company law, in which it is quite often regarded as healthy that an auditor should come into conflict with those who are responsible for drawing up the accounts. We must remember that the auditor of a limited company, and, I think, the auditors of public bodies, are responsible not necessarily to those who draw up the accounts. To whom does the noble and learned Lord believe the Auditor General is responsible? Is the Auditor General responsible merely to the Assembly, or is he responsible to the Accounts Committee of the Assembly? Alternatively, is he responsible to the Secretary of State? This is the confusion in my mind, and, I suggest, in the minds of several Members of the Committee: and certainly the point seems to be in the mind of my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.
I was deeply worried that, while the clause includes all kinds of paragraphs which give various indications of how the task of the Auditor General may be facilitated, there does not appear to be a short, sharp definition of the duties of the Auditor General. I might have been able to grasp this from analogy of what the Comptroller and Auditor General might do in Parliament, but I would not necessarily believe that the duties of the Auditor General in Parliament should be analogous to those relating to the proposed Assembly. It is for that reason that I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord follows my reasoning and that which lies behind the Amendment, as well as what is in the mind of my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I think that my noble neighbour knows a great deal about accounting, but I believe that he is slightly missing the point about responsibility. I have always understood that the people's representatives were elected to look after the people's interests, including those of their purse. If an Assembly is elected, it must be responsible ultimately for the proper spending of the money. Obviously, it has to appoint an auditor who will set the matter out in the proper form and giving the proper criticism but the ultimate responsibility must lie with the elected representatives of the people.
Lord LYELL: It seems that my noble neighbour Lord Mackie has once again misinterpreted the rôle of an auditor. He said—and I think I quote him accurately"The Auditor shall set out the accounts". As I understand it, and I think my noble neighbour will find that when he checks his accounts, an auditor may in theory and, in many rôles in present-day life, may indeed in practice set out accounts, but that is not his duty as an auditor. The duty of the Auditor is to check the veracity of the accounts and to see that the accounts are properly drawn up. Not only must he ensure that they are correctly drawn up, but he must check that the figures shown in the accounts are indeed correct and that nothing has been missed out nor any figures given that are in any way unrepresentative so far as that is possible.
It is not that the Auditor will just draw up accounts in a cosy relationship with the Assembly. The Auditor will be there as a watchdog. That is the role which I, and I think many others, would like to see. I take the point which the noble and learned Lord has made that the Assembly will in general be responsible, but I would submit that it is a misnomer to have an auditor if he is just going to set out some accounts which will then be checked over or looked at by the Accounts Committee. The Auditor is the watchdog and it is he who will have the teeth.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has read Clause 53. If he has not I would invite him to do so. Clause 53 provides that,
"For each financial year … accounts shall be prepared by Scottish Secretaries".
It is clear therefore that the preparation of accounts is done by them. Let me
374
read the words in Clause 53(2), which I am sure are clear enough:
"The accounts prepared under subsection (1) above shall be sent to the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General not later than the end of November following the end of the financial year to which they relate; and he shall examine, certify and report on the accounts and lay copies of them, together with his report, before the Assembly".
If that does not answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on the next page of the Bill, then I do not know what will. I cannot improve on that wording, which everyone must understand.
The noble Lord asks me about removal from office and the question of responsibility. The Auditor is responsible in a unique way—perhaps I should not say unique—the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the United Kingdom is unique, and the position of the Scottish Comptroller in Scotland is the exact analogue of that. He is appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. Politically, one could not envisage that the Secretary of State would not make such a recommendation without consultation with the Assembly. That is his appointment.
When it comes to removal, that is provided for under Clause 50(3). There are two ways in which he may be removed from office: first, this can be done at his own request. He asks to be removed from office and is relieved of office by Her Majesty. Secondly, he may be removed from office by the Secretary of State following upon a resolution of the Assembly. Again, I do not need to do anything other than point to the terms of the Bill itself. If that does not answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, perhaps he will tell me and I shall come back to it.
Lord LYELL: Probably I have ridden my personal hobby-horse far enough today—I hear noises of assent behind me. The noble and learned Lord has answered half the question with his reference to Clause 53(2). It outlines some of the duties of the Auditor, but he might also have other duties. I should like to leave the matter there.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord may like to leave the matter there, but I do not. I should like to know what part of his question I have left unanswered?
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I have in mind Clause 50(5) and I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can tell the Committee what impact, if any, the Government anticipate these arrangements having on the Department of the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am not at all sure what the noble and learned Lord wants me to say. I presume that in the Department of the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General there are some Scots who suffer from a longing for their native heath, and that, given the opportunity and the salaries to attract them back to their native heath, they will take it. In that sense, there might be an impact. I cannot think of any other kind of impact.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I did have in mind the possibility that it would have some impact on the career structure of people at present in the Department. I should have thought that the Government would have had regard to this in the preparatory work which they have no doubt carried out for this measure.
Lord McCLUSKEY: We are coming shortly to an Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede upon which we shall discuss the general position of the Civil Service, but I think the question raised by the noble and learned Lord is answered by looking at Clause 62 of the Bill, which states that:
"Service as an officer or servant of … the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General shall be service in the home civil service of the state",
and, as we know, there are many civil servants who in pursuance of their own advancement in their careers quite properly move from one department to another. This is just another department to which some people may move.
Earl FERRERS: I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord would clarify one point. I understand that if the Assembly wishes the Comptroller and Auditor General to be removed it can request the Secretary of State to request Her Majesty to remove him. What happens if the Assembly makes this request? The word used is "resolve" which is a fairly stout word. They
376
"resolve" that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall be removed. Is the Secretary of State obliged to act on that resolution or does he have discretion? Suppose the Secretary of State does not wish to operate on that, is he obliged to?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether the noble Earl will look at the wording of the Bill. It reads:
"The Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General … may be removed from office by Her Majesty".
It would be quite improper to put in a statute such words as, "The Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General shall be removed from office by Her Majesty on a resolution of the Assembly." That is the reason for that wording. The Auditor is answerable to the Assembly, subject to the uniqueness of his position as I have described it, and it would be unthinkable for him not to be removed upon a resolution of the Assembly. The reason for the word "may" is evident from the fact that he holds the appointment uniquely from Her Majesty.
Earl FERRERS: I thought that the word "may" was the appropriate word to use in allowing Her Majesty discretion. I did not know that it was to allow the Secretary of State discretion. I gather from what the noble and learned Lord said that that is so and that, after a resolution is passed, the Secretary of State will have discretion as to whether or not to advise Her Majesty to act upon the resolution.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I explained that the intervention of the Secretary of State fits in with the general scheme of the Bill, which is that there is no direct access to Her Majesty by the Assembly or the Scottish Executive; so whenever there is need for access that access is always routed through the Secretary of State. If you look at the construction of Clause 50(3)(b) you will see that the word "may" relates to Her Majesty, and that is very proper. As far as the Secretary of State is concerned the construction of that conditional clause is that,
"if the Assembly resolves that the Secretary of State be requested to recommend the removal to Her Majesty",
Her Majesty may remove.
Earl FERRERS: I do not wish to prolong this discussion unduly; I am afraid I must explain myself very badly. The question which I put to the noble and learned Lord is this: The Assembly passes a resolution saying that it has no confidence and it, the Assembly, would like the Comptroller and Auditor General to be removed. Does that resolution compel, as it were, the Secretary of State to request Her Majesty, or does the Secretary of State have discretion whether or not to act upon that resolution?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think I am right in saying—and if I am wrong I shall seek an opportunity to correct myself before we leave these clauses—that on a proper construction of this clause the Secretary of State simply has to convey the request to Her Majesty.
Lord HUGHES: If it should prove, on examination, that it is not absolutely clear that the Secretary of State is merely a channel in this matter, and that he will do what the Assembly asks, it would be possible to re-word the clause, without impinging on the "may" for Her Majesty, by inserting a "must" for the Secretary of State. I would not wish this to be done unless it was absolutely necessary, because I am quite certain that what my noble and learned friend has said is what is going to take place. If the Assembly were to resolve to have the Comptroller and Auditor General removed, it would be most unlikely that any Secretary of State would wish to take upon himself the difficult task of refusing to do so. But one could not say it was totally impossible that that situation would arise; and if it is the intention that the Secretary of State should not have such a discretion and it is possible to put it in the Bill—this is on the assumption that the Bill gives him a discretion at the moment, which is really not desired—then I would suggest to my noble and learned friend that he should look at it from that point of view.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am indebted to my noble friend for that suggestion; but I understand that these clauses are all modelled upon the position of the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General, and I shall be surprised if I do not find that the wording here is justified on that basis. If I do not, I shall return and tell your Lordships.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Can the Minister tell the Committee when the last Auditor General was removed by this method in the United Kingdom?
Lord McCLUSKEY: It may even have been before the start of the debate this afternoon, which is quite a long time ago.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I had no intention of trespassing upon his patience, as we have in fact done in this matter. I did not realise we were going to stir up the auditors, who appear to be almost as formidable and perhaps as long-winded as the lawyers when they get going. But I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for clarifying the concept and the function of the Auditor General, about which I think some of us may have been in some doubt. It seems—and it sounds rather rude to say it—that what we have ended up by saying is that the Secretary of State is a mere messenger boy here. I was very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, because this was something which we wanted to bring out when I originally moved this Amendment. If that is the intention, I am all for saying so; and I am not necessarily tremendously impressed by any precedent which the noble and learned Lord might be able to rake up, because we have not had an Assembly before.
I am not totally convinced of the logic of the noble and learned Lord's argument, however, because he said that the matter of removal was almost a formality; and one ends up by feeling that if it is logic that the Queen shall appoint the Auditor General, then it would equally be logical for the Queen to remove him. To put it another way, if the Assembly is to have the right to remove the Auditor General, why, then, does the Assembly not have the right to appoint him? The original reason why we raised this point at all is that it did not seem logical to have a different way of doing the two parts of the same exercise. But I really do not think we want to make a great deal of this, and unless the noble and learned Lord wishes to say anything further I am quite happy to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord TANLAW Lord TANLAW moved Amendments Nos. 364 and 365:
Page 26, line 10, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
Page 26,line 11, after ("officers") insert (",certified accountants")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I think it would be helpful if my Amendments Nos. 364 and 365 were considered at the same time. These are two probing Amendments, in an attempt to try to open up a short discussion on the constitution and operation of the Scottish Auditor General's office. They are prompted, really, by what was reported in column 1689 of the Commons Hansard, where complaints were made in another place that this matter did not get a proper airing; and I think this may be a suitable opportunity, very briefly, to remedy that.
If I may take up a point made by the noble and learned Lord, he said that most of the institutions in the Scottish Bill are really extensions of existing institutions or systems of government in the United Kingdom; and as he rightly said, the Auditor General's office is one of them. It is my contention that when we have problems with this Bill it is not necessarily the case that the Bill is wrong, but possibly that the institution may be wrong, or not entirely right, in the first place. It is my view that the Auditor General's office and system of accounting—and I am on record in your Lordships' House for complaining about this in another context —is not entirely perfect. In these Amendments it is my concern to get some reassurances from Her Majesty's Government that the Scottish Auditor General's office will be, if anything, somewhat stronger and more informative than I believe it to be in relation to the accounts of the United Kingdom.
The reason why I have taken out the word "may" and inserted the word "shall", and have asked that the Auditor General's office should include certified accountants—and, for the want of a better description, this phrase would cover qualified accountants, chartered accountants or accountancy experts—is because, as some noble Lords will recall, during the inquiry into the Crown Agents' affairs there were certain criticisms of the Auditor
380
General's Department for an apparent lack of qualified personnel. Therefore, when I saw that in the Bill there was no particular mention of certified accountants or qualified accountants, I set down these two Amendments in order to ask the Government whether they could give me an assurance that there were going to be plenty of accountancy skills in the Auditor General's office. Another point which occurred to me, again from the Fay Committee's Report, was that it would appear that the Auditor General's office—and I stand to be corrected here—was unable to carry out its own internal audit in order to investigate the Crown Agents' affairs. I do not think that is a satisfactory situation if it is true, and what I should like to ask the Government is whether the Scottish Auditor General's Department or office will be capable and competent to carry out an internal audit of its own affairs. This second Amendment is really to ask whether it is capable of doing so.
I should also be interested to know—and I believe it to be relevant—how many certified accountants are at present employed by the United Kingdom Auditor General's Department, which has control over, I think, about £70 billion of taxpayers' money, and how many certified accountants will be employed by the Scottish Auditor General's Office. Simply by having these questions answered I hope to be reassured that Her Majesty's Government have got things better—I say "better" advisedly—than what I believe to be the existing set-up in the Auditor General's office for dealing with the accounts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, without saying any more, I beg to move these two Amendments.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the clear way in which he has expounded the meaning behind his two Amendments. It is customary in legislation to empower holders of statutory offices to appoint supporting staff rather that to oblige them to do so. Other examples arise in the Scotland Bill. In Clause 20(9) a Scottish Secretary "may" appoint such officers and servants as he thinks tit. In Clause 29(2) the Clerk of the Assembly "may" appoint officers and servants of the Assembly. There is no distinction of purpose between these provisions and Clause 50(5) and the

381
Government consider the customary enabling formula to be the appropriate one in the case of the Scottish Comptroller. The wording used in Clause 50(5) is, in fact, the same as that used in Section 8(1) of the Exchequer and Audit Department Act 1921 in relation to the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General.
The noble Lord asked whether I could give any information about the number of qualified people employed in the United Kingdom Department. That I cannot do off the cuff, but if the information is readily available I will write to the noble Lord before we get to the next stage of the Bill. We do not see that there is any need to insist that the Scottish Comptroller must appoint staff. The duties imposed on the holder of this office by the Bill are such that they could not be fulfilled single-handed. It is necessary to provide that the numbers should be approved by the Scottish Administration because the costs of the Scottish Comptroller's department will fall on the block fund. But it would be fanciful to suggest that the Scottish Administration would starve him of staff. If they tried to do so, they could find difficulty in obtaining the credits they require from him in order to obtain payments from the Scottish Consolidated and Loans Funds. Any undue restrictions placed on audit staff would certainly be drawn attention to by the Assembly's Accounts Committee in its reports to the Assembly, as provided for in Clause 54, which must be published as provided for in Clause 55.
On the question of what staff the Comptroller will appoint, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is justifiably anxious to ensure that there will be an appropriate complement of qualified accountants. But there are other types of experts (for example, in the computer field) who will also be needed and, as further specialisms develop in the future, doubtless other categories will emerge. It is not for the Bill to say how the Scottish Comptroller's staff is to be made up any more than Parliament has dictated to the United Kingdom Comptroller whom and how many he should employ. We must take as a starting-off point that the Scottish Comptroller will be a highly responsible senior officer and that his performance of his duties will he closely watched by the Assembly's Accounts Committee.
382
Under Clause 62 the Comptroller's staff will be members of the United Kingdom Civil Service, to be recruited under the national Civil Service regulations. There will be scope, if those concerned wish to take advantage of it, for common recruitment and common training alongside the staff of the United Kingdom Comptroller. The United Kingdom Comptroller will still require to maintain staff in Scotland to deal with Government Departments there (including the Scottish Office), and there may well be scope for interchange of staff and for sharing of some common facilities. These are all matters of detailed staff arrangements and management, however, depending on agreement not only of the United Kingdom and Scottish Comptrollers but also of their staffs. They are not matters on which the Government should express a definitive view, and, therefore, not matters for the Bill. On the question as to how the Fay Report was not allowed to intervene in the Crown Agents, at the moment that is something on which I cannot intervene since the Crown Agents are now sub judice.
Lord VAIZEY: There is a difficulty which the noble Baroness raises when she refers to the staff of the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General and the Scottish Auditor General working side by side. Hitherto this has been one career service. Now, supposing that the Assembly appoints its own people—and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred to the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General being the Assembly's own man—I cannot see the logic behind the creation of a separate career structure for a group of people who are going to be working hand in hand. One group will be working for the United Kingdom chap and the other group for the Scottish fellow. Presumably, as they move up the ladder, they will be weaving in and out. If there is any meaning in this clause in giving the Assembly power—as does the subsequent clause—to determine the salaries, I cannot see the argument against it being one service at the present time. Can the noble Baroness elucidate?
Baroness STEDMAN: It is going to be one service. It is one home Civil Service. When we come to Clause 62 we shall be having a long debate on the Amendment

383
of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby as to whether there should be a separate Scottish Civil Service. At this point in time, the Bill envisages one public service. They will be able to transfer between branches as they can now. They will be able in some cases, we hope, perhaps to combine what they are doing and to share some of the facilities. This is something which the Scottish Administration must sort out and it is not something which we ought to be writing into the Bill.
Lord TANLAW: I must thank the noble Baroness for the helpful and quite detailed reply she gave to the questions I asked. I had hoped perhaps, in view of the report, the name of which escapes me, about a certain deficiency in the Auditor General's office, that this might have been an opportunity to rectify any future criticism that the Scottish Auditor General's Department could incur. I accept what the noble Baroness has said and, in view of her remarks, I beg leave to withdraw both Amendments Nos. 364 and 365.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
4.27 p.m.
Lord TANLAW Lord TANLAW moved Amendment No. 366:
Page 26, line 17, after ("on") insert ("audited").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No. 366 and, at the same time, speak to Amendments Nos. 367, 368 and 369. This, again, is a series of probing Amendments. At the outset, I may say that the fact that I have put them down is possibly due to my not being an accountant. The Consolidated Fund account for the United Kingdom, the entire United Kingdom fund (covering £70 billion of taxpayers' money) appears on two printed sheets containing about 18 entries. At the end of those accounts the Auditor General does not certify that —and this is where I could be accused of being naive—"This is a true and fair view of the financial picture", as is usually the case with any accounts in the world of commerce.
The question that I would ask is this: Are these accounts? I mean by this that they are of no help to me or to someone
384
who has had experience in the commercial world. As a means of interpreting how the money has been spent, they are of no commercial use. This could be dangerous, particularly in the Scottish Assembly, where they have a block fund for which the Assemblymen have to account as good stewards. They must spend it as cautiously as only Scotsmen know how; they must make every penny count to the benefit of their constituents and of Scotland as a whole. If this kind of presentation is all they are going to get—and I hope the noble Baroness will put me right on this —in my view that is not good enough for Scotsmen. It might be good enough for Englishmen or for the Government at Westminster; but we have the opportunity here to ask the Government to have more open accountability in terms of the Scottish nation.
There is another tendency which perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm, for I may have got it wrong. As Government, inevitably, take a greater interest in commercial entities in the private sector, so do the Government's accounts become less revealing. On the other hand, those companies and entities in the private sector must by law become more and more committed for information, form filling and so on. What is worrying is that, with the Scottish Assembly there are a number of (for want of a better phrase) "hybrid entities"—commercial entities which have capital partly from the private sector and partly from the public sector.
Again, from the viewpoint of an accountant, this needs rather sophisticated techniques if in fact a true and fair picture of entities such as the Scottish Development Agency, its investments and so on, are to be interpreted by ordinary Assemblymen who may not necessarily be very good at figures. They will have to speak out and be responsible for these figures, while the Auditor General is in the role, taking up the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, as an auditor to a commercial company, who is responsible to the shareholders and not to the directors. In the same way, the Auditor General is responsible to the Assembly and to the people of Scotland, and not to the Executive.
I think there is an opportunity in this Bill to improve the existing system of

385
audit. I am not entirely convinced that the Auditor General set-up is the best that can be devised, and this Bill gives us an opportunity to improve on it. Perhaps the noble Baroness will reassure me on these factors, and particularly as regards the form the accounts will take. Are they to be a form of accounts? In my Amendment I have used the word "audited" simply because it is a word which I and most people are familiar with, at any rate those who have had any connection with business, from a sweetie shop to a steel mill. If they are in that form, I think the Assemblymen will be able to follow them. If they are in the form of the Consolidated Fund account that we have here—these flimsy bits of paper which the Auditor General does not seem to sign; and which I do not understand them, I do not think the Assemblymen will understand them either when it comes to the very difficult job of having to explain to their constituents how they have spent their money or how the Executive has spent their money. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to help me here.
I should like to add one brief point concerning the Accounts Committee, the "watch dog" to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Again my remarks about the Assemblymen should apply equally to the comprehension of the "watch dogs" on the Accounts Committee in Scotland. This again is perhaps giving us an opportunity to improve on our existing system. In my view, the Public Accounts Committee is the most important committee in Parliament, and its work is perhaps more important than any other which comes to mind. In regard to Scotland I think we could improve the system of working here. Could we not include among the members of the "watch dog" committee those who are not necessarily involved in the Assembly but who have outside business experience, who could possibly give some very good and sensible advice, especially in the areas which are part public sector and part private and commercial? I think there is going to be a lot of difficulty in finding out what is going on in them and there will be dangers, unless there is clear comprehension on the part of the Assemblymen and of the Accounts Committee, that large sums of money may be mismanaged or mislaid, simply due to having
386
accounts which, in my view, are not readily understandable by those who are not accountants.
I hope the noble Baroness will see these Amendments as an attempt to be constructive and not as an attempt to throw shots at the Government, the Auditor General's office or the Public Accounts Committee. I hope it may be an attempt to improve the existing system under which our country is run today and on which I have many reservations.
4.34 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: In the interesting speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, he ranged very wide of this Amendment by wanting to simplify the accounts. He went into the duties of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the Amendments he has put forward have nothing to do with the Comptroller and Auditor General. They are Amendments to subsections (6) and (7), which relate to the situation when there may not be a Comptroller and Auditor General, or when for some reason he is unable to carry out his function. These two parts relate to the authority given to someone else to do the job.
When my noble and learned friend, in replying to the previous Amendments and to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, about an auditor, drew attention to Clause 53(2), and particularly referred to the words:
"he shall examine, certify and report on the accounts …",
that seemed to me to be a perfectly straightforward statement of the ordinary duties of an auditor. There would have been no doubt about it at all if instead of the word "examine" there appeared the word "audit". But I do not think there is the slightest doubt that the wording in the Bill as it stands means exactly that.
The same thing will apply in the circumstances of the section which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is seeking to amend. But it raises in my mind the question as to why the word "examine" has been omitted in subsection (7), because in Clause 53(2) the Comptroller and Auditor General is to
"… examine, certify and report on the accounts …",
and in his absence the authorised person is merely to "certify and report". I

387
am quite certain it does not mean that there is anything different.
This is probably just a drafting error, but obviously the same set of circumstances are to apply. I think it is quite clear that in both circumstances a complete audit of the accounts is being carried out and the certification of them will be carried out and they will be reported. Therefore, while the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, may have a point about simplifying the accounts so that the ordinary Member of the Assembly will be able to understand them, I would doubt very much whether, with the complicated nature of public expenditure these days, it would be within the wit of any accountant to put them forward in a way in which the ordinary Member of the Assembly could understand them.
Lord TANLAW: If I might just answer that last point of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I did not mean to give the impression that I wanted the accounts over-simplified. I merely made the point that I am used to looking at audited accounts, and the Consolidated Fund accounts for the United Kingdom are the only ones I have managed to find. Presumably the Scottish Assembly Consolidated Fund accounts will look rather similar, although of course I stand to be corrected on that. In my view, these are not accounts and they are not very informative. The point I wished to make was that if the presentation is in the form of audited accounts, I can understand it. I did not wish the accounts to be oversimplified.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: Would the noble Lord not agree that the Consolidated Fund account to which he referred is a synopsis of the spending of the Government, and that is broken down in detail and is available for examination by Members of Parliament? If you take the Scottish Development Agency, which may be incorporated in the Consolidated Fund account—that is the two-page document which has been referred to—you can make reference to the accounts of the Scottish Development Agency and the account of their stewardship, as you can with other Government Departments, if you want to make the detailed examination that is now being sought. This bill in no way inhibits that examination.
4.40 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: On the assumption that this is a serious Amendment and not a probing exercise, I beg to offer a few observations, or rather a number of questions, if I have the permission of my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland. I was struck by a remark, which he made earlier on in the course of this very interesting, but somewhat technical, debate, that many Scots who had left the native heath would probably return, the incentive being salaries on a somewhat higher scale than they had been accustomed to on this side of the Border. I was very much struck by that. But I was struck even more by the wide-ranging observations of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and I want to ask a simple question. I think that it is always better to ask simple questions that are not technical, even if one gets technical replies. My question is this: What is all this going to cost? Let me just run over the list. We start off with a Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General. That is two of them.
Lord HUGHES: No, that is one.
Lord SHINWELL: It is not a Siamese twin, is it? Then he may appoint officers and servants. There was a suggestion that it ought to be mandatory and not a matter of discretion. So we can assume that quite a number of others will be appointed; and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, quite properly asked that one of them should be a certified accountant. For Heaven's sake! let us be very careful indeed if we are indulging in expenditure in Scotland. We must avoid anything in the nature of corruption. So we must have the right people on the job. Anyway, there will be quite a number of others. Then Clause 51 states:
"There shall be paid to the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General such salary as the Assembly may from time to time determine".
How much it is to be, we have no idea at all. There has been a great deal of talk about these people. There will be quite an assembly of people in this Assembly, or on the perimeter of the Assembly, looking after the finances, holding the purse, if the money is provided by Westminster. That is where the money has to come from, and Westminster can provide it only if the taxpayers are willing

389
to cough up. But I suspect that many of them will not want to cough up too much, to enable the Scots to play around with the finances of the United Kingdom—and, apparently, they will be permitted to do that. Nothing at all has been said about that.
My noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General has argued at great length—I will not say that he was verbose, because that might sound offensive and the last thing I want to do is to be offensive to him, in spite of what he said about me last night. I almost had a sleepless night after being rebuked by such a legal luminary, all the way from Edinburgh. Your Lordships know what Edinburgh folk are like. When you have lived in Glasgow you do not have much time for Edinburgh folk, but you have to tolerate them. But I am digressing a little, although a little digression will not do us any harm. This place is very dull and it needs livening up.
I want to put a simple question and I want a simple answer. A simple question should evoke a simple answer, straight from the horse's mouth. What is all this going to cost, or have the Government not thought this out at all? Have they just said "Let us have an Assembly, and let us have a Scottish Comptroller who is an Auditor General, too"—or whatever it may be—"a certified accountant and a whole string of people, very important people, very efficient people, looking after the finances associated with the Consolidated Fund", because it will all come out of the Consolidated Fund, as is the case with United Kingdom finances. On how much it is going to cost, there has been not a word. Nobody, has asked any questions about it and certainly, so far as I know, nothing about it appears in the Bill. The Solicitor-General shakes his head, as if to suggest that there is something in the Bill about the actual amounts that are to be expended.
I know that in the Bill there are references to payments that are to be made for this and that, and, naturally, those payments have to be made, as has expenditure for salaries, administration and so on. But I have not yet discovered what it will cost for the Assembly to meet somewhere. I saw in the Press that it could cost £3 million or £4 million for this institution. I do not know where
390
that money is coming from. Anyhow, I think that we ought to have some answer to the question. It is all right 10 indulge in these technical, complicated observations, but we ought to know something about what it will cost.
I do not know whether my noble friend Lady Stedman is to reply. If she is, I do not know where she will get her information from. I had better correct myself. I said earlier on that I want an answer straight from the horse's mouth. I withdraw that, but I will not say what occurs to me. I shall leave it at that. I am quite serious about this. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, provoked me into asking this question, because he ranged so widely over the whole scenario—
Lord TANLAW: The noble Lord has, quite rightly, raised a point about the cost. But in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, there is a paragraph which shows that the Auditor General's department and all the civil servants for the Assembly will cost approximately £6½ million.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if there are provisions in this measure to appoint people to undertake certain tasks associated with finance, then we are obviously entitled to ask what it will cost. I do not ask for details about salaries. That would be asking too much, and I would not expect them to be given accurately. But I ask for some indication of what this will cost the taxpayers. I am speaking of United Kingdom people, in particular, although to some extent of Scottish people. I want to know what it will cost. and if I do not get an answer to this question I shall have to find some Amendment which will enable me to go into the Division Lobby against the Government, and that may be very serious for the Government.
I want to make an apology for my interventions. The reason why I am intervening so often is not that I am knowledgeable on this subject—far from it. It is because I am indulging in a little practice in speaking, in readiness for the next General Election. I have been receiving innumerable invitations from all over the place, asking whether I would be ready at the next Election to go and speak on behalf of candidates and so on,

