Sitting of 12 December 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that brief supplementary questions are essential if we are to make progress.
  ENVIRONMENT

    Leasehold Reform Act
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to reform the Leasehold Reform Act.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales told the House on 3 December in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), the Housing Bill will contain proposals whereby valuation disputes arising under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 will be referred in the first instance to local leasehold valuation tribunals.
    We are considering other aspects of leasehold reform but are not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that there are more leasehold properties in Wales than in many other parts of Britain? In view of the seriousness of the situation, will the Government consider setting up a special inquiry, or a Royal Commission, to look into the whole affair?
    Mr. Finsberg: I think it would be wiser if we waited to see what happens when the valuation disputes proceed through the new proposal that we have made. There are, after all, a substantial number
    1276
    of similar properties outside the Principality.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is the Minister contemplating extending rights under the Leasehold Reform Act to flats? Has he any such proposals? Is he also considering the removal of rateable value limits? Does he realise that the limits can cause considerable hardship?
    Mr. Finsberg: I have little to add to the original answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). All I can say is that the Act at present applies only to houses for technical, legal reasons. We want to look at the question of extension to leases of flats in the longer term. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a complex position.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many of my constituents are not covered by the Leasehold Reform Act because they are in Crown Estate property? Will he initiate discussions to see whether they can be brought in some way, if not by legislation?
    Mr. Finsberg: That is a different angle from the original question. I shall certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister reconsider the five-year limit on eligibility? Will he say why the Government opposed a formula for enfranchisement?
    Mr. Finsberg: I think that the hon. Gentleman should wait in patience a little longer.

    County Boundaries
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to provide for minor changes to county boundaries to be made by statutory instrument in cases where there is general local approval of any proposed change.
    The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): The Local Government Act 1972 already empowers my right hon. Friend to make orders for changes in local government boundaries in accordance with proposals made by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.
    Mr. Chapman: Does that reply include county boundaries? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the irrelevance of some county boundary lines, which run through newly created estates across streets and even through individual properties could, and should, be changed by speedier and simpler methods, especially where there is overwhelming local consent for this to be done? Is he aware that examples exist between the London borough of Barnet and Hertfordshire.
    Mr. King: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the power exists at the moment. Where there is general agreement and there are exceptional circumstances, it is open to my right hon. Friend to make an order for this to be done. Fresh legislation is not required.

    British Lions (Foreign Tours)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his discussions with the rugby unions of Scotland, England and Wales on proposed tours of South Africa.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): The home rugby unions are fully aware of the Government's stance on proposed tours to and from South Africa as set out in our press statement of 14 September. This was again made clear during my recent informal meeting with the chairman of the tours committee.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is not British participation in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games jeopardised?
    Mr. Monro: We hope that anyone responsible for staging such a tour is aware of all the possible implications. Rugby is not an Olympic sport. The rugby unions are not affiliated to the British Olympic Association. It is for the International Olympic Committee to decide which countries should participate in the Games.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend state why he has adopted this attitude to proposed tours in South Africa.? Would he not agree that taking tours to South Africa can educate the peole of South Africa and speed up the processes that are already taking place in that country? If he does accept the attitude that he has expressed—I find it
    1278
    difficult to believe that he really does—how can he agree to the holding of the Olympic Games in one of the most barbaric and totalitarian countries in the world?
    Mr. Monro: The Government's position was made clear in our statement of 14 September. We shall discuss possible changes with our Commonwealth colleagues if or when sufficient progress has been made towards the integration of sport in South Africa.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the Minister aware that yesterday evening a meeting took place in the House between representatives of the home tours committee of the Rugby Football Union and the sports group of the Parliamentary Labour Party at which it was indicated to us that no decision has yet been taken on the proposed tour? Will the Minister prevail upon the rugby authorities not to undertake the tour, bearing in mind that it is necessary to honour the spirit, as well as the letter, of the Gleneagles agreement?
    Mr. Monro: The rugby unions can be in no doubt of the Government's position. It was set out in my September letter and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office press release of 14 September.
    Mr. Jessel: Why are the Government involved in the matter at all? What have they to do with sport?
    Mr. Monro: The Government are concerned to implement the Commonwealth agreement. We have made our position clear to the rugby unions.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that his strong, sensible, intelligent and civilised stand will be supported by all my right hon. and hon. Friends? Is it not the case that the Olympic Games is the only occasion on which the youth of the world from 146 nations, irrespective of their backgrounds—political, racial or religious—come together freely? Is that not something which we ought to treasure and preserve rather than surrender? Does the Minister also agree that one sport has no right to jeopardise the thousands of hours of dedicated training put in by hundreds of our finest sportsmen and women, and jeopardise their chances of representing themselves and their country at the Olympic Games? Finally—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Show the right hon. Gentleman the red card."]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the red card for the right hon. Gentleman. He must know that the same rules apply to Front Bench spokesmen as to Back Benchers. Perhaps he will conclude his question. Let us say that I have shown him a yellow card.
    Mr. Howell: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, when I was a referee I always took provocation into account.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is what I am doing.
    Mr. Howell: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister agree that it would be the greatest disservice to the Commonwealth if rugby tours to South Africa ended the Commonwealth Games or turned them once more into whites-only games?
    Mr. Monro: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I know that many sporting bodies share his fears about the future. I am sure that the rugby unions will have heard what has been said in the House and will bear it in mind in their decision on any invitation to tour South Africa.

    New Towns (Commercial and Industrial Assets)
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the value of the sales of commercial and industrial assets owned by new town development corporations and the New Towns Commission to date.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on developments on the sale of commercial property in new towns.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): In the present financial year industrial and commercial assets worth almost £4 million have so far been sold. The sale of assets worth another £24·5 million has been agreed but not finalised, and other assets valued at about £43 million are on the market.
    Mr. Newens: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many tenants of industrial properties, particularly small business men, whom his party promised to help, are up in arms against his policy? Does he recognise that small business
    1280
    men are not permitted to buy individual units when they form part of an estate, but are told that the estate must be sold as one unit? Is he also aware that they are not allowed to buy as sitting tenants, but have to put in a bid, which means that their property may be bought over their heads? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about those problems or recognise that the Government are striking a blow at many small business men who have worked to build up their businesses for many years in my constituency and others like it?
    Mr. Heseltine: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the small industrial community. I have ensured that guidelines are available in the disposal programme so that the small business owner gets every reasonable chance, subject to considerations of national financial concern, to buy his own property.
    Mr. Newens: The right hon. Gentleman is selling them out.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern in the new town in my constituency and in other new towns about the policy of selling commercial property? Is he further aware that the profitable enterprises will be snapped up and the remainder will be left to be added to the burden of the public purse? Does he agree that the principles of the private Stevenage Development Authority Bill, which is before the House, are of major importance and worthy of the Government's support?
    Mr. Heseltine: The Stevenage Bill is in conflict with Government policy and we shall oppose it on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are determined to widen ownership in this country and our policy is in line with what we were elected to achieve.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. Friend note that, contrary to the remarks of Labour Members, many of us who represent new towns believe that his proposals are welcome to sitting tenants? Will he give us a categorical assurance that he will make every effort to throw out the Stevenage Bill, which is a weasel designed to transfer resources to district councils?
    Mr. Heseltine: Given the help of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am optimistic about the last part of the question.

    1281
    I have no doubt that the announcement that we intend to offer for sale properties in new towns has been widely welcomed by those who will now have an opportunity to own their properties direct.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are a number of local authorities that have the best reasons for wanting to purchase some of the assets currently in the ownership of new town development corporations or the New Towns Commission, because without being able to do so, and particularly without being able to gain the freehold on town centres, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for them to carry out the sort of redevelopment work that they may need to do in future? That is possible in areas that have not been predominantly under the ownership of new towns.
    Mr. Heseltine: Different powers are needed for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has in mind and it is our intention to ensure that those reasonable powers are available to local atuhorities.
    Mr. Hattersley: What advice has the Secretary of State received from the new town chairmen about the advantages to the community of selling the assets leasehold rather than freehold? How and when does he propose to respond to that advice?
    Mr. Heseltine: We have discussed the matter. The arguments for selling leasehold or freehold have been well rehearsed and are known to all hon. Members. The Government's view is that we should sell freehold wherever possible.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the public expenditure implications of his policy on the sale of council houses.
    Mr. Heseltine: I intend to publish an appraisal of the financial effects of the sale of council houses for the parliamentary consideration of the forthcoming housing Bill.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Secretary of State confirm that over a period of about 20 years the short-term gains from selling council houses could be converted into a loss of about £8,500 per house? Does he
    1282
    accept that his policy of selling council houses is denying homes to many couples and families in high-rise flats? Does he also agree that, by failing to give similar purchase rights to private tenants, he is busily supporting the principle of private affluence and public squalor?
    Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in the figures, I do not understand why he did not press his own Government to publish the figures that were obviously available to them. As I, unlike Ministers in the previous Government, am to publish a detailed assessment of the matter, it would seem reasonable to await publication before trying to analyse the contents.
    Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend be in no way deterred from implementing our election pledge on the sale of council houses? Does he recognise that by implementing that pledge at the earliest date we shall be fulfilling the dreams of tens of thousands of would-be council house buyers?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend puts the matter extremely accurately. I am sure that those buyers will understand that we are implementing our policy in the teeth of Labour opposition.
    Mr. Eastham: Does the Secretary of State recognise the problem that he is introducing for local authorities when he instructs them to curtail expenditure? As a consequence of the Government's policy, more manpower will be required by local authorities in facilitating transactions for the sale of council houses. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make allowances to local authorities in their public expenditure to offset the burdens that he is imposing upon them?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that all local authorities will wish to make their own judgments on where the priorities for expenditure lie. Equally, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the authorities that have already sold council houses on a considerable scale have often produced large revenue surpluses as a consequence.
    Mr. Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures on which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has made his judgment are based on the assumption that rents will rise in

    1283
    line with inflation, which has never happened? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is now pushing the idea of increasing council rents all round.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that many hon. Members have come to regard with some suspicion the figures upon which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) bases his judgment.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the Secretary of State intend to sell, or persuade people to buy, at least one-third of the total stock of municipal houses? If that is so, is he aware that existing statistics indicate that rents will increase by one-quarter. Does that worry him?
    Mr. Heseltine: If I were able to persuade one-third of council tenants to buy their homes, I should add 2 million owners to the present total. I should regard that as a remarkable achievement.
    Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the position in Southampton, where some tenants have been waiting for one year to 18 months to buy their council homes? Is he further aware that, through no fault of their own, their homes have been revalued in the meantime and the properties are costing between £2,000 and £3,000 more than the original verbal agreement? Is my right hon. Friend considering taking steps to reduce that problem? Is he finding that some local authorities' staff are slowing down the process through dogma?
    Mr. Heseltine: I ask my hon. Friend to await publication of the Bill, which will answer his question clearly. There are two ways in which delays may take place. The first is administrative delay, which I deeply regret although in some circumstances it is understandable. What is totally unforgivable is the wholly doctrinal and dogmatic position of Opposition Members.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the Secretary of State aware that a crucial ingredient of the public expenditure implications of the sale of council houses is the cost to the Exchequer of tax relief on mortgage interest payments? Is he further aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told me that it is impossible to make a meaningful estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of the tax relief on the sale of any given number of council houses?
    1284
    As the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is not possible to make such an estimate, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do so?
    Mr. Heseltine: I find the right hon. Gentleman's question difficult to square with the fact that we understand that a detailed paper was put to Ministers in the previous Administration which achieved exactly that purpose. Perhaps the question offers an answer that is important to the House. When I produce my financial analysis the House will realise that, according to the figures fed into the assumptions, so the results will vary dramatically. As one looks ahead for many years, one can make more or less whatever judgment one likes. That is purely a matter of personal opinion. It is for that reason, presumably, that the Labour Government considered the matter and decided that it was not worth publishing an estimate.

    Local Authorities (Manpower)
    Mr. Tom Benyonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of local authority staff numbers.
    Mr. King: On 8 September 1979, the joint manpower watch figures, published today, showed 2,092,271 full-time equivalent staff in local authorities in England and Wales. This figure represents a decrease of 11,871 full-time equivalent staff since June 1979, but is still 18,185 up on the figure for September 1978.
    Mr. Benyon: Does not that put into perspective the outlandish scares about severe cuts in services, since councils are employing more staff than they were at this time last year? Currently it appears that the figure for the employment of local authority staff is standing at an all-time high.
    Mr. King: I hope that all hon. Members, especially those who are most profuse in their complaints about the severe effects of cuts on local government, will take the opportunity to study the joint manpower watch figures published today. They will find that across a wide category of employment in local authorities there is a continuing increase in employment, even though we asked for a curb on

    1285
    further recruitment in the interests of economy.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister willing to admit that the reason why there has not been a dramatic reduction in the number of staff employed by local authorities is that even Conservative-controlled local authorities are now standing out in opposition to the Government's policies, which are attacking local authorities and requiring them to cut services? Is he also aware that within local government, especially among Conservative councillors, there is a strong feeling that the Government's proposals to pay local authority chairmen and to reintroduce political honours is a cynical and mercenary attempt by the Government to buy off Tory councillors who are opposed to the Government's policies?
    Mr. King: In terms of the reductions that we are seeking, the cuts are nothing like as savage as those that were imposed on local authorities when the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was Secretary of State for the Environment. The right hon. Gentleman imposed them as a result of the IMF cuts, and they had to be effected within that year. Part of the problem that we now face is that, having earlier recognised the need for economy, the right hon. Gentleman positively invited further recruitment last year, and invited local authorities to plan for growth. That was a totally irresponsible call in the light of the national economic position.
    Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, notwithstanding the argument of the hon. Member for Bootle, (Mr. Roberts), one of the restraining factors in the attempt to reduce local government staff is the determination of certain Labour authorities to carry on as though nothing has changed, and to increase staff by 200 or 300 over the next year?
    Mr. King: We hear some well publicised statements from some authorities, but I think that the great majority of responsible authorities now recognise the seriousness of the position. We still have a considerable way to go, but I hope that the figures represent a start. We shall look to local authorities in the coming months. As further figures come forward, we hope to see further encouraging trends.

    Urban Development Corporations
    Mr. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has plans to establish further urban development corporations other than those in Liverpool and London.
    Mr. Heseltine: I have no plans to set up urban development corporations other than in Merseyside and in London Docklands.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he realise that many local authorities would dearly love powers similar to the UDCs for themselves, to enable them to cut through red tape and get on with the job?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I realise that my proposals have been widely welcomed on both sides of the House and by a wide audience outside.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State recall a speech that he made in Liverpool in March or April of this year, when he said that the re-election of a Labour Government would no doubt mean the establishment of yet another quango to try to sort out the problems of Liverpool's dockland? What has suddenly brought about this great change of mind? Is he further aware that there are now 11 different agencies trying to sort out the problems of inner-city Liverpool? Will he say what accountability there will be on the part of the new UDC, and how much it will cost—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that there are hon. Members who were not in the Chamber at the beginning of Question Time, when I appealed for brief supplementary questions to enable other hon. Members to be called.
    Mr. Heseltine: I have never believed that everything that the Labour Party proposes is wrong—it is just that it usually is.
    Mr. Steen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that private enterprise will come to the docks in Liverpool and London only if there are special financial inducements or tax advantages? Is it proposed that the urban development corporations will offer such inducements?
    Mr. Heseltine: The urban development corporation proposals are included in a Bill which is shortly to come before the House. We shall have the opportunity in a wide-ranging debate to consider exactly what powers and areas should be considered as appropriate to the urban development corporations. I believe that we should wait until then before making any final decisions.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that all the experience of the new town movement suggests that the worst thing he could possibly do would be to set up urban development corporations in the teeth of local authority opposition in the areas concerned?
    Mr. Heseltine: There are 5,000 acres of derelict land in the centre of London and 500 acres of such land on Merseyside. Unless we take the steps that I propose, that land will continue to be derelict.

    Public Sector Housing (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that the present levels of public sector rented housing are retained in all rural areas.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): It is for local housing authorities to determine the appropriate levels of council house building in their areas within their capital allocations.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister explain the apparent conflict between his right hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Is he aware that farmers are being reassured that there will be no problems since relatively few rural homes will be sold? Does he agree that the purchase of many such houses will be sought, this creating severe problems in maintaining a social balance and an adequate rural economy?
    Mr. Stanley: The answer lies in the statistics collected by the Labour Government as a result of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. The number of lettings made to those being rehoused under that Act amounted to half of 1 per cent. of the total number of relettings in rural areas.
    Mr. Straw: Why, in rural areas as elsewhere, is the Secretary of State allowing council houses to be sold at values well below the cost of building them? Is the Minister aware that during the election campaign his right hon. Friend categorically stated that the Conservative Party could not agree to the purchase of homes based on values below the cost of building them? Why has he broken his word?
    Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman reads the consultation paper, he will be aware that the cost floor applies to all dwellings that have been completed since 1 April 1974.
    Mr. Cockeram: Does my hon. Friend accept that the desire for home ownership is as great in rural areas as it is elsewhere?
    Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Has the Minister noticed that whenever local authority houses are sold in rural areas they tend to fall into the hands of retired people from urban areas or of those who want second homes? Working-class families who live in rural areas are deprived of the opportunity of owning such houses. Why do the Government hold working-class people in rural areas in such total contempt?
    Mr. Stanley: The overwhelming evidence is that those who buy their council houses do so with the intention of staying in them.

    Inner City Areas
    Mr. Murphyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the expertise and knowledge acquired during the establishment of the new towns is made available to the inner cities in older conurbations.
    Mr. Lyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the knowledge and expertise acquired during the establishment of the new towns is made available to the inner cities in older conurbations.
    Mr. Heseltine: The urban development corporations which I propose to set up for London and Merseyside Docklands

    1289
    will be modelled on the new town development corporations. Several of the new towns are setting a useful example through the improvement of the older settlements now absorbed into their areas.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance. Does he agree that considerable benefit can be gained by involving private capital and private ownership at an earlier rather than a later stage in the development?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that that is one of the essential litmus papers by which the success of UDCs will be judged.
    Mr. Spearing: The Minister knows that 8,000 houses await completion in my constituency as part of the Beckton district plan. Will he give that plan the go-ahead and confirm the Docklands strategic plan so that regeneration may go ahead as soon as possible?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Beckton plan is an independent proceeding. I am anxious to bring as much urgency as I can to the development of Docklands.
    Mr. Bevan: Will my right hon. Friend consider forming an old town corporation run on new town corporation lines for inner areas where local authorities and national undertakings are hoarding land and leaving that land sterile and derelict?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I think that he has defined exactly what the urban development corporations will do.

    Local Authorities (Manpower)
    Mr. Majorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with local authority leaders regarding the publication of individual staffing figures, authority by authority.
    Mr. King: The Department is discussing with the local authority associations how the central and local government joint manpower watch might be extended to publish centrally manpower figures for all individual local authorities. We have also invited them to discuss what manpower and other figures might be published locally.
    Mr. Major: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the figures are made publicly available, individual authority by individual authority, so that ratepayers may know which authorities are increasing their staff levels at a time of restraint?
    Mr. King: It is extremely important that the House, local authorities, councillors and local electors should have this information. I was unable to reply more fully to an earlier question about the performance of different local authorities in making economies because at present the information is aggregated and it is not possible to form selective judgments. Local electors are unable to form an informed judgment.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he used to argue that public expenditure cuts were required to get the Government off the backs of the people? He then argued that they were necessary because of the economic situation. Is he now saying that there are no real cuts? Does he believe in keeping good public services?
    Mr. King: I have tried to make it clear to the House—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me—that we must call for improved economies. The economies that have been made in certain areas have been used by a number of Labour Members as an excuse to make extravagant claims about the extent of the economies that are being asked for. Extremely worrying allegations have been made that have disturbed many people. The allegations were not true. I am not seeking to conceal the fact that economies are necessary. I merely wish them to be understood in their true perspective.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in local government quality is required and not quantity? Large local staffs do not necessarily bring the greatest benefits. We want fewer but better public services.
    Mr. King: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's argument. That is why we think it important initially to call for a freeze on local government recruitment and to pursue that policy so that electors may know what is happening to the staffing levels of local authorities. My hon. Friend will have noticed, in an answer I gave which appeared in Hansard

    1291
    recently, that in the past 15 years employment in local authorities has increased from 1·5 million to 2·6 million. I accept that there are some good reasons for that increase. However, it poses a number of questions—for instance, whether the increase was justified in some areas.
    Mr. Park: What relevance do the figures have if they are not related to the needs of certain areas? Surely that is the factor which determines the number of staff necessary in a certain area.
    Mr. King: The greatest value of the figures will be to reveal movements within individual authorities. I accept that it is not possible to make meaningful comparisons between the employment levels of various authorities which may serve different levels of population. However, the figures will be helpful to individual electors in individual areas. They will be able to know what is happening to the movement of recruitment and employment within their authority.

    Opencast Mining (Hindley Green)
    Mr. Stottasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that there will be no adverse environmental conditions created by his decision to allow a five-year extension to mine opencast coal at the Albert site in Hindley Green.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): The letter giving my right hon. Friend's decision on this appeal sets out his conclusion that the need of the National Coal Board for the continued use of the Albert disposal point outweighs the traffic effects and other environmental objections. However, because of these objections, the life of the disposal point has been extended to November 1984 only.
    Mr. Stott: Is the Minister aware that the decision made by his right hon. Friend to grant planning permission on the site, despite the fact that the county and district authorities have opposed it, has enraged my constituents who live in the Hindley Green area? Is he aware that when the site is fully operational there will be 24 lorries an hour leaving the site and heaving up and down the roads in my constituency? How can the hon. Gentleman justify a decision that will lead to great stress and hardship to those living
    1292
    in and around the area, who are sick and fed up of their environment being continually abused?
    Mr. Fox: My right hon. Friend took into account all the matters that were brought to the inspector's notice. It is a temporary decision. In five years it is hoped that the NCB will find a more acceptable site. There were seven conditions attached to the decision, the seventh being that only 20 per cent. of the coal should be removed by road.

    Development Commission
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has, relating to the future of the Development Commission and its associated organisation, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. King: The functions of the Development Commission and COSIRA are currently under review.
    Mr. Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those organisations are very important, particularly in rural areas, that they need adequate resources, that it is totally in line with Conservative policy to help small businesses, and that occasionally there is a real case for having seed corn?
    Mr. King: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and I know the value that many hon. Members place on the work done by the Development Commission and COSIRA. We are conducting a quick review, which I hope will be completed within the first two months of next year. We recognise the role that the Development Commission and COSIRA have played. On funding, we are anxious to find ways to encourage their work, other than through public resources, and I am encouraged by the response that the Development Commission has received. I understand that it is likely to get access to substantial funds from the private sector and from clearing banks, and that could be of great benefit. That is important in achieving our social and employment objectives without the restraint that may arise from public expenditure cuts.
    Mr. Newens: Does the Minister recognise that frequently the biggest problem facing those who wish to set

    1293
    up a small enterprise in a rural area is that of obtaining industrial premises? Does the Minister accept the necessity of providing industrial estates where premises can be rented cheaply, such as were previously provided by new town corporations and which the Secretary of State now proposes to sell off?
    Mr. King: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman managed to drag new town corporations into the subject of industry in rural areas. There is a problem as regards premises, and many district councils are helping to support the installation of small new industrial estates. We also attach great importance to the use of existing buildings in rural areas. The Secretary of State and I have stressed to the planning authorities that they should allow better use of existing buildings, such as farm buildings, that are suitable for small industrial purposes.
    Mr. Kimball: Could not the grant-aided functions of COSIRA and the Development Commission be undertaken by the Department of Trade? Are not both of those organisations quangos which should go?
    Mr. King: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the Department of Trade would be the most obvious home for those activities. However, we are reviewing their operation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we are concerned about the problems affecting rural areas and we are keeping these alternative propositions in mind.
    Mr. Marks: Is the Minister aware that the Development Commission and COSIRA are held in high regard for the work that they have done? Does he recognise that that has been achieved because of Government aid? Is not the review a way of getting out of giving Government help? The right hon. Gentleman claims that private funds are available, but I doubt that very much.
    Mr. King: We wish to discover how the rural areas can be helped most effectively. The obsession of Labour Members with public help has been a positive hindrance to making real improvements in rural areas. As I have said, the Development Commission, with our encouragement, has now found ways of increasing
    1294
    the funds available to it, by enlisting private sector financial support. Many of the projects in which COSIRA and the Development Commission are involved are perfectly viable and do not necessarily need to be funded purely from public funds.

    Tenants (Right of Purchase)
    Mr. Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now completed his study of the possibility of providing a statutory right of purchase for private and housing association tenants; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stanley: Regarding private tenants, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) on 11 June. As far as housing association tenants are concerned, we shall provide wide powers to enable housing associations to sell to sitting tenants, and are still considering to what extent such powers might be combined with a right to buy.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that that is an entirely unsatisfactory answer. Is he further aware that it is totally reprehensible for a Government who are supposedly committed to home ownership to apply double standards as regards a person's right to buy? The Government are acting like a tame pussy cat about private owners but like a dictator towards local authorities. Does he appreciate that the Government are making the housing tasks of those authorities very difficult?
    Mr. Stanley: On our best estimate, over the past 40 years, 800,000 private tenants have purchased their homes from landlords. I only wish that Labour councils had furthered the cause of home ownership to the same extent among their tenants.
    Mr. Scott: Will my hon. Friend consider allowing tenants of private blocks of flats a collective right to purchase, when that block comes on to the market?
    Mr. Stanley: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. He has made strong representations to us as have other of my hon. Friends, and we are certainly considering that point.
    Mr. Spriggs: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether tenants who have lived

    1295
    in privately owned houses for a long time, and who have spent thousands of pounds in making those properties habitable, should be given statutory authority to purchase those homes?
    Mr. Stanley: The Government have the right to dispose only of assets that are in public ownership.
    Mr. Alton: If the Minister is not prepared to give general consent so that all private tenants can become home owners, does he accept the principle that those who are living in homes where landlords will not provide inside sanitation should have the right to serve notice on those landlords of their intention to acquire the property and so become home owners and do the improvements themselves?
    Mr. Stanley: There are certain circumstances under existing legislation where privately rented property can be compulsorily improved. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the consultation paper on improvements, he will see that arrangements are being made whereby property can be improved on a piecemeal basis. That will make the basic improvements, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, easier to undertake.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), namely that where blocks of flats are sold, particularly in inner city areas, tenants should collectively be given the opportunity, under the new legislation, to match the price of a particular transaction? After all, it is their homes that are involved.
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend has already written to us on that point and we are considering the matter.
    Mr. Kaufman: Now that the Minister has come out of hiding and admitted that the sale of council houses is part of a policy of disposing of public assets, rather than assisting home ownership, now that he has asserted that he does not wish those who live in privately tenanted houses to be able to buy them, and as lie has not given a commitment that tenants of housing associations will be given the right to buy—although they are public sector tenants—does he agree that the Government are simply pursuing a vendetta against local authorities?
    Mr. Stanley: With regard to housing association tenants, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to await the details that will be found in the Bill when it is published. Only the right hon. Gentleman could conclude that the policy of selling council houses to sitting tenants does not encourage home ownership.

    Local Authorities (Expenditure)
    Mr. Peter Lloydasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received from local authorities to his request for economies in local government spending in 1980–81.
    Mr. Heseltine: Local authorities have not yet completed their plans for 1980–81. However, the local authority associations have assured me that the economies which we are seeking can be achieved.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for that generally encouraging reply. What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take over authorities such as the London borough of Lambeth, which have expressed their unwillingness to co-operate with his calls for economy?
    Mr. Heseltine: I shall ask the House to give me powers to deal with those authorities which have flagrantly and consistently ignored the Government's request for proper and prudent management of their affairs.
    Mr. Crowther: Does the Secretary of State agree that enormous economies have already been made in local government during the last four or five years? Has it not now reached the point where any further economies will lead to the public being deprived of services to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Heseltine: In one respect I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Under the previous Government, capital expenditure by local authorities was gravely reduced on a wide basis. Of course, on staff levels, as my right hon. Friend has said, we now have a situation where we have the largest ever number of people employed in local government, subject only to the change that my hon. Friend has just announced.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend note the shining example of the borough of Preston, which reduced its rates from 32p to 8p in the pound, which

    1297
    reduction was brought about, among other things, by a reduction in staff without hardship or heartbreak? Will he offer that as an example to the London boroughs of Lambeth and Haringey as a way in which they could reduce their staff and rates to the benefit of their ratepayers?
    Mr. Heseltine: It would be very difficult for me to improve on my hon. Friend's contribution.
    Mr. John Grant: Is it not time that Ministers stopped shedding crocodile tears about the role of the voluntary bodies, and in particular stopped urging local authorities to continue their support for them while at the same time cutting off the essential funds that make it possible for that to happen?
    Mr. Heseltine: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Labour Party voted so often for policies of that sort that they must have become used to it by now.

    Building Regulations
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the persons and organisations who have submitted evidence to him in connection with his review of the building regulations.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: We have received comments from a wide variety of people and organisations. If my hon. Friend wishes, I shall place a list in the Library, excluding, of course, those private individuals who wrote in confidence.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can he give the House some indication as to when we can expect some liberalising of the building regulations because many industrialists in particular find that building regulations are a gross inconvenience in relation to the future development of their industries?
    Mr. Finsberg: I hope that it will not be too long. What I can tell my hon. Friend is that, although a variety of comments have been received, all agree that building control needs substantial change.
    Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the minimum standards of thermal insulation will be uprated rather than removed?
    Mr. Finsberg: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that we recognise that energy conservation is a vitally important issue, for which provision will be made.

    Local Authorities (Expenditure)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the efforts of local authorities to control their expenditure; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heseltine: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 14 November to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), in which I welcomed the assurance I had received from the local authority associations about the co-operation of the vast majority of authorities.
    Mr. Adley: In the light of the concern about local government waste and failure to trim unnecessary expenditure, will my right hon. Friend perhaps give his moral support to the creation of "fiscal vigilantes", comprised of local people, such as has been started in respect of the Birmingham housing corporation, to keep an eye on local government expenditure? Does he not consider that local ratepayers are perhaps the best people of all to point out what they consider to be misdemeanours in expenditure matters by their own local authorities?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. The answer that I would give him is simply that the powers that we shall seek from Parliament is the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill will enable us to ensure that a wide range of information about the performance of individual authorities is available, which will enable local people and the local press to make much more informed judgments upon such matters than they are currently able to do.
    Mr. loan Evans: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is deep anxiety among county and borough councillors about the financial proposals in the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill that will shortly come before the House? Will he have serious consultations with the local authorities before that monstrous Bill is presented?
    Mr. Heseltine: I think that it is now too late to promise further consultations

    1299
    with the local authorities, but we shall now have the widest possible consultation process, which is what the procedures of this House are all about.
    Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend offer his unqualified support to the anti-waste drives that have been launched by a number of newspapers, such as the Leicester Mercury, in areas where local government waste is apparent at the moment?
    Mr. Heseltine: It adds to the strength of local democracy if local people and the local press become involved in the debate about the wide range of options for reducing public expenditure. I have no doubt whatever that there are a considerable number of areas where local authorities can reduce public expenditure on a scale that has not yet been requested.
    Mr. Allen McKay: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that local people are the best people to decide what they want, why is he and the Government interfering with that right by imposing policies on those local authorities which the local people freely elected to do the things that they wanted to be done?
    Mr. Heseltine: Because the policies that the Government were elected to carry through with regard to the sale of council houses carry the mandate of the whole of the people. What hon. Members must clearly understand is that this House has a right to prevail over the local authority view so long as there is a mandate to do so in a general election. That is exactly the claim that was made by Labour Members when they pushed the Education Act through this House.

    Housing Investment Programme
    Mr. Woolmerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the original total of the housing investment programme allocations for 1979–80; and what was the total of the reductions in those allocations which was notified to individual housing authorities in August.
    Mr. Stanley: £2,862 million and £318 million respectively for authorities in England, both at 1979–80 outturn prices.
    Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that there is all-party agreement on the
    1300
    Conservative-controlled Leeds city council that the cuts this year will make even more difficult the problem of dealing with the 15,000 people on the waiting list, the 19,000 pre-war council houses that require improvement and just as many private tenants who require their homes improved? Can the Minister explain why the HIP for next year has recently been withdrawn from regional offices back to Whitehall? Does that indicate that there will be further cuts in the HIP for next year? Will not that make housing problems even more difficult to resolve?
    Mr. Stanley: With regard to Leeds, I am not able to offer an increased allocation for this year. However, as the council so far, in the first half of this financial year, has spent somewhat under half of its allocation—about 44 per cent.—I am sure that it will wish to make certain that it takes up its allocation in full. In addition, it has some tolerance from the previous year which it is able to carry forward. As to the HIP allocations, I am not yet able to make those.
    Mr. Hattersley: With regard to the HIP allocation for 1980–81, which has been very much delayed because of the strange processes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) referred, can we be assured that it will be brought forward in sufficient time to enable local authorities to make their plans? Secondly, can we be categorically assured that it will not be sneaked out during the recess?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not have the actual dates for the recess in 1978, but I notice that in that year—the financial year 1978–79–the allocation was made on 4 January.

    Central Berkshire Structure Plan
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a final decision on his proposed amendments to the central Berkshire structure plan.
    Mr. Fox: The final decisions will be taken when we have completed our consideration of the objections to the proposed modifications.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In the meantime, can my hon. Friend confirm that he will

    1301
    take carefully into account the stern interview that he had yesterday with four Conservative Members of Parliament from the county of Berkshire and assure me that he will take account of the many representation that he has already received, and will receive, in this matter?
    Mr. Fox: I can assure my hon. Friend that, along with the many other objections—the closing date being tomorrow—the fullest consideration will be given to these matters before my right hon. Friend announces his approval.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the deep concern in the county of Berkshire to the effect that the infrastructure costs for providing services for the projected 10,000 houses may fall upon the ratepayers of Berkshire?
    Mr. Fox: The most forceful point that was made yesterday concerned the question of funds for the infrastructure. Certainly, within our proposals, those matters will be very fully considered.
    Dr. Glyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that these proposals have caused more trouble in the county of Berkshire than any other proposals that I can recollect? However, I am quite certain that he will take into consideration all the objections that have been put to him, particularly the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-
    1302
    Wilson) about the infrastructure and who will pay for it.
    Mr. Fox: Brekshire is perhaps under more pressure than any other part of the country in certain respects. It is because of that that we shall give the fullest consideration to all these points.

    Building Land
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on his proposals for speeding up the release of land for building.
    Mr. King: A number of proposals to streamline the planning system and encourage the release of land for development will be set out in our Local Government, Planning and Land Bill.
    Mr. Latham: As it is difficult, in structure planning, to reconcile the need for an adequate amount of land for the house building programme with the need to conserve good agricultural land, is it not all the more important to see that surplus public sector land is released and that inner-city improvement area schemes go ahead as soon as possible?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have a proposal to encourage the bringing on to the market of under-used publicly-owned land in urban areas. We hope that that will help to meet the important need of land availability for house building.

POST OFFICE BOARD (INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY)
The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): With your permission, Mr. Speaker I will make a statement about the future of the Post Office Board.
It is the Government's policy to encourage increased involvement of employees in decisions affecting their interests, but it is not for the Government to lay down how this should be achieved. The precise arrangements are for discussion and agreement between employers and their employees in the light of the particular circumstances of each individual business. This applies equally to nationalised industries, subject to any necessary Government and parliamentary approval.
In the case of the Post Office, the management and the Council of Post Office Unions agreed two years ago that there should be an experiment in industrial democracy at all levels in the business, including the main board. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), facilitated in January 1978 the main board experiment by appointing seven representatives of the Post Office trade unions to be part-time members of the board. He also appointed two consumer representatives. These appointments are due to expire on 31 December, at the end of the agreed two-year period of the experiment.
In accordance with our general policy, it is for the Post Office and the Post Office unions to decide together what form they wish employee participation to take after the end of this year. One thing is quite clear at the present time—they do not agree that this particular experiment at main board level should continue. Broadly, the unions are in favour of a continuation, while management and a majority of the independent members of the board are not.
The chairman of the Post Office is continuing consultations with the unions and is making new proposals for close employee involvement in top level Post Office decision-making. It is for the Post Office management and the unions to agree on the way forward. I shall, of course, be ready to take any action that might fall to me to facilitate whatever new arrangements might be agreed
1304
between the Post Office and the unions. If an agreement were to be reached within the next two months which required such action, this could include bringing before Parliament an order under the terms of the Post Office Act 1977 to make permanent the statutory powers to make additional appointments to the board. However, in the absence of agreement that the two-year experiment should continue, the board appointments made for the purpose of that experiment will lapse at the end of the year.
I should like to express my appreciation of the contribution made by all those who have played a part in this experiment.
Mr. John Silkin: The Secretary of State started his statement by saying that it was not for the Government to lay down how increased involvement of employees in decisions affecting their interests might be encouraged. Does he agree that that is a totally different attitude from the one that he takes to the National Enterprise Board, in that on several occasions he has asked for trade union representation? He says that it is clear that there is a disagreement between the Post Office management and the unions on the question whether the experiment should continue. Was that not always the case right from the beginning? Indeed, was it not the case when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), the former Secretary of State for Industry, rightly insisted that the experiment should take place against the then wishes of the management? That has not changed.
In ending the experiment, the consumer representation is also brought to an end. Is it not a fact that the Post Office management would also object to consumer representatives for just the same reason that they would object to union representatives? When will the Secretary of State publish the Warwick university report? That report is highly critical of management's attitude to the experiment and is extremely favourable to the continuation of the experiment. However the Secretary of State cares to dress up the matter, at a time when industrial relations throughout the country as a result of his Government's attitude is at its lowest, this will be seen as an attack upon the trade union movement and upon industrial relations.
Sir K. Joseph: There is a great difference between the National Enterprise Board, which is an agency set up by the Government with trade union members, and a trading business such as the Post Office, which serves the customer. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong when he suggests that my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, had to impose trade union participation in the main board upon Sir William Barlow. Sir William Barlow has told me that he was most courteously asked by the right hon. Gentleman whether, the trade union experiment having been proposed, he still wished to take the chairmanship of the Post Office. He accepted the invitation with enthusiastic agreement to an experiment that he hoped at the time would succeed.
I propose shortly to appoint new independent members to the Post Office Board and I shall bear in mind the point made about representation for the consumer. The board serves primarily to look after the consumer's interest. The Warwick university report will be laid in the Library. It was commissioned by the Post Office Board and I understand that it is being made available for publication.
Mr. Silkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question about consumers? I made the point that the Post Office Board would be against the appointment of consumer directors. At the start of his statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not interfere with anything that took place within the management of the Post Office.
Sir K. Joseph: As a whole, the board would regard its prime duty as being to serve the consumers. As part of that duty, it is essential that it should have the good will of those who work for the Post Office. That forms part of an effective service to the consumer. The appointment of specific representatives on the board to represent the consumers' interest is a possibility that the Government will consider. However, I, for one, regard the board's function as being directed towards the service of the consumer.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I appreciate the restrictions on my right hon. Friend's position in the matter and his enlightened approach to these questions, but is this not, on the face of it, a retreat from the
1306
concept of employee participation? Most of us would like to see that participation progress in the interests of industrial relations and improved productivity. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend cross-examine closely and conscientiously the Post Office management about the reasons underlying its attitude and any alternative proposals that it might have?
Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. and learned Friend would not be happy if the Government imposed upon one unwilling partner a constitution, after the allotted period, of an experiment that was undertaken by agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has taken immense trouble to consult everybody concerned and I have read the papers that have been provided. I understand that Sir William Barlow, in whom I have great confidence, proposes that there should be closer participation with the trade unions. He will be making those proposals at the right time.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Secretary of State explain why he has caved in to the chairman of the Post Office Board and killed off this rather imaginative experiment in industrial democracy? The right hon. Gentleman seems to rest on the idea that an agreement between Post Office management and trade unions was an essential prerequisite for the experiment to proceed. Legislation that was enacted in this House made no such provision.
Sir K. Joseph: But it is precisely so. Agreement was the essential prerequisite. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, emphasised that it was by agreement that the development of participation was encouraged.
Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us, on both sides of the House, who are believers in an extension of consultation across the floor of industry and the extension of industrial democracy, do not think that the disappearance of this experiment with worker directors is a retreat? Does he not agree with me that the real lesson that has come out from, for example, West Germany, in the successful practice of industrial democracy is that it is better developed by starting down the line rather than at the top of the line, and that co-determination and consultation

1307
are better achieved at the middle range of management and below that?
Sir K. Joseph: I think that there is much in what my hon. Friend says. I emphasise that all the arrangements for participation between unions and management in the Post Office, except that at the main board—and they are very extensive—will continue.
Mr. Golding: Is the Secretary of State aware that many Labour Members are appreciative of the courteous and very constructive manner in which the Minister of State has tried to tackle this problem? Is he further aware that many of us who are members of the Post Office Engineering Union are disturbed that detailed talks with management on this question did not take place earlier, but that we are very hopeful that in the forthcoming talks between the unions and management industrial democracy will be continued? We hope that that will be so, as we are fully committed to it because we believe that it has so much to offer.
Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about my hon. Friend's conscientious consultation. I note his other remarks, although I must say that I think that the subject of the continuation of the experiment has been extensively discussed over recent months between management and the trade unions, and by the board itself in two full discussions.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while an organisation of the size and scope of the Post Office must obviously make its contribution to the evolution of industrial democracy, the Post Office carries a most formidable national responsibility in the area of information technology and in ensuring that British industry as a whole has every opportunity of using the most modern forms of information technology? Will he, therefore, encourage the Post Office to continue with the dismantling of the restrictions that it has currently imposed on applications over a very wide area?
Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend will know that in a previous statement the Government's intentions in this field have been made plain.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Secretary of State agree that not only is there a need to discuss the Warwick report but there will be a need in the weeks ahead to discuss the evidence coming from the experiment? Will he concede that there will be two reports coming from the experiment, and that an undertaking was given in 1977 that the House would have an opportunity to debate the outcome of this experiment?
Finally, will the Secretary of State impress on the chairman of the Post Office Board, Sir William Barlow, the urgency of coming to a further agreement with the unions for the reintroduction of this experiment and ask him to treat this matter very seriously indeed?
Sir K. Joseph: I am anxious that as much information as possible should be made available. I can tell the House that in addition to the Warwick university report, which will be placed in the Library, there will be placed in the Library, by the initiative of the Post Office Board, the relevant board minutes and the discussion on which the experiment was considered.
Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be serious disappointment and anger about the fact that he should have allowed the management alone to veto a scheme, in that boards do not veto appointments by Ministers and cannot do so, and that the whole principle of industrial democracy is that one is moving towards joint determination?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed changes in the Post Office and the introduction of new technology there both make the continuation of this experiment most necessary?
Thirdly, why has the right hon. Gentleman not acceded to the representations of the TUC, members of which have been to see him on, I think, two occasions and have asked for a further three months to be allowed for a proper joint evaluation between the unions and the management before a final decision is taken?
Sir K. Joseph: I have a whole sheaf of quotations here from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), emphasising, perfectly honourably and straightforwardly, that this experiment and its continuation rested upon agreement by both sides. It

1309
is not the Government, let alone I, who are bringing this experiment to a close; it is the fact that there is no such continuing agreement.
There is a breathing space, a period of grace, inasmuch as although the membership of those appointed for the experiment lapses at the end of this year there is still an opportunity permanently to renew the facility for there to be extra board members, if the House chooses to use the period given by the original Act and to invite me, because of agreement between the unions and the Post Office management, to lay an order before about the beginning of February.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising, provided that questions are brief—and it is dependent upon that.
Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the consumer representatives would not have been on the board if the Liberal Party had not insisted that they were put there? What possible reason has he now for not ensuring the continued presence on the board of people who owe their allegiance to the consumers?
Sir K. Joseph: I acknowledge that it was the Liberal Party that sought to have two independent members appointed for that purpose, but I repeat that the chairman of the Post Office, Sir William Barlow, and the board as a whole—I hope—hold the interests of the consumer to be their prime concern. We distort the purpose of boards of management if we think that we have to appoint special representatives for the consumer in order that the consumer shall be served.
Mr. Kaufman: As the right hon. Gentleman has clearly been studying carefully the parliamentary proceedings on the Post Office Act 1977, perhaps I may ask him whether he recalls that, as reported at column 77 of the proceedings on 27 June, in response to an Opposition amendment calling for a White Paper to be presented to Parliament by the Government on the outcome of the report, I, on behalf of the Government, gave a firm undertaking that a report by the Government would be presented to Parliament, and that that undertaking which I gave
1310
was welcomed from the Opposition Front Bench. Therefore, while we welcome the information that is to come from the Post Office and from the Warwick university report, may we ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will fulfil what was a joint undertaking and, within the next three months, present a Government report to Parliament, so that Parliament may consider it?
Sir K. Joseph: I shall have to look up the context in which the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, but I am quite sure that in the absence of agreement I have no power to continue this experiment.
Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: No matter what the Secretary of State may say about the position of the chairman of the Post Office, his own position is perfectly clear. He is the Minister who appoints the board and it is up to him to make an assessment of the value of this experiment. How can he, within two years, make an adequate assessment of this situation? Secondly, will he say how he thinks that his decision not to reappoint the union members to the board will in some way improve industrial democracy and further better industrial relations?
Sir K. Joseph: I fear that I have a much simpler question to ask than that which the right hon. Gentleman invites me to consider. I have to ask: is there an agreement? There is not an agreement. Only if there were to be agreement was a continuation of this experiment proposed under the original Act.
Mr. English: If the prime duty of the board is what the right hon. Gentleman says it is I assume that he has pointed out to the board that it has been failing in its duty under successive Governments over the last few years by providing a worse service to its customers. Will the Secretary of State note that there is a view that trade unionists cannot readily sit on boards making management decisions to which their members might subsequently object? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the present situation in relation to the implementation of the Carter report?
Sir K. Joseph: I have been saying for some time, as has the chairman of the Post Office, that the standard of service to consumers has fallen. It is for that

1311
reason that I have told the House that I am considering various possibilities, including modifications of the postal monopoly. As for the Carter report, I made a statement to the House a few months ago explaining that we hope to legislate in the next Session of Parliament.
Mr. Cryer: Is it not the case that the Government refuse to intervene when there is a slap in the face for trade unions but will intervene to attack the trade unions whenever they can? If the Secretary of State does not intend to do anything until there is agreement why does he not tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to get agreement with the TUC before introducing an employment Bill?
Sir K. Joseph: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is "No".
Mr. Spriggs: The right hon. Gentleman said that in his opinion the directors of the Post Office Board represented consumer interests. Will he, instead of taking this attitude, think again and strengthen consumer representation on the board? I can tell him from experience that my parliamentary mail, which should arrive at my home not later than Saturday morning, regularly arrives on Monday
1312
morning. That is a reason why it is essential that we should strengthen trade union representation on the board rather than take representatives off.
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I regard the whole board as having the function of serving the consumer.
Mr. Les Huckfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit to the House that the Warwick university report is highly critical of management's attitude throughout the experiment and that it praises the trade unions for their constructive role? Does he not understand that whatever he says to the House, and not matter what he said in his statement, his decision represents a retreat from industrial democracy that will put back the clock in industrial relations in the Post Office?
Sir K. Joseph: I do not wish to pursue the two last points made by the hon. Gentleman. I think that the phrase "industrial democracy" is misleading. I believe that participation is not put back one jot by the decision made today. As for the Warwick report, I regarded it as totally confidential to the Post Office. It was made available to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself only two days ago and I have not yet read it.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY(AGRICULTURE MINISTERS'MEETING)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels on 10 and 11 December. My hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department and I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.
At my request the Commission proposed a 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound in order to boost the resources available to British agriculture. The devaluation will take effect on 17 December for all the main commodities except cereals and eggs and poultry, where the change will take place at the start of the next marketing year on 1 August 1980. For wine, the devaluation will not take effect until December 1980. This devaluation will be of great importance to British agriculture and it will add about £150 million to farmers' returns in a full year. The effect on consumer prices will amount to one quarter of 1 per cent. on the retail price index, but it will be many months before the full effect of the0·25 per cent. increase reaches the shops. The Council also agreed a 5 per cent. devaluation of the Italian green lira.
The Council agreed a mandate for the Commission to negotiate voluntary restraint arrangements by third countries exporting sheep meat to the Community. The mandate was in accordance with our insistence that any agreement should be a totally voluntary agreement on the part of New Zealand and that there would be no unbinding of the GATT tariff arrangements. We rejected a French proposal that there should be a threat of unbinding the GATT for any country that refused to reach a voluntary agreement.
We and the Commission also rejected a French request to the Commission that no action should be taken by the Commission in respect of the illegal French measures on sheepmeat imports. We again made it clear we would not accept any sheepmeat regime that failed to give a net benefit to Britain or included intervention.
1314
Proposals were before the Council for a wine package designed to restore balance in the wine market and to avoid surpluses. The package was such that Community payments of £32·5 million per year would have resulted in equivalent Community savings of £32·5 million per year. We succeeded in negotiating a substantial reduction in the Commission's proposed FEOGA payments so that the savings will outweigh the payments and produce an anticipated net reduction in the Community budget of £6·5 million per year over the period of the programme. We also resisted French pressure to bring into the package, at the very last moment, an extension of present temporary arrangements protecting producers from low market prices at the end of long term storage contracts.
We secured an agreement that at the end of the current seven-year programme of restructuring, with its ban on new plantings, there would be a review by the Commission. This should ensure that planting controls will be maintained if there is any further risk of surplus production. The package finally agreed will therefore reduce the contribution of the United Kingdom towards Europe's wine regime.
Agreement was reached on a group of animal health measures, which fully meet the United Kingdom's requirements, and we obtained an extension for a further six months of the derogation enabling the United Kingdom, the Irish Republic and Denmark to maintain their national swine fever requirements for imports of pigs and fresh pigmeat.
Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that report. Is he aware that with a 17 per cent. inflation rate and a record high minimum lending rate these factors are forcing our farmers into their present difficulties? Government policies are forcing the Minister to go for quick devaluations and to appeal to his agricultural colleagues in the Community who then blackmail him on other measures. It is the British consumer who suffers every time as a result.
Is the Minister aware that in the last six months since he came to office his devaluations and food price increases have increased the food price index by at least 2 per cent. and that the weekly

1315
food bill of the average family has increased by 50p? Does he accept that though the farmers may have benefited by £300 million it is likely that the cost to the British consumer will be over £450 million?
The British housewife now realises that she has been conned. That is the reason for the 9 per cent. swing recorded today against the Tories by the women of Britain. Will the Secretary of State say specifically what this devaluation has added to the national food bill and what are the separate food increases?
The wine package appears to be a good deal. We hope that the reductions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman will be realised. The Minister still seems to be standing firm on the issue of sheepmeat. Does he still maintain that any new regime to assist the French will not be at the expense of the Community but will come from the national French pursue? Will he continue to stave off any threats to New Zealand lamb exports to the United Kingdom?
Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman surprises me with his reasons for the increased farm costs. He did not mention the biggest increase that farm workers have ever had in their wages. If farm workers are to benefit by £220 million—a much better wage increase than they ever obtained under a Labour Government—the right hon. Gentleman must expect some increase, since the farming industry has to meet the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he talks of the negotiations for green pound devaluation resulting in the threat of blackmail. The negotiations resulted in a threat of blackmail that was totally unsuccessful. The French demanded that if they agreed to the green pound devaluation they must have a major concession on wine and a major agreement on sheepmeat. Even the Commission's proposals on wine were reduced by 20 per cent. as a result of the skilled negotiations by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The resulting wine package is of net benefit to Britain.
No concession of any kind was made on sheepmeat. After starting with what the right hon. Gentleman described as a "blackmail" technique the French
1316
finished the day having achieved absolutely nothing. As for price increases, I do not think that I can do better than refer to the previous 5 per cent. devaluation by my predecessor, the Minister of Agriculture in the last Labour Government. When introducing his 5 per cent. devaluation he stated that when that devaluation—which was necessary for the well-being of British agriculture and to help safeguard employment in our pig-meat processing plants—had eventually worked through into prices it was expected to increase the retail price index by one-fifth of 1 per cent.
That was the view of a Labour Minister on a 5 per cent. devaluation. I am therefore surprised that his successor as spokesman on agriculture should take a different attitude. In relation to assurances about the position of New Zealand and sheepmeat, I guarantee that there will be no support from the British Government, which will provide Community financing for French farmers. Any premium system that we agree to must bring a net benefit to the United Kingdom. If there is no such system there will be no agreement on a system for sheepmeat. I categorically state that under no circumstances will the British Government change the conditions for the entry of New Zealand sheepmeat unless it is by voluntary agreement and based upon a decision by the New Zealand Government.
Mr. Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved. He has given nothing away, contrary to what is said in The Guardian today. What further steps can he take in the immediate future to open up the lamb export market to France? Does he agree that the present situation is damaging to farmers, particularly in the South-West of England.
Mr. Walker: I agree that the position has been exceedingly damaging. During the last year not only have the French pursued their present policy on sheep-meat; they have substantially reduced the quota compared with the allowance for 1978. The final rejoinder of the French Government to the Commission's legal procedures is due to take place today. I am glad to say that the Commission confirmed yesterday that it is its duty to ensure that the law is obeyed.

1317
Mention has been made of the interpretation of the wine package. Credit is due to the Minister of State. Not only did the wine producers not receive what they required; even the Commission's proposals were cut by 20 per cent. through the Minister of State's efforts. That brought about a saving of £45 million on the total wine package over the period. I do not see how that can be interpreted as giving way.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the Minister on his determined efforts to give the farmers a much-needed boost to their incomes. Will the Minister point out to his Cabinet colleagues that because interest rates are running as they are, the package of £150 million is worth probably only £75 million? Does he agree that there is a need to bring down interest rates? I congratulate him on his resistance to the French demands, but when will there he help for the horticulture industry? Am I correct in believing that fuel subsidies are paid to Dutch and French horticulturists?
Mr. Walker: I agree that there are problems in the horticulture industry. Only one country has obtained benefit, and that is due to the provision of cheap gas in Holland, which is of particular help. Dutch horticulturists are angry because the Dutch Government have made substantial increases in the price of gas, in line with their undertaking to bring the price up to the price of oil. The Dutch Government are genuinely trying to achieve an appropriate adjustment in the Community in that respect.
Interest rates impose a heavy burden on the farming community. All my colleagues in the Cabinet hope that as a result of our policies we shall be able to reduce the interest rate in the near future. This boost to British agriculture is not just of direct financial benefit; it takes away the unfair competition for those countries with positive MCAs. I hope that that will provide a further boost for the agriculture community.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he skipped rather rapidly over the question of health regulations? What will happen to milk on 1 January 1980? The British consumer must be protected.
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for asking that question. I should like to make it clear that the general impression that our health regulations for milk will expire at the end of this year is untrue. The regulations on the metric pack end then, but the health position continues. In our view, and in the view of the Advocate General of the European Court, those health regulations are totally justified until such time as a European regulation is introduced. There is no prospect of a European regulation being introduced before 1982. Any such regulation will be applied only two years after that date. In our judgment there is no threat from milk imports.
Mr. Nelson: Was not the green currency system originally introduced partly to provide a subsidy to the consumer but mainly as a means of protecting the farmer against sudden fluctuations in the value of the currency in which he is paid? Is it not clear that the green currency system has worked to the detriment of British farmers? In view of that, and as we are approaching the devaluation parity of the sterling exchange rate, does my right hon. Friend have any views about the long-term future of the green currency system? Would it not be better to move towards discontinuing it?
Mr. Walker: The question whether we discontinue the system is not a matter for us alone. When there are large variations in currencies, without an adjusting mechanism there can be no common agriculture prices policy. At present we certainly do not have a common agriculture prices policy. After today's 5 per cent. devaluation the prices paid to British farmers will be the lowest or the second lowest, in the European Community. The whole operation of this mechanism has been bad for British agriculture. It was particularly bad during the period when we had a Government who allowed MCAs to develop against British farmers at 20 per cent. and 30 per cent.
Mr. Meacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nothing in the package, even in the interim, will permit the French to impose temporary import levies on British lamb? Will he confirm that any such action will be strictly illegal and outside the agreement.
Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.
Mr. John Wells: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for this action on the horticulture scene. Did he put any questions to his colleagues about intervention in the apple industry? Did he begin to investigate the possibility of fostering the British apple juice industry, which is dear to the heart of the NFU?
Mr. Walker: No, Sir. This was not on the agenda at the meeting but I recently met representatives of British apple producers. It was the most encouraging meeting in that sphere that my Department has had for many years. There was an appreciation that if we are to succeed in reviving that industry we must have better marketing and be as effective as the best in the Community. We must investigate the possibilities of the apple juice industry developing in Britain. I promise to work in close co-operation with the apple producers. I hope that we shall make substantial progress.
Mr. Jay: Is not the latest wrangle with the French further evidence that in Brussels issues are not decided on their real merits? Would not it be better for us all if each country decided its policies according to its own needs and paid for them itself?
Mr. Walker: That is the classic view of someone who is totally opposed to the European Community—and I understand it. The periods when some countries were not part of the Community were not noted for the brilliance of their Governments or their dramatic economic successes.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that since Britain's payments to the Community are related to the level of food imports the 5 pet cent. devaluation of the green pound that he has gained for milk will help to protect Britain from excess contributions to the EEC budget?
Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. The budgetary effects are relatively small, because, theoretically, in budget terms they are compensated for by adjustments in the MCAs—but that depends upon one's attitude towards MCAs. I have never shared the view that they are of great benefit to the country against which they are exercised.
Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware of the wide discussions on the ethyl alcohol
1320
directive? Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and myself are concerned about the possibility of damage to the £60 million BP chemical project at Grangemouth? Can the Minister say anything about that difficulty?
Mr. Walker: The alcohol regime was on the agenda, but it was decided to delay discussion on it until the next meeting.
Mr. Kimball: Was my right hon. Friend able to resist further blackmail on the question of sugar beet? Did he make it clear to our European partners that we cannot accept a reduction in the acreage of this valuable crop?
Mr. Walker: There was a discussion on sugar beet and on the Commission's proposals for milk. I said that a system of allocation based upon the previous four years—two of which were bad drought years for Britain, and when positive MCAs operated against us—would be totally unjustified. The crop this year takes up virtually the whole of our A quota. One should examine future resources on that figure and not on the average of the last four years.
Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister confirm that the 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound will halve the difference between United Kingdom and EEC prices, raising United Kingdom prices to a higher level than they would otherwise be? Will he also confirm that that will increase the cost to farmers of imported cattle feeds, such as maize, which is now running at over £50p a ton, and that therefore the increased income to the farmers will have to be offset against levies that go direct to Brussels?
Mr. Walker: I have given the details of the increase in prices. As to the second point, I know that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that the figure of £150 million is net, after taking into consideration any increases in the cost of feeds. It was precisely for the type of consideration to which the hon. Gentleman referred that we arranged green pound devaluation for 17 December for livestock and all the other commodities, but deferred it to August for cereals.
Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sensible and rational adjustments to the green currencies can easily go hand in hand with pressing for agriculture to take a fundamentally lower proportion of the budget in future years?
Mr. Walker: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, the main reason for the massive increase in the cost of the budget is the cost of disposing of the substantial surpluses that have built up in dairy products, sugar and, to a smaller degree, cereals within the European Community. The tackling of this problem is fundamental. It is easy for Britain to tackle it, because we do not produce the surpluses, but it is vital that more effective action is taken to ensure that more resources are available for other European activities.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Minister accept that the ethyl alcohol problem, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), is closely related to the French wine industry? When the right hon. Gentleman discusses this matter at the next meeting will he give us an undertaking that he will not agree to allowing the French wine industry to unload fermentation alcohol on to the ethyl alcohol market?
Mr. Walker: I am well aware of this problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in close consultation with our industry on this matter and obviously we are adjusting our attitude accordingly.
Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the illegal banning of British exports of lamb to France? Will he also examine once more the alternative policies that are available to him, so that we can stress to the French Government, in more ways than one, how displeased we are with their attitude?
Mr. Walker: One of the reasons why, throughout most of yesterday's talks and negotiations, the attitude that we took had the backing of seven other member States was that they objected strongly to the attitude to the green pound negotiations that the French had taken earlier in that meeting. One of the reasons for the French attitude is that they are currently suffering from having put themselves into this illegal position. It is difficult for a country to claim to be communautaire and at the same time to act illegally. I believe that the French
1322
are fast realising that the continuation of their position is against their own national interests.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places since the beginning of supplementary questions.
Mr. Stoddart: I wonder whether the Minister can help us a little more on our net contribution to the total Community budget. When we devalue the pound by 5 per cent., or any other percentage, does not our total net contribution to the Community fund increase, because the levies on food coming from outside the Community are increased? If that is so, does not that undermine Britain's present efforts to reduce our total net contribution?
Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I do not have the details of this, but the figures involved are very small. There are compensating factors both ways. The actual effect on the budget is a very small net figure.
Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I would not be against the French or the Italians trying to sell more wine for consumption as wine in this country? However, I agree with Opposition Members who have put questions about the subsidy on wine to turn it into agricultural alcohol. There is a strong feeling in this country that my right hon. Friend should not allow that to be used as a horse-trading measure.
Mr. Walker: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not allow any of these matters to be used as horse-trading measures. I think that that was shown clearly yesterday. It is not our intention to do that. The alcohol package in its present form would damage whole sections of our industry, and when it comes to the detailed negotiations of that package we shall be closely informed of the effects on our industry.
Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that he has had a fair amount of praise for his disastrous policy, contained in the statement that ate made this afternoon, bearing in mind that the burden will fall on the lower income groups in the future, as previously, unless this disastrous Government change their policies?
Mr. Walker: Presumably the hon. Member supported the Labour Government, under which food prices rose, on average, by 2 percent. per month. Therefore, his criticism of an action that increases prices by 1 per cent. over a year is hard to take.
Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that agriculture is the only British industry that suffers the injustices of the green pound? I welcome this 5 per cent. devaluation, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still his intention to secure further justice for British agriculture over ensuing years, thereby making it fully competitive?
Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, it was pledged in the Conservative Party manifesto that over the period of office of this Government we would eliminate the green pound difference, and we have not made bad progress in our first nine months.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 18 JANUARY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Gerald Kaufman

Mr. John Stokes

Mr. Anthony Steen

BRITISH RAIL (LINE CLOSURES)
Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to give a personal explanation, word for word, as agreed before I came into the Chamber.
Mr. Prescott: During Question Time in the House on 5 December a controversy arose concerning an alleged list of 40 railway line closures proposed as an option in the British Rail corporate review given to the Minister of Transport on 25 October. The Minister stated that no list of such proposed closures had been sent to him. I intervened to inform him and the House that I had a list of such closures bearing the name of the British Rail Board. I then asserted that he had misled the House.
I have read the written replies in today's Official Report given to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). I therefore unreservedly withdraw the assertion I made that the Minister had previously received the list that I had handed over. I apologise to the Minister and to the House for my allegation that he had misled the House.