391
and I have to be ready for that. In fact, I am doing my Front Bench friends, even the Solicitor-General, a favour. I go out to speak and try to keep them in office. I am doing them a favour, for which they ought to be grateful. But I am indulging in a little practice, so that I am ready for the fray. That is my reason for intervening so frequently. I return to the original simple question. What is this going to cost?
4.49 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: The noble, venerable and somewhat mischievous Lord Shinwell has raised a very serious point, and it is that point which my noble friend Lord Tanlaw was taking up in trying to get modern standards of accounting into Government Departments. I think that in 1976–77 the Government wanted to save money, but their saving was so successful that they underspent by, I think, some £3 billion. The reason why they had to save money was that the year before they overspent in the country as a whole by some very much larger figure.
I happen to know, for example—the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has great experience of a wide variety of business—that in many companies they can now budget for inflation. In many cases their end of year accounts are coming out extremely accurately. These budgeting techniques are new and are constantly being improved. I do not say that in every case they work perfectly, but the degree of accuracy which is being arrived at in business firms, large and small, as a result of this new budgeting technique, which requires very good accounts and very good accounting so that the information one works on for the future is accurate, is surprising. I believe that the spirit behind my noble friend's Amendment is one which we need to take into account, since it might greatly assist in telling us beforehand exactly what Government proposals in various forms are going to cost.
Lord LEATHERLAND: One of the things that I decided to do early in life was to dedicate myself to keeping my noble friend Lord Shinwell apprised of the facts of any situation. Therefore I do
392
so on this occasion. My noble friend said that we do not have the slightest idea what this Bill will cost. If my noble friend will turn to page vi of the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill, he will find set out there the details of the cost. For example, we read that about £3¼ million will be required for reconstructing and equipping the former Royal High School and parts of St. Andrew's House for the use of the Scottish Assembly. That includes £650,000 for acquiring the Royal High School buildings and £1,350,000 on works already authorised. I am going into great detail because my noble friend wants it; he does not want rough and ready figures.
Then we read that about £1 million will be spent on the reconstruction and equipment of office accommodation. The additional annual running costs will be about £6¾ million in respect of the salaries and related costs of Members of the Scottish Assembly and Executive—it sounds as though they are going to do pretty well; much better than your Lordships—and about £6¼ million in respect of additional civil servants in Scotland. Then it goes on to say, and I ask my noble friend to pay attention to this as he stressed during his speech that he wanted to know how much the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff would cost, that the £6¼ million includes the staff of the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General and related costs, including accommodation costs. It even includes the cost of the offices in which they shall work and the chairs upon which they shall sit. Finally, we read that the cost of the referendum will be broadly £2 million. All the questions which my noble friend asked with regard to finance and costs are adequately answered in the passages to which I have referred your Lordships.
Lord SHINWELL: I am very grateful to my noble friend for drawing my attention to these details. I have some acquaintance, as has my noble friend, with estimates provided by Governments or civil servants and I should be very reluctant to accept all of the estimates which my noble friend has read out. It will cost a great deal more than that. Taking everything into account, it is a large sum of money which will be expended. May I ask my noble friend whether any mention is made of the Members of the Scottish Assembly?
Lord LEATHERLAND: Yes, I drew my noble friend's attention to that. If he will look three-quarters of the way down page vi he will see that about £,61 million will be spent annually in respect of the salaries and related costs of Members of the Scottish Assembly and Executive. I interposed in parenthesis that it looked as though they were going to do pretty well—in fact, very much better than Members of your Lordships' House.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am quite sure that when he moved his Amendments the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, did not expect to have quite such an entertaining or interesting debate. The noble Lord said that he was not an accountant. May I say to him that when I came to your Lordships' House I was put on one of the European. Scrutiny Committees. The first job that we had to do was to decide how balance sheets and accounts, which were completely foreign to me, were drawn up. I am afraid that I have to tell him that this still did not make me an accountant, so I can assure the noble Lord that that makes two of us who are trying to make the best of this Bill!
Under Clause 53(2), the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General has a duty to "examine, certify and report on" the accounts of the Scottish Administration. This is what we understand as the process of audit. The word "audit" is regularly used in Statute as a verb or as a noun to cover all the stages in that process. An account has not been audited until the whole process has been completed. Where the accounts which are referred to in a provision of the Bill have been through the whole process, it is unnecessary to refer to them as "audited" accounts. Where they have not been through the whole process, it is wrong to refer to them as "audited" accounts. Therefore the case for the insertion of the term "audited", as proposed by each of these Amendments, will have to be looked at separately in each provision concerned.
Lord TANLAW: May I ask the noble Baroness whether that includes the words, "This is a true and fair view", and so on, which an auditor normally appends to accounts?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, that covers the same point. If I may deal with the noble Lord's first Amendment, Amendment No. 366 to Clause 57, that relates to the delegation of authority by the Scottish Comptroller to a member of his staff to certify and report on accounts. The certifying and reporting concerned forms part of the process of audit, but it is wrong to refer to the accounts as being audited until these tasks have been completed.
Turning to the next Amendment, Amendment No. 367—this is the Amendment to Clause 53(1)(a)—we think that this also is wrong. The accounts referred to are those prepared by Scottish Secretaries for sending to the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General. By definition, therefore, as I explained earlier they also are not audited accounts in the strict sense of the word. Turning to Amendment No. 368, the accounts referred to in Clause 54(1) are accounts which have been examined, certified and reported on by the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General and laid by him before the Assembly. By definition, therefore, these are audited accounts, and to describe them as such is not necessary.
On the last Amendment, Amendment No. 369 to Clause 55, that refers to the publication of the accounts referred to in Clauses 53 and 54. By the time these reach the Assembly for publication they must have been audited, so again it is not necessary to describe them as such. It all sounds very complicated, but when the noble Lord has had an opportunity to read Hansard it will all fall into place.
Regarding the noble Lord's Amendments and also the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about trying to modernise the accounting procedure, if it is the intention of these Amendments to try to modernise that procedure, that is not their effect so far as this Bill is concerned. It is essential that the Socttish Administration's financial arrangements and those of central Government, upon which the Scottish Administration will be wholly dependent for funds, should be of the same general nature.
The arrangements are laid down in Clauses 50 to 55 and they are modelled on the Westminster arrangements. Under Clause 53, each Scottish Secretary must

395
keep the accounts for his department and the Scottish Secretary responsible for finance must keep accounts for payments into and out of the Scottish Consolidated and Loans Funds. The accounts must be sent not later than the end of November following the end of the financial year concerned—that is, within a period of eight months—to the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General, who will then examine, certify and report on them; or, to put it more simply, he will audit them. The accounts themselves and the audit reports are then to be laid before the Assembly. In turn they must be examined and reported on by the Assembly's Accounts Committee. The accounts themselves and the reports by the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General and by the Assembly's Accounts Committee must all be published, as provided for in Clause 55. Therefore, public opinion will be able to monitor the operation of these arrangements.
If we want any radical reorganisation of Government accounting and auditing procedures, it has to begin here at Westminster and not with the Scottish Assembly and therefore not in this Bill. Any radical reorganisation that we considered in the future needed to take place at Westminster could, if necessary, be carried through to the Scottish Administration's auditing arrangements by the Westminster legislation. So if we decide to modernise the whole of our accounting system in the future we still do not need to do it under this Bill as it stands at the moment.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell asked questions about the cost. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Leatherland for reading out in detail what it says in the Financial Memorandum and I do not think I need weary the Committee by going into it again. However, I should like to remind my noble friend that the Accounts Committee is a Back-Bench Committee of the Assembly and therefore we cannot include outsiders on it, though there is nothing at all to prevent that Back-Bench Committee from engaging expert help from outside if they think that is necessary. The exact form of accounts to be adopted under devolution is a matter for the Scottish administration and for the Assembly, dependent, inter alia, on the organisation of the administra-
396
tion of its Departments and these domestic matters really must be left to Scotland and the Scottish Assembly to decide. We do not think the noble Lord has achieved quite what he set out to achieve in the Amendment in the way of modernisation of accounts and I hope that in the light of my explanation he will accept that this Amendment and those following are not necessary.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I should like the noble Baroness to explain an apparent contradiction. I thought she said that any modernisation of accounts in Scotland would have to follow modernisation in England and then she went on later to say what I very much more approved of, that when the Assembly was set up it could in fact modernise its accounts.
Baroness STEDMAN: I think that either I have been misunderstood or else I did not phrase my words as well as I could have done. I said that any radical reorganisation of Government accounting and auditing procedures—because one flows from the other—would have to begin at Westminster and not with the Scottish Assembly, but that, if there was any radical reorganisation of accounting methods here at Westminster, it could if necessary be carried through to the Scottish administration's auditing arrangements by Westminster legislation. At the same time, so far as the Scottish Assembly is concerned, it is a matter for its Public Accounts Committee, the Assembly and its Auditor General and Comptroller to decide how its Finance Department shall be run and how the accounts shall be presented in the light of what Departments it is decided to have within the Scottish Assembly. I hope that makes it clearer.
Lord TANLAW: We have had a most interesting discussion on what is usually thought of as a rather boring and technical subject, namely accounts. I also think that we have filled the gap that was left in another place by having at least a fuller discussion of these clauses. I thank the noble Baroness for the very detailed reply which she gave to each individual Amendment that I tabled. I did not realise that there were quite so many meanings of the term "audit" until she made her reply. I think she has answered the letter of my question if not exactly the spirit.

397
I am slightly depressed that the Scottish Assembly will have to soldier on until eventually one day the accounting systems and investigations in to the accounting systems of the Auditor General's Department and the Public Accounts Committee grind into the 20th century down here in Westminster, but possibly with a little pressure here and a little pressure there we may bring that day further forward.
Finally, I should like to come back to something which has been said throughout this debate—that is, that the control of expenditure of the block fund has been identified as possibly the main source of contention in virtually every clause that we have discussed in this Bill. I hope we can be assured that the Assembly, which we have now been told will have excellent and audited accounts will also have a system of budgetary forecasting and discounted cash flows on capital projects that will assist the Assembly to reduce this area of contention which has been raised in various other parts of the Bill. I hope that in that way it will defuse some of the so-called "dynamite" that some noble Lords think is contained in this Bill. I should also like to think that it might give a lead to Whitehall, although we know now that it cannot do so. Nevertheless, we hope for something better in the future and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCLUSKEY: When I was speaking earlier, I said that if I found I had said anything that required to be corrected I would do so at the earliest opportunity. It has been suggested to me that, under Clause 50(3), the Secretary of State is not wholly deprived of all discretion because, for example, there might be circumstances in which the Assembly would resolve, perhaps late at night and when there was a very small attendance. Of course one would expect that the Assembly, acting under Standing Orders, would make provision to the effect that a resolution of such importance as one to remove the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General would require a certain notice and possibly a certain majority or quorum of the Assembly. I feel it right to draw the
398
attention of the Committee to that possibility.
Lord LYELL: I should like to ask one question about drafting on which I am sure the noble and learned Lord will be able to help me. At the foot of page 25, at line 41, the last three words in subsection (2) are "during good behaviour": do those three words mean what I think they mean—namely, while the Auditor General is performing the tasks that he ought to perform?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should not want to attempt an authoritative exposition of those words. I think they are fairly familiar words and I suppose that they introduce the whole notion of culpa, which is the concept which would be applied to the behaviour of people like judges. If I can offer any better explanation I will write to the noble Lord about it.
On Question, Clause 50 agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 162, 163, 164, 165, 166 and 367 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Accounts Committee]:
5.8 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 27, line 21, at end insert ("of at least five members").
The noble Lord said: The equivalent of the Public Accounts Committee has already been referred to several times in the course of our debates this afternoon and Clause 54 provides for the appointment of the Scottish equivalent. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who said it was perhaps the most important thing, and I would not disagree with that. As the Bill stands, my understanding is that the Public Accounts Committee—which is the shorthand I shall use, if the Committee will forgive me—could in fact consist of one person, and that one person could be a Member of the Scottish Executive. That is not a very reasonable situation and this Amendment suggests that the Public Accounts Committee should consist of at least five people. Obviously, one can pull any number out of the air.
Having said that, I am slightly surprised to find the Bill having this clause in it at all, in view of the comments that were made frequently by the Government on Clauses 24 and 26, when the answer we were so often given was that they thought it right to leave the Assembly to make its own standing orders and to run its own affairs. Here we are saying not "may appoint an Accounts Committee" but "shall appoint an Accounts Committee". All we are really saying in this Amendment is that if we are going to have a clause saying that they shall have a Public Accounts Committee we had better go all the way and say that it must consist of a reasonable number of people; indeed, I think one ought to go further still, and say that it should have a reasonable political balance within it. So the purpose of this Amendment is either to persuade the Government to be explicit about how the Public Accounts Committee should be created or to take the clause out altogether and leave it to the Assembly. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: In general the Bill, in Clause 26, leaves it to the Assembly to decide what committees to appoint and to make provision in standing orders as it sees fit as to their constitution and terms of reference. But quite exceptionally the Bill makes express provision for the Accounts Committee, to which not more than one Scottish Secretary or assistant may be appointed, and it places a duty on the Assembly to publish its reports. This is because the Government regard it as of primary constitutional importance to establish a strong Back-Bench watchdog on the model of the Westminster Public Accounts Committee. They will work closely with the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General, and this committee will be able to make the audit arrangements fully effective and to secure a proper accountability of the Executive to the Assembly. The effectiveness of the arrangements is of concern not only to the Scottish electorate; it also safeguards the interests of the United Kingdom taxpayer who has to finance the block fund under Clause 44.
What the Amendment seeks to do is to add to the status of the Accounts Committee, and the Government are sympathetic to that purpose behind the
400
Amendment. But I am advised that it is not quite as straightforward as it might appear. If we lay down a minimum size for the membership of the committee without making provision for a smaller number to form a quorum, then the minimum size might also be regarded as the quorum. The number five contained in the Amendment might be reasonable as a quorum but is, in the Government's view, too small for the whale committee to do the job that we expect it to do, having regard to the desirability of ensuring that there is, as the noble Lord suggested, a reasonable and balanced representation of Back-Bench opinion and interests, and the possibility that this Accounts Committee may wish to establish sub-committees dealing with particular fields. If, on the other hand, we were to require a minimum of, say, 10 or 12 members, that in itself would be too large for a quorum.
We could, no doubt, lay down a minimum size and a quorum, but if we did that I think we would find ourselves drawn gradually further into devising detailed rules of procedure for the committee in order to make our requirements fully effective, and that again would not do. We really must leave it to the Assembly to make their own sensible domestic arrangements of this kind. I have to say to the noble Lord that much as we sympathise with his objective I would hope that he would not press the Amendment. What I will do is consider it with the officials, to see whether there is any sensible way round the difficulties I have mentioned; but I must say that we have given a lot of thought to it and I do not hold out very much hope of being able to find a way. I am happy to take it back for further consideration.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her very clear exposition. She has cleared up one point that had arisen in my mind, particularly in respect to what the noble and learned Lord had to expound to me on the previous clause, Clause 53(2). If the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness would direct their attention to Clause 54(1), they will find that the Accounts Committee is going to perform two out of the three functions that the Auditor General is going to perform. The only thing the Accounts Committee are not going to do is to certify the accounts.

401
It seems to me that the functions which are going to be carried out by the Accounts Committee are very close to, if not in fact, a practical audit. Indeed, I think the noble Baroness explained this. In the course of her remarks earlier she explained that the Accounts Committee is going to consist of Back-Benchers who might need, I think she said, expert help. Would I be right in thinking that it is the Government's intention that the Comptroller and Auditor General will be allowed to provide this expert help and interpretation, which has been so well expressed and explained by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw? I think the noble Baroness and I would agree that Back-Benchers would require assistance in interpreting something like the consolidated accounts, or indeed the normal commercial accounts.
Baroness STEDMAN: It will be up to the Accounts Committee to make their case to the Scottish Assembly that they need this extra outside help, and for the Assembly to decide whether or not to give it to them. They can ask for it and the Scottish Assembly can provide it for them.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I must thank the noble Baroness for being at least entirely sympathetic, even if she admits much of the same difficulty as we were labouring under when we drew up this Amendment. It occurs to me that we might be able to devise some form of words which would incorporate the concept of having a representative of each Party, provided there was a certain minimum number of representatives of that Party in the Assembly. But there is no reason to waste the time of the Committee any further this evening. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, and perhaps we can get together and see whether we can think of something suitable to put in at Report stage. I think it is quite a serious point once we agree that we are going to put in anything at all about the Public Accounts Committee. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 368 not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
5.18 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH The Earl of PERTH moved Amendment No. 337:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
Proposals for powers to raise moneys
("If the Assembly decides that it wishes to make proposals that power should be conferred on the Assembly to raise by taxation moneys to he paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund, they may communicate such proposals to the Secretary of State who shall lay such proposals before both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: Last night, we discussed the question of the Assembly having taxing powers. Indeed, it was the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who moved an Amendment to that end. I rather think that their Amendment was designed with a particular purpose, which was to frighten the potential voters in Scotland by implying that if they had an elected Assembly they might face very much heavier taxes than would otherwise be the case. That is certainly not the purpose of my Amendment.
What was interesting in the debate on their Amendment was that there was general agreement, I think on all sides of the Committee, that the Assembly should have additional taxing powers if it could find a relatively harmless way of achieving this. So far as the Government are concerned, the very last paragraph of Cmnd. Paper 6890, says quite specifically that, if the devolved administrations wish to have available a limited supplementary tax power, and are ready to meet its administrative costs, the Government would certainly be willing sympathetically to consider any such proposals. I think I am right in saying that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, confirmed at some time during the evening that that was the Government's view.
The Amendment, as moved, did not go through, for reasons which I have already indicated. Then the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had a shot at trying to find a relatively painless way of giving the Assembly some additional revenues.

403
He moved an Amendment about the holding of lotteries. Again, there was support for this idea from all sides of the House. I think it might well have been carried as an Amendment if it had been necessary, but it was pointed out by the Government that it was already inherent in the powers as laid down by the Bill. Therefore, that Amendment was withdrawn.
I come to the Amendment that I move today. Before I go into detail on it, I would make the point that, at present, as the Bill stands, the subordinate local authorities have a taxing power, whereas the Assembly, which is, after all, their master, has none. That is, if I may say so, an absurd situation. I felt it would be appropriate that there should be a permissive Amendment which would allow the Assembly, if it decided in its wisdom that it would like in one way or another to raise money additional to what comes from the block grant, to do so. In the Amendment, I go on to say—the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, who supports me, will perhaps elaborate on the point—that the proposals, if any, that are put forward by the Assembly, have to come before both Houses of Parliament. In other words, they must approve it.
Recalling all the expressions of last night's debate, including the willingness to accept something like this if a way could be found, I hope that the Government will feel that this Amendment is acceptable. My hope is, third time lucky. I beg to move.
5.22 p.m.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on this Amendment, which we both put down. Last night at a late hour and at some length we considered a long and somewhat involved Amendment aimed at giving the Assembly money-raising powers. This Amendment is shorter and has the benefit of simplicity. It would give to the Assembly the right, if it so desired, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, to raise money with certain safeguards. Without this power the Assembly could well become just another tier of local government. This is a form of government. Some think it might go further. However, if it is without the power to raise money
404
it could become a farce. It is right and proper that the Assembly and the Scottish nation should be able to raise money under certain safeguards. I beg to move.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: I apologise to the Minister that I could not be here last night. I shall only repeat in shorthand the conviction that I expressed on the Second Reading of this Bill; that is, that unless the Scottish Assembly can raise some revenue of its own it will be ineffective. Therefore we must find away to help it raise revenue. The Government, in the Command Paper which my noble friend Lord Perth has just quoted, seemed to agree. But they say that they cannot find a tax which they can recommend. At some time I should like to know about some of the researches that have been made. If we look at the German experience and the kind of local taxes that are levied by the German Länder, for example, I find it difficult to believe that we should not find a tax which is both appropriate and adaptable to the kinds of conditions that we foresee in Scotland. That may have been done. If so, at some time I should like to know. For the moment, if we cannot find a particular tax, if the Government are unable to do so, and if there is nothing provided in the Bill, it seems to me that the Amendment moved by my noble friends is the best that we can do in the circumstances. I hope that the Government will, therefore, look upon it favourably.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The Government have indicated their attitude in the debates on this subject so far, including that of last night. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, made it clear that they agreed with the sentiments in this Amendment; that is, that they would like the new Assembly to have tax-raising responsibilities, and that it should have the duty of raising some of the money it will spend. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel pointed out that the Assembly is likely to be ineffective if it does not have such powers. I would go further and say there is a danger that a body with no responsibility for taxation or rates might always be complaining that it was not receiving enough from Westminster. This would not conduce to the stability of the new system. Even local government councils in Scotland, as in England and Wales, have to raise revenue by rates,

405
which is their form of taxation. This places a financial responsibility firmly upon them. Those who elect them examine carefully how the money that they raise is spent.
What the Government have said so far by indicating their attitude—it was clear from the 1975 and 1977 White Papers—is that they cannot find the answer. They know there is a gap here, but they have not been able to find the appropriate form of tax which this new body would be able to raise. The Government have indeed gone further and invited suggestions from any quarter. My noble friends Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Morris, in their Amendment which we discussed yesterday evening, made an ingenious attempt to meet the requirements which the Government had outlined as a tax-raising power.
This Amendment would allow the new Assembly, if it came up with a possible scheme, at least to have it considered by Westminster. I am sure that we all agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and my noble friend Lord Cromartie that that is a reasonable suggestion. I am afraid that it still does not provide the answer which the Government are seeking. It does not provide an answer for the Committee. It would mean that there was nothing in the Bill to fill this important gap. But at least it would he better than nothing. I am sure that it would be harmless from the Government's point of view. I see the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, wanting to intervene.
Lord VAIZEY: I had intended to speak.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I shall stop very soon, I am glad to tell the Committee. I need add only one small drafting point. The Amendment would need a little revision. I pointed this out to the noble Earl, but it does not seem to have been carried through into the Seventh Marshalled List. The Assembly is dealt with in the singular in the first three lines, but then suddenly becomes plural later on. That is not happy drafting of a provision that will go into a Statute. However, that is a minor point. If the proposed words are not acceptable as they stand simply because of that defect, I am sure that other words which carry out the purpose may be found quite easily. I
406
hope that the Government will view this Amendment sympathetically.
Viscount THURSO: Anyone who wishes well to the Assembly or to devolution for Scotland must realise that ultimately the Assembly must be able to raise revenue and spend revenue or it will never truly be even as important as a regional authority or a district local authority. Obviously at this time when we are establishing the Assembly there is a natural reluctance to impose upon the taxpayer and the ratepayer who is, after all, the same person, further imposts that he has to pay for further expense. However, as we have been discussing the shape which the Assembly will take, the jobs which it will do and the future shape of government within Scotland, it has been made clear on various sides that it is hoped that the Assembly will trim, slim and make more effective local government within Scotland. If it succeeds in doing that, it will create savings of moneys which the taxpayer-ratepayer has to pay in order to have services carried out. Within that sphere in the future there will surely he areas where money can be raised.
It is only right that we should make it clear now when we are setting up the Assembly that we must recognise that in future the Assembly must have powers to raise money by some method and that we expect it, by savings which it will make in the way in which it organises local government and other administration within Scotland, to be able to justify the raising of funds for the extension of services within Scotland, and therefore the right ultimately to raise revenue by some form of taxation.
Lord VAIZEY: I am sorry that I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I saw the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, move on the Front Bench and thought that she was about to make a quick reply before the debate continued. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has made a very important point, although it is somewhat paradoxical that a measure designed to slim down the government of Scotland and democratise it should set out to create 1,000 extra civil servants in order to get that slimming down and democracy going. I am thinking of the figure to which my noble friend Lord Shinwell referred in his speech.

407
I should like to ask two questions of the Front Bench. The first concerns precisely the point which the noble Viscount has raised. Let us suppose that in considering the future of the government of Scotland and the future of the regional councils of Scotland, the Assembly decides that large parts of the functions of the regional authorities could properly be brought to itself—in other words, the Assemblymen could do it better. I should think that, if, for example, regional government came about in England and we had some kind of council for East Anglia, it may well be that the council for East Anglia would take to itself the powers which are now exercised by the county councils of Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. So, it is a perfectly reasonable and possible prospect and, after all, there are only 5 million Scots.
If such a decision were taken—and as I read the Bill it is within the powers of the Assembly to make that decision—will it carry with it the power to finance itself by the surcharge on the rates which is a power which the regional councils have at present? That is the first question. If the power is not in the Bill, then I should have thought that it was important that at some later stage it should be inserted.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the broader question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and which, of course, refers to the extended debate we had last night. Indeed, I thought that it was a most important and interesting debate. Personally I was very much persuaded by the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, about the difficulties of raising additional taxation in Scotland, although I must say that it came somewhat paradoxically from a member of a Party whose National Executive and the TUC are in favour of higher public expenditure and presumably must therefore be in favour of higher taxation at some stage. However, he asked a serious and important question; namely, which taxes would the Scots wish to see increased? He pointed out that there were only two or three major taxes—for example, income tax. We are not allowed to raise value added tax because of the rules of the Common
408
Market. Therefore, the number of taxes which could be affected is comparatively small.
I thought about this question for a long time. I think that I have consulted every distinguished public finance expert in Scotland who has also thought about it. I must confess that a change of this kind would require such a radical alteration to the Bill that we should require, in fact, a completely new Bill. If we had a completely new Bill which gave adequate tax powers to Scotland, it could only be done by hypothecating the yield of some of the major United Kingdom taxes; that is, it could be done by giving to the Scottish Assembly the power to levy major taxes, not just the power to add a penny on the income tax, but to take, for example, the greater part of the income tax. That is very important because in a Federal State the traditional way in which the federal Government finance themselves is by Customs and Excise duties while the income taxes and so on are levied at a lower level, For example, the States in Australia used to exercise this power and also the States of the United States. The Common Market is financed through a customs levy.
However, that particular avenue is closed to the United Kingdom by our Accession to the Treaty of Rome. I conclude, therefore, that if we really were serious in wishing to give taxation powers to the Assembly—and I argued several times last night in favour of giving taxation powers to the Assembly if we possibly could—we would have to follow the line of reasoning which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has advanced several times in the course of these debates. In other words we would have to go much more deeply into the Constitution of the United Kingdom and set about wholehearted federalism which, of course, is something which was recommended by a substantial number of people who sat on the Royal Commission on the Constitution; namely, the Kilbrandon Commission, whose report is the basis for large parts of the Bill.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: wonder whether we have accepted a little too easily that some local taxes would run counter to the European regulations.

409
If, for example, one looks at the German Ländes system there are quite a lot of local taxes which cannot, by definition, of course, run counter to the EEC rules. I wonder whether that has been examined as it should have been?
Lord VAIZEY: I fully concede the points which the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, has made. Personally, I thought, and I said yesterday, that the paper which was produced by the Government as a basis for discussion—I do not think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was a member of the Government that introduced that paper —and which asked rather rhetorically what taxes could be raised, did not really ask the question hard enough. To be candid I think that the question was asked in a form which expected the answer, No. Therefore, I was not very impressed with that particular State paper. Nevertheless, I was fairly persuaded by the argument which the Government produced last night in this series of rather interesting debates that it would require a major shift in the basic Constitution of the United Kingdom. The only answer then would be to withdraw this Bill—and the Bill may be withdrawn if it is defeated by the referendum—and then to come back with a completely different Bill.
I should like to say a word about the clauses which relate to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I cannot, for the life of me, see why, if the Bill gives to Edinburgh powers which are now exercised by Westminster, 1,000 extra men and women must be hired to supervise the transfer of some powers which are perfectly well being exercised already, so far as we know, by the 71 Scottish MPs down the passage in the Scottish Grand Committee. That is why—in the argument about the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor-General—I was asking myself, "Who is stealing the money now? What evidence have we that the accounts are not properly kept as present? Why do we need extra accountants and extra experts?", and so on. This whole question of where the money will come from to pay these extra people, and of the extra functions which the Assembly might arrogate to itself, goes right to the heart of this particular form of devolution which has been chosen by the Government.
5.40 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: This Amendment puts me in a great deal of difficulty. At the very outset I made it plain to my noble friends that there were two aspects of the Bill about which I was unhappy. One was the method of election, and I had an opportunity to express my view on that by voting for the Amendments which were moved by, among others, the noble Earl, Lord Perth. The other was finance. I cannot believe that at the end of the day an Assembly can be a perfectly satisfactory body if it does not have some control over finance.
One possibility that I saw was that the Assembly may, quite properly, legislate within the powers which are devolved to it; it would not seek to go out of its way to be awkward, but it would do what it believes to be a proper job and would be accepted to be doing a proper job. Yet, when it reaches the end of the financial year it may find that its legislation is costing more than has been allocated to it from Westminster. In that situation either one of two things must happen. Either Westminster will make more money available, or Westminster will say that the Assembly must cut its coat according to the cloth. Either way is unacceptable to one side or the other.
The remedy is obviously one which is not capable of being included in this Bill. I entirely agree with what my noble and learned friend said last night and with what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has repeated today. It would, in fact, mean a major reconstruction of the financial sections of the Bill, which is obviously quite impossible for anyone, other than a skilled draftsman, to attempt. It would mean so many Amendments throughout the Bill that it is beyond the possibility of amendment in your Lordships' Committee.
However, having accepted—if the Assembly is to be completely successful —that there should be the possibility of a tax-raising power in the Assembly, I cannot bring myself to accept the situation which this Amendment would create, which is that the Assembly's taxing powers are limited to having taxation at the same level as applies in England and Wales.(and remember, it has to accept all the taxation levels imposed by the United

411
Kingdom Government); or having all that taxation plus something else.
A satisfactory taxation policy for the Assembly ought to envisage the possibility that taxation in Scotland should be lower than it is in England. This Amendment only affords the possibility of making it higher. I am quite certain that that would not be a popular prospect in Scotland at any time, and certainly not at the present time. As it is impossible within the Bill to make provision for taxation being lower than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, I cannot bring myself to support an Amendment which would create the possibility of the imposition in Scotland of taxation at higher levels.
Lord McCLUSKEY: As several noble Lords have said, we had a debate on this matter last night. In fact, we had a very full debate which lasted about an hour; having regard to the conciseness with which noble Lords are able to put their points, in our terms, within the context of this Bill, that is rather a long debate. There were some 10 or 11 speakers and all the points were covered. I think that it would be impertinent of me to make the same or a similar speech today as I made last night, although, of course, what I said last night is not yet available in print to your Lordships because of the lateness of the hour at which I spoke.
However, a number of points have been raised today to which I should reply. First, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, asked me specifically whether we have looked at other systems. Indeed we have. We have looked very carefully at the systems obtaining in the United States, in Canada, in Italy, in Sweden and in Germany. As I think the noble Lord may know, in Germany the position is that the Federal Government raises the taxes and there is a distribution of some portion of them to the Ländes in accordance with an agreement which obtains between the Federation and the individual States. Therefore, we have made very careful examinations.
I was, in fact, a member of the Government when these papers were drawn up. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, seems to think that I entered the Government only when I entered this House. In fact, I
412
entered the Government in March 1974. I can assure the noble Lord that this matter was before those Ministers who had to consider the Assembly Bill from a very early date and they have been deeply concerned. Indeed, at an early stage when they received the kind of answer which I offered to the Committee last night several Ministers, including myself, said that it would not do and that we must have a better answer than that. I am now satisfied that, for the reasons which are given with great clarity in the White Paper, Devolution—Financing the Devolved Services, there is currently no better answer available than the one I gave last night. We do not rule out the possibility of some suitable tax-raising power, but I want to draw a distinction, which I sought to draw last night and it is right to remind the Committee of it.
One side of the coin is that the Assembly can be given the power to raise all the taxes which are necessary to finance all the services over which it has control. That is a revenue-based system for financing the devolved services in Scotland. That system is rejected by the Government, for reasons which appealed also to the Royal Commission, sitting under Lord Kilbrandon, and for reasons which were set out in the White Paper in November 1975 and in the later White Paper to which I have referred.
The other side of the coin is the side which I believe most other noble Lords who have spoken would support, and that is a supplementary tax-raising power. However, that has the serious defect to which my noble friend Lord Hughes has just drawn attention; namely, that it is a very unattractive prospect to say, "You have the power to raise taxes but no power to diminish them"; because ultimately the Scots are saying "Why should we pay up to, say, 14 per cent. extra on the income tax"—which was the figure which I calculated for the benefit of the Committee last night—"when the ultimate result will only be to reduce the amount of the block grant?"
Therefore, although there is a conundrum here, it is one that will not be solved as easily as the movers of this Amendment seem to suppose. This Amendment suffers from the same weakness as the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, when he addressed

413
himself to it last night. It is that it makes an assumption that there is lying somewhere—perhaps in the back of a cupboard or in the back of someone's mind—a tax which fits all the requirements and all that is required is that men of goodwill go into the cupboard or look in the backs of their minds and come forward with such a tax. We are satisfied that at the moment no such tax exists. It may well be that if the whole system of rating is reconsidered and changed and some form of local income tax introduced, that may be a candidate on to which the Scottish Assembly might wish to fasten. But I believe—and I said this in other terms last night—that it would be idle to include in the Bill a provision which makes an assumption which is not warranted by the facts.
I do not want to go into these matters again in terms that I used last night, so perhaps I could turn again to the specific questions that I have been asked. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, asked me whether there is a power to surcharge the rates. Noble Lords will recall that in the White Paper of November 1975 the Government proposed that. Although there were other criticisms of the White Paper, that was perhaps the one that was most anguished. The Government decided not to do that. If the noble Lord will look at paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Bill he will see that there is no such power.
Lord VAIZEY: I did not ask quite that question, I was fully aware of what the noble and learned Lord has just said; I asked a different question. If the Assembly dissolves the regional councils of Scotland and arrogates to itself the powers to be the Regional Council for Scotland, could it then have the taxing powers which are at present given to the Regional Council? With great respect, that is not the same point as the noble and learned Lord has answered.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I believe that the answer to that question is the same, and it resides in the same part of the Bill. Perhaps I should refer to it. I am looking at Schedule 2, paragraph 4, on page 42, which makes it clear in sub-paragraph (1):
"A provision is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly if it would impose, alter or abolish any tax".
414
That is the tax point at the moment. Sub-paragraph (2):
"This paragraph does not prevent a provision from being within the legislative competence of the Assembly if its effect is only—
(a) to alter a rate levied at the passing of this Act without substantially changing its character".
I draw attention to those words, "without substantially changing its character". The character of a local rate is that it is local, and if it becomes a rate that applies throughout Scotland that would appear to be an alteration in its character. Therefore, I would rest upon the wording of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 and answer the noble Lord in that way.
Some mention has been made of withdrawing the Bill and trying to rewrite the provisions. The Government have no intention of doing that. The Government do not believe that by withdrawing the Bill and going hack to look at these financial provisions they can solve this problem in a way that they have rot found before now. No solution has been found to this problem. That is regrettable, but it is believed that in the light of how the Assembly works it may be possible, in the light of developments such as I have mentioned, to look at this matter again in consultation with the Assembly, and the Bill does not exclude that possibility.
At the end of the day, when one introduces legislation which is going to affect rates of tax on this level, surely that must be done through the Westminster Parliament and done by proper consultation and not, as this Amendment would suggest, by the Assembly making a proposal which the Secretary of State is bound then to lay before both Houses of Parliament, because that is the wording:
"the Secretary of State who shall lay such proposals before both Houses of Parliament".
I hope that that, in addition to what I said at a late hour last night. would satisfy the Committee, and I would invite the noble Earl not to press this Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Can the noble and learned Lord clear up something in my mind for me? When this Assembly comes into being, will it have the power to create a local authority in a single tier? If it does, then what happens to the district rates? I can quite conceive that

415
I am probably in a muddle, but I hope the noble and learned Lord will get me out of it.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps I can get myself out of it in this way: we are going to discuss the reform of local government in relation to a later Amendment. I think that the Committee would accept that it would be more appropriate to address ourselves to the question then, and perhaps be easier to give an accurate answer if we postponed it to that particular time.
5.53 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: First of all, I thank all those who have supported the Amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Cromartie and myself. Secondly, if we decide to press the Amendment, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the drafting error, which I thought had been corrected and has not, will be corrected at Report stage. I shall not take much of your Lordships' time. The fact remains that at the present time in this Bill there is no power for the Assembly to make suggestions on how it would like to raise taxes. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, "It is no good because it is just a tax to raise and not to lower". Surely if the Assembly decided, in their wisdom, that they wanted to take over some of the powers of the local authorities, and in doing that they created a considerable economy, then it would be open to them at that time to say, "Well, the economies we have made for that purpose, perhaps in a slightly different form we will use for other purposes". So I think at the present time there is the inherent possibility of lowering as well as increasing.
Lord HUGHES: Would the noble Earl allow me to intervene? I should say that it would not be a prospect which would be pleasing to the people of Scotland that the Assembly should be taking

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Chesham, L.

De La Warr, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cockfield, L.

Drogheda, E.

Balerno, L,

Coleraine, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Belstead, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Elles, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Craigavon, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B

Carr of Hadley, L.

Cromartie, E. [Teller.]

Exeter, M.

Carrington, L.

de Clifford, L.

Falkland, V.

over some of the local authority powers. The criticism of the existing local government structure that is made is not at district level; it is at regional level. The criticism is that local government has become too remote. If a change is to be made by the Assembly, I am quite certain that it is much more likely to be on the basis of conferring all local powers on a unitary type of authority. Therefore, there is not the slightest prospect of the Assembly taking over local government powers and then seeking to finance these by something other than rates. If I thought that there was the slightest possibility of an Assembly going in that direction, which I would consider to be a most retrograde step, I should be tempted even at this late stage to vote against the Bill.
The Earl of PERTH: I think that the noble Lord misunderstood me. What I had in mind was that in any re-formation of local government the regions might disappear, and that that could create certain savings. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, this is a matter which is going to be debated later today, and therefore we shall not go into that at this time.
I remain unhappy that there is no mention in the Bill of the Assembly having powers at any time, even with the approval of Parliament, for taxation. As I understand it, the answer given by the Government at the present time is, "Because we have not been able to think of a tax, therefore there cannot be one. But at a later date we could look at it again." I do not feel that that is good enough. I feel that I would wish to press the Amendment, and I hope that I shall have full support in my endeavours.
5.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 337) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Content, 77; Non-Contents, 76.

Ferrers, E.

Morris, L.

Spens, L.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stamp, L.

Greenway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Haig, E.

Northchurch, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Onslow, E.

Terrington, L.

Kemsley, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teviot, L.

Killearn, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Perth, E. [Teller]

Tranmire, L.

Kinross, L.

Phillips, B.

Trenchard, V.

Linlithgow, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Vaizey, L.

Loudoun, C.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Vernon, L.

Lyell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Vickers, B.

McFadzean, L.

Reigate, L.

Vivian, L.

Mancroft, L.

Romney, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Mansfield, E.

Sandford, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Meston, L.

Sandys, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Ardwick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Northfield, L.

Atholl, D.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Birk, B.

Hall, V.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Blyton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowden, L.

Hawke, L.

Rochdale, V.

Brimelow, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burton, L.

Jacobson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

Snow, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kagan, L.

Stedman, B.

Crook, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lockwood, B.

Torphichen, L.

Dowding, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Dulverton, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller]

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

McCluskey, L.

Wigg, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Monson, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Resolved in the affimative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 59 [Devolved matters]:
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 370:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert ("a").
The noble Earl said: We are now entering the area of the Bill which deals with the division between matters which are devolved and those which are not. It is probably far and away the most difficult part of the Bill to understand and I have tabled the Amendment to try to get some picture of what is in the Government's mind, in the hope that we can make this provision clearer.
There are at least three ways in which one can divide powers by devolution. The first is to state that certain subjects will be retained by the Westminster Government and the rest will be devolved. The second is to do it the other way round and devolve certain subjects and say the rest will remain with the Westminster Government. Those are the easier ways of doing it, but the Government have chosen the third way: they have tried to define both the subjects to be devolved and the subjects to be reserved. That is the most difficult way of doing it and, while they may have good reason for doing it that way, it makes the position very difficult to understand. Indeed, two noble and learned Lords who belong to the Judicial Committee have said that they regard this as among the most difficult drafting they have seen. I tried last night

419
to obtain an explanation regarding the Scottish Development Agency in Part III of Schedule 10, but I was immediately referred hack to Part I; I was, so to speak, going round the mulberry bush. Certainly I find it most difficult.
There are two forms of devolution here. One is statutory devolution, which comes in Schedule 10, and the other, in Schedule 11, is purely Executive devolution, and the two are quite separate. I am seeking by the Amendment primarily to discover whether it is really necessary to have Part III of Schedule 10 at all because it increases enormously the difficulty of understanding the provision. The Minister described it as "fine tuning", but it is so fine that nobody, even with a microscope, can understand what it means. It is exceedingly difficult.
What does it mean if a measure is not referred to in Part 111 of the Schedule? Does it mean that it is reserved? And why are some Bills in and some not in? The Schedule refers to "matters". If it is a matter which is covered by a Bill which is not included, does that of itself prevent the Assembly from legislating on that subject, or does it only mean that the structure of the Bill itself cannot be amended ? It is important to know whether the measure is sacred in itself or whether a similar subject or subject matter under the same heading may be dealt with. After all, these Statutes are going to be amended; they are not permanent, and many other subjects may be raised.
There are a number of matters which are extremely difficult to understand. Let us take, for example, town and country planning. Why is that not completely included? Obviously, this is a matter with which the Assembly will have to deal. In so far as the Secretary of State wants to keep powers they are all perfectly preserved under Schedule 14. That provides for his powers to be retained. I cannot see why the whole of the remainder of town and country planning is not a devolved subject. The same applies to local government. We have been talking about local government, and we will be talking about it again later. Why is the whole of that subject net devolved? I should have thought that that is a matter which would be the clear responsibility of the Assembly.
I should like to take a third example, that of the Scottish Development Agency. I find it very difficult to believe that the Westminster Government want the Scottish Development Agency to be amended by the Assembly; but it can be in certain particulars, though, frankly, I do not quite see how this is done. The Assembly would be given certain powers, and I should have thought that those powers should be transferred to Schedule 11.
I do not intend to ask the noble Lord to answer my questions in detail. I do not want detailed answers, but rather, so far as possible, a picture of what is intended by these very detailed clauses. The difficulty of distinguishing where the responsibility lies will be enormously complicated. Are the clauses subject, in Part III, to Part I, or is Part I subject to Part III? I know that this is a very complicated matter, and I am grateful for the assistance the noble and learned Lord has given me, but I hope that at a later stage these matters can be elucidated a little further.
This is a Bill which must be understood net only by distinguished lawyers but the people in the street, and by the members of the Assembly. As it stands at present, it is frightfully difficult to understand, and people will not know where the responsibility lies. I tried to bring this point out in my Second Reading speech. It is the essence of democracy that we know where responsibility lies, that we know whom we can hold responsible for failures of Government.
I do not wish to argue this matter. I ask only that the noble and learned Lord tells us a little more of what is the intention, and says whether the matter can be simplified. Frankly, I should have thought that, in view of the powers which the Government hold—I have forgotten at the moment under which clauses—it is unnecessary to have these detailed matters. Perhaps some of the matters can be transferred to Schedule 11, and the remainder can be covered by the overriding powers which remain with the Westminster Parliament. That would greatly simplify the Bill. Such a move may mean some slight amendment elsewhere, but then the position would be less

421
formidable and less intimidating for those who would have to read the Bill in future. I beg to move.
6.13 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has made his concern about these matters plain from the beginning. As he has acknowledged, I offered him last night—and I think he received today—a copy of the substantial, and somewhat indigestible, script which I might have read out as being a critique of his Amendment. However, I do not think the Committee wants me to spend a long time reading out what is a highly technical defence of these provisions and a criticism of the Amendment. At the risk of falling flat on my face, I shall take the opportunity to try to explain why the matter is put in the way it is in Schedule 10 and, if I can, what Schedule 10 achieves.
First, it is important to answer the noble Earl's question as to whether this proposal is necessary at all; whether the complication which is demonstrable from Part HI of Schedule 10 is necessary? The first point I seek to make is that there is a compelling administrative necessity for Part III of Schedule 10. Those of your Lordships who have studied the Bill, or have a copy before you, will know that Part III is the part which refers to a vast number of enactments—commonly particular sections of particular Acts. Many detailed functions and responsibilities are set out in existing Statutes, and these Statutes—many of them referred to here—were not drafted in the knowledge that there would be devolution. No doubt had that been known, they would have been drafted differently. In coming to the matter, we have had to accept the Statute Book as it is.
It is important that those who are called upon to exercise the powers contained in existing Statutes should know with as much precision and certainty as possible, to whom they are responsible, and what their powers are: in other words, are the powers devolved or not? That is particularly true in the case where there is some financial responsibility. So we are not starting, as in some Colonial or Commonwealth cases, with a relatively clean, uncomplicated sheet. We are starting with a highly complex jungle of statutory provisions, which already interlock.
422
I looked this morning at the Renton Committee Report (Cmnd. 6053), with which some Members of the Committee will be familiar. I should like to refer to two passages of the report which will illustrate the truth of what I am saying about the complexity of the existing statutory provisions. On page 5 it is stated that,
"During the seven centuries since the enactment of the earliest statute (1235)"—
that is a reference to England, incidentally—
"recorded in Statutes of the Realm, many thousands of statutes (i.e., public as distinct from private Acts) have been enacted; despite repeals and consolidation, 3,480 ' public general Acts of Parliament ' were still in force in whole or in part at the beginning of 1974".
On page 35 it is stated that,
"A prodigious mass of statute law is enacted each year by Parliament".
Reference is then given to the number of pages added to the Statute Book in each decade, and the figures show that in 1965 the "live" Statute Book (that is, the Statute Book in force) then consisted of 33,000 pages of current law, parts of it dating back 700 years.
There is a well-known story of an Irishman being asked, "How do you get to Wexford from here? "He replies, "Well, I wouldn't start from here."However, we have to start from where we are. That is where we start from. We come to that situation, and we then have to endeavour to make clear for administrative purposes—and they are essential administrative purposes—what is devolved and what is not devolved. Without Part III, I do not believe that we can achieve the position which is administratively essential.
I now want to look at Schedule 10, and I will try to put the matter as briefly as I properly can. I have already addressed the Committee on this matter at some length at at earlier stage. The essential point is this: What is devolved under the Bill is "matters". The clause upon which everything hangs is Clause 59. If your Lordships look at Clause 59, you will see that it has two subsections which are relevant here. The first is subsection (2), which is on page 29. It reads:
"In relation to the legislative competence of the Assembly, a devolved matter is one which is included in the Groups in Part I of Schedule 10 to this Act".

423
As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made clear, we are talking here about what the Assembly can legislate on. So we see that a devolved matter is one which is included in the groups in Part I.
Subsection (3) is also relevant because a Scottish Secretary has powers and duties in relation to a devolved matter, but in that context a devolved matter is, according to the subsection,
"(a) any matter included in the Groups in Part I of Schedule 10".
So, in other words, he has responsibilities in relation to the same matters which are devolved for legislative purposes. The subsection also states, in paragraph (b), that a devolved matter is,
"any matter with respect to which powers within the Groups in Schedule 11 to this Act are exercisable…".
Paragraph (c) of the subsection contains a further provision which does not concern us here.
Schedule 10 then defines and specifies the matters which are devolved for both the purposes of legislation by the Assembly and actions by the Scottish Secretaries. Therefore the definition of a devolved matter is contained in Schedule 10. May I invite your Lordships' attention to that at the foot of page 47. There are three concepts involved here: There is first of all the concept of a group; secondly, the concept of a matter; and thirdly the concept of a subject. The groups which can be seen on pages 48, 49, and 50 are purely for convenience purposes. There is no technical significance about the fact that a subject is listed under one group or under another. Obviously there are possibilities for redistributing subjects among the various groups.
What is essential are the concepts of subject and of matter. I invite your Lordships' attention to page 47, line 31 of which reads:
"Subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) below, a matter is included in the Groups in this Part of the Schedule if, and only if, it falls within the subjects listed in them".
So we start off with subjects, and the subjects embrace matters, and it is the matters which are devolved. Paragraph (a) reads:
"the matters specified in Part II of this Schedule are not included in those groups".
In other words, this is the derogation from the devolution that would appear on the face of Part I.
424
Then we come to the clue to the meaning of Part III, where enactments are set out:
"any question whether, or how far, the matters dealt with in the enactments listed in the first column of Part III of this Schedule are included in those Groups is to be determined in accordance with the second column of that Part".
These words in (b) are important and they relate to the words in line 31,
"Subject to paragraph (b) below"
and the word "but" in line 33. Over the page, we find these groups which have no technical significance, and listed under the groups are a number of subjects. If a matter falls properly within one of these subjects, it is a devolved matter.
When one comes to Part II, which appears on page 50 and subsequent pages, one finds that certain matters are subtracted from Part I. For example, although health is the description of a group, and there are certain subjects listed under that group, descriptions are mentioned—for example, "Prevention, treatment and alleviation of disease or illness"—one finds that, although the matters properly falling under that head are included in the groups and are therefore devolved matters, paragraph I of Part H on page 50 makes it clear that,
"Control of drugs, medicinal products, biological substances and food"
are not devolved matters. I do not want to take up a lot of time with other illustrations, but it would be possible to do so in relation to different subjects and groups.
We come to Part III, to which I referred on a previous occasion by saying that it did the fine tuning. Part III, which appears first on page 53, indicates that a number of these 3,800 statutes which we find on the Statute Book are listed on the left-hand side, and there is a general heading:
"Whether, or how far, matters dealt with are included in the Groups".
Those words derive their strength from the preliminary part of Part I. One finds particular statutes which have a bearing on subjects which constitute the groups and therefore upon devolved matters, and the right-hand column endeavours to make clear precisely what is or is not included in the groups and is therefore among the devolved matters.
The noble Earl asked a specific question: is it really necessary to have Part III?

425
Something of this kind is really necessary because, without having something of the character of Part III, the boundaries between what is and what is not devolved cannot be drawn with sufficient precision to make it clear to those who have to decide which side of the boundary their responsibility lies.
I was also asked: supposing a Bill or part of a Bill is not referred to, is it reserved or not? Again, the clue to that matter is the concept of a devolved matter. If a particular statute or enactment is referred to, what is the matter contained in the enactment? Is it included in the groups or not? That can be found from reading the right-hand column in Schedule 10 Part III. Another question was: can a Bill be legislated upon if it is not included? Of course the legislative competence of the Assembly depends upon whether or not the matter is devolved. If an enactment is not mentioned in Part HI, then one can forget about the enactment. The question is whether the matter is devolved. If the matter is devolved it can be legislated upon, and the Act of Parliament can be repealed. If the enactment is referred to in Part III it will be found in the right-hand column. If the whole enactment appears there with the words "not included", then plainly the subject matter of that Bill is outwith legislative competence and one could not repeal the Act because it would not be within legislative competence. That is a very complicated explanation. I hope it is correct. It is as simple as I can make it without distortion and I hope that the noble Earl will feel it has taken him some way along the road in answer to his question.
Lord MOTTISTONE: The noble and learned Lord has helped us greatly, but, observing the beginning of Schedule 10, which reads,
"if, and only if, [a matter] falls within the subjects listed in [the groups]"
and the fact that, in the Bill itself, it says that the groups include the devolved matters, it seems surprising that it is necessary to have Part II. If the devolved matters are only those referred to in Part I, everything else would seem to be excluded.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If you consider Part I and take the example that I gave a
426
moment ago of "prevention, treatment and alleviation of disease or illness", that would, unless there was some qualification of that, almost certainly carry to the Assembly legislative competence in relation to medicinal products. If the policy decision is not to give the Assembly such legislative competence, we have to find a way to derogate from that devolution. May I give another example which makes the point equally clear. Take Group 22: among the matters involved are,
"Courts, including juries. Court jurisdiction and procedure".
The derogations from that appear on page 51 and over the page we find that,
"Judges of the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Session, the Chairman and members of the Scottish Land Court, sheriffs principal, temporary sheriffs principal, sheriffs and temporary sheriffs"
are excluded from Group 22 by paragraph 15 of Part II of Schedule 10. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is acknowledging that I have answered that question, but perhaps it is right, seeing that he has drawn attention to the words "if, and only if" appearing in line 32 on page 47, I should again draw attention to the words which precede it; namely,
"Subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) below, a matter is included in the Groups …if, and only if, it falls within the subjects listed in them; but—…".
The word "but" is important, and the phrase preceded by the word "Subject" is also very important.
Lord MOTTISTONE: May I ask another question, please, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me? These two lists cannot be comprehensive of all matters that the Scots will want to do. If there is a subject which is not comprehended by either Part I or Part II, can it be assumed that that is devolved, or not?
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I had stuck to my notes I would have answered that question, but I will do so now. The important matter to note is that if a matter is not included in Part I of Schedule 10 it is not a devolved matter. In other words, there is reservation by silence. For example, you will find no mention of nuclear weapons in this Bill, so you may assume that they are not devolved. Defence is not devolved and foreign policy is not devolved. One does not

427
have to specify. It can be done, of course: one can list devolved matters and one can list reserved matters, but that is not the policy of the Bill. Within the context of various clauses the notion of a reserved matter is used for a limited purpose. One finds that, for example, in Clauses 35, 36 and 37.
6.32 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: Perhaps I might take this opportunity to ask to have on the record a question which I have already put to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill and to which, in correspondence, I have had a reply. As my noble and learned friend knows, I am involved in another look at things legal in which the question of jurisdiction on divorce matters will inevitably come up. One of the points which are regularly being put forward is the possibility of divorce being dealt with in the sheriff court. The Part II to which my noble and learned friend referred has, in the matters not included—I am referring now to paragraph 16(c) at the bottom of page 51—the jurisdiction of the Court of Session over "any question of status, right or obligation"; I will not read on.
The answer, as I have been given it, is that within that it will be impossible to take divorce away from the Court of Session and give it to the sheriff court, but it would be possible to add to the jurisdiction of the sheriff court by making it possible for divorce to be dealt with. So the Assembly, by legislation, could create concurrent power, but it could not take away the power from one court and transfer it to another, though it could add it. Am I putting the matter correctly? Is this the position which the Bill makes possible?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall shortly answer that either "Yes" or "No", but let me work towards the answer. The courts are devolved. W'e see that in the group to which I have referred in Part I. My noble friend has referred to paragraph 16(c), but, of course, that is qualified by words over the page, in lines 4, 5 and 6 on page 52, where the wording is as follows:
"The matters above do not extend to the continued existence of the privative nature of any jurisdiction…".
428
The significance of those words is that at the moment the Court of Session has exclusive jurisdiction over actions concerning status. That is a privitive jurisdiction; it excludes the jurisdiction of other courts. These words have the effect that the privitive jurisdiction of the Court of Session is not protected. In other words, as my noble friend suggested, the answer is, Yes, the Assembly can legislate to allow divorce in the sheriff court, but they cannot take away from the Court of Session the right to entertain actions concerning status, including actions of divorce.
Lord HUGHES: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that answer.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I make a point which is perhaps important for the understanding of the Bill by people who are interested in reading it? If one looks at the groups, one finds that up to Group 7 the numbers of the groups exactly correspond with the matters not included in the groups in Part II. After that, apparently, that system broke down; they could not go on with that very easily, because they wanted to keep the numbers running straight through. Would it not have been easier, and could it not still be done, to have had the matters not included in the groups numbered in accordance with the groups? And, if there is nothing which is not included in the groups, then there will be no similar reference in Part II. I hope the noble and learned Lord sees what I mean.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Yes, I do.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should have thought it was possible to follow this right through with the groups and then to add at the end those matters which are referred to in Part II which are not included in the groups at all. Could that be considered?
Lord McCLUSKEY: That is not really possible. There is no planned correspondence between the groups in Part I and the paragraphs in Part II. I agree with the noble Lord that it would appear, if you look at it, that paragraph 1 of Part II is related to Group 1 in part I, but it is not necessarily so. For example, if you take the first item in paragraph 1 of Part II on page 50 it is the control of drugs.