TOUR OPERATORS (CONTROL)
4.17 pm
Mr. Ken Weetch (Ipswich): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the manner in which consumers should pay for the cost of services provided by tour operators and for connected purposes.
Providing package holidays is a multimillion pound business in Britain. Organised travel in Britain, which has received enormous popularity in the last 20 years, is now a well-established leisure activity. This Bill provides an opportunity to bring before the House aspects of the package holiday trade which are still unsatisfactory and to which critical attention should be drawn.
Every year millions of ordinary working-class families invest their hard-earned money in package holidays, and the vast majority of them have to save very hard. For a family with two children, for example, a package holiday abroad for 10 or 14 days can now cost well over £1,000, and for them that is a lot of money.
When those families take a package holiday with a tour operator they will discover that they have entered a special type of service contract. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are parties to a contract where the terms are loaded in favour of the package tour operator.
In the first place, they will have invested their money on the strength of nothing more than a glamorous picture and a couple of attractively but carefully worded paragraphs in a brochure. They will, in fact, have parted with their money in exchange for the minimum information about the holiday.
Secondly, unlike most other purchases that are made, package holidays are paid for wholly in advance. People pay hundreds of pounds across the table before receiving anything at all, or before any service is delivered. I do not want to get the package holiday trade out of proper focus. Most people have satisfactory holidays with tour operators. It is also a fact that the enterprise of tour operators has brought leisure to many ordinary people when it was out of reach only a generation ago. In addition, the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms
1326
Act and the work of the Association of British Travel Agents have eliminated many of the abuses which once existed when the package tour trade was in its infancy.
However, it is still a fact that there are some injustices and inequities. When a person arrives at the hotel abroad and finds that it is a mockery of what was promised and he sees the holiday for which he has saved for years turning into a bitter resentful disappointment because the hotel and related arrangements were not properly checked or reported, there is a legitimate cause for grievance.
It has been pointed out that tour operators have well-established procedures for redress and for ultimate arbitration. That may be so, but it is too late when a holiday has been ruined. The consumer can find that his rights in the courts suffer from deficiencies in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. Under these provisions the offence of misdescription by a tour operator is committed only when the prosecution can prove that the misdescription was knowingly or recklessly made. In my view this is anomalous and unreasonable.
Clearly, we need something to redress the balance more in the direction of the consumer. Therefore, this Bill says that the law should provide that as a general rule the consumer of a package holiday must pay only 75 per cent. of the holiday costs in advance, and that the remaining 25 per cent. should be paid into a secure bank account to be released to the tour operator only when the family concerned has had a satisfactory holiday. The virtue of this is obvious and has been pointed out by the European consumer law group. This will mean that the balance will have been redressed and the consumer will have a little financial leverage vis-à-vis the package tour operator.
Most important of all, there will be more incentive for and pressure on the tour operator to take every precaution that everything is checked regularly. If all these procedures are followed some of the horror holiday stories that many hon. Members hear about in their constituency correspondence from time to time will be eliminated at source. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Weetch, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. R. C. Mitchell, Mr. Stanley Newens, Mr. Ted Lead bitter and Mr. Gwilym Roberts.

TOUR OPERATORS (CONTROL)
Mr. Ken Weetch Mr. Ken Weetch accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the manner in which consumers should pay for the cost of services provided by tour operators; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 February and to be printed. [Bill 105.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ZIMBABWE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.24 pm
  The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the 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 House has had ample occasion to discuss Rhodesia in recent weeks. I made a further statement yesterday. I do not intend in this debate to go over again the events leading up to the constitutional conference at Lancaster House.
  I shall, however, summarise briefly the points agreed at the conference and the various steps taken—or shortly to be taken—to implement them. This will enable the House to consider the Bill, which will be the final legislative step in the implementation of a settlement, against the background of all other legislation dealing with Rhodesia.
  In mid-October the conference agreed the summary of the independence constitution, which provides for genuine majority rule while giving effective safeguards to the minority community. This was subsequently laid before the House as a Command Paper, No. 7758. The full text of the constitution has since been prepared, taking the summary as drafting instructions. An Order in Council providing for the constitution was made on 6 December and laid before the House the following day. Copies have been made available to hon. Members through the Vote Office.
  The conference subsequently discussed arrangements for implementing the independence constitution. It was agreed that there should be elections supervised under the British Government's authority and that a British Governor should administer Southern Rhodesia during the period leading up to independence. The Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 gave the Government powers to appoint a Governor and bring

  1329
  parts of the independence constitution into effect before independence to allow elections to be held. The Southern Rhodesia Constitution (Interim Provisions) Order 1979, made under that Act on 4 December, created the office of Governor and established his powers. A further order under the Southern Rhodesia Act to provide for the holding of elections will be laid before Her Majesty in Council this evening and the House will have an opportunity to debate this at a later stage.
  The conference then moved on to discuss a ceasefire. Both sides agreed to the Government's proposals for a ceasefire on 5 December, leaving only certain details of the implementation to be settled. The discusisons on this are still going on. The Government have tabled the fuller proposals which I mentioned to the House yesterday. We believe that they meet all the Patriotic Front's main concerns. As soon as the remaining points are resolved—and I hope it will be very soon—a formal ceasefire agreement will be signed, and the ceasefire will come into effect in a matter of days.
  I informed the House yesterday of the Government's decision, against the background of agreement on all the major issues at the conference and the danger of losing the momentum towards a settlement, to send the Governor to Salisbury. With the Governor's arrival today, legality has been restored and remaining sanctions will be lifted. An order to revoke orders made under the United Nations Act will be laid before Her Majesty in Council this evening, and further necessary action will be taken by the Treasury and the Department of Trade in respect of exchange control and the import and export orders.
  I apologise for inflicting on the House this rather lengthy catalogue of measures, but I hope it will have proved helpful. It is important that the complex process of restoring legality, unwinding the measures taken in response to UDI and bringing into effect the agreements reached at the constitutional conference should be clear.
  The Zimbabwe Bill now before the House is the last major legislative step in this process. I regret that it has been necessary to compress the parliamentary timetable for its consideration and am grateful to right hon. Gentlemen
  1330
  opposite for their understanding in this matter. But passage of the Bill is, for the parties to the conference, a crucial test of the Government's good faith. We have been able to persuade them—both sides—to make concessions, in many cases very difficult concessions, by assuring them that the end result will be independence. We have come a long way and we must take the appropriate steps to implement our part of the bargain, as we shall expect others to implement their part. It would be undesirable in the Government's view to leave the issue in doubt during the interim period. It is also important that the arrangements to be made on independence should be known well in advance to those, particularly individuals, likely to be affected by them.
  I turn now to the principal particular provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the establishment of the independent Republic of Zimbabwe—this being the name agreed between all the parties at the constitutional conference. It follows that on independence the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom will no longer have responsibility for Southern Rhodesia, and the clause so provides. The remaining provisions of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, which deal with Britain's jurisdiction over Rhodesia, will cease to have effect.
  The date of Rhodesia's independence will be fixed by Order in Council, which will be laid before Parliament after being made. It is not feasible to set a precise date now as would be normal in an independence Bill. We shall look to the Governor to make a recommendation in due course after consulting the parties. But, as the House will be aware, it was agreed at the conference that independence would follow elections, and the Governor's main task will be to make arrangements for these. Once elections have been held, the Governor will take the steps necessary under the constitution to appoint a Prime Minister and set in train the arrangements for the election of a President. Independence will follow.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: As we do not know exactly when the elections will take place—we assume that they will be held some time early in the new year—would the right hon. Gentleman say that the Bill was being brought forward today for reasons

  1331
  of parliamentary time and not for any other reason?
  Sir I. Gilmour: No. The Bill is being debated now not just for that reason but for reasons that I have been trying to set out. It is important that everyone in Rhodesia should know that we are fulfilling our part of the bargain and that the individuals concerned should know how they stand. It is right that the departure—or the arrival now—of the Governor and the consideration of the Bill should take place more or less in conjunction.
  I should like to make a general point concerning Rhodesia's position vis-a-vis the Commonwealth, which affects clauses 2 and 5 of the Bill and most of schedules 1 and 2.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon Mr. Alexander W. Lyon(York) rose—
  Sir I. Gilmour: I think that I shall carry on for a bit.
  The normal procedure in a dependent territory approaching independence is for the elected Government to be consulted on whether it wishes to seek Commonwealth membership. If it does, Her Majesty's Government inform the Commonwealth Secretariat, which in turn seeks the views of Commonwealth members. In the particular circumstances of Rhodesia, there will be no satisfactory means of establishing the wishes of the people of the territory on this point before independence. The decision is not one which it would be right for the British Government to take by proxy. I think it must be for the Government and Parliament of independent Zimbabwe to reach a decision. I am glad that hon. Gentlemen agree with me. As the House knows, there will of course be Commonwealth observers present during the elections.
  The issue of Commonwealth membership must therefore be left for resolution after independence, and the Bill envisages that Rhodesia will attain independence outside the Commonwealth. I should add, however, that if the future Government of Zimbabwe, chosen in elections held under our authority, applied to join the Commonwealth, I have no doubt that the British Government would give the application their full support.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In that event, would that be the first instance of an independent country, when already independent, applying to become part of a Commonwealth and being so received?
  Sir I. Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman knows more about this matter than I. If he thinks that, I should be glad to accept his opinion. I think that he is correct. However, I shall confirm that. It would be an agreeable precedent to set. I am not quite certain about it, but I shall make some inquiries and give a definitive answer to the right hon. Gentleman later in the debate.
  Mr. Peter Tapsell: Did not the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) describe the situation correctly? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this procedure. Indeed, it is in every way to be welcomed.
  Sir I. Gilmour: I think that that is correct. However, I shall confirm that later.
  The Government have thought it right to make a number of transitional provisions in the independence Bill to minimise the consequences for individuals flowing from the fact that Rhodesians will cease to be Commonwealth citizens, or British subjects—the expressions are interchangeable—on independence. I shall deal with these more fully in due course.
  Clause 2 of the Bill deals with nationality and citizenship. The subject is complex and I ask the House to bear with me while I try to deal with it.
  Exceptionally for a dependent territory, Rhodesia has had its own citizenship since 1949 and is listed in section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act 1948 as a country whose citizens are Commonwealth citizens. For the reasons which I explained earlier, Rhodesian citizens will cease to be Commonwealth citizens on independence—though this may revert to being so later. An amendment is thus needed to the British Nationality Act, and clause 2 deals with this.
  The Government are concerned to minimise any disruption to the lives of individuals. Provision is therefore made in schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill to continue in force certain nationality and immigration provisions affecting Rhodesian citizens. Those Rhodesians ordinarily resident in this country who would be

  1333
  entitled, as Commonwealth citizens, to registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies under sections 5A(1) or 6(1), as modified, of the British Nationality Act 1948, by reason of their residence here, will be able to apply for registration as though they were still Commonwealth citizens for a transitional period of one year from the date of independence.
  Schedule 1 to the Bill also continues for one year after independence section 12(6) of the British Nationality Act 1948, as amended by section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1958. I apologise to the House for these very complicated measures, but it will be appreciated that nationality law is something of a palimpsest or labyrinth of successive Acts. It is not easy to wend one's way through the matter or to decipher it, whichever method is used.
  Under this provision, which is discretionary, a citizen of Rhodesia will be qualified to apply for citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies for himself, and any of his minor children, if he was a British subject before 1 January 1949, is descended in the male line from a person born or naturalised in the United Kingdom and colonies, has close connections with this country and intends to settle here. I emphasise that in both cases these are a continuation of existing provisions, which the Government believe will help individuals whose position might otherwise be affected by the abrupt loss of Commonwealth status.
  To leave the House in no doubt, I should like to make two points quite clear. First, there are a substantial number of Rhodesians who are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, not because of their connection with Rhodesia but because they or their fathers were born in this country. Their position will not be affected in any way on independence. They will retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies. Because the independence constitution agreed at the constitutional conference permits dual citizenship in Rhodesia's law, there is no question of their having to make a choice.
  Secondly, the independence Bill does not create any new citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. Nor will it lead—and I wish to emphasise this point—to
  1334
  any new immigration commitment, apart from the people whom I mentioned.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is there not a provision to retain the power of a Commonwealth citizen who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies but who is patrial under section 2 of the Act? Does not that mean that 50,000 white Rhodesians will retain the right to come to this country after independence, although the effect of the original drafting of the Bill was to withdraw that right?
  Sir I. Gilmour: Those people have that right anyway. The Bill does not affect their status in any way.
  Mr. Julian Amery: There are numbers of descendants of Rhodesians who settled in Rhodesia with the encouragement of the British Government before and shortly after the First World War. Would the provisions outlined by the Minister cover them?
  Sir I. Gilmour: That depends entirely on whether they have patriality. They are in the same position as people from Britain who settle in other parts of the world. The Bill does not affect their position.
  Clause 3 of the Bill provides for an amnesty in the law of the United Kingdom for certain acts.
  Throughout the constitutional conference the Government have urged the need for reconciliation and a fresh start. Only if all parties in Rhodesia succeed in putting the past behind them will a new sense of national unity be created and all Rhodesians be able to work together for the construction of a peaceful and prosperous Zimbabwe.
  There will be no less a need for reconciliation in our own relations with Rhodesia. We must get to know each other again. Contacts which have been broken for 14 years must be re-established. I do not underestimate the difficulties. But with agreement at last on the issues which have divided our countries there will be no place for recrimination or retribution. We must wipe the slate clean.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Am I right in thinking that clause 3, unlike some clauses, comes into force immediately Royal Assent is given—that is,

  1335
  perhaps within hours and certainly within a day or two? If so, is there a possibility that the Patriotic Front will get its amnesty long before it has agreed, or at least finally agreed, to a ceasefire?
  Sir I. Gilmour: That is true. But my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that we are talking about an amnesty in this country under English, not Rhodesian, law. That was dealt with in the Bill passed by the House last month. Under that legislation, an order will have to be made by the Governor.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that there will be no recrimination. Does he agree that the comparatively successful situation that we have now reached is partly due to the action of past Governments in imposing and maintaining sanctions up till now?
  Sir I. Gilmour: When I said that there would be no place for recrimination or retribution, I meant that we should look forward. I am in no way criticising past Governments.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir I. Gilmour: I think that I must press on. I do not want to depress the House, but I still have a long way to go.
  This need has been recognised in earlier proposals for a settlement in Rhodesia, including the Anglo-American proposals prepared by our predecessors. I am confident, therefore, that the House as a whole will accept, with the return to legality, the need to draw a line under the past and to wipe out the bitter memories of those years.
  The Bill therefore provides for an amnesty in the law of the United Kingdom for acts arising out of the political situation in Rhodesia since UDI. The details of the acts covered by the amnesty, both those committed in furtherance of UDI and those committed in resistance to it, are set out in subsection (2) of clause 3.
  The practical effects of this amnesty will be to prevent the prosecution in the United Kingdom of those who may be held to have committed such acts before the date of the Governor's arrival and
  1336
  similarly to prevent the bringing of proceedings in tort in respect of such acts. Any civil or criminal proceedings which are pending on that date will cease, and any civil judgment already given in such proceedings will cease to be enforceable.
  The amnesty proposed in the Bill applies only in the law of the United Kingdom. Any amnesty promulgated by the Governor comes under another Act My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary has undertaken to inform Parliament before any such amnesty is granted, and a statement will be made in due course.
  The remaining clauses of the Bill are of a more technical nature. Clause 4 enables provision to be made by Order in Council to deal with the consequences of Rhodesia becoming independent and not being part of Her Majesty's dominions or a member of the Commonwealth. We are confident that most of the changes which are needed are already covered by schedules 2 and 3 to the Bill, but there may be points which have been overlooked and which will need to be remedied later.
  The clause also enables Orders in Council to be made for regulating claims against assets of the Government of Zimbabwe in the United Kingdom. The failure of the Rhodesian authorities to make payments for interest on and the redemption of Rhodesian stock over the past 14 years makes it necessary to take power, in the interests of equitable satisfaction of creditors, to deal with the situation when payments from Salisbury are resumed. Orders under this clause can be made retrospective to independence day, laid in draft, and are subject to affirmative resolution. I should add that the Government have left the parties to the conference in no doubt that an acknowledgment of pre-UDI debts and liabilities is an essential aspect of a settlement.
  Clause 5 deals with the situation which would arise if Zimbabwe were to become a member of the Commonwealth after independence. The process of adapting the laws of the United Kingdom for which this Bill provides would then have to be reversed. The Government would be empowered to make the necessary changes by Order in Council which would be laid in draft and be subject to affirmative resolution. The House may think

  1337
  it odd to provide for the effects of Rhodesia not being a member of the Commonwealth on independence in clause 2 and then to provide for the possibility of its rejoining in clause 5. But, as I have already explained, this is a necessary provision because it must be for the future independent Government of the country to decide whether they want to join.
  Clause 6 provides for detailed amendments to other existing United Kingdom laws, in some cases only for a transitional period, which are necessitated by the main provisions of the Bill. For the most part, these are set out in schedules 2 and 3.
  Schedule 2 deals more extensively with the consequences of Zimbabwe ceasing to be a part of Her Majesty's dominions and not becoming a member of the Commonwealth. The provisions of a number of Acts which require that the holders of certain offices—for instance, civil servants—be British subjects will not apply to citizens of Zimbabwe for a period of one year after independence. These people will also be allowed to remain members of local authorities until their term of office expires. They will remain eligible to vote at national and local government elections during the validity of any register on which they have been included while they were British subjects and be exempt from the liability to deportation in certain cases for a period of one year, plus any additional period during which their application for citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies is being processed.
  The transitional period of 12 months from the date of independence during which these savings, as well as those affecting citizenship, will have effect gives reasonable time for the Government of Zimbabwe to reach a decision on Commonwealth membership and for an application to be dealt with by the Commonwealth, as well as for individuals to make any necessary adjustments to their private affairs.
  Schedule 2 also continues in force provisions for the registration of colonial probates and for maintenance orders and those relating to a dominions register of companies. Southern Rhodesians presently registered on a Commonwealth list under the Dentists Act and the Veterinary Surgeons Act will continue to be so registered.
  1338
  Schedule 3 provides for repeal of a number of measures relating to Southern Rhodesia which will no longer apply after independence and for the deletion from various measures of certain references to Southern Rhodesia and to matters and persons connected with Southern Rhodesia.
  The independence constitution which provides for genuine majority rule has been enacted. Rhodesia has now returned to legal status. It is agreed that elections should be held under the provisions of the new constitution and under our supervision. The basic causes of the conflict in Rhodesia have been removed. With the basic political issues solved, there is no reason for delay.
  With the passage of this Bill, the way ahead to independence will be clearly mapped out. The Government have no illusions about the difficulties which lie along the road. The Governor's task is formidable. It is to organise fair elections while supervising a ceasefire. He must ensure impartial administration in a country which has for so long been at war, He must try to create a basis for reconciliation so that independence is not a signal for fresh divisions in the country. His powers and his ability to achieve these aims will rest crucially on the consent and co-operation of the parties and of the people of Rhodesia.
  Mr. Stephen Hastings: Regarding the difficulties that the Governor undoubtedly faces, now that he has arrived, is it not a fact that any armed incursion across Rhodesia's borders by the men of the Patriotic Front will constitute not only an illegal act but a direct threat to Her Majesty's Government? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Governor has the power and will be able to deal with it as such?
  Sir I. Gilmour: It is true that the Patriotic Front has always contended—rightly, before—that it has been fighting an illegal Government. Any armed force now would be against a legal authority, but I am confident that a final agreement on a ceasefire will shortly be reached, and therefore I trust that my hon. Friend's question will become academic within a matter of days.
  It is important to make clear that the sending of the Governor and the passage of the independence Bill are clearly

  1339
  associated actions. They are part and parcel of an irreversible process towards independence. We have undertaken to discharge our responsibility to bring Rhodesia to legal independence. We have restored legality today. In the next weeks we shall, I am sure, be able to bring Rhodesia to legal independence in conditions which will enjoy wide international support. There can be no question of Britain's taking on an open-ended responsibility. The Governor will be there for only a matter of weeks.
  I hope that the Opposition will not complain that we are going about things in the wrong manner. I recall that they had some criticisms of our previous Bill, and I hope that they will now agree that as things turned out we were right on that occasion.
  Furthermore, the risks—and I accept that there are risks—must be presented in the context of the alternatives. The Government do not believe that a settlement which will allow Rhodesia to take its rightful place in the international community can be achieved without a British involvement to supervise elections. Had the uncertainty of the past few months been allowed to drag on indefinitely, with continuing infiltration over the border and increasing retaliation against Rhodesia's neighbours, all prospect of a settlement would have been lost. That was the real risk—that all that had been agreed at the conference would slip again from our grasp. There will not be another opportunity if we let this one slip. For 14 years, successive Governments have used their best efforts in trying to solve the problem of Rhodesia. We now have within our grasp a settlement which genuinely meets the requirements of majority rule, which will enable the people of Zimbabwe themselves to decide their future in free elections, and which merits the support of the international community. We hope that the final details of the implementation of a ceasefire will be agreed very shortly and allow us to put the final seal on a settlement. I hope that hon. Members will bear this in mind and consider very carefully the effects of their remarks on these final negotiations.
  During the difficult period ahead, the prospect of legal independence and international acceptance at the end of the
  1340
  day will be the most powerful incentive to all concerned to observe the agreements reached at the constitutional conference, to abide by the Governor's decisions and to accept the results of the elections when they are held. This Bill will be the prize.
  In this debate we should look forward, not back. Rhodesia has today returned to legality. Independence will follow within a relatively short time. By passing the Bill, the House will be expressing the British people's desire for reconciliation with—and within—Rhodesia and will be fulfilling its obligation to both parties to the conference who have negotiated with us in good faith an agreed constitution in respect of that independence. Many hon. Members on both sides have shared that aim. Whatever the outcome of the elections which will be held in Rhodesia, I am confident that there will be a general desire in the House and in the country to work with the Government of the new independent Zimbabwe.
  I hope, therefore, that this Bill will receive the support of all sides of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Before I call the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), I must advise the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: This is a Bill which, to quote from the opening sentence of the Bill, is designed to
  "Make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Zimbabwe of fully responsible status as a Republic".
  Since 1947, when independence was granted to the Indian sub-continent and Britain voluntarily surrendered that jewel in the crown, numerous Bills conferring independence upon subject terrorities have been presented and discussed in the House of Commons, but none has been preceded by such difficult, dangerous and protracted events as have occurred in the past 14 years in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
  The special history of Rhodesia is manifest in two major particulars of the Bill. The Bill contains no settled or predetermined date for the actual granting of independence. This reflects the

  1341
  simple fact that between the enactment of this measure and the granting of independence there still lies a period of unknown difficulty and hazard of uncertain length. I shall have something further to say at a later stage in our proceedings about that as it affects parliamentary procedures that apply before the making of an Order in Council to appoint an independence day.
  Secondly, the Bill contains a series of provisions which have no precedent in other previous independence measures. I refer to the termination of sanctions in clause 1, the amnesty provisions in clause 3, and the regulation of claims against Rhodesia's assets frozen by the United Kingdom Government, which appears in clause 4. All these provisions reflect the troubled history of Rhodesia from 1965 to 1979, the period of UDI and of rebellion against the United Kingdom which the Salisbury Parliament formally resolved to end only last night.
  We shall, of course, have something to to say and amendments to move on the various provisions of the Bill, but I can say now, in response to the Lord Privy Seal's implicit plea, that the Bill and the granting of independence in it constitute an occasion which we welcome, to which we have looked forward for many years, and which successive Governments since 1964 have worked hard to achieve. If, as we devoutly hope, all goes well between today's proceedings and the post-election independence day, there will be delight and relief on both sides of the House and in the country, too.
  We have had some disagreements with the Government on the handling and timing of events in the period since the Lusaka conference. But the area of agreement between us and through the greater part of the House has been very wide. In July we stated our basic position. We wanted and pressed then for a new initiative at Lusaka designed to secure a new constitution, political agreement between the contending parties, support from the international community for a resulting settlement, a ceasefire and a new election.
  Since Lusaka these have clearly been the Government's objectives, too. In the 14 weeks of difficult negotiations at Lancaster House they have come within an ace of agreement. As I am sure the
  1342
  Government will acknowledge, many have contributed to what has already been achieved. The Commonwealth Secretariat and the front-line Presidents have given continued assistance, and there has been a remarkable willingness—and I say this because I am fully aware of the bitterness of the civil war—to compromise by the leaders of the parties to the conflict. I include the substantial concessions made by Bishop Muzorewa and his delegation, as well as those made by Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe. Now we rely upon them to make the final effort to agree the ceasefire and to seal the whole settlement. Let this be done soon.
  The Governor, Lord Soames, now in Salisbury, has a task of formidable difficulty in any event without the extra hazard that will inevitably exist before the ceasefire is announced. We wish him success, not just for his own sake but for the sake of Zimbabwe and of this country.
  This is an occasion not only for scrutiny and analysis of the Bill, which was presented to us with such commendable clarity by the Lord Privy Seal, but for some reflection on the whole chapter of Rhodesian history which this Bill is about to bring to an end.
  Reflecting on the past 15 years, it is natural that we should ask ourselves why it has proved to be so difficult to achieve acceptable independence for the territory of Rhodesia. I can think of two obvious reasons. First, unlike other British colonial territories, with the partial exception of Kenya, Rhodesia, in the period of decolonisation, had already attracted substantial British settlement. Whereas independence in most other colonial territories had direct implications only for those British subjects who manned the State apparatus—the judiciary, the civil authority, the armed forces and the police—and who, for the most part, expected to return to this country at the end of their working lives, in Rhodesia farming, commerce and a small but rapidly developing manufacturing sector were in the hands of settlers whose permanent home was Rhodesia, where they had sunk their roots.
  The second reason, surely, goes back to 1923, when, unlike other British colonies, Rhodesia was granted virtual autonomy, a position very close to that

  1343
  of the old dominions, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. It is important sometimes that other countries and critics of Britain should understand that British authority did not run in Rhodesia after 1923 in anything like the same way as it did in other British colonial and Imperial territories.
  When, therefore, the winds of change began to sweep through Africa in the late 1950s and the early 1960s, those who held power in Salisbury had a substantial interest, a substantial European minority community and an effectively independent State apparatus with which to withstand, at least temporarily, the momentum and the forces for change. It is this that encouraged and enabled Mr. Ian Smith to defy the United Kingdom Government and to declare UDI in 1965.
  Looking back over the years that have followed, one is struck by the tragedy of it all. Successive British Governments tried to reach an accommodation with the Salisbury regime that would have allowed it a more gradual transition to political equality than, in the event, this year it has been forced to concede. For nearly 14 years, certainly for the first 12, all proposals were rejected. Those who held authority in Salisbury were driven to reject the political heritage of their own nation, to renounce and deny that commitment to universal suffrage that has been the leading achievement of British political democracy for the past 100 years.
  It is difficult, so close to these events, to see them in perspective. It is particularly difficult, given the savagery and the butchery of the civil war, to judge the role of the Patriotic Front. But it is fair and right to point out that, for the first seven years of Mr. Smith's regime, armed resistance was negligible. It was only his continued intransigence, the failure to offer even the glimmer of light that political progress might be made, and the endless insistence that black majority rule could not be contemplated, first for a century, then in the course of his lifetime, that hardened the will of his opponents. It was, of course, the collapse of the Portuguese empire in 1974, above all in neighbouring Mozambique, that opened up to his African opponents the possiblity of sustained guerrilla warfare.
  1344
  There are lessons to be learnt from these events. In our time, European minorities cannot impose their will on black majorities. That is a lesson that has implications for the whole of Southern Africa. It is, indeed, one of the ironies of politics in Southern Africa that the European minorities are faced by opponents whose leaders derive so much support from the strong political ideas that Europeans themselves have exported to the rest of the world.
  National independence, political equality and universal suffrage—these are the major political doctrines of democracy in the West. The irony is that it is the Europeans in Southern Africa who feel impelled to reject them while the African majority strive, however imperfectly, to achieve them.
  I turn now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, directly, but briefly, to the clauses in the Bill—
  Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman did not quite say, but gave the impression, that he was approving a view widely held that it was the Patriotic Front that had created the conditions under which we are now moving to independence. Would he concede that it was the very radical, in some ways pro-Soviet, views of the Patriotic Front that drove men such as Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sit hole to make terms with the whites in an attempt to preserve Western democratic values to which they were attached?
  Mr Shore: I certainly would not award the laurels to any particular African grouping in Rhodesia at the present time. My real point was a different one. In their different ways, Bishop Muzorewa and his ANC and the Patriotic Front have contributed to the change inside Rhodesia that has defeated what was clearly white minority rule and has brought about the change that, in the end, will establish effective black majority rule in that country.
  Mr. Jay: While my right hon. Friend is rightly voicing general reflections, will he also agree that the story of the last six months is a real success for the Commonwealth? The Lusaka conference was the decisive turning point, and a number of other Commonwealth countries have given considerable help.
  Mr. Shore: I did refer to the role of the Commonwealth Secretariat. But my right hon. Friend is right that the collective role of the Commonwealth at Lusaka was absolutely essential. It was a kind of launching pad for the success of the whole enterprise.
  I want to turn briefly to the clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill since it gives power to confer independence on the new republic of Zimbabwe. Of course, that power could have been exercised at any time in recent years. But independence has been rightly withheld because successive British Governments have insisted that certainprinciples—the six principles—should be met before independence was granted. Now that the new constitution has been agreed—a constitution that genuinely transfers power to the majority of the people—white minority rule has been brought to an end. But there remains, as we know, a crucial requirement that has to be met. Free and fair elections have still to be held to legitimise the new Government of Zimbabwe.
  In all our minds, the question today is whether the conditions for holding free and fair elections can be secured. In recent days, we have concentrated heavily, and properly, on the need for an effective ceasefire. People must not be coerced into voting. Until and unless armed men are brought into their camps and bases and their movements are then effectively monitored, it will be virtually impossible to have free and fair elections. But that is only one condition that has to be met. No less important will be the arrangements made to give equality of treatment or access to the rival contenders for political power. It is extremely important that the media, and most important the radio, should be impartially controlled and made equally available to the political groupings from now until polling day. I hope that we do not merely export our ghastly practice of party political sharing of time. I mean a genuine sharing of control. I am sure that the BBC would be of considerable assistance to the radio authorities in Salisbury.
  It is crucially important, too, that the arrangements for voting should be administered by impartial and competent authorities. I know that this is the
  1346
  intention. There should be no doubt in the minds of the still inexperienced voters of Rhodesia that the ballot is indeed secret, not only at the time the vote is cast but afterwards.
  The Governor will have many important matters to decide and agree to in respect of the elections, but none of us can say at this stage that the conditions for free and fair elections will, in the event, be achieved. We devoutly hope so, but we cannot just assume it. That is why we do not think that it is good enough for the Government in clause 1 to have the power irrespective of events that take place between now and polling day—which will obviously be difficult and important—and without any provision to report to the House, simply to declare independence through the procedures embodied in subsection (3). After all these years, and with such a crucial period lying immediately ahead, the House cannot from tonight wash its hands of Rhodesian affairs.
  Clause 2 was explained so lucidly by the Lord Privy Seal that I shall not comment on it but will leave that to my hon. Friends. I believe that the Government are right to enact, particularly in clause 3, a wide-ranging amnesty in respect of events inside Rhodesia since UDI. I stress "inside Rhodesia" because I do not believe that an amnesty should embrace those in the United Kingdom who have broken United Kingdom law, including that relating to sanctions.
  If a new chapter is to be opened on polling day plus one, there must be reconciliation, and I do not believe that reconciliation would be possible if unlawful and criminal acts committed during the period of UDI were to be the subject of proceedings in United Kingdom courts.
  I remember well the tonic effect of a broadly similar decision in India on the eve of the independence discussions in 1946 when those who had been lured and deceived into joining the Indian national army under Japanese control were brought to trial but were pardoned by the Viceroy. No one can measure the effects of that decision, but I believe that it was wholly helpful in creating a new and more hopeful climate in India at that time. I hope that the effect of the amnesty provided for in the Bill and the further amnesty to be granted by the

  1347
  Governor will be as helpful in Zimbabwe.
  I have only one more comment on the clauses. I am glad that the Commonwealth option for Zimbabwe is maintained in clause 5. It is, of course, a matter for the new Zimbabwe Government to decide, but it may be that, like a number of their neighbour States, they will find it beneficial to join the Commonwealth association.
  I conclude by saying that my hon. Friends and I hope that within the next three months we shall be able to support the conferring of independence upon Zimbabwe, that a properly elected Government will then be in power in Salisbury, that the peace established in the ceasefire will continue and grow stronger and that Rhodesia and her neighbouring States will be able to look forward to a period of sustained peace and increasing prosperity.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. David Price: Like the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Government on introducing it. At the time of UDI we would have found it almost inconceivable to imagine that on the Second Reading of a Bill to confer independence on a new Zimbabwe, we should have such a small attendance and that the Bill should be so uncontroversial. That is a measure of my right hon. Friend's success.
  The Government are doing precisely what some of us have wished them to do and it would be churlish of me not to congratulate them. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and I wrote a letter to The Times on 28 July last year setting out a number of proposals that accord closely with what the Government have done in their peace-making at Lancaster House and have incorporated in the Bill. We recommended that Mr. Ian Smith should
  "be invited to end 'UDI' and to return to his former loyalty to his Sovereign."
  We also recommended
  "That a High Commissioner be sent out to be the head of government in Rhodesia".
  I do not quarrel with the description "Governor" rather than High Commissioner. We also suggested that the
  1348
  Rhodesian armed forces should return to their former loyalties. I assume that from today the Salisbury forces have done just that. We hope that the Patriotic Front forces will do the same.
  My hon. Friend and I said in our letter that
  "the economic sanctions would cease automatically because Rhodesia would no longer be in rebellion against the Crown."
  That has happened since last night. We added:
  "That the timetable of the internal settlement would be maintained but the arrangements for the elections would come under the High Commissioner and…would be properly supervised."
  Those are essential points in the Lancaster House agreement. We recommended:
  "That an amnesty be offered to all".
  That is in line with clause 5 of the Bill. We said that
  "on the establishment of the new government after the general election the High Commissioner would return home immediately, his mission having been fulfilled."
  I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend that Lord Soames, whom we wish well, will return as soon as the elections are over, his mission having been fulfilled.
  It is not often that two Opposition Back Benchers—as my hon. Friend and I were when we wrote our letter—can put forward proposals and find that they are implemented in precise detail by an incoming Government. I congratulate my right hon. Friends.
  Our concluding remarks in the letter were:
  "The choice of High Commissioner would be vital. We would propose that he should be a very senior and experienced statesman rather than a soldier."
  I congratulate the Government on their choice.
  As an ordinary, humble Back Bencher, albeit at present on the Government side, I do not often find myself in such total accord with the Government of the day. I hope that that happy relationship will continue throughout this Parliament.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: In ordinary circumstances, the Bill would be widely welcomed by both sides of the House, but in view of the absence of a ceasefire, at least at the moment, it is

  1349
  understandable that there remains the widest concern in the country and, I believe, in the House about Britain's role in Rhodesia.
  Last Sunday's raids, which should not be overlooked in our debate, showed the attitude of the military and political authorities in Salisbury. Those raids against Zambia could have resulted in the Lancaster House talks being wrecked, and they were the height of irresponsibility.
  With the exception of one or two Conservative Members, no one would deny that UDI was a senseless folly. The Rhodesian Front leadership is responsible for the civil war. I understand from the press that when Mr. Smith was here recently there were references to his being a wise leader. He was patted on the shoulder and called "Good old Smithy". But it was Smith and his cronies in the leadership of the Rhodesian Front who ensured the bloody civil war.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) rightly said that there was no bloodshed in the first six or seven years after UDI. It was when the blacks, despite all their tribal and political differences, recognised that Smith would never concede genuine majority rule that armed force started. The result has been, as it is in any civil war, bloodshed, massacres and actions that no one wishes to justify.
  The Rhodesian Front leadership is also responsible for deceiving the European community in Rhodesia, which was led to believe that the tide of post-war history could be reversed.
  But what was the attitude of the blacks in Rhodesia? Leaving aside South Africa, they could see, certainly where previous British colonies were concerned, that Africans were getting their independence. However, the Rhodesian Front said, in effect, "Not only are we determined to retain white supremacy; we will ensure that it is strengthened". Some hon. Members will remember the election that gave the Rhodesian Front victory in December 1962, three years before UDI. The responsibility for the civil war is clear in the minds of most.
  I must say, though it may be somewhat controversial, that the responsibility for the continuation of UDI rests to a certain extent with Conservative
  1350
  Members. Following the declaration of UDI, a number of Conservative Members have given aid and comfort to the Rhodesian Front and to those who were in rebellion against the Crown. Some Tory Members voted against sanctions. They visited South Africa and Rhodesia and gave the impression that the majority of British people were behind UDI. Tory Members led certain politicians in Salisbury to believe that if a Tory Government were elected it would mean that UDI—in one form or another—would be recognised by the United Kingdom. They bear a heavy responsibility. They are, in some respects, also responsible for the continuation of the war and the bloodletting in Rhodesia.
  That is the background to the debate. What now? The greatest danger for Britain is if Lord Soames is installed, as he is, and no ceasefire takes place. The impression has been given that a ceasefire will be agreed, probably by the end of this week. We all hope for that. We all hope that there will be a permanent ceasefire and that the bloodshed will come to an end. If, by some mischance, there is no ceasefire, and if, because of certain events that could possibly take place, agreement is not reached at Lancaster House, we will be holding the responsibility without the power. It is understandable that concern should be expressed at having a British Governor in Rhodesia who holds responsibility in so many ways and yet the fighting continues.
  It is important to bear in mind that the military leaders in Rhodesia—those who were responsible for the raids last Sunday—have always backed UDI. They have never expressed the slightest wish to dissociate themselves from the happenings of November 1965. That is the current position in Salisbury.
  If a ceasefire is agreed, as we all hope, there still remains much danger, and the greatest danger is if the ceasefire does not hold. Incidents could be staged which would result in the ceasefire being broken, and the British Governor and the British troops in Rhodesia could be involved in a mini-Vietnam. That danger was referred to in previous debate. If the ceasefire is broken and the British troops are in Rhodesia—with South African troops and police possibly being involved—we could find ourselves in the

  1351
  most difficult of all possible positions. Some hon. Members may say that that is not likely to occur, and that may be true.
  No one wishes anything but a permanent end to the conflict in Rhodesia. Following UDI, we argued that there should be genuine majority rule and a return to legality. It is only right and proper that those who have such concern, and undoubtedly such concern exists within Britain, should express that concern today in the debate. The Rhodesian situation following UDI has been a sorry one. We had hoped that, at the end of the war, decolonisation would take place without too much difficulty. That was far from the position in Rhodesia.
  I end my speech on a more optimistic note. I hope that there will be, by the end of the week, a ceasefire and that that ceasefire will hold. If British troops are sent to Rhodesia, I hope that, once the elections are completed, we will withdraw from the new independent country as quickly as possible.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Ronald Bell: If the new arrangements in Rhodesia are to succeed, it will be because they are informed by a spirit antithetical to that which animated the peevish speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I have great hope and confidence that they will be so informed.
  At this stage of the proceedings I have little to say. The first thing that I want to say is that I regret the change of name. Apparently it has been agreed by all parties, and so it will take place. In considering Rhodesia, with its splendid towns, its industries, its commerce, its agriculture, which is the best in the whole of Africa, and the relations between its different communities, also the best in the whole of Africa, we are bound to reflect that it was only in 1890 that a party of British people planted the Union Jack on land that is now Cecil Square, Salisbury. All of what followed is owed to Cecil Rhodes and to his countrymen. It is a strange ingratitude that we join today in wiping off the map the name of one of the greatest, and certainly the most devoted, of our sons. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) would, of course, find that funny. That is why he and I disagree on so many matters.
  1352
  I profoundly hope that all goes well in Rhodesia. A great deal of value has been attached to what has been called international acceptance of the arrangements, which may not be without its significance. But what really matters is whether the arrangements will work in Rhodesia. More attention, on all sides, should have been given to that issue.
  I gravely doubt whether those who have been fighting against the present rule of Rhodesia—the Patriotic Front, Russia, East Germany and Cuba—are animated by a devotion to universal adult suffrage. I should like to think so, but I do not. I doubt greatly whether the Westminster system of universal adult suffrage will work anywhere in Africa in this generation. One day it may, but it is not working anywhere in Africa at present. The faith that has been demonstrated by so many in recent months, that Rhodesia will be the one shining exception, is a faith that slightly worries me.
  Nevertheless, because of the unusually favourable conditions in Rhodesia—its maturity, the moderation of its communities and the excellent relations between those of different races which have persisted since 1923–my feeling is that the bargain and arrangement that have been made will work long enough for the people of Rhodesia to evolve their own, rather different, prescription for self-government.
  This is not the time for long speeches. I bring my remarks to a conclusion by saying that in my opinion British Governments have been wrong all the way along. Rhodesia should have been given its independence on the break-up of the federation in 1964 on the 1961 constitution. Nkomo told me three or four years after UDI that he would have been happy to accept that as the basis of Rhodesian independence.
  Rhodesia did what no other British territory ever did and what no British Government ever did: it evolved a multiracial society. There was a single common roll for all electors, with qualifications. After all, that is the system that we operated for about 750 years. It was in 1951 that we reached flat universal adult suffrage, and, as Harold Macmillan once said, it has yet to be seen whether it will work in Britain. The idea that we can impose it by sanctions and other

  1353
  means on a Central African country with a population that is mainly two generations from the Stone Age is, to my mind, the triumph of hope over experience. We have done it to please a number of African countries that would not touch that system with the end of a 24 ft. long bargepole.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friends. They took over a situation that had been bedevilled by no fewer than four preceding Administrations, two from each side of the House. They had to untie that knot. They have done it with great skill. In spite of the attitude that I have taken all the way through of believing that we were wrong and that Rhodesians, both black and white, had a sounder instinct for the pace at which they should move forward, and in spite of all the dangers, I still think that the proposal will work. It is a devil of a risk. We have gone to the very edge of the ability to hold fair elections. We have allowed the Patriotic Front to run it along a bit too long. However, I think that it will work. Somewhat reluctantly, and against all my past, I support the proposals in the Bill and I shall support the Bill tonight.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I begin my remarks by quoting a letter that appeared in The Times this morning. I am rather surprised that no one has referred to it. In many respects Lord Caradon's letter deserves being read into the record in its entirety. He wrote:
  "I remember the story I heard years ago in Nigeria about the Governor's visit to a remote Nigerian town. The banners were out to welcome him. The first said God save the Queen. Farther along, the second said God bless the Governor. Farther on, the third said God help the District Officer.
  Now in Rhodesia, if they hang out the banners to welcome Lord Soames, they might well be:
  God save the Queen
  God bless the Foreign Minister
  God help the Governor.
  I suggest that there are too many wise guys telling the world about the obvious dangers. I trust that there are far more ordinary people wishing the Governor well and praying for his success in the interests of everyone, all Africa most of all.
  There are plenty of timid commentators telling us the risks. No one disputes that they are indeed dreadful, but no risk, I feel sure, would have been greater than the risk of doing nothing."
  1354
  There is a little more, but I think that I have quoted enough. It is a splendid letter. It should be the text of today's debate.
  There is a serious risk. That was made clear yesterday when the House heard the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal and questioned him upon it. It could place us in an enormously difficult and dangerous position if Lord Soames's assumption of the governorship before the final ceasefire is tied up proves a mistake and things go wrong. Having thought hard about the issue since the announcement yesterday, my conclusion is that the one thing missing thus far, missing since and including UDI in 1965, is the willingness of the British to take a risk. We all know now that there is a risk.
  We know why we did nothing when UDI was declared. It was not because we had faith in the swift efficacy of sanctions, which were imposed at the time by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). It was because we were afraid that any attempt to reassert the power of the Crown by military means might fail. Military advice was that if it failed we lacked the follow-up capacity to try again. As a country still posturing its world physical power, we would have been revealed as impotent before the world.
  If we accept, as I do and as Liberals do, that Britain has a responsibility in what is still Southern Rhodesia, we must reject, first, the views expressed, as so often cogently and equally so often mistakenly, by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). When the House was discussing the enabling measure, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "In 1965Southern Rhodesia ceased to be part of Her Majesty's dominions as surely as the American colonies ceased to be part of His Majesty's dominions when that fact was recognised by the Treaty of Paris and the legislation by Parliament that applied the consequences for the law of this country."
  I do not accept that for a minute. However, if we face that acceptance we must do so by a real earnest of intention, a real earnest of commitment. That means that we must be willing to repair our unwillingness to take a risk to safeguard a settlement by military means—that was true in 1965–by taking a risk for peace, which is what the Government are now doing.

  1355
  Whatever the warts that Lord Soames has—I do not think it is entirely without dispute that Lord Soames is in possession of some warts—and whatever his indiscretions in the past, some of which have been revealed on the radio, I wish him well and I pray for his success.
  Obviously there is much that I could say in criticism of the content of the agreement, and perhaps in criticism of some of the tactics in the negotiations. However, all that is dwarfed by the fact of an agreement, by the fact of its having been reached, and by the possibility—it is an enormously exciting one—of reconciliation in a situation which entrenched positions and bloody conflict for so many years seemed wholly to exclude.
  We talk often enough in the House of racial problems in Britain. We discuss divisions that arise because of disparities of wealth. Our problems in these regards are puny by comparison with those faced by the people of Zimbabwe. When the enabling measure was before the House I said:
  "It is easier for us to show restraint than it is for those engaged in negotiations Our lives and future are not at stake—as are theirs."—[Official Report, 8 November 1979; Vol. 973, c. 690–700.]
  Irrespective of our views of the gentlemen involved in the negotiations and irrespective of what we have said about any one of them in the past, and without prejudice to what we may say about them in future, it is only right on this occasion to salute Mr. Mugabe, Mr. Nkomo, Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Smith. It is a good thing that they have done together. Despite the problems within the Conservative Party, which were reflected to some degree by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), the Government have none the less tenaciously pursued those negotiations to the edge of a conclusion. The Lord Privy Seal stands at the edge and is prepared to take a risk in order to achieve final success.
  Do not imagine that it is easy for a Liberal to say such things, because it is not. We have bitterly condemned Government policies since the days of the ill-fated concept of the Central African Federation and we have been equally bitter in our condemnation of Mr. Smith. That is on record. But now there is a
  1356
  chance to move away from the past and to build something better and fairer. I want to encourage that. We have always been a multi-racial party, whose energies and policies are directed to reforming historical patterns of ownership and wealth in order to achieve a fairer society. In Zimbabwe, it will be enormously more difficult to achieve that.
  The Bill takes the issue entirely out of our hands. It will no longer be a matter of decision for Parliament, although it may be a matter for our opinion. However, our responsibility to use our good office—whatever good office we may have—does not end.
  Despite our own problems, we should render direct assistance to the front-line States, which, despite enormous and understandable political difficulties, played a most positive part in the negotiations. I would like the Minister, in reply, to indicate his thinking on that point. There is no doubt of the serious economic situation that exists in Zambia and Tanzania in particular.
  We should render such assistance as may be necessary to the new republic of Zimbabwe. Although it is difficult to define that assistance in advance, the Government should give some assurances.
  As for the white minority, I accept the importance of the proposals concerning citizens contained in the Bill, to which the Lord Privy Seal made particular reference. It is an important element of the agreement to encourage those who are technically advanced to stay. That implies that they will have to accept that the position of privilege that they formerly enjoyed will now be open to democratic reform. Those assurances are important. Perhaps it is not desirable for the Government, at this juncture, to say whether they have had any further thoughts on recompense in the event of unilateral dispossession. I do not say that because it is necessarily moral, but it is a practical point.
  We have a clear responsibility to render considerable technical and financial aid to the new republic, when it comes into being.
  On the interim arrangements, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) has already referred to two important points. First, the role of the

  1357
  media during the election is very important, because at the moment that media is fully controlled. I would welcome some comment on that.
  Secondly, I am sure that the Government will ensure that the amnesty will be brought into effect within the existing borders of Rhodesia. However, I hope that the Government have assurances from the Patriotic Front that prisoners in Mozambique and Zambia will be released as that is now proper and right.
  The old imperialist powers in Europe, not surprisingly, have often mishandled the deposition of colonial powers and the transition to independent Administrations. For example, Britain did not leave a structure capable of sustaining democracy effectively in Uganda, and there are many other examples. In Zimbabwe there is a chance to build a just and prosperous society. Zimbabwe is indubitably one of those countries with the greatest potential for prosperity in that part of Africa.
  On behalf of the Liberal Party, I express happiness—it is the right word—that despite all the harshness and violence of the past we have managed to reach this moment. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar, in his very good speech, reflected on the crucial impact of the existence of a substantial minority element in Rhodesia. Algeria provides the only other real African comparison. It is an enormous achievement that we have avoided a repetition of Algeria in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. So far there has been no flood of people out of Rhodesia, and I pray that there will not be such a flood.
  As the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar also said, Rhodesia's lesson has a clear implication for South Africa.
  This is a moment of historical importance, and I hope that the spirit of reconciliation that has made the agreement possible, and in which the Government have played a crucial part, will live on after independence.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Stephen Hastings: At the beginning of his remarks the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) spoke about the risks involved. I agree that the gravest risk would have been for the Government to do nothing. I tried to make it clear some time ago
  1358
  that the risk would have been even less had the Government brought themselves to recognise Bishop Muzorewa's Government after they had fulfilled the six principles and been seen to conduct free and fair elections—at least, that was the report of Lord Home and Lord Boyd. The danger would be much less today if the Government had seen fit to do that.
  But the hon. Member for Inverness tended to minimise the risks and suggested that they were being exaggerated. It is better to face reality in these debates than to minimise the risks. The House must face the reality during the extremely edgy and dangerous period before the election in Rhodesia. However, like the hon. Member for Inverness, I wish the Governor every good fortune. He will need it. He is an old friend of mine, and in many ways it is an appalling task that he faces. If anyone can pull it off, I am sure that he will.
  Of course, I welcome the Bill. I have taken as much interest in this subject, and have been as saddened as any hon. Member, because of my own long connection with Rhodesia. It is a great event that such a Bill should at last be brought before the House. However, it is only the instrument of independence, and much may happen to frustrate its effectiveness before the election takes place. I hope that my right hon. Friend was right when he said that he thought my earlier question during his speech was academic. From what the Patriotic Front is saying, I fear that this will not prove to be the case. A degree of euphoria is understandable both inside and outside the House, but it is better to face reality.
  At this stage I simply wish to make two points. This Bill would not be before us today if it were not for the fact that the Salisbury delegation has acceded to every condition of the British proposals and has made every important concession that was required of it. That cannot be said of the Patriotic Front. It has used every trick to delay the negotiations and has used the time gained to infiltrate its men across the borders. That is well known. Indeed, I think that my right hon. Friend has previously referred to it.
  The Patriotic Front is still talking of escalating the war, even of murdering the Governor. In part, at least, its leaders are Marxist—armed, financed, trained

  1359
  and encouraged by the USSR and its surrogates, East Germany and Cuba. I acknowledge what was said about Bishop Muzorewa this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), but if the public were left to judge by what the Opposition said yesterday it might well be led to suppose that they supported the Patriotic Front and no one else—indeed, that they would seek its victory in these elections by any means possible. I hope that that is not their position, but that is certainly the impression that they gave yesterday.
  Secondly, will the Government make sure that this House is kept fully informed of events, however dangerous, difficult and unpleasant the report may have to be? We can expect plenty of false information to be disseminated from Salisbury from now on. But we want to know the truth, and it is the duty of the Government to make sure that this House does know the truth.
  For example, it is no secret that vast funds and assistance are available from the Communist Powers to the Patriotic Front. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) will find my next remark so funny. I am informed that fly sheets are presently being distributed in Matabeleland which assure the people that if they vote for the Patriotic Front they will immediately be given free land and double wages; that if they do not vote for the Patriotic Front the war will be immediately escalated; and, most sinister of all, that the Patriotic Front will have the means of knowing for whom the people voted anyway, and that the voters will have to take the consequences of that.
  Those fly sheets were printed in very large numbers in East Berlin. What is the extent of the Cuban and East German involvement? It should be exposed, and I hope that the Government will take steps to ensure that it is. Are we aware of the Patriotic Front's plans to continue the war if it should lose the election, which I personally pray that it will? Do we know of its plans to intimidate? What is the extent of the real authority of the Patriotic Front leaders over their men? Do they control them? Have they any means of communication by which they
  1360
  can pass on whatever they agree in respect of the ceasefire, if they do agree?
  For example, there is now a strong report that many of Mugabe's guerrillas owe allegiance to Tongagara, the self-styled general whose view may not be at all the same. Will he agree? In a number of areas, the leaders inside Rhodesia have really degenerated to the status of war lords, or even bandits. Will they agree? Will they join the ceasefire arrangements?
  There is nothing very strange about this sort of doubt. At the end of the last war I had experience of trying to lead guerrillas in Europe to give up their arms. That occurred in Italy, and they were on our side. We were not particularly successful. The task of collecting the armed men of the Patriotic Front at the present time almost defies imagination.
  If, as I suspect, every evil trick of intimidation, with the use of naked force, is to be used by the Patriotic Front during the election, we shall want to know about it. We shall want to be reassured as time goes on that the Governor is in a position to deal with this and that if the provisions of the ceasefire are violated the party responsible will be proscribed. I shall be grateful if the Minister can say a word about that when he replies. No one wants the Government's cause to succeed more than I, but it would be folly to go ahead in ignorance of, or deliberately to turn our backs on, the very real risks that attend the Governor's task from now on.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Lord Privy Seal implored us not to look back, yet most of the speeches have done so in varying degrees of nostalgia, ranging from the predictable ones in regard to Cecil Rhodes—in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell)—to the somewhat surprising Palmerstonian overtones from my own Front Bench.
  I do not intend to look back, because looking back fills me with considerable sadness. The lost opportunities, the abuse of principle and the evasions of successive Governments about what they did about Rhodesia have led ultimately to thousands of deaths of whites and blacks alike. None of us can look back over the last 14 years with any great pride.