429
That is excluded, but it is not excluded only from Group 1, which relates to health; it is also excluded from Group 26, which relates to crime. One can do that many times over; but, really, what it comes to is this, that each of the matters specified in Part II of the Schedule is taken out of devolution, no matter under what head you might get it in under Part I. There are various things that could come under different groups in Part I because of the construction of this, and they have got to be excluded. For example, if you simply relate paragraph 1 to Group 1, you suddenly find that it is not excluded from devolution under Group 26. So it does not work the way that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggested. En other words, it cannot be done.
Lord BURTON: May I thank the noble Lord for that excellent description? This is a problem which I tried to get answered last week and again yesterday, when we were referring to the Highlands Development Board. He has to a large extent answered it, but there is still a little complication because, though it was clearly pointed out that the Highlands Development Board was devolved, it plainly says on page 58 that the Act setting up the Highlands Development Board is not included. This really does cause enormous confusion. Would it be possible, in Part III of the Bill, to specify which Acts are included? I think that would clear the situation a great deal. They have put in all the Acts which are only part included and some of the ones which are not included, and if we actually specified the ones which were included it might help.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I was not here when that was said, although I am sure I was here when the noble Lord thought it was said, because I do not think it was said that the Highlands and Islands Development Board was devolved. What is devolved is matters. Of course, where there are existing agencies, whether it is the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board or the like, there are provisions in the Bill about giving directions or guidelines, and that kind of thing, but you do not devolve the Highlands and Islands Development Board; you devolve matters. I am talking at the moment about Schedule 10.
6.40 p.m.
Lord POLWARTH: I hesitate as a layman to plunge into this legal thicket, but I feel bound to add a word in support of my noble friend Lord Selkirk. One of the leading industrial companies in Britain with which I have a connection has taken this Bill extremely seriously and has set up a working party, including its leading corporate legal staff, to go into the implications of it for the company. They had a number of specific minor points, but the main point made by them here—and this, as I say, included people well-versed in corporate industrial law—was the question of the complexity and confusion of the layout of the Schedules.
To quote only some of the points: the Act in Schedule 10 lists chronologically rather than by subject—salmon fisheries, anatomy, and goodness knows what—all following on without any logical sequence. Surely some way could be found of grouping them by subject. They are copiously laced with double negatives. For example, page 61, line 4, says:
"The Development of Tourism Act 1969.…Not included, except that the matters dealt with otherwise than in …section 1(2); sections 7 to 16;… Schedule 1… are included".
And they point out that both Schedule 10 and Schedule 11 have beers laid out in such a way as to require an excessive amount of work to discover their effects. We have created a jungle through which the layman—and in this case, the lawyer—will have great difficulty in blazing his trail. They point out that a reader wanting to study in detail the effects of the Bill on the problems of road transport will have to go through at least six separate stages moving from Schedule to Schedule and to other Acts and back again; and they wonder whether there is not some possibe solution to simplifying this. Not being a lawyer, I do not know whether this is feasible. They suggest that it might be possible to combine Schedule 10, Part I with Part 11 so that the exclusions and limitations could be seen, looking at them together. They wonder whether Schedule 10, Part III and Schedule 1I could be combined in tabular form, listed by subject matter showing which sections are reserved, which devolved to the Assembly and which to the Executive only.
I do not know whether that is possible. It would be longer, undoubtedly, but I think that the main point is this: These

431
provisions are for the benefit of the ordinary people of Scotland and those who do their business there. Even if it is impossible—and I admired the noble and learned Lord's explanation of why it was impossible, even if I did not understand it all—could the Government undertake, in the event of this Bill being enacted, that the Government will publish some vade mecum as to the combined effects of these Schedules on devolved matters so that they may be more easily comprehended than is the case with many of your Lordships today.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to add one word on much the same lines as my noble friend Lord Polwarth. I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord very much on the extraordinarily skilful manner in which he tried to decipher some of the indigestible information which is contained in all these Schedules. This is really what depresses one so much about this Bill: that the thing is really not workable. I cannot think how many civil servants must have sat around reading all these Acts and deciding which came under the jurisdiction of the Assembly and which could not be devolved. It is fantastic the care and so on that has been given to this particular thing; but it really does make it quite impossible, I think, to know how to proceed.
If one were a Member of the Assembly or a member of a local authority and wanted to try to bring forward something which one thought would be an improvement in Scotland, one can imagine the amount of people that one would have to consult—among others, no doubt, a number of lawyers. This is art absolute bonanza for the lawyers. I do not mind. I am all for people being employed as much as possible. We all know that employing lawyers is rather a slow process and also very often expensive. It may be that their advice is worth all the money that we pay them. I expect it is. I am not running down the lawyers. The fact is that it is expensive. If one is going to try to take any action under these three Schedules, the very start of it would be almost impossible.
If I were in the Assembly, or had been still in local government, I cannot think
432
of the depression that I would feel if I were trying to involve myself in some legislation which was partly devolved, partly not devolved and in which all these different enactments and matters that cannot be enacted are listed very carefully here. It is a perfect maze through which I cannot believe that anybody could find their way. Certainly, no ordinary person could possibly do so. You would require to be either someone in a Civil Service office or a civil servant or a lawyer before you begin to understand the thing at all.
I think that we are going to go through the Schedules very carefully in this Committee so that I am not going to make a comment on individual matters since they will all come up when we discuss Schedule 10 and the various pages that follow and the three clauses which the noble and learned Lord so carefully described to us. But I think this is going to be quite impossible. I cannot believe that the Government feel happy about it. I cannot believe that somebody should not take the whole thing back, think it all out again and try to make it simpler.
The groupings that my noble friend suggested are certainly a very good idea. Other Members of the Committee have suggested other groupings; while some divisions seem to me to be really very odd. For instance, I read that the National Library of Scotland has power to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of the members of the board of trustees, but is not included in the devolved subjects. Why bother to have a provision that the appointment of the board of trustees should be devolved? The National Library of Scotland, like any other national library, wants to have the widest territorial basis possible and a wide number of interesting and brilliant people to choose from. I do not say that the board of trustees might not be well chosen by a devolved Assembly or treated as a devolved matter; but why bother about it? It only adds to the complexity. Either devolve the whole National Library of Scotland—which, I think, would be a great mistake—or leave it in one section. I picked that out at random. It merely struck me when I was looking through the Bill just now.
Surely, it is possible to simplify this. If you do not do so, in my opinion it will be such a tangle and such a problem and so difficult to legislate or to find out what the

433
legislation means that, apart from a glorious method of employing vast quantities of civil servants and a good many lawyers, the ordinary person is going to be completely flummoxed. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will realise that this is quite an impossible arrangement and that it should be looked at very carefully again.
Lord BURTON: May I add to what my noble friend Lady Elliot has said? I think she is absolutely correct. It seems to me that the problem is that Part I is too wide-ranging. Let us take housing. It could cover a multitude of sins. All sorts, every time, is very wide-ranging. The only way one has of defining whether an Act was in or was not in, one would have thought, would be in Part III. The question I put to the noble and learned Lord, which I do not think he answered, was: Is it not possible to put in Part III those Acts which are actually devolved?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I would remind the noble Lord that we start with thousands of Acts which may have a bearing on matters which are or are not devolved. It must be remembered that we have already been through clauses that make it clear that the Assembly has within its legislative competence the power to repeal an Act of Parliament. Therefore you cannot start off by saying: "We devolve the subject matter within this Act of Parliament", because that leads to complications as the years go by. The Assembly repeals Acts of Parliament, but it has to keep a kind of glossary of all the repealed Acts so that someone can go through the Scotland Act to the repealed Act of Parliament to find out what the subject matter was that was devolved. The devolution is done by specification of subjects and matters contained within them in Part I of Schedule 10.
The Bill is being criticised for being complicated; the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, has just made a criticism of that kind. I must say that that criticism is misconceived. This is complicated, but to say that it is unduly complicated is, in my submission, unsound. If you want to look at complicated Statutes, look at the Income Tax Acts, look at the Taxes Management Acts. I have several copies of these. I get one set per year in my official capacity and I read them avidly.
434
They go to some five volumes in the edition which I have received, which has no annotations at all. They are immensely complicated, and they are immensely complicated because, in a sophisticated and complex society like ours, when you try to apply the laws you do not just write the Ten Commandments: you have to write complicated Statutes. When the noble Baroness says to me: "We must simplify", I would say to her that the price of simplification is uncertainty, and what we achieve in the Statutes in the way we draw them is reasonable certainty.
Of course, you have to go to someone for advice as to what the Statute means; but you have to go to a plumber for advice if you have leaks in your house, and you have to go to an accountant for advice on tax matters. That is the nature of our society. But to suggest that this Statute is unduly complicated is, in my submission, a misunderstanding in the context of others. Is it really more complicated than the annual Finance Act? I would think not.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, mentioned the possible combination of Parts I and II. I answered that when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I would rest on the reasons I gave there. He asked whether the Government would publish a vade mecum. No doubt someone will, but I think it will be found that the ordinary member of the public, who figures so much in our debates, is not going to be desperately interested in all the provisions of Part III of Schedule 10. By and large, the provisions concern the responsibilities of those who have functions to perform and legislation to introduce into the Assembly in Scotland. In so far as it concerns business, I have no doubt they will have to take advice as to how they are affected by these provisions; but I do not think that is a different exercise in character from the kind of advice they have to take about the ordinary Statutes, whether on tax matters, on transport or on anything else which goes through this Parliament at the rate of some 18,000 pages per decade at the present time.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I just say to the noble and learned Lord that of course we all know the Budget is extremely complicated and we do have to get advice, mostly from

435
accountants, as to how the Budget is going to affect us. We know that: it has been going on and it is getting worse. What is so sad about this Bill is that you are turning something which is, on the whole fairly simple—that is, the relationship between the ordinary voter or ratepayer in Scotland —into such a complication that you are going to do with this Bill what is already being done, I admit, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I do not want to add to the complications attending the ordinary citizen. I want the wretched ordinary citizen not to have to meet complications over every single thing he has to handle in his ordinary life. I admit that the complications of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are appalling, and I am not suggesting that is something that we like: we do not. But honestly, if you are going to add all these things to the ordinary subjects of life which we can already deal with quite happily and well with the Scottish Office within the United Kingdom situation, you are simply adding a hundred more complications and, to me, that is very sad indeed.
Lord POLWARTH: May I ask one further point of the noble and learned Lord? Is there in fact any reason why the Acts in Schedule 10 could not be listed by subject or group rather than chronologically? I have not got the Wales Bill with me, but I am told that they are listed by subject in that Bill. Certainly in Schedule 11, where there are references to Acts these are listed in groups. Would it not be possible to do this without making more difficulties?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The chronological order was chosen because, in the view of the draftsmen, that simplified matters. If you know that there are provisions in a Statute which concern your business—let us say, for example, the Transport Act, or whatever it may he—then it is very easy to find out. You know what the Act is; you go straight to the table and you go down until you come to the relevant date, and if you find no entry, fine. If you find an entry there, then you consult the enactment or the parts of it that are referred to. It is really not such a difficult exercise when you come to do it. I do not really think there is anything I can usefully add at this time.
6.58 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Listening to the exchange, I think that the noble and learned Lord has given an answer that was plausible as far as it affected my noble friend Lady Elliot; she only claimed to be a layman. But the point that the noble and learned Lord neglected to take into account was this: my noble friend Lord Polwarth told the Committee that this organisation, which is a formidable one, had had the expert advice of their legal advisers, who are not unaccustomed to interpreting legislation. I accept at once that the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that no legislation can be simple. It is always intricate and, to the layman, seems unnecessarily intricate. But of necessity, no simple legislation will ever work, as he said.
But what is his answer to the legal advisers? The answer he has just given is that the Parliamentary draftsmen have said that to deal with it chronologically is the best way, in their view. When Parliamentary draftsmen have passed it on, they have finished with it; but the people who gave advice to the Committee, through the mouth of my noble friend, are the ones who normally have to take this and deal with it when it has to be worked out as to how it affects individuals. He has told the Committee, passing on the advice of his legal advisers, that this is more intricate than is normal. He has told us that his advisers, who will have to work it, said that this is even more difficult than one normally expects legislation to be.
With that sort of evidence in front of the noble and learned Lord, surely he can say—not because of the laymen members who are merely making a layman's contribution, but in answering those who were quoted by my noble friend—that the Government will look at it? Their advice in operating this is rather more important than that of the Parliamentary draftsmen, who have finished with it once it becomes an Act.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord used the word "plausible", and I am sorry that he did so. I was not trying to be plausible; I was trying to be helpful—
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: It makes better sense.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Well, I do not know if it is better sense; but I think he misconstrues the character of the problem. It must be remembered that what we are defining in Section 10 is, in the first place, legislative competence. If the Scottish Assembly does nothing, the law in relation to health, which is devolved, or in relation to nuclear weapons, which is not, remains the same. When the Assembly has a mind to change the law about health, in so far as it is competent to do so, because of the provisions of Schedule 10 taken as a whole, then it sets about introducing a Bill and passing it. At that stage, the question of the true meaning of Schedule 10 arises, because it is that Schedule which defines the legislative competence of the Assembly. This Bill does not change the law in relation to health; it changes the legislative competence. It is not Westminster which will be legislating in future about health in Scotland; it is the Scottish Assembly.
When it comes to the other aspect of the matter—what we have been calling, as a form of shorthand, executive devolution—and the business friends of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, find that a Scottish Secretary is seeking to act in a particular way, it is at that point that they ask, "Has he the power to do that?" It is at that point that the question arises, but it arises narrowly in relation to his Act or his subordinate Instrument. So that the ordinary man in the street does not have to carry a copy of the Scotland Act in his pocket, for fear that he breaks the law. The law is as it is contained at the moment in the United Kingdom Statute and in the common law of Scotland, for people in Scotland, and that is the way it remains, until the Legislature in Scotland seeks to alter it.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I share the admiration of the Committee for the explanation of this Schedule which the noble and learned Lord gave us. But I think that he did himself less than justice when, in reply to the noble Baroness, he drew an analogy between these constitutional arrangements and the complexities of our Finance Acts and similar measures. I share the concern of the legal advisers of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. The matter can be simplified and an attempt was made to simplify it in another place, but the Amendments to that end were rejected.
438
There are a number of ways in which it could be done. If it had been desired to devolve those matters presently within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that could have been provided for without any of this kind of complexity and I should have thought that it would not be beyond the wit of man to do that. After all, this has not the complexity of the Finance Act. This is something which is a constitutional measure, in which there should be clarity. What startles me is that this is much more complicated than the Treaty of Rome, and I think that we should try again.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I may say so to the Committee, the noble and learned Lord is concealing the issue here, because, first, if you devolve to Scotland all the matters for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible, it is a totally different kind of devolution from the devolution contained in this Bill. Secondly, instead of people being able to find, by looking at this Bill when it is on the Statute Book, what is the extent of devolution, they have then to start, in 1981, 1991 or the year 2010, to ask themselves what were the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1978, and they will be found scattered over a dozen, 20, 30 or even hundreds of Statutes. Accordingly, what the noble and learned Lord calls "simplification" is really a concealment of the problem. What we have done is to face up to the problem and, if it has the appearance of complication, it is at least honest.
Earl FERRERS: I wonder whether I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question. I agree with a number of people who have said that his exposition has been quite admirable, particularly without any notes to go by. If I may say so with respect, it is quite extraordinary how he has mastered this problem and explained it. Indeed, I also admire the fact that he has almost persuaded one that it is really quite simple. I am bound to say that I find the whole matter wildly complicated, but that need surprise nobody.
What I should like to ask is this. He emphasised once that what this made perfectly clear was that it was matters which were devolved, and Schedule 10 refers to the various Acts and the sections

439
of the Acts which are, and which are not, devolved. But I wonder whether I may draw the noble and learned Lord's attention to page 65, which refers to the Control of Pollution Act. If the noble and learned Lord would like to take a little time to consider this, I shall be happy for him to do so. But after referring to the Act the Schedule states:
"The following matters are not included—
(a) those dealt with in section 21, except in so far as they relate to the production of heat from waste".
Presumably you can say that Section 1 is not devolved, or Section 23(2) is not devolved. But how can you say that a certain section is devolved, unless it happens to refer to something such as the production of heat, and yet it is devolved as regards every other production? It seems to me that that is a complication to which the noble and learned Lord might like to address his mind, because it is not, as I see it, a straight devolution or not of sections of Acts. It is apparently the devolution of sections of Acts, as to how they relate to certain processes which the Act covers. I should have thought that, even under the noble and learned Lord's interpretation, that makes it not quite so simple.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I hope that this is the last time that I will speak to your Lordships on this matter. But to take that example, I do not have the Act before me and I do not carry its provisions in my mind. However, in column 2 the wording is, again, the right wording. It is matters that are not included, and the matters that are not included are the matters dealt with in Section 21. If you look at Section 21, you will find that it covers certain matters, and there is an exception, for policy reasons, in relation to the production of heat from waste. But I am sure that your Lordships do not want any more heat from me, so I now sit down.
The MARQUESS of LINLITHGOW: I am very sorry to get the noble and learned Lord up again, but may I make what I consider to be a helpful and simple suggestion? I apologise if it has been suggested before, but I was outside when the debate started. When I was trying to understand this Bill, I found myself bewildered by reading through Schedule 10 and the various groups, and I then thought
440
that, happily, the matters not included in Part II will naturally bear the same number as the groups. But they do not. I now understand that the point has been made. But could the numbers of the groups not be printed against the items?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think that those who were unfortunate enough to be in the Chamber when I addressed myself to this matter will have heard the explanation, and the noble Marquess will find it in the Official Report. I think that this is not the time to repeat it.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I did not intend to develop such a wide-ranging discussion on this matter, but it reveals a very deep anxiety and I am not in the least surprised. We were all filled with admiration of the manner in which the noble and learned Lord dealt with it, and I shall not tempt him to come again into the fray. But I am bound to say that I was sorry he compared this Bill to the income tax system, which at least does not have any certainly about it, and I think that we might have tried a little harder in our efforts. We shall be examining a number of these matters later on, and, at the moment, I shall content myself with begging leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 371 not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

SHIPBUILDING (REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS) BILL
7.9 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (64) as first printed for the Lords: the Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 22, after "Shipbuilders" insert "or any other body corporate which has its principal place of business in Great Britain and which, between 1st January 1976 and 31st December 1977, has in Great Britain—

(i) completed a metal-hulled ship with a length of not less than eighty feet; or

(ii) repaired, refitted or maintained such a ship in a dry-dock or graving dock in which that body corporate has had during that period an interest in possession or a licence to occupy that dry-dock or graving dock for a period of not less than one hundred and fifty days"

2 Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
""length", in relation to a ship, has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) (Length of Ship) Regulations 1968;"
3 Page 3, leave out line 9 and insert—

"(a) in the case of a person employed by, or by a relevant company of, British Shipbuilders, by British Shipbuilders; and

(b) in the case of a person employed by any other relevant company, by that relevant company."

4 Page 3, line 16, at beginning insert "(i)"
5 Page 3, line 18, after "company" insert "of British Shipbuilders"
6 Page 3, line 20, after "Shipbuilders" insert—
"or (ii) any other relevant company to authorise any of its officers or employees to determine on its behalf any such question which falls to be determined by it"
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
7 Because the inclusion of private sector companies in schemes under the Bill is dependent for effect upon the Amendments made by the Lords in page 3, line 36, page 3, line 40 and page 4, line 2, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7.
442
For reasons which I will explain in a moment, this Bill has been returned from another place with separate, though closely related, Reasons for disagreeing with two groups of Amendments made in this House. The two groups of Amendments nevertheless bear on the same point, and I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I were to address my brief remarks to them together.
The purpose of all these Amendments is to bring the employees of some privately-owned ship repairing and shipbuilding companies within the scope of a redundancy payments scheme for Great Britain made under the Bill. The substantive Amendment is the first—that is, to page 1, line 22—which would have the effect of widening the definition of "relevant company" in Clause 1. The other eight Amendments are consequential.
The point at issue here—whether schemes under the Bill should apply to the private as well as to the public sector—has been extensively debated during the Bill's passage through Parliament. I naturally make no complaint. I do not propose to resurrect the arguments, first because they have already been extensively rehearsed, but also because the reasons of another place for disagreeing the Amendments rest not on those arguments but on a constitutional matter which the Amendments have raised. It is to this matter that I now turn.
Noble Lords will recall that during our debate in Committee I said that the Government did not intend to ask another place to waive its privilege or to alter the wording of the Money Resolution. That will be found in the Official Report for 9th March. This in itself, not unnaturally, provoked some controversy, but I felt it my duty to make the position perfectly plain so that this House should be under no misapprehension as to the effect of making these Amendments. It has been pointed out that, though rare, there have been cases where a new Money Resolution has been introduced in another place in order to accommodate Amendments made to a Bill in this House. That is quite true. I am advised, however, that in such cases the Amendments concerned were either Government Amendments or were Amendments accepted by the Government. In this instance, as I have emphasised, the Government maintain their view that the Bill should not be

443
amended to bring in some of the private sector, and so there is a quite different situation.
Noble Lords may have seen the terms in which the Speaker in another place ruled that those of our Amendments which needed to be covered by a Money Resolution and were not so covered were not to be discussed in that House. I am sure that it is not the wish of this House to challenge the relations between the Houses or the Government's proper responsibility to control expenditure. I do not believe that that was the intention of those who moved these Amendments. Their purpose has been served but the Government have made clear that they will not change their minds. Since we would all accept that it is not the function of this House to press proposals for increased expenditure I ask the House to accept that it has carried out its proper role, and to agree that it doth not insist on its Amendments.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7.—(Lord McCluskey).
7.15 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I agree that it is for the convenience of this Bench, anyway, that we should consider these seven Amendments and, indeed, the other Amendments at one time because they are all devoted to the same subject. If these Amendments had been accepted, then the Bill would have made arrangements under which the schemes would have extended to the private sector of the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry and would not have been restricted to the public sector. That would have meant that the Bill would have been fair to all those working in the industry who were suffering redundancy because of the overall situation in the shipbuilding industry.
As the noble and learned Lord has said, some of the Amendments went beyond the Money Resolution but, as he himself has agreed and as we pointed out at the time, there have been precedents in recent years for the Government extending the Money Resolution by a supplementary Money Resolution in order to cover Amendments which have come from this House. The last one that I know of was
444
the Employment Protection Bill, a recent Bill of two years ago, when the Government decided to use a procedural reason for not allowing the Amendments to go further. The Government decided not to test opinion again in another place, the Commons, and did not provide a supplementary Money Resolution. I should like to point out that they could have provided that supplementary Money Resolution—there was nothing against the procedure—but, as the noble and learned Lord has very frankly said, they decided not to do so because they were not Amendments which the Government favoured. That is the reason why the Amendments have been returned on financial grounds.
I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord about the constitutional position, and of course we would not wish to proceed further. However, I must make it clear that when we moved these Amendments we had no intention that extra money should be made available. The object of these Amendments was the equitable sharing among all those made redundant in the industry of the money which the Government were to make available. Therefore we were not impinging on financial privilege to the extent of intending that there should be additional expenditure, but we were interfering, one might say, with the financial scheme.
My understanding was that for some time the Government were in two minds as to whether or not to accept what we were proposing. I understand that the Government saw' the dilemma and recognised that there would be unfairness in the Bill as it stood. During our proceedings here the noble and learned Lord admitted that there was discrimination in the Bill against some of the workforces in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.
It could be that the Government have already gone too far in preparing their schemes under the Bill to be able to backtrack and make what we think would be an important improvement. The result is that there will be discrimination against men who become redundant because they are employees who are not eligible under the schemes provided for in the Bill. Bill Mackenzie, a welder working for a small shipbuilding firm on the Clyde, will not benefit from the Bill, simply because the Government decided in 1976 not to include his firm in the nationalisation Bill.

445
That was the decision of the Government. Jimmy Smith, a welder working a little further along the Clyde and doing exactly the same job for another firm and a member of the same union, will become eligible, simply because, by their deliberate decision, his company was included by the Government in the nationalisation Bill.
That is the kind of discrimination which will occur against the private sector. That private sector was deliberately created and left by the Government when they introduced the nationalisation Bill. At a time when the Government are claiming special concern for smaller firms, this Bill, unamended, makes complete nonsense of that declared policy. The special assignment of Mr. Harold Lever and the sentiments about small firms recently expressed by Mr. Healey at Budget time are entirely contrary to the discrimination against these private sector films and against their workforces.
That discrimination is now to be applied through this Bill. Not only is there to be discrimination but that discrimination will be arbitrary. This is illustrated by the statement last Thursday evening in another place by the Minister of State for Industry, Mr. Kaufman. A private sector shipbuilding firm, the Ailsa Company of Troon, is being taken over by British Shipbuilders. I understand that negotiations are still proceeding. When asked about the eligibility of its employees who have been made or may become redundant, Mr. Kaufman said:
"Employees of Ailsa will qualify under the scheme only if they have been made redundant after the company became a subsidiary of British Shipbuilders".—[Official Report, Commons; 27/4/78; col. 1810.]
This is likely to be a date in the near future, if the negotiations are concluded soon. It simply proves that men who become redundant before that date will not be eligible, while men working in the same firm and made redundant after that date, as yet unknown, will become eligible. It really is unfair and arbitrary to men, many of whom have spent years in this industry. We know it is the same worldwide situation which is causing, and will cause in the next two to four years for which this Bill provides, redundancies in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. We all regret that and we have spoken about it before in your Lordships' House. However, when the unions find
446
the discrimination taking place within their membership, as they will in the coming months, I foresee that the Government will come to regret that they did not provide more flexibility in the Bill on the lines of our Amendments.
7.21 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord comes well out of this, but the Government come out badly. I say that the noble and learned Lord comes out of it well because he withstood quite an attack and he made it perfectly clear that the Money Bill would not be altered. He did not want to leave the House under any misapprehension when he could so easily have left the situation hazy. The Government come out if it badly because, although the noble and learned Lord said that it is usual for them to alter and extend a Money Bill only when it is a Government Amendment or when it is something with which they have sympathy, they have the power to extend it if they so wish and I think it is quite deplorable that they should want to hide behind a procedural manoeuvre to prevent Parliament from considering Amendments sent by your Lordships to another place.
It is all very well to say that the Government did not agree with it: the Government did not agree with those Amendments possibly for the reason adduced by my noble friend—that they had wrongly anticipated obtaining the powers, and they began to get things on the move before they had the powers. Probably they had expended money in order to prepare for that when the Bill had not gone through all its stages. If they made that mistake in the early days I do not think they should back it up now by being stubborn and using these procedural methods. The Government are entitled to their view, but from every point of view, bearing in mind the nearness of many votes on this and the view that was expressed from all parts of the House, I should have thought that the Government would have let Parliament as a whole decide it.
To put the Speaker in a position where he virtually has to gag Members of the other place for procedural reasons is not a good thing, particularly as it leads to the unfairness described so vividly by my

447
noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. So congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, but no kudos at all for the Government. It is just one extra manoeuvre which shows that executive dictatorship which I think is cutting across the true desires of the mass of the people.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, for many years I represented a very important shipbuilding area on Tyneside—Swan Hunters—and I also used to speak for the shipbuilders in Sunderland. I am only adding to what my noble friend has said on the matter. I do not myself want to go into any great detail because I have not had the opportunity of examining what the position will be among some of the yards on Tyneside and on the Wear. But in a matter of this kind, where injustice is obviously going to triumph as a result of what has been done in another place, and its acceptance by noble Lords opposite (I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that the Government are always talking about being fair, but if it does not suit their policy they just forget that they ever said it), it is important that the facts should be on the record.
Because so far as I know there is nobody here to speak for the shipbuilders on Tyneside and on Wearside, I want to add to what my noble friend has said tonight. I hope that those who are interested in shipbuilding, and in fairness for their employees, will see to it that in the shipbuilding areas of the North East it will be made perfectly plain that the Government did not, for their own reasons, try to make things fair and just. As my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said, the Government come out of this very badly indeed. I am glad to add my voice to that and I hope it will be known in my part of the world.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
8 Clause 3, page 3, line 36, at end insert "or to any other relevant company not being a relevant company of British Shipbuilders, as the case may be"
9 Clause 3, page 3, line 40, at end insert "or the other relevant company in question"
10 Page 4, line 2, at end insert "or the other relevant company in question, as the case may be."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
11 Because they would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
7.28 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 11.
I have nothing to add. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not follow the speeches by going into the merits of the matter, for this reason. I made my position as clear as I could at the time and I do not think I can help matters by reiterating what I said then. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 11 .—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I entirely understand the position taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and particularly after his tour de force earlier today on the Scotland Bill we would not expect him to restate his position, which we know. He has been an advocate for a Department with whose dealings he would not normally be concerned, and I think he put the case plainly and frankly when the Bill was going through your Lordships' House. We are only sorry that the decision was taken elsewhere and has resulted in these Amendments not being accepted.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.29 p.m. until 8.10 p.m.]

SCOTLAND BILL
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 372:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
Review of Local Government
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall, not less than 28 days after the first order to be made under section 79 of this Act has been approved by each House of Parliament, arrange for a review of the structure of Local Government in Scotland to identify changes made necessary or desirable when the Assembly is established.
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State, as a result of that review, that changes in the structure of Local Government are needed, he may, after consultation with the First Secretary, introduce the necessary legislation in Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 372. It is covering the same subject as Amendment No. 168, so I do not think we have lost anything by restarting at this moment, and I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in his place. I put down Amendment No. 372 on the Marshalled List not because I disagree with the purpose in the Amendment in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, but because I thought there was a different way in which this could be done. I think it is for the convenience of the Committee generally if, when a subject is somewhat complicated, one puts down one's alternative, because then everyone has the chance to study beforehand the different approach.
I agree with what is clear from both Amendments, that if and when an Assembly is set up there are likely to be changes in local government; this will become necessary. It is probable, and it has already been stated several times during the passage of the Bill, that because another tier of government will be coming in, local government in Scotland could be changed to a single purpose system, authorities with a single purpose, rather than the two-tier system which now exists. I would remind your Lordships that the Wheatley Commission, when it made its report in 1969—and its membership included representatives of the major Parties as well as other distinguished persons—unanimously recommended a
450
two-tier system of local government. After it had come into effect, in 1975 or so, quite a number of changes were made to the Wheatley Commission's recommendations, and I was responsible for many of those changes. Nonetheless, at the time it made its report it was unanimously in favour of the two-tier system to replace the four kinds of authority which had existed in Scotland before that.
At the time there was general agreement with that. I met very few people who disagreed with the idea of a two-tier system at that time. Of course, we were all concentrating on whether the Shetland and Orkney Islands should have a separate kind of status; whether there should be a region for the Borders, and what should happen to Fife and so on. These were all matters which were considered at great length and changes were made. But at that time the two-tier system was accepted by a very large majority of people concerned and interested. Now there is some criticism of it, but there seems no doubt to me that if the Bill goes through in its present form, and if it is endorsed in a referendum, then it will be thought that local government in Scotland needs to be reviewed, with the possibility of a new system of single purpose authorities.
The difference between my Amendment, No. 372, and Amendment No. 168, is the way in which the review is to be carried out. I am suggesting that it should be started as soon as the first action is taken to set up the Assembly. I have worded the Amendment in my name,
"The Secretary of State shall, not less than 28 days after the first order to be made under…this Act…";
so that is when the pistol goes, when the whistle blows. After a referendum, if the Bill is accepted, the Secretary of State will start the review of local government.
There are two reasons for that. First, I think that the relations between the new Assembly and local government in Scotland will be very delicate, and particularly so at the beginning; and I think it is important that the relations between the Assembly and local government in Scotland should be good because the Assembly is going to be responsible for a great deal of what local government covers. The second reason is that I think that a review should not be held up. Amendment No. 168 simply allows the

451
Assembly itself to carry out a review within a matter of four years. The changes which people will consider necessary in local government will be largely because of the expected existence of the Assembly, and no time should be lost in starting the review. That is why I think the Secretary of State should initiate the review, and that it should be Parliament at Westminter which takes whatever action results from it. That is the difference between my Amendment and Amendment No. 168, which suggests that the Assembly itself should in due course carry out the review.
The Assembly is going to be so busy getting itself set up and going through all the procedures we have discussed, choosing an executive and staff and taking over the functions which are to be devolved to it, that it will itself not be functioning properly for many months, maybe a year or two, and it will be in no position to start telling local government how it should be reorganised. I regard the operation of the review of local government as part of the establishment of this Assembly, and inasmuch as Parliament at Westminster, through this Bill, is considering the establishment of the Assembly, then Parliament at Westminster should also immediately be tackling the necessary adjustments in local government as part of the operation of setting up the Assembly. So I agree with the purpose of Amendment No. 168, but I am simply suggesting that it should be handled differently, and also that it should be handled more quickly.
I foresee a period, while the Assembly is being established, when there will be many complaints in Scotland that they are being over-governed, that there are too many tiers of government and that nothing is happening and no review being started. My Amendment would ensure that the review would start straight away. With it one should consider—I just draw attention to it—Amendment No. 374, which comes in Schedule 10, and there may be other consequential Amendments too, because that is simply there to indicate that the initial review of local government is not a devolved subject; that that would be carried out by the Secretary of State, if my Amendment were adopted; but that thereafter local government would be handed over to the Assembly, subject to the qualifications in Schedule 10.
I am not suggesting that my Amendment is one that we should press, and I think that the alternative Amendment, No. 168, should certainly be considered. But I think that a review of local government will be expected. I do not think it should be regarded as opening up war with the regions, although it has already been stated earlier today that the Regional Councils are likely to be the tier to suffer as a result of review.
The review must be carried out with an open mind. It will be necessary with this new system and a new Assembly coming into existence.
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: I owe the House an apology for not being here to move my Amendment. However, no harm has been done because the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I are agreed that both Amendments are focused on the same point; namely, the need for the reform of local government. If I had moved my Amendment, my method would have been somewhat different from that employed in moving Amendment No. 372, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. We both started from exactly the same premise. We were unhappy about the present form of local government. We felt it was of great importance that the Assembly, in one way or another, should have an opportunity, very shortly, to look at the whole question.
The proposal before your Lordships is that the matter should be initiated by the Westminster Parliament and then go to the Assembly for consideration. Frankly, I do not mind whether it is that way or whether it starts with the Assembly and then goes back to Parliament. It is important that we should be sure that there will be a real look at the matter. I hope that will not be looked upon as a war. People should recognise that this is in the real interests of the Scottish people. Your Lordships and I know that they feel that this matter needs looking at. They are not happy with it.
If it is known that one of the results or sequels to the Assembly being set up is that there will be a look at local government, I think it will make the chances of its being accepted, particularly in the referendum, that much better, as "We shall have a chance to look at what is happening" will be a good slogan. I

453
do not think it matters whether the initiative comes from the Assembly or the other way about. It is important that the matter should be examined. I fully support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I, too, should like to support this Amendment. We are all agreed that the Assembly, whatever else it does, will cost a certain amount of money. I see, from the section of the Bill dealing with its financial effects, that it comes to a total of about £13 million per annum, without counting the original capital costs. It would be unfair to count the original capital costs, as obviously the Royal High School would have needed some form of reconstruction, anyway. I do not regard this as a waste of money, even if the Assembly fails to materialise.
We want to save money. There is no better way of saving money than to have a reorganisation of local government in Scotland and making it more local. It suffers at the moment from one huge region, which covers 50 per cent. of the population of Scotland, and a series of other regions, which, although much smaller, are still considered by the people of Scotland to be rather large and very far remote from them. The other snag is that the regions and the districts at the moment appear simply to loathe each other. Ours, which nominally have the same political complexion at both levels, spend their time battling against each other. If one writes a letter to one authority one must send copies to the others. If not, the other bodies feel hard done by. That makes it expensive both for the administration and for the people who have to communicate with the region or district, as everything must be duplicated, including postal charges. Therefore, the sooner there is a review of local government in Scotland, the better. I thoroughly support my noble friend's Amendment, or the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which unfortunately was not moved.
8.27 p.m.
The Earl of MINTO: I wonder whether I might declare an interest as a regional councillor in Scotland and speak one or two words to the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of
454
Croy. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Perth, should have been very unhappy about his Amendment. There will be a fairly long period of time taken by the Assembly, if it comes into being, before it settles down. To have saddled it with the extra burden of looking at local government reform would have been almost too much to expect of it. I am not sure that one necessarily wants to have people looking at local government who might, in a sense, have to declare an interest in their particular side of the business of the government of Scotland.
Had it been a straight question of support for Amendment No. 168, which was not moved, I should have felt that I must have spoken against it. However, as we are considering Amendment No. 372, there is one point that I should like to make before the Minister answers. It is fair to say that the few months that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, thinks it will take the Assembly to settle down is an underestimate. The noble Lord extended it to perhaps a year or two when he spoke. It will take considerably longer.
If I may, from my personal experience, I should like to say that we have just this very month finished the first four years of the reorganised local government in Scotland, although admittedly only three of them were spent in an executive capacity. The first year was, if you like, a running-in period with the authorities who were in control previously. It would not be untrue to say that the past four years have been a period throughout which we have been consistently learning. We are still learning now, after four years. We are aware that we are not perfect. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that we are conscious of this. We are conscious that the people of Scotland are not too happy with the way that things are going.
Having said that, it must be appreciated by your Lordships' Committee that the reform of local government will be a far more complex business than simply doing away with the regions, which is what one so frequently hears about. It is not a question of doing away with the regions at all. It may well be aiming towards a single-tier structure. I should personally prefer to see that. But even that will not be a simple problem when the particular powers that are devolved to local government at

455
present are as complex as they are. Therefore, I should not like to see this matter rushed. I am marginally concerned—I simply put it that way—by the condition that is in Amendment No. 372, that the period of time should be not less than 28 days after the first order. Whoever looks at local government may also wish to look at the Assembly once it has got itself a little bit under way.
I should not like to think that we started to look at local government too soon in case the full benefit of that particular review was lost in the purpose, as I see it, of cooling the Scottish people against the possibility of a very great increase in cost of another tier of Government. Therefore, if we could possibly have an assurance from the Minister that this would not necessarily be rushed, I personally as a regional councillor would be very happy indeed to know that local government was to be looked at in Scotland once again.
Lord BROWN: I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench and the Government will consider this matter, if not for the very constructive reasons put forward which seem to me to be sound, for the reason that the Government are very keen for the referendum to go in favour of the Assembly. It is quite possible that the insertion of this new clause might be the turning factor in the minds of that slim number of people whose votes might decide whether the referendum will go forward in favour or perhaps against the Assembly. There are many people, especially in the Strathclyde Region, the fringes of Argyll as well as the Islands and elsewhere, who are fed up with present local government in the form of the enormous Strathclyde Region. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the new clause.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. In my view it is extremely important. I agree with all that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, has said. He and I exchanged places when local government was reorganised—I went out of it and he came into it in the same area. Therefore, he has had experience, which I did not have, of the working of the reorganisation of local government.
456
However, I gave evidence to the Wheatley Commission, although at that time we had no idea that there was to be any suggestion of an Assembly. Therefore, we were thinking in terms of how to improve local government and how to make it more effective. Also, in some areas the units were very small and it seemed wise to make them larger. Certainly I had no idea in those days that we were to be faced with so many tiers of government with so many people involved. That is one of the reasons why I would urge the Government to accept the Amendment and to try to do something about the situation.
On the 6th December last year I tabled a Question for answer by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, about how many people were to be involved in the Government of Scotland if the Assembly and reorganisation took place. I have the figures with me. I remind your Lordships that a most extraordinary number of people are involved for a country which contains about 5- million people. On the district councils there are to be 1,117 people; on the regional councils there are to be 432, plus 75 on the Island councils, making a total of 1,624. If we include the community councils this has not happened all over but it could happen all over—which, of course, are tiny unpaid units, 14,656 people will be involved. We shall have in the Assembly somewhere between 140 and 150 people but the number has not yet been finally decided. There will be 71 Members of Parliament for the United Kingdom Parliament. There will be eight Scottish Members for the European Assembly.
Surely there is something very strange in a reorganisation of local government which involves 16,506 people, if we include the community councils. If ever there was a reason for reviewing the situation, especially in the light of an Assembly, then surely it lies in the colossal number of people involved. Quite frankly, my view is that it would mean everybody being the governors and very few people being the governed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and his friends will accept the Amendment with the provisos that have been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I support the Amendment.
8.35 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): Before I make what I hope will be one or two pertinent remarks, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that although I accept entirely the figures that she has just read to the Committee, it is fair to say that, apart from the new community council provision, the other figures show a reduction in the number of councillors involved in the public life of Scotland post, as opposed to pre, reorganisation. I think that I am absolutely correct in saying that, and perhaps she will give some thought to that as being a balancing factor.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I shall certainly check that point, but I have quoted the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, gave me on 6th December 1977.
Lord KIRKHILL: Yes, they are the figures which are current at present. All I am saying is that before reorganisation the numbers were rather greater. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is agreeable that we talk to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I recognise that it was unfortunate that his own Amendment was not moved at the appropriate time. I understood that the main point made by the noble Earl was his concern about initiative. The key point for me to emphasise to the noble Earl is that the Assembly will have the initiative. The Assembly has the necessary legislative competence and I direct his thoughts in that direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in moving his Amendment has expressed a mild dissatisfaction with the present state of local government in Scotland. I think that he would find support for his views in some quarters, but not in others. Many would take the view, as I do, that it would be a mistake to review at this time a whole new structure of local government introduced as recently as four years ago. The noble Lord himself made reference to the fact that it was under his leadership that the then Administration brought in the reformed system. I accept that the reformed system carried considerable public assent in that period.
458
My own view is that the system today—and here I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Minto—has really just reached a true formation. I totally agree with his point that during the first year there was a period of interregnum between the phasing out of the old system and the bringing in of the new, and that really it has been in operation for only three years. That is the point that Members of your Lordships' Committee must keep well to the forefront of their minds when considering this issue.
Within the legislative competence of this Bill we are considering the devolution of extensive powers to a raw Scottish Administration. My noble friend Lord Brown said that the Government should give very serious consideration to the Amendment placed before the Committee tonight. I would reply to my noble friend in this way: What could be more appropriate for such an Administration than the oversight of local government in Scotland? That is what the Scotland Bill does at present. The phrase:
"Constitution, area and general powers and duties of local authorities and similar bodies"
in Group 5 in Schedule 10 devolves an ability to legislate about the structure of local government and, in any structure consisting of more than one tier of local authorities, the distribution of local government functions within that structure. The Government consider that it is entirely appropriate for Parliament to leave it to the Assembly to decide whether reform of local government is needed and, if so, what form it should take and when it should be undertaken.
In the Government's view, these matters can best be considered by those directly involved—that is, the Scottish Administration—as it has direct contact with the daily problems of administering local services which guide the forming of opinions about the best type of local government structure. When Parliament devolves responsibilities, it must, in the Government's view, leave the devolved administration to deal with them in accordance with its own wisdom. In any case, the fact that the Secretary of State and Parliament are no longer directly concerned with the main areas of local government administration will mean that they are ill-placed to decide how local government is best organised.

459
Secondly, how is the Assembly to exercise its functions in relation to local government and local authority services while the reorganisation imposed by the Government is taking place? I put this question: is this likely to help relations between the different levels of Government? For myself, I would doubt it. Thirdly, once any legislation produced by the Government has been passed, the powers in the new clause are exhausted. I ask the Committee: What is to stop the Assembly legislating the old system back in again if it so wishes? These problems serve to illustrate the difficulties of trying to reinsert the Secretary of State into the middle of a complex of interrelated devolved matters and then taking him out again.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, touched upon the argument—and to be fair he made no great point of this—that, as local government is presently constituted in Scotland, we shall, once we get an Assembly there, have an additional tier of government. That is certainly a point that is sometimes made in public comment in Scotland today. However, the Government do not accept the extra tier argument. The powers to be exercised by the Scottish Administration are, for the initial period at least, those hitherto exercised by Ministers. Of course, the Assembly may extend those powers by its own legislation, but they will remain essentially of the character of central Government powers and not local government powers.
It seems likely that the Scottish Administration and the Assembly, given their responsibilities not only for general local government matters but also for many of the main matters with which local authorities deal—for example, education, housing, town and country planning, et cetera—will in due course turn their minds to consideration of the structure of local government. I think that that should be freely acknowledged. But, in my view, any case that exists for change cannot exist independently of the Scottish Assembly's considerations.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and, indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, have referred to the difficulty that sometimes exists—and in some places consistently exists—between the two tiers of
460
local authority structure. This is certainly the principal criticism which can and is being made of the present system. However, I must say to your Lordships that the conversion of a system devised for two tiers into a system consisting of one tier would require—and I think that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, accepted this—a very comprehensive review. It certainly cannot be sensibly achieved by the abolition of one tier only. That is not an answer; it creates a further difficulty and I think most who know about local government in Scotland will accept that. Therefore, I felt that I should make that point to your Lordships.
I do not think that I should say any more. I believe that I have made the Government's position clear. For the reasons that I have attempted to set before your Lordships, I would be unable to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
Lord BROWN: I should like to put something clearly on the record. My noble friend has been discussing this as though this new clause committed the Government to reorganise local government. Of course, it does not do anything of the sort; it commits the Government to look at it. We could not possibly envisage very much happening in that direction within the next three to four years, subject to the agreement of the Assembly. The point I want to put on the record is this. Few would doubt that the referendum will be, in the words of the Duke of Wellington:
"A very close run thing",
and that this Amendment might conceivably win that small additional number of votes which would cause the referendum to come down in favour of the Assembly rather than against it.
This is not a very big commitment; it is merely a commitment to look at the subject at an early stage. I do not know whether this sort of argument will commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and his friends on the Opposition Benches—perhaps it will not. However, I wanted to put that firmly on the record, because I still hope that the Secretary of State will look very carefully at this.
Lord KIRKHILL: My noble friend certainly has it very firmly on the record.

461
My riposte is clear: the Government are firmly of the opinion that the matter of the possibility of a re-reform of local government in Scotland must be left to the determination of the Scottish Assembly, when constituted.
The Earl of MINTO: I should like to raise one further point. During the Committee stage we have heard a great deal about the frictions that there will be between the Assembly and the other place, the Assembly and your Lordships' House and the Assembly and the other place and your Lordships' House. From these Cross-Benches, I am now trying to act in the best interests of Scotland. I am desperately anxious that the fourth quarter of the total frictional factor should not be allowed to exist if it can possibly he avoided. That quarter is the friction that will inevitably take place between the Assembly and local government, because if the Assembly is the body which is to review or reform local government, unless the Assemblymen have actually worked in local government during the last four years, by its very nature the Assembly will virtually be ignorant of local government as it exists today. There will be the most appalling friction. I can see them marching from Strathclyde to St. Andrew's House in vast numbers.
Lord KIRKHILL: I apologise for intervening, but surely that is the very point. If they march upon St. Andrew's House from the various parts of Scotland, then the Assemblymen will be more careful in their re-thinking of the reform of local government.
The Earl of MINTO: With respect, it is a very much longer walk from Strathclyde to London. I simply do not like this inbuilt friction which exists, while the Assembly, as we understand it in the Bill—so long as we understand the Bill—is to have authority over local government. That being the case, I am warning your Lordships in the Committee stage that if matters are allowed to remain as they are in the Bill, it will not be in the best interests of Scotland, and it will make an already extremely bad Bill very much worse.
8.48 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Minto,
462
has taken part in this brief debate. He is, as he said, a regional councillor and is familiar with the introduction of the new system following the reform of local government in Scotland. He has just emphasised one of the points I made in moving this Amendment, which was my anxiety about the relations between the new Assembly and local government—because they will be very delicate. There is likely to be friction if local government thinks that one of the first things the Assembly, before it has even got itself organised, will do is to try to slash local government, knowing very little about it. That is certainly putting starkly one of the reasons I gave for moving this Amendment.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, whose name was attached to the alternative Amendment, was somewhat critical of the present system, as some people in Scotland are, because the districts and the regions appear to battle with each other. He said that in his area the District Council and the Regional Council were battling with each other. I would only tell him that this seems to have happened before. Before the reform in local government, there was one area in Scotland where I can tell him that the battles were far worse than anything he has described. In the most populated part of Scotland, the Glasgow conurbation, the county councils—Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire, Dumbartonshire and even Ayrshire—and the Glasgow Corporation were equals but they fought each other. Anyone who was a betting man—and I am not—could guarantee that if one of those county councils adopted one policy then the one next door would adopt the opposite one simply out of spite. There was that kind of bad relationship. We must in criticising the present system, remember that it was worse before in certain important areas of Scotland.
I have made it clear that if it were not for this Bill and the prospect of a new Assembly I should not be recommending a review of local government at this time. I understand the Government's view when they say that they think it is too soon for a review. I should have said the same if it were not for this Bill. But it is because this Bill will be inserting a new additional tier of government—and there is no doubt about that—that it will be necessary to carry out a review. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, pointed

463
out the review does not necessarily need to come up with recommendations for change; it could recommend little change, or no change. The important point is that there will be great dissatisfaction in Scotland if a review has not been started.
The noble Earl, Lord Minto, rightly pointed out that my Amendment would start the review almost immediately after this Bill had been endorsed by referendum, and when the Motions were starting to set up an Assembly. He said that he thought it would take several years for the Assembly really to get into action. My Amendment does not say when the review should finish. I have no intention of suggesting that it should be carried out within a certain time, but a lot of people in Scotland will be very dissatisfied and worried, and will consider themselves really over-governed if there is no review taking place or being started. That is why I put in a starting date, but I had no intention that it should be carried out quickly. I think that discretion must be left there.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, speaking for the Government, seemed to think that my Amendment would mean that central Government at Westminster would go ahead with whatever recommendations the review produced without the Assembly having a say. But I specially put into my Amendment the words,
"after consultation with the First Secretary".
I made it permissive that the Secretary of State may introduce the necessary legislation in Parliament. I am certain that he would have to consult the First Secretary, and thereby get the views of the Assembly. But I am pretty sure that the Assembly would be likely to agree that changes recommended by a review of this kind were necessary in general. My worry is the other way round; it is that the Assembly, before it has organised itself, will be trying to abolish most of local government in Scotland. It is much more likely that it will not object to recommendations for a review. The danger is that the Assembly will try to slash local government in the first year or two before it has really set itself up, or is in a position to make a judgment—or that is what people will think. That is where the frictions will arise to which the noble Earl referred.
464
This Amendment is the result of some amateur drafting by me after a talk with the noble Earl, Lord Perth. Even if I put down one consequential Amendment, I would not regard it as a piece of perfect drafting and I shall not press it. I had hoped that the Government would have accepted the purpose behind it, and I am most disappointed that they appear to think that nothing should be done until the Assembly is in a position to institute a review and carry out recommendations. I disagree with that, but I would not wish to press this Amendment, and at this stage I shall beg leave to withdraw it. Before I do so, however, I give way to the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
8.55 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment I should like to make this point: the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said that the reform of local government is within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and that was if my Amendment had come forward fully recognised. I believe that this is a fact that should be widely known. I believe it should be widely known from the start. Therefore, I think it is important, if we can somehow or other, to indicate this fact at the Report stage.
It is equally clear that one does not want to order the Assembly to undertake such a review and actually bring about a reform. Indeed, in the Amendment which I had had in mind to move, it was specifically laid down that it should merely consider whether any action should be taken to reform the existing system. I hope that in spite of the withdrawal of the Amendment which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has in mind, the Government will all the same consider whether, at the Report stage, for the reasons I have given and for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and many others have advanced, they themselves could somehow indicate that the Assembly not only has the power but should usefully use it at least to look at things before too long.
Lord BURTON: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned the friction between the districts and the county councils. Before the regional reorganisation, the friction was surely only in the

465
Labour-controlled areas: now it is universal. If we have an Assembly, there will be friction not only between the Regions and the districts, but between the Regions and the Assembly as well.
The Earl of MINTO: I cannot be present in your Lordships' Chamber and allow that comment to go by without refuting it so far as the Region in which I live is concerned. The relationship in my Region between the districts and the Region are absolutely first-class, and I should not like Lord Burton's comment to be reported as having been supported by me.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: Before the noble Lord replies, I hate to play the rôle of spectre at the feast, and in this context I defer to the knowledge and experience of the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Brown, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. However, I have listened with great interest to the debate on this Amendment. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that if there had been no Bill he would not have been in favour of a review of local government. But he said that the Bill made such a review necessary. The question I should like to ask the Government arising out of this, if the noble Lord the Minister cares to reply to it, is, do the Government think that a constant state of flux in the context of our constitutional arrangements is a good recipe for success?
8.59 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Your Lordships will see that I am in splendid isolation on these Benches. My noble friends from Scotland have asked me to hold the fort here tonight, if that is not too Anglo-Saxon an expression to use in an Assembly that is dealing with Celtic matters. I really must express surprise that so many of the Conservative speakers tonight have so little confidence in this Assembly. I think that all their arguments about the difficulties associated with local government in Scotland and in Wales should lead them to say, "Let us leave this to the Assembly", particularly as in Group 5 of Schedule 10 the powers which have been devolved are indicated. I therefore express great surprise that so many distinguished noble Lords from Scotland should, at this stage, have so
466
little confidence in that Assembly, which will be an elected Assembly in Scotland and which will do a great deal of good for that country, without any reference to the Secretary of State at any stage.
Lord KIRKHILL: I agreed with the remarks of the lone Liberal spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who leapt into the defensive breach of a substantial character caused by the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I could not see the Government accepting on report an Amendment of the kind he tabled, nor an Amendment of the type such as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has tabled tonight, for the reasons I have been explaining. Those reasons were enunciated by Lord Lloyd, I thought with considerable succinctness. To answer the specific question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, of course I agree with him that no Government could possibly enjoy the prospect of a constant state of public flux in any part of the Kingdom, On the other hand, I think it is clear that in Scotland today there is a real desire to have within Scotland an Assembly, and the Government are committed to bringing that about.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am glad that resuming my seat when I did enabled the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to intervene as well as enabling a Liberal voice to be heard in the absence of the Scottish Peers who had been occupying those Benches, and I welcomed the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Whether his intervention represented loyalty to the Lib-Lab pact I do not know, but I can tell him that my Amendment and what I said was no reflection on the new Assembly. That new Assembly will find it difficult enough coping with the many tasks which will occupy it fully in its early months and years.
I have regarded any review of local government, starting when the Assembly is about to be set up, as something which is a counterpart of setting up the Assembly and not as a job to be carried out by the Assembly itself; it is part of changing the constitutional arrangements in Scotland. That is why leaving it to the Assembly would mean putting it off for a long time. I would inform Lord Lloyd that there is a