  1361
  I am concerned about the future. Contrary to the conviction of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), I am concerned that we have not yet reached an agreement. The details of the way in which to implement the ceasefire are still outstanding.
  I think that yesterday the Lord Privy Seal suggested that some of us ought to think more carefully about what we had said when the previous Bill was before the House and that we would see that we were wrong. All I can say is that there has been a certain change of attitude on behalf of the Government at Lancaster House since then, and I hope that the discussion on the previous Bill was part of the inducement to change that attitude. However, a serious issue still prevails at Lancaster House, and unless it is resolved satisfactorily there will not be an agreement. If there is not an agreement, all the consequences that were foreseen by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday might flow. None of us confidently expects that to happen. The implications seem to be that there will be an agreement, and I accept it on that basis. But an agreement can come about only through a degree of flexibility that allows a reasonable settlement to be reached.
  Contrary to the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield yesterday, the Patriotic Front has not delayed simply in order to have an election in the middle of the rainy season. The hon. and learned Gentleman may not know it, despite his great knowledge of Rhodesia, but the rainy season lasts from January to March. The Patriotic Front has been fighting throughout the last few weeks of the negotiations for a six-month delay before the election. That would take us well outside the rainy season.
  What the Patriotic Front has been concerned about is that it should have an adequate chance of forming an election machine and presenting its case to the people of Rhodesia in order to have a free and fair election. I hope that that may yet take place. In doing so, there must be some delay, but that delay is not enough within the context of the timetable ordained by the British Government. Two months may be enough time for the campaigning, but that is two months only after there has been a total resumption of stability within Rhodesia. Therefore,
  1362
  there is something to be said for reconsidering the time that will elapse until the ceasefire.
  The ceasefire raises practical issues that I hope the Lord Privy Seal and the Foreign Secretary will take into consideration. What has been impressed upon me is that during the first two stages of the negotiations—the independence constitution and the transitional arrangements—the discussion was about issues on which the Patriotic Front could give assurances that if it made an agreement the agreement would carry. On this issue, the Patriotic Front must give assurances that all its troops will honour the proposals that have been agreed at Lancaster House. In doing that, it will be telling its people on the ground that they must put themselves into a position which is admittedly one of insecurity and that they must maintain that position for the period during which the election takes place. Anyone who volunteers to go into that situation must be as sure as can be that his own personal security will be respected.
  That, as much as anything, is causing the difficulty in the final stages of the negotiations. It is not something that can be pooh-poohed as being indicative of a desire for delay by the Patriotic Front. Unless the ceasefire carries, there will not be a free and fair election, and the negotiations will fall to bits.
  I urge the House—particularly the Government—to consider the serious objections to the suggestion that the ceasefire should take place seven days after the signing of the agreement. It takes a guerrilla about six weeks to walk across Rhodesia in the course of the activities in which he has been engaged for the last seven years. That gives some idea of how long it will take to get people to the rendezvous points where they will be picked up before they go to the assembly points. Seven days is far too inadequate.
  Once the people arrive at the rendezvous points, it is not clear how they will make the transition to the new assembly points. Indeed, "assembly point" is a fancy name for what, in effect, will be a detention camp. It will be a temporary structure in an area in which there is no habitation and which is related in no way to the fighting zones. The people will have to remain there for about two

  1363
  months, with no sure knowledge of what will happen to them in that time. It is true that their leaders and their arms will remain with them in that time, but there is bound to be an air of insecurity about what will happen to them. That is particularly so when the conduct of the existing security forces is taken into account. It is a factor of major concern.
  If there is to be equality between the two forces in the period before the election, they must be treated absolutely equally. In relation to representation on the military commissions, they are treated absolutely equally. However, they are not being treated equally on the ground. The Patriotic Front forces are being asked to go into the 15 or 16 assembly zones. Once there, they are supposed to be in the same position as the security forces in barracks. If the Government will give a clear assurance that the security forces will be kept in barracks—as the Patriotic Front forces will be kept in their assembly points—there will be equality. Nevertheless, the Patriotic Front is worried about the way in which the security forces' bases surround the assembly points to which the Patriotic Front has been allocated.
  What remains at issue is whether the security forces will be kept in base or will be allowed to come out for specific purposes, which will be decided by the Governor or even by the security forces' commanders. If it is suggested that the security forces should be called out to deal with a breach of the peace by the Patriotic Front forces, there will be a serious risk of inflaming both sides, and that might lead to a resumption of fighting. Therefore, it is vital to have an assurance that the Patriotic Front forces will keep order within their forces. Any of their number who gets out of line will be dealt with by them.
  The security forces should be used to keep order within their number. If there is any outburst by their people, they will deal with that. If that course is followed, it is conceivable that this highly difficult and delicate period before the election will pass peacefully. However, if it is intended that the security forces alone will control the Patriotic Front forces, that, clearly, will be unacceptable to the Patriotic Front. I hope that some thought
  1364
  will be given to that point in the final round of negotiations.
  A number of issues in the Bill will be dealt with in Committee. It is strange that after tonight we shall not be consulted again before Rhodesia goes into independence. By allowing the Bill to pass, we have given our blessing to a scheme that will lead allegedly to a free and fair election. Yet we do not know that the election will be free and fair until it has taken place. Therefore, it cannot be said that everything will be carried out according to the intention of the agreement. We can be sure of that only if, after it is all over, some independent people or even some hon. Members from this place can say that, having looked into the matter, they have concluded that the election was free and fair and that the House should give a fair wind to an independence Bill. Something must be done along the lines of the amendments in order to ensure that that takes place.
  On the outcome of nationality, why is it necessary for the new Zimbabwe suddenly not to be a member of the Commonwealth? Why can it not be allowed to remain in the Commonwealth unless or until its new Government want to take it out? That happened with Pakistan, South Africa and Ireland. The precedent has been to keep a country in until it decides to opt out. If that were done, the nationality provision would be unnecessary. In relation to the recent independence of some of the West Indian islands, people who were settled here from those islands were stripped of their citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies and made citizens of the newly independent State. Suddenly, those people found that they had lost their British passports. On the other hand, in the case of Rhodesia, we are taking steps not only to see that citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies retain their citizenship but that the Commonwealth citizen who is patrial at the moment, because he is a Southern Rhodesian citizen, will be allowed to keep his patriality. I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain that anomaly.
  The patriality provision of the Immigration Act 1971 was the most obnoxious part of that Act. The 50,000 white Rhodesians in Southern Rhodesia

  1365
  have that patriality only by that provision. They are not citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, but they are Commonwealth citizens. If Rhodesia becomes independent, I see no reason why the people should not become citizens of the new Zimbabwe and take whatever befalls them. I see no reason why they should be given a further 12 months to decide to opt out when they have had a look at the colour of the new Government. They should be part of the organisation of the new country. There is no reason why this country should take another 50,000white people just because they happen to be white.
  We can deal with the areas of difficulty in the amendments. I hope that the negotiations will continue in good spirit and that there will be a happy outcome. Unless there is flexibility on the points that I have raised, I do not see a happy outcome. However, on the overall question of the conduct of the Government in the negotiations, if, at the end of the day, Rhodesia goes into full independence on a free and fair election—whoever wins the election—no one will be happier than I. I have fought the battle for many years for the rights of black people in Rhodesia.
  If that day comes, I shall be the first to congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal. My suspicions arise from too many disappointments in the past, not only in this Government but in previous Governments. I still have a lurking suspicion about the agreement on the independence constitution and the transitional arrangements, but I hope that there will be a happy outcome.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that this Bill is not actually about the details of the ceasefire, although, clearly, it is very important to the independence of Southern Rhodesia, which I hope will come about fairly shortly.
  I must say that had I been one of the Patriotic Front leaders I should have been far happier to have the Governor in post for a few days before I got there, because I should be worried about returning to Salisbury or to other parts of Rhodesia, given the past. In the same way, I think that that applies to many who have been in Rhodesia throughout the 14 years of UDI.
  1366
  I look forward to a new question in a Christmas quiz in our newspapers, or by whoever entertains over the Christmas period by asking questions which are virtually impossible to answer, provoked, perhaps, by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who asked whether there had been a precedent for a country joining the Commonwealth after becoming independent. I think that we ought to have a competition to find out how many countries have been colonies which never joined the Commonwealth in the first place. I think that there would be a slightly surprising answer to that. I hope that Rhodesia will follow the precedent suggested by the right hon. Member for Down, South.
  This is not the time for euphoria or recrimination. What I should like to do is to mention the names of three people who, generally, are not mentioned when the question of the constitutional conference and the independence constitution are mentioned. One is Reginald Maudling, who, when he was Shadow spokesman for foreign affairs, helped to keep the relatively bipartisan approach that we had when I became a Member of this House. I think that the way in which the present Shadow foreign affairs spokesman has spoken today is equally responsible. I think, too, that the House has a great deal of which to be proud in the way in which it has avoided fighting as much in this Chamber as has happened in Rhodesia.
  Together with Reginald Maudling, I should like to mention John Davies, because when he returned from Rhodesia a couple of years ago he brought a greater understanding of the realities there, which had not been appreciated by some, such as myself, who had not had the opportunity of visiting Rhodesia.
  I know that when people have been out to Salisbury they have returned with differing impressions, which is only natural. I think that when John Davies came back the things that he said were important. He put them across in a way which has, I think, had some effect on Conservative policy, and I welcome the effect which I believe that had.
  We all make mistakes. Many of the things that I have said about Rhodesia have been proved to be wrong, and I suspect that many of the things that I

  1367
  say in the future about Rhodesia will be equally wrong. What is worth noting is that the differences of view within people in any party, whether in this country or in Zimbabwe, are important differences to express. I think that the dangers of having a monolithic approach would have made it far less easy to reach the stage that we have now reached, when it is possible that there will be a relatively peaceful transition to independence and a decrease in conflict in Rhodesia in the months ahead.
  It is not only in this country, of course, that people have contributed to the present situation. The United States Senate deserves congratulations on drawing back from the brink, where the Americans were in the spring of this year, of forcing the United States Administration to lift sanctions on Rhodesia. I have no doubt whatever that had the United States Administration lifted sanctions the British Government would have done the same. That would have meant not the present position, where perhaps 20,000 lives have been lost during the last 14 years but with the prospect of peace ahead, but that many more lives would have continued to be lost as the civil war continued, as it inevitably would have done if there had not been the Lusaka conference and the opportunity to maintain sanctions until the restoration of legality.
  Therefore, we should not think of congratulating only ourselves. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary will forgive me if I do not start slinging praise at them. I have no doubt that that will come, and it has already come, from others. It is worth trying to remember that this has been an international problem.
  Going back into the past, very briefly, I have no doubt that mistakes were made in 1923 and in 1961. They were certainly made in 1965. In the years since then, perhaps opportunities were missed. What is worth remembering—I do not necessarily claim that this is a majority view—is that until the people of Rhodesia were in a position to solve this problem for themselves—which they were not when there was only minority suffrage, or effectively minority suffrage—and until the chance that Britain had of helping them out of the mess into which they had
  1368
  slipped in the years between 1923 and 1965, it would have been wrong for Britain to have withdrawn from her position of responsibility, however residual that responsibility may have been at any time during the last 55 years.
  I look forward to seeing the first clause of the Bill enacted. The time when the United Kingdom has no more responsibility for the government of Zimbabwe is something for which I have been longing for many years—but not the giving up of that responsibility in any circumstances. I think that the circumstances now are far better than they have been for many years. I am a pessimist. I did not believe that it was possible to resolve the problems of Rhodesia, and I am still not certain that it is. I do not think that it is for us in this House to say who we believe should win, or even to say who we believe will win. I think that we have reached that rather chancy position where a settlement is coming because both sides think that they may win, and that is a useful democratic hope for them to live by. I hope that they will live equally hopefully with the result, whichever way it goes and whatever sorts of coalitions and fragmentations are likely to occur.
  Therefore, echoing the words of my right hon. Friend, I say "Look forward", but I also utter the caution "Watch out".
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Frank Hooley: I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) that this Bill is a heavy gamble. That is not necessarily wrong. In all politics, risks must be taken. I am of the opinion that some of the risks being taken this time are not necessary risks and could have been reduced by a somewhat different attitude in certain respects.
  It has fallen to the present Government to introduce two rather strange and controversial independence Bills—the Kiribati Bill, which caused a great deal of bitterness on both sides of the House, and the Bill before us, the Zimbabwe Bill, which has been introduced in the strangest circumstances of any independence Bill since the Second World War. I shall list some of those circumstances, because I want to devote my time not to the past but to the present and the immediate future.

  1369
  The circumstances are that, first, we have martial law in force in the territory to which we are purporting to give independence—at least, I assume that we have it. If we have not, perhaps the Minister will explain whether the martial law provisions have disappeared with the dissolution of the Muzorewa regime or whether the Governor has inherited them.
  This is very important, because under martial law kangaroo courts have been operating and sentencing people to death. If that martial law has disappeared, some sort of proclamation or statement should be made by the Government to indicate clearly that such courts as were operating under martial law now have no validity and no jurisdiction, and that anyone who purports to take action under the martial law is acting illegally and has no authority from the Government. That is an important point.
  Secondly, we are purporting to give independence to a country that is in a state of civil war. I have never heard of that proposition coming before this House previously. Until the ceasefire is agreed—it is not yet agreed—the civil war will continue, and we are talking solemnly of independence for a territory for which we have responsibility in which civil war is still raging.
  Thirdly, we are giving independence to a country that has no legislature. The legislature has dissolved and vanished. There is a colonial Government, with a Governor with full powers to issue orders, decrees and edicts, but there is no legislature.
  We did not recognise the elections held by the Smith-Muzorewa coalition. Neither this Government nor the previous Administration recognised them. We are purporting to pass an independence Bill for a territory that has not held elections to determine the structure and form of its Government.
  There is, alas, no accepted national leader in Zimbabwe. That is the peculiar tragedy of that territory. Unlike Zambia, with President Kaunda; Tanzania, with President Nyerere; Ghana, with its former president, Nkruma; Cyprus, with President Makarios; and India, in former times, with Gandhi and Nehru, for some reason there has never emerged a national leader of sufficient stature to command the undoubted allegiance of the majority
  1370
  population in Rhodesia. That is not the fault of this country or of this House. No leader in Rhodesia has commanded the support of the people as does President Nyerere, or as did the late President Makarios. That is a tragedy for which we are not responsible, but I believe that it will make the future independence and good government of Zimbabwe that much more difficult.
  There is also the threat that the territory to which we are granting independence under the Bill is still under the interdict of the international sanctions authorised by the United Nations. The Government may say that sanctions have ceased to exist now that the Governor is there, but sanctions cannot disappear by fiat of the Government. Sanctions were imposed by the international community under the Charter of the United Nations, to which we are a party.
  Sanctions continue until the Security Council, in its wisdom, rescinds the resolution under which they were imposed. It is simplistic of the Government to say that sanctions have been removed. I suppose that they will be removed by the United Kingdom, but if we lift sanctions unilaterally we are in breach of our obligations under the United Nations Charter.
  Mr. David Price: The hon. Gentleman has not got it right. The resolution of the United Nations imposing sanctions on the then regime in Rhodesia was passed because that regime was illegal. Sanctions were not imposed on the colony of Southern Rhodesia. As a result of measures put through this House and actions taken in Salisbury, that territory has now returned to its former loyalty and there is now no illegal regime in Rhodesia. There is simply the colony of Southern Rhodesia, and there are no United Nations sanctions on that colony.
  Mr. Hooley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Sanctions were imposed because the Security Council decided that there was a threat to peace in that part of the world. So far as I am aware, that threat is not yet deemed by the United Nations to have ceased to exist. Until such time as the United Nations says that the threat is over, sanctions remain. It cannot be argued, in any circumstances, that we, a single member of the United Nations,

  1371
  can by our own fiat say that sanctions no longer exist.
  We are purporting to give independence to a territory under martial law, which has had no elections, no parliament and no accepted national leader, and which is still under the interdict of the international community. Those facts should cause us to reflect on what we are about to do.
  The future obstacles to the successful outcome—I hope that it will be successful—of the process set in train at Lusaka are four. First, there is the issue of free and fair elections. That issue has been spelt out to some extent in the amendments to the Bill which the House will discuss later. I believe that it would have helped to ensure free and fair elections—which the world must acknowledge as free and fair—if the supervisory or peacekeeping forces had been more powerful and more broadly based. If the Governor would like a more powerful monitoring force, will it be within his power to ask for one? Will the Government be disposed to arrange for such a force if they feel that it will assist in securing a satisfactory electoral process in Zimbabwe?
  This is important. It will be remembered that in the debate on the Kiribati Bill forceful representations were made by the Opposition that a peacekeeping force was an essential component for success during a transitional period. I believe that the Government have gone some way to accepting that argument. What is now proposed is an advance on the somewhat limited exercise originally envisaged.
  However, considering the size of the territory, the general conflict and the numerous private armies, I doubt whether a force of 1,000 men is sufficient. I should like an assurance that if the Governor were to cable London saying that he would find it easier to carry out his duties if he had a stronger force, with a wider composition, the Government would respond rapidly and positively to his request.
  The third obstacle to the success of this enterprise is the possibility that the international community—including, perhaps, the Commonwealth, the United
  1372
  Nations and the Organisation of African Unity—will withhold recognition if it is not satisfied that the elections have been free and fair and conducted reasonably. This House cannot demand that the world grants recognition to a territory on which we have conferred legal independence under our own constitution. If, as a result of events during the next few months, there is any reason that might give rise to the fear by African countries, or by the majority of the United Nations or the Commonwealth, that matters have not been conducted properly in Rhodesia, international recognition will not be granted. Thus, a great deal of progress will have been destroyed. That is an important issue, upon which the House should reflect.
  The final obstacle to the success of this enterprise is the attitude of South Africa. We are entitled to ask the Government, once again, whether they have an absolute, unequivocal and unconditional statement from Pretoria that, whatever the outcome of the election and the transitional process, South Africa will not interfere, militarily or politically, in the affairs of an independent Zimbabwe. I am deeply suspicous, and I fear that if the Government who emerge in Zimbabwe are not satisfactory to and do not accord with the political wishes and foreign policy of the South African Government, pressure of one kind or another—military, economic or diplomatic—will be brought to bear to force a different conclusion upon Zimbabwe.
  I have no intention of voting against the Bill, but before we enact it we are entitled to ask the Government whether a firm and unqualified assurance has been made by Pretoria. We are entitled to demand that if any attempt is made by the South African Government to interfere with the outcome of what happens in the next few months we shall warn South Africa that the rigour of international sanctions will be imposed against it.
  I hope that we are now discussing the end of the long UDI disaster. I hope that the electoral process will prove to be fair and practicable. I hope that at the end of it all there will be a Government who can effectively rule Zimbabwe with the agreement of all its peoples. The risk that we are taking is real. The risk

  1373
  could, in some respects, have been minimised. However, at this stage I am convinced that it is a risk that the House should take.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. John Farr: I declare an interest in Rhodesia, since I have property there. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on their efforts, which have been so painstaking and which have attracted admiration from both sides of the House. I sincerely congratulate my right hon. and noble Friend on the outcome of his negotiations.
  I regret the change of name. I am sorry that the Bill is not called the "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia Bill". The Rhodesia that I know is a civilised and highly structured modern society. It is that because of the influence and hard work of Cecil Rhodes, its founder, and of the many generations of Europeans who turned a wilderness of bush covered with jungle elephant tracks into a modern State. It would have been nice to give it a name which recognised that.
  I congratulate the Government on bringing an end to sanctions. Sanctions ended with the arrival of the Governor in Rhodesia today. On both sides of the House hon. Members will be relieved to know that his arrival coincided with an end to the laborious charade of annually debating Rhodesian sanctions orders.
  Now that sanctions no longer apply, I hope that some of our business men and manufacturers are already flying out to pick up some of the threads of trade which Britain used to monopolise in Rhodesia before the declaration of UDI. Before UDI, British firms were involved in 90 to 95 per cent. of Rhodesia's import and export business. During UDI British manufacturers and British firms recognised the United Nations sanctions and certainly did not overtly trade with Rhodesia. Many other countries did. The streets of Rhodesia are full of goods from Japan, France, and Eastern and other Western. European countries. Many countries have engaged in sanctions busting, and we have a long way to catch up.
  I hope that the new Zimbabwe will remain in the Commonwealth. I cannot understand why it is not set out in the
  1374
  Bill, as it normally is in independence Bills, that Zimbabwe will remain in the Commonwealth unless it decides to opt out. Zimbabwe will be regarded as being ouside the Commonwealth until it makes a formal application to join. Whoever wins the election, we hope that the new and infant Government of Zimbabwe will make an early application to join.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said that he hoped that there would be no South African influence or interference in the affairs of the new Zimbabwe. We echo that wish. Similarly, we do not wish to see any influence over the internal affairs of Zimbabwe from any quarter, whether it is from South Africa, Mozambique or any other frontline States.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the South African Prime Minister has said that South Africa will not tolerate a Marxist Government in Salisbury. He meant the Patriotic Front. He said that he would not accept such a Government even if they were elected. Does the hon. Gentleman condemn that point of view?
  Mr. Farr: I certainly condemn any external interference in the affairs of the new Zimbabwe by any country. The sooner threats from South Africa or from any of the front-line States are ended, the sooner we shall have a chance of peaceful coexistence.
  I hope that the new Zimbabwe, in or out of the Commonwealth—I hope in—will have a democratic form of government. That would almost be unique in any part of Africa, but let us hope that that happens. I have great hopes for Zimbabwe, because its people have special characteristics. They are not extremists or racists in any way. The European and the African in Rhodesia have always got on together a good deal better than they have elsewhere in Africa. I have great hopes that the new Zimbabwe will remain a country in which democracy flourishes.
  It is vital to the stability of the whole of Africa—and certainly to Southern Africa—that the example that we leave behind in Zimbabwe flourishes. Perhaps it will serve to blaze a trail for other countries in that part of the world.
  It has been a long and difficult road. A great deal of patience has been shown

  1375
  by successive Governments. I regret that the new country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, as it would have been, was not granted independence at the time that the six principles were known to have been satisfied. Independence is now forthcoming. It is better late than never, and I wish the new Zimbabwe well.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: There is a great deal of irony in today's debate, in that the Conservative Party, which has long been associated with promoting colonies and supporting the colonial principle, welcomes the moves to bring the colonial status of Rhodesia to an end, and the Labour Party has expressed many doubts although it has had the historic role of promoting decolonisation.
  A further irony is that while some of my hon. Friends who have been most closely associated with the promotion of what they saw to be the interests of the African population in Rhodesia have attacked the policies of successive Governments as being too weak, some Members of the Conservative Party who, over the years, have attempted to promote the interests of the whites in Rhodesia have shown most interest in the future of Rhodesia. Both those groups are clearly more concerned about the future of Rhodesia than is either of the Front Benches. That is probably because, with the close interest in the past and the present in Rhodesia, the two groups that have spent the most time thinking and talking about Rhodesia are well aware of the problems facing that country.
  I cannot associate myself with the air of self-congratulation that has characterised some of the speeches today. There is nothing for Britain, or successive British Governments, to be self-congratulatory about when one considers the history of Rhodesia since 1965. Since that time Rhodesia's history has been a national disgrace. Our approach to the problems of Rhodesia over that period has probably lowered our reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world more than any other feature of our foreign policy. We have performed pathetically. We have achieved nothing that we set out to achieve in 1965, and we have been
  1376
  unable to get the international community to do much better.
  I was trying to think of those whose characteristics best exemplified what Britain has done during this 14-year period. Seen through the eyes of a poor inhabitant of Rhodesia today, it might be thought that this country started off in 1965 like Ethelred the Unready and, with the haste of the last few months, has become more like Pontius Pilate than any other figure in world history. There is a clear desire by the Government Front Bench and many on the Opposition Benches to wash their hands of Rhodesia as quickly as possible.
  The way that Britain has failed to carry out its intentions and to bring the previous rebel regime to heel is quite disgraceful. It is disgraceful that other major countries, such as the United States of America, the Soviet Union and France, have joined in the international conspiracy to allow Rhodesia to continue on its merry way.
  International relations were brought into further disrepute when a group of about 2,000 whites were able to defy the rest of the world. The only reason why that group of people have been able to do that is that the rest of the world—including successive British Governments—has not been serious in its intention to bring the rebellion to an end.
  The organisation that has been most successful in bringing Rhodesia to a point where negotiations have been conducted is the Patriotic Front. It was not British sanctions or the international community that brought the white Rhodesians to heel and to the conference table. The armies of the Patriotic Front have driven the white Rhodesians into a corner from which they eventually had to turn towards legality and Britain to solve their problems.
  Rather than denounce the Governments of Zambia and Mozambique and the people of those territories, we should pay tribute to them for all that they have willingly suffered in the cause of ensuring that the Rhodesian rebellion was brought to an end. I am sure that the House will not agree with that, but I believe that those countries and peoples deserve a great deal of credit.
  One reason why the Patriotic Front felt it necessary to accept the onerous

  1377
  terms of settlement to which it has agreed is that it recognised the pressures that its presence brought upon Mozambique and Zambia and the damage that the Salisbury regime had wreaked on the economy of those countries and their general capacity to survive. It is to the credit of the Patriotic Front that it is now responding to the problems of its hosts so that it can, in a sense, help Rhodesia as well as itself.
  I do not look forward with any hope to the settlement that is before the House today. There is much more danger and threat in this settlement than in anything else. We are faced with a settlement that provides a ridiculously short time during which to achieve a real ceasefire and establish the groundwork for free and fair elections.
  Anyone who wants to consider and get into perspective the problems that will face Lord Soames—or, indeed, anyone else—when organising free and fair elections in a country that has been torn by civil war for years needs only to consider how long it took the Home Office—and the stumbling way in which it did it—to establish the electoral machinery for a European Assembly. As an outside observer of the process, I thought that it took Whitehall and many town halls a great deal of time to organise it—and that is in a country where we are used to free and fair elections, where we have an electoral register and are used to the electoral process. In Rhodesia they do not have this tradition, and there will be immense problems.
  I cannot understand why the Government are unwilling to accept the advice of the Patriotic Front about an independent force that would be capable of securing the situation in Rhodesia should order break down. We have established Lord Soames in that country as the British Governor, but he is in an untenable position. If order breaks down in Rhodesia while he is Governor, there is nothing that he can do without restarting the civil war. He has no independent troops to whom he can turn. There is no body of troops whose activities and presence would be acceptable to both sides. If there is a breakdown of order in Rhodesia, that situation will continue. The Governor will be unable to turn to anyone acceptable to the opposing side to re-establish order.
  1378
  It was foolish of the British Government not to accept the conditions of the Patriotic Front for an independent force promoted by either the United Nations or the Commonwealth. In the absence of such a force, only a fool would expect a peaceful electoral process in Rhodesia. That may happen, but if it does it will suggest that the people of Rhodesia, and particularly the leadership of the Patriotic Front, have an infinitely greater political maturity than any other people on earth. I hope that that proves to be the case, but I do not think that we can expect it to be so.
  There is another objection that I take to the independence as promoted by the British Government. I believe that the constitution which the Patriotic Front has accepted under duress and in the knowledge that its people are being killed—and that brings great pressure to bear on any party in a negotiation—will so limit the intentions and desires of any reasonable party committed to the redistribution of wealth in Rhodesia that those aims will be unworkable, even if that party gets a majority. Therefore, once again Britain is in the wrong. We would have got a better and quicker settlement at Lancaster House had we accepted the eminently reasonable views of the Patriotic Front.
  Basically, the future of Rhodesia is grim. Its past and its present have been characterised by strife and civil war. This may come to an end, but, as has happened in Northern Ireland, Rhodesian society will have become accustomed to death and violence. It is extremely difficult for any society that is accustomed to civil war or general mayhem and terrorism—and I regard the activities of the Salisbury Government as terrorism in this case—to draw itself out of the feeling that death and violence are part of the political norm in that society. I believe that it will be a great struggle for the Rhodesians to free themselves from their inheritance of the spavined, lunatic, and lousy incompetence of successive British Governments.
  Also, we must remember that the grim State of South Africa will continue to border Rhodesia, whatever the outcome of the ceasefire and whatever the outcome of the elections. That last bastion of racism bodes no good for the people of Rhodesia or the blacks in South Africa

  1379
  itself. It is to be expected that South Africa will attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the republic of Zimbabwe when it is established, and the South African intentions will not be good.
  For that reason, I cannot in any way welcome the settlement that the British Government have put to the House in the past few weeks. In all conscience, I cannot see myself voting for an independence Bill which attempts to launch the benighted people of Rhodesia to independence under such circumstances.
  Finally, because I have not developed the esprit de corps which apparently characterises many issues in this House, I repeat that the responsibility for the deaths, injuries and violence that have occurred in Rhodesia since 1965, and the responsibility for any that occur in the future, will lie primarly with the Front Benches on both sides of the House. Successive British Governments have brought us to national disgrace and put the people of Rhodesia in a terrible position. I hope that the Rhodesians will be able to shake themselves free of everything that Britain has imposed on them in the past 14 years. If they do, they will be a credit to humanity, and certainly no one could say that about British Governments in relation to Rhodesia.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: By this stage the whole House might have concluded that this was an occasion for magnanimity, generosity and optimism. Those of us who have tried to express magnanimity and generosity have been in tune with the mood of the House. Therefore, I deplore the remarks of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) because he introduced a note of pessimism. He is entitled to do so, but history will pass judgment on our judgment. It will be the hope of all hon. Members that in the course of time—and it may be a long time—the hon. Member will be proved most devastatingly and hopelessly wrong.
  Mr. Dobson: I hope I am.
  Mr. Lloyd: If one were to pass general judgments on so many of the important and significant debates on Rhodesia which have taken place in the past 14 years, one of those judgments would be
  1380
  that possibly both sides of the House—and the House has been fragmented in many ways on this issue—have suffered from stereotyped thinking, arguments and concepts. Labour Members have always talked about "regimes". I noticed that one hon. Member today even talked about "the successor legal regime". That shows how accustomed we have become to using these epithets to reinforce or qualify our judgments.
  My purpose this evening is simple. I wish to convey to my right hon. Friend my best wishes for this Bill and for the success of its objectives. I believe that this is an occasion when the House of Commons—possibly not Labour Members, but I invite them to do so—might pay tribute to those who have died in Rhodesia in the service of their beliefs. I do not speak only of those who serve what Labour Members call "the regime". I believe that, of those who died in the service of the so-called regime, many believed—perhaps wrongly in the opinion of some people—that they, too, were in the front line of Western civilisation and its defence. I pay my tribute to them, and I hope that the House will join me in that.
  I have always used the word "patriotic" in inverted commas, thereby confessing my own adherence to stereotype, but on this occasion I should like to pay tribute to members of the Patriotic Front who have died as well. Many have died because their view of the future of Rhodesia has been grossly and grotesquely distorted, in my view, by a concept of the world which many outside Rhodesia seek to propagate inside it for their own purposes. That is as far as I shall go.
  There has been great tragedy. Men, women and children on both sides have given their lives for their beliefs. Let us now pay our tribute to them, recognising their idealism. While we have argued, they have fought and died for their beliefs. The time has come to say "No more". That is why I pleaded the other day that in the period before the ceasefire became effective some steps should be taken to ensure that those who carried arms should carry them unloaded. Perhaps it was impractical and perhaps feelings were too strong. Perhaps military men on both sides would refuse to take risks of that kind. I can understand that.

  1381
  But surely the time has now come when an appeal must go forth from this House, this country, from every part of Africa and the civilised world to "stop as soon as you can without being given orders." We should urge both sides to stop immediately because legitimacy has been restored to Rhodesia and hope has been returned. With that prospect, there is now only one course of action for reasonable men, and they must take it.
  7 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: With one or two exceptions, in this evening's debate there is an air of dangerous reality. Listening to some of the speeches, one could imagine that this independence Bill discussion was taking place post-transition period, post-agreement on the ceasefire, and post-elections. The view seems to be taken that it is all over, that all is agreed at Lancaster House, and that everything will be all right on the ground. I hope that people are not in for a rude awakening, although that might very well be the case.
  If all goes well—I certainly hope that it does—and the Bill is enacted, there will be rejoicing that power has been transferred to the majority of the people of Zimbabwe. Along with many of my Opposition colleagues, I espoused the cause of freedom for the people of Zimbabwe over many years and I shall certainly be amongst those rejoicing. I accept that for the people of Zimbabwe this marks the end of one period of their history. However, it will begin another, perhaps more difficult, chapter in the history of Zimbabwe.
  Decolonisation does not end with the constitutional transfer of power. That is only the starting point. There are problems which abound and which must be resolved. They have, of course, been compounded by the unilateral declaration of independence in the bitter struggle that took place these past 14 years. I wish the people of Zimbabwe well; I wish them peace; I wish them stability. I trust that the opportunities open to them with majority rule will be used to the full benefit of all of them.
  If the enactment of this Bill opens the door of hope for the people of Zimbabwe, it closes another door. Several hon. Members have congratulated Government Front-Bench Members. They
  1382
  have expressed a feeling of euphoria that one of the central issues of our times has been resolved. However, I do not think that we can be blind to the fact that the Bill, when enacted, will mean the end of one of the sorriest and most despicable periods of our history in terms of foreign policy—a period of abject abrogation of our responsibilities to the people of Zimbabwe, first by failing to act immediately upon UDI and then by Government attempts to seek a dishonourable settlement on HMS "Tiger" and HMS "Fearless". I do not absolve any Conservative Government from stricture. The Douglas-Home proposals of 1971 were an attempt to betray the interests of the majority of the people of Zimbabwe. That attempt was blocked by the people of Zimbabwe. When the Pearce Commission visited that country in 1972, it concluded that the Douglas-Home proposals did not meet with the approval of the people of Zimbabwe as a whole. Yet the Conservative Government of the day did nothing to ensure progress in the matter. They failed entirely to compel the illegal Smith regime to transfer power.
  Then we had the period when Parliament was deliberately and seriously misled over oil supplies to Rhodesia. History has a way of catching up on us, especially when we are specific. However, I doubt whether at any period in our history there have been such clear-cut examples of Government collusion and deceit to frustrate the will of Parliament to end the illegal Smith regime.
  The fact of the matter is—it is as well to record it—that since UDI there has been the loss of thousands of innocent lives because of the failure of successive Governments to accept their responsibilities. We should say quite clearly that it was the abject betrayal of our responsibilities that compelled African nationalists, with a long history of using such constitutional methods as were open to them, to try to obtain majority rule. It was the abject betrayal that compelled those African nationalists to take up arms to fight for their freedom. It is one of the greatest ironies of all time that the Lord Privy Seal should say from the Dispatch Box that we cannot, by proxy, make the decision whether the people of Zimbabwe should or should not be part of the Commonwealth. It is precisely because we tried to take decisions by

  1383
  proxy for the people of Zimbabwe that we landed at the stage of the bitter struggle of the liberation war.
  At present we still hover on the edge of a breakthrough in the Lancaster House discussions. We are in negotiation for a transfer of power at Lancaster House. That is due, in the first and perhaps only instance, to the guerrilla struggle that was pursued over long years.
  The fact that we are still in the negotiations after 13 long weeks at Lancaster House reflects great credit on the Patriotic Front, the members of which have conducted themselves in an extremely responsible manner. All that the Salisbury delegation has done is to say "Yes" to every proposal. It was not concerned about what came out of Lancaster House. All it wanted was a method by which it might be legitimised.
  The members of the Patriotic Front have been concerned to reach a settlement that would succeed. It would have been quite easy to reach a settlement. If they had said "Yes, yes, yes" to the British proposals at the beginning, we should have had a paper agreement but not necessarily one that would have led to a successful conclusion. The Patriotic Front seeks conditions in a settlement for Zimbabwe that will work on the ground and provide the possibility of a stable future.
  We still have a long way to go before final agreement is reached. As I said earlier—I really mean this—I trust that such an agreement will be reached. Neither Members of Parliament nor the members of the Patriotic Front want to see the war continued one day longer than necessary. However, we should not be surprised that there are difficulties in settling the ceasefire deails. All who have followed events in Rhodesia over the years must accept that there was bound to have been a considerable amount of distrust—which persists until this day.
  The House will remember that Conservative Members of Parliament declined to support the sanctions order on the previous occasion. The right hon. Lady—now the Prime Minister—sacked her defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill). That was not done so much for voting against the sanctions order as for not doing what
  1384
  Mummy told him. We should remember the attitude of Government supporters in the present great euphoria about the way in which the Government are dealing with this matter.
  The Patriotic Front recognised from the beginning that the ceasefire would be extremely difficult to negotiate. When discussions started at Lancaster House, it wanted to discuss the ceasefire proposals first. Its members said "Let us look at the difficult areas first and then we can reach agreement, probably quite quickly, on the transitional arrangements and the constitutional proposals." However, the Patriotic Front was persuaded to accept a different agenda. The difficulties cannot be discounted, even though there were contingent agreements on the transition period and the constitution.
  The House is, and has been, in some difficulty over a period of time. In his past two, three or four statements on Lancaster House, the Lord Privy Seal steadfastly refused to answer any point of detail about the conference. He said that he could not answer points of detail because the Government could not conduct negotiations outside Lancaster House across the Floor of the House of Commons. I understand that point of view. I can almost sympathise with it. Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, the House is being asked to approve the final act in the process of conferring legal independence on Zimbabwe—before agreement is reached at Lancaster House, before the transitional period and, indeed, before any election takes place. There is still no agreement, but I hope that there will be one soon.
  There are serious problems about the ceasefire details. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) went into those in some detail. I certainly shall not go over them in any great detail in view of that, especially as we may return to some of these points when we deal with the amendments in Committee.
  How can we expect the Patriotic Front, after years of fighting, to assemble its supporters at 16 different places where they will remain during the transition and election periods? In the latest proposals, tabled yesterday, two points are made. First, the Government say that they cannot guarantee a ceasefire, that the 1,200 men who will go to Rhodesia are only to monitor what happens, and that it is not

  1385
  within their capability to guard the forces of either side.
  The second proposal is that the Rhodesian security forces will return to the vicinity of their bases—not go back to their bases, but return to the vicinity of their bases. Then, provided that the Patriotic Front does not break the ceasefire, there will be no need for the Governor to deploy those forces.
  In those circumstances, we require a great deal of clarification on how there is to be equal treatment. In the early stages of the transition arrangements—I think this was the phrase used—there should be reciprocity of treatment for both sides. There does not seem to be much by way of reciprocity, unless it is some peculiarity of the English language which is yet to be defined. If we are to have a ceasefire, there must be some guarantee that the Rhodesian security forces will be held in check.
  There was great euphoria in the House, the country, the world at large and in Rhodesia when agreement was reached on the ceasefire principles. But hardly was the ink dry on the newspapers that were run off the presses in Salisbury than the Rhodesian forces were attacking Zambia and Mozambique again. I understand that the people attacked were assembling to come back into Rhodesia to take part in the elections. They were assembling to return home. Having been bombed before beginning to get back into the country, can we blame them for fearing that they will be bombed when they come back? The Government must tell us more about the way in which people outside Rhodesia are to return to take part in the elections.
  As far as I know, there are no postal votes. There may be 250,000 voters in the refugee camps. There are more refugees than that, but about 250,000–I should be glad if the Government could give the figure—would be entitled to vote. If voting is on the list system, 250,000 votes could sway the election in one district or another. Therefore, we need to know that the forces of the Patriotic Front who may still be outside Rhodesia will be allowed to return home to play a proper part in the elections.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. Friend also underestimates the problem of the many thousands of Rhodesian
  1386
  Africans living in this country who want to take part in the elections. If they want to go back to Rhodesia after the Bill is passed, they will lose their citizenship and will not be able to come back to this country. Therefore, it is not simply a question of going back on holiday to vote. Surely, something should be done about postal voting for those people.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I should be glad of enlightenment. As far as I know, there are no arrangements for people to vote other than in person. I do not think that a postal vote is being organised. I agree that arrangements should be made for people in this country to be able to record their votes. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. Some of those people may not be able to go back, even if they wish to do so, because of different responsibilities, but they will want to play a part in determining the government of their country. That matter will have to be gone into in considerable detail when we discuss the citizenship clause. It would be wrong if people were refused the right to return home to vote on the basis that if they did they would lose any chance of citizenship in this country.
  I turn now to the grave risk that the Government are taking in sending the Governor to Zimbabwe at this stage. I need not traverse all the arguments. Control of the Rhodesian security forces seems somewhat vicarious. The Lord Privy Seal would not answer my question yesterday whether the raids into Mozambique and Zambia last Sunday were on the direct orders of General Walls or with his authority and knowledge. If neither of those propositions is correct, does it mean that the Rhodesian security forces are already out of the control of General Walls? If so, how can they be expected to give true allegiance to a newly arrived Governor?
  We are still unhappy about the guarantees that there will be no interference by South Africa. I am not satisfied with these arrangements.
  The risks of passing the Bill in its totality before an election are great, because it may not stick. As the Bill stands, Parliament will not have an opportunity to discuss whether or not the Order in Council should go ahead. We may be left

  1387
  with an Order in Council that we either accept or reject. I hope that the Government will assure us that if the arrangements do not stick they will not proceed to grant independence to Zimbabwe under this Act, as it will be, if there are not free and fair elections.
  In the various proposals there are arrangements for Commonwealth observers. There is nothing to say how the Commonwealth observers will decide whether the elections have been free and fair or whether they are satisfied with the arrangements. There must be some way—unless they are simply there as window dressing—for the Commonwealth observers to report back to the House that they are satisfied that it will be safe to grant legal independence to Zimbabwe. I hope that there will be free and fair elections. I hope that they will be held, but only time will tell.
  Many hon. Members have criticised the negotiating tactics of Lord Carrington. If they work out, no one will be more pleased than I. But if they fail, even at this late stage, I hope that the noble Lord will realise the tremendous responsibility which will have fallen upon us.
  I remain optimistic about the future of Zimbabwe. Speaking to those who represent the Patriotic Front, one is amazed at their tolerance. There is no racialism. They are attacking the whites in Rhodesia not because they are whites but because they represent a system of oppression, which they could no longer tolerate, of being driven underground, being put in detention without trial and being condemned for all kinds of acts. As I said, I remain optimistic. I hope that the settlement will work. If we can make progress in Rhodesia—I shall celebrate independence in Zimbabwe—we shall turn our attention to the problems of Namibia and South Africa and shall not rest until they are solved as well.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: I should not wish Second Reading of the Bill to pass without adding my support for it and expressing my sincere congratulations, on behalf of my constituents, to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have worked so hard in recent months to bring the settlement to fruition and this legislation before the House.
  1388
  There can be no doubt that the past decade or more has been a tragic and difficult period for Rhodesia, but the successive apologies which have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House for the attitude of the British Government towards Rhodesia have been a little one-sided. In retrospect, I believe that UDI was a great tragedy for Rhodesia and that much of the blame must rest on those who perpetrated that act.
  It is remarkable that the bipartisan approach to Rhodesia and its return to legality subsisted for so long. Despite the fact that there have been factions on the wings of both major political parties in this country who have sought quick solutions of a quite different kind, a broad body of opinion with both major parties supported a policy of sanctions against Rhodesia, condemned the unilateral declaration of independence and sought a peaceful settlement under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
  I cannot help but feel that some of the pessimism which attaches to the latest comments and contributions of Labour Members smacks more of sour grapes than of genuine concern. We are all entitled to seek reassurance from the Minister about the various points that concern us.
  I am concerned about two matters. Clause 3 provides for a measure of immunity under United Kingdom law for any acts of tort and reparation. But there is concern about the position of individuals in Rhodesia after independence has been granted under the Order in Council and the election has taken place. Will reprisals be taken by the successor regime against individuals whose actions before the declaration of independence were found objectionable?
  If, as some hon. Members in the past have asked for and may now even wish, Mr. Smith and Mr. van der Byl are strung up, are we to stand idly by and allow that to happen? Some may feel that they should be brought before courts for acts of immorality. Some might feel that certain leaders of the Patriotic Front deserve the same measure of justice.
  However, we are entitled to seek some assurance that, as I hope very much, given the tenor of this settlement and the granting of independence, the past will be

  1389
  regarded as the past and that the new Zimbabwe will make the best of what it has, looking to the future and not seeking to take reprisals against those who have led different factions in the past. If my hon. Friend the Minister can give any assurance of those matters of concern to many people both in Rhodesia and Britain, it will be most welcome.
  My second point concerns the development fund that was spoken of previously when a settlement was sought. Although the Bill in no way refers directly to the fund, I think that the Second Reading debate is the appropriate occasion on which to seek some general reassurance about the position that will apply after the granting of independence.
  My major concern at the time when President Carter had a real prospect of obtaining the agreement of Congress to put money into a major international fund to provide for the development of Rhodesia was that it would be used as a means of underwriting the sequestration of white property.
  I strongly believe that there is a case for a substantial and generous international development fund for the new Zimbabwe. It is a relatively highly developed country in terms of education, utilities and health. The Africans in Rhodesia enjoy far higher standards than they enjoy in almost any other African country, but there is still much to be done. It is a vast country. If we are to give those Africans who have trained and have developed some livelihood and opportunity for themselves in the tribal trust land areas a greater opportunity for the future, that will cost money. Those of us who have had a historical association with the country have, I believe, an obligation to assist them in their future.
  My greatest concern, however, is that, if a fund is set aside to compensate white farmers or white property owners for their loss of property, that will act as an indirect encouragement to a new regime to carry out the sequestration of that property. It is one thing to provide funds to be put into agriculture, new industry and social infrastructure. It is quite another to provide a development fund which will be used as an underwriting agency for the sequestration and confiscation of white property. I urge my right
  1390
  hon. and hon. Friends to take that point on board and, in so far as they have any influence with the Americans and in any future funding of the development of Zimbabwe, in no way to lend themselves to any fund that will encourage such a trend.
  It is perhaps the view of many that Bishop Muzorewa's achievement in the recent elections indicates that he is the hot favourite in any elections that may take place. But history often serves to remind us that the opposite may be true. The elections in Britain after the last war are an example of that. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) quoted another in St. Lucia, where independence granted earlier this year was followed by a major election reversal for the Government of the day, perhaps against expectations.
  So it may mean, for all I know, that in Rhodesia the elections will result in a new Government who are not led by Bishop Muzorewa. To my mind, that would be a great disappointment since that man has shown both stability and great promise for his country in the short time that he has led his Government.
  My reservations are, therefore, about the possibility of reprisals and about the development fund. Having voiced them, I give the Bill a warm welcome on behalf of my constituents, and certainly on behalf of the many Rhodesians I have met who have visited my constituency and have expressed their grave concern about the continuing lack of a settlement which offers real peace and opportunity.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends are to be congratulated. I hope that the Governor will keep up the efforts that he has started today in taking the country to independence, and I hope that the relationship between this country and Rhodesia, which has soured in the last 10 years but which has been a proud one for this country, will continue in a different form which will nevertheless be helpful for the peoples of both countries in the future.
  7.27 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: A few moments ago an hon. Member paid tribute to all those who have died in Rhodesia, on whichever side, because, he said, they had fought for what they believed in. However, when history looks

  1391
  back at what has happened in the past 14 years, one of the many questions that will be asked is whether many of those deaths could have been avoided and whether they achieved very much. The question will also arise whether many of the people who fought because they believed that UDI was correct and because they had been told that never in a thousand years would majority rule come to Rhodesia would have done the same had they known that it would arrive in 14 years.
  When I was in the Foreign Office—I might say at the height of my political career—I took part in the drawing up of an independence constitution. It was a time of rejoicing and joyousness. The people from the country concerned left the negotiations convinced that whatever happened afterwards they would be left with the basis for proper organisation, independence based on majority rule and the rights of minorities safeguarded. There was no mistrust and suspicion on anybody's part.
  One reason why some Conservatives think that we in the Labour Party are being a little churlish—that has been said about some of my hon. Friends today—stems from our attitude to the fact that throughout the negotiations the fears of the Patriotic Front have not been voiced by the Government. The Government have given the impression from the beginning when we had the first Bill that everyone agreed that we were only a short way from total agreement, with only one or two minor matters to be tidied up. That just is not true. It would have been much better if the Government had spelt out the desperate worries of the Patriotic Front about the different points.
  I repeat that I am delighted with the negotiations that have taken place and that they have got so far, but I constantly find myself in the position of having to ask "What about this issue or that matter"? This is not a question of being unduly pessimistic or saying that one does not want to see success. What is important, particularly for the future, is that the fears of those people whose lives are at stake should be voiced. Why is there mistrust and suspicion? There are many reasons, apart from the history of Southern Rhodesia.
  1392
  The visit of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to Lusaka for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference was preceded by a statement that gave every indication that the Government were poised to recognise the Muzorewa regime. The right hon. Lady said in the House that there was no need for the fighting to go on one moment longer. I can produce quote after quote referring to fair and free elections in Southern Rhodesia at that time. There is so much evidence that I do not believe it is necessary for me to read long screeds to the House.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: If the hon. Lady had been present during the debate in this House before the Lusaka conference and had listened to what the Prime Minister said, she would agree, on reflection, that what she has just said is untrue.
  Miss Lestor: It is absolutely true that, as time went on, the position of the Government in relation to the Muzorewa regime changed. The emphasis had changed before the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary went to Lusaka. Until the agreement at Lusaka to hold the Lancaster House conference, the Patriotic Front was under the distinct impression that we had agreed that the elections were fair and free and that the whole issue was on the point of being settled. There is no way in which that can be denied.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: My hon. Friend will recall that in successive statements from the Dispatch Box the Prime Minister said that great progress had been made in Rhodesia as a result of the March 1978 elections and that she doubted whether there was anything left worth fighting for.
  Miss Lestor: The Prime Minister said that there was no need for the fighting to go on any longer. In that situation—although no one was more delighted than I that the outcome of Lusaka was the Lancaster House conference—it is understandable that people are suspicious and nervous. That has accounted for the atmosphere in the negotiations.
  Mr. Victor Good hew Mr. Victor Good hew (St. Albans) rose—
  Miss Lestor: I shall not give way now. I will do so later if the hon. Gentleman

  1393
  wishes to intervene. I wish to reiterate one or two points about how people vote and who will vote. This is important if we are to achieve an atmosphere of trust at the time of the elections.
  I received a recent parliamentary reply from the Lord Privy Seal on the question of refugees. A day or so later I received a letter, for which I was most grateful, which said
  "On reflection, I think I should have said a little about the position of the refugees in relation to voting and how they will be resettled."
  There is great concern about the fact that all sorts of people, as well as refugees, will have to be accommodated on the question of voting. How will arrangements be made for voting by the guerrillas? There is also the question of people in this country and their part in the voting.
  The question has been raised about the breaking of the ceasefire after we understood that it had been accepted by the Muzorewa Government. We were told that raids were taking place on Mozambique and Zambia because guerrillas were infiltrating—I think that was the word—into Rhodesia. If that sort of atmosphere exists, we are a long way from persuading the Patriotic Front that all is well. When all is said and done, the people infiltrating into Rhodesia are infiltrating their own country. It seems emotive language to say that these guerrillas are infiltrating.
  We need to know when it will be safe for those who have been conducting a war to return to Rhodesia and to take part in the arrangements for the elections that are about to take place. These matters have caused grave mistrust among the Patriotic Front. I find alarming the fact that the Government do not voice these concerns or explain how the problems are to be overcome. Reference has been made to a statement by South Africa about the consequences if a Marxist Government emerge from the elections in Rhodesia. The word "Marxist" is used loosely in British politics. One has only to say that there are two classes in society and one is labelled a Marxist without being given any further explanation. But that statement has been made, and the Patriotic Front is naturally concerned.
  The Patriotic Front fears that if it is regarded as Marxist and if the British Government fail to repudiate the
  1394
  statement, or fail to say what they will do, there is danger of the Patriotic Front not being allowed to participate in the result of a democratic election. All these matters have to be cleared up.
  At what point is Zimbabwe free and independent? It is being returned to legality. But we want to be satisfied that the elections are conducted in circumstances that take into account all the matters I have mentioned. We want to be satisfied of the right to participate for all the groups whose participation is very much in question. We want the elections to be conducted in a way that is fair and free. Only when that point has been satisfied can we say that Zimbabwe is independent and grant independence. If that point is not satisfied and elections have not been fair and free, how can those who feel that they have not been free and fair come back to the British Government saying "It has not happened as you said. Things went drastically wrong"? That question must be answered.
  Mr. Goodhew: I want to refer the hon. Lady to 1961, when Sir Edgar Whitehead, as Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, as it then was, and part of the federation, produced a constitution that was bound in time to bring the black Africans to power on the basis of their education and their financial situation. Mr. Joshua Nkomo welcomed that proposal with great gratitude and then went off to see Mr. Nkrumah of Ghana. Many other countries had taken an interest in the situation. Mr. Nkomo was told to go back and demand nothing less than "one man, one vote." But if Mr. Nkomo had accepted that 1961 constitution we would not have been in the present situation. There would have been a black African Government long ago. Does not the hon. Lady think that some of her own hon. Friends might have encouraged Mr. Nkomo to listen to hon. Members in this House instead of the people in Africa?
  Miss Lestor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not apportioning blame, going back to 1961, for today's situation. I happen to believe that one man and one woman with one vote each is the best possible basis for independence in any country. I do not intend to go back to what Joshua Nkomo was advised long

  1395
  ago. I am concerned with the here and the now and the situation 14 years after UDI was declared.
  Mr. Goodhew: It would have been very different.
  Miss Lestor: I want the independence of Zimbabwe to take place. I want the elections to be successful. Like many of my hon. Friends who have played a part in these matters for so long, I am as concerned as anyone that they should succeed. I ask, however, that the Lord Privy Seal should give answers to questions about arrangements on the ceasefire, the return of people to their own country, wherever they may be, the arrangements for voting and the position of South Africa. All these matters have to be cleared up before I can give a welcome to the Bill. Another question that has to be answered is at what point Zimbabwe is independent. Will that be after we are satisfied that elections have been free and fair or immediately they have taken place?
  7.39 pm
  Mr. loan Evans: The long saga of events since 1964 has involved a number of renewals of the sanctions order and various other debates. Those of us who have taken part in those debates are pleased that we have a Bill that we hope will lead to fair and free elections and that for the first time Zimbabwe is to have a Government who truly represent all the people.
  It is a little early to pay tribute to any successes, although the Government have played an important part in getting a settlement. I am reminded of the situation in France and its problems with Algeria. The French people returned de Gaulle to power thinking that the situation would not change, but he immediately set about giving independence to Algeria.
  I think that the Smith regime was holding out in the hope that a Conservative Government would be returned to power in this country. Some Conservative Members—not a majority—would have liked a settlement with Smith many years ago. They objected to Labour Governments insisting on sanctions and seeking a constitution that would be recognised not enabling Bill was brought forward before
  1396
  only by the people of Zimbabwe but throughout the world.
  It has been worth waiting for this moment. We are to see the election of a Government in Zimbabwe who, unlike the illegal regime that could never find one other Government to recognise it, will be recognised in the Commonwealth and the United Nations.
  Mr. Goodhew: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the constitution that was acceptable to Joshua Nkomo in 1961, and which would have given him all he hoped for sooner than he had expected, should have been supported by Labour Members?
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is talking about Mr. Nkrumah, who passed away at least 15 years ago. We must recognise that Joshua Nkomo and the other leaders of the Patriotic Front have taken a stand in the belief that certain principles are important. We must pay tribute to those men, who will emerge as leaders of Zimbabwe. Under the Smith regime they spent decades in prison. I believe that their suffering has been made worth while by what has been achieved.
  In Opposition, the Conservative Party implied that there would be a sell-out on Rhodesia, but the Heath and Home Governments did not sell out to the illegal regime, and that is to their credit. We have waited 14 years to get the correct decision. Let us make sure that it is right. Do not let us fall at the final hurdle. We must be patient. The Patriotic Front has been fighting for liberty and its leaders are trying to get guarantees of fair and free elections. We have to be patient in discussing the problems.
  For years after the war with Japan ended there were still people fighting on the islands in the South Pacific. They had not even heard that the war was over. Of course, communications have improved since then, but those fighting the guerrilla war in Zimbabwe are cut off from the media, and we must allow enough time to ensure that the fighting has stopped.
  It is to the credit of the Government that they want a just solution and to allow the people of Zimbabwe to vote in free and fair elections, but do not let us rush it. I did not understand why the

  1397
  the negotiations had reached a conclusion. Of course, the Government had a problem with some of their Back Benchers on the sanctions order, and that is why the Opposition agreed to the enabling Bill going through.
  The Bill before us has been brought forward even though there is still no ceasefire in Zimbabwe. I hope that nothing untoward happens, but for the Governor to go to Salisbury when a civil war is still being fought is fraught with danger.
  I hope that we shall guarantee that the various political parties that are to fight the election will have equal access to the broadcasting media. It is vital that justice is not only done but is seen to be done and that political liberty is not only given but is seen to be given. Whatever part may have been played by any person in previous Rhodesian Governments or in the struggle for freedom, all parties must be given equal access to the media.
  Why did the illegal regime last for so long? I believe that it was not because economic sanctions were wrong but because they were not applied as they should have been. There are those in this country who have flouted the will of the people as expressed by the House. That is in the past, but we must recognise that the reason why we could not bring the illegal regime back to legality was that the main saboteurs were South Africa and the former Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique.
  When Angola and Mozambique became independent, the Rhodesian regime was sustained by South Africa. There have been reports that South African troops have poured over the border into Zimbabwe. We must insist that the South African troops get out of Zimbabwe. We cannot have fair elections unless those troops are withdrawn. We need copper-bottomed guarantees that they are no longer in Zimbabwe.
  As I mentioned earlier, it is difficult for the Patriotic Front to meet the conditions of the ceasefire, and further time must be allowed for that to happen. It is all very well to say that it should come to rendezvous points and move to assembly points, but the Patriotic Front is kept in confined areas. We have to give it guarantees that it will not be treated
  1398
  differently from the existing forces of the Rhodesian regime.
  I have certain reservations about giving the Bill a Second Reading, but I hope that all goes well and that before long there will be elections. We must be assured that the elections will be free and fair. It has been a long struggle to ensure that the majority in Rhodesia are able to determine their destiny. I hope that it will not be long before they have real independence and we welcome Rhodesia into the Commonwealth, and that Rhodesia will then play an active part in the United Nations.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Edward Rowlands: This ought to be a major moment in the parliamentary history of the issues governing Rhodesia. After 14 years, during which passions have raged in the many debates that have taken place in a packed House, we come to the significant moment of bringing Zimbabwe to independence, yet from the beginning of the debate the House has been empty. That is an astonishing comment. Perhaps the House is empty because passions have been spent during the annual debates on sanctions orders. I am trying to claim a personal world record of having wound up more debates on these orders than any Minister in the past 14 years.
  The Bill represents an important and major step in the processes that should bring to a conclusion the 14-year saga of Rhodesia. Many of my hon. Friends have been right continually to remind the House that, whatever we may say about the present position, it is sad and tragic that it has been war—the gun and the bomb—that has brought us to the point at which we can look forward to an independent Zimbabwe and freedom for more than 5 million black Africans. Thousands of young people were forced to take to the gun to try to ensure the rights that we have enjoyed for so long.
  Anyone who has been involved in the problems of trying to achieve a settlement in Rhodesia should have learnt a degree of humility. Even at this last moment, Ministers must have their fingers crossed. They must be touching wood and devoutly praying—as we all are—that nothing will jeopardise a successful conclusion to the Lancaster House talks, followed by a ceasefire and free and fair

  1399
  elections that will establish a truly independent Zimbabwe.
  The issue has been important and significant for the past 14 years because it has involved the freedom, the rights and the opportunities of more than 5 million black Africans. They have not enjoyed those rights because of the decision made in 1965 by Mr. Smith to declare illegal independence and establish a racial Government, without rights for the majority.
  Anyone who has been involved in the Rhodesian problem will know that it has been a major test of the willingness of successive British Governments to stand up for the rights and freedoms of black Africans. African countries in the Commonwealth have considered that a major test. During my travels through Africa, often a long way from Southern Africa and Rhodesia, I have been stopped at airports by journalists and questioned by Ministers in many other parts of Africa about our stand and been made aware of the deep distrust, the sense of suspician and the feeling that we would not live up to the principles which the House had laid down but which successive British Governments had failed to implement.
  The achievement of a settlement is one of the great prizes for the freedom of 5 million people and for Britain's relationships with Africa and the Commonwealth. Though many of my hon. Friends have been critical and expressed reservations, we wish and hope that the Bill will lead to an independent Zimbabwe.
  Equally, Opposition Members are right to question the position in which the House finds itself in debating the Bill. Hon Member after hon Member has said that it is curious to bring forward a Bill to give independence before a constitutional conference has been completed, before agreements have been reached, before a ceasefire has been achieved and before a transitional process for free and fair elections has taken place. There is no precedent for that.
  Rhodesia has presented many unprecedented situations—we understand that—and we are entitled to ask: is it so necessary to do this at this moment? It is regrettable that the Government could not ensure that a consensus would
  1400
  be achieved in the House. That could still happen if the Government were prepared to listen to some of the propositions that we shall put forward this evening. We find ourselves in an odd position. If we pass the Bill, it will be the final act. There is no other legislative act that will bring Rhodesia to independence. If we pass the Bill, in all its stages, there is only one process left, and that is an Order in Council. If the Bill remains unamended, it will not even be subject to parliamentary approval and debate.
  We are right to say—and we shall be saying it in greater detail in Committee—that that is wrong. It is not sensible, and we feel that the House should not be treated in such a way. It is not sensible because, after 14 years of pretending to have power and responsibility over Rhodesia—that has been an illusion—we have assumed proper and full responsibility and power for the government and administration of Rhodesia. We cannot sign off—as we should be doing if the Bill were passed without amendment—and say that there is nothing more for the House to do by way of further legislative acts.
  The principle of the Bill is accepted. We wish and hope that the ceasefire will be agreed. That wish is unanimous. We hope that the transitional arrangements will work and will lead to free and fair elections. However, we are entitled to say—as we have been saying during the debate—that there should be one further and final stage before the date of independence is announced. The House should resolve and make that decision itself. It is the fundamental difference remaining between us. We have been put in an almost impossible position because there is no constitutional conference report—althtough there have been a number of documents that one could read to work out the pattern—as there has been for other independence discussions, constitutions and procedures.
  I have been involved in no fewer than five sets of independence discussions, admittedly involving mini-States, but the plan was always to bring a constitutional report before the House and then move forward with appropriate legislation. We are reversing that procedure, and that is why extra transitional provisions are needed in the Bill to ensure that

  1401
  the House does not sign off and wash its hands, legislatively, of the remaining stages of independence.
  As many of my hon. Friends have said, there have not yet been free and fair elections. Commonwealth observation will be an intrinsic part of the transitional period. Parliament should have an observer team. There should be a parliamentary Committee there. It seems that everyone else will be observing the elections. The House, which has responsibility for deciding whether the fifth principle has been fully met, should have the opportunity to observe.
  The value of the House observing the elections and of having the process of Commonwealth observation is that that would authenticate what took place. If that is done, it will be possible at the end of the transitional period to say "The elections were free and fair. Therefore, we should name independence day." However, if the Bill is enacted unamended, as is proposed, that process will not take place. That means that the House will not have the opportunity to say that the elections were free and fair. In those circumstances, it will not be possible for the House to accept, or otherwise, an order that provides the date of independence.
  The Opposition believe that this is the last legislative moment in the whole process. That being so, I must ask certain questions about the interim transitional arrangements. What is the Government's thinking about the length of the transition? There were heated debates when we considered the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. Our arguments were central and germane to the Lancaster House negotiations. The relevance of those arguments to the Bill turns on the appointed day for independence.
  Are we talking about two months from today, or from the day when the Governor sets foot on Salisbury soil for the first time? Are we talking about X months after the completion of the discussions? If agreement is reached by the weekend, the ceasefire arrangements are agreed and the Lancaster House conference comes to a successful conclusion, what will be the time scale? I do not seek to pin the Under-Secretary of State down to a minute, an hour or a day; I am merely asking for an idea of the time
  1402
  scale before we are confronted with the vital issue of the appointed day.
  Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the position of the South African Government, and especially South African troops. At present there are regulars and irregulars inside Rhodesia. As from today, Rhodesia is a Crown colony. That is the position de facto as well as theoretically. What are the Governor's instructions in that regard in the vital weeks ahead?
  Once we have approved the Bill, we have finished legislatively. We shall have completed our parliamentary responsibilities. However, I devoutly hope and pray that in the spirit of amity that now exists the Lord Privy Seal, or the Under-Secretary of State, will be able to say that the Government are willing to accept at least one significant change to the Bill to ensure that there will be a final parliamentary legislative change in the form of a debate on one of the orders after free and fair elections have taken place.
  In Committee we shall wish to consider two or three major issues that the Bill raises. The Lord Privy Seal had a tough task explaining in layman's language the nationality provisions. My sympathy for him was considerable. Anyone who has wandered into the labyrinth of international law finds that he goes quickly or slightly insane, or loses his way. However, the provisions are profoundly serious. We must bear in mind the nationality problems that surrounded the Kenya Asians and arose also in dealing with a host of other Bills. Many questions remain unanswered about the position of certain groups of citizens within each and every society because of the complications of the relevant provisions. These issues are crucial, and they often emerge two or three years later as major problems to confront various groups in position of certain groups of citizens withdrawn in constitutional and political terms. We need answers that are comprehensible and couched in layman's language.
  Who are the exceptional people referred to in schedule 1? There are those who are described in paragraph 3 as "subject to limited exceptions". The Minister should not merely refer to various subsections of nationality law. Who are these people? What sort of persons are we talking about? Are they

  1403
  white or are they black? Who are those with close connections with Britain who will be able to qualify under the special provisions of the schedule? Obviously we cannot discuss the detail on Second Reading, but it will be helpful if, in general terms, the Under-Secretary of State will allay our worries and concerns about the nationality provisions.
  We shall wish to discuss the amnesty provisions. It is not what is in the Bill but what is not in it that is of the greatest concern to my right hon. and hon. Friends. What is the position of sanctions busters who are now under investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions? I understand that clause 3 does not exempt or free British companies, for example, which have deceitfully or cynically evaded or broken sanctions law. I understand that the clause does not extend the amnesty to them.
  When the Bill has been enacted, we do not want to have a hole-in-the-corner statement or a written answer by the Attorney-General that indemnifies existing sanctions busters. I am sure that I should not be suspicious, but a few days ago there were hints that a statement would be made. Following that, there were rumours that there would be no statement. The Under-Secretary of State should clarify the issue.
  There is a difference in principle between indemnifying individuals in Rhodesia under United Kingdom law—that includes a Governor's order in Rhodesia, applying to both sides, despite their involvement in illegal acts during the past 14 years—and indemnifying firms that have cynically broken United Kingdom laws in the past few years by breaking sanctions. If the slate is wiped clean for the second category, that is very different from taking the same attitude towards and action against those who, as the Opposition understand it, have been involved in activities covered by clause 3. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us clearly and unequivocally the position of those who are suspected of or under investigation for having broken sanctions.
  The Bill is about the granting of freedom and independence to over 5 million people, the majority of whom have been deprived of freedom, rights and
  1404
  opportunities for generations. They have suffered racial and political persecution. Their interests have been the preoccupation of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber since 1965, and even before that. I hope and pray that the Bill will usher in freedom, opportunities and a multi-racial society, a society with complete racial harmony within Rhodesia. I hope that we shall be able to put behind us the past miserable 14 years, during which successive Governments have failed to repay a debt of honour that successive Governments and both parties have accepted.
  I hope that we can start talking about Rhodesia without the bitterness and the passions of the past. I hope that we shall no longer have to talk about sanctions, deprivation, persecution, killings, bombings, guerrillas and illegality. I hope that we can concentrate on peaceful development in a land that is capable of offering a prosperous and harmonious society.
  8.9 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and I have been on opposite sides on many occasions when debating Rhodesia. I think that we would both agree that this occasion is a historic and important one for the future of Rhodesia—shortly to be called Zimbabwe. I welcome the general spirit demonstrated during the debate and the desire expressed on all sides to see the Bill succeed, to see Rhodesia proceed as quickly as possible to independence and to see an end to the war.
  I have noticed some unwillingness to accept the progress that has recently been made by the Government and by all the parties involved in Rhodesia. During the last six months we have had extensive consultations with representatives from many parts of Africa and the Western world, and, of course, we attended the important Commonwealth conference at Lusaka. We are now in our fourteenth week at Lancaster House, and the constitution, pre-independence arrangements and proposals for a ceasefire have been agreed. Agreement has been reached on all outstanding political issues. All the problems that previously stood in the way of legal independence have now been removed.