467
feeling, which one hears every weekend in Scotland, that if an Assembly is established then some changes must be made in the structure of local government, otherwise there will be too much government. That is the reason why there will be complaints when the new Assembly is being established if it appears that absolutely nothing is being done, that nobody is even looking at it, and that is where I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, though at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 10 [Matters within legislation competence of Assembly, and within powers of Scottish Executive]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Amherst of Hackney): I have to inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 373 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 169.
[Amendment No. 373 not moved.]
9.3 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 47, line 31, after ("below") insert ("and subject to the reservation of functions listed in Schedule 15 to this Act").
The noble Lord said: I can deal with this very quickly. I tabled this Amendment, and informed the Government accordingly, simply to get clarification of the purpose of Schedule 15 and to draw attention to it. Schedule 15 gives a list of reserved functions by certain public bodies and local authorities, but it refers only to the clause which contains the definitions. If one looks up Schedule 15, one sees against it that its companion clause is the definitions clause, and when one turns to that one finds "Reserved functions".
When one comes across the words, "reserved functions" in the Bill, one presumes that they mean functions reserved to Westminster and not simply a term of art, a special term,forthereserved functions of certain public bodies listed here; and in fact there are only two or three places in the Bill where I have found the words, "reserved functions" used. I therefore hope the Minister can tell us in a few words
468
where Schedule 15 fits into the Bill, as at the moment it is associated only with the definition of "reserved functions".
Lord McCLUSKEY: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for tabling this Amendment, because by so doing he has done a service in that it has enabled us to look critically at Schedule 15 before we actually reach it. That has been of value, in that I do not like it; we intend to look at it again and I think that, rather than go into what I hope will become an historical account as to why it appeared in that form, I should say I am not very happy with the term, "reserved functions", because it suggests that the purpose of Schedule 15 is to secure reservation, when it is not. The term "reserved functions" is used in Schedule 15 in a rather technical sense, but because of the use of the word "reserved" it looks as if it means non-devolved, whereas in fact on one view of some of the functions listed there, it might be seen that they contain matters which are devolved. We shall therefore look at it again and I hope that Lord Campbell, who tabled the Amendment to probe, will be satisfied that his probe has drawn blood. We shall go away and hope to come back at the time of Schedule 15 and give a better explanation.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Surely it turns up in Clause 63(2), and that is the only place in the Bill where it occurs.
Lord McCLUSKEY: No, that is not the only place in the Bill where it occurs; it occurs from time to time in the Schedules. Within the clauses it appears in Clause 63(2), as the noble Viscount points out. I think he will follow what I have been saying; namely, that the definition which appears in Clause 77, and therefore in Schedule 15, is a technical one. We could have called them, "designated functions" or, "blue functions", if you like—it is a purely technical matter—but I am not altogether happy about the word "reserved". I have started the investigation of this matter again, and I hope that when we reach Schedule 15 I will be able to say that we have simplified the matter.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am glad the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has been so frank. I would

469
repeat that there are two points here. First, why is this Schedule attached to Clause 77 and therefore simply relates to the definition? We hope at a later stage that that will be explained. The second point is that of confusion, that the use of the words, "reserved functions" could cause ambiguity when one meets the phrase in various parts of the Bill.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to say that I should have given a particular reference for the benefit of the noble Viscount. I should like to refer him to page 45 and to the last entry in Schedule 4. We have been through Schedule 4 before. That is one example where the words in question are used. It refers to the consent requirement, which we looked at some time ago. The entry there refers to,
"Land held by excepted statutory undertakers or held for the purpose of reserved functions by a local authority or any body formed by local authorities".
That is just another example of this matter.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I do not want to prolong this investigation of the Bill. It is clear that this question needs investigation, and the Government have said that they will look into it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.9 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 48, line 1, at beginning insert—
("GROUP 1 (Scottish public service)
All matters regulating the Scottish public service.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment to Schedule 10 should be read in conjunction with my substantive Amendment No. 204 (on page 10 of the Marshalled List) which seeks to establish a separate Scottish public service. The proposal in the Bill is that service as an officer or servant of a Scottish Secretary, or the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General, shall be service in the Home Civil Service. As we know only too well, certain functions are being devolved, and it seems logical to me that, if we are doing that, we should at the same time transfer responsibility for the Civil Service; otherwise, individual civil servants will find
470
themselves faced with an undesirable conflict of loyalties between Edinburgh and Whitehall.
It seems to me that the unity of the United Kingdom is not in any way imperilled by the creation of a new public service. As has been mentioned by many noble Lords in a number of debates during the Committee stage of the Bill in recent weeks, about 1,000 extra civil servants will have to be recruited as a result of devolution. I have listened to a considerable number of the debates, and in my recollection no comment has been made as to where these additional civil servants are to be recruited from. Undoubtedly some will be recruited from the existing Civil Service, but I hope that a considerable number will be recruited from local government, too.
The efficient functioning of devolved government in Scotland may well depend to a large degree on finding the correct balance between central and local government expertise to run the devolved functions. With this in mind, it is essential to ensure that the experience and skills which the local government officer could contribute to the successful operation of devolved government should not be overlooked. The officers of the great metropolitan authorities of England belong to a separate service. I can see no valid reason why the same situation should not appertain in Scotland. This was recognised—though this is not an absolutely strict parallel—in the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which provided that existing civil servants concerned with the administration of public services in Northern Ireland should become officers of the Northern Ireland Government, so creating an independent service in Northern Ireland. The Eighth Schedule of that Act provides for compensation arrangements for existing officers.
If the Amendment was to find favour this evening, it would of course be necessary to put down additional Amendments to cover these particular subjects. But it seems to me that to create a separate service in Scotland, to go along with the other powers that we are proposing to devolve, makes sense, and could lead to much less friction than I believe will result from the present proposals in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Amendment No. 170, which would insert a new group into Schedule 10, and the associated Amendment to Clause 62, provide, as my noble friend has pointed out, for the establishment of a separate Scottish public service, which would be under the control of the Assembly, and independent from the United Kingdom Civil Service. The Government reject this suggestion because they see great benefits in retaining a unified Civil Service. Let me explain the Government's view. First, we believe that a unified service is likely to be both more economical and more efficient. Separate services would need more staff and greater expenditure on recruitment, training and the like.
A single service would provide the devolved administration with a wider range of talent and expertise and provide a more flexible and attractive career structure. This would be especially true for those specialists, who would necessarily be employed in small numbers, who would otherwise have limited chances of varied job experience and a low ceiling to their promotion prospects. Secondly, a unified service will provide an established and experienced means of sorting out matters of common concern to Westminster and Edinburgh. There are bound to be at least teething problems when the Assembly is first established and a unified service will do much to assist in the solution of these problems.
In the course of these debates many noble Lords have made reference to the possibilities of conflict, and I believe that a unified Civil Service, with the kind of contacts that will be made within that unity, will help to ease out these unnecessary conflicts. Thirdly—and I lay great importance on this—the staff themselves in the Civil Service have left the Government in no doubt whatsoever that they wish to remain part of a unified service. We cannot assume that they would necessarily wish to transfer to a different service from that to which they were recruited. It is clearly necessary to weigh very carefully their expressed wishes. Indeed, one would have to have very good reasons for departing from the clearly expressed wishes of the staff. This matter came up in another place at the end of last year in a Committee debate on this same Bill, on 6th December 1977,
472
and following upon that the Government again sought, and again received, the views of the Civil Service and they are very strongly to the effect that the Civil Service should remain united.
There is another argument and it is this. There would be insufficient time to divide the Civil Service before the Assembly comes into operation. To set up a separate Civil Service would be a considerable legal and administrative operation, would directly involve the rights of a very large number of individuals, and in the immediate aftermath of devolution we consider that the time and energy would be better spent in ensuring that the new machine runs smoothly.
I should deal with the particular point raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. He suggested, I think, that after devolution there might be problems of divided loyalty for those civil servants who will be serving the Scottish Secretaries. This is a view which the Government reject and they have been supported in that view by the staff side of the National Whitley Council. Civil servants of the Assembly will not serve two masters. They will serve a Scottish Secretary and there is nothing in the history of the Civil Service to suggest that its members provide anything less than complete loyalty to those who are there to command it. Such fears have been expressed from time to time on the creation of new institutions to which Parliament has granted a measure of independence from Government—the Manpower Services Commission and the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service are examples—but such fears have proved groundless.
I should say something about the longer term. The Government are confident that the new Administration in Scotland will see these advantages in maintaining a single service, but the Government do not have a closed mind on the matter so far as the longer term is concerned. We have made it clear that we are prepared to consider any views which the Administration might wish to put forward once they have had a chance to judge the effectiveness of the existing system. Of course we would also at the same time have regard to the views of the civil servants themselves. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of taking them

473
with us in any change that to be made.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: May I thank my noble friend Lord McCluskey for his reply. I am not entirely convinced by what he has said. I do not entirely feel that in fact the proposed structure would be more flexible and more attractive to those involved. I feel that people could be continually looking and regarding their service in the Scottish part of the Home Civil Service as promotion to higher things elsewhere and that therefore this will not necessarily be a good thing with regard to their career structure. However, I was pleased to hear that the Government have no closed mind on this matter in the long term, and I shall study with interest the full text of the noble and learned Lord's reply and maybe return to this at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.20 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 48, line 3, leave out ("Family planning.").
The noble Lord said: This is a matter in respect of which we feel that legislation North and South of the Border ought not to differ significantly. First, in order not to repeat myself for this and the following Amendment, I should like to give a very brief background. There is a wide and general apprehension in the medical professions in Scotland that the proposals for devolving certain health functions to the Assembly and its Executive will unnecessarily upset the present satisfactory arrangements. I would remind your Lordships that there is, and has been for many years, a completely separate health administration in Scotland. When the reform was carded out in the 1970s, it was carried out in Scotland by legislation a year before it was in England and Wales; and we in Scotland have a single-tier system of health boards instead of the two-tier system in England and Wales. The systems are different, but because the Ministers concerned are both in the same Cabinet and in the same Government, co-ordination ensures that they exist together without difficulties
474
for the medical professions. The Home and Health Department of the Scottish Office, which has existed for many years and deals with all the health matters now devolved to the Secretary of State for Scotland, has a very good relationship with, for example, the British Medical Association's Scottish office in Edinburgh, and they are in close co-operation almost daily on health subjects.
Provided the system can continue on the same basis, then the medical professions, I understand, are not worried; but they are concerned about the way in which the functions are to be split by the Bill. Some functions are to be retained by the Secretary of State. They are also worried about the allocation of finance that may be made by the Assembly when it is set up. This is a natural worry. They think that the Assembly, because it has the discretion, might decide to give more priority to roads or education, for example, than has been given in the past, and that health would then be one of the subjects which would suffer. I give this background because I think it is right that the Government should be aware, if they are not already, of this general anxiety among the medical professions, particularly in Scotland.
The Bill proposes that certain matters in the health field should remain with the Secretary of State. For example, medical schools are not to be devolved, nor is the registration of doctors and nor are the disciplinary procedures of the medical profession through the General Medical Council. Another matter not devolved is the control of drugs, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred to earlier today. That is for the obvious reason of a need for uniformity. The control of drugs throughout the United Kingdom is clearly something which ought to be centrally arranged. In addition to those subjects, the British Medical Association is concerned that family planning, too, should be organised on the basis of a uniform system throughout the country, and they feel especially about the next Amendment, on abortion.
In dealing with this Amendment on family planning the representatives of the medical profession have made it clear that they think that the law and practice should be the same throughout the

475
United Kingdom, and that this Bill should not produce a situation where it could be changed on one side of the Border, and then be different. I must make it clear that we are not discussing the merits or de-merits of these subjects, whether or not one is opposed to family planning in principle or on religious grounds and is dissatisfied with the present state of the law. I am not suggesting that those matters should be debated this evening, and I hope they will not be. The question I am putting is whether, whatever the state of the law is at any particular time, it should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. Where family planning is concerned it has now become so.
In the 1972 Scottish Health Act, provisions were included which resulted in the same system as that operating South of the Border. This, from the health point of view, is important. It means that the doctors and surgeons know that the same law and regulations apply in each country. They also know what methods prevail and what can be prescribed under the systems both North and South of the Border, because they have been brought into line. Particularly on questions of medical advice being needed, and for example, the question of women seeking medical advice before taking the pill, these are matters where it could be inappropriate and dangerous in some cases if medical advice is not sought and if it is not absolutely clear that it is the same throughout the country. I would only draw attention to the information which came out in the last three or four months: it has been discovered that women over the age of about 35 are more at risk in taking the pill than people had thought at first and, therefore, are in need, no doubt, of medical advice. These are matters which need to be uniform throughout the country.
The medical professions have made it clear that they would regard it as retrograde if the present situation were changed in such a way that it could lead to different legislation and practices being adopted on one side of the Border from the other, when we have now reached a situation where it is accepted that they are the same whether or not one happens to agree with the legislation. I hope the Government will sympathetically consider this Amendment.
Lord PLATT: I should like to say just two or three words in favour of this Amendment. If I may take the second Amendment, it will save me making two speeches. I think that it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if people knew that they would get a different kind of consideration or treatment on the two sides of the Border, as Lord Campbell has just said. You could imagine people going backwards and forwards crossing the Border because they wanted a certain type of treatment or because they thought that the rules in one country were more favourable to their particular case (whatever it was) than the rules of the other country. I hope that the Government will support this Amendment. It seems to me to be a quite harmless one in the sense that I do not think that the future of the devolution of Scotland is going to depend on these two Amendments. From that point of view, I should have thought it was fairly non-political and I hope the Government will accept it.
Lord KIRKHILL: Let me say, first of all, that the Government are not insensitive to the views of the medical profession as conveyed to your Lordships' Committee this evening but the Government do see the position in a rather different light. As this is the first of a number of Amendments relating to the devolution of health matters, it might be of assistance to the Committee if I outline the concepts underlying these devolved matters in general and the devolution of health matters in particular. I shall do so as briefly as I can.
The Government's view is that as much responsibility as possible—as we keep saying—should bedevolved totheAssembly in areas where decisions primarily affect the people living in Scotland; in line with this view, the Government have decided that health matters are eminently suitable for devolution. This carries with it responsibility for the whole of the NHS in Scotland. Lord Campbell pointed out that the only reservations from the broad field of matters related to health are the control of drugs, medicinal products and biological substances. The reason for this reservation, as he has properly pointed out, is that these matters are subject to comprehensive clinical control, both nationally and internationally. It is obviously sensible that these should stand reserved. In

477
the Government's view, this consideration does not apply to the provision of any of those services, including family planning and abortion, given within the ambit of the National Health Service, or of private medicine, in Scotland.
It cannot be a proper consideration for reservation that a matter is particularly sensitive, is concerned with life and death or has moral or social implications. If that were so, it would be appropriate to reserve many other matters, some also in the health field, such as genetic counselling, screening for congenital abnormalities and the provision of life-support systems for patients with terminal illness. It is the Government's view that family planning and, indeed, abortion are aspects of health care and provision and should be devolved to the Scottish Assembly with all other aspects of the subject.
Family planning is specifically mentioned in the description of the health group, because there might otherwise be doubt whether it was in fact included in the group, since it is not necessarily part of the prevention, treatment or alleviation of disease or illness. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, might—might it not ?—have the curious effect that the Scottish Executive could continue to provide a family planning service as part of its health services but only to those in ill health.
Apart from the general considerations I have outlined, there are strong practical reasons why family planning should be devolved. Family planning services, again as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has pointed out, were brought within the National Health Service under Section 8 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972. As the noble Lord well knows—we would agree about this at least—it has greatly helped the development of our comprehensive approach to obstetric, gynaecological and maternity services generally.
In the Government's view, it would be a complete negation of the aim of comprehensive planning for health services if the duty to provide family planning services was to be separated out from other duties in relation to primary health care and specialist hospitals services. I will give your Lordships an example. A Scottish
478
Secretary would, for example, find himself constrained in the advice he could give on the development of services in the maternity field generally; and a Committee of the Assembly, looking at " preventive " health in the context of maternity services, would be handicapped when it came to consider the contribution of family planning services.
There are also likely to be practical difficulties if the family planning service is separated out from the rest of the Health Service, particularly in the field of financial control. The essence of the problem is that, if the Secretary of State has statutory responsibilities, then Parliament and not the Scottish Assembly would have to provide funds, although the amount to be paid could only be assessed in terms of the cost of individual items of service. Sterilisation, for example, which is included in family planning, is sometimes provided in the course of an operation for other purposes. This illustrates, in the Government's view, the sort of difficulty that could occur in separating out costs.
The main objections, however, are not the practical ones. They are, as I said earlier, that family planning is a matter which affects people in Scotland in a way that is closely hound up with other health matters which are to be devolved. For that reason, and for the other reasons I have mentioned, the Government would be unable to accept this Amendment.
9.33 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: It really does seem to be rather surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, should mention fairly obscure medical maladies earlier in his speech as examples of the sort of things, which, thank God£ apply to relatively few people in this country. However, there are a great many women. Perhaps I might suggest to him that it is most important not to create a situation—I am sure this Amendment is designed to avoid it—in which we have girls rushing over the Border in one direction or the other in order to get special services that are available on one side yet not on the other. It is very important that such a situation is not created, and it seems to me that a lot of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord were specially contrived to justify a situation which is really unjustifiable.

479
Many of your Lordships may not have had the privilege that I have had, of being in Malta many times in the 1950s and 1940s—time does drift by—where we had great difficulties, because the family planning arrangements in Malta, as your Lordships may imagine, were vastly different from those in the United Kingdom. Your Lordships will not expect me to go into any detail. I do not suppose that the same difference would occur between Scotland and England, but one cannot be sure.
I suggest that in this kind of area we do not want to look to the obscure diseases. We want to look to the practical effects which the noble Lord mentioned. I strongly suggest that this is one area in which the kind of Amendment which my noble friend is proposing is wholly sensible. So far as I can see, he has not taken his proposals further and put the items concerned into Part II of the Schedule, which would make a bit of a difference. It seems to me that the way in which he has done it is entirely sensible. The common approach to these two very vital problems, which affect just about half the population of both countries, strikes the right balance, which is not so with the way in which the Bill at present puts it.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: Before the noble Lord replies, I would support my noble friend very strongly in this matter. One has to look at it from the point of view of a population which is not involved in technical details of health and illness. One looks back on the change in the abortion law, when there was a flood of people coming from Europe. Are we to see the same situation if we leave abortion and family planning in the Bill ? My noble friend is proposing here that we take out something which is of national and not local interest, and it must not be confused with technical details of medical science.
Lord KIRKHILL: On the question of family planning, I do not quite take the drift of the argument about the cross-Border traffic. I am not really quite with your Lordships on that point. Perhaps some elucidation will help me.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I wish to talk to the next Amendment, which is specifically dealing with abortion on which I feel very strongly, and I feel less strongly on the matter of family planning as a devolved matter. But what is happening is that noble Lords are trying to talk to both Amendments, and it would certainly make me happier if we talked about one at a time.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I wonder whether I might say, as the question of abortion has been raised, that that is the subject of the next Amendment, on which the medical professions feel very strongly. So that unless any other Members of your Lordships' Committee want to speak on family planning, I propose to—
Lord MOTTISTONE: May I just make one point in answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said about sterilisation? If the Scots—those robust characters—abolished it, then you would have all the men chasing South of the Border to take advantage of the position here.
Lord KIRKHILL: The question of sterilisation is surely a medical, clinical judgment on the part of a specialist.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: May I suggest that we have probably been through this before? Although your Lordships were probably not old enough to remember, we had a whole lot of trouble in the old days with Gretna Green.
Lord KIRKHILL: May I just say all that I really want to say, in order to complete my brief remarks? The Government have many times reiterated that they believe the Scottish Assembly will be made up of mature citizens, publicly elected, who will be fully entitled to assume the full burden of health responsibilities within the devolved field.
Lord BALERNO: Has it been considered by the Government that the Assembly might, indeed, be rather glad to be relieved of having to make decisions on this contentious point, and that relieving the Assembly of having to debate it will enable it to get on with other matters? There is one point which I should like to make on what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said. So far as disease is involved in family planning—and that

481
would include genetic disease—it would be covered quite satisfactorily by the earlier part of that paragraph: "Prevention, treatment and alleviation of disease". Although, therefore, the treatment of disease might result in a form of family planning, it would not be excluded from the health matters which would be dealt with by the Assembly and one could still leave family planning outside the scope of the Assembly.
Lord KIRKHILL: My point was that it is not necessarily part of the treatment and prevention of illness or disease.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I hope that we shall not go into the subject itself, otherwise we shall have a long debate. The medical profession, not only in Scotland but also in the country as a whole, are worried about this. That is the point which we must register. Under the present legislation, people in Scotland, England and Wales can come to doctors working in the National Health Service for advice and methods. It is important that doctors should know exactly where they stand and what they can do. The health administration needs to know what is free and what has to be prescribed. From the medical profession's point of view it is important that there should be uniformity throughout the country.
482
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has produced objections. I did not attempt to suggest that in itself this Amendment was complete. However, if the principle were to be accepted, I am sure that necessary Amendments could be made to other parts of the Bill. However, it is the medical side of the subject which could be separated if the noble Lord and the Government accept the principle, in the same way as other medical subjects have been separated and are to be retained by central Government and the Secretary of State instead of devolved.
The purpose of moving the Amendment has been to emphasise to the Government the strong feeling of the medical profession, and the importance, if the Bill is not changed, of keeping this matter under review and making sure that central Government step in, if necessary, if it looks as though the administration of this subject medically on one side of the Border is starting to differ greatly from the other. I am grateful to my noble friends who have joined me in supporting this Amendment, which I do not intend to press. However, may I give notice that unless there is a satisfactory answer from the Government on my next Amendment, I intend to press it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 171.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.44 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 48, line 3, leave out ("Abortion.").
The noble Lord said: This is the subject about which the British Medical Association feel very strongly. They believe that it should be a reserved subject. They feel that it is important that the law should be the same throughout the United Kingdom. Again, whatever views one may hold on the present state of the law on abortion, or whether one's view is that there should be no abortion at all, from a religious or other point of view, most people agree that the law should be the same and that one should try to ensure that it is the same throughout the United Kingdom. It is on this Amendment that there could be the kind of movement from one country to another which has happened in recent years when there have been relaxations in the law on abortion in different areas of the world.
If the law were to be different on one side of the Border from the other, it would provoke difficulties. The medical profession are very much aware of this fact. If it should become easier, or appear to be easier, to obtain abortions in Scotland, there is no doubt that there would be a definite movement in terms of visits to Scotland for the sole purpose of getting abortions. Recent history has shown that this can happen. There would then be pressure on the related medical services on that side of the Border compared with the other. Of course the situation could be reversed if the change were in the other direction. This would be most unsatisfactory for the medical profession, who will expect to be able to work in any part of the United Kingdom at different times. Gynaecologists working in Northumberland or Dumfriesshire would find anomalies on their doorsteps.
In this Amendment we are not discussing whether abortion should or should not be carried out at all, or the present state of the law; we are discussing the important point that the law should be the same, and if any changes are made in the future they should be made for the whole of the United Kingdom and therefore this should be a reserved subject. I advocate this very strongly, having made it clear that I have received many representations
484
from the medical profession about it, and I hope the Government will agree. I beg to move.
9.47 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: In speaking to this Amendment I have no intention either—and I think it would be quite wrong here—of touching on the case for or against abortion. It is enough to say that it is a sensitive issue, on which people have strongly held views and one which is even often used for political ends, as we have seen quite recently. I simply want to look at the situation in which we could find ourselves if abortion were to be devolved to the Scottish Assembly—or even, eventually, to an English or a Welsh Assembly, if that is the course upon which we are embarked—and, as could easily happen, that group of representatives were to make a decision that put legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and other noble Lords have said, in one country out of step with that in another.
There may at present be differences in practice across the country but the law on abortion applies uniformly to the whole of the United Kingdom. The law says, basically, that abortion is a criminal offence except in certain exempted circumstances. The point is that the law affecting abortion is criminal law and if abortion becomes a devolved matter there is the real danger that we shall have the position that what is a criminal offence in one part of the United Kingdom will not be an offence in another. And we shall no longer be able to alter that position in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. Make no mistake, the Scottish Assembly may well change the law on abortion, if it is able to do so. Similarly, as a result of continuing attempts to get a consensus on the subject, there will be an attempt to change it in England.
Where will that leave us'? Well, since there will be no restrictions on the movement of people from one health board area to another, as has been made quite clear, the Bill will create conditions for just the sort of cross-Border traffic in abortions that we once had when women were being dumped into Heathrow from overseas to take advantage of our more liberal laws on abortion. In that situation, how would the Scottish Assembly or the United

485
Kingdom Parliament feel about applying its own law?
Let us suppose that stiffer legislation were to be introduced into Scotland. Would, say, Newcastle become the abortion centre of the United Kingdom as Scottish women crossed the Border to obtain an abortion? Would Newcastle become a sort of post-coital version of Gretna Green ? And if it did, how would the English hospital react, faced with the possibility of being prosecuted if it were to carry out an abortion on a woman from North of the Border? It may be that it would have to introduce identification tests to make sure that, in spite of her accent, she was a bona fide English woman. That is not so outlandish as it may seem.
Then, what are the implications so far as public expenditure is concerned ? Will the English and Welsh taxpayers be expected to bear the cost of Scottish abortions, or vice versa? It is by no means an impossibility that the matter of abortion will be raised in the Scottish Assembly. It has always been an issue of considerable concern in Scotland. After all, it was a Scottish Member of the other place, Mr. David Steel, who introduced a Private Member's Bill to create a uniform law on abortion for the United Kingdom as a whole. As was pointed out by my right honourable friend the Member for The Wrekin in another place, no one fears that in Scotland and in England there will be separate legislation on the possibility of obtaining an appendectomy or a tonsillectomy, but abortion is a very different matter.
Given what the Bill proposes, consider that the Members of the Scottish Assembly do decide to change the law on abortion and what the result will be. Since the issue of abortion, though still one that attracts comment, discussion and open controversy, is the subject of law that applies to the United Kingdom as a whole, I fail to understand—and so, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has confirmed, do the doctors—why this situation is to be changed by opening the door to the possibility of there being created separate abortion laws North and South of the Border. I cannot see that the ability of either the Scots or the English and Welsh to change their law on abortion
486
unilaterally can lead to anything but potential difficulty and unnecessary and serious problems, in the other countries as well as in the country making the change.
What of the exchange of ideas and the close co-operation that exists over this field at the moment? They will be lost, to the disadvantage of all the countries concerned. Noble Lords will be aware of the fact that this matter was discussed at some length in Committee in another place, and considerable disquiet was expressed by many honourable Members, both those in favour of and those against abortion. In the outcome the Amendment excluding abortion as a devolved matter was defeated by 162 votes to 179. I believe the result might have been different had the issue, which was actually described by one of the Ministers involved as essentially a moral issue, been left to a free vote.
I believe that we should not treat abortion as though it were an issue not very different from other matters specified in Schedule 10. I cannot with the best will in the world agree with my noble friend Lord Kirkhill on this matter. The point is that it is different. We are on very delicate ground here; to de-stabilise the present legal situation on an issue so sensitive and serious as this, and to create the possibility of there being different laws on abortion applying in Scotland and in England and Wales, is extremely dangerous and could have disastrous consequences.
I would ask my noble friend Lord Kirk-hill if he would refer this matter back to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and remove abortion as a devolved matter from the Bill in view of these considerations, if I believed this would have the effect I desire. My record in your Lordships' House is not one of disloyalty to the Government, but I have to say that if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, decides to divide the Committee on this Amendment I shall go with him into the Division Lobby, and I hope other noble Lords, irrespective of their views on abortion as such, will perceive the dangers in making it a devolved matter and will join us there.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment very strongly. I agree with everything