  1405
  Successive Governments have struggled with this problem since the early 1960s. Many Governments, in many parts of the world, urged us, month after month and year after year during the 1960s and 1970s, to exercise our responsibilities towards Rhodesia. The British Government are now prepared to take on those responsibilities, however difficult. Anyone who denies that the task will be difficult is very green indeed. Our desire to exercise those responsibilities has been demonstrated by the arrival in Salisbury this afternoon of Lord Soames as Governor. We have achieved what successive Labour and Conservative Governments failed to achieve for over 14 years. We can now return Rhodesia to legality.
  To achieve that stage has required patience in negotiation, boldness, decisiveness and a willingness to take risks. That balance has been demonstrated by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State and by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal during the negotiations of the last three months. The Governor has arrived, and momentum towards a final peace will be maintained. The Governor's presence will help to stabilise the country and normalise relations with neighbouring countries. He will also be able to prepare plans for the implementation of the ceasefire. It is now easier for the Patriotic Front to come in, as it will be reassured by the presence of the Governor and by the fact that the Rhodesian forces have pledged their loyalty and are accountable to the Governor.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Have the Rhodesian forces pledged their loyalty? Have they been asked to take an oath of allegiance?
  Mr. Luce: It was agreed at the Lancaster House conference that on the arrival of the Governor all Rhodesian forces would be accountable to him. That is the case as from today.
  Whatever we do involves risks and dangers. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) made that point effectively. It would have been more dangerous had we delayed and not sent a Governor. The hon. Member for Inverness quoted from a letter that appeared in The Times of today from Lord Caradon, who wrote:
  "no risk I feel sure, would have been greater than the risk of doing nothing"
  1406
  That is true, and it is important. If one does not take the plunge or take risks, the chances of progress are that much less.
  The introduction of the independence Bill is seen against that background. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal carefully explained the purposes of the Bill, and I shall not labour the points concerning citizenship again, as there will be a debate later during the Committee stage. However, we can now see the basis on which independence will be granted. The constitution provides for genuine majority rule and the country will return to legality through free and fair elections under British supervision. That is our responsibility. There will be a British election commission, British supervisors and Commonwealth as well as British observers.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil wanted to know why the Bill was being introduced now, and as other hon. Members have also raised that question I must comment on it. As the hon. Member said, we face a unique situation and we must demonstrate to the parties concerned in Rhodesia that we will fulfil our obligations. By passing this legislation we shall make that clear to them. We want to show them that we mean business, that we will fulfil our side of the undertaking, and that we wish to maintain the momentum of the last three months. If that momentum is not maintained, the fragility of the exercise will increase.
  It is important to give to Rhodesian citizens as much advance warning as possible of the Bill's implications, particularly about the citizenship and amnesty provisions. It is exceedingly important, therefore, to persuade the House to put the Bill on the statute book by Christmas. I am in a dilemma, and my options depend upon the mood of the House. Many wide-ranging points have been raised during the debate, and I therefore suggest that I answer as many as I can, as quickly as possible.
  I hope that the House will accept that as there will be a debate in Committee on citizenship I should answer those questions in more detail then, as there are many other points to cover.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Why is it necessary to take Zimbabwe out of the

  1407
  Commonwealth in order to allow it to return?
  Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman raised that question previously, as did several other hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked whether there were any other precedents for a country attaining independence without being a member of the Commonwealth and then applying to join it. The answer is that there are. Precedents have been set in Cyprus, Western Samoa and Bangladesh. The case of Rhodesia will not be unique. However, a salient point made by several hon. Members concerned the question why we could not have made an assumption that Rhodesia—or Zimbabwe, when independence is gained—would wish to be in the Commonwealth, and that it would be for that country to opt out if it so wished.
  My right hon. Friend and I would have much preferred that, and we see the force of those arguments. On the other hand, we think that it is wrong to pre-empt the views of the people of Rhodesia and their future leaders who are elected under free and fair elections. Secondly, in order to achieve membership of the Commonwealth, any country must obtain the acceptance of the Commonwealth as a whole, as I am sure the House knows. That has not been obtained. For those two main reasons, it is right that we approach the matter in this way.
  I move on to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Inverness and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) about economic assistance. The hon. Member for Inverness asked about economic assistance to neighbouring States, particularly Zambia. As he knows, a great deal of economic assistance is already given to Zambia. I think that he mentioned Tanzania as well. Both countries already receive assistance. I am sure that the whole House would agree that if the fighting comes to an end, as we hope it will shortly, and there is peace and stability in Rhodesia, the prospects for the neighbouring countries to improve their own standards of living and prosperity are much greater.
  Even today, on the arrival of the Governor, he has decided to resume the supplies of maize to Zambia. That is another example of the kind of positive
  1408
  measure that the arrival of the Governor can provide. Of course, it will be for us, in terms of our bilateral relations with countries such as Zambia, to review the situation once the settlement in Rhodesia is completed. As I said, a great deal of assistance is already given to Zambia.
  I turn to the question of assistance to Rhodesia. If, after independence, the new Government wish to enter into negotiations with us about the provision of economic assistance, we have already made it plain at Lancaster House, as well as in this House, that we shall consider any requests very carefully. I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester that such economic assistance cannot be used directly for the provision of compensation for land that is expropriated. Of course, it can be used—we have offered it already—for the purpose of assisting any future Government in Rhodesia in a land resettlement policy. But that is something rather different from providing aid for compensation for expropriated land. I hope that that goes some way towards answering my hon. Friend's point.
  Many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), raised the question of the media. The position is quite clear, and we have made it quite clear at Lancaster House. It is the duty of the Governor and the British election commission to ensure that all parties have a fair and equal opportunity and access to the media and that there will have to be editorial balance by the broadcasting authority. The House may like to know that the Governor took with him a special adviser on radio and television matters from the Central Office of Information who will be at his disposal. However, we would also wish to take into account the views that have been expressed in the House with regard to the advice that is available to the Governor in relation to the media.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Would it not be equally sensible to have some advice from the BBC, which, after all, has a great fund of knowledge on this matter?
  Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that that is a matter for the Governor. He will now be in a position in which he can make a judgment

  1409
  on the question whether it might be helpful to have further advice from this country. We certainly take that point on board, and I am sure that the Governor does as well.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) made an encouraging indication that he felt that if the Government continued on their present course he would be prepared to continue to support them throughout this Parliament. We are most grateful to him for that offer.
  Mr. David Price: It was qualified.
  Mr. Luce: It was qualified. I should like to reassure him on the point that he raised about the procedure for the Governor's departure. We have been rather preoccupied with questions arising from the Governor's arrival. However, the Governor will depart on the day of independence. By that I mean that elections will take place. Arrangements will then have to be made for the election of a Senate, and arising from that there will have to be the election of a president. At that stage, after the formation of a Government and the election of a president, the Governor will be able to hand over and independence will take place. I hope that that clarifies that point.
  Many hon. Members raised the questions about the ceasefire, including the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd). Without going into the details of the discussions at Lancaster House, I think that it will suffice to say that the success of this whole exercise—the ceasefire and the pre-independence arrangements—dependson the will of all the parties to fulfil the Lancaster House agreement. If that will is not maintained—although I have every faith in its being maintained—whatever party infringes that agreement must be held accountable for so doing. At the end of the day, this exercise will succeed only if that will is maintained until independence day.
  A number of questions were posed about the problem relating to the assembly points for the Patriotic Front. I do not want to go into too much detail about that, because it is still being discussed at Lancaster House and we have put forward the detailed implementation of our
  1410
  proposals. However, I should like to take up one point raised by the hon. Member for York, who suggested that the assembly points would be detention camps. That is very far from the truth and very far from the Government's intention.
  The whole purpose of this exercise is to give a greater degree of stability and security during the course of the ceasefire. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, these assembly points, which will be located in various parts of Rhodesia, will have their own arms and commanders. They will be well distanced from Rhodesian force bases and company locations. They will not be adjacent to them. Of course, there will be monitors under British command who will be available at the assembly points. I appreciate that there is anxiety on all sides, but I hope that the House will agree that our proposals go a long way towards allaying those fears.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If there is some small outbreak of disorder—for example, if some of the Patriotic Front troops get drunk, or if there is an incident—who will put it down? Will it be the other Patriotic Front forces or will it be the security forces?
  Mr. Luce: We discussed this issue many times before during the proceedings on the Southern Rhodesia Bill. At the end of the day, all the forces are responsible to the Governor. As we have already explained many times, the civil police will have the primary responsibility for the maintenance of law and order. It will be their job primarily to deal with such incidents. At the end of the day, both the Patriotic Front and the Rhodesian security forces are at the disposal of the Governor. In addition, of course, the ceasefire commission and the monitors will deal with incidents as and when they arise.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Are there not two matters that are important in this regard? First, the assembly points are around the periphery of Rhodesia, whereas a great deal of Patriotic Front support is in the central area. Therefore, the people are being asked to move out from their areas of strength. Secondly, by virtue of being within the camps, the people are in fixed locations, whereas the forces of the existing Administration will

  1411
  remain mobile. Surely, those two matters are of some concern to the Patriotic Front.
  Mr. Luce: With regard to the location of the assembly points, the difficulty—as it always is with discussions in the House—is that, while it is important to have as much information as possible, the final details will be discussed between the parties at Lancaster House. We have made clear in our detailed proposals that there will be a process of reciprocal disengagement. All the forces will withdraw to their respective locations. The final details of those proposals are in the hands of the Patriotic Front. We hope that it will accept the reassurances that we have made about such matters as the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) raised an important point about keeping the House informed of developments in Rhodesia over the coming weeks. I give him an absolute assurance that we will do our best to keep the House informed at every stage when we believe that there has been an important development about which the House has a right to know.
  A number of comments were made about the amnesty proposals by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester and others. The proposals in clause 3 of the Bill deal with an amnesty in United Kingdom law. The Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 enables the British Governor in Rhodesia to deal with an amnesty within Rhodesia itself. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has promised that he will shortly make a statement about the proposals to deal with an amnesty in Rhodesia. It can be dealt with by means of an ordinance in Rhodesia. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's point. It would become law during the pre-independence period and after independence.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) asked many questions, and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not answer them all. There was an exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh about the responsibility for ending sanctions. Successive Labour and Conservative Governments have made clear that the imposition of sanctions depended on whether or
  1412
  not legality existed in Rhodesia. As we have now proceeded to legality as from today, there is no justification, in our view, for the continuation of sanctions. Against that background, our permanent representative at the United Nations has informed the President of the Security Council that we are lifting sanctions from today.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Now that sanctions are lifted, what happens if, after the elections, the Rhodesian security forces do not like the elected Government and a coup takes place? How will the Government reimpose sanctions?
  Mr Luce: There are so many "ifs" in life that we could go on for ever anticipating a situation. We are concerned that all the requirements for which we have been asking for years and years—provision of a constitution and for genuine majority rule, adequate arrangements agreed with all the parties to lead to free and fair elections, and then independence—will be agreed at Lancaster House. It is that that concerns us and it is that that has led us to send a Governor to lead Rhodesia to a situation of legality.
  I am trying to gauge the view of the House on the question whether I should go on answering points. I shall briefly take up two or three more points and then I shall seek to wind up.
  The hon. Member for Heeley asked about the size of the monitoring force. The House will be aware that many discussions have been held on the matter.
  Mr. Rowlands: Has the hon. Gentleman finished answering questions about sanctions, or will he deal with the position of those people who face prosecution or who are under investigation for busting sanctions?
  Mr. Luce: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, that matter will be discussed in the course of the discussion on the amendment on the subject of the amnesty. It is a major issue. My right hon. and noble Friend will make a statement on the wider question of an amnesty and sanctions in due course.
  As the House knows, there has been a considerable amount of discussion at Lancaster House about the size of the monitoring force. Our original proposal was for a force of 500 or 600. As a result of discussions at Lancaster House,

  1413
  we have now agreed that the size of the force should be 1,200. Of course, it is at the discretion of the Governor, if he decides that he needs to increase the force, but in our judgment—and there is a British military adviser there, General Acland, at the Governor's disposal—the size of the force is adequate to deal with the job. We have responded to representations that have been made to us on this subject.
  Many hon. Members raised questions about foreign intervention, including the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil. I should like to reiterate a point that has been made already by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State. During the pre-independence period and after the presence, therefore, of the Governor in Salisbury, there can be and will be no foreign involvement.
  What happens after independence is not something that Great Britain can anticipate or deal with. We could ask ourselves any number of questions as to which country is likely to invade which other country and what we are prepared to do about it. After that, the country is independent and any country that seeks to invade the country of Rhodesia would bear very heavy responsibilities indeed for taking such action. I think that that is as far as I can go on that point.
  The martial law courts will be suspended today, on the Governor's arrival. It has been agreed by all the parties at Lancaster House that once the ceasefire has been finally agreed and implemented, martial law will be removed altogether.
  The final answer that I should like to give is to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and concerns the timetable, about which there were exchanges earlier. The position is still as I described previously. That is that once the ceasefire is implemented—by that, I do not mean the time the agreement at Lancaster House is finalised—implemented and brought into force, the period between then and the date of the election will be about two months. As the hon. Gentleman rightly anticipated, I cannot give him a precise date, because we are still reaching final agreement this week at Lancaster House. The position, therefore, remains the same.
  I hope that the House will have borne with me as I have been trying to answer
  1414
  the many questions raised during the debate.
  No one should underestimate the importance of this Bill, let alone the other measures that we are taking, to the people of Rhodesia, to the neighbouring countries around Rhodesia, to Britain and to the Western world, because we are here and in our other measures creating conditions that give us a chance to bring peace to that country. I put it no higher than that, but I believe that there is a very good chance indeed of bringing an end to the tragic loss of life, the loss of limbs, and the destruction of property and of a beautiful country. To bring about conditions such as these requires courage and decisiveness. We get nowhere in life unless, occasionally, we take the plunge. As Franklin Roosevelt once said, there is nothing to fear but fear itself. In this situation we must bear that in mind.
  Quite apart from creating the right conditions to give a prospect of bringing about peace, it is essential to see that two other factors exist. One is the spirit of reconciliation and compromise. I must tell the House that I believe that that has existed at Lancaster House. If it can exist there, it can exist in the country of Rhodesia in the next few months, proceeding to independence.
  Secondly, there must be a spirit of trust. At the end of the day, however many bits of paper we exchange, there must be trust in the British Government that we have every intention of fulfilling those obligations to which we have agreed at Lusaka and at Lancaster House. I think it only right, therefore, that we should invite the black and white people of Rhodesia to put their trust in us. We realise how great our responsibility is and that the onus rests on us.
  Let us leave it not to this House but to historians to judge who is to blame for the tragic story of Rhodesia over the last 15 years. Tonight let us concentrate our minds on how we can create the right conditions for bringing about peace. I believe that the Bill contributes to that aim. If we can concentrate our minds on bringing about peace, I hope that the House will unite in supporting the Bill on Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Berry.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 1

  INDEPENDENCE FOR ZIMBABWE
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Shore: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert
  'no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.
  The Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 3, in page 1, line 16, at end insert:
  '(4) No Order in Council shall be made under this section before a report from the Commonwealth observers that the election was free and fair has been submitted to and accepted by resolution of both Houses of Parliament'.
  No. 4, in page 1, line 16, at end insert:
  '(4) No Order in Council shall be made under this section before a report by the Governor, advised by the Commonwealth observers and the Election Commission, that the election was free and fair has been submitted to and accepted by resolution of both Houses of Parliament'.
  No. 5, in page 1, line 16, at end insert:
  '(4) No Order in Council shall be made under this section before a report from the Election Council that the election was free and fair has been submitted to and accepted by resolution of both Houses of Parliament'.
  No. 6, in page 1, line 16, at end insert:
  '(4) No Order in Council shall be made under this section until a report from the Election Commission has been submitted to both Houses of Parliament and both Houses of Parliament have determined by resolution that the election was free and fair'.
  Mr. Shore: The Committee will by now be sufficiently familiar with clause 1 to understand that it deals with the independence of Zimbabwe and that it envisages an independence day which has yet to be proclaimed. As the Lord Privy Seal told us, that day will be some time after the election has taken place and after
  1416
  the Governor has consulted the newly elected Prime Minister of Zimbabwe and, I assume, the other political leaders.
  I come straight to the point. As clause 1(3) stands, as far as the House of Commons is concerned, all that is to happen is that an Order in Council—and I quote the words of the clause—
  "…shall be laid before Parliament after being made."
  In other words, there is no provision that the Order in Council should be approved by Parliament.
  I devoted part of my speech on Second Reading to the reasons why we feel that that is unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), who wound up for the Opposition on Second Reading, paid considerable attention to this point and I need not labour the point again. Our amendment sets out what we believe to be the most effective and sensible way of once more bringing before the scrutiny of Parliament the events and the many developments which are bound to take place between our discussion of the Bill today and the post-election independence of Zimbabwe. We cannot easily envisage the development of the events of the next 10 to 12 weeks. We all have a feeling that many things will happen and that it will be a fraught period. At least we know that an election is to be held. Perhaps that is the most important internal event for Zimbabwe.
  The way in which that election is to be conducted is of the utmost importance. We shall need to be satisfied that the election has been free and fair. That is the essence of what is required in Zimbabwe. It is the one major matter about which we must be satisfied before we say "Yes" to an order which nominates a day as independence day. It is wrong to decide now that we have nothing more to say, regardless of how the election takes place, regardless of the train of events and regardless of the scale of irregularities—and, of course, there will be irregularities. That would be irresponsible and unworthy of us in view of the enormous and painful attention that has been given to Rhodesia in the past 14 years.
  We are discussing a number of other amendments and no doubt my hon. Friends will wish to refer to them. They

  1417
  spell out in different ways what I almost take for granted. They assume that in one way or another there will be a report upon the elections in Zimbabwe under the authority of the Governor. They assume that a report will be produced, whether by the Commonwealth observers who are to play an important part in observing and witnessing the election, whether by the Governor, the election commission or a Select Committee of the House. An amendment which was not selected suggested that a Select Committee should make such a report. The origin of the report does not really matter so long as there is an authoritative report on the way in which the election is conducted.
  No hon. Member would say that this was a minor matter. We remember well the rival and often conflicting reports from observers following the elections in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia earlier this year. The arrangements then were inadequate. There should be—indeed, there are bound to be—Commonwealth observers; and with those of our own people who have experience of going to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia there is every possibility of getting an objective and comprehensive report on the election.
  I believe that we should have a report. I am not sure whether we need to embody it in an amendment, but I am certain that whether or not we have a report, and whatever form such a report might take, it is important that the House should have the opportunity, before independence day is nominated or announced by Order in Council, to debate and give judgment upon what has happened in Zimbabwe and to give its consent to the proclamation, as it were, of independence.
  I hope that the Government will not be difficult about that. I hope that they will not parade the old argument that, under the procedures that have been put forward, it is possible that we shall have to wait up to 28 days. We know that that is not so. It would be entirely up to the Government, with an Order in Council of the kind that we suggest, to place the matter before Parliament for decision at any time after that order was laid. Therefore, the matter could be brought before the House, debated and decided within three or four days, if that was what was required, of the election, or after the report upon it had been received. So there
  1418
  should be no argument that it would be inconvenient because of the time span under an affirmative order of the kind for which we have pressed.
  With those arguments in mind, and taking account of the arguments that have been deployed on Second Reading, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment so that we can move on to other matters.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said, the Bill, as presented to us, takes no account of the possibility of the House of Commons debating the procedures of the election that we assume will be held in Rhodesia. The amendments that stand in my name and in the names of some of my hon. Friends are variations on a similar theme, which is to try to ensure that some form of report is made to the House before the final step of independence is taken.
  Throughout our discussions earlier this evening—I suspect that it will occur in later discussions—the thread of the argument has been basically that what is now required for the future of Rhodesia is trust. The Patriotic Front must trust the Government, the Governor and the security forces. It must trust the Government to ensure that the South Africans are withdrawn. We have been asked to have a great deal of trust in the Government.
  However, our difficulty—I expressed it earlier—is that, although we saw the proposals that were deposited in the Library, we saw them after the agreement stage had been reached. We raised points of detail with the Minister. The Minister has said that he has reported regularly to us on the progress of the negotiations, but he has never reported to us on issues of detail.
  Whatever happens from now on, or from whenever the final agreement is reached, we have a responsibility to ensure that as far as possible everything goes well. After the election is over we, as a Parliament, must be able to say that we have discharged our responsibilities to the people of Rhodesia, especially now that we have taken that country back to legality after 14 long years.
  In order to help foster the trust of the parties involved at Lancaster House, we

  1419
  have suggested in our amendments a number of different ways in which a report might be made. I shall give later details of the best solution. The final agreement is being held up by this matter of trust. There is a feeling among members of the Patriotic Front that if they sign an agreement which is not exactly what they would wish but which they have accepted in a spirit of negotiation and compromise, they are expected to take a lot on trust.
  The previous Act was pushed through while negotiations were still in progress. Therefore, if we push through another Act which allows the Government to confer independence on Zimbabwe, the Patriotic Front will feel that there is no way in which it can retrieve the situation if its fears prove to be justified. We must show the parties concerned that we are willing to take another look at the whole issue if things do not work out.
  The major and perhaps the only remaining point of any substance in the details of the ceasefire to be decided is the question of the disposition of the forces and the monitoring of them. According to information provided to the conference, specific areas have been identified where the Patriotic Front forces will rendezvous. These rendezvous points are close to the positions which those forces hold at present. The Patriotic Front forces are being asked to move from these rendezvous points to assembly points on the periphery of the country. In other words, they have been asked to evacuate the centre of the country. I do not make any extravagant claim about the Patriotic Front forces controlling the centre of the country, but the Government appear to recognise and accept that those forces are in these central areas.
  Although the Patriotic Front forces are being asked to move to assembly points, there will be no such movement of the Rhodesian security forces from their areas to specific points. Unless we can find some way of solving this problem, there may not be an agreement at all.
  We seek from the Government an assurance that they will be flexible in their negotiating position, and that that position will not be hard and fast on the question of monitoring. If we cannot have this assurance, there is a grave danger that the present negotiations will
  1420
  be disturbed and all that the Bill represents will be lost.
  In our amendments we canvass a number of specific propositions. First, we believe that there should be a report from the Commonwealth observers to the House of Commons on whether the elections were free and fair. That is not an unreal proposition. In the arrangements agreed at Lancaster House there is provision for Commonwealth observers. As far as I am aware, the number of such observers is not specified. Perhaps that will have to be determined.
  What are the observers to do? Are they simply to go to Rhodesia? If they are unhappy, if they do not believe that things are working out properly and take the view that the elections were not free or fair, what do they do then? Do they just return to their own countries and say that they are not happy? How are they to comment on the way in which the elections have been run? There must be some mechanism by which they can make a report. The place to report to is the House, through the Government or the Governor. They should prepare a specific report to be laid before the House before we put our final seal of approval on the independence constitution.
  The agreed arrangements contain a provision for an election commission. In addition to the Governor and his staff—I do not suppose that they will be involved in the day-to-day work of the commission—there will be representatives of the British Government on the election commission. We understand from the press that numbers of people with experience of elections are waiting to go. In addition, parties contesting the election will be represented on the commission. That will allow investigations and reports of irregularities to be made and give the parties a feeling that they are participating and that the commission is not wholly outside their control. This arrangements will allow them to have trust in the manner in which the elections are conducted.
  9 pm
  I have no reason to doubt the press reports that we are sending out people who are experienced in running elections. They should have a say in determining whether the elections were fair and free. They should have a part to play in reporting to the House on how the elections

  1421
  were run. If anyone thinks that after the election we can simply say "That is all, boys; come home; that is the end of the matter," he should read the proposals. There is a provision in the Lancaster House proposals—I cannot remember whether it is contained in those tabled yesterday or in previous ceasefire proposals—that the monitoring force may remain in Rhodesia if the new Government want it to do so.
  The United Kingdom Government admit the possibility that after the election there may be one or two matters that need sorting out. It may be necessary for the monitoring force of 1,200 men to stay on for a few days, or possibly a few weeks, in case, post election, there is too much exuberance which may spill over into something else. I do not know. The Government are aware of, and have taken on board, the worries of those taking part in the Lancaster House negotiations that all might not go according to plan, even after the election day. Therefore, it is important that there should be a procedure for making a report to Parliament.
  Some Government supporters think that members of the Opposition take too gloomy a view. They think that we are churlish. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said that our fears arose more from sour grapes than genuine concern. It would be foolish if I said that I wished that a Labour Government alone had been able to resolve the matter. I assure Government supporters of my genuine concern to ensure that, if an agreement is reached, it sticks and that there is no trouble after the election. I have a genuine concern that there should be stability in Rhodesia. I visited Angola and Mozambique and saw the aftermath of instability and the possibility of the destabilisation of Governments. Immediately after their election, Governments are very susceptible to destabilisation.
  I do not take lightly the threat made by the South Africans that, if the Government eventually elected in Rhodesia are not to their liking, they will make sure that they are stopped. I know that the Under-Secretary said that that would be a serious responsibility, but they have been doing that repeatedly in Mozambique. They have been repeatedly attacking and invading Zambia and Angola.
  1422
  Therefore, why should we think that they will adopt a completely new philosophy on foreign policy towards the new Zimbabwe? I am seriously worried about the possibility of intervention and the possibility that the Rhodesian security forces will create a coup and install some other Government, especially if there is no change in the disposition of forces.
  For these reasons, the Government would be unwise to say "It is all over. We have nothing to be concerned about." I believe that they have a better chance of obtaining an agreement and of getting what they want if they ensure that the arrangements for the transition period operate effectively and that there is an election which, at the end of the day, we can all accept. If the Government will accept an amendment—not necessarily this amendment—which will ensure an intermediate stage between now and eventual independence, I believe that that will help the agreement to move forward and will help people to work effectively for a free Zimbabwe.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) set out our general fears on this matter. If the Government are being fair about the proposals that they have put before the House, they will recognise that if an order is to be tabled, with the possibility of a parliamentary review, it is better that it should have the teeth of a positive resolution in both Houses and that that positive resolution should follow some form of report back that allows the House to take a clear decision on the matter. If the report is that the election was free and fair, I doubt whether there will be any delay. The matter may be put through in a few minutes.
  Our real concern is about what will happen if a free and fair election does not take place. If that were to be the situation, would any Conservative Member, let alone any Labour Member, want Rhodesia to go into independence after a palpably rigged election? Clearly not. Therefore, I should have thought that the amendment would be accepted unopposed.
  The only issue is the form of the report back. I am sorry that you, Mr. Weatherill, could not accept my amendment, because that seemed to me to

  1423
  suggest the best way of all. I think that the best way would be for the House to have people whom it knew and trusted to go out to Rhodesia as members of a Select Committee and to come back and possibly say "We have looked at the situation. We think that the election was free and fair." That would be better than any of the devices that have been suggested so far.
  The monitoring group from the Commonwealth is an army of soldiers concerned about the military disposition, not election practice. The Election Commissioner who will go out from this country is an official who will deal with the formal method of registering an election. It is rather like asking the town clerk of a city to come along and tell us whether there has been a fair election in his city. He does not have the political perspective to make that kind of judgment. We need politicians whom we know and trust to go out there and to come back and give us their judgment on the election. That is why I hope that, even though my amendment has not been selected, the Government will yet think that that is a way of meeting these anxieties.
  The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not argue for his amendment, because it has not been selected.
  Mr. Lyon: I accept that, Mr. Weatherill. However, although it was not accepted, I was assured that I could mention it.
  The Government may think that our fears are groundless, but I fail to understand how anyone can possibly take that view when there are three months of uncharted territory before us and an election thereafter.
  Let me put to the Lord Privy Seal the detail that so far has emerged that justifies these anxieties. Until today, the country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia has been under the control of a man and a party who will be part of this election. Already he and his party have booked all the buses in Rhodesia until next March. Anybody who has ever been to Rhodesia knows that there is a constant movement between the tribal trust lands and the African townships in the cities. That
  1424
  movement is almost all by buses owned by African entrepreneurs. With all those buses booked by Bishop Muzorewa's party until next March, there is no way in which the Patriotic Front can hire buses inside Rhodesia to transport their people to the polls. They will have to find some other way of transporting them.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), who seems to think that the Kremlin has an outpost of empire down in Meikle's hotel in Salisbury, suggested that there is a lot of Communist money flashing around that will be used in the process of the election. I can tell him, and I know that the Lord Privy Seal is aware of this, that the Patriotic Front is concerned about where it will get the necessary money to run the election. Its cash sources are extremely limited, and for it to hire alternative vehicles when no buses are available will cause major difficulty.
  In addition, the whites control the business premises in the two major cities, Bulawayo and Salisbury. There is practically no black ownership of real property in the centre of either of those towns. Where will the Patriotic Front get offices? Already the word has gone out among the whites that offices should not be rented to the Patriotic Front. All kinds of difficulties are already emerging, therefore.
  The Lord Privy Seal has given a general assurance that the Governor wishes there to be equality of treatment in the mass media. Perhaps the Rhodesia Herald and the television do not matter so much. Out in the tribal trust lands the people do not have much use for either. They get their sources of information by radio—not necessarily radios that they own themselves. They hear the radios in the shops. Who will decide on the balance within the radio programmes? It is all very well to say that the Governor thinks that that should be done fairly. I am sure that he does, and I am sure that the broadcasting man that he takes out with him thinks so, too. However, we all know from our experience of the BBC that it needs only one producer to decide that the proper balance falls in a particular way and one knows that one will be misrepresented and that the case that one thought one was putting will not actually get across.

  1425
  All the producers in Rhodesia have worked for Rhodesian broadcasting throughout the period of illegality. It is they who have been constantly campaigning against the Patriotic Front, using the media in a way which even the most Right-wing of our journalists who go out for The Daily Telegraph find offensive. The kind of news that one hears through Rhodesian broadcasting is a travesty of fair and free broadcasting. How will that be dealt with, and will it give a fair and free election?
  I think that I have said enough to indicate that already a pattern is emerging that causes us some concern. The real issue is how the Governor, with his limited staff, can control all these difficulties, recognising that the Civil Service in Rhodesia will be the same Civil Service as operated under Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa. There are massive areas in which it can tend to show bias towards one party rather than another.
  It is therefore essential that before we take the final step to allow Rhodesia to have its independence we should be assured that there has been a free and fair election which justifies the election of whoever gets most votes.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Hooley: I explained in my speech on Second Reading that the circumstances under which Parliament is purporting to grant independence to Zimbabwe are most extraordinary. I am not going over all those points again, but, so far as I know, Parliament has never previously sought to grant independence to any dependent territory unless the situation there was stable and peaceful and there was some acknowledged national leader, some accepted legislature and a general presumption that, on independence, the life of the country would continue in a normal and peaceful manner.
  Here, we have a totally contrary situation. The Government acknowledge this by the mere fact that they have accepted the need for a monitoring force for the transitional period. All the points that have been rehearsed by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) indicate the practical difficulties that will be faced in the next three months. I would have thought that in those circumstances Parliament—this House and the other
  1426
  House—should make an act of ratification of what goes on in the next three months and that the Government should put down an order that Parliament can then say is satisfactory and that gives the seal of approval to what has gone on, or, in very exceptional circumstances that I hope will not happen, will refuse to accept that what has been done, due to the various difficulties that have been rehearsed, was fair and proper.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is there not another possibility? If the Government, as we hope, accept this amendment and some doubt and some difficulty arises, which we hope will not happen, the mere fact that there has to be an affirmative order may make the Government hesitate even to bring it before the House. Without the amendment there would be a temptation, in such circumstances, for them to take the premature attitude to events that they appear to have done on at least two occasions in the past.
  Mr. Hooley: That is a fair point. The fact that there would have to be a final act of ratification by Parliament might also act as a deterrent to certain people in Zimbabwe who would have to reflect, if they thought they might have something to gain by being disruptive, that, at the end of the day, if they were disruptive and their disruption called in question the whole interim process, they would know that this Parliament still reserved to itself the power to decline to give the seal of approval to the election process and the interim stages that have yet to be gone through.
  It is worth repeating a point that I made earlier. If this exercise is to be fully successful, we have to secure the approval of the international community. That means the approval of the countries of Africa and the Commonwealth and the approval of the United Nations. Hon. Members may think that this does not matter or that it is a secondary consideration. I do not think that it is a secondary consideration. I am sure that if, by some mischance, the election process went through in an unsatisfactory manner and the Government's reaction was to say that they were fed up with this business, that this was good enough, and to take the attitude "For Heaven's sake, let's get

  1427
  rid of it", we would then face the situation of an independent Zimbabwe that Africa and the United Nations were not prepared to recognise. We would have done a very ill service to the people of Zimbabwe. If that situation should arise, we would not have discharged our duties as a Parliament satisfactorily.
  I do not see what the Government have to lose if they accept the amendment. After all, they have the ultimate power to put the order before the House. If they think that things have gone well enough for the process to be ratified, no doubt they will summon their cohorts, as Governments usually do, and the order will be approved. But at least Parliament will have had the final word.
  We will have said to the world that we entered on the exercise in good faith, observed carefully how it was put into effect and are satisfied that, within the limits of human fallibility, the elections were free and fair. In good conscience, we could pass the order giving Zimbabwe independence.
  In the tragic event that the elections were not conducted satisfactorily or a mishap occurred that invalidated the result in the eyes of the world, Parliament would have the right to say "We embarked on the exercise in good faith, but it has not worked and we cannot give it the final stamp of approval".
  Mr. loan Evans: It would expedite our proceedings if we had an indication from the Government whether the amendment is acceptable or the reasons why they cannot accept what seems to be an eminently sensible proposal.
  Mr. Hooley: That is a charming suggestion but one that it is not within my power to further. The Government have nothing to lose by accepting the amendment. It could act as a deterrent to any element in Zimbabwe wishing to disrupt proceedings and would enable Parliament to ratify or decline to ratify the process that we have set in motion.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Like the charming hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), I have a great love of brevity, and my speech will certainly be brief. I rise to suport the amendment and to make three short points related to interventions that have already been made.
  1428
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) properly pointed out that both the monitoring group and the electoral commission should have an opportunity of indicating their views not only to the Government but to the House.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I should make clear that I was speaking not of the monitoring force but of the observers. Various communiqués have made clear that Commonwealth observers will be present to witness the elections. Commonwealth Governments will be invited to send observers, whose role will be to witness that the elections have been free and fair. It is those Commonwealth observers who should be involved in the report to the House.
  Mr. Johnston: I am sorry if I did not make that clear. The officers whom the Government are sending from this country, for the good and sound reason that they have knowledge of elections and can make sure that they are properly conducted, should also have an opportunity of expressing a conclusion about what they have seen and how the elections were conducted.
  I do not see what objection there can be to the amendment. The Government have called at various stages for the trust of the House and they have been given its trust and co-operation. They, in turn, should trust the House by saying that the House has accepted the Government's risk and has a responsibility in the matter. We should be able to exercise that responsibility in a proper manner by saying that we have witnessed the act being done, we are well pleased with it, we approve it and we ratify it. I do not see anything wrong with that.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that the Government had had the trust and co-operation of hon. Members. Certainly that is true, and I am grateful to the Committee. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) spoke about the spirit of amity that prevails, and that is correct. I am grateful for that, and especially grateful for the attitude, tone and content of the speeches from the Opposition Front Bench.
  The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), in an extremely

  1429
  cogent speech—and there have been many cogent speeches on the amendment—said that he hoped that the Government would not be difficult. I assure him that I am not being difficult. It is not through being either contrary or perverse that I wish to put the other side of the case.
  The hon. Member for Inverness asked why the Government do not accept the amendment. I hope that I can convince him of our case. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said when he replied on Second Reading, all the major issues at the constitutional conference have been resolved. The Committee must now from a judgment on whether the conditions for independence have been established. In the Government's view, they have been established, and I shall not detail again what has been decided at the constitutional conference.
  I ask the Committee to bear in the mind the following points. First, as I stressed on Second Reading, the Government have asked both sides of the constitutional conference to make concessions. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar paid tribute to them for the way, and the fact, that they have done so. They have agreed to our proposals on the understanding that, provided they fulfil the agreed conditions, independence will be forthcoming. The Rhodesian Parliament has been dissolved and Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues are standing aside on the understanding that an irreversible process has begun that will lead to independence. At this stage we cannot put the issue in doubt by imposing further conditions.
  The certainty that independence will follow if the agreements reached at Lancaster House are honoured will be a powerful incentive, in the interim period, for both parties to stick to their side of the bargain. We cannot say "Maybe you will get independence or maybe you will not; it all depends." It will be our responsibility to ensure that the elections are free and fair, and that is what we intend to do.
  Mr. Robert Hughes Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Sir I. Gilmour: Secondly, the Opposition amendment, if accepted, could have curious consequences. In the Government's eyes, the sending of the Govenor and the passage of the Bill are closely
  1430
  associated. We have undertaken to discharge our responsibility to bring Rhodesia to legal independence, and that process has been set in train with the Governor's arrival in Salisbury. It may interest the Committee to hear what Lord Soames said on Rhodesian television this evening:
  "My aim is to work with you for a better and more peaceful future for all the people of this country, and my task is to hold the government of the country in trust while the political leaders put their case to you and seek your votes. When you have made your choice I shall hand over my powers to the Government which you elect. Your country will then become legally independent. This is an irreversible process. My task will then be complete and I shall return to London."
  9.30 pm
  I stress to the Committee that there can be no question of Britain taking on an open-ended commitment or accepting a situation in which our stay in Rhodesia could, even in theory, be extended. Our only purpose in assuming legislative or executive authority in Rhodesia is to allow elections to be held in which all parties may participate on an equal footing. It will be the Governor's responsibility, with the aid of his staff, to ensure that the elections are fair. Thereafter we shall grant independence to whatever Government are elected. It is a finite process. We do not envisage that it will take more than about a week. If I may say so, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar made an estimate that seemed to be accurate. The Government cannot accept an open-ended commitment. Our intention is to discharge our responsibility.
  Almost every contributor to the debate has referred to the need to ensure that the elections are free and fair. That is the purpose of the course on which the Government have embarked in sending a Governor to Rhodesia. The task of Lord Soames is to enable peaceful activity by all parties to be conducted freely without fear of intimidation. We will be assisted by an Election Commissioner with a staff of over 100, who will supervise the electoral process of the polling itself.
  The Committee will be aware from the publication of various documents that each party will have the right to have its observer at each polling station. Commonwealth and other observers will be present. The Government are going to

  1431
  great lengths to ensure that the elections are fair. The Government's reputation is involved in ensuring that they are. If irregularities are brought to the Governor's notice, he will take appropriate action. It will be for other Governments to reach their own decisions on the conduct of the elections. As I have said, responsibility for ensuring that the elections are free and fair will be ours and we shall discharge it.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I was not sure how the right hon. Gentleman would proceed in Committee. I was not sure whether he would respond to further interventions. I am glad that he has given way. In a document dated 2 November 1979, which carries the imprint VSQAG/79, at page 5, article 26,it is stated:
  "Commonwealth Governments will be invited to send observers to the elections. Their role will be to observe that the elections are genuinely free and fair and that the British Government is carrying out its responsibilities to supervise them. No restrictions will be placed on their movements, and every effort will be made to facilitate their task."
  I understand that it has been agreed at Lancaster House that Commonwealth observers will have a dual role, namely, to observe the elections to ensure that they are free and fair and to ensure that the British Government
  "is carrying out its responsibilities to supervise them."
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Governor will do it all and that that is the end of the matter if observers are to be invited to carry out the role that I have described. How are they to discharge it on behalf of the Rhodesian people and the British Parliament if the Governor is to do it all?
  Sir I. Gilmour: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can fairly accuse me of a reluctance to give way to interventions.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise. I was not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of refusing to give way. I was reluctant to intervene because I did not know how he would respond to further interventions.
  Sir I. Gilmour: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It might have been better if I had not given way to him. I was about to deal with the question of Commonwealth
  1432
  observers, who have been mentioned by virtually everybody.
  The Governor has the power to take appropriate action against any party that consistently breaks the rules or practises intimidation. We have done everything, and will do everything possible, to ensure that the conditions set out in the agreed document concerning the pre-independence arrangements will be honoured.
  The presence of Commonwealth observers will provide an added incentive to all parties to abide by the rules. There will probably be one Commonwealth team, consisting of representatives from a number of Commonwealth countries, as well as individual Commonwealth observers. Some countries may send representatives as part of the team in addition to their own observers. Those observers have an important part to play in witnessing that the elections are conducted fairly.
  The communiqué from the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Lusaka said that it was the constitutional responsibility of the British Government to supervise the elections with Commonwealth observers. It is also our responsibility to grant legal independence to Rhodesia on the basis of majority rule. The Bill enables us to do that, and we shall discharge our responsibility.
  The Government appreciate the wish of the House to keep a close watch on developments in Rhodesia as that country moves towards independence. We shall ensure that the House is adequately informed, as we have done previously. The House will be able to discuss events and express its views in a variety of ways. Every technique of opposition and persuasion will be open to hon. Members. Motions of censure could be moved if the Opposition felt so inclined, although I hope that they would not feel so inclined. Having got the parties at the conference to agree to satisfactory terms concerning independence, it is not right to suspend that agreement or hold over those parties the proverbial sword of Damocles.
  The parties are committed to abiding by that agreement and we should show good faith in return. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil spoke of this as the final stage. Successive Governments have often been criticised for adding further hurdles to an already wearving race.

  1433
  However, the final hurdle placed before those parties is that of agreement at the conference. To ask hon. Members to decide the issue now is not inconsistent with our continuing responsibility.
  The decision to send a British Governor to Rhodesia marks the beginning, as Lord Soames said this evening, of an irreversible process leading to legal independence. The Government are taking action in order to discharge their responsibilities and not to prolong the situation. The Government cannot accept an open-ended responsibility, nor can the Governor. That is why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir I. Gilmour: I have finished.
  Mr. Dobson: Although I have listened carefully to everything that the Lord Privy Seal has said, and although I have been accused of sour pessimism about the settlement. I shall remain pessimistic until the Lord Privy Seal can explain to me, and to most of my colleagues, what will happen if at any stage of the proceedings the Commonwealth observers say that the elections have not been free and fair.
  The basis of consent by the House to the agreement is that the elections will be free and fair. We are told that Lord Soames is infallible. I do not accept the concept of papal infallibility, nor do I accept the concept of gubernatorial infallibility. Everyone wants free and fair elections that will be accepted by all parties to be free and fair, so that the losers will be bound to accept the outcome. Let us face it; anyone who loses an election has doubts about it. If the doubts of the losers are endorsed by the Commonwealth observers, they will have a let-out to continue whatever adversarial action towards the new Government they want.
  In addition, we are trying to establish a Government who will be accepted by other countries and by the United Nations. Here again, if, following the elections, the Commonwealth observers decide that they were not fair and free, we shall not get international acceptance for Zimbabwe. Therefore, the Lord Privy Seal is under an obligation to clarify that matter.
  1434
  It may be a reversal of the normal parliamentary procedure, but I feel that the right hon. Gentleman must justify not accepting the amendment, rather than our having to prove that it is necessary, because it seems self-evident that it is necessary.
  Mr. John Maxton: Many Opposition Members were rather disturbed by the Lord Privy Seal's use of the word "irreversible". It expressed many of the fears that we have had throughout this whole process. In effect, what he is saying is that, even though we still have not got a full ceasefire, and even though we have no real guarantee that there will be fair elections, the process is irreversible. He is arguing that whether or not there is a ceasefire, whether or not the elections are free and fair, and whatever happens, the process will go ahead. To many of us that means that under some guise or other we shall have a continuation of the Smith regime and a continuation of white supremacy. We are not prepared to accept that.
  The Lord Privy Seal should reconsider the amendment and give it his support. He should allow the House to give its agreement to the final act of independence when it knows that there is a legitimate Government in Zimbabwe.
  Mr. Shore: The Lord Privy Seal has disappointed the Committee. Although I listened carefully to his arguments, as I am sure other hon. Members did, I did not find them persuasive.
  I wish to comment on the two major arguments that the right hon. Gentleman used. First, he said that the parties to the conference had been assured that an irreversible process had been embarked upon and that it would be almost a breach of trust between the Government and the parties at Lancaster House if it did not proceed. I find that very difficult to believe. I am sure that the parties at Lancaster House have almost an equal interest to ensure that the elections are conducted fairly and that no unexpected or intrusive events take place that might disturb the results of the elections.
  I cannot believe that the parties would take the view that a report back to this House, and to the other place as well, could possibly be taken as meaning that the Government had gone back on their commitment. I cannot accept that the

  1435
  amendment is a sort of sword of Damocles, because the parties know that we would contemplate withholding the declaration of independence only if some pretty dreadful and catastrophic event intervened.
  Secondly, the Lord Privy Seal argued that the Government cannot accept an open-ended commitment. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was well advised to use that argument. I understand very well that the Government do not wish to continue their slender and delicately poised presence in Rhodesia any longer than circumstances warrant, but it is not good enough for the Government to say that, regardless of events, as soon as the elections are out of the way and the minimum number of formalities that were described earlier have been completed the Governor will recommend that the Secretary of State should declare and nominate independence day.
  9.45 pm
  Arguments against that proposal were put up by my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members. They were made particularly persuasively by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). The hon. Member for Inverness asked the Government to trust the House, just as the House has been asked, in a most extraordinary way, to trust the Government and pass a Bill months ahead of events—indeed, very uncertain events. Those events will unfold now that Lord Soames has arrived in Salisbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said that it would help to create confidence and trust in the minds of those involved in the discussions at Lancaster House, and no doubt in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, if the arrangements were reported back to the House. It is important to establish that trust now.
  The amendment that we have moved would be of considerable assistance to the Governor. Knowing that the matter has to come back to Parliament to be approved on an affirmative order would have some part to play in giving a certain stability to the events. Those who, on the morrow of polling day, might be tempted to take a course of action which they might otherwise refrain from doing would
  1436
  be forced to think twice. The idea that, regardless of events, the Government will confirm independence by order rather than by a definite and proper vote in this place greatly weakens the possibility of our influencing events between now and independence day.
  Many hon. Members have arrived late in the Chamber because they were unsure when the vote would take place. We shall certainly press this matter to a vote. I hope that those hon. Members who have been in the Chamber throughout will think twice about this matter. The Government do not have a strong case, even for the support of their own supporters. I hope that the Committee will unite and insist upon accepting our amendment, to ensure that an affirmative order is brought before the House at the end of the events that are being set in train.
  Mr. Spearing: The voice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) has, as usual, combined common sense with constitutional propriety. Alas, throughout the serious and worrying negotiations the Government, in the view of some of my hon. Friends and myself, have not shown a comparable degree of concern—at least, in respect of the wisdom of the comments that they have made and sometimes, alas, in the manner in which matters have been conducted.
  I acquit the Lord Privy Seal of any wish to mislead the House or to do anything that is not up to the highest standards of democratic government. However, I have to remind him that those Opposition Members who have warned and have felt deep forebodings over the way in which certain matters have been handled have never been able to see his right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. I do not think that I have ever set eyes on the Foreign Secretary of this country. That we have not been able to question the Secretary of State himself at certain times has cast something of an air of gloom over the proceedings.
  When the Lord Privy Seal brought to the House the first Bill a few weeks ago, some of us were full of foreboding, because at that time no agreement had been reached. I concede that it may well have been the fact that the Government

  1437
  got that Bill that helped with the agreement that followed. At the same time, however, the right hon. Gentleman was asking the House to give its assent to something when, in terms of usual constitutional proprieties, he had no right to ask for that.
  During that debate a number of us, on many occasions, asked the right hon. Gentleman why he was not in favour of a large Commonwealth force, or at least a larger Commonwealth force, to ensure free and fair elections and to give some degree of stability to an area that we all want to remain stable, free and peaceful. On every occasion the right hon. Gentleman sought refuge in the fact that negotiations were taking place, and he refused to answer any question of that sort.
  Today we have the second Bill, which has been introduced before the final arrangements for the ceasefire—again, a repetition of a process in which one might have thought that the constitutional proprietries would have suggested a reverse order.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the Governor now in Salisbury is the Governor of a colony temporarily, that legality is now restored, and that, irreversibly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, independence and legality as an independent State will follow. But all the time the right hon. Gentleman is presuming on the will of the House. By denying the opportunity for a final view of the House of Commons on an Order in Council, he is denying the Opposition's right to associate themselves with the final act of independence. We are not in a position today to make a final judgment. I think that even the right hon. Gentleman would agree that that is so. Unhappily, it is so, because the ceasefire is not with us.
  The last chance that the House of Commons will have, and the last power that it will have, albeit perhaps de jure or by example, will be when the Question is put on Third Reading. If we had one other order at some future date the Government would, quite properly, have to render account for their trusteeship. The right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar mentioned trust time and again
  1438
  in their closing speeches on these amendments, but I put it to the Lord Privy Seal that by denying the right of the House of Commons to look at the Order in Council and an opportunity for the Government to render account on that question he is taking away from Parliament trust that he has no right to take.
  If the right hon. Gentleman wished to help to engender here an atmosphere of support for his Government in the very difficult path that lies ahead, he would have been very much wiser to accept this reasoned and cogent amendment, because then the constitutional proprieties would have been seen to have been carried out in this place and would thereby provide an example for the constitutional proprieties in Zimbabwe.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I call the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: We have been trying for 14 years to discover a way of resolving the Rhodesian situation. I should think that hon. Members would at least be concerned that we spent a few minutes trying to get it right.
  The Lord Privy Seal has confirmed that the Government have given their full and solemn approval to the proposition, agreed at Lancaster House, that the Commonwealth will send observers to see whether the elections are free and fair and to ensure that the British Government are carrying out their responsibilities. He was unable to say how the observers would discharge their role and how they would communicate their conclusions to the House or anywhere else. The Lord Privy Seal was asked about the process towards independence being irreversible even though elections were found not to be free and fair. I was astonished to see Conservative Members nodding their heads with great enthusiasm. They appeared to be delighted at the prospect that we might approve independence on elections which were not free and fair. That is absolute nonsense.
  It is because of that kind of attitude that there is deep concern at what has taken place at Lancaster House. All of us are anxious not to say anything which

  1439
  could be construed as making things more difficult for the Government in reaching agreement. We want the Government to reach agreement. We want the Patriotic Front to come to an agreement, just as we want elections. However, if we do not achieve the conditions that we believe are essential we shall be in difficulty in passing the Bill.
  The Lord Privy Seal said that the Government could not take on an open-ended commitment. Of course they could not, and I understand that. At least he appears to anticipate that after election day there may not be a readily apparent Government able to take over. Paragraph 26 of the document that he submitted yesterday at Lancaster House states:
  "Finally, I am conscious of the concern on both sides about the situation which might arise after the elections. I have made it clear that if there is a general wish the monitoring force would stay in Rhodesia until the independence Government are formed and independence is granted."
  So the right hon. Gentleman and the conference foresee the possibility that it may
  be necessary for the monitoring force to remain after the elections.
  If that is the case, surely it would be prudent and I believe helpful—because we are trying to be helpful—to the Government in their negotiations at Lancaster House to accept my right hon. Friend's amendment, which would at least indicate to the parties concerned that if they felt that they had a grievance they would have an opportunity to put that grievance to the House of Commons.
  The process that we are debating should not, if it goes utterly wrong, confer independence. There must be some assurances. If agreements are reached and if the propositions that we are discussing have any meaning—and they must have a meaning in order to be laid—the Lord Privy Seal should, even at this stage, repent and accept the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The Committee divided: Ayes 131. Noes 172.

  Division No. 125]

  AYES

  [9.58 pm

  Alton, David

  Golding, John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

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

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Newens, Stanley

  Beith, A. J.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Palmer. Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Parry, Robert

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Haynes, Frank

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Prescott, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  Race, Reg

  Carmichael, Neil

  Home Robertson, John

  Radice, Giles

  Clark, David (South Shields)

  Homewood, William

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Hooley, Frank

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Coleman, Donald

  Horam, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Howells, Geraint

  Robertson, George

  Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Roper, John

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  John, Brynmor

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sever, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamond, James

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

  Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Silverman, Julius

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Soley, Clive

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dixon, Donald

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dobson, Frank

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dormand, Jack

  McCartney, Hugh

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Douglas, Dick

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stoddart, David

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McElhone, Frank

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Dubs, Alfred

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Dunnett, Jack

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

  Urwin, Rt Hn Tom

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McNally, Thomas

  Welsh, Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  Marks, Kenneth

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shettles'n)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Maxton, John

  Winnick, David

  Ewing, Harry

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Flannery, Martin

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Mr. George Morton and

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Mr. James Tinn.

  NOES

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Grist, Ian

  Newton, Tony

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Onslow, Cranley

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

  Osborn, John

  Banks Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Parris, Matthew

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Best Keith

  Hawkins, Paul

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hawksley, Warren

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Heddle, John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Henderson, Barry

  Rathbone, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Hicks, Robert

  Renton, Tim

  Braine Sir Bernard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Brinton, Tim

  Hooson, Tom

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rossi, Hugh

  Budgen, Nick

  Jessel, Toby

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Butcher, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Kilfedder, James A

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Sims, Roger

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Knox, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Channon, Paul

  Lang, Ian

  Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Speed, Keith

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Speller, Tony

  Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)

  Lee, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Squire, Robin

  Cockeram, Eric

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Colvin, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Cope, John

  Loveridge, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Costain, A.P.

  Luce, Richard

  Tebbit, Norman

  Crouch David

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  MacGregor, John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Dorrell Stephen

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Thompson, Donald

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Dover, Denshore

  McQuarrie,Albert

  Thornton, Malcolm

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Major, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Marland, Paul

  Trippier, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Marlow, Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Waddington, David

  Eggar, Timothy

  Mather, Carol

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Waller, Gary

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Mellor, David

  Ward, John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Watson, John

  Fisher Sir Nigel

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Wheeler, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Forman Nigel

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wilkinson, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Molyneaux, James

  Wolfson, Mark

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Younger, Sir George (Acton)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Goodhew, Victor

  Murphy, Christopher

  Gorst, John

  Myles, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gow, Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  Mr. Peter Brooke and

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Needham, Richard

  Mr. John Wakeham.

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Question accordingly negatived.

  It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

  Committee report Progress

  Ordered,

  That, at this day's sitting, the Zimbabwe Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

  ZIMBABWE BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2

  Nationality
  Mr. Merlyn Rees:: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
  No. 8, in schedule 1, page 5, line 11, leave out paragraph 2.
  No. 9, in schedule 1, page 5, line 20, leave out paragraph 3.
  No. 10, in page 5, line 1, leave out schedule 1.
  Mr. Rees: This is a probing amendment and I shall not detain the Committee long. It deals with the important question of citizenship. In our discussions so far the effects of subsection (2) and schedule 1 have not been crystal clear.
  For the moment the fact that Zimbabwe is to be independent removes the question of what happens if and when that country becomes part of the Commonwealth. I realise that this is a matter for another occasion so I shall not pursue it. We have been promised a White Paper on the British Nationality Act 1948 and we all agree that that Act is in need of change. Very few people believe that we can keep the legislation in its present form. We use the term
  "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies"
  as meaning not citizenship but nationality, this legislation goes back to the days of the Empire and the status of "British subject" for all citizens of countries that were part of the Empire on which the sun never set.
  Too often in matters of independence we make decisions that place responsibilities on this country at a later stage. I want to be sure that we do not take any decisions today that have the repercussions of the decisions that we took on independence legislation in the 1950s. These decisions on nationality left us with
  1444
  responsibilities that arose later. At the time of taking them people were unaware of the consequences.
  Independence is a sign that the day of the Empire is over, and in my view we must ensure that the countries that become independent do not have it both ways on citizenship. Citizenship of this country is one thing and citizenship of the country becoming independent is another.
  As I understand it, clause 2(1) removes Southern Rhodesia from the list of Commonwealth countries mentioned in 1948 Act, thus making aliens of those Rhodesians who possess only Rhodesian citizenship.
  10.15 pm
  I shall come to numbers in a moment. Some Rhodesians who possess only Zimbabwean or Rhodesian citizenship will be aliens. Those Zimbabweans or Rhodesians who are also citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies will, of course, remain so. This is important. Today we heard about the 50,000 people who may or may not come to the United Kingdom. Whatever the Government are doing in independence legislation cannot possibly remove the right of people born here, or who have a patriality under the 1971 Act, to come here. If there is an argument about numbers, a piece of independence legislation could not alter that situation.
  Clause 2(2) and schedule 1 provide that certain citizens of Zimbabwe may continue to be registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies as though they were still Commonwealth citizens. I want to ask questions about the second and third categories. All that schedule 1(1) does is to allow applications by citizens of Zimbabwe—perhaps it is better to say citizens of Southern Rhodesia, as they will have made applications previously—which were made but not determined before independence, to be processed as though they were applications from Commonwealth citizens. The schedule provides for Rhodesians ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and entitled to registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies by virtue of having lived here for five years, for example.
  All that the Government are saying is that applications already in the pipeline

  1445
  will be considered. In terms of numbers and those who are involved, I should have thought from past experience that the greater proportions of those, although small in number, would be black Rhodesians who studied and lived in this country. It would hardly apply to a white Rhodesian, because of the nature of the situation. The Act does not touch the first category, of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. In the second part are those who have registered or are attempting to register here. We are in general talking about black people.
  I want to ask questions about the third category, not only in terms of numbers, without causing scares about the matter, as developments in Rhodesia or Zimbabwe have been different in the past 14 years from what happened in other countries that became independent. I should like to know what view the Government have on the question of numbers.
  As I understand it, we are talking about those who are kith and kin—those who were British subjects before 1 January 1949. If this is done on all fours with what happened when Pakistan became independent, years ago, we are referring to white people over the age of 30. The provision becomes wider when it involves the British subject descended in the male line from a person born or naturalised in the United Kingdom. Whatever arguments we may have about males and females in nationality legislation, nothing can be done until the House changes the 1948 nationality legislation. Whatever we may feel about the provisions for males and females, this is not the occasion to make an alteration. The 1948 legislation, as amended by Section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1958, refers to a person having close connections with this country.
  If we are not talking about those who are in this country under the second heading that I raised, what do the Government mean by
  "close connections with this country"?
  It is one thing to be descended only of one generation
  "in the male line from a person born or naturalised in the United Kingdom; and…has close connections with this country"
  1446
  but the Bill then goes on to say "intends to settle here."
  When decisions on naturalisation are taken when we refer to aliens—registration being for citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—an important part of the Secretary of State's decision is whether the person concerned intends to settle here and is not merely seeking a British passport. An example that comes to mind is of someone who wanted to live in Cairo and wanted a British passport because it would be useful. This concerns someone who intends to settle in this country.
  Given those four headings—I grant that this is comparable to the Pakistan legislation; I hope that I have been helpful in removing the first two propositions from any argument about numbers—what kind of numbers are we talking about? We are talking about people who were British subjects before 1949. A large number of people now in Rhodesia went there since 1950. They will be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies anyway, and the Bill will have no effect on their rights. Therefore, what numbers are we talking about?
  There is a reference to the discretion of the Secretary of State. How will he interpret those four matters that I raised, in particular
  "close connections with this country…intends to settle here",
  when earlier in the schedule, as it were, it refers to the male line? I should have thought that that encompassed the decision that the Secretary of State is to make.
  It is not my view—of course, it may be the view of others—that in any event large numbers of people from Rhodesia will come here. When I made an estimate not so long ago, my view was that except for artisans who had gone to Rhodesia since 1950 who may want to come here—in any event, they are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies under the law—the rest would probably go to South Africa and other countries if there were any problems and they did not want to stay in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that already a substantial number of those who left Rhodesia have come to live in this country? They have come back as patrials.