487
that has been said both by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. I can also speak for my noble friend Lord Selkirk. He has put down an Amendment on the subject, No. 255. Unfortunately, he had to go to Scotland tonight, but he asked me if I would move his Amendment if No. 172 was not spoken to. Amendment No. 172 has been spoken to most effectively by both the noble Lords, and I would say that I hope very much that it will be pressed to a Division and that we vote on this.
It is nothing to do with morals but relates to the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. My noble friend Lord Selkirk was very anxious that abortion should be taken out of this particular group because he says it is not health; what is involved in abortion is criminal law. It is quite wrong to put it in a group headed " health ", in which criminal matters are not involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, said, criminal matters are involved in this subject. I hope that we may ask the Government to accept the Amendment. If they do not accept it, we shall vote.
9.56 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: I have listened attentively to the remarks made so far in this brief debate. I do not think that I do noble Lords an injustice if I suggest that the fears expressed thus far by those who have spoken, and who seek that this matter stand reserved, boil down, first, to the undesirability of having different legal provisions on either side of the Border, and, secondly, to the prospect of an undesirable cross-Border traffic of those seeking easier abortions. On the question of having different laws, I make two points. I direct my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis, at least, to the remarks that I am about to make. In the Government's view, this is what legislative devolution is all about. It would surely be a nonsense to exclude from devolution a field of law just because it raises a number of difficult issues.
It would, in my view, be insulting to suggest that the elected representatives of Scotland would not be responsible enough to deal with these issues and that they
488
would fail to give proper weight to the feelings of the people of Scotland—which on this matter might, as I think the Committee should accept, be different from those of the people of England. Indeed, consultations last year on the William Benyon Abortion Amendment Bill revealed a perceptible difference of attitude in Scotland to abortion law reform. I give that as an example. Scottish opinion was less in favour than English opinion of making abortion more readily available where the grounds are predominantly social. It could be argued that, in the light of those views, any future Great Britain Act should contain within it special provisions relating to Scotland to meet special needs and views which have been expressed clearly. That is exactly why the Government propose a Scottish Assembly with legislative powers.
Lord PLATT: No doctor is compelled to perform an abortion or take any part in it if he has moral objections to doing so. There are big differences in England between one town and another. Those differences are quite conspicuous. But that does not affect the fact that we should have the same law—not necessarily the same judgment by individuals—for all parts of the country.
Lord KIRKHILL: I take that point. I acknowledge that there are differences between the cities in Scotland. These differences are known and remarked upon. However, I intended to speak on a somewhat different nuance of law. As many noble Lords will know, outside the framework of the Abortion Act 1967 the legal position in Scotland is governed by Scots common law. Criminal provisions related to the subject in Scotland form a part of the criminal law, which is a devolved subject.
If I could turn now to the question of cross-Border traffic, which was specifically mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davies, the fears that have been expressed are without considerable foundation. There is cross-Border traffic even now, because, in practical terms, the ability to obtain an abortion within the National Health Service—the noble Lord, Lord Platt touched on the point—rests to a great extent on the judgment and

489
attitudes of individual clinicians. One thousand women from Scotland seek abortions in the private sector in England annually because of difficulty in obtaining an abortion under the National Health Service in certain parts of Scotland.
If, after devolution, the criteria for abortion changed to the extent of encouraging cross-Border traffic, this would, of course, be confined to the private sector. There is no question, now or after devolution, of National Health Service patients themselves determining, without reference to the usual medical channels, where they will be treated. It will not, therefore, be possible to cross the Border at will to take advantage of a National Health Service specialist hospital service.
If abortion were reserved, new Westminster legislation on abortion might contain far-reaching provisions governing the private sector. However, it might be quite unnecessary to implement these provisions in Scotland because the private sector in abortion is negligible and has not led to abuse so far as can be judged. Therefore, in the Government's view it is better to leave these matters to the Scottish Assembly, which will be in the best position to judge the needs of Scotland, rather than ourselves determining those issues here at Westminster level.
Quite apart from these considerations, I should like briefly to touch on the fact that there are a number of practical effects of any decision to reserve abortion. To these I should draw your Lordships' attention. To reserve abortion would mean that the subject would remain within the Secretary of State's purview and that he would retain the powers in the Abortion Act 1967 as well as any new powers that Westminster legislation might at some time confer upon him. He would, therefore, be left with this one very small area of responsibility within the wide field of health. Of course, I made a similar point when we were talking about family planning.
The Government's view is that if abortion stands reserved, it would lead to a significant fragmentation of the present abortion service because abortions are normally carried out in National Health Service hospitals, in gynaecological wards
490
and as part of a wider health provision. The Government lay great stress on the maintenance of that integrated health provision which has certainly been much in evidence since the implementation of the 1972 Act.
I do not think that I should say more. I have explained the Government's view, as clearly as I can. The Government will not be in a position to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I understand from a previous remark which he made in the earlier debate on family planning that his view on this particular Amendment is of most serious weight. I therefore await his further action.
Baroness GAITSKELL: Having listened to the debate and been very interested because it happens to be one of the subjects in which I am ordinarily interested, is it not up to a devolved Scottish Assembly to bring into its legislation the more liberal attitudes of the English Parliament ? Does it not come down to that ? I was very sympathetic with what my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis said but, having thought again, I realise that it is not just a question of people coming across the Border—it rests on the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has given the impression that the Scots are not so advanced and not so liberal as we are about family planning.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: As I have just been referred to I should like to intervene. I think that I saw the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, come into the Chamber some minutes ago, but it sounds as if she has not understood anything I have been saying. I referred to family planning as regards the last Amendment. I have not said a word about family planning in relation to this Amendment. What I was saying was the exact opposite of what she has just said. I said that at present the law on abortion is the same in Scotland as it is in England and Wales and that that was a situation which the medical professions wished to preserve. I was not saying that one side of the Border was more liberal, or whatever the noble Baroness would say, than the other. In fact, I have done everything possible to avoid discussing the actual merits or demerits of the subject.
Baroness GAITSKELL: The noble Lord has not said it, but he has implied it. There is no doubt that that is what he implied.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am sorry to take up another 30 seconds, but if that implication has been understood by the noble Baroness I must immediately say that no such implication was intended.
10.5 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said has really reinforced many of our doubts and anxieties about the Bill. He has really said that there are different views in England and different views in Scotland, and the Scottish Assembly has the right to interpret those views and make such laws as it thinks fit. That may be a justifiable argument on matters such as roads or education, but on matters like abortion we shall get into a state of Box and Cox if different laws apply in England from those that apply in Scotland on what is, by all reasoning, a very sensitive issue.
The noble Lord said that legislative devolution is about legislative differences between the two countries. With the greatest of respect, that is no argument at all on a subject such as this. From what he said, I should have thought that the only inference which can be bound to be drawn is that in time—and not necessarily immediately—we shall get different laws in Scotland appertaining to abortion from those in England. It cannot be said that that could be in any way desirable. Therefore, we are bound to get a cross-flow of traffic. If the noble Lord will not reconsider this and is adamant that this is the Government's view and that it is right that we should have these differences of view between the two countries, I would certainly support my noble friend.
Lord KIRKHILL: As he always does, the noble Earl has made a substantial point, but I think I should remind him that I said at least two things which are germane to the point he has just made. I said, as he would know, that there are already differences between the laws of Scotland and England, and that there is already a difference as that applies to abortion. I made those two points and I think that it is pertinent to emphasise them now.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I always believe that in matters of human rights it is probably best to remove human rights as far from a local situation as possible, which is one of the reasons why we subscribe to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in most cases of human rights there is a consensus as to what the rights are. Abortion is a highly complex subject, and because it is a highly complex subject it is a very proper matter for a devolved Assembly to decide. It is not a subject where we can all get up and swear that all civilised opinion is on our side, whichever view we take. There are very different views on it.
I think that the Government are being a little disingenuous. I think that they are playing down the anomalies that will arise. I believe that there will be more anomalies than they say there will be. However, that is one of the prices that we have to pay and it is something which an Assembly should decide for itself.
Lord BALERNO: I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, implied that in Scotland we were more retarded in cur views on abortion than is the case in England. The noble Baroness must have heard the abortion debates in this House, but perhaps I could remind her that what really sparked off the Abortion Bill of Mr. Steel was the work done by Professor Baird in Aberdeen. Professor Baird, who was Professor of Gynaecology, was very upset—as were others in the profession—by the number of kitchen-table abortions that were taking place. Therefore, against the law and committing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, would describe, a criminal act, he went ahead with the abortions and challenged the law on the point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said the common law of Scotland is in many ways substantially different from that of England. In Scotland—I say this with diffidence in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and the Solicitor-General—all prosecutions of a criminal nature are instigated by the Crown and can only be put into effect if the Crown decides to prosecute. As I said, I am no expert in the law and stand to be corrected by the two experts here, but I believe that the law of Scotland is to the effect that the

493
procurator fiscal, or the Lord Advocate's office, do not prosecute unless it is in the public interest that a prosecution should take place, so that our basic approach to the breaking of the abortion laws is substantially different from that in England.
It is true that in Scotland we have had considerable differences. While one might say that Aberdeen, in the North-East of Scotland, has gone pro-abortion, the experts in Glasgow are very anti-abortion. I think it would not be a bad idea that this battle of the medical experts should be fought out in Scotland and not decided by Westminster. There is every possibility that the abortion law might be changed. There is a strong campaign for that. If it was to result in a change in Westminster which was against the wishes of Scotland, there would be considerable trouble. Therefore, I must say, however reluctantly, that I strongly support the Government in this matter.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The effect of the law North and South of the Border at present is the same, and the medical profession are satisfied with the uniformity that it provides. What the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said in reply to this Amendment was not reassuring, because he indicated that a recent poll had shown some slight difference in views towards this subject, and that for that reason the Assembly ought to be enabled to change the law, if necessary.
I was hoping to get an assurance of the other kind; that is, that if it was devolved there would still be some check, with the Secretary of State perhaps using his override powers, or some other way, to try to make sure that the law was none the less kept basically the same. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, who took part in the debate—himself a very eminent member of the medical profession—pointed out that under the present laws no doctor need carry out an abortion
against his conscience. But even that might be altered North or South of the Border if the abortion laws were put into a situation where they could be changed in Scotland, or changed in England and Wales, and then become different.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, talking about the private facilities for abortion, said that these were smaller in Scotland at the moment. The whole point is that if the laws were to change, these situations would change, and I do not regard a situation that exists at the moment as necessarily a reason for excusing the Government's case.
Lord KIRKHILL: Perhaps the noble Lord misunderstood the point I made or perhaps I put it badly, so I will re-phrase it yet again. The recourse to private sector abortion in Scotland is minimal. That is the point I was making.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The noble Lord has put it in different words. I am saying that, whatever the present situation is, it does not mean that it will not be quite different in five or 10 years if there were a change of law, meaning then a demand North of the Border. That situation could change quickly and several noble Lords have referred to the influx of people to an area when the abortion laws have been relaxed in that area, so we know from experience that it can happen. I do not want to get on to the subject-matter, and we have debated the question of the uniformity of the law which is the point we are making in the Amendment. I ask noble Lords in all parts of the Committee to agree with me to press the Amendment.
10.16 p.m.
On Question Whether the said Amendment (No. 172) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 51; Not-Contents 47.

Mansfield, E.

Northchurch, B.

Stamp, L.

Minto, E.

Platt, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Polwarth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monson, L.

Robbins, L.

Teviot, L.

Morris, L.

Rochdale, V.

Trenchard, V.

Mottistone, L.

Sandford, L.

Vaizey, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Vickers, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENT

Ardwick, L.

Hughes, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Balerno, L.

Jacobson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, B.

Kagan, L.

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brown, L.

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

Snow, L.

Byers, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cudlipp, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Torphichen, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Vernon, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Northfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Glenamara, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Perth, E.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.24 p.m.
[Amendment No. 255 not moved.]
The Duke of ATHOLL The Duke of ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 302:
Page 48, line 8, after (" Education ") insert (" except for the Scottish Colleges of Agriculture").
The noble Duke said: We now turn to the somewhat calmer waters of Scottish agricultural colleges. This is a very big jump from the previous subject we were discussing, but that is the way the Bill is arranged, and I am afraid that we just have to face it. Perhaps I should explain that agricultural education in Scotland is provided at three levels. First, there are the universities which are not to be devolved to the Scottish Executive, and which will remain a United Kingdom function administered by the University Grants Committee.
Secondly, there are diploma courses provided by the East, North and West Colleges of Agriculture and these are the subject of this Amendment. Thirdly, agricultural education provided by the regional authorities at the City and Guilds or certificate level. This form of agricultural education is at present mainly funded and administered by the Scottish Education Department, the functions of
496
which will be transferred virtually in toto to the Scottish Assembly. As the Bill stands at the moment two of the possible forms of agricultural education will be devolved and one will not.
There are three Scottish Colleges of Agriculture. They are in Aberdeen, Auchincruive (Ayrshire), and Edinburgh, and they are responsible for formal further education courses mainly at the diploma level, advisory work among farmers and growers, including EEC applications, and a research and development programme to provide the needs of agriculture and horticulture. All these activities are financed by direct grants from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, and the research and development programme is approved under the Rothschild principle of customers and contractor arrangements. The colleges are directed by independent boards of governors comprising representatives of many sectors of the farming industry, the universities, regional councils and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. Their work is co-ordinated by the Council of the Scottish Agricultural Colleges which formulate common policies to ensure the most effective use of resources. I think there is a universal feeling that the colleges do an excellent job of work and that there will be great disappointment among the farming community in Scotland if their functions are in any way altered.
A comprehensive range of disciplines has to be covered by the staff at the colleges—soil, biological and chemical scientists, veterinary surgeons, architects, engineers, husbandry specialists, general agricultural and horticultural advisers and economists. The system operates by applying the right combination of expertise to work over the whole spectrum of the colleges' responsibilities in the most economical way. The present facilities and resources, including the full range of professionally qualified staff, have been built up since the beginning of the present century around the education work for which the collegeswere initiallyestablished. This work stimulates, and is itself stimulated by, the research and development functions and the specialist and general advisory work.
The point I am trying to make is that the colleges are concerned not only with agriculture but also with general advice to the farming community. Each college has special and intimate links with a university and contributes to the university undergraduate and post-graduate work, while from each university the whole range of its staff expertise can be tapped to serve the needs of agriculture and horticulture. This system, known throughout the world as the Scottish system, is unique within the United Kingdom, although it is akin to the arrangements found in North America where advisory services are also provided from the teaching centres of the agricultural colleges and universities.
This system has stood the test of time and is eminently suited to the structure, needs and geographical scatter of the agricultural industry in Scotland. As indicated above, the responsibility for funding the advisory service and the research and development programme lies with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. In view of the close integration of formal education with these activities, the DAFS is also responsible for financing the diploma level courses. The colleges take the realistic view that agricultural education cannot be split from the main stream of education and that this function of the colleges will de jure be devolved to the Scottish Assembly, whereas the functions of agricultural extension and research and development will remain the funding responsibility of the Secretary of State.
On the assumption, therefore, that this dichotomy will prevail following the enactment of the Scotland Bill the colleges are anxious to explore possible ways of ensuring that the totality and integration of their manifold activities will not be jeopardised and that a mechanism can be devised which will cause the minimum of administrative disruption. The colleges of course appreciate that most of the problems inherent in the situation can be negotiated and, hopefully, satisfactorily resolved only between the Executive of the Scottish Assembly and the colleges, but they would appreciate a statement from the Government on how they see their functions and financing after devolution. They and the agricultural community in Scotland hope they will not suffer from a tug-o'-war between the Assembly, with its educational functions, and the Secretary of State, to whom agriculture will to a large extent be left, and also research and development.
I am somewhat disappointed that this debate has come on so late in the evening, because I had very much hoped, in order to allay the fears of much of the farming community in Scotland, that the Government statement might be reported in the agricultural Press. There is fear in Scotland among farmers that the work of the colleges may be affected. What they have done and what they do is greatly appreciated, and I think anyone who has had experience of them would agree that it would be a great pity if their functions, powers or finances were jeopardised by this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord TANLAW: I wonder if I could ask the noble Duke a question on a point of information. I thought I heard him say that he would make no distinction between education and the work carried on by an agricultural college. If he did say that, perhaps he would confirm it, because I make a very great distinction. Agriculture is a technical subject, and a technical skill is not to be confused with what I would refer to as conventional education. If the noble Duke is trying to create a link between agricultural colleges and what is the normal, conventional type of education, I would strongly disagree with him; but perhaps he could confirm that.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I am very pleased that the noble Lord would dis-

499
agree. All I hope I said was that the trustees of the colleges take the realistic view that agricultural education cannot be split from the main stream of education. Therefore, in moving this Amendment I wanted to make it clear that I had no intention of pushing it to a Division. All I want is a statement from the Government on how they view the future functions and financing of the Scottish agricultural colleges.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like very briefly to support this. I have had quite a lot of help from the Edinburgh College, and I know the other two colleges quite well. There are also subsidiary colleges: one is in St. Boswells and one is in Ayr, which are part of the West of Scotland and the East of Scotland Colleges of Agriculture. One of the things they are charged with at the moment is vetting the schemes put forward by farmers who are joining what is called the farm horticultural development service of the EEC. The EEC, as I think many people know, are providing grants on quite a generous scale for those farmers who are included in the FHD service. That is one of the jobs that the agricultural colleges are taking on.
I say this because it shows that there is an international aspect of this which I think is very important indeed, and I think it would be a very great pity if there were any restrictions put on the influence, the work and the skills of these colleges, not only for the people who are pupils but for those of us who are no longer, alas!, pupils but are ancient farmers who, however, get great help and assistance from these colleges. I hope that the Government will be able to give us an assurance that under this devolution scheme these colleges will be as well off as they are today; indeed, I should like to see them better off. My general feeling is that I do not think it is a good idea to divide education.
I am very keen that the universities which are not going to be devolved should not be devolved, and I think there is everything to be said for the colleges of agriculture not being devolved, either; but, as the noble Duke said, that is not something he is going to press. I should like to know what the Government feel about this, because these colleges give
500
an extremely important and very good service to agriculture.
10.35 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: I want to support strongly the Amendment of my noble friend. For the benefit of those English Lords who are in the Committee today, I would draw attention to the fact that agriculture is a reserved subject. I think I would be right in presuming that, when the Bill goes through, the present Scottish Department of Agriculture will continue more or less as it is, under the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is not a devolved subject. Therefore, things pertaining to agriculture should not be devolved. It is a very good thing that agriculture is not devolved, because so much of the higher policy of agriculture must be the same for England, Scotland and Wales. To make it different when we are dealing with the Common Market problems—and they are very acute in agriculture—would be quite absurd. It is right that agriculture should not be devolved but should be reserved.
Why should we have a division in agricultural education? This seems to me to be completely and absolutely absurd. Again, for the benefit of noble Lords who are not acquainted with the set-up in Scotland, we rather think that the agricultural education, in so far as it has had a great deal of freedom from State interference, is rather better than the set-up existing in England; although I would admit that in the last 20 years the English standards have improved.
But the colleges of agriculture and the university departments of agriculture are invariably under the same roof or the same groupings of roofs. The professor of agriculture, who is the traditional head of the Department —and we used to have only one professor of agriculture at each of the three universities which dealt in agriculture—was normally also the principal of the college of agriculture. In my day—and, I think, still—for economy of staff a certain number of the classes taught are attended by graduate students and students working for their diplomas in agriculture; that is, students from the colleges. To attempt to separate them, as the Bill does, is going to load to a very considerable administrative muddle. The colleges and the university departments of agriculture are working so closely with each other

501
that, if we were to try to pull them apart (as this Bill is bound to do in the end, putting the one under the Secretary of State, virtually, and the other under the Chief Secretary of the Assembly), there is bound to be friction. It will be quite unavoidable. Therefore, I most strongly support my noble friend and hope your Lordships will forgive me for not voting with the Government this time.
Lord BURTON: Farming in both Scotland and in England, I should like to agree with all that has been said just now about the colleges. They are extremely fine bodies and most useful, and I think it quite wrong that they should have their administration altered when an alteration may, in any way, jeopardise their efficiency. When you have an efficient body running well, I cannot understand why, for political reasons—and only political reasons, so far as I can see—you should want to change it. I am very disappointed that my noble friend the Duke of Atholl said he only wants a statement. I was hoping he would press this Amendment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, says that agriculture is to be reserved, so why have a division between agriculture and agricultural colleges? But education is to be devolved and an agricultural college is concerned with education; so there is to be a division—
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: But surely education in agriculture is devolved —up to university.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I get to my second sentence, I shall be saying that. There has to be a division somewhere and I would urge upon the Committee the view which the noble Duke has put forward; that is, that agricultural colleges cannot be split from the mainstream of the educational system. The noble Duke has explained—and I hope I shall be forgiven for reiterating very briefly—that the three Scottish agricultural colleges have three broad functional areas. First, they provide facilities for research and development work in agriculture. Secondly, they provide advisory services on agriculture; and, thirdly, they provide higher education in agriculture up to diploma level. From what has been said already, your Lordships will appreciate
502
that economic and research aspects of agriculture are not to be devolved, because agriculture is itself reserved, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has said; and because the colleges' development and advisory functions are directly related to those aspects, the Government take the view that these functions should not be devolved.
The Bill achieves that, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has recognised, by silence: silence means that they are reserved. As the noble Duke has recognised and made plain, his Amendment would affect only the education functions of the colleges and the effect of the Amendment would be to reserve responsibility for these functions. But responsibility is devolved to the Assembly for all education matters, as the noble Baroness said, up to but not including university level. That is under Group 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 10. The Government see no reason why agricultural education should not also be devolved up to that level. That would enable the Scottish Administration to provide for a coherent system of agricultural education from the technical level right through to higher diploma level. I gather from what the noble Baroness said that she was regarding the agricultural colleges as akin to universities; but it may be that there is a closer analogy with other colleges—for example, those of further education—which are to be wholly devolved. Again, as I think the noble Duke recognised, some agricultural education is at present provided by local authorities and the Amendment would not prevent responsibility for this from being devolved. In these circumstances, it would surely be anomalous for the education functions of the colleges to be reserved.
In the Government's view, it is quite inconceivable that the Scottish Administration will not recognise, as have noble Lords already, the merits of the present system. There is nothing to suggest that the present arrangements will not continue after devolution. There is certainly nothing in the provisions of the Scotland Bill to prevent or inhibit this in any way.
The noble Duke hoped to hear something from the Government about financing, and it is right that I should respond to that. It may be thought by some that the fact that the funds for the colleges will come from both the central Government and the devolved Administration is no bar

503
to the continuation of the present integrated arrangements. The North and East Scottish colleges of agriculture are closely associated with the Agriculture Departments of the Universities of Aberdeen and Edinburgh respectively. At the present time, the colleges and universities receive funds from different sources—the Research Councils, the University Grants Committee and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It has been found perfectly possible to accommodate funding from three sources within the present administrative and financial arrangements of the colleges. After devolution, there will be four sources; the Secretary of State will continue to contribute funds for the development and advisory functions as he does at present and the Scottish Secretary will fund agricultural education.
I am sure the noble Duke is not suggesting that this one additional source of finance will present any sudden or insuperable problems, and it certainly does not justify reserving agricultural education in the colleges and separating it from the mainstream of the educational system, to which he has referred. It may be that, after devolution, certain adjustments to the colleges' articles of association will have to be considered, so that, for instance, the appointment of the boards of governors can reflect the respective responsibilities of the Scottish Executive and the Government, but I do not envisage that this will create any problems.
For these reasons, the Government believe it to be right that the educational functions of the agricultural colleges should be devolved. The splitting of responsibility for the colleges between different Administrations does not mean that the present integrated arrangements should not continue after devolution. Indeed, as I have suggested, there will be strong pressures that they should continue. The Scotland Bill does nothing to prevent this. The fact that funds will come from one additional source should not, as I have indicated, in practice prove any great difficulty. In the light of this explanation of the Government's thinking, I hope that the noble Duke will feel satisfied that that is the statement that he wanted and will withdraw his Amendment.
10.46 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am sure
504
that what the noble and learned Lord has said will go some way to comfort those who have agricultural interests, and I declare such an interest myself. So far as the educational side of the colleges of agriculture is concerned, I think that everybody will be satisfied that they will continue in their present role, which is a supremely important one in Scottish agriculture, because the very high level of expertise which we enjoy in Scotland is, in large part, due to the colleges of agriculture and to what they have achieved over a considerable number of years.
Where the disquiet arises is in regard to the other roles which the colleges assume; that is, the advisory work among farmers and the farming community, and the research and development programme. All those who have any interest in agriculture will know of the superb service which is provided by the colleges of agriculture, particularly so far as advisory work is concerned, and this embraces a very wide spectrum, from matters of what I might call a purely scientific nature, right up to questions which are pure economics. All these and mixed questions can be taken on board by the colleges of agriculture—and are, indeed, taken on board—and comprehensive and well worked-out answers are provided to some extremely difficult and far-reaching questions.
The company with which I am concerned, which has, for social and agricultural purposes, deliberately bought a property in the West of Scotland in a difficult agricultural area, has to my certain knowledge received a great deal of excellent advice from the West of Scotland College of Agriculture. What some noble Lords, and I myself, are concerned about is that there should be no upheaval if this Bill becomes an Act. If parts of the financing of the work of the colleges are removed, so to speak, and put under the umbrella of the Scottish Executive, which must happen, one hopes very much that channels will be worked out, so that not only is there no upheaval but there may even be some improvements.
So, to that extent, while I am sure that my noble kinsman is right not to press this Amendment—it is not the kind of Amendment which one presses in this House—I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord might have gone a little further in his statement about what I might call this economic

505
transitional period between the end of the responsibility of the Government at Westminster, and the taking on of the responsibility by the Scottish Executive and, no doubt, the Scottish Assembly.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I feel guilty that I did not declare an interest at the start of my speech, in that not only do I farm in Scotland, but I also make use of the quite excellent services provided by the East of Scotland College of Agriculture. They have very successfully done the whole of my application for an EEC farm and horticultural scheme grant, for which I should like to thank them very much.
This debate must be unique for one reason: that my noble friend Lord Burton praised a Government-financed organisation, which I can never remember happening before! It shows how good the Scottish Colleges of Agriculture are and how important it is that they should continue to operate satisfactorily during the time that devolution takes place, if it does, and afterwards. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, felt that agricultural colleges were not really educative in the normal sense of the word.
Lord TANLAW: May I correct a point? I may have misled the noble Duke into mixing up mainstreameducation with what I would call higher education. In my remarks I was, of course, referring to higher education.
The Duke of ATHOLL: May I thank the noble Lord for the useful distinction which he has drawn, although I am not sure that I entirely agree with him. A great deal of the work of the agricultural colleges is educative and is much to be commended. The universities will not be devolved. Since colleges of agriculture are very closely allied to universities, it seems to be a pity that they should be devolved.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has explained that in future the colleges of agriculture will have four sources of funds. Their present three sources of funds cause difficulties at times. Therefore, I feel that there may be a temptation for the Scottish Assembly, which is not going to have unlimited funds because it will receive a block grant from Westminster, to decide that
506
one of the areas in which economies could be made would be its share of the costs of the Scottish Colleges of Agriculture. I had very much hoped that we should hear something from the noble and learned Lord about how the split between their educational facilities and their advisory and research and development facilities is to be made. Unlike my noble kinsman, I am not at all worried about the two latter facilities, because I see little reason why Westminster should alter its attitude towards the Scottish Colleges of Agriculture. So far as I know, although they have not had unlimited money, they have had quite sufficient to enable them satisfactorily to pursue their programmes and to continue with their advisory and research and development services.
I wish that the noble and learned Lord would say a little more about how the Government visualise the splitting of the functions. It seems to me that this will raise difficulties. Since there is probably nothing further that the noble and learned Lord can say at the moment, I am wondering whether he might agree that I should put down the same Amendment at Report stage—not because I wish to divide the House, but in order to allow him to make a further statement on the subject and also to say why he is so confident that the Scottish Assembly will continue to give sufficient funds to agricultural colleges to enable them to continue their educational work in the way they do at the moment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall write to the noble Duke.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that statement and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord POLWARTH Lord POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 325:
Page 48, line 8, leave out ("the arts").
The noble Lord said: This is an extremely late hour to start to discuss a completely different subject—one which I believe is of crucial importance with regard to the future of the arts in Scotland. Nevertheless, a number of noble Lords with considerable experience in this field have come long distances or have put off other important engagements in order to