  1447
  Therefore, they do not come into immigration statistics, because they are patrials.
  Mr. Rees: I had just said that because those concerned were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and therefore patrials the Bill would have no effect on their rights. Many of them may have been out of the country for 10 or 15 years. But whether they come back or not will not cause problems that have been caused by others who have come here.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: They have not gone to Southall.
  Mr. Rees: I hear that they have not gone to Southall. How will the Secretary of State interpret
  "close connections with this country"
  for those of British subject status before 1949? How will he determine whether they intend to settle here?
  It will be interesting to have the Government's view on the numbers involved resulting from this part of the legislation which is almost on all fours with the Pakistan legislation of the early 1970s.
  We shall not press these amendments to a Division, but citizenship is a matter of great importance and we should have the Government's view.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The nationality law, such as it is, in effect gives two citizenships. One is citizenship of the Commonwealth. That applies to anybody born anywhere in the Commonwealth. The other is independent citizenship of an independent country, such as Canada or New Zealand, or residual citizenship for anyone who cannot claim independent citizenship, which is citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  In 1971 the Conservative Government drew a distinction between those who were and those who were not patrials. By and large, a patrial citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies is a person who was born here, or whose father was born here. But there is an added patriality, and it is there that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) may have overlooked the significance of those provisions. A Commonwealth citizen who was the child of a person born here is himself patrial even
  1448
  though he may be a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country, and that was the real racialist test of the 1971 Act. It obviously applied only to people who were white and were born in the Commonwealth, and it gave them a patriality that was not obtained by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who did not have that family connection with this country.
  Of the 220,000 whites in Rhodesia, about 100,000 are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are patrial either because they were born here or because they are the children of someone who was born here. However, there are 50,000 who are Commonwealth citizens, but only because they are citizens of Southern Rhodesia, and they do not have that family connection. Nevertheless, they can become patrial because they have a parent who was born in this country.
  The 50,000 will lose their right to enter this country under clause 2 if the schedule remains unamended. The difficulty arises only because the Government have decided that from the day of independence Zimbabwe will not be a member of the Commonwealth until it applies to rejoin. I simply do not understand why it should do that. The Minister tried to explain it to me earlier, but I did not accept either of the reasons that he gave for taking that course. It would have been perfectly easy for Rhodesia to continue in the Commonwealth after independence until the new Government decided to leave if they wanted to. If that course had been followed there would have been no need for any of these nationality provisions. As the Bill stands, all those Commonwealth citizens who are patrial only by the family connection would lose their right to enter this country and to register as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies under the British Nationality Act.
  Schedule 1 is concerned with the right to register, and is divided into three parts. Paragraph 1 allows an application that has already been entered before day 1 to be processed and dealt with as if the person were a Commonwealth citizen who still had the right to register. I have no quarrel with that paragraph.
  The two subsequent paragraphs, however, are attempts to deal with the situation in which the person would lose his

  1449
  right to register if his rights as a Commonwealth citizen were withdrawn. They allow people who register after independence day but within 12 months to have their applications processed. In spelling out my objection to that, I may as well touch on the later amendment, on which my objection is the same. Those people who should never have been patrial anyway will be allowed to keep their patriality for a further12 months after independence in order that they can hedge their bets. They can decide to stay on in Rhodesia and keep their patriality and their opportunity to return to this country, or they can say that they do not like the colour of the Government who have been elected and, in spite of all their patriotic remarks in the past about defending Zimbabwe, will not defend it in the future but will return to Britain.
  10.30 pm
  My right hon. Friend thinks that most of them will not come back. I am not sure. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get into South Africa. It is becoming increasing difficult to get into other parts of the Commonwealth. I am not at all sure that they will find it easy to go elsewhere, whereas they have the right to come back here if they are patrial. About 50,000 are in that position.
  It is therefore a serious issue for the House to consider whether we want that to apply at all. I accept the right of those who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies to continue to have the right to enter where they are patrial. I do not understand, however, why it should apply to those who have the right through the cunning device of section 2(1)(d) of the 1971 Act, to which I was totally opposed. Hon. Members on the Government Benches only a week or so ago passed the most iniquitous immigration rules in order to stop 4,000 people coming into the country. They are now proposing blindly to pass this Bill, which will allow 50,000 to come in very quickly and take jobs as primary immigrants. This stinks of hypocrisy and should be stopped here and now.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I shall detain the Committee only briefly. As someone who took part in the Committee stage on the Pakistan Act, I should like to make some
  1450
  observations that could be relevant to our discussion.
  The provisions of paragraph 2 of schedule 1 should enable citizens of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, if resident in this country, to register as citizens of the United Kingdom within 12 months. If that provision were not contained in the legislation someone in that category would lose his rights as a British subject. He would not be able to join the Armed Forces, serve in the police or vote in elections. For that reason, paragraph 2 is eminently sensible. But the nationality provisions in this legislation exemplify yet again the necessity of reforming our laws of nationality at the earliest possible date. It is not right that the rights and entitlement of people who are resident in Britain should be consequent on whether they are citizens of the Commonwealth or of Eire. In my judgment, they should be consequent on residence in Britain and secondly, on whether they have a close family connection with this country.
  Mr. Maxton: I cannot profess to have the knowledge of previous speakers on the immigration laws and previous Acts. What some hon. Members on the Opposition side find astonishing is that the right to be a British citizen and the right to come back here is to be given to those who have been in open rebellion against this country for the past 14 years. They are people who, deliberately, in 1964, as an act of public defiance against the British Government, burnt their British passports, but who will now be allowed to take up again British citizenship and come back into this country. Those who have suffered repression for the past 14 years will not be allowed to come here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) expressed concern over the dangers if large numbers of blacks from Rhodesia came here—
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, I did not.
  Mr. Maxton: I think that was my right hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. Rees: I am happy to take many things. The chances of that happening are small. The second part of what I was arguing is that black students would benefit I raised no point about the matter.
  Mr. Maxton: In that case, I withdraw what I said. A number of my hon.

  1451
  Friends see considerable dangers in the immigration of large numbers of white Rhodesians who have lived under a racialist regime, who think in those terms and will inject that sort of thinking into our political system. That may not concern Conservative Members, because they think that most of those Rhodesians will join the Conservative Party. My worry is that the membership and force of the National Front will be increased.
  We should give our protection to those who have opposed the illegal regime, rather than give succour to those who have deliberately continued the illegality.
  Mr. Luce: It is common ground between us that the citizenship laws are utterly confusing. They are a highly complex labyrinth and the sooner we can clarify and simplify them the better it will be for us all. The Government intend to introduce a law to bring more sense into citizenship and nationality.
  I am the first to admit that I have not even begun to master the complexities of the citizenship laws. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but I shall spell out the main reasons why it should not be pressed.
  It is important to make clear that the Government are not making any new concessions on any new immigration commitment. The amendments would inflict hardship, for no apparent reason, on many individuals living in Rhodesia or this country. A transitional period to resolve the citizenship problems has been granted when other countries have left the Commonwealth.
  There was a discussion on Second Reading on the question why the Government felt it necessary to write into the Bill a provision allowing for Rhodesia, on independence, not be to a member of the Commonwealth, but to be able to apply to become a member. I explained that we felt it wrong to pre-empt the decision of the new Government of Rhodesia, elected in free and fair elections under British authority, on whether they should be members of the Commonwealth. When a country applies to join the Commonwealth, approval has to be given by all other members of the Commonwealth.
  1452
  The Commonwealth problem is the background to some of the problems that we are facing in citizenship laws. It is not right to pick on Rhodesians and treat them differently from the way in which Pakistan was treated when it left the Commonwealth.
  All that the Government are proposing is that Rhodesians already in this count-try, who have an entitlement to registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, would have a further 12 months within which to apply for citizenship. Secondly, a narrow category of Rhodesians—those who were British subjects before 1 January 1949–with a United Kingdom-born ancestor in the male line and other close connections with the United Kingdom—I shall expand on "close connections" if the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) wishes—should have a further 12 months in which to apply for registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies if they intend to take up residence in this country. Even then, they do not have an entitlement to register. Discretion lies with the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: As the Secretary of State has to exercise discretion, there are some who, by virtue of their activities in recent years, will be subject to that judgment and that alone.
  Mr. Luce: With all his experience as Home Secretary in previous Governments, the right hon. Gentleman is far more familiar with the problem than I can ever hope to be.
  The transitional registration provisions do not represent an immigration commitment, as so few people will be eligible to apply. At most there will be a few hundred.
  Various figures have been given concerning citizens who live in Rhodesia who have a right of abode in the United Kingdom. There are 80,000 citizens in Rhodesia who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have a right of abode in the United Kingdom. There are 70,000 who are known as mono-Rhodesians, who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom on the ground of patriality.
  We are providing a transitional period of one year to enable those concerned to realise the position that they face. That

  1453
  applies to the Commonwealth and the transition for Rhodesia. The Bill does not create any substantial new immigration commitment; it continues the nationality and immigration provisions for one year to minimise hardship to the individual.
  The attitude of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to whites in Rhodesia was totally and utterly vindictive. I am relieved that the rest of the Committee did not display that attitude. The background is not merely the transitional period but the decision that we have bad to take about the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Minister's figure of 150,000 is the same as mine. Our subdivisions are different. Mine is 50,000 and his is 70,000. Is it correct that his 70.000 are what he called monopatrials, and that they are Commonwealth citizens and not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies? If the Bill is enacted without the transitional provisions and Zimbabwe leaves the Commonwealth, those 70,000 will lose their patriality and their right to enter. The transitional provisions exist to allow the 70,000 to come in if they want to in the first year.
  Mr. Luce: Exactly the same happened with Pakistan. The hon. Gentleman is right. At the moment the 70,000 are Commonwealth citizens. They have the right of abode in this country on the ground of patriality. If Rhodesia is not a member of the Commonwealth, that right is withdrawn. To avoid vindictiveness and to give those concerned a clear picture of their position, we have provided that there shall be one year of transition. If during that one year, as we all hope, Rhodesia becomes a member of the Commonwealth, the problem will no longer exist and they will continue to have their present rights. I hope that the Committee feels that I have endeavoured fully to explain the position.
  Mr. Bidwell: The Minister has alluded to patriality being the lineage connected with the male parent. Why has he not gone the whole way, as with the Common Market set-up, and recognised the equality of the spouses in this instance?
  Mr. Luce: I shall not be drawn into that area. I would rather return to the salient points of this amendment and the
  1454
  reasons why it would be wrong to press it. I hope that the Committee will agree with me.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that if a Zimbabwe national, resident in Britain, does not, within the 12-month period, elect for United Kingdom citizenship by registration, and if subsequently Zimbabwe applies to join the Commonwealth and is accepted, he will assume the rights of a British subject—rights that he did not previously enjoy—by virtue of events that will have occurred thousands of miles away?
  Mr. Luce: I am taking a slight risk when I say that the answer is "Yes". If I am wrong, I will write to my hon. Friend. I hope that the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman will feel that it is not appropriate to press the amendment.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees Mr. Merlyn Rees I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

  AMNESTY IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ACTS
  Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 4, at end add—
  '(5) Nothing in this section shall preclude the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings arising out of any Order in Council made under section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, or any statutory provision implementing any resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations providing for the imposition of economic or other sanctions directed against Southern Rhodesia.'.
  The Chairman (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take new clause 1–Restriction on amnesty—
  'No immunity from prosecution shall arise under this Act from criminal proceedings for breach of any sanctions legislation which has been reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions prior to the passing of this Act '.
  Mr. Rowlands: This amendment and the clause in the name of my hon. Friends return to the issue that was raised during the Second Reading debate by Opposition Members about the position of companies in the United Kingdom that may be under investigation, or subject to

  1455
  prosecution, as a result of evading or breaking sanctions. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will confirm that clause 3 provides amnesty to people under the law of the United Kingdom, while amnesty within Rhodesia will be the subject of Governor's ordinances.
  Clause 3 covers illegal acts and wipes the slate clean for those on both sides of the confrontation. We seek confirmation that that is the case. I hope that the slate will not be wiped clean for those companies that are subject to investigation as a result of activities concerning the breaking or evading of sanctions. Our amendment is designed to establish that beyond any shadow of doubt. I understand that the new clause, in the names of my hon. Friends, is intended to achieve the same end.
  We seek a clear undertaking from the Lord Privy Seal that amnesty will not be extended to those firms that are subject to investigation, or whose cases are before the Director of Public Prosecutions. When the Minister wound up the debate he referred, rather disturbingly, to the possibility that a statement might be made in the next few days. The Opposition will be totally dissatisfied if we do not get that assurance and clarification. A clear distinction can be drawn between wiping the slate clean as regards actions on all sides of the conflict and the cynical, deceitful behaviour of an individual company that has tried to cheat and break United Kingdom law concerning sanctions. We do not believe that the same sort of amnesty should be given to those activities.
  I do not think that I need elaborate on the reasons why that distinction should be made. A British company that knowingly broke sanctions, and knowingly broke a United Kingdom law that successive Governments have endorsed, re-endorsed and approved on an annual basis until November of this year, should not just walk away scot-free and say "Even though we were cheating, we should now be given redemption and the slate should be wiped clean".
  We believe that there is a strong, material difference in the whole attitude, approach and behaviour of companies in relation to United Kingdom legislation that successive Governments have
  1456
  supported and upheld each year since sanctions were introduced in the 1960s. That is the basic distinction that we hope the Government are making in clause 3. We do not believe that there should be an amnesty for a company that is possibly subject to prosecution or investigation, because that is different from giving an amnesty to an individual who has committed illegal acts on either side.
  I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will confirm that clause 3 does not give such a broad amnesty to sanctions busting and that our amendments are, therefore, unnecessary. Secondly, in the process of doing so, we want from him a clear, categorical statement. As I said during the debate on Second Reading, we would be very aggrieved if there were a hole-and-corner approach to this matter, as a result of which we received an answer to a written question from the Attorney-General, either on Christmas Eve or even in the next few days.
  In taking the Bill through all its stages, hon. Members can rightly expect the right hon. Gentleman to say here and now exactly what will be the Government's position in relation to firms that are subject to investigation or possible prosecution under United Kingdom sanctions legislation.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: I hope that I can help the Committee. First, I should make it clear that the statement to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred had nothing to do with this Bill but was rather to do with an amenesty in Rhodesia that will be granted in due course.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) is partly right about clause 3. He is right in saying that it does not relate to companies that have broken sanctions. But it does not even relate to individuals who have broken sanctions. In other words, it has nothing at all to do with sanctions. There is power to provide an amnesty for sanctions offences in section 3 of the Southern Rhodesia Act that we passed a few weeks ago, but clause 3 of this Bill has no application at all.
  I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be nothing hole-and-corner about this. Following the lifting of sanctions measures this evening, the Government will consider the question of amnesty offences and a statement will be made.

  1457
  As I said, the matter does not arise under this Bill.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I listened with some care to what the right hon. Gentleman said. He referred specifically to the Bill and its provisions, but he did not really answer the substantive point that is contained in the amendment and the new clause.
  I do not intend to rehearse the whole episode of sanctions breaking or go into any great detail about the Bingham report, except to say that the report showed clearly that sanctions were broken and that parts of the report prepared by Mr. Bingham were not published because it was felt that the material in them was prejudicial to the possibility of any prosecutions that may take place, and therefore, presumably, it was thought that they might affect the possibility of a fair trial.
  We certainly understood that to be so at the time and welcomed the possibility that the matter had been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but it seems that when sanctions were in force the big fish got away. They were never taken to court. It was only the small fry who were actually prosecuted and sentenced for breaking sanctions. I hope that we shall not say that there is to be a complete amnesty for those who broke sanctions.
  On Monday I tabled a question to the Attorney-General, asking when he expected action by the DPP on matters referred to him arising out of the Bingham report. The answer was
  "I shall be making a statement to the House as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 10 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 429.]
  We shall await that statement.
  The new clause is a very modest proposal.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that he can have taken in what I said. This clause in the Bill has no application to what he is talking about at all. Therefore, his new clause is quite unnecessary. There is no amnesty, or anything relating to amnesty, about sanctions offences in the Bill at all. Therefore, the new clause and the amendment are totally redundant.
  Mr. Hughes: There are two things that
  1458
  I would say in response to that. First, the new clause is in order. It has been accepted for debate. The fact that there is nothing in the Bill, in clause 3, that covers the point that I am making does not mean that a new clause cannot be added to the Bill. I am perfectly in order in discussing the amendment that has been selected. Not only is it technically in order; I am arguing that there ought to be added to the Bill a clause that specifically takes care of the points that I am trying to make.
  The Minister shakes his head, but I hope that he will allow me to deploy the arguments, listen to them and, perhaps, provide some answers to the questions that will be raised.
  The proposal in the new clause is very modest. Looking at it, I am surprised at how modest it is. I am not asking in the new clause that there should be no immunity from prosecution for all time. I am not saying that if in, say, 12 months or two years evidence becomes available of a major breach of sanctions about which we do not now know, such a case should be proceeded with. I am not asking for that, although I am not ruling it out. All that I am saying is that the restriction on immunity that I propose to add to the Bill refers specifically to those cases already reported to the DPP.
  We must not underestimate the seriousness of the breach of sanctions. Those who broke the sanctions regulations were collaborating with and allying themselves with the illegal Smith regime, who were prosecuting the war against the people of Zimbabwe, and they bear a very heavy responsibility for the period in which UDI was able to stand up. They were the people who made sure that many lives were lost.
  I have no great expectations that the Lord Privy Seal will accept the new clause, but I would be much happier, as would my hon. Friends, if we got a specific assurance that prosecution, or non-prosecution, will be decided purely on the basis of law. The information is before the DPP. Whether or not he decides to prosecute ought to be a question of law. The Attorney-General ought to decide whether the prosecution is to go ahead purely on the basis of law. If the facts sustain the possibility that a prosecution will succeed, it ought to be proceeded

  1459
  with and not be set aside on the basis of some political decision.
  11 pm
  I hope that we can have that categoric assurance from the Lord Privy Seal. It is the least he could give, because I hope that what I have always understood to be the principle of British justice remains. It is sometimes called into question by others, but I hope that the principle, as I understand it, that prosecutions are taken out on the basis of the evidence and of the law and are not influenced by political decisions still stands. If the right hon. Gentleman can give us that assurance I believe that he will go a long way in satisfying us that it is not the intention of the Government suddenly to decide that they will offer a total amnesty for all those who broke sanctions.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I do not wish to delay the Committee. The Lord Privy Seal said that he believes that the new clause is otiose, in that it does not relate to the rest of the Bill. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has been trying to make is that that is not an argument for excluding such provisions from this Bill if there remains an area of concern about what may happen in the matter of prosecutions for sanctions busting.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: That is not my argument against the new clause. The new clause says that the Bill should not confer immunity. If, as I have told the House, the Bill does not confer immunity, that must surely be quite a strong argument against the new clause.
  Mr. Whitehead: Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman is highly amused at his own logic. We are appalled by it, because we feel that the House must have a certain latitude in discussing both the former Bill and this one tonight in the brief time before it passes into law. We feel that it should be possible to say quite specifically, through the agency of this Bill, that there should be no immunity from prosecution. I accept that no such immunity is granted, but the right hon. Gentleman must grant a certain meed of suspicion to the Opposition after all these years. That meed of suspicion is precisely that we feel that there may well be some
  1460
  announcement—in the not too distant future—that there will be no further prosecutions and that the whole regrettable episode of sanctions busting has been swept away and forgotten. We feel that the Government might say: "Let us start with a clean sheet. It is better not to go back over these things."
  That is precisely why we wish to go back over these things. We regard the sanctions busting period as a very shabby episode. It is an episode from which neither of the parties that have formed successive Administrations emerges with great credit. Looking back at some of the things that happened in the 1960s, that was certainly true of the Government of those days.
  Through the agency of this new clause we hope to insert an assertion that, whatever happens consequent on independence, the possibility of prosecution will still be open of those who were involved in sanctions busting whether they were major employees in the big companies which have been named—and since the matter is before the DPP I do not propose to go into details—or the smaller fry who were engaged in the same operation in Rhodesia directly or in Mozambique and South Africa. This is my only point of substance. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is?"] It is a good thing to be able to make one point of substance in three minutes at this late hour. The people involved in sanctions busting were, in part, citizens of the State of Rhodesia, under the illegal Government, who had dual nationality or who came and went between Rhodesia and South Africa. Those are the people, as well as the big time sanctions busters here, we intend to see brought to justice if possible.
  It seems to me that some of those people will be able to point to the legislation going through the House tonight and say, in relation to all the immunities that are being granted, that all they were doing in the 1960s was upholding the Government of the illegal Smith regime. They could say that everyone else had been cleared of any possibility of prosecution for upholding the treasonable regime in Rhodesia. They could ask why they had not been cleared and say that all they were doing was a little trading on the side.

  1461
  It is to withhold from such people the comfort of an assurance that they may get away with it as others have done that we have introduced this new clause tonight. For that reason I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will take the argument seriously.
  Mr. Dobson: I support the new clause. The Government owe this clause, if not to the House, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The secret part of the Bingham report, together with the published part, was referred to the DPP as long ago as September 1978. Since then several hon. Members and I have made inquiries about progress. We inquired of the Attorney-General how long the DPP had taken to consider the cases that had come to court. Unfortunately, the DPP's records are so poor that he was unable to supply that information. He is not able to tell us how long, on average, it takes his office to consider and report on any matters drawn to his attention.
  We are in danger of bringing the DPP's office into gross disrepute. The other cases of sanction busting that reached the courts did not involve collusion by Government officials and Ministers. From the Bingham report we know that sanctions busting did involve collusion by successive British Governments and Ministers. It is invidious that the only known case of sanctions busting that involved politicians and was referred to the DPP took so long to consider that it was continued for more than a year and passed the time when the Government decided to grant an amnesty to politicians who were once Members of the House or Government officials who, for all we know, are still in the employ of the Government.
  The Lord Privy Seal owes it to the DPP and to anyone who strives to uphold the reputation of British Government institutions to ensure that the DPP is not brought into disrepute. He must assure us that no squalid fix was made, because the Bingham report appears to reveal such a fix. I hope that when the DPP makes his recommendation we shall discover the contents of the secret part of the Bingham report. It would be unfortunate if the DPP were to make a recommendation to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General were to make
  1462
  a decision on the basis of information that was not known to the rest of us, particularly about the only known case of sanctions busting involving people who have held ministerial positions and who still hold distinguished posts in the Civil Service.
  Mr. James Lamond: Amendment No. 13 and new clause No. 1 must be in order, otherwise they would not have been selected. The Lord Privy Seal argues that they are unnecessary because nothing in the Bill suggests that immunity from prosecutions will be granted to anyone who may be subject to criminal proceedings for breach of sanctions. Perhaps it is the Lord Privy Seal's opinion and that of those who drafted the Bill that the provisions cannot be used in that way.
  We have all had experience of Bills passing through the House and becoming Acts, believing that they did certain things, but when they reach the courts—this is particularly true of trade union legislation—they are interpreted in an entirely different way from that intended by the House. Nothing that the Minister who presents a Bill may say about what it is meant to do is noted by the courts. The lawyers and the judges look at it and interpret it as they see fit.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: What the hon. Gentleman says is true, but if he doubts what I say will he tell me and the Committee to which part of clause 3 he thinks that could possibly apply?
  Mr. Lamond: I have already said that I am prepared to accept that the Lord Privy Seal and the draftsman of the Bill believe that they have covered all the loopholes. If I were able to point to a loophole immediately I would do so, but I cannot. But that does not mean that no loophole exists. Those more practised in the law than I will examine the Bill in great detail, and it is possible that they will put an interpretation on it that will allow a case to be dropped.
  Mr. Whitehead: If my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) looks at clause 3 (2) (c), he will see there a reference to conspiracy. That might be interpreted—particularly by a Rhodesian citizen—as a reference that would get him out of anything in which he had

  1463
  been involved in connection with sanctions busting.
  Mr. Lamond: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has pointed to a loophole. No one can be sure that no loophole exists unless we add the amendment or the new clause submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and a number of my hon. Friends.
  If it does not change the Bill, why not accept the amendment and make sure that there is no loophole? The new clause and the amendment specifically mention the cases about which we are anxious and which the right hon. Gentleman agrees, apparently, should not be given immunity. Why not make the matter clear so that anyone trying to interpret the Act in a court will know exactly what we mean?
  If anyone who has been involved in sanctions busting is given immunity under the Bill, or Act as it will be, we shall weaken one of the few weapons available to the United Nations. I know that there are many arguments put forward by hon. Members that sanctions are never effective as a weapon. Examples in the distant past are quoted. I agree that sanctions were not very effective in our attempts to bring down the illegal regime in Rhodesia, but some countries still want to use sanctions rather than military force. We have all seen in the press recently that the United States Government are contemplating the use of sanctions against Iran. American officials have been to Britain, I understand, to ask how we would react to that. It might be a good idea to try to help the United States solve its difficulties in Iran by assisting it in applying sanctions.
  If we give sanctions busters immunity from prosecution, we shall make sure that any future attempt by any country to involve us in sanctions against a third country will fail, because we will have shown that at the end of the day we are prepared to wipe the slate clean on sanctions busting. Therefore, to protect ourselves in future, it would be a wise precaution to make clear in the Bill that there will be no immunity from prosecution for those who have taken part in sanctions busting.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will consider the arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friends. I accept that it is not his intention to give an amnesty for sanctions breaking, but the courts are not bound by any opinion held by the Minister or expressed in the House. They can interpret the Act as they wish.
  It is possible—I put it no higher than that—that one could argue that a breach of sanctions comes within the effects of clause 3(2)(a), (c) or (d). If one takes (a) and (c) together, they say that there is an amnesty in respect of any act related to
  "the purported declaration of independence…"
  and
  "any act…preparatory or incidental to any act falling within paragraph (a) or (b)".
  Clause 3(2)(b) refers to
  "the purported making of constitutional provision for Southern Rhodesia"
  It is arguable that an act that is incidental either to the declaration of independence or to the making of a constitution is covered by the amnesty conferred in the clause.
  If one takes clause 3(2)(d), the argument is even stronger. I do not necessarily say that it would be accepted, but the possibility is certainly there. Paragraph (d) says:
  "any act which would have been lawful if the instruments mentioned in paragraph (b) had been lawfully made".
  Therefore, it could be argued that if one provided goods for someone in Rhodesia under the unlawful constitution, and the contract would have been lawful had the constitution been lawful, there was not a breach of sanctions. I do not necessarily accept that that would be accepted by the courts, but if the Lord Privy Seals feels so strongly that he never intended to give that effect or to confer such immunity, why does he not agree to our amendment and avoid any possible doubt?
  Sir. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) said that we owed it to the Director of Public Prosecutions to accept the new clause. We do not owe it to him,

  1465
  because it would not have the slightest effect on him. The new clause says:
  "No immunity from prosecution shall arise under this Act".
  As I have already explained to the Committee, no immunity arises under the Bill.
  The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) concedes that he put forward a tortuous legal argument. If he looks at the clause more closely, I think that he will agree that that is not an argument that he would like to make in a court of law. There is a more compelling argument, which I put forward in my first intervention. There is already in British law a provision for amnesty for these offences. That is the Act that we passed last month. What on earth is the point of trying to prevent immunity from prosecution being granted under this Bill when the power to grant it is already given under another Act? This amendment is plainly redundant on both grounds.
  I come to the serious point of substance. Of course, I undertake that decisions on these matters will be made on legal grounds. The Attorney-General, as the Law Officer, has particular responsibilities which have been clearly placed on him ever since the Campbell case in 1924. Therefore, it follows that the decision on the cases that worry hon. Members will naturally be made on legal rather than on political grounds. The Attorney-General told the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in a written answer on Monday that he would make a statement on these matters in due course. I emphasise that it will he a statement, not a written answer. There will be nothing hole-and-corner about it.
  That is the point of substance. I hope that the Opposition will agree that the rest is riot a point of substance. There is no amnesty for offences under the Bill. There is a potentiality for an amnesty under an existing Act.
  Miss Joan Lestor: Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that prosecutions by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the breaking of sanctions will proceed?
  Sir I. Gilmour: I said that the Attorney-General, who in a sense is responsible for the Director of Public Prosecutions, would make a statement to the House. He will base his decision,
  1466
  as he must in view of the responsibility of his office, on legal grounds. That must be sufficient.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It is well known that the power of the Attorney-General to prosecute is circumscribed by the prima facie evidence against the accused, plus whether he thinks it is desirable in the public interest to take the prosecution. That was confirmed in the Attorney-General's latest case before Lord Denning, that of Gouriet.
  In those circumstances, it is arguable for the Attorney to say, when Rhodesia has returned to legality, that in the public interest he does not wish to proceed. It would be desirable for the Committee to reflect the opinion held by the Opposition that those prosecutions should continue. It is in the public interest that they should do so.
  Sir I. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that many points are arguable tonight. He is pretty liberal in his attitude to what is arguable.
  The Attorney-General will make his statement. It is a matter for him. The question does not arise under the Bill. However important the Opposition think the matter—no doubt it is important—the decision of the Attorney-General will be announced to the House by him in a statement. The matter is remote from the Bill and does not arise under it.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Obviously we are disappointed at the response so far. I understand from what the Lord Privy Seal said that the decision whether to prosecute will be taken on the basis of the available evidence. The phrase "within the law" may mean anything. It may mean within the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. I hope that the Minister based his remarks on the normal legal judgment that would apply to evidence.
  I do not complain if the right hon. Gentleman seeks to put the point that the new clause is defective in its drafting. In the past I have refused amendments on those grounds. I do not know the Minister's intentions about the Report stage. Perhaps on Report the Opposition could submit a manuscript amendment which would have the effect of amending the Southern Rhodesia Act that we passed a couple of weeks ago.
  Mr. Rowlands: I understand that the Lord Privy Seal is saying that there is

  1467
  nothing in the Bill that gives immunity to firms or individuals who are subject to investigation or reports to the DPP in relation to breaking sanctions. The Lord Privy Seal nods in agreement. That is confirmed.
  The first part of the argument is whether, despite that, it is worthwhile adding amendment No. 13. Although the Minister said that the proposal was redundant, many pieces of legislation have a catch-all final subsection which makes doubly sure that there are no loopholes. That is frequently done. Indeed, clause 3(4) looks pretty like one. Irrespective of what went before, that subsection was added to make doubly sure. We are suggesting the addition of a subsection (5) to make doubly sure that the statements made by the Lord Privy Seal are well and truly enshrined in the Bill.
  The second point, which has been pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and others, is not so much in relation to the Bill as to the Government's intention about outstanding cases. The Lord Privy Seal said that the Attorney-General would behave in a propor legal manner in reviewing the cases and that political considerations would not come into it. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York about that aspect of his judgment—called the public interest—is also relevant.
  The Lord Privy Seal said that we should be discussing not this Bill but the Government's powers to make orders under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979, presumably to clear the decks and to wipe the slate clean. There is no power in the 1979 Act to clear the decks.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: I said that there was the power. I did not say that we would use it.
  Mr. Rowlands: There is the power, but the right hon. Gentleman has not said whether the Government intend to use it I suggest that the assurance given to us by the Lord Privy Seal is not worth much if, whatever the Attorney-General does in respect of existing law, the Government subsequently come forward with an order under the Southern
  1468
  Rhodesia Act 1979 to clear the decks and wipe the slate clean in respect of those who are subject to investigation and possible prosecution under our sactions legislation.
  It may be that the amendment and the new clause are redundant, according to the Lord Privy Seal, but we have not had a categorical statement from the Government of their intention with regard to outstanding cases. In our view, the Government should not wipe the slate clean as regards the acts of individuals in Rhodesia or, indeed, in the United Kingdom.
  We shall watch with great suspicion and vigilance every order that comes forward under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979, because one of them could be the order to which we object most strongly. If the right hon. Gentleman brings forward such an order there will be the strongest possible objection by the Opposition, for the reasons that we have advanced.
  We have not had the assurance that we seek. The Attorney-General's traditional legal position since 1924, and so on, is scarcely of any relevance. The key issue is whether the Government intend to exercise the power to bring forward an order under the 1979 Act to wipe the slate clean. We have not had a declaration of intent from the Lord Privy Seal. However, we expect him to come to the Dispatch Box to make such a declaration as soon as possible, not in any hole-and-corner way. He has given us that assurance. Therefore, as we shall return—
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I have looked at section 3 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. The expression "amnesty from prosecution for sanctions breaking" does not appear anywhere.
  Mr. Rowlands: It would be all the better if it were not in the Act. I suspect that the Lord Privy Seal is not well versed in and briefed on that matter. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is capable of pointing to which part of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 is relevant to the points that we have made. Is it section 3(1)(b)(ii)?
  Hon. Members: Call for the Attorney-General.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is seeking the advice of the Attorney-General.
  Mr. Rowlands: We need not call for him, because he is here.
  11.30 pm
  Sir Ian Gilmour: It is section 31(1)(b)(ii).
  Mr. Rowlands: We shall watch with great interest and vigilance any of the orders produced under that subsection.
  Does the Lord Privy Seal or the Attorney-General wish to elaborate on that sub-paragraph, which says
  "in connection with the repeal, revocation, expiration or lapse of any statutory provision relating to sanctions"?
  When we debated that Bill, because the House was treated in a shameful fashion we probably did not consider it in as much detail as we should have done. We took clause 3, as it was, to mean the removal or reimposition of sanctions. We thought that it was the provision to enable the Government, if everything went dreadfully wrong in the interim period, to reimpose sanctions. It was in terms entirely of lifting or unravelling sanctions, as well as the possibility of reimposing them in extreme circumstances, that we read that sub-paragraph. That shows that the House should not rush legislation through.
  There will be a terrible row if the Government attempt to wipe the slate clean for those who have been cheating on sanctions or who have been subject to investigation and possible prosecution under the existing law. That is a different matter from the commission of illegal acts by individuals in Rhodesia. We are talking not of that but of cynical, deceitful acts carried out for monetary gain by companies which knew that they were breaking the law. That has nothing to do with the political passions which have rent Rhodesia and which should have the amnesty provided by the Bill.
  In view of the assurance that the Bill does not give any such immunity I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but we shall certainly return to the issue in the very near future, and we expect the Lord Privy Seal to do so, too.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I understand that if a Bill is unamended in Committee there is no Report stage, and it proceeds directly from the Committee stage to Third Reading. An important point has arisen out of the debate.
  The Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 contains provisions for anyone, any company, anybody or anything to be granted immunity from prosecution if such an intention had been in the Government's mind, it would have been proper for them, when drafting the Bill, to have included a clause which specified the possibility of an amnesty in the way in which we now gather the Act does.
  My point of order is that the Government have shown no willingness so far to accept any amendments. There is a distinct possibility that the Bill will finish its Committee stage without being amended. In those circumstances, if I or my hon. Friends can draft a suitable manuscript amendment to schedule 3, which deals with repeals, will you accept it? It would seek to repeal part of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. I ask you to consider whether that would be in order.
  The Chairman: I thank the hon. Member for raising his point of order. I shall have to see the manuscript amendment before I can make any decision on it.
  Mr. Whitehead: I do not wish to delay the Committe unduly, but this a serious matter. Conservative Members who are here to keep the Committee should remember that we are rushing legislation through tonight. There is a good reason for doing that, but I think that it is worth while asking the Attorney-General to intervene and explain precisely how an immunity provision is explained in the legislation that is being raised in this debate.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Would the Committee be assisted, and the purpose of the Government made plain, if the Attorney-General were to say precisely that there will be no immunity in relation to the matters under consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions at the

  1471
  moment and that he will take his decision on prosecution on the evidence and on the criterion of the public interest, which is the way in which Attorney-Generals normally take a decision about prosecutions? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to give us the assurance that no immunity is intended, I am sure that the whole of the argument would fall.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I did not hear the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but if he is referring to Bingham I can deal with that.
  The Chairman: Order. I think that this should be dealt with on the Question, That clause 3 stand part of the Bill.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  The Attorney-General: If the Committee is asking me whether I intend to make a statement on the matters referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions as a result of the Bingham report, regardless of any immunity or amnesty that may or may not be granted under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979, I can give that assurance. That will be done as soon as possible and will be independent of any amnesty that may be considered by the Government.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that statement because, as he will have seen from new clause 1, which was not moved, that is precisely what we are trying to achieve. I asked the Lord Privy Seal for an assurance that the decision of the DPP would be related to the evidence under the normal legal procedures for deciding whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed. If that is what the Attorney-General is saying tonight, I am grateful, but I want as clear clarification as I can get.
  The Attorney-General: The statement that I shall make—I hope very soon; I am sorry that it has been delayed—in respect of the decision of the DPP on matters referred to in Bingham is that it is not simply a question of sufficient evidence; there is the public interest aspect as well. It will be a decision that will be totally unrelated to any decision that the
  1472
  Government may take about amnesty in respect of that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

  CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN RELATION TO ZIMBABWE, AND SAVINGS
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 38, leave out paragraph 7.
  The Chairman: With this we are to take amendment No. 12, in page 9, line 5, leave out paragraph 8.
  Mr. Lyon: This is an amendment to remove paragraph 7 from the effect of the schedule. We have already passed clause 6, which makes the schedule have effect.
  I am not arguing with the Chair, but I should have thought that we had jumped the gun. However, that matter having been ruled upon, my purpose, as I indicated in an intervention, is to raise the matter of registration. Because the Government have taken the decision, wrongly in my view, to remove Commonwealth status from Zimbabwe from the beginning of independence until the Government of Zimbabwe decide to come back into the Commonwealth, this affects the right of patrials of this country who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies.
  As the Under-Secretary of State has indicated, this involves about 70,000 of the 150,000 people living in Zimbabwe who would be entitled to come to this country. If the Government had taken the course that I suggested, they would not be placed in this difficulty. There would be no risk to those 70,000 people. They would be patrial. The Under-Secretary would be right to say that all that he is doing is to reinstate the law as it was. I have always objected, as did everyone on the Opposition side, to section 2(1)(d) of the 1971 Act, which makes a person patrial even though he is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and

  1473
  colonies. We should now say that if the Government have taken this step it should not be reversed, to allow those 70,000 to enter in the 12 months following independence for Zimbabwe.
  Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who has now left the Front Bench, said that he did not think that there were great immigration implications in this move, I am not sure that that is so. The Under-Secretary of State indicated that the earlier amendment might affect only a few hundred, and I accept that, but this amendment affects about 70,000 people.
  If the Government elected in Zimbabwe in the course of these free and fair elections are a Government whom the whites in Rhodesia like, they may want to stay. If a Government are elected whom the whites do not like, they may want to move. Where will they move to? There are 150,000 who have the right to come here and not to go anywhere else. It is conceivable that South Africa, Australia or Canada may be willing to take them, but they would have to qualify under the immigration rules for entry in those countries. They would not have to qualify under any rules allowing them to come to this country because they have the status of patriality under the 1971 Act.
  There is nothing that we can do about the 80,000 patrial citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. The only definition at the moment of British citizen is "British citizen". No one can take that away from them. That test was put in the 1971 Act to allow whites, but not blacks, to come in, and it is the nub of the racist case for the Act.
  A lacuna has opened up because of the way in which the Government have drafted the Bill, and we ought to be careful about allowing it to be closed for 12 months for the 70,000 who can choose to stay if they like the look of the new Government or come here as partials—without even having to apply or qualify tinder the immigration rules.
  11.45 pm
  Only a week ago the Government passed the most nauseating, racially discriminatory rules in order to keep out 4,000 people, on the basis that they were primary immigrants—men who could take our jobs. What is to happen to the
  1474
  70,000 whites who will be allowed to come here within the 12 months during which they have to exercise their rights under the schedule? Areas of Eastbourne and Bognor Regis will be swamped. Some Conservative Members may think that that will swell their majorities, but some of the expressions of political affiliation that I have heard from whites in Rhodesia lead me to think that there may be a substantial National Front vote there. Hon. Members will need to be careful about their seats.
  I hope that all the 70,000 do not go to Reigate. I should not like to see the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) have to give up his seat to the National Front—though perhaps there would not be that much difference.
  Mr. James Lomond: It would be a swing to the Left.
  Mr. Lyon: There is a serious question about what we would do with 70,000 people who would want jobs and homes in this country and would therefore be in competition with those already living here. The lacuna has opened up and I do not believe that we should allow the Government's proposals to pass.
  Mr. Luce: This is the second or third time that we have discussed the citizenship provisions in the Bill. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) seeks to raise again the question of the 70,000 people who, at the moment, have rights of entry into the United Kingdom on the ground of patriality. I can only reiterate my previous argument that the provisions are necessary because, until the Government of the new Zimbabwe decide to the contrary, that country will be outside the Commonwealth.
  We are providing a year's grace in order to overcome what would otherwise be problems of individual hardship and to clarify and give a greater degree of certainty to the position of that category of people.
  It is wrong to suggest that there is likely to be a massive panic and a massive exodus from Rhodesia. The purpose of the efforts of recent months, leading up to the Bill and the arrival of the Governor, has been to help to create conditions in which black and white people will feel that they want to stay in Zimbabwe, make a future there,

  1475
  contribute to their country and share as equal citizens in its future.
  I do not think that it helps to talk about the dangers of a massive exodus at a time when we are trying to achieve the very opposite. We wish to persuade as many as possible to stay in Rhodesia. If we do not provide for one year of grace, there could be created a greater degree of uncertainty and unease among the 70,000 during the next three months, during the pre-independence period. If they do not have adequate time to think about their future and to see how things settle, that could lead to a greater degree of unease about their position in Rhodesia and exacerbate the situation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to see that happen.
  I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

  REPEALS
  Question proposed, That this schedule be the third schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Dobson: I am advised by my hon., but not learned, Friends that this is the appropriate moment to advance my argument. In the debate on 12 November on the Southern Rhodesia Bill, No. 1, so to speak, which was rushed through the House of Commons—
  Mr. James Lamond: Like this one.
  Mr. Dobson: Yes, like this one. On 12 November I asked the Lord Privy Seal, in Hansard at column 1098, to give an undertaking that nothing in the Bill, or in consequential legislation flowing from it, would grant any indemnity or amnesty to anyone who had been breaking sanctions. In the right hon. Gentleman's reply—I refer to column 1099–he merely abused me for attacking the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  The Chairman: Order. I must bring the hon. Gentleman to order. He must address his remarks to the contents of schedule 3. We are not dealing with the
  1476
  repeal of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979.
  Mr. Rowlands: The schedule repeals sections 3(4) and (5) of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979.
  The Chairman: I apologise to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), and I invite him to continue.
  Mr. Dobson: I believe that it is in order, Mr. Weatherill, to suggest that a further section should be included. If that is so, it seems appropriate to raise the matter now. I appreciate that in the earlier debate, when the negotiations at Lancaster House were at their height, or possibly depth, it was reasonable, and perhaps necessary, for the Lord Privy Seal, even if it was irritating for my right hon. and hon. Friends and for some of his hon. Friends, not to come clean on what was going on at the conference, and not to draw out in great detail matters that were then in dispute between the Government and the other parties to the conference.
  Having been faced with that straightforward question, surely the right hon. Gentleman was under an obligation. If he now grins and says "You are too late in the No. 1 Bill to catch up with an amnesty on sanctions", I contend that be was honour bound during the passage of the No. 1 Bill to acknowledge, when asked the specific question by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and myself, that it was the Government's intention that the No. 1 Bill when enacted would provide the power to grant an amnesty or indemnity in the circumstances that my hon. Friend and I had in mind. In those circumstances, it is appropriate for the Government to put forward an amendment to schedule 3 that will make it clear that that part of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 has been repealed. That is the only way in which the Lord Privy Seal can honourably discharge his duty to the Committee.
  Mr. Rowlands: Further to that interesting point and to the fact that the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 has reared its head as a result of the Lord Privy Seal's earlier reply, will he tell us when, during the debate on that measure, he and his colleagues drew our attention to

  1477
  fact that the provisions in clause 3(1)(b)(ii) cover that aspect?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about the effect of repealing sections 3(4) and 3(5) of the Southern Rhodesia Act? If one reads sections 3(4) and 3(5) of that Act, one sees that they maintain four of the Orders in Council even though section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 has lapsed. Section 34(c) deals with Southern Rhodesian matrimonial jurisdiction. What will happen to that when that order is repealed? The fourth order that was covered by subsection (4) was the immunity order for those attending the Lancaster House conference. If that conference continues but the Zimbabwe Bill becomes an Act, will immunity be withdrawn? What provision in the Zimbabwe Bill maintains immunity for those attending that conference? If the Zimbabwe Bill is enacted before that conference finishes, what provisions will apply? Section 3(4) will be abolished as a result of the Bill. Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us what will happen to those four orders for which special provision was made in the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979? What part of the Zimbabwe Bill will cover those four orders?
  A part from any matrimonial problems that may arise as a result of the abolition of section 3(4)(c) of the 1979 Act, what will happen if section 3(4)(d) is abolished? That provided immunity to those attending the Lancaster House conference. If that has been abolished, where do party delegates to that conference obtain immunity?
  The Attorney-General: I did not raise a point of order on the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), but his objection concerns section 3(4) and (5) of the 1979 Act. Those sections were provided to protect, in particular, British citizens. For example, it protected those who had obtained divorces in Southern Rhodesia after the Adams v. Adams case of 1970, which created an odd position. A woman had succeeded in a divorce action and been granted a decree nisi by a judge who had been appointed before UDI. In fact, that divorce was not recognised. She was in this country with children, the unfairness of that was recognised, and a special order was laid by the then Foreign Secretary, now my right hon. and
  1478
  noble Friend Lord Home. That was one of the orders that was kept going in the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 until we could get the Zimbabwe Bill through.
  However, the hon. Gentleman's objection goes back to the immunity which relates to the repeals in schedule 3. Those repeals are merely those designed to protect those who might otherwise have suffered unfairly because they had no direct connection—for example, in the Southern Rhodesia (Matrimonial Jurisdiction) Order—with Rhodesia, or to protect the immunity of persons attending the Lancaster House conference. Those have been provided for in the present Bill and were, therefore, properly repealed in the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979.
  Mr. Rowlands: Exactly where in the Zimbabwe Bill is the immunity for persons at the conference?
  The Attorney-General: The immunity is provided, as I think the Committee has been told, in clause 3, where one finds that there is now an amnesty in respect—
  Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Why are people being cast out of the Strangers' Gallery?
  The Chairman: That is not a point of order.
  The Attorney-General: I am sorry, but I did not quite understand the purpose of the interruption. I am always sad to lose any audience, whether here or anywhere else, but probably none of my constitutents is there.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil will appreciate that the immunity is contained in clause 3(2), but the whole purpose, as I think my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said, is to wipe the slate clean domestically within the confines of Rhodesia.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  12.2 am
  Mr. Winnick: There should be no doubt that many of us remain unhappy with the Bill. Had the Lord Privy Seal been more willing to accept some of the

  1479
  amendments, I believe that he would have gone some way towards satisfying Labour Members. I refer particularly to the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) regarding parliamentary approval before the Order in Council is made. However, there was no willingness to accept any of the amendments, and that is rather unfortunate.
  The Government must satisfy more than this House. International opinion will be very concerned to see that if a ceasefire takes place fair and free elections occur, and above all that there is complete fairness in the way in which political arrangements are carried out after a ceasefire.
  It is also extremely important that the United Kingdom is not seen as taking the side of one of the parties if a ceasefire is duly agreed upon. There remains a great deal of suspicion beyond these Benches, throughout Africa and Asia, that there is an inbuilt sympathy on the part of the British Government for the Salisbury authorities. Therefore, it is extremely important that if a ceasefire is agreed upon the elections occur as freely and as fairly as possible in all circumstances.
  Britain has suffered a great deal of criticism during the 14 years of UDI. It is possible that some of this criticism was not always justified. My right hon. Friend said that we had to bear in mind that since 1923 Rhodesia had been a self-governing colony and that we did not have the responsibility or the power. That may well be so, and I agree with my right hon. Friend, but some of the criticism that has been levelled at us, and certainly that over sanctions busting, was more than justified. Therefore, when historians come to write of the period from 1965 to the present, and the next few months, I do not think that we shall be altogether happy about Britain's role under successive Governments since UDI in November 1965.
  Above all, if a ceasefire is implemented, we must ensure that in the remaining months, we carry out our responsibility in the fairest possible way and that we do not allow our conduct to be such that it leads to more international criticism that would be justified.
  1480
  Although there has been no Division on the Bill's Second Reading and it is unlikely that there will be one on Third Reading either, many of us remain rather unhappy over the whole position.
  12.6 am
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall not detain the House for long.
  The future of the new Zimbabwe is now clearly mapped out in respect of its Government. I think that all of us would wish that we had no need to return to debate the issue whether independence should be conferred upon Zimbabwe because things will have gone so well that we shall all be delighted at the turn of events. Nevertheless, we have expressed reservations during the passage of the Bill. I regret that the Lord Privy Seal's answers did very little to reassure us, because he found it very difficult to address himself to the points under discussion.
  Instead of the right hon. Gentleman formally moving the Third Reading, I had hoped that he would take the opportunity to reply to the serious challenge made to him about his failure to reply to the substantive point about immunity. It is clear from Hansard that he was specifically asked by two Members of the House to give an assurance that no immunity would arise out of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. He declined to answer. I am sure that he did not deliberately mislead the House, but it is clear that the House was, in fact, misled. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take this opportunity to make clear how far the intention goes to link this Bill and the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 concerning policy on amnesty and immunity. It is clear that the two matters are related.
  If all goes well, the Government will take one attitude. If things go badly, they may take a different view. The Lord Privy Seal should not have regarded this Bill and the one that came before it as raising an issue on which one could take the view that has bedevilled this House for years and during the whole of the period of sanctions, namely, that whilst it was not the Government's purpose to lie to the House, it was their purpose just not to tell the truth.
  I hope that we shall at some later stage in this legislation find glaring loopholes

  1481
  in what it appears to do compared with the Government's expressed intention or the Government's intention not expressed.
  If we wish Parliament to have a reputation for integrity, and if we wish to seek to redress the loss of integrity which Parliament, through successive Governments, has brought about for this country by its behaviour over the Rhodesia issue we could have no better opportunity to do so than during our final acts in dealing with this matter in this House. The Government should try to re-establish our sense of integrity by not trying to slip things through the House without making clear their intentions. I hope that if we ever discuss the independence of Zimbabwe again it will be a matter for congratulation that we have finally laid the past to rest. However, I fear that that will not be the position.
  I trust that the Government in their dealings at Lancaster House will not negotiate on the basis of trying to slip things through. The penalty for that will not be paid by this House. The penalty for failure, for not being straight and honest at the Lancaster House negotiations, will be paid in the lives and the blood of the people of Zimbabwe. They have paid enough already. I hope that they do not have to pay any more.
  12.10 am
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The last thing of which the Government can be accused is duplicity. If any country wishes to take up the question of sanctions busting—a point raised a number of times—it should do so with those companies which have busted sanctions on a far wider scale—and with far more Government knowledge—than have companies in this country.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Which countries?
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asks which countries. If he looks at the United Nations sanctions committee report on some of the Eastern European countries which have been involved in trade with Rhodesia he might ask himself how those countries, with State enterprises, can be brought before some international court or whether they have been so brought up to the time of the legality of Rhodesia.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bottomley: If it will be useful.
  Mr. Dobson: I hope that it will be useful. I believe that it is thoroughly reprehensible that all the States that were involved in trading with the illegal regime should have done that, but I think that it must be accepted that the most reprehensible of them is Britain. It was our sovereign territory that was in rebellion against us. It was at our request that the rest of the world imposed United Nations sanctions. We promoted sanctions and we went against them. It is no excuse for successive British Governments, who have dealt with this matter so pathetically at times and so perfidiously at others, to say that the East Europeans, the United States of America, the French and the USSR—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatberill): Order. The hon. Member must not make a speech.
  Mr. Bottomley: I revert to the Third Reading. It is worth saying that I have been behind the efforts of the Government on Rhodesia, and occasionally in front of them. I hope that I have not caused too much difficulty to the Government spokesmen on foreign affairs.
  It would be too easy to start listing the possible sources of instability and continued conflict. It is more important that we make sure that everything possible is done to ensure that the initiative that has taken place is not broken on the anvil of intransigent Rhodesian politics during the election campaign after independence.
  I hope that we can sweep away all the consequences—sanctions busting or otherwise—of the years of UDI. The last thing that I should like to see after 14 years of failed initiatives is Britain being drawn into fighting a guerrilla war. The only way in which peace will come, and the only way in which the elections can be free and fair, is if the fighting is stopped. That requires effort from all sides. It is probably true that the constitution gives total satisfaction to nobody. However, the spirit of compromise at Lancaster House can be carried forward to Rhodesia.
  There are some points that I want to make on the transitional period but I shall keep them for the order that is to follow this debate. My final remark on the Bill, which I welcome, is that the

  1483
  Government must not allow the remarkable achievements of the negotiating table to be placed in jeopardy through half-hearted measures on the ground. I hope that united support for the Third Reading will ensure that the Bill gives the lead and the opportunity to Rhodesia that it has needed not only for the last 14 or 15 years but for the last 55.
  12.15 am
  Mr. Russell Johnston: It is sad that the Third Reading should be dominated by sanctions busting and the Bingham report, but that does not mean that I think that hon. Members should not deal with the matter. We are doing something that is important. I understand that the Attorney-General gave a specific undertaking that, although the amnesty in the Bill refers to those within the territory of Southern Rhodesia, that does not prevent the DPP from prosecuting British citizens in Britain who have engaged in sanctions breaking. If that is so, we have no complaint.
  I do not wish to delay the House. We have been over the arguments. We have watched the Lancaster House talks, without always knowing what was happening. This matter is unlikely to return to the House. We must wait and pray, and hope that it works. I certainly hope that it does.
  12.17 am
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I do not want the sour comments of some Opposition Members to be characteristic of the Bill's passage. This is the last and perhaps the most difficult example of Britain bringing a colony to independence. It would not be right for that to happen without paying tribute to all those involved in bringing that about over such a long period. Some Opposition Members have overlooked that a large proportion of the Rhodesian people were against UDI. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was?"] Hon. Members show their ignorance if they do not know that. Many of them, including at least one judge, were against UDI. He courageously and honourably resigned and left the country so that he need have nothing to do with what was happening. Too often do we overlook that there was considerable opposition and that little could be done about it.
  1484
  We should praise the Government for having done what so many Governments failed to do. We should praise the parties involved for their sense of responsibility and conciliation. We should also praise the front-line States. Nigeria, through its representative at the Lancaster House talks, Alhaji Maitama Stile, has exercised considerable influence and given friendly persuasive advice and support to those who wanted this desirable conclusion. We should all wish "God speed" to Zimbabwe.
  12.19 am
  Mr. Maxton: I did not intend to speak, but the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) accused my hon. Friends of making sour remarks. It is not justifiable to say that those remarks were sour. As the official Opposition, we have a duty to examine all legislation and make legitimate criticisms of it. That is not being sour. More importantly, we have some distrust of the processes by which the legislation is being carried out. We have good reason to distrust those who have been in power in Rhodesia for the past 14 years. They have not given up power willingly or graciously. They were forced to do so.
  We also have some distrust not so much of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench but of some hon. Members on the Government Back Benches. We can justly say that if the Labour Government had reached this sort of agreement with all the parties eight months ago those Conservatives would have accused us of selling out the white Rhodesians. Now they are all standing up and praising the Government Front Bench for the deal that has been made. That makes us distrustful of the agreement that has been reached. We distrust the people who have supported the Smith regime for 14 years in the House.
  We have been consistent in trying to seek an agreement to which all parties would agree. We are concerned to see that the majority in Zimbabwe get a fair deal and fair elections and are not victimised following the elections.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA CONSTITUTION (INTERIM PROVISIONS) ORDER 1979
  12.20 am
  The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): I beg to move,
  That the Southern Rhodesia Constitution (Interim Provisions) Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 December, be approved.
  The order is subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses within 28 days. Articles 1 and 3 of the order came into operation on 4 December. The remainder of the order was brought into effect today by a notice signed by my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
  The purpose of the order, as its title clearly indicates, is to make temporary provision for the government of Southern Rhodesia. It does so in terms which have been agreed by all the parties at the constitutional conference, and were spelt out in the document on the pre-independence arrangements.
  The order creates the offices of Governor and Deputy Governor of Southern Rhodesia. As the House has already been informed, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Soames has been appointed by Her Majesty to be the Governor of Southern Rhodesia. The Deputy Governor is Sir Antony Duff, deputy to the permanent secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who has played a leading part in the negotiations at the constitutional conference.
  The order confers full legislative powers in Southern Rhodesia on the Governor. He will be able to make laws by ordinance. He will also have the power to continue existing laws with such modifications as he thinks fit, and to validate transactions entered into during the period since 11 November 1965. The Governor's first ordinance, which sets out in greater detail how he will exercise his powers, will be published shortly in Salisbury. So also will a second ordinance, setting out the functions of the election commissioner and his staff and establishing the Election Council, in accordance with the arrangements agreed at the conference for the pre-independence elections. I shall arrange for copies of these ordinances to be placed in the Library of the House.
  1486
  While the legislative power conferred upon the Governor is very extensive, my right honourable and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made clear at the constitutional conference that the power will not be used to make changes in Rhodesia which are properly the business of an elected Government. The Governor's role will be to organise elections and maintain the administration of the country on a caretaker basis.
  The order also confers upon the Governor full executive authority in Southern Rhodesia, and requires all officers and authorities in Rhodesia to obey his instructions. Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues will not exercise ministerial powers during the Governor's period of office. This provision is crucial to the implementation of the pre-independence arrangements agreed at the constitutional conference. It will give the Governor the authority with which to ensure the impartial administration of the country during the elections and the implementation of the ceasefire. At the same time, it recognises that he will have to work through the existing administration and police.
  As the House knows, the Government have taken the view—and this has been accepted by the parties at the conference—that there is no practical alternative in this brief period to using the existing services. It will be for the Government of independent Zimbabwe to decide on the future structure of the services of the State.
  The order also vests in the Governor the prerogative of mercy. During the pre-independence period no sentences of death can be carried out unless it be confirmed by the Governor. It would not be in accord with the policy of Her Majesty's Government that executions should take place.
  Finally, the order provides that the rights and liabilities of the Government of Southern Rhodesia, including the pre-UDI debts and liabilities, remain enforceable.
  I shall not detain the House at this late hour by repeating the reasons which have led the Government to decide to appoint a Governor for Southern Rhodesia. These were set out fully during the debate on the Southern Rhodesia Act, in subsequent statements and again

  1487
  in my speech on the Second Reading of the Zimbabwe Bill today. The constitutional responsibility for bringing Rhodesia to independence rests with Britain. It has been agreed by the parties and by the Commonwealth that there should be elections under our authority. To ensure that all parties can take part on an equal footing, that authority must extend not only to the elections but also over the whole administration of the country. This order confers the powers which enable a British Governor to carry out the responsibilities laid upon him under the agreements reached at the constitutional conference. I therefore commend the order to the House.
  12.25 am
  Mr. Peter Shore: I shall be brief. This order gives power to the Governor in Salisbury, and now that the Salisbury Parliament has dissolved itself and Rhodesia has returned to the status of a colony it is inevitable that the Governor must be equipped with the necessary powers to govern the country in the period up to the elections and the formation of the new Government. That is why he is given legislative and wide executive powers, such as the prerogative of mercy and control over the armed forces, which is specifically mentioned in article 5 (4) of the order. All these things are necessary, and the only questions that come to mind are those of the circumstances in which these powers should be exercised and when they should be assumed by the Governor in Salisbury.
  In our view there is a missing component in the arrangements, and that is the ceasefire. We now have a situation in which the Governor controls the whole State apparatus of Rhodesia. At the same time there are men at arms throughout that country. About 90 per cent. of it is under martial law and there are substantial concentrations of men at arms near the frontiers of Mozambique and Zambia. These men will continue operations until they receive instructions from their leaders to operate a ceasefire.
  The House must face the fact that a clash between the Rhodesian armed forces and the guerrilla army is a real and present danger. If that clash were to take place on any scale, Britain, through the Governor who is the Commander-in-
  1488
  Chief, would be directly involved in the civil war.
  Yesterday we tried to drive home the implications of that to the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister. We were right to do so before the Governor departed. I do not want to go over that again, if only because the Governor has already arrived in Rhodesia. I find it a matter for great criticism that this order, giving the Governor these powers, should have been put down for debate not before his departure but after his arrival. If ever there was a case of locking the stable door after the horse had bolted, this is it. I carefully read the reports of yesterday's exchanges both in this House and in the other place. I understand all the various factors in the Government's mind and how they operated upon them in coming to their decision to send Lord Soames to Salisbury yesterday.
  The announcement, made, I think, by the Under-Secretary of State, that the supply of maize to Zambia is being resumed is an immediate and welcome development following the Governor's arrival there, as is the information—if I gleaned it rightly—that the martial courts are being suspended.
  We must acknowledge that all this is indeed a gamble. We think that there are very grave risks. However, it may well be—indeed, I hope that it will be—that the Government are on a winning streak in their present gambling mood, that the ceasefire agreement will be quickly announced and that our anxieties will be shown to have been unjustified.
  There is nothing more that I can say to the rear of the already departed horse.
  12.32 am
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is important to recognise that the Government—and presumably the Governor—intend to make as few changes as possible, and only those that will lead towards free and fair elections. It is right that there should be as many confidence-building measures as possible, because what happens between now, the elections and the achievement of full independence will affect the chances of a coup, counter-coup or stability after independence has been achieved.
  I hope that the Governor, using these

  1489
  powers, will do what he can to respond to the unprecedented appeal by the International Red Cross about the relief work and rebuilding necessary to help those who have suffered from a particularly wanton and persistently cruel war.
  I am delighted to hear that the Governor has already started the maize transfers to Zambia, but food relief within Rhodesia is just as important. I hope that the people of Rhodesia directly under his care will find the risk of famine receding as the weeks go by with him in office.
  The Governor will need to give attention under these powers to the problems of refugees both inside the country—those who flocked to the urban areas, many of whom have a miserable existence in the squatter settlements in and around the cities—and those in refugee camps outside the country's borders. I hope that during the election period and the time leading up to it operations will take place to enable people to return to their homes. It may be necessary for some of the protected villages to remain, but I hope that as many people in them as possible will be able to return home if they wish to do so. I trust that those who continue to live in them will be able to go about their business outside the camps, which they have not been able to do in the recent past.
  I should like the Governor to give attention to the question of the detainees. I am delighted to hear that the military tribunals and hangings will cease, but there is still the question of the conservative estimate of 18,000 detainees. Perhaps the Government or the Governor can pay attention to that. I appeal to the Patriotic Front to release any people who are at present unwillingly within its custody and care. Perhaps at some stage the Government, or the Governor, will make a statement on the question of people who were deported or who are persona non grata in Rhodesia and say whether those who have not been able to return to Salisbury from outside the country in the recent past will be able to do so if they are not openly or understandably recognised as subversive.
  The next points that I wish to make are on education and hospitals. Many schools, hospitals and clinics have had to close during the past few years. One of
  1490
  the confidence-building measures that can be taken during the next two months is to reopen them. It is estimated that 400,000 children have lost their education in the past few years. It would be confidence-building to them and to their parents if they could get back to school and start receiving the education that will be necessary for an independent Zimbabwe.
  As a final point, I ask the Governor to ensure that the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian Broadcasting Corporation starts using the world service of the BBC for its international news instead of using the South African news service. It is not that I have anything in particular against South African broadcasting, but, having fought to preserve the external and world services of the BBC, I think that that would be regarded as impartial both inside and outside Rhodesia.
  12.36 am
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I want to follow immediately the last point made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley)—a point with which I agree. All of us tonight would wish to speed Lord Soames on his way with our fervent good wishes for his success and perhaps not quibble too much about the day or two days too early or too late that he might have gone. If he succeeds, no one will reflect whether he might have waited another day or two days and, if he fails, whether any amount of delay might have altered that course. We must all hope that he succeeds.
  The point that I wish to make concerns the executive powers of Lord Soames under article 5 of the statutory instrument with regard to the control of the public services in Rhodesia. We are told by the Lord Privy Seal that the Governor will issue ordinances consequent upon this statutory instrument. Those ordinances will not come before the House, so this is our only opportunity to raise points which we have attempted to bring up at Question Time and on other occasions recently.
  I wish to press the Lord Privy Seal on a matter that I raised with him at Question Time recently and which has been touched on by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, namely, the control of the Rhodesian broadcasting services in the run-up to the independence election.