507
be here to speak to it. I assume, therefore, that noble Lords will wish to debate this Amendment, even though it may result in some further delay in the hour of our rising.
I am encouraged to speak by the support given to my Amendment by my noble friend Lord Gibson, who is a very distinguished former Chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain. Whatever other differences there may be on the subject-matter of this Amendment, namely, to delete the arts from the devolved subjects in Schedule 10, on one thing I think there will be general agreement, namely, the high standard of excellence in the arts in general in Scotland at present. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is no longer on the Front Bench opposite as he has done a great deal, both officially and personally, to support and encourage the arts in Scotland.
This state of affairs owes a great deal to the positive and enlightened policy of the Arts Council of Great Britain and of the Scottish Arts Council, both in encouragement and in financial support. I should point out to your Lordships that the Scottish Arts Council, while being a committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain, with its members appointed by that Arts Council, of course after close consultation with Scottish Office Ministers, has almost complete autonomy as to how it allots its available funds to the different arts institutions in Scotland. What is more, the Chairman of the Scottish Arts Council is invariably a member of the main Arts Council of Great Britain, and I am delighted that the present incumbent of that office, the Chairman of the Scottish Arts Council, my noble kinsman Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is able to be with us here tonight.
These arrangements ensure a very close working relationship between the countries in the field of the arts. I believe it is also a mutually advantageous arrangement. Scotland certainly benefits in many ways, not least in the fact that over the last two or three years we have received something like 12 per cent. of the total funds available to the Arts Council of Great Britain, which is certainly more than our Goschen formula share. I venture to believe that the Arts Council of Great Britain benefits from the Scottish input to it.
I believe that the criterion for the devolved subjects in the Schedule is broadly those which affect people, and only those people, resident in Scotland, with certain exceptions where there are needs of common policy. I accept that there is a certain field of the arts that is purely local, and that is as it should be, and is healthy. Nevertheless, I suggest that in contrast to these activities, when it comes to the major artistic organisations—and I think particularly of the major musical and dramatic institutions, where I must declare an interest as Chairman of the Scottish National Orchestra while equally saying that anything I say tonight is an expression of personal opinion more than anything else—I do not think they should be classified as being of purely local concern. Art knows no bounds, whether of frontier, of nationality or of race.
Indeed, it builds bridges across those frontiers and all of our major musical and dramatic companies fall into that category: the Scottish National Orchestra, Scottish opera, Scottish ballet, the Scottish Chamber Group—all these give concerts in England and make tours abroad (I was this morning giving a Press conference about a tour we are to make to Eastern Europe this autumn) and they draw players, soloists and conductors from all over the world. They are of national and indeed of international calibre and I would venture, if I may say so in the presence of my noble friend Lord Robbins, that in many respects the field of the major arts in Scotland closely resembles the field of the universities which, with I think very good reason, have been excluded from the devolved subjects in the Schedule. Apart from transcending these boundaries, these bodies need a common standard, a coherent pattern over the United Kingdom, and their influence is not related solely to those who live and work in Scotland. When we go abroad with these bodies we are as much ambassadors for British as we are for Scottish culture, if not more so.
What I am particularly concerned about is this—and this is where we seek enlightenment tonight: What will happen if the arts remain in the devolved category? Presumably they become the responsibility, financially and otherwise, of the Assembly. What, then, will be the role

509
of the Scottish Arts Council? Presumably, as a committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain and under its sponsorship, and ultimately under the Department of Education and Science, it will simply cease to exist, because its function will have been transferred elsewhere. Then I suppose it will be for the Assembly to decide how it wants to deal with the arts and support for them. It could, although it need not, set up a new independent Scottish Arts Council, which might or night not in due course seek a Royal Charter, such as the Arts Council of Great Britain has at present. Presumably, the First Secretary would have power to appoint the members of such a body, and of course the Assembly would have to provide the funds out of its block grant. That is something that could happen; but of course it would be open, I assume, to the Assembly to make any arrangements it liked.
I believe it is absolutely vital that there should be some independent body as a buffer between the State and the arts, as there is at present for the whole country, a body with freedom to allocate the available resources completely independently. I believe the members of such a body should be as independently appointed as possible, on the basis of the broadest general experience in the arts field and not just as representatives of particular interests or bodies. In this respect it interests me to see in one of the Schedules that in the case of two other bodies of, I would submit, comparable importance and general activity, there is provision that while their functions are devolved one function is not; namely, the power to recommend appointment, in the case of the National Library of Scotland, of the trustees, and, in the case of one of the Mental Health Acts, of commissioners under that Act. Power to recommend appointments to Her Majesty under those two Acts is reserved and is not devolved, and I submit there could be a very good case for doing similarly with appointments to any body handling the arts in Scotland.
There is then the question of the amount of resources to be made available. What guarantee is there that an Assembly would feel inclined to maintain the present, I think, very generous level of support coming from the Arts Council? I am not for a moment suggesting that the majority of Members of an Assembly would be
510
philistines; I sincerely hope not. But my experience of the support for the national arts organisations by local authorities in Scotland in recent years is hardly encouraging. Up until six years ago the Scottish National Orchestra used to receive about one-third of its income from the local authorities in Scotland, the other two-thirds coming from the Arts Council and from our own takings at the box office and otherwise. Over that six years the local authority proportion has fallen, in this coming year, to around 17 per cent., leaving the other two partners to meet the rest. This they have done to date, but the matter is reaching somewhere near a crisis point.
I feel that this attitude on the part of local authorities does not augur well for the possible attitude of an Assembly faced with a whole lot of demands to meet, demands which I think will be quite insatiable, from the block funds available to it. I have doubts as to the priority an Assembly will place on the arts in this situation. As a result, all the major bodies in the arts in Scotland are walking a tightrope financially, and one step wrong could bring any one of them down. Any sudden change in the method of support could indeed trigger this off, even a delay of a few months in deciding where the support is to come from after the present Arts Council support has ceased.
All in all, I believe it will be in the interest of the major arts in Scotland, at any rate, that they should continue under the aegis of the present Arts Council set-up. It would not inhibit the local authorities from doing their share, as, hopefully, they will increasingly do, but it would give an assurance of standards of independence, and, above all, of continuity and a reasonably assured source of finance. It would insure against yet more uncertainty and cause for anxiety about their future for those many very dedicated performers in these bodies, for whom today life is uncertain enough in any case.
That is why we put down this Amendment. I realise that it is not necessarily perfect. It may be too all-embracing to achieve the purpose that we seek. However, we very much look forward to hearing the Government's thinking on how the arts will fare and be dealt with under an Assembly. If necessary, we may feel inclined to come back with another

511
Amendment if this one is not suitable. I beg to move.
11.6 p.m.
Lord GIBSON: I put my name to this Amendment because I sincerely believe that the changes proposed in the administration of the arts—the public subsidising of the arts on a United Kingdom basis—would seriously damage the arts, especially in Scotland.
Let me say straight away that if I had not been Chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain for five years I think that I should have taken a different view. I am sure that I should have said to myself: "If we are to have devolution, whatever its merits, the case for devolution must rest on national identity. National identity is based largely on culture. If ever there was a subject to be devolved it would be the cultural life of the nation ". However, practical experience over five years has convinced me that in working practice it would be a mistake. Let me quickly say that I am no longer Chairman of the Arts Council. Therefore I speak in a purely private capacity.
I am convinced by experience that the Scots already have devolution of the arts. They have more. They have the best of both worlds. They have not near, but complete, autonomy in the spending of their slice of the United Kingdom arts cake. They also have full and active participation in the development of the United Kingdom arts policy. They make a fine contribution. They have three seats on the Arts Council of Great Britain. They are immensely valuable members of that body.
It is true one could argue that if we have separate arts councils in Scotland, Wales and England—what I said about Scotland applies equally to Wales—we could have a formal association between the three bodies. United Kingdom arts matters could be discussed there. But what a bore that would be. It would involve another tier of administration, when the present set-up, which is simpler, works so well.
The fact is that it is not possible to distinguish in advance between those matters that have purely Scottish, purely Welsh and purely English relevance, and
512
those matters that have a United Kingdom relevance. Many is the time that I have sat at the Arts Council when the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, has put up his hand and said "Stop. What you say has a relevance for Scotland. This is Scotland's point of view about this". We had not thought of it before. We developed a policy which took their interests into account.
The same has happened constantly with the Welsh Arts Council. Both bodies are committees, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said, under the constitution of the Arts Council of Great Britain. In practice, they work independently but are a part of our deliberations in London. The present system works to the advantage of us all. It recognises that when these matters are indivisible we need to be together.
So the only reason for making a change is to give the Scottish Assembly a role and to make it responsible for funding the arts in Scotland. Will its funding of the arts in Scotland improve matters for the arts in Scotland? Let us suppose that we take aside not only the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, who has already given his opinion, but almost any of the people in charge of arts organisations in Scotland and ask them whether they think that they will get more or less money from an Assembly than they get from Westminster, through the Arts Council of Great Britain and whether they think that they will get more or less political interference. I suspect that most of them, if not all of them, will say that they feel safer on both counts with Westminster, where the Arts Council of Great Britain has been for nearly 30 years a buffer between Government and politicians and the arts, and the convention and habit has grown up of the arts being protected from continual interference, but with accountability to Parliament.
Nowhere in the world where the arts receive public funds on the scale which they do here are they administered with so little political interference coupled with accountability. This system is admired and envied by artists throughout the world.
As regards pure finance, the Scottish Arts Council, like the Arts Council of Great Britain, benefits from the fact that the United Kingdom arts budget is a

513
minute proportion of the United Kingdom total expenditure and yet it is accorded great importance and has a Minister to plead its cause. Ministers of both Governments have been by no means unsuccessful. Both Conservative and Labour Governments, although neither has done as much as many of us who are involved in the arts would like to have been done, have recognised at least that the small amounts which can be saved by cutting the arts do damage out of all proportion to their size.
The same is not true—as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, was saying as regards Scotland—of the local authorities up and down the country. Compared with the national Governments, the local authorities have inevitably done badly. I think that that is understandable and I do not altogether blame them. A grant to the arts from a hard-pressed local authority all too easily is seen as meaning a cut in something else—some other cherished project. I think that it is very likely that the Assembly will, in this respect—and in this respect only—resemble a local authority more than the national Government.
A Scottish Arts Council receiving a grant from an Assembly trying to allocate its expenditure is much more likely to resemble a local authority assisted arts organisation than a national Government assisted one, not necessarily because of any deficiency in the Scottish Assembly, but because of its financial limitations. Therefore, for those reasons, while recognising the desire to devolve a cultural responsibility, I believe that if the arts are devolved, damage will be done. Moreover, it is foolish to break up a system which gives the arts in Scotland the best of both worlds and which devolution of the arts would fail to maintain.
Lord ROBBINS: I am tempted to make a brief interposition in this debate in view of my admiration for the Government's decision not to devolve the administration—in so far as it arises from governmental sources—of the universities. The universities are to remain under the control of the University Grants' Committee. I understand that that arrangement is one which commends itself to a very substantial proportion of the people engaged in university teaching in Scotland. I sometimes wonder whether we appreciate how lucky we have been, or perhaps how
514
clever we have been, to have evolved the method of administration which is typified by the University Grants' Committee. There can be no doubt at all that it is the envy of academics all over the world. In an extraordinarily sensitive area of cultural life it has insulated university teaching from the vagaries of politics.
The question which naturally arises in my mind is: What is the difference between the culture inculcated by university teaching and the culture which is fostered by the present arrangements with regard t o the arts? What is the difference constitutionally between the position of the University Grants' Committee and the position of the Arts Council? I have no interest in this matter; I have simply been a suppliant from the Arts Council, but I have never sat on any of its committees. We do not know how lucky we are in having evolved this way of fostering the finest manifestations of culture. Why should there be a difference, therefore, in the mode of administration chosen for the Government fostering of the arts in the United Kingdom and the Government fostering of the universities?
11.16 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: I believe that it is my first duty in taking part in this debate to declare my interest as chairman of the Scottish Arts Council and a member of the Arts Council of Great Britain, a body incorporated under Royal Charter. During the last week or two I have asked several people who have made an undoubted personal contribution to the field of the arts in Scotland what they think about this Amendment which we are presently discussing. In almost every case they have said something like the following: "But surely you must realise that the urge for devolution in Scotland is in essence a cultural one. To withdraw the arts from the devolution Bill is to destroy the very spirit of this whole measure. It is quite unthinkable".
"Good", I have said, "That is fine. Now, in what way do you think the Assembly will choose to support the arts? Will it be by a body at arm's length, such as the Scottish Arts Council and the Arts Council of Great Britain, which are presently set up, or do you think they may prefer to appoint their own elected members to a committee to take charge of the

515
distribution of the money that they decide to spend on the arts? Further, do you think that the arts will rank high or low in their priorities?" "Oh", they said, "Well, that is difficult. That could be very difficult indeed. We are bound to admit that the Assembly might find that the arts might have to occupy a peripheral place ". I mention that because I believe that it is evidence of the contradiction of heart and mind that bothers many people concerned with the arts in Scotland today.
I should have liked to say a little about the appreciation that all of us concerned with the arts feel for the actions of Parliament in the last 30 or 35 years, since the formation of the Arts Council of Great Britain, in making available funds to provide in Scotland such a vast new variety and quality of artistic fare which is now available. I think that at this time I should not expand on that. I should like to go straight on to the question of the existing degree of devolution, which has been referred to. I would confirm that from my own experience it is a fact that, despite a perusal of the Charter of the Arts Council of Great Britain, indicating the belief that provision for the arts is not yet devolved, your Lordships should be quite clear that for many years all decisions on revenue support for the arts have been, de facto, wholly devolved to Scotland, with of course the acceptance of the Arts Council of Great Britain of this state of affairs. So much for the present.
I should like to suggest two key considerations which I believe should underline any scheme of provision for the arts in future. In order of ultimate importance they are, first, freedom of expression; secondly, stable and adequate financial support. I suggested earlier that there might be two possible arrangements for support of the arts which an Assembly might contemplate. The first being direct control by appointing a committee either wholly composed of elected Assembly Members or perhaps partly of elected Members and partly complemented by lay or expert members.
The practice of co-opting lay members to democratically elected bodies, whether those bodies are advisory or executive, does not meet with much favour at either district or regional local authority level,
516
for understandable reasons. It seems quite possible that this view could prevail in the Assembly with the result that there could be the dangers of a directly political arts policy, and of the enormous and hitherto unprecedented fundamental changes of personnel and policy after each election. I believe that that arrangement would be quite contrary to the interests of the arts, the artists, and the consuming public in Scotland.
The second alternative would appear to be for the Assembly to contemplate appointing a separate body at arm's length from itself, perhaps under Royal Charter as at present. The advantage of this arrangement is that it enables the Minister of the day responsible for the arts to consider support of the arts on a longterm basis, and to represent these needs to Parliament on this basis, leaving responsibility for individual day-to-day support decisions and priorities to the Arts Council. Ministers are not required to give instant reactions on questions of Arts Council grants. This has enabled individual writers, artists, directors of performing companies, to act and to plan their programmes without regular major changes in policy affecting their long-term thinking. It allows a period of time within which the development of the arts in this country, and consequently the policy of the Arts Council, can be digested and considered at leisure by Parliament.
The annual grant-in-aid decisions by Government, usually endorsed by Parliament, to the Arts Council of Great Britain are made after such reflection. It seems to me absolutely vital that this separation of responsibility for the day-to-day decisions on the one hand by the Arts Council, and of long-term funding on the other by the Government, must continue. The Council itself has a similar understanding with its principal clients. It grant aids on a momentum of performance and audience support. The Arts Council does not cut off grants, or presume to criticise on the basis of a single failure. I suggest that this devolution of responsibility on a basis of accumulated experience is in accordance with the best modern precepts of participation and devolved decision making.
I must briefly refer to a criticism, or a cliché, which is frequently offered to me as a certainty; that is, that the Arts

517
Council is not accountable. I must say that of course the Arts Council is accountable directly to Parliament. It produces three annual reports for Scotland, England, and Wales. The Chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, and his chief accounting officer, have appeared before now in front of the Public Accounts Committee to answer questions on its stewardship, and it may be, although it is not exactly for me to say, that the standard of stewardship compares respectfully with that of any other organisations funded with taxpayers' money.
The second key factor I referred to was adequacy of cash provision. I think this has been dealt with by the two noble Lords who spoke previously, and I think I should pass over that except to say that the key question is what priority the Assembly, in the event of the devolution of the arts taking place, will give to the arts. What we should like to see is an adequate priority, and of course a recognition of the realities of the funding of the arts. A major performing company must plan and engage artists three years ahead. They have now to do that on their own responsibility because the Arts Council is not allowed to make any commitment further than the existing financial year. This is not sensible, and let us hope that in any further provision the triennial planning arrangement, incorporated for a very short time and since dropped, will be introduced.
Finally, I would emphasise the imperative need for a British body. It can hardly be emphasised too strongly that a British body, and in a stronger form than that of a consultative committee, is necessary. Almost all the performing companies in Scotland are wholly Scottish, in domicile and for the most part in membership, but they are British, and frequently international in performance and reputation. The arts are not of a narrow parochial importance. The arts are international and the Scottish Arts Council does what it can do to ensure that the fresh air of international discussion and exchange enliven the arts in Scotland.
Much of this is foreseen and planned, either within the Arts Council of Great Britain or in consultation with them. A forum in which members and officers
518
of the Scottish Arts Council and their English and Welsh opposite numbers can frequently meet and argue out problems is vital, however much they may decide in the future, as they have frequently done in the past, to pursue separate policies in respect of individual domestic needs in their respective countries.
11.27 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: At the risk of being repetitive, though making no apologies, I have to start again by saying that the Government's policy throughout the Bill is to devolve as much as possible in respect of matters which are primarily the concern of the people living in Scotland. Many of the arts form an important part of Scotland's heritage and history and the arts are therefore a leading example of a field of activities that is appropriate for devolution. The arts do not exist in isolation and cannot easily be separated from other cultural and recreative activities, or indeed from education itself. I believe that to single out the arts for reservation from all the other matters in Group 3 would have a harmful effect on the development of a coherent policy in these important fields.
The arts are devolved by virtue of the entry in Group 3 of Part I of Schedule 10. This means that the existing administrative and statutory functions exercised by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in relation to the arts in Scotland will he transferred to the Scottish Secretary, and the devolved Administration will be free to develop its own policy in the field. It will be open to the Scottish Administration to develop its own policy for financial support for the arts; to determine how much of the block fund should be devoted to the arts; and to decide whether to dispense financial support directly itself or whether to operate through the existing Arts Council of Great Britain and its subsidiary, the Scottish Arts Council, or to devise some new machinery for that purpose.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for having a chat with me this afternoon and talking about some of the points he was proposing to raise. I do not share his fears that the Scottish Assembly, representing the Scottish people, will be any less proud of Scotland's famous cultural institutions, its national orchestra,

519
its ballet and its chamber music than we are at Westminster. I am sure the Members of the Scottish Assembly will be just as keen as they are today, or even more so, to cherish those products of Scottish imagination and initiative when they are working side by side with Westminster.
The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, asked about devolving the universities and implied satisfaction that the universities were not being devolved. The case for not devolving the universities is based on very different criteria because the 45 universities of Great Britain operate as part of a coherent whole and economies of scale and the need to get value for money point to the need for the allocation of resources on a Great Britain basis, and we do not think that there is quite the same case so far as the Arts Council is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, also gave me prior notice of the general line he intended to take tonight. It may be worth emphasising that there is no reason at all why after devolution the Scottish Arts Council should not continue to function in Scotland, especially since we are all so proud of the excellent job that the Scottish Arts Council does in Scotland at the moment. Would it not be invidious to pick out the Scottish Arts Council for special treatment when there are similar special cases in other fields? It would not make for a coherent Administration if all such bodies, or fields of activities, were selected as perhaps being too important or too sensitive to be left to the Scots. Surely we have sufficient faith in the Scottish Assembly that is being elected, that it will have good sense, and that it will show the discrimination that we are used to having from the Scottish people.
A point was also made by a noble Lord on the appointments. The appointments made by the Crown are reserved because there is no direct access to the Crown by the Scottish Administration, and the Arts Council appointments are not Crown appointments. I think that towards the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, was slightly mistaken when he said that there has been some devolvement to the Scottish Arts Council now. In fact, the financial support for the arts has been
520
decentralised from Great Britain through the Scottish Arts Council, but it is not devolved, because it is still accountable to Westminster through the Arts Council of Great Britain.
We know that there are some problems. The Arts Council of Great Britain is a Royal Charter body. If the Scottish Administration decide to continue to operate through the existing machinery, then the Arts Council of Great Britain can consider, in consultation with them, what adjustments should be made to its Charter in order to meet the Administration's wishes. It is envisaged that on the Westminster pattern the Arts Council of Great Britain would then apply to the Privy Council for any amendments necessary to its constitution. Although under the terms of the Bill the Scottish Assembly can legislate to amend the Charter itself, it can only do it after it has obtained Crown consent first through its Secretary of State.
I know that there is concern among noble Lords who have spoken tonight that they may not get as generous treatment as they think they ought to have, and perhaps as many of us think they ought to have, from their local authorities. However, I know local authorities in other parts of Great Britain who are nothing like as generous to the arts in their areas as many of us would wish them to be. The Scottish local authorities are not alone in this. They are not all good at it, and we could wish that those who are not so good might get better. Perhaps when we have a Scottish Assembly and a Scottish Administration, with a real Scottish pride in the arts of their country, they may do even better than they do now. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
11.34 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: One thing puzzles me here. There is one Department which has a "full" Minister representing it in this Chamber. I refer to the Minister for the Arts. I wonder why he is not present. I wonder why the Minister for the Arts, who should know more about this issue from the ministerial point of view, is not here to give his testimony.
I am not suggesting that the noble Baroness is not other than excellent, as she always is, and there is no suggestion

521
that she has not properly prepared and delivered the Government brief. But it could he that the Minister for the Arts, with his special knowledge of all that is behind this matter, would not recommend this. Is his absence a sign that he does not altogether agree with this? Is it that, in his experience as the Minister for the Arts over the past 12 months, together with the experience of his predecessors, he feels that it would be better for the Scottish arts if they were left out of the Bill? The arguments have been very strongly made that what is proposed will injure the present set-up.
I imagine that there is no suggestion from any quarter that the Scots are not capable, through their Assembly or any other body, of looking after these matters with the same sympathy and understanding that exists now. This arrangement has worked for a number of years. Why disband it or risk weakening it? I was waiting for the noble Baroness possibly to explain why the Minister for the Arts is not here. There is very likely a very good reason. But I should have thought that, on a matter as important as this, concerned with the cultural aspects of the Bill, one Minister to commend it to the Committee, if his experience would so allow, would be the Minister for the Arts. We do not have many "full" Ministers here, and I find it rather puzzling that the Minister is not here to give his testimony.
Baroness STEDMAN: Will the noble Lord accept that the Ministers responsible for all the services that are being devolved have been in discussions about these matters at all levels? There has been complete consultation. We cannot array all the Ministers. We are concerned in this Bill with every subject the Government deals with, and we cannot have here all the Ministers to answer for their own particular piece. We hope that the team who are dealing with the Scotland Bill are doing so adequately so far as your Lordships are concerned. It is no reflection on the Scottish Arts Council, or on the attitude of the Minister for the Arts that he is not here tonight. He is only one of many Ministers, and we have not got the others here. There have been no complaints that the other Ministers have not been here.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Certainly in another place it would be deemed
522
to be very remiss if a Minister with departmental responsibility was not present. It is clear from the Marshalled List that the arts are going to be discussed at some length. Noble Lords who are submitting these Amendments are very authoritative, and I would think, on the sheer grounds of Parliamentary procedure as it should be operated, on those very few occasions when we have a Minister from your Lordships' House that he would have been here to deal with it. But there it is. We have had an explanation. I do not think it is a very good one, but at least it is an explanation.
Lord BROWN: May I point out that there are 80 Ministers in another place and a handful here. Perhaps the noble Lord has forgotten that.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Might I make it clear—
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: The question of Parliamentary procedure was referred to. The procedure in this House is perfectly understood. We have a team of Ministers who answer on this Bill and, if I may say so, I think it is rather disparaging of the noble Lord not to accept the explanation which my noble friend Lady Stedman has given. We are all perfectly content with the way she dealt with it in all parts of the Committee, and I think it is rather a pity that this kind of disparaging remark should have been made. I think it would be very much better if we left it now and had an answer as to whether or not this Amendment is to be moved.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The noble Baroness chastises me. That is her privilege and I shall take it, because it is from an authoritative source that the chastisement comes. But in terms of Parliamentary procedure I repeat that we have very few recognised Departmental Ministers in this House. The Minister for the Arts over the last 12 months happens to be one of them. I feel, whatever the convention has been in the past and whether or not I get the support of my noble friends on the Front Bench—I am not being disparaging to the noble Baroness; I am one of her great fans—that there are very few Departmental Ministers and when an issue concerning their Department is raised, I should have thought, if it was

523
not good manners, at least it would be good sense to put in an appearance.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: I agree that Scotland has its own culture, but in one very short sentence—and my knowledge of Scottish history is not enormous, but I know it quite well—I would have said it was worth bearing in mind particularly in relation to this Amendment that what one might call the astonishing cultural explosion in Scotland of all the arts and all learning which took place in Scotland, took place after the Union.
The Earl of PERTH: I go along with many other noble Lords in feeling that one cannot separate the arts in Scotland from the Assembly. There is one question of fact which I should like to ask, and it is this: if it is decided by the Government and by others that the arts should be a part of the devolved issue, is it possible for the Scottish Arts Council to receive a Royal Charter so that it can operate on its own and then make arrangements with the Arts Council of—as I suppose it still is—Great Britain?
Baroness STEDMAN: It is a matter for consultation between the Scottish Arts Council and the Arts Council of Great Britain and it is for them to negotiate and make the necessary arrangements.
Lord POLWARTH: There is very little that I can say except first to thank noble Lords who have mostly spoken in support of my theme here and to congratulate the noble Baroness for so ably and charmingly assuming the combined role of a Scottish Office Minister and a Minister for Education. I thought she discharged it admirably within the limitations imposed on any Member of the Government Front Bench in telling us anything about what will happen in relation to any of the devolved subjects after this Bill is passed. Because, of course, they cannot tell us anything about what will happen: they can only express pious hopes and leave it to the supposed good sense of the Assembly. This is the difficulty we are up against.
I must confess I am somewhat disappointed that the points have not been
524
taken more seriously, particularly with regard to the dangers with which I think we may be faced in the changeover, especially in regard to the arts. If this goes ahead, I think this question of changeover is vitally important; there must be no hiatus, particularly in the financial support, or there will be dire trouble. I sincerely hope that the Government may be able to find some way to follow up the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Perth regarding some continuing arrangement with the present Arts Council set-up, rather than a complete break and the institution of something completely new. With that, I would not wish to press my Amendment on your Lordships tonight, though at a later stage some of us may seek perhaps a slightly different or modified formula to look after some of our remaining fears. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  PARLIAMENTARY ACTS AND EEC ACCESSION
  PARLIAMENTARY ACTS AND EEC ACCESSION
  RHODESIA: ANGLO-AMERICAN PROPOSALS
  RHODESIA: ANGLO-AMERICAN PROPOSALS