  1491
  The public services taken over by Lord Soames in his capacity as Governor fall into two distinct functions: some purely administrative, and others that are in a sense mediatory. The administrative functions go on as before. There may be a tug of loyalties and problems, but most public servants in Rhodesia will continue in their jobs. That goes for policemen, too. They will be doing what they were doing before. But for those who are in charge of the information services there is a different and more complex problem. That problem arises from the massive change in function that they must now undergo.
  Those of us who have been subject, as most hon. Members have over the years, to Rhodesian propaganda emanating from Salisbury know the nature and style of that material. They have been used to being—and so have the Rhodesian broadcasting services—a mouthpiece for the Smith Government and then for the internal settlement. They are now being asked to provide an even-handed service between their former Government—no longer their Government—and an organisation that for many years they have been accustomed to describe as, and no doubt believed to be, bloodthirsty terrorists.
  In the circumstances, it seems extremely unlikely that the Rhodesian broadcasting services, left to themselves, could, even if the best will in the world obtained, which I doubt, provide the kind of services necessary to get over in this deeply divided country anything like a proper balance of views and opinions. I am thinking much more of radio and of the vernacular services in the Shona and Matabele languages than of the comparatively few people who watch television or listen to English language relays. I hope that, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West said, the service provided externally to Rhodesia will be not the South African but the BBC service. The BBC's overseas services were formerly relayed through Francis town to Rhodesia, so it should be technically possible, before the election, to have the overseas services relayed there again.
  The Lord Privy Seal, in answer to me in the House recently, said that the House could rest assured that there would be fair coverage provided by the Rhodesian
  1492
  broadcasting services. However, he did not say how, and there have been extensive press reports that the Government have turned down proposals to send BBC or other experts from Britain to oversee the broadcasting services during the election period.
  I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should think again on this matter Mr. Garfield Todd and others in Rhodesia have made strong representations about the nature of the broadcasting services which the Rhodesians enjoy—if that is the right word—at the moment, and the need to change them. Although Mr. Todd used to be the subject of some derision on the Conservative Benches, he has been clearly vindicated by events.
  Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether it is envisaged that Lord Soames' entourage will include people who will take over the administration of the Rhodesian broadcasting and information services? Unless that happens I do not believe that there can be anything like proper provision of even-handed coverage, particularly in the vernacular languages, for the people of Rhodesia. They will need that in the run-up to the election bearing in mind what is being asked of both sides who will be fighting it.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Earlier today we were told that an official from the Central Office of Information would be going out. Does the hon. Member agree that we want to hear that there has been a request from the Governor or from the Central Office of Information official that BBC personnel should be seconded to provide in Rhodesia the same kind of balance as we have here?
  Mr. Whitehead: That is precisely the point. I am talking both of technical personnel and reporters, those who will keep the ring in the broadcast service. It will include interviews with the leaders of the various parties. It is highly unlikely that this will be anything like a British election. I have seen some naive documents suggesting that election round-up programmes should be introduced with "It is your line to Robert Mugabe" as the chief enticement to the housewives of Salisbury. That is not the kind of programmes that we are talking about. I am referring to the opportunity being provided for all the various factions in the election to put their points of view, and for

  1493
  that to be mediated fairly by the professional broadcasters.
  I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to tell us that experts from this country, or from elsewhere in the Commonwealth, will go out, at the Government's request, to provide that service.
  12.43 a.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I wish to make a general comment about the order and the Lord Privy Seal's method of presenting it. He should speak not of the power of the Governor but of his authority. The two things must not be confused. The Governor has the authority. Whether he has the power we have to wait and see.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) raised the issue of the return of refugees from outside the country. It is important that they should be able to return at the earliest possible stage. I have not had a figure confirmed, but there may be as many as 250,000 voters outside Rhodesia. If that is so, it could make a substantial difference to the result of the election.
  I hope that they will be able to return and that it will be possible for the protected villages to be disbanded so that people can go about their business in as normal a way as possible. It would be too much to expect that within a matter of days a country that has been strife-torn for seven years can suddenly return to normality. It will be a very long time before the country does return to normality—probably it will be long after the election. The process of conciliation and reconciliation will take some time to become fully effective. I hope that it will begin as quickly as possible.
  The points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) about the way in which the media will deal with events should be taken very seriously. There is certainly evidence in this country that our reporting of events in Rhodesia leaves a lot to be desired. I have written today to ITN on the basis of a complaint raised with me about ITN's coverage from Salisbury of the announcement that a ceasefire had been agreed in principle. The ITN reporter went out on to the streets of Salisbury and purported to seek the views of the people of Rhodesia on the outcome of the
  1494
  ceasefire. It is incredible that he sought the views only of white people, who are outnumbered by seven to one.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Twenty-seven to one.
  Mr. Hughes: It is late, but I am always glad to be corrected. The hon. Gentleman reinforces the point that I am making. It is incredible that not one black person on the streets of Salisbury was asked to express a view on the ceasefire. If that kind of biased reporting is transmitted to this country, how can we expect that balanced reporting and a balance of information will be made available within Rhodesia in the period leading up to the elections? I hope that every possible step will be taken to remedy that situation.
  I hope that the Governor will take on board that an attempt to get free and fair elections is not simply a question of holding the ring between opposing forces in terms of military forces. It is not a matter of sitting back and passively waiting to see whether any technical breaches of the constitutional arrangements or irregularities in procedure occur. There are serious problems, some of which have been mentioned, such as the difficulty of obtaining committee rooms. If it is accepted that communications are important, it should be remembered that telephones are a matter of our electoral life that we take for granted.
  If we explain to the Post Office that we have a committee room in a particular street, it is only a matter of hours before a telephone is installed. Do we imagine that if the Patriotic Front says that it wants a telephone in a remote area those in charge of installing telephones in Rhodesia will go out of their way to see that such a request is met quickly? If this election is to be run fairly, the Governor must make sure that communications are provided. I believe I am correct in saying that the Government have agreed to make radio sets available to the Patriotic Front in order to communicate orders about the ceasefire. Perhaps the provision of telephones should be considered in a similar way.
  Article 6 deals with the prerogative of mercy. I am glad to hear that the martial law courts have been suspended. That is the kind of action for which we have been looking to get things moving. I am also

  1495
  glad to hear that hangings are to cease. May we assume that the prerogative of mercy will be exercised by the Governor for those who have been sentenced by these courts in the past and that they will be released from whatever the circumstances in which they have been imprisoned?
  Sir Ian Gilmour Sir Ian Gilmour indicated assent.
  Mr. Hughes: Those are the kinds at matters that justify sending the Governor in advance. Had we been told in advance that that was the sort of action that was likely to be taken, some of our fears might have been taken care of earlier.
  I wish to raise one specific point about which I have spoken privately to the Lord Privy Seal and about which I have now written to him. A constituent of mine in Salisbury prison was sentenced for making available, through his banking job, information about how the Rhodesians were able to keep finance flowing throughout the world. I do not know whether he would be included among those for release under the terms of the amnesty provisions in the Southern Rhodesia Act.
  An added complication is that he was also charged with moving money illegally from the country, which I understand is a criminal, and not a political, offence. He may therefore not appear as a political prisoner, but the Governor could exercise the prerogative of mercy for my constituent who has served six years of a 15-year sentence. We hope that he can be released and returned safely to his family.
  12.50 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I owe it to the House, even at this late hour, to respond briefly to one or two matters raised by hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) mentioned Rhodesian refugees in Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana. The Governor will do his utmost, as quickly as possible, to enable those who wish to return to vote to be able to do so and, in the longer term, to be able to settle in Zimbabwe. He will have at his disposal international agencies and United Nations bodies to assist him in that process.
  1496
  I am grateful for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). I am sure that the Governor will note many of my hon. Friend's suggestions. My hon. Friend referred to detainees, and another advantage of the presence of the Governor is that he will undertake an immediate review—though I hope that he will get a good night's sleep after his overnight flight—of the cases of all detained persons in Rhodesia, with the object of securing freedom of those whose release would not constitute a threat to public safety and order. Anyone detained on political grounds will be released. That applies to both sides. The Governor has a right to ask for a list of those detained by the Patriotic Front in Mozambique or anywhere else and to review their position.
  The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and a number of other hon. Members referred to the media. I responded to that matter on Second Reading, and I reiterate that it is the task of the Governor, supported by the Election Commissioner, whose task is to secure free and fair elections, to ensure that all the political parties have free, equal and proper access to the media, including the broadcasting authorities.
  I understand the point raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North about the advice available to the Governor and the Election Commissioner to ensure that that access is granted. The Governor has at his disposal an adviser on these matters. They flew out together.
  We must not tie the hands of the Governor, but if he feels that it is necessary to seek further advice from this country in order to ensure that the criteria on access to the media can be satisfied, it will be up to him to do so. However, we must give him a little time to settle in and discuss the matter with the Election Commissioner and other authorities.
  I thank the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) for his remarks about the order and the appointment of the Governor. The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the dangers, which we all acknowledge. For the reasons that have been deployed, we still feel strongly that the arrival of the Governor today will assist in the process of bringing about a speedy resumption of legality.

  1497
  the holding of free and fair elections and the bringing about of peace. We appreciate the good wishes that the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Governor, and I am sure that the Governor will appreciate them even more on his first evening in Rhodesia.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Southern Rhodesia Constitution (Interim Provisions) Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 December, be approved.

  GLASSHOUSE INDUSTRY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Waddington.]
  12.56 am
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I am glad, at long last, to leave Rhodesia and turn to the horticulture problems of North-West Kent. I welcome the opportunity to raise the problems of glasshouse producers.
  First, I record my thanks to Mr. Lionel Mills, Mr. Michael Wallis, Mr. Vic Ross and Mr. Richard Holdaway, all of whom are members of the North-West Kent producers branch of the National Farmers Union. Their good-natured, intelligent and persistent lobby since 3 May has led me to take great note of their continents and complaints, and, thus convinced, I have sought to raise the issue on the Adjournment.
  North-West Kent has traditional associations with glasshouse produce. That is partly because of the availability of land in the early part of the century, but mainly because of its nearness to the great London markets. In the early 1950s about 60 glasshouse producing units existed. It is unfortunate that only 25 now exist. Those no longer in existence have been converted to other agricultural use or lie derelict. In some instances there has been housing estate development. In former years about 1,000 people were employed in North-West Kent in glasshouse production. There are now barely 300 so employed.
  Although the industry is in a reduced state, it is efficient and productive. For how long can that continue? With a lack
  1498
  of financial investment, with fierce, unfair competition from the Dutch, and with long-term energy problems, what sort of future has my local horticulture industry? The average age of members in the Dart-ford area is now approaching 50 years. No new glasshouse units have been opened for some time. Young growers are deterred from entering because of high capital costs and low returns. A further complication exists because of the supply and demand nature of the market within which the industry operates.
  The first problem to which I refer is that of energy, which amounts to about 40 per cent. of annual production costs. Many growers are currently using oil. In view of the uncertainty of the price stability of that resource, they would rather convert to gas. National Farmers Union members have approached the gas board to obtain conversion but have been deterred either by the cost of conversion or by the unavailability of supply. Action is required by the Government to force the gas board to give glasshouse producers priority and to make increased grant aid available to enable the conversion of oil-fired units to gas or coal to be carried out.
  Energy savings of at least 10 per cent. can be achieved partly by conversion to gas and partly by the installation of thermal screens. The NFU has called for an increase in aid available under the horticulture capital grants scheme, the farm and horticulture development scheme and the Department of Energy's conservation scheme, from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. of total expenditure for installation of thermal screens.
  The second problem relates to unfair competition from within the EEC, and mainly from the Dutch. Comparable price data based on energy prices obtaining on 1 November in Holland, Germany and the United Kingdom show the Dutch to have an enormous advantage over the other two countries. For example, for heavy oil, the United Kingdom and Germany pay 7·7p and 7·5p per litre respectively. For light oil, the United Kingdom and Germany pay lop and 12p to 15p per litre respectively. For gas—the Dutch growers use only gas—the Dutch pay 17·5 centa per cubic metre. That converts to only 4·345p per litre of oil. Germany uses oil for 90 per cent. of its production and believes

  1499
  that her growers pay 200 per cent. more than the Dutch.
  The NFU has calculated that the price difference given to the Dutch has an advantage for the Dutch tomato producer of £6,000–£10,000 per acre over his United Kingdom counterpart. With the knowledge of the Dutch Government, the Dutch gas company operates a two-tier gas price system. That system gives horticultural units a price that is 31 per cent. cheaper than that given to domestic and other industrial users. The Dutch link their gas prices to the least expensive grade of oil. The reverse is true in the United Kingdom.
  Other benefits are given to the Dutch in the form of loans at low fixed rates of interest and transport savings. That means that the Dutch are able to dump tremendous quantities of horticultural produce in the United Kingdom, to the detriment of my local growers.
  Great cost is incurred in renovating old plant. Many growers work with wooden frames that warp with time and become less effective. The high capital cost of replacement, in addition to the low-profit market, has caused many people to live off the fat. That fat no longer exists, and no renovation is taking place. High interest rates act as a disincentive to renovation. However, our counterparts in the EEC receive low fixed-rate loans or other grants for double glazing in excess of 50 per cent.
  Finally, I refer to the problems associated with plant inspectors. I understand that there is an EEC harmonisation of plant health directive that is likely to take effect shortly. Local growers complain that, due to the absence of Kent plant inspectors, who are often seconded to other parts of the country, irregular attention is paid to imports from abroad. However, exports from the United Kingdom to Holland and Germany are rigorously tested and rejected for the slightest defect. The reverse occurs in the United Kingdom. The problems facing the industry are enormous and the prospect of many people reducing their output, to the detriment of the British housewife, must be faced. I shall be grateful if the Minister will answer in particular those questions relating to energy and to unfair competition.
  1.4 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dart-ford (Mr. Dunn) for raising a number or important issues for the glasshouse industry. I congratulate him on putting these problems so succinctly on what I believe is his first Adjournment debate. I am sure that he will accept that the problems that he has mentioned are not confined to growers in North-West Kent but serve as an example of the present concerns felt by the whole glasshouse industry.
  The major disquiet that my hon. Friend has raised is about the availability and the cost of energy, especially oil, which is the fuel most frequently used for glasshouse heating. That concern is fully understandable, since the cost of heating can be as much as one-third of the growers' production cost.
  While my hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty of making any long-term forecast about the availability or price of oil—particularly at the moment—as far Sea oil is priced at world levels. Contract prices for gas, where it is used, are fixed in individual negotiations between the customer and the gas board. It has been as can be foreseen the oil supply situation for the winter months should be satisfactory. In times of shortage, voluntary arrangements for distribution are the best as long as conditions allow.
  Similarly, and I fully understand that the price of oil to horticulturists has gone up by about 50 per cent. in the past year, I must stress that the Government do not determine the price of oil or gas. North suggested that we should give a subsidy, such as the one paid in 1974, to horticulturists to help them adapt to this year's price rises. But the current circumstances arc quite different from 1974, when there was an unexpected threefold increase in oil prices, which would have put many growers out of business had they not been given time to adapt to such a large increase in their costs.
  It is not in the long-term interest of growers to shield them from rising oil prices. They need to adapt if they are to survive in the long run. We do, however, give them help in other ways. Horticulturists receive full rebate of excise

  1501
  duty on oil for glasshouse heating and soil sterilisation, and their supplies are zero rated for VAT. My Department is helping all the time through ADAS advice to growers to help improve production methods, and grants are available for energy-saving equipment. This includes conversion from oil to other fuels where this is technically feasible and commercially viable.
  I note what my hon. Friend said about the supply of gas, but it is a well-understood problem where there have been difficulties in the supply and price of oil. Gas has been a relatively cheaply priced fuel, and many users of fuel, both domestic and industrial, have turned to the gas industry for supplies. But that industry has not been able to provide them, and horticulture is no different in that respect. It is certainly not an area in which the Government could, or in my view should, intervene.
  Investment by growers in energy-saving measures such as the installation of thermal screens or improvements in heating systems, including conversion from oil to some other fuel, should be worthwhile investments in themselves. Current rates of grant ranging from 15 to 25 per cent. under the various schemes are not an inadequate contribution to such capital investment. We are also carrying out a considerable amount of research and development on energy-saving techniques, including thermal screens, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The whole question of the long-term future of energy for glasshouses is being studied jointly by officials of my Department and the NFU.
  While I understand my hon. Friend's concern about high capital costs of both glasshouses and associated equipment at the present time, I am certain that he will be sympathetic to the view that this indusry is very open to competition, and he will be pleased to learn that there are those who make substantial profits as well as those at the other end of the scale. It may just be that the latter number amongst my hon. Friend's constituents. I cannot support the view that the Government should intervene in the industry beyond the present level. This is, of course, in line with our party political philosophy.
  However, I share my hon. Friend's concern and I am most sympathetic to the plea that the industry should be able
  1502
  to operate in conditions of fair competition. Glasshouse producers have undoubtedly been facing stiffer competition from imports since we joined the EEC, and in particular since the end of transition when we became fully exposed to free trade between ourselves and other member States. We are frequently being told—and my hon. Friend has said so in as many words tonight—that the glasshouse industry is not afraid of competition as long as it is fair. I applaud that sentiment. It is just what I would expect to hear from an enterprising and forward-looking industry, which I believe the glasshouse sector to be.
  However, we have to be on our guard against labelling all competition as "unfair". That would be a dangerous frame of mind to allow ourselves to get into. It cannot be said, as a general proposition, that what is unequal is unfair. We have to accept that natural advantages and disadvantages—soil and climate, for example—are not evenly distributed. Similarly—within certain limits which I will come to in a moment—there may be legitimate reasons why the differing policies of national Governments result in variations in the business environment; for instance, in the costs of labour, machinery, haulage, fertilisers and other inputs.
  It would be as impossible—and improper—to try to equalise all these factors as it would be to compensate a grower for a badly sited holding. In general, growers have to work within the circumstances in which they find themselves, and it is precisely because the exercise of management skill and decision-making is a major determinant of the ultimate success or failure of the enterprise that this branch of agriculture has always attracted the talented entrepreneur.
  Where I agree with my hon. Friend is on the importance of upholding the rules of fair competition under the Treaty of Rome. It has been represented to us that the rules are being breached and that there is unfairness of competition. We have thoroughly investigated the facts through our agricultural attaches, and we find that the allegations are unfounded.
  Let us look at the details. It has been claimed that it is unfair for Dutch growers to buy gas for heating their glasshouses at a lower price than our growers pay for

  1503
  their fuel, which is mainly oil. But the Dutch gas is onshore and near to the greenhouses—and I acknowledge that Dutch growers buy it cheaply. But that in itself is not necessarily unfair. There is no evidence that the gas price is below the cost of production or that Government subsidies are involved. It would be a very different matter if that were the case, and given any real evidence we would immediately act on it. I have said this in the House before, and I hope that my hon. Friend will note that promise. If there is evidence available, the Government will act upon it.
  Then again, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Dutch investment law—the Dutch WIR scheme—is unfair as compared with our system of support for the glasshouse industry. The WIR scheme is complex and very different from our traditional system. It is not easy, therefore, to make precise comparisons, particularly since the position of individual growers can vary widely. But the facts show that, broadly, the tax provisions that we make, such as the capital allowances, plus our system of capital grants, plus the sums spent on research and development—where horticulture, incidentally, is treated most generously—will stand comparison in total benefit to the horticulture investor.
  The EEC Commission has studied the Dutch WIR system. Indeed, it was modified at the Commission's request. The Commission concluded that it was not incompatible with Community rules and not, therefore, unfair.
  It is right to be watchful, but for action to be taken on grounds of unfairness under the Treaty we need to prove one or the other of two things: either that the Government of another member State are giving an illegal national subsidy or that the sellers are operating restrictive agreements or practices which affect trade or distort competition. On investigation, the allegations put to us so far have met those tests and cannot, therefore, be labelled unfair.
  I turn to the specific question of plant health which my hon. Friend raised. I fully realise that, as my hon. Friend said, there are fears in the industry that the implementation of the EEC frontier directive will weaken our import controls and increase the risk of bringing in plant pests and diseases. This is not so.
  1504
  The original draft directive has been very much modified to protect the special plant health situation of the United Kingdom and contains all the safeguards essential to us.
  Where prohibitions on imports are to be removed, alternative restrictions relating, for example, to areas of production and to cleaning and packing will be imposed. These will, as has always been the case, be controlled by the plant health service of the exporting member State. We have had experience of working with these services and in general have a great respect for their expertise and efficiency in meeting our requirements. We are sure that they will be no less effective in seeing that the requirements of the directive are carried out.
  It will, however, be important, as it has always been, to monitor imports, partly to see that agreed procedures are being operated but also to watch for unforeseen hazards. My inspectors will be looking particularly at those areas where the directive has altered existing arrangements, and where necessary we shall, as we have always done, destroy or reject unhealthy material. To cope with this additional work, the size of the inspectorate has been increased by 10 per cent.
  The philosophy of the Government is to encourage enterprise, which horticulture has in no small measure. This extends beyond the glasshouse sector. My hon. Friend will be well aware of the importance of orchard fruit production in his constituency. This is another sector in which the pace of competition is quickening and where I see encouraging signs that growers are prepared to adapt their production and marketing methods to meet the challenge. This is what all farmers and growers should be doing, as, indeed, many of them are.
  Fresh fruit and vegetables of top quality are in great demand in this country, and there is every evidence that our consumers are ready to pay the necessary price for the best produce. Who will supply what the United Kingdom market requires? Why should it not be our own growers, who themselves also have several natural advantages, including that of proximity to market? Where the foreign competition can be shown to be unfair in terms of the Rome Treaty—and not merelyunequal—then, as I have already

  1505
  said, the Government will certainly be prepared to take vigorous action to redress any imbalance.
  My hon. Friend will accept that we have chalked up several successes in this direction already. Where there are technological problems or opportunities for technological advances—such as within the area of plant health and in the field of research and development, to both of which I have already referred—here, too, the Government will continue to help and encourage the industry and ensure that it receives its due share of support.
  1506
  But in matters of business enterprise, and in facing the challenge of imports in an era of free trading, the Government look to the whole horticulture industry—of which the glasshouse sector is an important part—to live up to its past reputation, to stand on its own feet, and to reap the future rewards that are there to be earned by skilled and resolute growers.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past One o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Service (May Report)
  Prison Service (May Report)
  World Administrative Radio Conference
  World Administrative Radio Conference
  Travelling Families
  Travelling Families
  Latin America (Refugees)
  Latin America (Refugees)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Dining Rooms
  Dining Rooms
  Refreshment Department (Members' Accounts)
  Refreshment Department (Members' Accounts)
EMPLOYMENT
  Adamson Containers, Stockport
  Adamson Containers, Stockport
  Wool, Jute and Flax Industry
  Wool, Jute and Flax Industry
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Bentley Colliery (Train Accident)
  Bentley Colliery (Train Accident)
  Temporary Short Time Working Scheme
  Temporary Short Time Working Scheme
  Keighley, Shipley and Bingley
  Keighley, Shipley and Bingley
  European Community (Council of Labour and Social Affairs)
  European Community (Council of Labour and Social Affairs)
  Sheltered Employment
  Sheltered Employment
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Mortgage Interest
  Mortgage Interest
  School Fees (Tax Relief)
  School Fees (Tax Relief)
  European Community
  European Community
  Taxation (Disabled Persons)
  Taxation (Disabled Persons)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay
  Pay
  Manpower
  Manpower
  Government Advertisements
  Government Advertisements
TRADE
  Polyurethane Foam Furniture
  Polyurethane Foam Furniture
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Safety at Sea
  Safety at Sea
  Steel and Steel Products
  Steel and Steel Products
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Departmental Functions
  Departmental Functions
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Kampuchea
  Kampuchea
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Iran
  Iran
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
ENERGY
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Oil Supplies
  Oil Supplies
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Coking Coal
  Coking Coal
  European Community (Council of Energy Ministers Meeting)
  European Community (Council of Energy Ministers Meeting)
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
DEFENCE
  Royal Air Force
  Royal Air Force
  Aircraft Tyres
  Aircraft Tyres
  Polyurethane Foam Furniture
  Polyurethane Foam Furniture
  Low-flying Aircraft (East Aberdeenshire)
  Low-flying Aircraft (East Aberdeenshire)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Teachers
  Teachers
  16- to 19-year-olds (Kingswood)
  16- to 19-year-olds (Kingswood)
  Association of Polytechnic Teachers
  Association of Polytechnic Teachers
  Tame Valley
  Tame Valley
  Teachers (Mathematics)
  Teachers (Mathematics)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Polyurethane Foam Furniture
  Polyurethane Foam Furniture
  Educational Disadvantage
  Educational Disadvantage
  Bingham Report
  Bingham Report
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Disabled Persons (Gas Prices)
  Disabled Persons (Gas Prices)
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Hospital Treatment (Ineligible Persons)
  Hospital Treatment (Ineligible Persons)
  "Gatecrashers"(Departmental Circular)
  "Gatecrashers"(Departmental Circular)
  Emergency Treatment
  Emergency Treatment
  Patients (Records)
  Patients (Records)
  Emergency Dental Services
  Emergency Dental Services
  Self-Employed Persons
  Self-Employed Persons
  Benefits (Payment Delays)
  Benefits (Payment Delays)
  National Assistance Act 1948
  National Assistance Act 1948
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Age Addition
  Age Addition
  Rural Pharmacies
  Rural Pharmacies
  Disabled Persons (Transport)
  Disabled Persons (Transport)
  Hospital Patients (Sickness Certificates)
  Hospital Patients (Sickness Certificates)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Nursing Officers (Pay)
  Nursing Officers (Pay)
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  Drug Rehabilitation Centres
  Drug Rehabilitation Centres
  Health Services Expenditure
  Health Services Expenditure
  Female Employees (Ante-natal care)
  Female Employees (Ante-natal care)
TRANSPORT
  Severe Weather (Road Clearance)
  Severe Weather (Road Clearance)
  National Ports Council
  National Ports Council
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
  Polyurethane Foam Furniture
  Polyurethane Foam Furniture
  Trunk Bypasses
  Trunk Bypasses
  Drivers (Hours of Work)
  Drivers (Hours of Work)
  Cooper and Lybrand (Report)
  Cooper and Lybrand (Report)
  Disabled Persons (Orange Badge Scheme)
  Disabled Persons (Orange Badge Scheme)
INDUSTRY
  Society for Long Range Planning (Report)
  Society for Long Range Planning (Report)
  Hoffman la Roche
  Hoffman la Roche
  Steel Imports and Exports
  Steel Imports and Exports
  Clothing Exports
  Clothing Exports
WALES
  M4 Motorway
  M4 Motorway
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Dinorwig (Unemployment)
  Dinorwig (Unemployment)
  Leasehold Valuation
  Leasehold Valuation
  A55
  A55
  Lamb (Exports)
  Lamb (Exports)
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Welsh Development Agency (Investment)
  Welsh Development Agency (Investment)
  WORKS OF ART
  WORKS OF ART
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sea Defences (Chiswell)
  Sea Defences (Chiswell)
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
SCOTLAND
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Quangos
  Quangos
  Perinatal Care
  Perinatal Care
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Education
  Education
  Private and Grant-aided Schools
  Private and Grant-aided Schools
  Clegg Awards
  Clegg Awards
  Nuclear Sites
  Nuclear Sites
  Glasgow Royal Infirmary (Abortion)
  Glasgow Royal Infirmary (Abortion)
  Mentally-Handicapped Persons (Transport)
  Mentally-Handicapped Persons (Transport)
  Scottish Development Agency (Industrial Investment)
  Scottish Development Agency (Industrial Investment)
  Patients (Records)
  Patients (Records)
ENVIRONMENT
  Departmental Circulars
  Departmental Circulars
  Waste (Recycling)
  Waste (Recycling)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Control of Pollution Act
  Control of Pollution Act
  Council Houses (Construction Standards)
  Council Houses (Construction Standards)
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Urban Development Corporations
  Urban Development Corporations
  Council Houses (Rents)
  Council Houses (Rents)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Bird Deaths (Mersey Estuary)
  Bird Deaths (Mersey Estuary)
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  New Town Development Corporations (Sale of Assets)
  New Town Development Corporations (Sale of Assets)
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Inner City Areas
  Inner City Areas
  Rented Property (Access)
  Rented Property (Access)
  Local Authorities (Manpower)
  Local Authorities (Manpower)
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Building Societies Association
  Building Societies Association
  Reservoir (Roadford)
  Reservoir (Roadford)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Home Insulation Grants (Publicity Campaign)
  Home Insulation Grants (Publicity Campaign)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Inner Ring Road, Liverpool
  Inner Ring Road, Liverpool
  Development Commission
  Development Commission
  British Waterways Board
  British Waterways Board
  Local Authority Workers (Pay)
  Local Authority Workers (Pay)
  Houses (Heating)
  Houses (Heating)
  Structure Plan (East Berkshire)
  Structure Plan (East Berkshire)
  Local Authorities (Government Assistance)
  Local Authorities (Government Assistance)
  Polyurethane Foam Furniture
  Polyurethane Foam Furniture
  Buildings (Fuel Sources)
  Buildings (Fuel Sources)
  Clearance Programmes
  Clearance Programmes
  Old Houses (Demolition)
  Old Houses (Demolition)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Private Service Contracts
  Private Service Contracts
  Manpower
  Manpower
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Children and Young Persons
  Children and Young Persons
  Environmental Improvement Scheme
  Environmental Improvement Scheme
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Rates
  Rates
  Prisoners (Insurance Records)
  Prisoners (Insurance Records)
  Tribunals and Inquiries
  Tribunals and Inquiries

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

THE POLICE SERVICE: LOCAL ADMINISTRATION
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: 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 give an assurance that it is not their intention to weaken any further the involvement of democratic local government in the control and administration of the police services, and whether they will state categorically that they are opposed to a centralised national police force.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the statutory basis under which police forces are maintained. In particular, the Government have no intention of setting up a national police force.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I press him a little further, because I am sure he will agree that some concern is being expressed in local authorities throughout the country, particularly in the North-West and North-East, about statements being made in the official side of the Police Service? Would he agree to enter into discussions with local authorities to restore some of the confidence of local authority members in the present administration of the Police Service?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, we are always ready to talk to local authorities, and indeed the machinery is there for my right honourable friend to do that.
1138
Whereas chief officers have the direction and control of their forces, police authorities are primarily statutorily responsible for maintaining an adequate and efficient force for their area. That is a weighty responsibility and, I reiterate to the noble Lord, one which the Government have no intention of changing.

NORTHERN IRELAND: HOUSING
2.38 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for making the Northern Ireland Housing Executive more responsive to the housing needs of the people.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Elton): My Lords, the Government are encouraging the Housing Executive to complete its internal reorganisation which will help improve the services it provides for the people of Northern Ireland. The Government have also indicated to the executive the priorities which it should follow; these include giving greater emphasis to the management and maintenance of its existing houses. For the last couple of years it has been involved in a major reorganisation based on devolving responsibility on six regional controllers. These controllers have already been appointed and their supporting staff are now being allocated. It will, however, be some months yet before regionalisation is complete.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that quite full reply. While I would not wish to complicate the reorganisation which he mentioned, may I ask whether he would consider giving some role to district councils to act as a channel for grievances, for suggestions even, from the people to the Housing Executive and in relation to individual district or area offices?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me an indication of the direction of his supplementary and I can tell him that the 26 district councils each has a representative on the Northern Ireland Housing Council, which advises the Housing Executive and makes representations on behalf of the district councils. The council also nominates three of the members of the Housing Executive's hoard. The Commissioner for Complaints has responsibility for investigating complaints against the Housing Executive and it is open to any local councillor to approach a district office of the executive directly. I understand that the executive encourages such contacts. I doubt, therefore, that a further formal channel would be useful or indeed necessary.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, again I am grateful to my noble friend for those remarks, but may I ask whether the Government will give some publicity to the arrangements which he just outlined so they can be known rather more widely than they perhaps are at present?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord's intervention will have that effect in part, and I will pass his views on to my honourable friend in another place as to publicising the matter further. I think it is worth noting that the executive has made commendable progress in the face of the most difficult housing problems in the whole of the United Kingdom. Many of its problems arise from the legacy of the former authorities and of the years of civil disturbance.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the main reasons why the Housing Executive is not held in higher esteem by the public is its failure to have built more houses in areas where they are desperately needed, the fact that it has not brought up to modern standards a greater proportion of old housing stock, and the delays which occur in carrying out essential repairs? Will he further accept my assurance that I have always found the local officials of the Housing Executive to be extremely helpful and prompt in answering inquiries?
Lord ELTON: I am glad to accept the noble Lord's assurance on the latter
1140
point, my Lords. On the former, I think it worth mentioning that the Housing Executive's programme has increased from 250 million in the current year to 300 million in 1980–81 and that, for the first time, more money will be spent on maintenance than on new building, yet the figure provided for building itself will have increased. It is a good programme and noble Lords will wish to welcome it and expect that the reorganisation which it is now undergoing will also meet the points the noble Lord raised.

POTATOES: EEC REGULATION
2.42 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: 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 give an assurance that in the negotiations about a regulation for potatoes in the EEC they would refuse to accept any proposals that did not provide benefits to the British producer and consumer equivalent to those they enjoy at present.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government believe that any EEC potato regime must include adequate provision for supporting our maincrop potato market in times of heavy surplus so as to safeguard the position of producers and consumers.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that the EEC member countries must retain their option to adapt their marketing systems to the very individual conditions and aims of their individual potato production?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we accept that it is quite possible that there eventually will be an EEC regime, although not necessarily in a form exactly like other commodity regimes, and we would certainly wish to make sure that any potato regime provides the right conditions for the potato industry in this country.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, can my noble friend say that there is no possible danger, as there once was, that the Common Market is to get rid of the King Edward?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I always am very loathe ever to suggest that there are no possible conceivable circumstances under which anything may happen.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, is my noble friend prepared to comment on the Government's view on the joint National Farmers' Union-Potato Marketing Board potato working party proposals and to say whether they may find a deal with the EEC broadly in line with them?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the Government are continuing discussions with the producer interests, on the basis of the NFU-Potato Marketing Board proposals, about the possible form of a future stabilisation scheme. We have also argued strongly in Brussels for inclusion in an EEC regime of provisions enabling producer organisations to implement stabilisation schemes of this kind. These negotiations are continuing, and I am hopeful that a satisfactory solution will eventually be found.

HEATHROW AIRPORT: PROPOSED FOURTH TERMINAL
2.44 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they received the report of the public inquiry into the fourth terminal at Heathrow; what was the cost to public funds of holding this inquiry; what is recommended in the report; whether and when they will publish the report; and when they will announce the Government's decision on the fourth terminal.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, may I apologise in advance to your Lordships for the fact that this Answer is a little longer than usual. The inspector's re-
1142
port was received on 18th May, 1979. It will be published at the same time as the Government's decision on the fourth terminal, which will be announced once my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Trade have finished their consideration of the report. Until then it would be inappropriate to state what the inspector has recommended. The identifiable cost of the inquiry to public funds was about £62,000, but this excludes the cost of the secretariat and other costs inextricably bound up with the normal work of the Department of the Environment. It also excludes the cost of printing the inspector's report which Her Majesty's Stationery Office hopes to recover from sales. The attempt to work out the precise cost would involve considerable time and expense.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that very comprehensive reply, may I ask him two questions? The first is whether, in view of the grave and deteriorating situation at Heathrow, he can explain why so long a time—seven months, if my mathematics are right—has elapsed since the report was received without any public action being taken on it? Secondly, in view of the urgency of the situation, can my noble friend now give any indication of the earliest date by which this terminal could be completed in order to help cope with the situation?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, in answer to the first point put by my noble friend, as I have said, the decision is one that has to be taken jointly by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Trade, and there are a number of important and difficult issues which have deserved, and have received, careful study. As for the point as to when the terminal could be finished, that depends of course on what my right honourable friends decide with regard to the inquiry which has just taken place; but if they agree to allow the terminal, it will be ready by about the middle of the 1980s.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm—as I believe he can from his own experience—that this is now a very urgent matter? Can he also indicate that seven months is not the normal time required to procure

1143
agreement among two of his right honourable friends?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the matters were very complicated and very involved. I wish that the decision could have been taken earlier, but, having seen all the papers on the matter, I am quite satisfied that my two right honourable friends have not been unduly long, and I think that I can assure my noble friend that he will not have to be patient for very much longer.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while understanding that the Minister is not able to say in advance what the recommendations will be, and bearing in mind that, as he himself has just said, he has seen all the papers concerned, may I ask whether he would feel able to tell the House if the question of access is considered in the report, particularly for those people with luggage who are dependent on public transport?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords; the report is fully comprehensive. All the points to which the noble Baroness refers are considered and will be taken into consideration by my right honourable friends.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, can my noble friend advise us whether the British Airports Authority have power to have given themselves permission for a fourth terminal, without a public inquiry?
Lord TREFGARNE: No, my Lords.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Council of Ministers (Agriculture). This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who will repeat a Statement on Post Office industrial democracy.

THE RESERVE FORCES
2.48 p.m.
Lord GLENARTHUR Lord GLENARTHUR rose to call attention to the need to maintain effective Reserve Forces; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must first declare an interest. I left the Regular Army just over four years ago and since then have been a member of the Territorial Army as an individual reserve for my regiment, and I train with them for 19 days every year. I can find no record of a full debate on the Reserves in this House in recent years, but since the mid-'sixties the role of the Reserves has become an increasingly important one.
The complete organisation of our defence effort has been adapted in line with what we can afford, what is appropriate in the context of our commitment to NATO, and the threat which we perceive. Each of the three Services depends to a greater or lesser extent not only on individual reinforcements which bring them up to strength on mobilisation, but also on units of trained volunteers who complete the order of battle. I am therefore encouraged by the number of noble Lords who have put their names down to speak on this important subject. Many have considerable experience of the Reserves, some from the highest military offices in the land. By my calculations, my Lords, with so many to speak it gives us about 10 minutes each.
The main purpose of the Reserves, as I have said, is to complete our commitment to our allies in NATO and to assist in maintaining a secure United Kingdom base. Broadly speaking, there are two types of Reserve: first, the Regular Reserve, which consists of men and women who have completed a period of regular service and who have to undergo a compulsory period of reserve commitment; and, second, what I shall call the trained Reserve. The trained Reserve is composed of both ex-regular Servicemen and civilians of no previous military background who have volunteered to train regularly in a particular Service, and who generally make up complete Reserve units or ships' companies, but who may in certain circumstances be an individual Reserve, such as I am myself.
The threat against which both Regular and Reserve forces are available to be deployed has changed considerably over the years. I suppose it is just conceivable that 15 years ago it could possibly have been argued by the Soviets that their military effort was defensive. My Lords, their ability now ranges from the defensive

1145
to what, in an ever-increasing way, is patently and overtly offensive in character and capability. The huge superiority of Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces, of tanks, missiles, aircraft, warships and the men to deploy them, has received considerable publicity lately. Those of your Lordships who listened to the retired Chief of Defence Staff addressing the All-Party Defence Study Group last July will be only too well aware of the considerable strength and capabilities ranged against us. So it came as a real encouragement, certainly to those on this side of the House, and particularly to both the Regular and the Reserve Forces, to hear that one of the first pledges of the new Government on taking office was to increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. in real terms until 1986, and to award the Services the full pay rise recommended by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, bringing Servicemen into line realistically with their civilian counterparts and promising to maintain this comparability in future, which to some extent should stop the outflow of people from the Services.
It is of course argued at a time of national penury that any increase in the defence budget is not so much in the interests of the nation as improvements in the social services or other areas of the Welfare State might be. But I submit that expense is one thing: value for money is another. For example, the total cost of the Territorial Army to the nation is just over 3 per cent. of the Army's share of the Defence Vote, which in turn works out at just over 1 per cent. of the total defence budget. Yet the Territorial Army provides 28 per cent. of our mobilised Army in Germany. That represents considerable cost-effectiveness, and the value that it provides as part of our overall defence effort is in the very deepest interests of the country. In Britain we are almost unique among our European NATO allies in that we have no conscription, National Service or anything like that. While it existed, there were considerable numbers of individuals who had some military background and who in many cases had an obligatory period of Reserve service to undertake when their full-time National Service expired. At the same time, however, our Regular Forces were considerably larger than they are today, and the same reliance was not placed upon the Reserves as is the case
1146
now. They were not as well equipped and in some cases, perhaps, not as professional as they needed to be and as trained Reserves are today.
Today's trained Reserves for all three Services are, as I have said, volunteers. They take part in it because they see a sense of purpose in it, and because they enjoy it. Indeed, I think it is no exaggeration to say that volunteers must regard their Reserve training as their main hobby. Perhaps I can give your Lordships an example from the Territorial Army. Imagine what it is like for a person to walk, or get home somehow, from his place of work on a Friday evening; to go straight to his TA headquarters, there to change into uniform, prepare his vehicles and his equipment and attend briefings; and eventually deploy overnight to an area perhaps 100 miles or so away to be ready to commence an exercise starting at first light on Saturday. He exercises throughout Saturday, throughout Saturday night, and perhaps until midday on Sunday, before being faced with the tedious journey back after no sleep, de-kitting, the cleaning up of vehicles, debriefing and learning all he may from the exercise. Eventually, perhaps, he gets home for supper on the Sunday. My Lords, efforts of that sort require not only a great deal of hard work but dedication, loyalty and the achievement of a considerable amount of personal satisfaction and enjoyment, as well as much understanding on the part of the individual's family.
Of course, the Reservist is paid regular rates for the time that he is undergoing his training; and, furthermore, he now receives an enhanced bounty after three years, which amounts to some £300 per year if he completes his annual quota of training. No one would dream of suggesting that the volunteer does it for the money. He could probably earn far more by doing overtime at his normal place of work. During my last two years with the Regular Army I had the privilege of working very closely with the two armoured reconnaissance regiments of the Territorial Army, the Royal Yeomanry and the Queen's Own Yeomanry. If any of us Regulars were a little sceptical to begin with about the ability we might find, those thoughts were very swiftly dispelled and we soon came to respect the enormous enthusiasm and professionalism of those we supported. If in any way there were

1147
gaps in their military ability—and there were very few—they were admirably filled by the good humour, zeal and energy which they displayed.
My Lords, it seems to me that in order to maintain the effectiveness of our Reserves, and indeed to improve them, we must concentrate on three areas: manpower, the provision of equipment and, to a considerable extent, public relations. So far as the trained Reserves are concerned, each of the Services is below strength. Perhaps I may run through each of the Services in turn. The Royal Naval Reserve has about 6,500 members; yet it has a major and increasing sea-going role, chiefly in mine counter-measures. It will, as I understand it, operate the new Hunt Class mine counter-measures vessels, of which the first, HMS "Brecon", was launched very recently. Additionally, the Royal Naval Reserve is to operate the 12 extra-deep Armed Team Sweep vessels, based on trawler design, which are currently under development. Therefore, although the equipment side is encouraging, there are definite gaps on the manpower side, and a sustained effort is required to put this to rights.
Recently, the formation of a new Naval Reserve of helicopter pilots was announced. This Reserve will, we are told, augment front-line helicopter squadrons and introduce a pool of expertise for communications flying. Although it intends to recruit only 40 aircrew initially, rising to 60 in the early 'eighties, I suspect that it will be well subscribed. Certainly many of my professional pilot colleagues with a naval background have indicated a desire to use their flying skills in a Reserve role. So it makes a great deal of sense to direct back to the Navy many of the skills acquired there at colossal expense in the first place, and which have since played such an important role in the development of North Sea oil, for example.
Turning to the Army, this possesses the greatest number of trained Reservists. There are about 60,000 members of the Territorial Army at the moment. But, again, the Territorial Army is some 20 per cent. under strength. Additionally, there are over 7,500 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Without wishing to show any disrespect to the Ulster Defence Regiment, for which I have
1148
boundless admiration, I shall not talk about their particular role at length today, as I should rather concentrate on the NATO aspect. However, I am certain that I speak for noble Lords on both sides and in all corners of the House when I say that we all have immense admiration for them in the difficult job that they have to do and for the courage and devotion to duty which they show in difficult circumstances.
The Shapland Committee report on the study of manpower wastage in the Territorial Army has been published and certain of the key recommendations have been adopted, a fact which I know has been greatly appreciated by the Territorial Army. I was encouraged to hear from the noble Lord the Minister in answer to my Starred Question last week that other recommendations are being studied. I was heartened also to hear in answer to my supplementary question that the Government are taking steps to promote throughout the Government agencies, nationalised industries and industry as a whole the importance of allowing reservists time off to train. There is no doubt that employers and the country at large are far from enlightened as to the relevance today of any of the Reserves and I feel that it is important that efforts be made to promote this understanding.
It is interesting to note that in the year ending March, 1977, which, I know, is a little out of date, out of 54,000 Territorial Army soldiers eligible for a bounty, only 26,600 did the minimum training necessary to qualify for a bounty. I do not support legislation in this area but those who take part in Reserve training should not be required to make undue personal sacrifice in the light of the importance of the Territorial Army over holidays and the like.
So far as the Army's Regular Reserves of some 121,500 are concerned, it makes a great deal of sense to have improved the mobilisation plans, albeit for only 50,000 of them, by intending to issue them with equipment and asking them to report once a year to ensure that they and their equipment are in good order. It eases mobilisation plans considerably and one hopes that, in addition to those who are compelled to take part under the training obligation which they have and which hitherto has not been invoked, volunteers

1149
will also come forward. I look forward to the scheme being extended to include the Royal Navy. One aspect which concerns me is the strength of the Army Reserves left in the United Kingdom on mobilisation. I understand that almost 80 per cent. of the Territorial Army will be deployed in mainland Europe. This leaves home defence desperately weak. This is about only 15,000 or 20,000 trained Army reservists in the United Kingdom—which has been described as the equivalent of a rather thin crowd at Twickenham. I fear that our preoccupation with the deployment of our trained Army Reserves in Europe has left a serious gap here. I suggest that a reappraisal of our home defence (and civil defence, which is another subject) is required.
The Royal Air Force has the fewest trained Reserves, at present about 300 in all. But this has been expanded to provide three squadrons of airfield defence volunteers for which, I understand, recruiting is going well and is approaching half the establishment required. There is no reserve flying role for aircrew. As far as high performance aircraft are concerned, I think that this is quite understandable. I have some little practical experience of it. Last February the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and I flew in a Jaguar at Lossiemouth and I saw at first hand that the skills and practice required not only to fly the aircraft but to deliver weapons from them and to keep pace with a technologically complex subject are so enormous that to attempt to do it part-time is unrealistic.
However, the training of any pilot is very expensive. Apparently, it approaches half a million pounds and rises to over £l million for a fully-trained fighter pilot. It is expensive, but it seems to me that there is scope for using the ex-RAF helicopter pilots who are in current flying practice, in a similar way to that being planned for the Navy. That is something which I hope the Government will consider.
Having discussed manpower, I should like to talk about making the best use of our resources when it comes to equipment in industrial or commercial use. I hope that I may he forgiven for producing yet another helicopter example, because I am involved in it. There are over 450 civilian-registered helicopters in this country and
1150
about 70 of them are large machines ideally suited to increasing the efficiency of the support helicopter role of the RAF or the Royal Navy. So far as I know, no reserve role exists for any of them; nor, indeed, for the 380 smaller machines. If you connect this with the availability of manpower, there are over a thousand pilots flying them and 98 per cent. are Service-trained. I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, can confirm that his Ministry are aware of this apparently untapped resource.
My Lords, I have spoken for long enough. The subject is a large one and covers much more ground than I can hope to discuss by myself this afternoon. Suffice it to say that the Reserves are a fully-integrated and essential part of our national defence effort, both on the Continent of Europe, at sea and in the United Kingdom. Money is always scarce; so let us make the best use of those Reserves which offer real cost-effectiveness in defence terms. Public goodwill towards the Reserves abounds, and the ability and enthusiasm of those who volunteer is considerable. I trust that the Government will continue to develop the existing Reserves and, where necessary, expand them to fill the gaps which obviously exist. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.6 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord justifiably deserves congratulations on his speech and also on the subject he has chosen for debate. As he rightly said, we have not had, at any rate for a long time, a full debate concerning our Reserve Forces. But I can inform him that seldom have we had a debate on defence and the Estimates and matters concerning the national security without substantial reference being made to the need for Reserve Forces. Perhaps many noble Lords present will recall that I have repeatedly advocated the need for strengthening our Reserve Forces. I have not only ventured to offer opinions on the subject in this House, but I did so in another place, sometimes without evoking much enthusiasm—that I readily admit—and also when I was associated with the Labour Government as Secretary for War and Minister for Defence,

1151
There ought not to be any partisanship on a subject of this character. I mean by that that there ought not to be acute divisions of opinion on a subject which concerns our security. It should be wholehearted and universal. After all, it concerns every person in the land irrespective of his political partisanship. There is no use in accusing the Labour Party or previous Labour Governments for their lack of enthusiasm in building up our Reserve Forces or in matters concerning defence. After all, following the decision of the electors and the formation of a majority Labour Government in 1945, we had to face the legacy of National Service and, in particular, international tension which could not he shrugged aside. Then, despite financial difficulties which were extremely acute at the time, and despite the lack of enthusiasm, and despite our suffering grievous loss of manpower and dissipation of our financial resources, we continued with National Service for several years despite some opposition from the ranks of the party to which I belong, and indeed a lack of enthusiasm in the country. One could hardly expect much enthusiasm following a great war.
Moreover, this subject of Reserve Forces, which of course relates primarily to manpower—of course, we cannot ignore equipment, finance and ancillary matters—was very largely subordinated in the public mind and in the political spheres in the country because of the White Paper of 1957. The noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, is not present; but I would hardly expect him to come along for a debate of this kind, and he might be busy elsewhere. He conceived the notion that the future had very little relation to manpower but to nuclear strength. Ever since then there has been a division of opinion as between the military experts and those who are less expert, who are amateurs in this "game ", as between the need for nuclear strength and conventional power.
So we are faced with a situation at the present time when we have to deal with the controversy which concerns the whole of Europe and NATO in particular and has its repercussions throughout the world. We are dealing with whether we should use our resources, such as they are or what they are likely to be in the future. Even in the most optimistic vein we do not
1152
expect too much. Also we are dealing with whether we should focus attention on nuclear weapons, missiles capable of causing devastation if unfortunately a conflict occurred, but primarily for the purposes of a deterrent. In other words, to put it bluntly—and not being afraid to put it bluntly—to say to a possible aggressor: "If you start any nonsense you will have to deal with a situation which probably you did not contemplate because of our alleged weakness. We are not as weak as you suspect ".
What is to be done about the situation? When I saw on the Order Paper the Motion for which the noble Lord is responsible I put my name down with no intention of making a long speech—I give your Lordships that assurance, if it provides any consolation—and certainly without wishing to make any attempt at oratory on a subject of this kind. One has to be realistic. On this subject of realism I must digress for a moment. What has concerned me frequently in your Lordships' House is this. We have the most remarkable debates on a variety of topics, mostly of an academic and intellectual character. Reference was made yesterday to the presence in your Lordships' House of 13 Fellows of the Royal Society and a host of others who exude expertise. I sometimes wonder how it is that, with all the intelligence and all the academic and scientific knowledge that we possess, the country is in such a mess. There must be something wrong. I know it is easy enough to find a scapegoat, say a trade union leader or the people on the shop floor. But that will not do. It is a remarkable fact which we have to face that, despite our high intelligence—about that there can be no question—our scientific and technical knowledge, and technological know-how, we are in a frightful industrial, economic and financial mess.
I venture a reason for it. The other day we had a debate in this House on shipbuilding. I spoke for only a few minutes, and I am afraid that I worried quite a number of noble Lords who expected a long discourse on the shipbuilding situation. I gave nothing of the sort. I simply asked: What is the cause of the trouble? Why are we weak? I ask that question now. Why are we weak?

1153
I have the highest regard and respect for the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. I wish him well now that he has been elevated, rightly, to the Front Bench. If he replies to this debate he might say: "What is the use of talking about weakness? In the TAVR we have 60,000 people. We have a Regular Reserve of 130,000 people, and we can call upon a large number of others in the event of conflict. We have a potential, and therefore we are not as weak as is supposed ". If he says that, I will not argue any further. If, on the other hand, he accepts what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has said: manpower 3 per cent., helicopters not properly equipped or used, what are we going to do about that? We have in your Lordships' House some remarkable military experts. One is to follow me. I hesitate to think what he will say about this speech of mine. He will probably say: "He knows nothing about it. He was just a Minister and probably did as he was told ". He had better look up Lord Montgomery's memoirs in order to correct that impression.
We have other Members, Admirals of the Fleet, Field Marshals, a whole collection of military experts. What are they going to do about it? Something has to be done about. it If anybody supposes that, as a result of this debate and eloquent speeches such as we have just heard, and amateur speeches, such as your Lordships are listening to now, there is going to be a change in the situation which is going to lead to the build-up of effective Reserve Forces, they are mistaken. It requires organisation; it requires will; it requires enthusiasm on the part of the general public; it requires an understanding of the insecurity in which we find ourselves, which may be more intense in the future. It requires all that.
I should like, as a result of this debate, those military experts to make up their minds, shrugging aside all the trifling issues that might be raised, that they are going to play a part in this, that there should be a campaign in the country. That is to say—and I emphasise this—if we believe that we ought to increase our security by building up Reserve Forces. If we do not, then that is the end of the matter. However, if we do, if we regard it as essential, then they will have to help us to put things right. I hope that
1154
the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, when he replies to the debate, will give some attention to the realistic aspects of what should be done about it, if anything should be done.
It is easy enough to say: "It is not so bad after all. International tension exists. We know all about it, but we do not expect a war the day after next or even in a month or two. I understand that the ideas will take another six years before they decide to have a conflict, and they are not quite sure whether it will be with nuclear weapons or with conventional weapons ". We can say that, but it will not do. Either we believe that we are too weak on the Reserve side in connection with the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and in particular as regards civil defence—and nothing has been said about that—and something has to be done about it, and immediately, or else we just have a nice academic debate and (apart from the speech to which your Lordships are now listening) there will be wonderful speeches from the experts who know much more about the subject than I do, but at the end of the day there will be no implementation and nothing will be done. We will go on talking and talking, and pelading and pleading, until some fine day we "catch it in the neck" and we have to return to conscription—a subject about which my noble friend Lord Wigg knows more than any other person present, even the military experts. That will not do. So let us be realistic about this issue. If we are not, I say to the noble Lord, enthusiastic as he may be and expert as he may be, that his speech will be a thing of shreds and patches.
3.22 p.m.
Lord CARVER: My Lords, I am extremely pleased to be able to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in particular because he uses the word "effective ". I think it is to the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of our Reserves that we should draw attention. I shall attempt to meet the challenge put by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, of being realistic, and also to meet the challenge of keeping within 10 minutes.
Fifteen years ago I myself was very closely concerned in the reorganisation of both the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve into the Terri-

1155
torial and Army Volunteer Reserve. That reorganisation was absolutely necessary because at that time both were largely, if not totally, ineffective. Together, they were far too large, so that they could not possibly be recruited to anything like their potential establishment. They were too large to be properly trained; they were too large to be clothed properly or to be equipped; they were still living on what was left over the from Second World War. What is more, they were far too large to meet any real requirement, given the limitations of a voluntary force and what the NATO strategy was, and still is.
The situation today as I see it—and I will speak only of the Army Reserves—is a great deal better. Of the combat units of the Territorial Army, practically all are recruited at 80 per cent. or over. The overall total of 60 per cent. of the TA allows for under-recruitment in certain specific areas. They are well equipped, well trained and most of them have realistic tasks which they themselves can feel are really needed. But of course the Regular Reserve is now a great deal smaller than it was then, and that rather bogus reserve of all, the ex-National Serviceman, has disappeared. However, the dilemma remains which faced us then, which is that the Territorial Army does not always exactly like meeting what is the real need of the Army for Reserve Forces.
What is that need? The first need in support of NATO—the overall need to provide individuals and units to complete the wartime order of battle of NATO—consists of three main parts. The first and perhaps the most important is primarily logistic, to replace largely the civilians employed in peacetime. Secondly, the need is to find some extra combat units, given the limitations of training of a volunteer force which the Shapland Report fully realised. They must have simple tasks and they are largely tasks of a defensive nature, such as demolition and bridge guards. Finally, they need individuals to bring Regular units up to war establishment and to replace casualties.
That is the primary function of the Regular Reserve and, as I see it, these tasks are fairly satisfactorily met today, though there are certain weaknesses. The first is a lack of volunteer reservists for logistic reinforcement, particularly
1156
among the important specialists, who are largely founded by what are called "sponsored units" or "sponsored individuals "—largely those who, in the old days, were in the Army Emergency Reserve.
Secondly, as is pointed out in paragraph 207 of this year's Defence White Paper produced by the previous Government, there are some unsatisfactory aspects of the procedures for the recall of Regular reservists. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he can tell us the result of the study of those procedures which was referred to in that paragraph.
It is to the second main task, of home defence, that I should like to draw attention. It is a very vague term and covers a host of things. Only too often an out-of-date concept is retained, in which people think that what home defence consists of is trying to repel invaders who either land on the beaches or drop from the air. That is not a realistic scenario now. The two threats are, first, threats of bombs or explosive warheads landing on this country, whether they land on cities or on targets such as nuclear delivery systems or any other military target. The second is that of sabotage of military installations or essential services. Nothing really in our defence or Government plans is done about either of those to any realistic degree. Regular and general reserve battalions of the Territorial Army allotted to home defence are ineffective to meet either of those threats; and it is an unsatisfactory role for them because they know they are ineffective.
What is the need here? The first need, of course, is a combination of air defence and civil defence. Air defence is thought of by most people today as shooting down aeroplanes, but it meets only to a very small degree the attempt to stop these things landing on this country. I do not for one moment suggest that we should invest in an anti-ballistic missile defence. Civil defence is non-existent and the fact that it is so when there are so many potential targets in this country, is to my mind little less than a scandal.
As regards the second threat to internal security, it is quite unrealistic to think that infantry battalions, whether Regular or Territorial Army, standing round the sort of targets one is thinking of really provide

1157
any serious deterrent to or protection against that sort of threat. The saboteur will already have established himself inside the organisation and the answer to this, whether it is a military or civil target, must be that all establishments of this nature must have, and must be forced by the Government to have, a really effective internal security service of their own, which could be reinforced in emergency by specialist volunteers. I think it is admirable that the Royal Air Force have got round to this in the air defence volunteers for their airfields. That is the sort of pattern that is needed to meet the sabotage threat, whether the target is military or civilian.
I suggest to the Government that they really need to take a radical new look at home defence, at both the need and the most effective way to meet it. I do not believe that the general reserve battalions of the Territorial Army are in any way needed for this, or suited to it. Therefore, 1 think that the Government have to look again at a further task for the Territorial Army and, although I do not suppose it will be popular with the Ministry of Defence or the TA, I suggest that they might see whether they could provide individuals and sub-units to reinforce Regular combat units and Regular logistic units in wartime, on the kind of pattern that the German army does today. I believe that that would not only help to meet some of the Regular manpower shortfall, but would also be a satisfactory form of service for a volunteer reservist. Of course some of them do this already, but not a great many.
There is a further need, which really need cost no money at all, but which is totally lacking in our national plans. On the threat of war or emergency, there will be a very considerable need for general guard and security forces, and for drivers for all kinds of things. But there exists a ridiculous situation, in which the Royal Corps of Transport pools of drivers in the Territorial Army are either very short of men or consist largely of people who cannot drive, the reason why they have joined being that they want to learn to drive. But there is an enormous number of drivers in this country, even in this House, and when an emergency exists there should be provision to meet that kind of need by volunteers, who probably need little or no training on call-up and
1158
who, I suggest, are mostly time-expired reservists.
Finally, if I may make one further suggestion to the Minister, the split in responsibility between the Director of Volunteers, Territorials and Cadets in the Army Department of the Ministry of Defence and the Commander-in-Chief United Kingdom Land Forces should be done away with. There is absolutely no reason why all matters connected with the Territorial Army should not be dealt with by the headquarters of United Kingdom Land Forces at Wilton. I cannot conceive any objection from the point of view of the Ministry of Defence. I suggest that objection is likely to come from the TA Council, who might feel that they were not able to lobby at the very top. But those—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will agree—are perhaps some realistic suggestions for maintaining the effectiveness of the Reserve Forces.

POST OFFICE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY
3.33 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I repeat a Statement on the Post Office which has been made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I am aware that your Lordships were told from our Front Bench that the Statement on agriculture would come first. I understand that the order of the Statements has been changed in the other place, but I should just like to pause for a second and ask: have I the leave of the House to repeat the Statement on the Post Office now?
Lord PEART: Yes, carry on.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, the Statement runs:
"With permission, I will make a Statement about the future of the Post Office Board.
"It is the Government's policy to encourage increased involvement of employees in decisions affecting their interests. But it is not for the Government to lay down how this should be achieved. The precise arrangements are for discussion and agreement between employers and their employees

1159
in the light of the particular circumstances of each individual business. This applies equally to nationalised industries, subject to any necessary Government and parliamentary approval.
"In the case of the Post Office, the management and the Council of Post Office Unions agreed two years ago that there should be an experiment in industrial democracy at all levels in the business, including the main Board. My predecessor facilitated in January, 1978, the main Board experiment by appointing seven representatives of the Post Office trade unions to be part-time members of the Board. He also appointed two consumer representatives. These appointments are due to expire on 31st December, at the end of the agreed two-year period of the experiment.
"In accordance with our general policy, it is for the Post Office and the Post Office unions to decide together what form they wish employee participation to take after the end of this year. One thing is quite clear at the present time; they do not agree that this particular experiment at main Board level should continue. Broadly, the unions are in favour of a continuation, whilst management and a majority of the independent members of the Board are not.
"The Chairman of the Post Office is continuing consultations with the unions and is making new proposals for close employee involvement in top level Post Office decision-making. It is for the Post Office management and the unions to agree on the way forward. I shall, of course, be ready to take any action that might fall to me to facilitate whatever new arrangements might be agreed between the Post Office and the unions. If an agreement were to be reached within the next two months which required such action, this could include bringing before Parliament an order under the terms of the Post Office Act 1977 to make permanent the statutory powers to make additional appointments to the Board.
"However, in the absence of agreement that the two-year experiment
1160
should continue, the Board appointments made for the purpose of that experiment will lapse at the end of the year.
"I would like to express my appreciation for the contribution made by all those who have played a part in this experiment."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.37 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement on the industrial democracy experiment which is being made in another place at the present time. I can only regret the contents of this Statement. It is, as I see it, harmful to industrial relations as it puts the clock back, and it is certainly ironic, at a time when the country is seeking better worker participation, that this experiment should be curtailed. It is also ironic that only 18 months ago Sir William Barlow was writing in the annual report of the Post Office:
"The experiment is still in its early stages, but so far I have been impressed by the way in which the Board has dealt with matters of policy and has already contributed much to the major decisions that have to be taken about the future of this massive organisation and its rapidly expanding range of services. Although this is a radical departure, it is an extension of the Post Office's rich history of participation through extensive consultative arrangements at all levels, built up over many years".
Indeed, we learned from yesterday's Financial Times that the view of the union representatives on the Post Office Board is that with such a conservative management the experiment has just not been running long enough for any real assessment to be made, not least because so many major policy items take at least two years to germinate. Therefore, it should continue. Indeed, I am sure it is true that things do take a long time to happen and that it takes a long time for the fruits to be plucked.
One has learned with interest of the report which has been prepared by the Industrial Relations Research Unit at Warwick University, under the chairmanship of Professor Dorothy Wedderburn, and one wonders—and indeed I should like to ask the Minister—whether it is the Government's intention that this report

1161
should be published. We understand that report is likely to be critical of management's attitude throughout the experiment. In the light of today's Statement, one would have thought that it would be particularly useful that the report should be published so that we could see what that assessment has been.
Another effect of this curtailment of the experiment is that the consumer representatives, of whom there are two, will also lose their places on the Post Office Board. These representatives were put on the hoard at the instigation of the Liberal Party. So I cannot hold out any affection for the Statement which the noble Viscount has given to us this afternoon. I regard it as a very retrograde step.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, from these Benches I should also like to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. I was very glad to have it confirmed at the opening of the Statement that it is the Government's policy to encourage the increased involvement of employees in decisions affecting their interests. In those conditions, it seems to me to be a thousand pities to abolish this experiment before anything else has been put in its place. May I ask the noble Viscount whether or not it would be possible to continue the present arrangements and the nomination of the directors until such time as appropriate and adequate arrangements can be agreed between the board and the trade unions.
We on these Benches would prefer trade union representatives to be elected rather than nominated by the unions. All sorts of alternatives could be discussed, but surely we should keep the present arrangement going until something else is there to put in its place. If that is not done it will be, in my opinion, a very severe setback to the advancement of what is I always think unhappily called "industrial democracy"—of worker participation in this important industry. Indeed, it seems to me that it would throw some doubt on the validity of the Government's real commitment to the policy which they have expounded.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has asked the other question which I was going to put to the noble Viscount. However. I have two small ones. I could not understand
1162
what was the relevance of the reference to the "next two months ". As I understand it, the intention of the Government is that the experiment should come to an end at the end of this year; so I am not sure what the two months have to do with the matter. But perhaps the noble Viscount can explain that point.
May I also ask him about the consumer representatives. We on these Benches very much favour consumer representatives. It is not quite clear from the Statement that the consumer representatives are also going to he swept away at the end of this year. Perhaps the noble Viscount can make that point clear in his reply.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, may I thank both noble Lords for the points which they have made. Perhaps I could start by saying that the Government are neither curtailing nor abolishing this experiment. The experiment stems from a joint agreement which was negotiated by the parties concerned. It was negotiated for a two year period as an experiment.
The Government do not feel any great affection for having to make the Statement at this time. Indeed, my right honourable friends, both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, have spent a very large amount of time in consultation and in receiving the individual views of board members to try to facilitate any agreement to the continuation of this experiment. But there is no agreement—quite definitely not.
It is clear that a majority of the board feel that the purpose of the agreement; namely, to improve the efficiency of the Post Office and to make it more effective and able to perform a better service, is not being facilitated by this form of employee co-operation. In this situation, the Government are not in the position of deciding to curtail or to abolish; they are simply not in a position to tell the parties to the agreement to continue that agreement when they have not agreed to do so.
I am well supplied with many quotations, but I shall give only one to your Lordships. On 25th January 1977, at col. 1181, the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister said:

1163
" I accept that the principle of industrial democracy, if it is to be permanently based, must arise from agreement between both sides ".
Unfortunately, we are in a position where there is no agreement to continue the experiment in this form. The Warwick University report will be made available in the Library of both Houses in a few days. With the permission of the parties concerned, we hope to put with it a consolidation of the views of the Post Office Board on the same question. I do not think that at this stage I should add any comments to the reasons why it has been found not to be possible to achieve agreement.
So far as the period of two months is concerned, allowance was made in the 1977 Act for that Act to continue for a period, in case, at the end of the experiment, time was needed to make the minor alterations permitted under the Act. There therefore remain two months from now for the consultations which the Chairman of the Post Office is still having. As my right honourable friend mentioned in his Statement, if during those two months some of his powers under the Act are indeed needed in relation to any part-time members, they are there to be used.
So far as the consumer representatives are concerned, their positions lapse also, and the views of the board and of Warwick University will no doubt touch upon their positions as well.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would put to his right honourable friend the view—I do not think that it carries the force of law—that since it has been suggested to private industry that it is highly desirable to have both worker participation and indeed consumer participation at the highest board level, it would be extremely unfortunate at this time if the nationalised industries were to be seen not to be carrying out this very useful process of improving the quality of the service which they can give?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for making that point. I am sure that in the future the House will have a number of opportunities to discuss the role of boards and the problems of the representation of different
1164
interests, either by means of direct representation from the interests concerned or by the choice of people of wide experience from more than one sector. These are areas in which individual enterprises will have to find out what is the most efficient way to combine the single-minded efficiency of the enterprise as a whole, upon which its future depends, with the necessary degree of taking account of the views of important sections of the workforce of that enterprise.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the unhappy (as I think we all feel it to be) outcome of this experiment has tended to confirm the anxieties which many of us in industry who are interested in forwarding employee participation have felt about this expedient of so-called worker-directors? Has it confirmed-which is our anxiety—the suggestion that the trade union-nominated or employee-nominated worker-director is exposed to a very difficult clash of loyalties in deciding whether his first loyalty is to the union, to the employees who nominated him or to the board of the company on which he is serving? Can the noble Viscount say whether this experiment has thrown any light on that, which many of us think is the basic difficulty?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. The first thing I should like to say is that the Government and the Post Office Board—this was in the Statement—are deeply indebted for the dedicated and unpaid efforts of the trade union members on the Post Office Board for the period of this experiment. I want to make it quite clear that this is our view and we are grateful for the efforts that they have put in.
I must ask my noble friend to await the consolidation of the Board's views, which we shall place in the Library, to take in the differing and complex views of this subject. However, it will indeed refer to the problem of combining the single-minded necessity for the board as a whole to go forward in pursuit of efficiency with a rather separate kind of necessity to consult deeply with employees or indeed to take account of consumer views. It is the reconcilitaion of these in a manageable way which seems to have beaten those engaged in this particular experiment.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, in view of the EEC's concern and the European Parliament's concern about worker participation in the European Community, especially as it seems to be successful in many of the countries of our partners in the EEC, why the Government find it so difficult to operate it in this country, hearing in mind that Germany and France and many of our European partners find it a suitable vehicle? Might it not be that because they find it a much more suitable vehicle they get greater worker participation and fewer strikes arising in those industries?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I will first say to the noble Baroness that neither here, in this case, nor in my experience of Continental countries, which is considerable, do the Government operate this—or not in industrial areas. It is operated by the companies and industries concerned. With regard to why this experiment has not succeeded and why our pattern is very different from the Continent one has to look at the whole picture. They have a highly developed joint consultation system, often backed by law, but they also have a closely regulated trade union system within a very definite legal framework and, as in many areas, one country's experience based on its whole background history and way of dealing with things is not a blueprint copy for another country. I certainly know, however, that important industries in this country, both nationalised and private-sector, have experience and have studied in great detail the Continental practices and that that is part of their background for trying to improve the many areas that need improvement in this country.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount stated that the majority of directors of the Board were against the continuation of the experiment. Can he say whether this majority included any of the workers' representatives on the Board and will it be possible for Members of this House to get more information on the reasons of the directors who voted against the continuation of the experiment?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, as my right honourable friend's Statement made clear, in the main the worker-
1166
directors—the trade union-nominated directors—were in favour of continuation. The Post Office directors and the majority of the independent directors were against it. That hides a large number of very different individual views of which my right honourable friend has been taking note. So far as the reasons are concerned, I have already told the House that the Warwick University Report will be available and also that the consolidation document of the views of the Board will be available.

COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (AGRICULTURE) MEETING
3.56 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is making in another place about the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels which took place on 10th and 11th December. The Statement is as follows:
"At my request the Commission proposed a 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound in order to boost the resources available to British agriculture. The devaluation will take effect on 17th December for all the main commodities except cereals and eggs and poultry, where the change will take place at the start of the next marketing year on 1st August 1980. For wine, the devlauation will not take effect until December 1980. This devaluation will be of great importance to British agriculture and it will add some £150 million to farmers' returns in a full year. The effect on consumer prices will amount to one quarter of one per cent. on the retail price index, but it will be many months before the full effect of the ¼ per cent. Increase reaches the shops.
"The Council also agreed a 5 per cent. devaluation of the Italian green lira.
"The Council agreed a mandate for the Commission to negotiate voluntary restraint arrangements by third countries exporting sheepmeat to the Community. The mandate was in

1167
accordance with our insistence that any agreement should be a totally voluntary agreement on the part of New Zealand and that there would be no unbinding of the GATT tariff arrangements. We rejected a French proposal that there should be a threat of unbinding the GATT for any country that refused to reach a voluntary agreement.
"We and the Commission also rejected a French request to the Commission that no action should be taken by the Commission in respect of the illegal French measures on sheepmeat imports. We again made it clear we would not accept any sheepmeat regime that failed to give a net benefit to Britain or included intervention.
"Proposals were before the Council for a wine package designed to restore balance to the wine market and to avoid surpluses. The package was such that Community payments of £32.5 million per annum would have resulted in equivalent Community savings of £32.5 million per annum. We succeeded in negotiating a substantial reduction in the Commission's proposed FEOGA payments so that the savings will outweigh the payments and produce an anticipated net reduction in the Community Budget of £6.5 million per annum over the period of the programme. We also resisted French pressure to bring into the package, at the very last moment, an extension of present temporary arrangements protecting producers from low market prices at the end of long term storage contracts.
"We also secured an agreement that at the end of the current seven-year programme of restructuring, with its ban on new plantings, there would be a review by the Commission. This should ensure that planting controls will be maintained if there is any further risk of surplus production. The package finally agreed will therefore reduce the contribution of the United Kingdom towards Europe's wine régime.
"Agreement was reached on a group of animal health measures, which fully meets the United Kingdom's requirements, and we obtained an extension for a further six months of the derogation enabling the United Kingdom, the
1168
Irish Republic and Denmark to maintain their national swine fever requirements for imports of pigs and fresh pigmeat ".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.1 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House and stating what has happened in Brussels. The devaluation which he mentions will certainly be of great importance to British agriculture. There is a problem here about the consumer. The noble Lord has spelled out that the effect on consumer prices will amount to ¼ of 1 per cent. on the Retail Price Index and it will be many months before the full effects of this increase reaches the shops. I hope the Minister is being realistic here. I am all for helping the farmers. I recognise, after all, that the farmers produce food for the consumer. There must be a proper balance. I hope he has it right.
May I ask about the hill farmers? Is it possible to break this figure down to show what aid is going to be given to hill farmers, who have had a rough time over a long period? I am thinking about the recent weather affecting Scotland, the North of England, the South-West and also Northern Ireland, which also are affected by this price review. I would be grateful for any information about that.
If I may turn to sheepmeat, I am glad that so far it seems that New Zealand is going to be protected. We know that France and other countries have sometimes sniped at Britain for allowing imports of New Zealand lamb. I believe that New Zealand is part of our own set-up and must be protected. I hope the Minister feels that this arrangement is satisfactory. On the other hand, the Government have not been able to persuade France to meet her legal obligations; she is still defying the European Court. Why has there been no real progress on this? Has it been suggested that, because no action has been taken on wine, quietness has been achieved in this respect?
May I ask also about the animal health measures which, to use the words of the Minister, fully meet the United Kingdom requirements, and
" we obtained an extension for a further six months of the derogation enabling the United

1169
Kingdom, the Irish Republic and Denmark to maintain their national swine fever requirements ".
Can the Minister go into further detail about this? Our animal health is far superior to that in any other parts of Europe. I feel strongly about this because I was once in the position of a Minister who had to face the biggest outbreak of foot and mouth disease we have ever had. I have always felt that we should be very sensitive about what is happening in Europe, because there is still a lot of foot and mouth disease about in Europe, where they do not have the rigid controls we have. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would answer those general broad questions.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome the Statement which the Minister has repeated. It is one which will be extremely welcome throughout the agricultural industry and something which is very necessary indeed. For example—I take it as only an example—in Scotland last year real incomes in the farming community fell by 11 per cent. Even more significant and more worrying in the long term is the fact that bank overdrafts of the farming community in Scotland have nearly doubled in the last year. At a figure of 20 per cent. or over, this is a burden which it is extraordinarily difficult for any industry to bear, particularly one working on the narrow margins—and I say that without fear of contradiction—that the farming industry is working on at the present time. The 5 per cent. will certainly be most welcome. But I would ask the Minister what gap remains before we have parity in the Community? This is quite an important point. I would also ask if they intend to do anything to introduce some form of parity as regards the terms for borrowing money. Some recent programmes have shown some extraordinarily wonderful schemes for the farming community on the Continent, where farmers have been able to borrow money for as little as 2 to 3 per cent. This is a gap which is highly significant in times like these.
I would also ask about the voluntary restraint by third countries. Does this mean that we are going to ask New Zealand to reduce the amount of lamb she sends to this country, or not to increase it? If it is to ask them to reduce it, I would think this is certainly contrary to our agreements with New Zealand at
1170
the time of our joining the Community. Can the Minister explain also the part of the Statement which reads:
" We again made it clear we would not accept any sheepmeat régime that failed to give a net benefit to Britain or included intervention ".
I do not quite understand what that means.
I should also like to know if we are simply living from six months to six months on our regulations for import of meat into this country to avoid the desperate disease of swine fever which is still about. In conclusion, I would ask the Minister if his right honourable friend is engaged in a permanent war with the French. There does not appear to be a communautaire spirit, because time after time he seems to rejoice in the fact that he has put it over on the French. Perhaps we could disguise it a little and say that we are more communautaire than the French instead of more successful.
4.7 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for the welcome they have given to the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, asked if we had got the balance right with the 5 per cent. devaluation. He will know more about this than I do because he was a Minister of Agriculture. The balance is always a difficult thing to achieve. We think we have got it right. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to bank overdrafts and how these are going to be a terrible imposition on farmers, and I entirely agree with him. The 5 per cent. devaluation does at least compensate in part. Of course it does mean that in the long run some food prices are likely to go up a little, but not very much. As an example, butter may go up by about 3½p per lb over a longish period of time. This is precisely the kind of situation that he himself was in, or his successor was, last April, when it was decided to devalue the green pound by the same amount.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, asked about hill farmers. He will recall that my right honourable friend has recently announced a substantial increase for hill farmers, both for sheep and for cattle, which amounts. if I remember correctly, to something like £20–6 million. That was announced about two weeks ago. The noble Lord also referred to sheepmeat, as did the

1171
noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and both noble Lords referred to the position of New Zealand. I entirely agree that it is essential that New Zealand's interests are protected in this matter. All we have agreed to is that the Commission should have a negotiating mandate for voluntary restraint; in other words, they are permitted to negotiate with New Zealand and other countries for some form of voluntary restraint. There is not an imposition that there should be restraint, and it is not an indication that the thumbscrews are going to be turned on New Zealand. All it is is a permission to negotiate.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, also referred to France and the illegal position as regards the French not allowing imports of British lamb. He asked why nothing was done about it. The French tried to establish that further legal proceedings should be held up pending the negotiation of a Community r½gime on sheepmeat. It was my right honourable friend who did not accept that. We have always accepted—indeed, the Commission has accepted—that the French are acting illegally. The Commission is taking the matter back to the European Court. The French wished that that action should be suspended until such time as a sheep-meat regime had been agreed. My right honourable friend and the Commission did not accede to that request.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to swine fever and asked what was being done about it. I should like to make it clear that we have animal health regulations in this country which prevent the import, and quite correctly so, of animals from other countries which do not have certain clean bills of health. What we have achieved as regards this negotiation is that that derogation should continue for at least a further six months.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked whether we were continuing a perpetual war with the French. I should hope that there would not be such descriptions as "war ". There is a little disagreement here and there over fairly fundamental issues. We wish to see them acting legally over the imports of our British meat, and we do not intend to act illegally in the same way as they do. In the end the
1172
success of the Community and the success of the Common Agricultural Policy will depend only upon all the members of the Community acting in harmony together. It is our desire to see that the way in which that harmony comes about is not unfavourable to Great Britain.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, can the Minister answer the question about the gap as regards the green pound?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I knew that there was something more substantial that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said. Indeed, he has raised a number of substantial matters. He is quite right in saying that the gap was 9 per cent. It is now 3.5 per cent.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, what the noble Earl has just said might be very welcome news for the farmers, who are a minority of the people in Great Britain. However, one would accept that the consumers in Great Britain—and they in the main are the housewives—comprise the majority. As regards mention of ¼ of 1 per cent., the noble Earl gave us some idea of the increase in the price of butter that was foreseen in the near future. The price of butter is a bone of contention, as the noble Earl clearly understands, in view of the amount of butter which is held in intervention by the EEC. So, while the British housewife might feel that the farmers are doing very well out of it, she will be quite concerned that once again, in spite of all the butter that is held in intervention, she will have to pay I think the noble Earl said another 3.5p on a pound, which in view of all the other increases in gas, electricity and so on might become the last straw. The noble Earl gave the figure for butter. Can he this afternoon give figures for any other increases that he expects the consumer—the housewife—will have to bear in this kind of devaluation of the green pound which will no doubt be of help to the farmer but will be of detriment to the consumer? Can he give us the increases in any other prices besides that of butter?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I would respectfully reject one inference which the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal,

1173
has suggested—namely, that because the farmers are in a minority, the effect on the majority should be taken more into account. In the long term the interests of the producer and the consumer are the same. If the farmers do not and cannot make sufficient money they will simply not be able to provide the food which the nation requires. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to one particular matter this afternoon as regards the bank rate. Indeed, if the noble Baroness were to look at figures for agricultural output in terms of income, she would see that they have, in fact, gone down. With respect, they went down I think, during the period of the Government which she supports. We want to see that situation reversed. Inevitably, if we allow prices to increase a little, somebody must pay. This relatively modest sum is available in order to enable farmers to increase their income modestly.
The noble Baroness asked what other figures were available for prices which were likely to increase. Cheese may go up by 3p per pound; beef by 4½p per pound; and bread by one-third of 1p a loaf. If she thinks that that is a great deal, which of course she is entitled to think, she should realise that our predecessor, under her Government, did precisely the same thing in April because he thought then that it was necessary that farmers should have an increase in theft income and that it was necessary—and this is what our Government wish to do—to bring the green pound more into alignment with reality and that it should be less over-valued than it has been.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, I should like to raise one further point. How does the noble Earl interpret one-third of 1p on the price of a loaf in terms of retail figures?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, of course, prices do not go up by one-third of 1p. Somebody has to absorb them. Either it goes up, presumably by a halfpenny or one penny, or it does not go up at all.
Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl can enlighten me about how many devaluations have taken place during the last 12 months, because I think that that would put the matter in much greater perspective?
1174
Apparently we are only considering today's devaluation and its effect on prices, but there have been three or four devaluations, think—without looking up the record—during the last 12 months.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am bound to say that I speak from memory as regards this matter, but I think that the noble Lord's Government devalued the green pound by 5 per cent. in March. We devalued it by 5 per cent. in June; then 1·1 per cent. in September and now another 5 per cent. The reason, of course. is that when the value of the pound slips this becomes necessary. I would remind the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, that, if she is concerned about the rise in the price of food to the housewife—about which we are indeed all concerned—the Retail Price Index went up by no less than 122 per cent. during the last five years.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: My Lords, is the Minister of State aware that, subject to what my noble friends have said about increased prices, there are considerable remaining problems? Can he be rather more precise about the increase in real farm income which will result from this 5 per cent. devaluation? Secondly, rather more broadly and fundamentally, can he say to what extent the Government are still hoping that there could be a more radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy? Is there not a danger that we go from package to package—and I am not expressing this as a view of any one political party—mollifying this sector or that sector, but failing to impress upon our partners in the Community that we shall not come to a satisfactory conclusion until we have a real reform of the Common Agricultural Policy? Can the noble Earl say what hope the Government have of achieving that?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, has of course put his finger exactly on the difficulty. We accept that there should be some fairly substantial reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy in order to prevent the kind of thing which we are at present witnessing and in order to make sure that there is a better agricultural policy. But, like all things which are described as "common" agricultural policies, there has to be common agreement, and the difficulty is to get eight other

1175
people to agree with one's own point of view. That is bound to be a slow process. It is bound to be a process where, from time to time, one feels that not a great deal of success is being achieved. However, we intend to continue with it in order to try to reach a more successful outcome than we have at the moment.
The noble Lord asked whether I could give any indication of how farmers' incomes would be affected. That is always a difficulty, because it depends upon the price at which commodities are sold, which are not necessarily the prices that are indicated by intervention prices or target prices. On the whole, it is expected that the devaluation will make a gross improvement to farmers' incomes of £235 million; but of course there will be additional costs, such as feeding stuffs, which are likely to be in the nature of £85 million. This will leave a net improvement of about £150 million. I would explain to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that that figure does not represent the increase in intervention prices, but it is the figure by which it is anticipated farmers' incomes will increase.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, in any radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy will the noble Lord agree that farmers should receive guaranteed prices by some means other than by making the food consumer pay, as is the case in this country?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the great difficulty is to get the supply and demand in equilibrium and in balance. What we would wish to achieve—and this is perfection—is that that which is required is produced and that there should not be any surpluses. But the nature of life is that if we are not to have shortages in some years, we are bound to have surpluses in other years. The dramas created by shortages are, with respect, infinitely greater than the dramas created by surpluses. Perhaps I could give the noble Lord one example. About four years ago potatoes were in short supply not only in England but throughout the Common Market countries. Prices simply rocketed from £40 a tonne to £230 a tonne. The complaint then was that consumers were having to pay too
1176
much and farmers were making a fist out of it. Of course, the following year prices came down and things were different. Therefore, when there is a shortage the effect is infinitely greater than when there is a surplus.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, will my noble friend accept my congratulations on what he is doing to defend the farming community from sometimes rather unfair attacks by the other side—that everything is being done for the farming community and not enough is being done for the consumer? Will he bear in mind that this winter has only just started?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that I never said that; indeed, some of the critics did not. I recognise the importance of the farming community and of having a healthy agricultural system.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, if I may refer to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, as my friend, I was obviously not referring to him when I said that certain comments had been made. His comments were very much more balanced, as one would expect from a former Minister of Agriculture.
But I return to the problem that this winter has only just started, and as far as weather and other things go it has started extremely badly. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, reminded my noble friend that farm incomes last year fell by more than 11 per cent. and that at present the expectation from the same source is that they will fall by a larger amount this year. The farming community is grateful for the help that it receives through this devaluation, but I merely want to put on record that in no way will this reverse the fall in farm incomes in Scotland, and most certainly not in the hill country.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point, but unless we draw this discussion to a close, we shall be embarking on an agricultural debate. Perhaps, with your Lordships' approval, we might return to the debate on which we originally embarked.

THE RESERVE FORCES
4.25 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, I return to the Motion of my noble friend on the effective Reserves and I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that in 1966 the Territorial Army was under-recruited and contained a great deal of dead wood. However, as I shall try to show in a few minutes, I think that it was over-pruned at that time. I believe that there is a need for a moderate and gradual increase in our Reserve Forces, mostly for security purposes in the United Kingdom base, but also in order to provide Reserves for our Forces. I also believe that the will exists to man those additional Reserve Forces. I do not share the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that the necessary leadership in this matter will not be forthcoming.
Effective Reserves are an essential component of a sound defence policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, we usually give Reserve Forces a mention in our annual defence debate, but they receive only a passing reference. Therefore, we must be particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for the opportunity which this short debate this afternoon gives us to concentrate our attention on this subject.
Regular Reserves of the Army account for 68 per cent. of the total Regular Reserve Forces of all three Services, as the needs of a reserve manpower for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are much less. The 1979 Statement on Defence Policy, issued shortly before the general election and which is the most recent one available for reference, indicates that the total number of Regular Army Reservists had risen since 1975 from 107,000 to 124,000 as at 1st January this year; whereas the total number of Reservists for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force—albeit of a smaller quantity—during the same period had fallen slightly. No explanation was given in the Statement for either this rise or the fall.
I wonder whether the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate will tell us whether the total number of Reservists for the Army has now reached its ceiling, or whether we can expect it to continue to increase at the same pace for a few more
1178
years? Furthermore, can he say whether the fall in the Reserves of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force is a matter of anxiety. Have our operational commitments been reduced by a similar amount and, if not—as I suspect is the case—what steps can be proposed to fill that gap?
I have often had the feeling that such large numbers of Reservists in peacetime were just statistics maintained on the tiles of some branch in the Ministry of Defence, and that if an emergency came leading to mobilisation many would not be available for one reason or another, or would be unfit. Therefore, we must especially welcome the arrangements recently announced in another place by the Minister of Defence—which have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur—and as forecast in the 1979 Statement on defence, that Reservists will be called up from time to time in order to confirm their availability, to check their fitness and their continuing suitability. I should like to see these arrangements developed still further so that each Reservist receives from time to time—say, every four or five years—a short, 48-hour refresher course in new weapons and equipment and improved techniques relevant to his particular branch of the Service.
In 1914 the full brunt of fighting in the opening stages was borne by the Regulars. In 1939, although many territorial units and Reservists were deployed in theatres of operations at the outset, the phoney war gave time for them to settle down. If ever hostilities or mobilisation happen again, it is unlikely that any such respite would occur, and many civilian soldiers would be immediately involved in operations. There is a tendency to refer to all civilian soldiers as Reserves, whether they be Regular Reservists now returned to civilian life or whether they are members of the Territorial Army.
The 1979 Defence Statement tries to have its cake and to eat it in this respect, since Chapter 2 confirms that after mobilisation 70 per cent. of Army Forces would be deployed on the European mainland, and that in order to enable the Army combat Forces to complete their commitments to NATO many Reservists and Territorial Army would be needed immediately to bring the British Army of the Rhine to the required strength. Yet

1179
Table 2 of Annexure H of the same Statement, which deals exclusively with Reserves, lists the total number of Reservists and members of the Territorial Army as Reserve Forces.
The point I am trying to make is that individuals, or units, drawn from Regular Reserves, or the Territorial Army, who have a specific operational task to go to either in the United Kingdom or on the European mainland are not reserves in the strict sense of that word. Perhaps we should call them reinforcements, since on mobilisation they immediately reinforce our combat Forces to bring them to an effective war footing. To "maintain effective Reserve Forces", in the words of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur calls for sufficient men and units from the TA and from the various types of Regular Reserves who are uncommitted—that is the key to the word "Reserve "—to any particular immediate operational task. They should be, as the word" Reserve " implies, available to strengthen a particular combat requirement where the initial deployment has proved to be inadequate.
Secondly, they should be available to deal with any unforeseen contingencies, which somehow always seem to recur. Thirdly, they must be available to replace casualties. Bearing in mind these large numbers of Regular Reservists and TA who are committed to an immediate operational role, and if your Lordships accept my supposition that these should not be regarded as Reserves, then I believe that our genuine Reserve manpower needs to be increased if they are to meet effectively the unexpected. Since the number of Regular Reservists depends on the size of our Armed Forces, this increase must be found, as many of your Lordships agree, I know, from the Territorial Army.
I should like to see a gradual and a moderate increase in the number of Territorial Army units. I believe that the enthusiasm of the general public can be found, can be inspired by leadership if they see the need for it. I am certain that there are valuable tasks for them to do and train for. Therefore I should like to see it restored. I should like to see it restored gradually, because there will be problems in finding sufficient leaders, officers and
1180
non-commissioned officers, and also drill halls to accommodate them in. Nevertheless, that is something that we must do.
My final point concerns compensation awarded to a member of the Territorial Army, or his dependants, for injury or death occurring on training. If certain units of the Territorial Army are going to be required to carry out important and immediate operational tasks on mobilisation, their training must be realistic and they must have the opportunity of training to the same standards as the Regular Army. Accidents will occur, and especially on night exercises. Your Lordships will remember the case of the TA soldiers who were drowned in the River Trent on night exercises about two years ago. Then the unconvincing ruling was given that the Ministry of Defence was not responsible for compensation, but that it was a matter for the individual civilian employer based on his civilian career. Many young men in the TA are not yet eligible for civil employment compensation schemes, as they have not worked for that employer for long enough, and others, too, of course may be unemployed. I hope very much that this Government will continue to give urgent consideration to that problem, and that they will agree that it really must be a Ministry of Defence responsibility for that compensation.
4.37 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, when I first joined your Lordships' House in 1964 I happened to be a Territorial Army ADC to the Queen. This was an honour which was given to some of us who had commanded Territorial Army battalions and been deputy brigade commanders too. In 1965 we first heard the rumblings of the carving knife being sharpened on the Healey Grindstone. We then started a whole series of debates, culminating in that cut taking place. I continued non-stop protesting them, and I have ever since. In every defence debate that has taken place I have hammered this point of our lack of reserves. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur—and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said it as well—that there are those of us in this House who have continually battled on on this question of inadequate Reserves.
Just after the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, came to your Lordships' House I first

1181
had the good fortune to get in close touch with him, and I am honoured to have been in close touch with him ever since on all questions of defence. After the first debate on defence that followed he came up to me and said, "Young man, the thing that has worried me more than anything else about our defence situation is our lack of Reserves ". From that date I may say that my connection with the noble Lord has dated. May I go back a little further leading up to a story about the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. When I was commanding a TA battalion over 20 years ago, I had a young officer, a captain, who was then a journalist on the Western Morning News. At about the time that I gave up command he moved to London and became a junior and then later a senior lobby correspondent for the Daily Telegraph. He is now a Euro MP. I mention this because he was very useful to me, especially when I first became honorary secretary to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, on the all-party Defence Study Group. There was quite a lot of publicity in our local paper as well as nationally at the time.
It so happened—this is the story I want to tell—that that announcement appeared in the Western Morning News just before I had to go to see my predecessor as honorary colonel of the Royal Devon Yeomanry about a personal matter, and he told me this story about Lord Shinwell when he was Minister for War; and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, will follow the example of Lord Shinwell at that time. The Minister came to address the Territorial Army Association in Exeter. He made his speech and this friend of mine—the father of two well-known sons, I might mention, one an ambassador and the other a major general who has just flown to Rhodesia to be in charge of the monitoring forces—told me that at the end of his talk to the TA Association, Lord Shinwell asked, "Do any of the commanding officers have any questions they want to ask me?" My friend, who was commanding a TA gunner regiment, told the then Minister, "I have so many 16 and 25 pounders "—whatever the figures may have been—" and I have only 10 quads to draw them ". The Minister consulted the bureaucrat seated beside him and replied," When it comes to specialist equipment, it is more difficult ".
1182
My friend then said, "I happen to know there are hundreds of them littering the autobahns in Germany ". "Is that so ", said the Minister, and without again referring to the bureaucrat seated beside him he replied, "Indent again for your quads, and write to me if you do not get them ".
After that, my friend telephoned the staff captain in the South-West District and was told by the captain, "I told you they are not available ". Whereupon my friend replied, "I have been told to write to the Minister if I don't get them ". The captain replied, "You can't do that ", but, not deterred, my friend said, "I have witnesses who will say I must write direct to the Minister ". Not only did my friend get the quads he wanted; he got two more within a matter of weeks. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, will follow that example of Lord Shinwell and cut through his so-called advisors.
I hope Lord Strathcona has his pencil ready because I am now going to tell him what I want for my mob. First of all, we need an assistant training officer; he is on establishment but we have not had the position filled. We need more regular assistants, and I am now talking about a TA home defence unit. In my county there are three drill halls for the squadron 70 miles apart and the regimental headquarters is 140 miles away. How can one expect a company squadron commander, with those distances to cover, to be able to do that as well as all the various other things he has to do? For example, he had to do seven CCF and ACF inspections last year. In my day we had regular training majors who could do that. Now we do not have enough, so one cannot expect them to do that sort of thing.
Home defence units of the TA are equipped with four-by-two Bedford trucks, and that is absolutely ridiculous; once they get off a metal road they are up to their axles in mud. They must be given four-by-four vehicles as soon as possible. I mentioned wireless sets the other day in a supplementary question; we have been promised adequate, more up-to-date ones for over two years but we have still not got them.
I turn from the particular to the general and I want to concentrate on home and civil defence reserves. It is generally

1183
accepted that we will be the first, not the last, country to be attacked if the balloon goes up. We are the staging platform for all the Reserves coming from the North American Continent, yet we have no adequate home defence—what we have is less than a small crowd at Twickenham, as one noble Lord said—and our civil defence is non-existent.
When we had National Service, a strong TA and the civil defence, there were no problems because that automatically gave us Reserves for everything. The Conservatives, to their utter shame, abolished National Service, and to my way of thinking, from that time stem all our Reserve problems; and of course Healey and Callaghan then went and abolished the TA and the civil defence. It is no use crying over spilt milk, so let us try to do something now for home defence. Though the most important, the home defence TA thinks it is the Cinderella.
As I have previously told your Lordships, I am chairman of a civil defence organisation called the Devon Emergency Volunteers and we are trying, through volunteers, to fill some of that gap. It is difficult to get training equipment, but we at least have got somewhere where other counties have got nowhere. Some time ago the Minister told me there would be a Statement on this subject. I now hear through a member of that organisation who is also a Member in another place that we are not to get it for about six months. The recent Easingwold Conference resulted in the usual platitudes, and I remind the noble Lord of what his party said about this when they were in Opposition: that we should remember that in a crisis, for our Servicemen, be they in the North Sea, flying over Italy or fighting in NATO, it is of great importance that adequate home defence facilities should be laid on. It is of great importance for the morale of the Services, but at present they know we do not have it, and anybody who does not believe me can refer to General Hackett's book.
Let us do something now, and I suggest that as far as civil defence is concerned, speaking from experience, we should begin by taking it away from the Home Office and putting it under the Ministry of Defence, which would help both finance-
1184
wise and equipment-wise. The County Councils Association is already on record about the misuse of the 75 per cent. home defence grant. Any defence-country, home, civil—will be sacrificed by the bureaucrats and their local politicians for vote-catching and things of that nature. Remember too, regarding bureaucrats, Parkinson's Law: do not let your civil defence, or any other defence organisation, get caught up in the bureaucratic control of voluntary organisations.
I only ask the House to remember what trouble can come to other organisations; one thinks of how for years there was trouble between the Police Federation and their excellent reserves, the Specials. Time is not on our side; 1983 is supposed to be the year when the peak of advantage of Russia over NATO will be reached. We must act now.
4.48 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am pleased to be speaking in this debate, and I am really intervening on behalf of the women's Services. But, first, I want to tell the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that we are grateful to him for having an all-party committee, and I would suggest that, when we have the White Paper on Defence, we might have a discussion with noble Lords in all parts of the House joining in; it is not satisfactory when only one or two take part from the Opposition Benches. We should have a general discussion, not a debate, because it is vitally important that going out from this Chamber is one mind on this issue, especially in regard to the present state of NATO, and I hope I may get some support for that suggestion.
I want to say a few words about the Auxiliary Territorial Corps (ATS) which was formed in 1939, because they do not really know what their future position is to be. I have studied the Journal of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies and the report of the conference held on 7th December, 1977, at which three very important persons from the three Services spoke. Yet I can find no mention of the role of the women in the future. Recently, in October, there has been a recruiting campaign. Perhaps the noble Lord, when he winds up, would care to say how successful it has been. The corps must know what they are going to do in the future.

1185
Our Reserve Forces are very different from those of the Republic of Germany or of France, not only because they are voluntary, but also in regard to the position of women in these Services. At the present time when there is need women, particularly from the medical services, are called up because the Royal Navy and others are very short of medical personnel. What is to be the position regarding British Forces in Germany and assistance towards the security of the British Base? Is the 1967 decision still to apply in future? Will it therefore be the women who will be on duty for the security of the British Base?
In the Expenditure Committee Report in 1977 the days of moving territorial formations of greater than basic unit size to the Continent at the outset of a conflict were assumed to be over. Does this still hold good? It is rather important to know this. Has there been a change of policy?
It has been suggested that the British Army, while retaining the strength of the TAVR system, could move, in relation to those who volunteer for its Regular Services, to a system involving recall during the period of reserve liability. Would this mean a great change in the present system? As I understand it, the present situation is that there are two armoured reconnaissance regiments; the Artillery have two medium and three light air defence regiments, making five in all; the Engineers' regiments total seven; the Honourable Artillery Company comprises one, the Infrantry 38, and Special Air Service Regiments two. Are these the numbers at the present time? If the noble Lord cannot answer this question today, perhaps he will let me know later on.
I now turn to what is to be the role of women in the future. Their present jobs are merely clerical, cooking, working as stewards, in signals, and driving, none of which is a really skilled occupation. Therefore we do not get the really skilled people coming into the Services. I suggest that it is important that we try to get a better standard of recruit. When one remembers the excellent work that they did in two world wars, I think that they deserve to know what their future is.
1186
I understand that at the moment it is much easier to recruit Service women than officers because the officers do not feel that they have enough work to do of great importance, and their equipment is poor. I should also like to suggest that some of these people, particularly those on, say, Salisbury Plain, should go to small towns such as Devizes, Chippenham and Warminster and get more young recruits, as I gather that from the age of 17 they can join the Army Cadet Forces. A great many young people have literally nothing to do in these small country towns, and I think that the Services, particularly perhaps, the Women's Services, could be advantageous in stopping delinquency. I know that a great number of youngsters would like to join the Services, but when it comes to actually joining invariably they are turned down because their educational standard is not high enough. or it is thought that they do not have enough personal knowledge; and this is a great blow. I know of four young men in my village who have been turned down in circumstances which I think were a pity. If they had had a little training and some occupation beforehand, they might have made very able recruits.
4.56 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate the noble Lord who initiated it on providing the House with this opportunity. I probably find myself in almost complete disagreement with all that has been said, but I am afraid that I cannot help that. I do not expect anyone to take any notice of what I say, or even to listen to what I say. I have been saying the same thing now for so many years that I have given up attending the defence debates because I do not want to bore. But it is a fact that this debate, in terms of national defence, is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Let us assume that if the occasion arises in which the Reserve Forces are called upon to play an active role, it would bring them, in a matter of hours, either into conflict, or to the possibility of immediate conflict, with—so we are told by the experts on Soviet strength—the greatest military power on earth; men who are produced from a military machine, following long periods of training, equipped down to the last button. What we propose to put against them are the new-named Terri-

1187
torial Army and Regular Army Reservists, many of whom will have left the colours years before. Overall they will have been inadequately trained and inadequately equipped.
Let us look at the proposition. We were fortunate yesterday to have been given in another place a dictum from our greatest military expert, the Prime Minister. She said:
" The greatest danger to any country is weakness in defence".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/79; col. 1072.]
All right—that is the test. Now the day comes and the Reserve Forces have to be mobilised. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has given us some evidence. A unit of which he had knowledge in the West Country was spread over immense areas in penny packets. This is not exceptional. Even in London Territorials are spread all over, from Fulham to Barking, from the North of London to the South of London; and they have to be brought together in a matter of hours, turned into fighting units and transported to Germany, to face—on the basis of the evidence from the other side—highly sophisticated, highly trained regular soldiers. I do not believe that that can be done. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell touched on the point.
The turning point of course was the 1957 White Paper—I apologise for saying this again—and that was a political document. It was designed to save the Government of the day from the embarrassment in which they found themselves. It was a very severe embarrassment. Let us apply Mrs. Thatcher's test to a Conservative Government who have been in power not for months, but for years. Their first Minister of Defence was the great Churchill. They had Field Marshal Lord Alexander as a Minister of Defence. I looked up—I have a good memory, but I believe in checking—what was said on 5th December, 23 years ago, by a distinguished Conservative Member of Parliament, well-known to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, the late Captain Charles Waterhouse. He was not a Left-Wing ideologue, but a Right-Wing imperalist in the old-fashioned sense. This is what he said—and remember the test, my Lords, when the Prime Minister said that the greatest danger to a country is defence weakness;
1188
" The fact remains that when this crisis came "—
it did not come like a thief in the night, there was two months' or more warning—
" we had no plan, no ships, no aeroplanes and no men available in sufficient quantities to hit quickly ".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/56; col. 1303.]
On the moral of this Mr. Macmillan could not get Lord Head to do his dirty work. He got the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, through the 1957 White Paper to do the job, which was to get rid of conscription. We were going to have nuclear forces in its place. Skybolt—where is Skybolt? Blue Streak—where is Blue Streak? When there was no Blue Streak and no Skybolt, we had Polaris. and we are still lumbered with Polaris. I am not going to argue the case today; I have done it often enough. Polaris is fit only for Steptoe and Son—an obsolete weapon. Often there is none of them at sea at all.
The obligations into which this country has entered in terms of NATO can be discharged only through compulsory military service. There is no other way. If you turn your back on compulsory military service, then all you do is to escalate the bill to the point where you cannot afford to buy the equipment. So you now have more women and children on the payroll of the Ministry of Defence than you have soldiers, sailors and airmen. Let us face the fact—and there is no denying that fact. Therefore, if you step up your Reserve Forces and you want to take them to Germany, how do you take them?
Let us come down to the present day. The Territorial Army has to be transported to Germany. There are available Puma aircraft. The Puma was ordered by Mr. Healey. It could have been conveyed by the Belfast. The Belfast was built to fly Blue Streaks, but there were no Blue Streaks. The only cargo it could carry was a load of ping-pong balls. That is now obsolescent: and we have no carrier aircraft that can lift a Puma. Yet the Puma is your battlefield transport helicopter. These facts are as well known to the Russian intelligence as they are to me. They are known to the Government, and they are known to noble Lords on all sides of the House. To come here today and suggest that by titivating round through publicity campaigns, that by added recruitment. one is going to be

1189
able to solve this problem. I just do not believe it.
The point is, my Lords, that I hold a completely different view about defence from that of other noble Lords. I believe the Russians, as indeed they are, are Marxist. The best way to do us down is to get us to spend money on defence, because the greatest single inflationary cause in the Western World is defence expenditure. It is wholly non-productive. So the present Administration says, "Come February, increase defence "—one up to the Kremlin. This is going on throughout the Western World: and whenever there is a sign of pacification the Kremlin rattles the sabre and we pour a few more thousand million pounds on defence. Yes, go along and spend £5,000 million on the Trident, just to make absolutely sure that inflation goes on. So far as the Russians are concerned, to them defence is totality, not only in terms of equipment but right across the hoard. This will go on until they can get you to be sensible, and they do not think you will become sensible because the vested interests in the country against the body politic behaving sensibly are very great indeed. Therefore, there is a guarantee of more expenditure on defence, more inflation, basic economic weakness. If any noble Lord believes that the Kremlin shivers in its shoes at the strength which is expressed in that White Paper, all I can say is that they are greater optimists than I am. I am filled with foreboding. I believe the chips are down, and you may be called upon to catch them perhaps quicker than you know. So far as I am concerned, I continue with my warnings. I do not expect you to listen, but a future Gibbon, if the place does not burn up, may get amusement from reading them.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question?
Lord WIGG: Certainly.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, does he think it is a pity we ever gave up compulsory National Service? Because I do.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, it is like a gramophone record with the needle stuck. I have been saying that since 1957. I am sorry the noble Lord has not listened.
Lord JACOBSON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could I follow on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby? When we had compulsory National Service for a number of years after the war, was it not a fact that the Army did not quite know what to do with the—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is out of order.
5.5 p.m.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, it has been my (shall I say?) privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, quite constantly in this House, sometimes on gambling and sometimes on defence. If I may, I should like to return rather to our Reserve Army, and leave the battles of the world to others. It might interest the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, to recall that the birth of the Territorial Army after the war was really in 1957, when conscription ended, because up until that time people were drafted into the Territorial Army, and the real volunteer force started only in 1957.
I should like to follow my noble friend Lord Cathcart in one or two remarks about the old Territorial Army, which was dismissed, I thought, rather with a sweep of the brush by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I thought it was a very good army. I had the privilege of commanding a battalion in the Territorial Army from 1965 to 1967, and then I commanded a battalion in the TAVR shortly afterwards. I was inspected by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, when I commanded the battalion in the TAVR, and I hope he found it efficient. But I think he would have found my old TA battalion efficient, too, and I wish he had inspected that one. It might amuse your Lordships to know that my new battalion had one or two differences from the old one. I was given a staff car and a driver, an ambulance and six minibuses. None of this had I asked for in the old TA; all of it came in the new TAVR. To save money, was it, my Lords?
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for raising this subject today. I think it is a very opportune moment to have a debate on the Reserves.

1191
The present Government have changed the name and changed the atmosphere between the Government and the Reserve Army. At a recent meeting of the Territorial Army Council, held only last week, which was addressed by the Minister, the Under-Secretary from the other place, Mr. Barney FIayhoe, it was quite clear that the Territorial Army is now excited by its future. I should like to take up one more point which my noble friend Lord Cathcart mentioned, and that is the matter of compensation for widows of members of the Territorial Army. This is a matter which exercises the members of the Territorial Army very much. I understand that this is now the subject of a tri-Service study group. We should all like an undertaking by the Minister to ensure that this does not get put under the carpet, as it were, but is expedited as much as possible, perhaps not with the backdating of such benefits as we hope may come about but, anyway, by making sure that the date is a realistic one.
I know that it is the Government's wish to encourage the TA, and that the Government would be willing to expand the Territorial Army. It is argued that there is no need for expansion because the Territorial Army is not fully recruited. But there is a flaw in this argument. The Territorial Army has a diverse establishment because of its role in support of BAOR. The teeth arms are often 100 per cent. recruited—sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. I cannot see that the Territorial Army as it is now conceived can ever be 100 per cent. recruited because of the difficulty in filling some vacancies in logistic units and, in particular, the medical units. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, mentioned this. Therefore, the argument about reaching 100 per cent., although it will always be present, is not in my opinion valid.
I should like to see the teeth arms monitored carefully, and whenever there is, say, a 110 per cent.-recruited battalion, the possibility of expansion explored. It need not be initially forming a new battalion, but perhaps just a company. A policy of flexibility would be ideal. I believe there is always a role for increased teeth arm troops. We need not get too Whitehall top-heavy about what these roles should be.
1192
I hope we shall never again see a poor-cousin role whereby they are under-equipped or under-established compared with the present Territorial Army. If a new company is formed, I see it becoming a training company in title, although the commanding officer should be given discretion. This would go a long way towards answering the criticism that, because of the large turnover in the Territorial Army, many of their number will always be under-trained. If a new battalion is formed, I see their role in rotation on an annual basis with a sister battalion committed to BAOR, with the alternative role being deployment in the United Kingdom, should mobilisation ever happen. What I believe is that units should never turn away volunteers to the teeth arms but that the Government should actually and actively encourage over-recruitment with the carrot of expansion. Nobody can crystal-gaze into the future and say that these trained men will never be necessary. I would welcome a policy of flexibility in this field.
No noble Lord has touched on the Army Cadet Force. I should like to mention them. They are an excellent recruiter for both the Regular and the Territorial Army but there are two particular spheres in which they have been left behind. The first is identity cards and the second is their rank structure. Believe it or not, if an adult is wearing the uniform of Her Majesty's Forces he is not able to identify himself with an ID card. There has been a case of cadets entering a military establishment and, when challenged, being unable to identify themselves in the normal fashion. This is humiliating. I am told that there would be administrative difficulties. Surely it should not be impossible for the adult to draw out his ID at the commencement of a weekend and hand it back at the end of training.
The question of rank is one of history. All cadet officers are substantive lieutenants so that you get the farce of a lieutenant colonel wearing the uniform of and being in all sense and performing as a lieutenant-colonel while in the Army List he is a "lieutenant (acting lieutenant-colonel) ". Cadet officers have become used to this anomaly but—and this is why I should like to see this changed as soon as possible—it can discourage officers transferring into the cadet force. A TA or Regular

1193
major is in some cases jibbing at this paper degradation even if he maintains his rank in public. It is, anyway, an unflattering demotion. As these officers are the very instructors we should encourage to join the cadet force, this unfortunate anachronism should be removed. My Lords, we look forward to my noble friend the Minister being in his present office for many years. I am sure the ACF would be grateful if he were to look into these problems.
5.13 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for having given us the opportunity of this debate this afternoon. I have four brief points which I should like to mention. Some of them have been referred to already. First, we welcome—and when I say "we ", I speak as a member of the TAVR Association—the improvement in the bounty to TA members; but inflation being what it is, I think it ought to be reviewed periodically, perhaps once a year, to keep pace with inflation. There are still a significant number of people who lose money when they go off to camp for a fortnight every year. Secondly, I understand that Her Majesty's Government are looking into the matter of compensation for part-time soldiers to bring them into line with regular soldiers. I welcome that and I hope that they will be able to expedite implementation of it, because part-time soldiers are just as vulnerable to accidents as are regular soldiers; and their families suffer every bit as much in the unfortunate event of their being permanently injured or killed as do the families of regular soldiers.
Thirdly, I think that unremitting efforts should be made to keep employers aware of the role, the significance and importance of the Reserve Forces. Some employers are very good. Very often, when I was in the TA—and that is going back 10½ years—you would find that the employers who seemed least likely to be able to do so were the ones generous enough to pay their employees when they went off to camp. I think that employers need to be kept informed continuously as to the role and purpose of the Reserve Forces. One must recognise that a small firm can suffer quite considerably if a large proportion of its workforce is in the same Territorial regi-
1194
ment and they all go off to camp at the same time. This often happens, particularly where you get one or two men at foreman level, who are the sort of material that staff sergeants or sergeant-majors are made of. If they are looked up to by the others and they join the TA, quite a few colleagues in their firms may join as well; so that an employer employing a couple of dozen men may find some eight or 10 of them away at the same time. This is hard on the employer. I wonder whether there is any way in which Her Majesty's Government could assist firms who are in that particular dilemma.
Finally, I should like to commend all those who give up their spare time to serve as part-time members of our Reserve Forces and, in particular, I should like to salute especially the members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, who are at risk not only on duty but even more so when off duty. Particularly at risk are those whose civilian employment involves a certain routine, postmen, milk roundsmen, bakers' delivery men and so on; because the unspeakable terrorists have a pretty good idea of what particular place they will be passing at a certain time every week day; and they are soft targets. It can take a lot of courage to write your signature to enrolment in the UDR if you live in certain places. I was lucky when I was in the Ulster Defence Regiment because I lived in a comparatively peaceful, comparatively non-sectarian and highly-civilised part of the Province, so that I had not too much to worry about. But there are certain places where the men or the female soldiers, the "Greenfinches ", and their families can never relax. They are under threat all the time. I commend and salute them most heartily.
5.10 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, although I am tempted to speak about the Territorial Army in which I served for many years, including the whole of the war, I want briefly to echo some things which were said about civil defence at Question Time on 6th December. As has been stated already by the noble and gallant Lord opposite, there is little that can be done at the start of war unless there have been major preparations of a quite different nature from those we have today. If you allow that there is little to be done in the first 20 minutes, there

1195
will yet be a need later to try to preserve life, to reduce chaos and then to start reconstruction. Any noble Lord who saw Belgium collapse in May and June 1940 will never forget it. The horror of the refugees, the misery, the fires, the blocked roads and the breakdown of all the services could have been much lessened if they had only had better civil defence preparations.
I want to mention just one or two examples. I told the noble Lord who is to reply that I was going to speak on these lines, so I hope he will be able to say something in reply. First, is there any plan to revive the Auxiliary Fire Service? The professional fire service—that is, the regular fire service—in this country could never be brought to the strength to deal with all the emergencies such as those we have in mind this afternoon. I know there is, or was, a certain amount of equipment, and a lot of it was brought into use last winter and manned by Servicemen. At the beginning of the outbreak of hostilities there will be no Servicemen available for tasks like that. Who is being trained to man this equipment again?—that is, if any of the equipment survived the ordeal of last winter and was thought worth putting back into store. There are other countries in Europe which I know attach great importance to the Auxiliary Fire Service, for example, Austria and Denmark. We should look at this very seriously.
Then we come to the heavy squads or rescue squads—whatever they were called in the civil defence world. We cannot expect the Sappers to clear all obstructions and open roads for general communications. They will have other things to do more closely associated with Army commitments. If there are no squads with appropriate equipment for clearing major obstructions, how are ambulances going to move about? How would any fire engine get to the scene of a fire? I should like to know from the Government whether they have any plans for trying to revive such squads. It cannot all be left to private contractors, for they will not have the special training.
Then we come to the police function, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. Again, the regulars would never be able to meet all
1196
the demands in an emergency. I do not believe it is generally known that here in this country we have no regular police reserves. It may be more difficult for us to recruit and organise regular reserves than in a country whose police follow the gendarmerie pattern. None the less, that is no reason for having let the small reserve that we had before the war dwindle away to nothing. I do not believe there is a single police force which today continues the system of first police reserve, as I think it was called. They were regulars or ex-regulars with part-time commitments. I should have thought it would be possible to ask young men who leave the police force below a certain age to undertake commitments rather on the lines of the Territorial Army. There could be short refresher courses and they could undertake short periods of service when they were particularly needed. That is a stystem Which is quite familiar to us from experience with both the Regular and the Territorial Army.
Last but not least, I want to say something about the Special Constabulary to which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, referred. It is, I believe, something unique to this country to have such a service in all parts. There are other countries which have something similar but only in certain towns or districts, while we have a Special Constabulary covering the whole country: 23,000 unpaid volunteers with no national organisation and hence no national voice. I submit that today they are far from happy. They are the Cinderella in this whole picture that we have been painting here this afternoon. The Special Constabulary should be of immense value to this country. It is unhappy to have to say that they are held back by the Home Office and the regular police. If I am wrong, I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will tell me.
It would seem entirely up to the chief constables—not the Government—as to how far Special constables are recruited and encouraged or whether they exist at all. From my reading of the 1964 Act, it is possible for any chief constable to decide that he will dispose of or dismiss his entire strength overnight. If all chief constables decided to do this we would wake up tomorrow morning and find the entire force had disappeared. Of course, chief constables are not accountable to the

1197
Government or Parliament for operational duty, although they are accountable to the courts, but I believe that if they abolished the force, they would not be in breach of their statutory responsibilities.
Joking apart, chief constables have not done well by the Special Constabulary, and they must take responsibility for the present state of the force. The Police Federation has been hostile to the Special Constabulary, and still is, and most chief constables—they are only human—would prefer to avoid stirring up the Federation, if giving open encouragement to the Special Constabulary was going to result in trouble.
I do not wish to be unjust to any of them, but, if any chief constable has come out boldly on a public occasion in favour of developing the Special Constabulary in his area, and has said that he is going to give them exciting training and duties within their ability, I have never heard him, and I doubt whether any other noble Lord here tonight has either. I know of one or two chief constables who have come fairly near it; but there are others who have done just the minimum. Some have done well; others have not done well at all.
Meanwhile, the Home Office hides behind the recommendations of a very ill-fated working party which ought never to have been set up on the basis that it was and which reported two years ago. The recommendations are already out of date and the special constables are very unhappy about some of them. This is all such an important field that I hope your Lordships will agree that it is one where on some future date we could have a full debate all on its own.
5.25 p.m.
Earl FORTESCUE: My Lords, I hesitated before adding my name to the list of speakers to this very valuable debate because I served in a Reserve Force for only a few years. That was a long time ago and that particular Reserve, an Air Force one, has long since been disbanded, for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Glenarthur mentioned earlier. However, I should like to make one point and offer one suggestion. First, the point: I was recently fortunate enough to go to Germany with a parliamentary party to
1198
visit the British forces there. I had the opportunity of talking to the commanders and other senior officers. Happily, the story they told was a very different one from the one which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, told this House this afternoon. As has been mentioned already, on mobilisation BAOR would rely not only on the return of units from Northern Ireland, but on immediate reinforcements from the Territorial Army. These territorials now go to Germany at regular intervals and train with the units with which they will fight in an emergency.
Your Lordships will know that professionals are all too reluctant to give due praise to amateurs. However, in this case I was deeply impressed by the vital importance that these officers attached to their TA reinforcements. They know them well and emphasise how efficient they are and how immediately valuable they would be in an emergency. This is surely high praise coming from senior officers of such an excellent force. I submit that this should add a lot of weight to the case for increasing these Reserve Forces.
As to my suggestion, this concerns the areas in which territorial units are recruited and trained. As an example, I know the North Devon Yeomanry which between the wars became the Royal Devon Yeomanry. It now provides a squadron. for the Royal Wessex Yeomanry which has its headquarters in Cirencester. Cirencester is well over 100 miles away from Barnstaple and the regiment covers three or four counties. It is now therefore a regional unit rather than the county unit that it used to be. I gather that it is a very good regiment, and the last thing I want to do is to decry it. But apart from the administrative, training and social advantages of each regiment occupying a compact area, I believe that county loyalties still mean a lot to most people and help to produce a good regimental spirit. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will correct me if I am wrong, but I strongly suspect that many Devonians have never heard of the Kingdom of Wessex, unless they joined the Yeomanry.
My Lords, for these reasons, I suggest that county identities are given careful consideration if the Reserve Forces are further expanded as I think they should be.
5.30 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and a debate which has been worthwhile. I thought at first that it could easily get bogged down, but, no, I think we have had an excellent debate. Many of the points that have been raised are very germane to the problem, and I believe that on another occasion we should return to this subject. I was going to discuss the Shapland Report. I read it carefully through last night—I did my homework—but there has been very little mention of it today; so I hope that one day we shall come back to this subject.
If I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, regarding his visit to Germany, I think he is a little unfair about the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is a realist in the best sense. He is very loyal because of his own Army experience and he is anxious to have adequate defence. I think the only criticism that could be made of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is that probably he repeats the argument again and again—but he may be speaking the truth. All I would say is: Let us listen to him. In the sphere of Army policy he is like a breath of fresh air and you need a critic of that kind.
May I say about the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that he raised a most interesting aspect of defence. He has been not only a distinguished serving soldier but also a Territorial, and in the field of local administration he has played a major part in the North of England. He made the point that we need to have a police reserve. There may well be considerable opposition from the chief constables and the Police Federation. The noble Lord also went on to talk about the Special Constabulary: there are 23,000 of them and they are badly paid, the Cinderellas of the Service.
Lord INGLEWOOD: They are unpaid.
Lord PEART: Unpaid, my Lords: I am sorry. That is even worse. This is a matter for the Home Office and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate will take up the interesting point that has been made.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on having introduced this subject for debate. I am sorry I missed a few remarks at the beginning of his speech but I listened carefully to the
1200
rest of it. He should be congratulated and we owe him a debt. His speech was a fine and good one. He dealt with the trained Reserve and the need to train regularly. He also talked about wider aspects and about the Soviets' increasing ability and the considerable strength that is arraigned against us. He came out unhesitatingly in support of a 3 per cent. increase in defence expenditure, and of course of the need for forces pay increases. I could follow his speech further in detail, but I will read it carefully in Hansard.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that I am glad he paid a tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. 1 know Northern Ireland—I am sorry the noble Lord has gone, but I hope he will read the tributes that have been paid to him. The Royal Ulster Constabulary have done yeoman service.
I come now to the speech which I think mattered most of all and that is the speech by a former Minister of Defence, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I agreed with it so much. He dealt with the Reserve Forces and argued the need for those forces and for a strengthening of them. We should not be difficult because there is an opinion in the country which is not sympathetic to defence. I thought it was like a breath of fresh air. I have heard the noble Lord speak in many places as well as in the other Chamber, when he was Minister of Defence, and he has never altered and never wavered. He has been a great patriot and I pay tribute to him. His speech was refreshing.
He talked about the lack of enthusiasm; he went back to the Government of 1945, to the position of National Service and to a period of international tension. He pleaded for continuous support. After all, as he argued, we are in Europe and have obligations to NATO. Therefore, inevitably we come up against nuclear weapons and missiles. The noble Lord went into great detail and said that we had many experts in this House. Of course, we have. Many speakers today have had either some experience of the Territorials or some experience of being Regular soldiers in the last war; and so we have a wealth of talent. The noble Lord, as I say, talked about experts. May I just remind your Lordships of what Veblen, the great American sociologist, said: that experts sometimes have a trained incapa-

1201
city to think. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not be too over-whelmed by the problem of experts giving advice, which may or may not be good.
I quickly turn to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who talked about the reorganisation of the Territorial Army. He thought some of it was very ineffective. I thought that was a bit too hard on the Territorials, a volunteer army. I know he is a very distinguished soldier, but I think he had got it wrong there—perhaps I am wrong and he is right. He dealt with the problem of sabotage, particularly as regards air defence and civil defence areas, which are sensitive. I agree that we need to increase security: that was an important point to make. It is essential that we should have efficient internal security at RAF stations and establishments, and indeed at military establishments in different parts of the country. Civil defence, I think he said, should be a matter for the local authorities to look at and we must have a catching up of civil defence. He is probably right there. I now come to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, who has had long experience of the Territorial Army. I thought he made an excellent contribution. He mentioned how his battalion saved money—I was rather amused at his having Army vehicles pressed upon him which he did not want. Somebody should have had a rocket about that, and I hope they did.
I have been asked to cut short my speech, and in any case I always feel that a short speech is better than a long one. So I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that I thought she was quite right when she said there had been no mention of the role of women. After all, women played a major part in the last war, and not just in connection with making armaments or shells for the troops. I can remember having my first practice shoot as an anti-aircraft gunner down in the South-West and there, working the predictors, were university girls from Queen's University, Belfast. Later I saw some of those self-same women in different parts of the country really taking part in the action. Their place was not abroad, but they played a most important part in the anti-aircraft system we had at that time. And of course there were the WRNS: the noble Baroness is a great defender of the WRNS.
1202
I am cutting my speech now because we are going on to another important debate and it would be wrong for me to waste time. I think we have had a very good debate and I hope we shall come back to this topic at a later date, when perhaps the Government will give us a full day for it. I hope we shall not have to wait until the debate on defence. I think we should spend a full day on this, and after the noble Lord and his colleagues have read Hansard it should be possible for us to make that debate a good one. I hope the Minister will be constructive: he always is. I wish him well in his job. I am certain it must be most exciting to be a Minister in the Defence Department. I never wanted to go to Agriculture and I should have loved to have been in Defence-but, anyhow, an Army marches on its stomach.
5.40 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, perhaps if the noble Lord, Lord Peart, could change the nature of his politics, he might yet find himself in a very exciting job which I can assure him this one is. I should like to start by echoing his remarks in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, not only on the concept of having initiated this debate, but on the manner in which he did it. I think we might say that he reflects credit on his Army training for the way in which he marshalled his facts, and for the clarity of his exposition.
Also, I cannot let the opportunity pass without thanking and congratulating noble Lords once again. Defence debates are outstanding for the shortness and the crispness of the speeches which we have in them, and today has really been a remarkable example in the number of speeches of under 10 minutes. It is something that I frequently try to emulate, with total failure, and I am sure that this evening will be no exception.
However, I believe that this debate will contribute in an important sense to the wellbeing of our Reserve Forces, in that it will have helped to focus public attention upon the vital role of the Reserve Forces. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, rightly drew attention to this point, which was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in the question that he asked on 4th December, and I believe

1203
that there are few better ways of giving publicity to this point than initiating debates in this House. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peart, that this is a subject worthy of a separate full debate on its own, rather than getting subsumed in a defence debate which inevitably is very wide ranging.
Before I try to answer some of the specific points, I should like to make a few general comments about the size and the organisation of our Reserve Forces. Our election manifesto said that,
"We must maintain the efficiency of our reserve forces ",
and then it also said,
"We hope to increase their strength "
Since coming to office, this Government have restated the importance which we attach to defence. We are proud of having done this and I believe we can say that our actions have matched our words. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, pointed out that one of our first acts on coming to office was to restore the rates of pay of the Armed Forces to the level of their counterparts in civilian life. That was the first shot in the campaign.
Lord PEART: My Lords, we did some of it.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: Too little and too late. But even if the regular forces were 100 per cent. manned, we should still need the Reserve Forces to bring the Regulars up to war strength in periods of tension. This is their primary job and I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that we simply do not agree that these Reservists cannot be adequately trained to make a contribution in this way. The Government fully recognise the need to ensure that the Reserve Forces are capable of fulfilling this, their first and vital role.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, distinguished between the two types of Reservists. There are the ex-Regulars, who have a reserve liability, and there are the Volunteer Reservists; that is, the ordinary men and women from every walk of life, who join up because they feel that they have something to contribute to our national security. Before dealing with the volunteers, I should like to say one or
1204
two further words about the Regular Reserves; and I do not intend to get into a semantic argument with the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, who referred to the military definition of the word "Reserves". This is not what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was addressing himself to in initiating this debate. It is a perfectly fair point, but not the one which we are addressing this afternoon.
Regular Reserves are ex-Servicemen who leave the Regular Forces and have a liability for their Reserve Service. But their mobilisation role is different from that of the volunteers. In the Army, the Territorials are organised, trained, equipped, armed and administered as units with specifically defined wartime tasks. But the Regular Reserves, on the other hand, are to supply individual Reservists, both officers and soldiers, men and women, to bring both the regular and the TA units up to their war establishments. A minimal amount of training is needed in peacetime, because these men have all had Army experience, and only those soldiers who had recently left the Army would be earmarked for tasks which required some degree of up-to-date specialist knowledge.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carver, about the updating of the Reserves was, to some extent, answered by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, when he called attention to the recent announcement made in another place by my Secretary of State of the mobilisation scheme for Reserves and the individual reinforcement plan. Under this scheme, the Reservists are asked to report in person on one day a year to their specified local unit, so that their records can be kept up-to-date, their fitness can be assessed and their uniform and equipment—that is, apart from the fire-arms—can be inspected. They may also be asked to do a certain amount of refresher training. For this they will receive an annual reporting grant of £100, in addition to their travelling expenses.
But, of course, on mobilisation the Reservists will report either to their local unit or to the local centre which will be dedicated to the reinforcement of a specific formation. We estimate that these new measures, which will involve about 50,000 men, should halve the time required for the mobilisation of the men concerned, and we hope that this will be an important enhancement of the overall effectiveness of our defence capability.

1205
Several noble Lords referred to the Royal Naval Reserve, which is very much smaller at 5,500. This is primarily to fill the gaps on ships and to provide a much greater margin of manpower than is necessary in peacetime. Then there are the RAF Reserves and here, again, the number of RAF Reservists is smaller than those of the other Services because, as the noble Lord said in introducing the debate, of the highly sophisticated equipment and the associated skills which are needed in a modern air force. But I do not think that the effectiveness should be measured only in numbers. The importance of the RAF Reserves is that they would enable the RAF to function in war at a higher level of intensity and a higher level of utilisation of their expensive equipment, so that they could keep more aeroplanes in the air for longer and more frequently. So much for the Reserves.
If I may, I will now turn to the volunteers; that is, the Territorial Army. There are 60,000 in the Territorial Army and, for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that includes the women, of whom there are about 4,000. Their tasks are different but quite clear. They make a major contribution to the reinforcement of the BAOR in an emergency, and they help to maintain a secure base here in the United Kingdom. The Territorial Army's role in BAOR would be crucial to the NATO policy of forward defence and flexible response. The success of such a policy will depend upon the ability of ourselves and our allies to deploy sufficient conventional Forces, including Reserves, who will be readily available at short notice, with the purpose of deterring, hopefully, but if that fails, resisting aggression. The part envisaged in this scenario for the modern Territorial Army is to provide formed units ready to take their place and to fight side by side with the Regular soldiers.
This leads me to the question of equipment. The Territorials cannot do their job unless they are given the proper tools of their trade. It has been said that they are second-class citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, described them as a Cinderella. This may have been true in the past when the role, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Carver, pointed out, of the Territorial Army was different and when its size was very much greater.
1206
The tendency then was to give them cast-off equipment from the Regular Army. Since the 1967 reorganisation, it has been Army Board policy to provide the Territorials with the most modern equipment available and, ideally, with the same equipment as that of the regular units which have a comparable role. So when new equipment is introduced into the Army, provision is normally made for the Territorial Army as well. In general, we depart from this principle only when an item of equipment is considered to be too sophisticated to be given to the Territorial Army because of the training time needed to exploit it.
I should not pretend that this policy has been wholly attained, but we are on the way. May I give to your Lordships a few examples of the modern equipment which the Territorial Army will be receiving over the next few years. The Yeomanry Regiments will receive the latest reconnaissance vehicles and the personnel carriers and the ambulances. That is the Scorpion range of tracked vehicles. BAOR units will be issued with the latest anti-tank missile system—that is, the Milan. In some cases, Territorial Army units will be getting them before Regular units which have a home defence role. Some of the Royal Artillery Volunteers are very shortly to be getting the 105 mm light gun and a start has been made on the vexed question of communications equipment. The Clansman radios are coming in—obviously not so fast as we would like, but they are on their way. The Blowpipe air defence missile is already being issued to some Territorial Army units. If one takes all these together, they represent a substantial improvement in the capability of the Territorial Army which will have greater mobility and a very much improved anti-tank and anti-aircraft performance, along with the much needed better communications. The cost of this package—and it is not an exhaustive list—will be well over £100 million.
Most of the equipment which I have mentioned is for use in the BAOR role, but we have not forgotten the general reserve battalions, whose role is home defence. Perhaps they have felt themselves to be even more the Cinderella of the Territorial Army, but improvements in their weapons—in communication equipment and in transport which I announced in the defence debate on

1207
26th June—are now coming to hand. But I cannot pretend to be satisfied about this. I hope I shall not be upsetting the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, by being complacent. I assure him that we are not complacent. With this in mind, we have set in hand a special analysis of equipment requirements for the whole of the Territorial Army. This is aimed at identifying the options for improvement, and we are going to compare most carefully the equipment scales for the Territorial Army with those of the Regular Army. Clearly, equipment is only one part of the equation. Perhaps it sounds like a truism—nevertheless, it is worth repeating—that the best weapons in any Army are the men who serve in it. It would be idle to pretend that we have not had problems in the past in holding on to the trained manpower in the Territorial Army. Here again, without wishing to be smug, I believe that we can take credit for having moved fast and taken action to reverse the trend. We believe that the most important thing, as with the Regular Army, is to get morale right.
With a view to improving morale, we have moved as fast as possible towards putting into effect the Shapland Report which I am delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peart, used as his bedside reading last night. The main recommendation of the report concerned the increases in bounties. Some volunteers now get £300 a year in addition to their pay. And we have reverted to the name "Territorial Army". The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, raised the very fair point about keeping the bounties up-to-date. We are determined that they shall not be eroded as they were between 1975 and 1979. The plan is to have an annual review of these bounties so that this erosion is not repeated. We intend to review the present rates at the end of this financial year. There were some 40 proposals in the Shapland Report, most of which have now been implemented. It is too early yet to say whether this has been effective but we believe that the signs are encouraging. The retention rate in the Territorial Army has improved. We have had more inquiries, and enlistments are increasing. I am glad to say that some volunteers who left the Territorial Army intend to reenlist. I noted the point made by one noble Lord—I do not remember exactly
1208
who it was—that those units whose success rate in recruiting is high should have their establishment increased. We believe that this is only the beginning of the process. There is quite a long way to go. The Territorial Army is currently 17 per cent. below establishment. This was a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, when we debated this question the other day. We have about 61,000 men against an establishment of rather over 73,000. But we confidently hope that this gap will shortly be bridged.
One of the recommendations of the Shapland Report was that the Government should encourage their own agencies—that is, the nationalised industries and other parts of industry and commerce as a whole—to follow the attitude of the Civil Service Department towards Territorial Army membership by their employees. I have said before that we fully accept the importance of achieving a generally favourable attitude towards Territorial Army membership on the part of employers. This was another point to which the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in particular referred.
We wish to encourage employers to translate this into positive co-operation by allowing time off to attend camp and annual courses, although we do not underrate the difficulty of achieving this. We intend to continue to impress upon employers the importance of the Volunteer Reserves to the successful execution of our defence policy and the priority which the Government attach to maintaining its efficiency, and anything that noble Lords can do to assist us in this respect will be appreciated. Certainly the greatly Government intend to take every opportunity to try to get this message over both to employers and to trade unions. In this context, I can say that in next year's recruiting campaign we intend to ensure that sufficient money is made available to maintain the momentum in the Territorial Army recruiting because our aim is to provide at least as much money in real terms as was spent this year.
One rather specialist question which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, was the matter of compensation for attributable death or injury. It is true that at present benefits paid by the Ministry of Defence in respect

1209
of a Reservist who is killed or injured are less than the equivalent benefits for a Regular. There arc of course reasons for this, and historical reasons. The position of a Reservist is not directly comparable to that of a Regular. Nevertheless, we are aware that for some time this has been a matter of concern to Reservists and to the Council of the TAVR Associations. As a result we are now conducting a completely fresh review of the Reservists' schemes and among other things this will consider whether their pensions should be more closely comparable with those paid to injured Regular Servicemen or their dependants. In other words, we are working on it, my Lords.
The volunteer Reserves of the Navy are trained in peacetime for a number of specific tasks. In the case of the Royal Naval Reserve they include minehunting and minesweeping, the naval control of shipping and the augmenting of major shore establishments and they are backed up by the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service and the Women's Royal Naval Reserve and of course the RNR also helps with the local defence of ports and anchorages and the manning of port headquarters.
The Royal Marines Reserves' main wartime role is the reinforcement of the Regular corps. Some 8,500 men and women belong to the Navy's Volunteer Reserve and this too is somewhat short of strength but we hope that these forces will also benefit from the increased bounties being given to the Territorials. But there is only limited scope for providing the Naval Reserves with their own equipment and, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said, to counteract the increased threat of mine laying in deep waters a new class of ship which has been called by some genius by the almost unpronounceable tongue-twister, the extra deep armed team sweep trawlers, is being procured. That is one case where initials will be a great relief.
The noble Lord has already drawn attention to the important enhancement to the RNR which was announced on the 20th November, which is the creation of the RNR air branch. They will have two roles: first, to maintain a reserve to augment the front line squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm in anti-submarine and Command) assault roles, and secondly to provide a pool of expertise (although it will be somewhat limited) for communications
1210
flying. This reserve will be restricted to recently retired Fleet Air Arm pilots and observers and their training will be mainly of a refresher flying type
As I have already said about the Air Force, they have the smallest volunteer Reserves as they do regular reserves. There are only 450. The obvious reason for this is the sophisticated and complicated nature of the aircraft they are operating. The role of the Volunteer Reserves, some of whom would be trained for particular tasks, for example intelligence and photo-interpretation, is to fill minor shortfalls in war manning requirements. We think this is a sensible approach and we think it is a flexible one, as we have demonstrated. On 1st July we formed three squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment for a three-year trial. It is a curious fact that it is always quite easy to recruit into the RAF Regiment—easier than into the Army doing an equivalent role. I do not know what it is—perhaps the uniform is more glamorous. Anyway, these squadrons are going to be recruited to provide ground defence support for their parent stations and they will be organised and equipped in a field role as Land Rover mounted infantry. They will have a strong fire power and full-scale radio communications. This has got off to a good start and if the experiment is a success we believe it will be an important new contribution by the Reserves to the overall effectiveness of the RAF. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, made a number of useful suggestions for further expansion of this kind. I do not think I can really comment on those today, beyond saying that we shall examine his ideas, and the ideas of others, with interest when we come to read this debate.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, drew attention to questions of home defence and they identified some of the weak points there. This point was also made by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, and I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of his speech. We recognise and believe that this general area is where more could be done. We have a number of studies in hand, but of course it also involves other departments so it is necessarily a somewhat complicated matter and I assure the noble Lords,

1211
including the noble Lord, Lord Peart, that this is something that will not be overlooked.
In conclusion, I should like to try to sweep this matter up by summarising our attitude to the Reserve Forces. In spite of anything that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, may say, we are convinced that they have an important role to play, both in the central region and in the direct defence of the United Kingdom. We recognise that they must be kept up to strength, they must be enthusiastic, they must be well-equipped and, above all, they must have the full support of the community which they serve. I have no doubts about their enthusiasm and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that we in the Government share the enthusiasm. We hope that their strengths will increase as a result of the improvements made following the Shapland Report. We shall make significant improvements to their equipment as our resources allow, and as I have already said we are doing what we can to encourage employers to release the men for annual training. But I revert to where I started, by saying that publicity for all of this will be invaluable and debates such as this are exceedingly helpful, and I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he not say a few words about civil defence, and particularly the police aspect of this, that I mentioned, because they are important and I did give warning that I should raise the matter.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords. I am in some difficulty. This is a question which the Government recognise they have to study. It is quite a complicated issue, as the noble Lord knows very well and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, mentioned. For example, the police are a matter for the Home Office and not the Ministry of Defence. Criticisms have been made in the past that overall responsibility needs to reside in one department or another, and the noble Lord himself has had experience of knowing that anything that involves more than one department is never a simple matter to resolve.
Lord GLENARTHUR: My Lords, it has been a privilege for me to have had this chance to initiate a debate on the Reserves. All that remains is for me to thank very much all the noble Lords who have taken part in it and have contributed so much towards it. The debate has highlighted some areas where there are strengths, and others with weaknesses. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has given us cause to be encouraged and we shall all be grateful for that. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NORTHERN IRELAND: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS
6.10 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL rose to call attention to the grave economic and social problems of Northern Ireland; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have questioned with some puzzlement why I, a man of Essex and a Londoner, should be moving this particular Motion this afternoon. Perhaps I should explain briefly my interest. First, from 1960 I made a number of visits to Northern Ireland in connection with my position as a national officer of the Labour Party, and I accompanied a delegation to Northern Ireland in August 1969 which made that visit only a few days after that ghastly episode of the starting of the bombing and burning in the Province. Since then I have made a number of other visits, including one in 1978 as a member of the Labour Party working party on Northern Ireland problems. I do not set myself up to be an expert on the problems of Northern Ireland—far from it. I would be equally as concerned with any other region of the United Kingdom which had similar conditions, but of course in Northern Ireland there are also special problems. Also, it may be best if these problems, the economic and social problems of Northern Ireland, are put forward by someone who has no direct interest.
I trust your Lordships will share my hope that at some time, and preferably sooner rather than later, politics in Northern Ireland may be able to concentrate on economic and social issues. I also hope that during this debate it may

1213
be possible to keep clear of the constitutional issues, which will have to be dealt with elsewhere, and, that it may prove useful in setting out the economic and social problems and how they might be tackled. It may be for the convenience of the House if in considering my Motion noble Lords also discussed the Appropriation Order which is to be taken as the next item of business of the House. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would support this proposal.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, I would like to say that this would be perfectly in order with me. It would enable me to speak with great brevity on the order when we reach it, but it would not preclude any noble Lord from returning to that subject should he wish.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for agreeing with that proposal. The major problem in Northern Ireland is that of unemployment. The latest available figures that I have, for November, are that unemployment in Northern Ireland stands at 11.1 per cent. of the insured population, some 63,000 persons out of work; 12.7 per cent. are males, 8.8 per cent. are females. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is double the level, namely 5.5 per cent., of that for the United Kingdom as a whole. There are, of course, parts of Great Britain which are just as bad, but unemployment in Northern Ireland as a complete region is by far the highest of any region of the United Kingdom. And I understand—I may be wrong—that it is the highest of any region of the EEC. Unemployment has for many years been well above that of Great Britain, and the figures in some individual areas are very alarming. Just look at a few: Strabane has 29 per cent. male unemployed in a population of some 36,000; Newry has over 23 per cent. of male unemployed; Cookstown, also over 23 per cent. male unemployment; and we have Dungannon and Londonderry with 20.8 per cent. and 18.1 per cent. respectively. These are figures for male unemployment.
I am certain that if those out of work in any area are mainly from one particular community this cannot in any way assist in developing good community relations.
1214
Every one of the 13 travel-to-work areas in Northern Ireland has at least 10 per cent. male unemployment. In Belfast, while overall unemployment is 9 per cent., I understand that in the West Belfast district we have 20 per cent. unemployment. It is a problem of major concern that some 9,500 of those out of work are under 19 years of age. I was looking the other day at a document issued by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions issued only in October this year—and I quote:
"Unemployed young people have too often fallen into the hands of ruthless men of violence who have exploited them and persuaded or bullied them into committing the most atrocious acts of violence".
That is one of the consequences of young people being out of work for a long period.
There has been a decline in the traditional industries of shipbuilding and textiles. It is now being suggested that the workforce of Harland and Wolff will need to be trimmed from 8,200 to 5,500. May I say that "trimmed" is a very nice contemporary word which is being used. What it really means is another 2,700 being put out of work and their families suffering accordingly.
Of course, the performance of the Northern Ireland economy is bound up with the level of economic activity in the United Kingdom as a whole. But, although the population of Northern Ireland is the smallest of any region of the United Kingdom, it has by far the most serious economic problems. There would seem to be common ground among employers and trade unions in Northern Ireland that the economic problems are the most intractable in the United Kingdom. There is general agreement also that the creation and maintenance of new employment depends so crucially upon Government investment and Government incentives. But the immediate outlook for employment seems to be very bleak, and a substantial effort will be required to absorb the increase in manpower that is certain to arise from demographic and other similar factors. There is an urgent need to generate new jobs.
The present level of unemployment is not only a waste of talents and skills but cannot possibly assist in developing good community relations. I referred to this document of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade

1215
Unions. It is a constructive document put forward by the trade union committee of Northern Ireland, their way of dealing with the economic position and some proposals for new jobs. I find also that the gross domestic product per head is only 80 per cent. of that of the United Kingdom as a whole. Whereas the ratio of public expenditure to GDP in the United Kingdom as a whole is 50 per cent. in Northern Ireland it is 66 per cent. Again, while in Northern Ireland 37 per cent. of all employed people are in the public sector, that compares with 30 per cent. in the United Kingdom. I am making no party political issues in this debate but trying to give what I think are the facts. It seems a very important fact that cuts in public expenditure must have a greater effect in Northern Ireland than elsewhere, with that ratio of people employed in public sector jobs.
When we consider the level of wages in Northern Ireland, we find that, historically, wages have always lagged behind those of the United Kingdom. Household incomes are on average three-quarters of those for Great Britain. The number of children per family is much higher. There are a greater number of poorer families in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. In 1974 it was reported that 37 per cent. of households in the Belfast area were living below needs level. It is always difficult to talk about average wages. I understand that in the Belfast area the average male wage is about the same as that in Great Britain, but elsewhere in Northern Ireland wages are well below the United Kingdom average. One indication of that is that in 1977 41 per cent. of the males were earning less than £60 a week, whereas in Great Britain the percentage earning £60 a week was only 27 per cent.
Not only is the level of unemployment twice as high as the rest of the United Kingdom, but supplementary benefits are taken up to a far greater extent. We find that there is the same problem with the supply of energy which does not help the economic situation in Northern Ireland. There is a lack of indigenous energy resources and it seems to me an excessive dependability on oil. I understand that only 37 per cent. of the 460,000 households in Northern Ireland are connected with a gas supply. It is also commented that
1216
the gas industry of Northern Ireland is in danger of complete and utter collapse. There has been pressure for the link-up. of a natural gas pipeline with the United Kingdom, but it appears that that has been rejected. It would seem, also, that the greater part of the electricity generation is by oil. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister could say how many plants could be adapted for the use of coal as well as oil. There have also been suggestions that the electricity service in Northern Ireland could be linked as a region of the British electricity supply industry. I do not know whether that is feasible.
How practicable is the possibility of restoring the grid link with the Republic, which was blown up in 1975? I am certain that that would be of great benefit to both communities. In fact, should there not be the maximum possible development of functional co-operation between the North and the South? That surely would make not only a valuable contribution towards raising living standards but a valuable contribution towards bringing about a better atmosphere. At present the charges for electricity and gas are much higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. I recognise that the Government have written off some £250 million of the electricity supply debt, but the charges still remain a serious problem both for the industrial and domestic users.
The same situation exists as regards housing. Indeed, the position is still disgraceful. The Housing Conditions Survey of 1974 reported that one in five of all dwellings were statutorily unfit compared with 7.3 per cent. in a similar survey carried out in Great Britain in 1971. Some 119,000 dwellings—one in four—lacked one essential basic amenity. The Household Survey in 1975 reported that the housing problem in Northern Ireland is bound up with income levels, poverty and unemployment and that some 17 per cent. of all houses are overcrowded. Last night as I was travelling home from your Lordships' House, I heard on the car radio Mr. Gerry Fitt's speech in another place in which he was describing the appalling conditions in his area of Belfast. Conditions are made more difficult in Belfast by the rundown in the housing stock due to demolitions, bricking-up and the moving out of population. I understand that it is estimated that no fewer than 3,400 houses in Belfast alone are bricked-up.

1217
The level of unemployment and lower living standards undoubtedly contribute to the numbers who leave Northern Ireland Only in June this year the Northern Ireland Development Council stated that some 10,000 people leave Northern Ireland each year and that the typical emigrant was only 20 years of age. That is a tragic situation with a loss of skills, a loss of qualifications and a loss of abilities.
I hope that it will not be thought that I have painted too gloomy a picture. I have endeavoured to be factual with information taken from various reports and statistics; and I have tried to avoid embellishing them with any personal observations. If my figures are wrong, I know that the noble Lord will correct me about them. I know that the previous Government attempted a great deal in the way of industrial development, creation of new jobs and as regards housing and other social services. But the problem still remains extremely serious. There is large-scale unemployment and widespread deprivation for many people. Behind the facts and statistics there are human beings who need help, and only the British Government, with the help of the people of Northern Ireland, can give it. I look forward to the debate and to proposals that may be put forward for dealing with the serious economic and social problems which I have endeavoured to outline. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.27 p.m.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, I am sure that we all welcome this debate on Northern Ireland so ably opened by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I should like to say how good it is to have the noble Baroness, Lady Airey, with us tonight. Of course, it is right that we should consider the grave economic and social problems of the Province, but I believe at the same time that we should not forget those factors that give grounds for hope.
Let me be quite frank, following the modesty of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. In August I paid my first visit to Northern Ireland in company with some of my party colleagues. I still have to visit the Republic. We only spent some 50 hours in the North and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I give your Lordships some of the impressions that I received as a first-time visitor.
1218
Apart from those 50 hours, I can only go by hearsay, what other people say or write. When I speak about matters that we must look forward to, matters which are favourable, I must point out that I am very conscious that I have in no way had to suffer the strains and stresses of what are sometimes just called "the troubles" of the last 10 years. I accept that fully.
As we drove through Belfast from the airport, I was depressed by the areas covered by poor housing, bricked-up shops and, quite simply, slums. I often bemoan the fact that, in a period of great building in England since the war, we have so largely wasted the opportunity to create an attractive as well as a functional environment. People have said that we are building the slums of the future; and there has been much criticism of high-rise flats. But here in Belfast was the real old-fashioned slum which made me realise that our efforts have rid us of at least the worst display of poverty in England. As a great contrast to the derelict rows of houses on our drive through Belfast came the first view of Stormont Parliament buildings standing proudly on the crest of a hill at the end of a magnificent avenue of trees.
We were searched, of course, as we entered our hotel—I think I am correct in saying that it was for only the second time in my life, the first being when earlier that day we had boarded our plane. Perhaps we were lucky, but the rest of our stay was happy and fairly relaxed. At all places we were welcomed and made to feel at home. One alone of the main political parties—and I shall not publicly brand it here—refused to see us. The Young Liberals were to move a resolution at our Assembly in September calling for the early withdrawal of British troops. This party took objection and, although we explained that official Liberal policy in no way supported the Young Liberals, still they would not see us. At a reception most kindly given for us by the Ulster Liberal Party we again met with great friendliness and what I can only refer to as a spirit of pride in and affection for the old Province. People seemed keen to impress on us that, despite all its troubles, here was the only place where they wanted to live. This warm-hearted good humour is something that I do not find comes across in the English Press.

1219
None the less, I must be honest. Some of us one day went South to the Border where Carlingford Loch separates North from the South. We lunched happily and peacefully at Warren Point and I thought that the Army were keeping an excessively careful watch over us. It was only four days later that the outrage took place there in which 18 soldiers were killed, while South of the Border there was the tragic murder of Lord Mountbatten and members of his family. But at that time we had few cares. We passed close to what is I believe called "bandit country" and were told of a village where not only had some of the men never been employed, but nor, in some cases, had their fathers or grandfathers before them. I am cautioned that this must certainly be Irish hyperbole, but the accepted position is bad enough anyway.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has given us full details and I do not want to repeat them all. We were told that official figures put the unemployment level at more than 10 per cent., or twice the level of the rest of the United Kingdom, and in the case of some black spots it was much higher. I know that the Government realise that this figure is far too high and have in operation schemes for training and retraining. We were told that one of the problems is that when a man or woman has been unemployed for a long time he or she may quietly slip over the edge into the unemployable. We were also told that the percentage of those on low earnings income supplement is four times as high as it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Unemployment generally is a grave problem today and if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, can give any details of plans to remedy the situation in Northern Ireland, I should be most interested.
I was disturbed to read in an article in the Sunday Times of 2nd December comments referring to a debate in the other place and "this boredom with Ulster". I believe that a happy relationship between Great Britain, Ulster and Eire is essential in the best interests of all. It seems hard in the extreme that we should be so reviled in some quarters when we are giving economic aid to the Province to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds each year. What, incidentally, would happen if we
1220
did withdraw, as urged, and ceased payment of that sum? Disastrous poverty, I suggest.
But, on the other hand, I recently heard it said that of the 10 field marshals whose achievements in the Second World War have been commemorated in St. Paul's Cathedral, six had a strong Irish, North or South, connection. To date I have been able to verify only four cases, but in the cause of freedom even that is no small contribution. I am also impressed by how in one field or another one finds an Irish influence. It was only the other day that I realised that our present Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, claims descent from an Ulster family. Let us not forget that it is a two-way process and our societies need all the support and inspiration that we can give each other.
Others can speak with far greater knowledge than I of the problems that poverty and unemployment, intensified by bitterness and bombings, can produce. I understand— and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned this—that 30,000 houses have been wilfully destroyed or damaged. Reference was made to the work of the Housing Executive earlier this afternoon. But what seems to me certain is that no real political or social breakthrough can be made without a dynamic will to win through to better times, and a willingness on all sides to make some compromise and genuinely to accept that all men are born free and equal in dignity. Here it is sad to read in an article in the Observer Colour Supplement of 2nd December, entitled "The Need to Face the Truth", that segregation of Catholic and Protestant schoolchildren is still almost complete. Referring to the teaching of Irish—that is, of the whole island—history in schools, the article says:
"There are still two separate and enduring myths. Neither has much to do with historical accuracy or objectivity. One is for Protestants and one is for Catholics. The myths are divisive—the Catholic saint being the Protestant sinner".
I am not certain whether that is an exaggeration, but I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he comes to reply, whether he can say that the Northern Ireland Education Act 1978—which the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, steered through our House so ably—is having any effect at all in remedying this divisive

1221
so-called education. At that time, to my amazement, we were told that a large percentage of parents wanted desegregated education.
I return to our departure from Northern Ireland. As we took off from Aldergrove Airfield on a fine summer afternoon and looked back on that beautiful land, I thought of the expression that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has I believe used on two occasions: "War in Paradise". I found myself thinking: Why, oh why? As we flew back to Northolt I sat opposite one of the Ministers of State, and as we skirted the southern end of the Isle of Man he asked me, rather unkindly I thought, "Well, have you sorted out all Northern Ireland's problems?" None the less, I remain certain that its problems will be solved given the will to do so.
By chance last week I found in the Library the book about the Province called A Place Apart by Dervla Murphy and published last year. In the final chapter, entitled "Not without hope", comes this passage:
"The outlook is depressing if one thinks exclusively within the timescale of individual lives; only the passing of generations can bring about the profound changes that are needed. Yet depression is curiously inappropiate to Northern Ireland today; although it should be a gloomy place it is not. (Often it can be heartbreaking but that is something different.) Amidst all the physical destruction and mental distress there is an enormous amount of creative energy at work. The essential changes are unmistakably under way and there are exciting vibrations of hope in the atmosphere. Increasingly I tend to view the Troubles as a painful purge that had to be endured by a diseased society as a prelude to a happier era than the North has ever known before".
Those moving words express the thoughts that I had only in embryo. Others with more knowledge than I will point the way with practical measures, but I am sure that optimism and determination are vital. Let us also remember that although Lord Mountbatten was, at the end, brutally murdered, he had visited and found peace and contentment on the West Coast of Eire for, was it, 30 years? It seems generally accepted that it is only a small minority in Ulster or the Republic who seek to follow bitterness with bloodshed. Improved conditions should make for less bitterness; less bitterness will help towards better conditions. The wreckers must not be allowed to prevail!
6.38 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, first, I should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and his introduction to this debate which is most timely and was very ably presented. I greatly look forward to hearing him again on the affairs of Northern Ireland for, after years of experience, his knowledge is very deep. Looking at him as he turned to sit down, I am not at all sure that I do not see the track of the whip of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, upon his shoulders to make him come and speak here today. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will keep cracking that whip because it is a contribution that we certainly value. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, covered a very wide spectrum and I should like to underline one or two of the remarks he made.
Put in crude terms, the generation of prosperity in Northern Ireland and the generation of jobs unfortunately depend on Government. We are too remote; we have had terrorism for too long for private enterprise to play more than a minor role. We depend enormously on Government aid, whether it be direct aid to an industry or whether it be by public expenditure. That is an unfortunate and unpleasant fact. But I can say—and it is no break from the tradition of continuous Unionist Governments during the whole period—that never was a Unionist Government doctrinaire in its basis of industrial promotion. To that extent, I feel that we must reiterate the need for Government generated prosperity.
The noble Lord said that there was need for functional co-operation across the Border. There is a myth which has grown up that until 1972 no effort was made to have functional co-operation. Functional co-operation existed between Governments in Northern Ireland from its very inception. One has only to look at the co-operation on the railways; on the electrical inter-link, which has been broken as a result of terrorism and the failure on the Government's part to see that the line was protected, and not repaired; on the Erne hydro-electric scheme; on the Foyle Fisheries, and many other things. This could be increased. It is merely increasing a functional co-operation which has existed quietly for all time. In the political sphere in which

1223
we have grown up, it is right to have a functional co-operation and not shout from the housetops that it is meeting some political end. That is how functional co-operation can be achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in a most moving speech, discussed various problems of his visit to Northern Ireland. If he had come down to County Fermanagh he would have realised that there is nowhere else in the British Isles, or indeed in Northern Ireland, to live except County Fermanagh. I feel, however, that he might have been misled about that village, because, if I understood it, the village was on the Border, and those men are proud. They have smuggled for 50 years, and smuggle they will go on. I maintain there is a university on customs evasion, and any other nation in the world that wishes to go there will learn many a trick of the trade.
To become a little more serious, I welcome this debate. I also welcome the noble Lord's agreement to allow us to discuss the appropriation order. I should like to remind this House once more that in every decision taken by Government there is some rip-off to the terrorist campaign. The prime aim of the terrorist is to create economic chaos in the area in which he operates. Therefore, any decision by Government must be looked at to see how that in fact affects the terrorist situation. The most prosperous area will not have terrorism. That is almost an opposite. Idle hands are dangerous hands. We have seen that too often in the areas dominated by the terrorists. While Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and must suffer with the prosperity of the United Kingdom, that fact about terrorism must be borne in mind and the Government's generosity must be really very great.
I should like to turn to one or two what I would call "nitty-gritty" parts of the administration of Northern Ireland, and they are things mentioned in the appropriation order . The first concerns houses. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that I was not able to hear his Question and the Answer. My reason is not very adequate. I was entertaining some friends and I could not get in until the second sitting, because the rest of your Lordships had taken the first sitting. I
1224
think the noble Lord, Lord Blease, was in the same state. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I should like the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to be more responsive. I was a member of the Government which spawned that organisation. I personally have great regrets about the way it was done. Having said all that, I know many of the people who are in it and I do not know one of them who is not trying to do his best.
They are circumscribed by an organisation which is difficult to make responsive. I understand that my noble friend said that the level of decision for repairs—and this is the area with which I am most concerned, because that is where the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is going to spend more money—is going to be at a lower level. The problem arises because of two things. I can only speak of the area I know. You have a housing manager who is reponsible for 1,000 or 2,000 houses, and he, or she, has a complaint brought to them. This is what happens at present. She then starts a complicated operation; a real bureaucratic mess. She files the complaint. She gets the rudery from the tenant, who says first of all, "This is the first complaint", and can she have it put right. Secondly, she gets the second complaint; and, thirdly, the third complaint; and then maybe the fifth complaint. Once he, or she, has put this into the organisation, they have no control whatsoever of the speed at which the repairs are being carried out, or any knowledge about when they are being carried out.
I cannot see that that is very difficult. I understand that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has already carried out some pilot schemes in urban areas. I want to ask the Government whether they will go much faster into the rural areas, because in the long run what is going to cause satisfaction is houses quickly repaired. The housing managers have a great deal of ability, but we seem in Northern Ireland to have got stuck with technocrats, Nothing can be done without a supervisor, a repair specialist, or somebody like that, and we go through a whole series. There are 24 paper transactions before it finally goes into the computer in Belfast. I do not know whether it is exactly true as I do not suppose that anybody has accurately costed it out, but I do not think that anyone can deny

1225
that to put a ridge tile on a roof and finish the whole process and have the whole thing inspected—the ridge tile costing about £3.50—may have cost £70 or £80 to have carried out that particular repair. Surely we ought to be able to simplify the whole of that with a little commonsense, even if the people have not got letters after their names.
There is another matter worth raising. We have decided to sell houses to tenants. That is all right. That is one decision. Why should not we go back to the system we used to have in large areas in Northern Ireland, and certainly in the area which I know best, by which the tenant paid a pretty low rent but was responsible for his internal repairs? Those repairs would be done on time. I feel that we are due for a fairly massive rise in rents shortly, and a large proportion of this is due to the increased costs of these repairs. I am certain that if the tenant was responsible for seeing that a doorknob was put on, that the lavatory was repaired, or something like that was done, it would be done far cheaper, quicker, and further there would he no complaint against authority. We should examine that.
I think we have feather-bedded our tenants to an extent that we have totally failed to service them. It probably sounds wrong to say that we have featherbedded them, because probably in other areas they are entitled to that service. But if they are entitled to that service they should pay for it, and other tenants who are prepared to accept the responsibility of repairing the internal parts of their house should have a lower rent. If one of the philosophies about selling houses is that it removes that particular responsibility from authority, then it must he right to have a different level of tenancy.
The last matter I have to raise is rather peculiar. Noble Lords will know that there is a supplementary benefit attributable entirely for rents. I have discovered that the administration requires that that amount of money is paid into the hands of the man himself, irrespective of the fact that that particular tenant may be in debt to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for hundreds of pounds. Once he is in debt or has not paid his rent, what do you think he will do with the money he is given? He will do with it what he does with everything else, probably drink it.
1226
I believe that if a man is in arrears with his rent to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and is in receipt of public money for rent, that rent should go to the authority and there should be no nonsense about it. I should like an answer from the Minister on that—I gave him notice that I would raise it—because it is an extraordinary anomaly which I do not believe has been of long standing.
I come to our great industry, agriculture. We have a really disastrous situation in the beef industry. Beef is not over-produced, yet from 1974 to 1979 the number of beef cows in Ulster went down by 30 per cent., and in the last four weeks of September and October this year there has been an increase in the slaughtering of cows, female stock, of 76 per cent., and a lot of that has occurred in what I call the marginal areas, which in EEC terms are called the less favoured areas.
The situation today is probably not so had as in Orkney and Shetland, but we have had continuous rain and bad weather for the whole of the last 15 months. There is no fodder and that is why they are going; and there will be a further increase in slaughterings in January when people realise once more that the fodder situation is so dangerous. They cannot afford now to pay for expensive concentrates to feed them. Last year they did, and they did not get recompensed at that time. This spells ill for our farmers, especially those in the marginal lands, but also for the future of our factories. Three years ago we imported hundreds of thousands of store animals from the South of Ireland for fattening and then going to our factories. That supply no longer exists because in the South they kill their own beasts. I should therefore like the Government urgently to make the maximum payments to less favoured areas to stop the slaughter at once in order for people to be able to buy fodder, just as has been done in the islands off Scotland. And there must be some long-term encouragement to people to keep cows for beef, to re-establish the cow herd, otherwise future employment in our factories will be in jeopardy.
One of the reasons why we have had such problems with our beef factories has been that the South has manipulated, with the willingness of the Commission, the intervention system by which, during the

1227
whole of this summer, they were able to put 50 per cent. of their marketable stock into intervention and take it off the market, while we were able to put in only a very small proportion. My honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture did a fine job in getting us an increased quota, but it is too late. I ask that at all times our factories in Northern Ireland should be on a par with those in the South. Every time we have a green pound change, every time something of that sort occurs, it throws our factories into chaos and cripples our farmers. Once more I welcome this debate and, if it is in order, I welcome the appropriation order.
6.54 p.m.
Lord SMITH: My Lords, if in Belfast today, or elsewhere in Northern Ireland for that matter, I were to follow an ambulance bearing the tragic victim of one of the frequent atrocities that contaminate the whole life of the Province, I would probably eventually arrive at the Royal Victoria Hospital, a teaching hospital of great repute but situated right up against a part of the city with a truly ghastly reputation for violence. Here the hospital staff and those dedicated people who help them try to practise modern medicine beset by problems which are unimaginable by those who have not been to see for themselves.
I have visited that hospital many times, I have many friends in it and I have operated in that hospital many times, so I speak from first-hand knowledge. For instance, a surgeon embarking on what starts as a routine operating list of two difficult cancer cases may quite easily have the second of those delayed while they wheel into his theatre three-quarters of some blameless citizen who has perhaps left an arm and a leg in a devastated shop; or perhaps a child blinded with broken glass; or what was once a human being burnt from head to foot. Perhaps hardest of all to accept without passion, later on the same day there may be wheeled in the perpetrator of the atrocity wounded while trying to escape, and the surgeon, in keeping with the ethics of his profession, has to do the best he can for him too, though at such a time the strict observance of the Hippocratic oath may impose nearly intolerable strains.
1228
At the end of what started as a routine surgeon's list there may be a widow to interview or distraught parents to comfort and, when a moment can be spared for personal matters, a telephone call home to make sure that a wife has arrived back from shopping and children are home from school. As the surgeon changes and starts for home, instead of a peaceful hospital corridor he will pass armed soldiers, here in case desperate men with guns break in to rescue a wounded comrade. With this violence and the threat of violence as a constant background, doctors nevertheless try to provide a modern, expert service of health care for the community and, as this is a teaching hospital, to train the young.
I do not address your Lordships in this way to arouse sympathy for this beleaguered hospital; that I know is there already. I speak mainly to those noble Lords who might say, "Yes, but there is really nothing we can do". But there are things that can and should be done, and I hope I may receive some support in suggesting that among the social problems of Northern Ireland in the financial stringency in which our Health Service operates today, some special consideration might be given to this stricken Province, and to two quite practical aspects in particular.
To start with, there is totally inadequate provision at this essential hospital for the cars of the staff and of relatives and visitors of those who are ill or injured. If these cars are taken inside the grounds of the hospital there is much obstruction and this affects the work of the hospital, including the access of ambulances. On the other hand, if these cars are left in the street, by the time the owner returns the car will be gone and it will turn up somewhere else in the Province with a bomb inside it. The hospital's plans for a multi-storey car park were approved last year, but this year—unless there are second thoughts—the plans have been cancelled.
Then, again, the hospital experiences great difficulty in recruiting and keeping junior professional staff at the level of medical and surgical registrars, staff nurses and some key para-medical people, without whom the work of the hospital would collapse and stop. This difficulty is not only because the off-duty time is minimal, but also because accommodation

1229
is so difficult. These key people cannot with safety live outside the hospital but close to it. It is too dangerous; they cannot do this. Yet they must be close to their employment. The hospital itself sought to solve this problem early in the 1970s by building, with its own endowment funds, two blocks of flats which it felt should be subsidised in that those accommodated were of such importance.
At about the time of the reorganisation of the Health Service these flats were taken over by the department, which now acts as a landlord. This is seen by the hospital staff as a reasonable arrangement, but it is planned that on 1st January next the rents shall go up by 100 per cent. This will, the hospital is assured, be a realistic rent. But, my Lords, we are not considering what an estate agent or developer might tell you about realistic rents in Hampstead or Welwyn Garden City. What in all conscience is a realistic rent in the circumstances that I have described for a key member of staff who have will to leave and go elsewhere if asked to pay more than he or she can afford? And remember, these flats are nice enough, but the blocks are surrounded by a two-storey high wire fence which keeps out most of the stones when they are thrown at the buildings, but not the bullets which are occasionally fired.
The ability of the hospital to maintain its services is at stake here. Already at present the failure to attract sufficient supporting staff is preventing the commissioning of an additional neurosurgical operating theatre, and neurosurgery in this hospital today is largely trying to save the lives of citizens shot through the head.
I seek the support of this House in asking the Government to look again with a sympathetic eye and an understanding heart at the needs of a medical community trying to provide a good service under conditions of terrifying stress—in every sense possible, I believe, a special case and deserving not only sympathy, but the help of all of us.
7.3 p.m.
The Duke of ABERCORN: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for initiating the debate and for his evident, in fact obvious, concern for the problems of Northern Ireland, particularly at this time. I can
1230
assure your Lordships that the people of Northern Ireland appreciate the ever increasing interest of this House towards the economic, social and political problems of this remote part of the United Kingdom. The economic and social situation in Northern Ireland is indeed extremely serious, with no immediate sign of improvement, due to outside factors. Being involved in commerce and industry, I intend to concentrate on the economic problems which of course have a direct bearing on the social situation.
However, first I should like to counteract a most unfortunate misconception that Northern Ireland has a constant begging howl mentality and lacks the essential ingredients of self-help. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite 10 years of violence and six years of slow economic growth, industry and commerce have shown a remarkable degree of resilience and determination not only to remain in business but also to expand whenever possible.
Rational co-operation and trust between the two sides of industry could well act as an example to Great Britain, for Northern Ireland has a remarkably low level of industrial unrest, absenteeism and strikes. Our industrial productivity during the past 15 years compares very favourably with Germany and outstrips both America and Great Britain. Yet our unemployment remains at a totally unacceptable level, despite a significant improvement in our infrastructure and an extremely attractive package of incentives to attract mobile industry.
Obviously, Northern Ireland suffers from an image problem in regard to attracting inward investment. Therefore, despite recent and significant successes in attracting new American investment to Northern Ireland, it is only too apparent that the competitiveness of industrial development grants and loans is failing to surmount this psychological barrier to new investment in Northern Ireland.
No industrialists will deny that although there are many factors which may influence an industrialist in choosing a location for his enterprise, the net return after tax is without doubt the most important factor. Therefore, I believe it is of the utmost importance that the recognised and most effective inducement in attracting outside manufacturing investment—a tax-free con-

1231
cession on all manufacturing exports generated by new investment for a period of, say, 10 years—is seriously considered for implementation by the Government. Let no one in Whitehall pretend that Brussels would block such a radical, but realistic, departure from the normal range of incentives, for Brussels would in fact recognise this proposal as the responsibility of the Government. Moreover, since the Regional Development Fund is so modest in size, it is likely that the Commission itself would be forced to examine means and methods, such as tax-free concessions, to accelerate the industrial development of the super peripheral areas of the Community.
The Irish Republic has achieved its high rate of new industrial development as a direct result of this concession. I believe that Northern Ireland industry could benefit by this build-up of industrial investment by exploiting the very significant sub-contract potential by these multinational companies, particularly in view of our recognised skills in engineering. Therefore the proposal for a Government-sponsored sub-contract office in Dublin should be seriously considered.
My Lords, I am fully aware that cross-border development, even in relation to infrastructure improvements, generates unease and criticism among politicians, but I believe that this development is of the utmost economic and social importance as it is in these border areas that unemployment is so chronically high: Strabane 23 per cent., Newry 20 per cent. Again, infrastructure improvements would provide short-term employment while creating an improved environment to attract industrial and commercial development when the economy improves.
Therefore the Northern Ireland Office should not be reticent in pursuing further projects, and from experience of chairing a study group of the Community's Economic and Social Committee on the 1977 Cross-Border Study for the Londonderry and Donegal area, I can assure the Government that there is tremendous enthusiasm from within the study area for this type of project. Again, my Lords, further Community aid should be forthcoming for similar projects, with additional assistance from the non-quota section of the Regional Development Fund.
1232
Again, I believe that the Government should publicise far more effectively to Northern Ireland industry the available facilities of the European Investment Bank. To date, this bank has provided only long-term loans for the improvement of Northern Ireland industry and infrastructure to the sum of £73 million. Since June 1978, private sector borrowers have been able to obtain exchange risk cover from the Department of Commerce on European Investment Bank loans for plant and machinery investment. Since the Department of Commerce now acts as the bank's agent to appraise applications, small and medium-sized firms can now benefit and obtain long-term loans at most advantageous rates. I understand that, to date, no application has been received for agency loans from Northern Ireland, while there have been many applications from England, Scotland and Wales.
I also understand that the Government are undertaking a review of the different job-creating agencies in Northern Ireland which are responsible for promoting new employment opportunities. Since there is a proliferation of different institutions, and hearing in mind the small population involved, this review is timely and should be welcomed, since there is a real danger of diffusion of talent and effort. However, I must emphasise that the area of real growth achieved over the past decade has been in the small firm sector.
My Lords, I was a director for some five years of a local enterprise development unit, commonly known as LEDU, which is a Government-sponsored job-promotion agency with emphasis on the encouragement of small manufacturing industry in remote rural areas and, again, in towns of chronic, high unemployment. Since its establishment in 1971, this agency has created almost 10,000 jobs and assisted 500 projects throughout Northern Ireland. LEDU is recognised as a non-bureaucratic, innovatory organisation staffed by a totally dedicated team of professionals and integrated with the local community, with panel offices in Londonderry, Newry and Enniskillen. I trust that LEDU will retain its identity; and I do not speak from sentiment, but in the firm belief that further encouragement to small businesses will provide the best opportunity for job-creation in the 1980s for Northern Ireland.
7.14 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, it is clear that I made a grievous error in allowing the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, to see the notes that I had written for my speech, because he has just made my speech for me. However, I shall edit what I have noted down. I, too, salute the Government, and the previous Administration as well, for the strenuous efforts they have made to attract industrial investment into Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that the industries they have attracted, when they get into full production, will prove to be successful, and that the efforts will prove to he fruitful. At the same time, I think one has to bear in mind that these jobs, though desperately needed, are bought at a very high price; and I hope it will transpire that the very large sums of public money which have been invested will turn out to have been justified. One has to hear in mind that, when the economic climate becomes unfavourable, the multi-national firm which has a subsidiary overseas is likely to axe that subsidiary before it closes down its main production plant at home, and this is where there is a certain area of vulnerability. None the less, I wish these projects every success.
What I want to go on to say is this—and I echo what the noble Duke has just said. Small, home-based industries were traditionally the source of our prosperity in Northern Ireland. In the early 19th century, when we got in on the Industrial Revolution act and the Northern Ireland economy started to boom, there was not any money from America then, and there were no Government subsidies then. The entrepreneur had to rely on his own skills and initiative; but, then, there were no hindrances, either. The field was wide open at that time. So I should like to think that Her Majesty's Government will pay every bit as much attention to trying to help local industry, which is faced with foreign competition in the same way as it is in Great Britain, and will try to maintain jobs as well as to create new ones.
The local enterprise development unit, of which the noble Duke was a very able and very effective director, I may say, for five years, has done an excellent job, as he has said, But I should still like to see Her Majesty's Government and the Department of Commerce doing more for
1234
the small industrialist. The reason I mention this is that I have in mind two of my constituents who are brothers. They are called Doherty, and they have a small textile production unit in Kirkcubbin, County Down, near where I live. Because they have no other premises they have to work from a corrugated iron, ex-Gospel hall, and they are ashamed to bring there the buyers of their products, such as buyers from Marks and Spencer or Primark, because they feel the whole place looks so "grotty".
Furthermore, they are faced with the dilemma of whether to accept new orders, with the risk of not being able to deliver on time, or whether to turn away work, which obviously they do not want to do. This is in an area where there has been a great demand for job opportunities. These brothers are providing job opportunities on a small scale-25 to 30 jobs but if they had a proper site and premises, not only would they be able to provide more jobs but they would make a very much better impression on the clients with whom they deal. This is the sort of place upon which I think any money spent would be very cost-effective, because these people are already in production; and, in many ways, there is more to be said for helping them than for building an Advance factory which is perhaps going to lie vacant for two or three years.
Self-help was the name of the game in the 19th century. I would stress to your Lordships that we are still not without self-help. As the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said, we are not all spongers, we are not all beggars. I was honoured and privileged to have the pleasure of opening the Lecale Training Workshops in Downpatrick, County Down, a few weeks ago. This is sponsored by the department and we are grateful for it: but the initiative came from local people, predominantly trade unionists, led by Mr. Malachi Curran. They have a local board or committee which runs the unit. They provide jobs for eight members of staff and they can accommodate 30 young unemployed school-leavers and train them for jobs. Although it was only officially opened a few weeks ago, it had been running and gradually building up for some time. It is most gratifying to sec that a very high proportion of those who received training in that workshop have now secured permanent employment.

1235
This is because the management and the management committee of the workshop is able to keep closely in touch with local employers and to identify their needs so that they can train young people in joinery, mechanics, laundry work, needlework, office management and so on—all the things that the local employers may require. This is a shining example of what can be done with a bit of initiative and imagination.
I mention the trade unionists as having been prominent in taking that initiative, and I would say in passing that whereas in this country, I am sorry to say, it is mostly had news that is heard from Northern Ireland, I can say without hesitation that the Northern Ireland trade unionists are a most public-spirited breed of persons, as exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, who is the best trade union leader we have ever had. It gives me greater pleasure than anything else to see that he is now able to serve Northern Ireland from the Front Bench in this House.
My Lords, having referred to two encouraging matters, there is one less favourable thing I should say before I sit down. I have never earned for myself a reputation for saying things that I estimate are going to be popular, and what I am going to say now is not going to be popular and may cause offence among the public. That is, that honest employers and honest employees are getting a raw deal at the moment in Northern Ireland. I am a modest employer myself but, I hope, an honest one. I have a payroll of about 30. I am glad to say that my labour turnover is extremely small. But in the last six or eight months I have had occasion to advertise to fill three vacancies. In a Province with unprecedentedly high unemployment, it was astonishing how poor was the response to those advertisements. Those who did respond asked, "How much money do I get in my hands on a Friday?" They were told that the gross wage was, say, £90 a week. They asked, "How much will I get in my hands?" We said that that depended on their tax liability and they replied, "If that is the case, we are not interested".
The worst instance of this sort of thing is with those who draw unemployment benefit but yet get paid in cash for doing
1236
casual labour. But the more normal thing is that they would accept the basic agricultural wage (which, I think, is £48 a week or something like it) and let that go down in the books but they would want to get the balance paid in cash.
This makes it very difficult for the honest employer who keeps books, has them audited and conceals nothing from the Inspector of Taxes. It makes it very difficult for him to recruit labour. Worse still, my honest employees resent this deeply because they are paying their full tax liability; they know that these practices take place and they feel, with justification, that they are subsidising those who are not paying their full tax liability. I drew this to the attention of the honourable Member in another place who is responsible for these affairs and I think he took the message on board; but I felt that I should mention it in this House today, knowing, that it is not going to win me any votes at all if ever I happen to stand for election again.
7.24 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, an acute observer of modern industrial society has written about "apoplexy at the centre and the anaemia at the periphery". This kind of thing very much affects Northern Ireland, situated as it is, on the very outside rim of Europe. Northern Ireland shares with some of the remoter regions of Great Britain geographic problems which are inescapable. When one turns to the economic situation, it suffers also from the hangover and consequences, of very great prosperity in the 19th century particularly, in shipbuilding and textiles, as has already been said. If that were not bad enough, the very successful post-war textile industry is now in serious trouble with a worldwide surplus of man-made fibres, the consequences of the energy crisis and very stiff competition from various fibres produced in the Third World.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, and I have recently entertained a group of community workers and councillors from Belfast, nearly all either working in, or with considerable experience of, the inner city. They spent a week in London looking at London's problem. It came as a surprise to them that Belfast shares with London and other English cities many inner-city problems. These are, of

1237
course, made worse by violence and by intimidation; but they probably would have happened anyway.
May I move rapidly on to housing. It is notorious that the Northern Irish housing situation is probably the worst in the whole of Northern Europe. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for his prompt reply to my Written Question about housing action areas in Northern Ireland. It is good to know that so far 19 have been declared. Nevertheless, the actual progress in improving houses is not quite so encouraging. I understand that 238 houses have been improved in these areas, another 209 are in the pipeline, while only 314 improvement and intermediate grants have been approved for owner-occupiers. I hope very much that this rate of progress will be greatly speeded up. I know that, so far as concerns housing associations, there were at the start very great difficulties regarding valuation of properties to be acquired; but I think that these have now been largely overcome. It is encouraging that housing associations seem to be accelerating in the action areas.
My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn spoke about the Local Enterprise Development Unit, of which he has great experience. I should like to support and welcome everything that he said about that body. I, myself, was its guest for a day or so in September and was left in admiration at some of the very successful small businesses which it has helped to launch and develop. It is a shining example of self-help—and self-help in the private sector has a great importance; even though I accept so much of what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was saying about the public sector.
While in this economic area, I should like to go on to mention a body in the Republic of Ireland which, I believe, is very much worthy of our attention and that is the one called Co-operation North. It was founded at the beginning of this year. It is non-political and nonsectarian. Its purpose is to increase trade and commerce between the North and the South, to improve social and cultural links, and to create greater knowledge and mutual understanding between all parts of the Irish Island. Perhaps I could give one or two practical examples of the work on which it has been engaged. It has pub-
1238
lished a North/South trade directory. It is promoting a more balanced flow of tourism as between the North and the South. It has sponsored joint trade stands—for instance, in September at the major trade exhibition in Hamburg, Germany, where nine firms took part from the South and eight from the North. Co-operation North is at the moment undertaking a study of North/South co-operation in conjunction with the British/Irish Association. The results of this study will I understand be published within the next six months. I hope that the Government will examine those results with the very greatest care.
I think that energy questions are likely to feature quite large in this report and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, examined them in some depth. May I say how much I agree with what he was saying. I should like to add two further points: I believe that what is needed when it comes to natural gas is an adequate supply for the whole of Ireland, regardless of North and South. This is particularly necessary and urgent at a time when wellhead gas is being flared off, burnt, wasted, at the oil fields in the North Sea.
A friend of mine in Belfast gave me this rather all-embracing definition of politics. He said:
"Politics includes everything that requires organisation of people and things on a scale larger than that of the extended family".
I suggest that the economic and social problems we are discussing tonight will only find their solution in the context of politics, and the politics that I should like to see coming to the front now are the politics of forgiveness. This may be a slightly obscure phrase, and perhaps I could give it a little more clarity by quoting from a prayer that was found on a scrap of paper left beside the body of a dead child in Ravensbruck concentration camp during the Second World War. It went something as follows:
"Oh Lord, remember not only the men and women of good will; but also those of ill will. But do not remember all the suffering they have inflicted on us; remember the fruits we have bought, thanks to this suffering—our comradeship, our loyalty, our humility, our courage, our generosity, the greatness of heart that has grown out of this; and when they come to judgment let all the fruits which we have borne be their forgiveness".
Our Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, when entering office, moving into Downing

1239
Street, quoted some remarks attributed to St. Francis. I should like to mention one phrase from that:
"It is in forgiving that we are pardoned".
There is, I suggest, so very much that needs to be forgiven both in Ireland and in England. England has to forgive, for instance, Casement, the Easter Rising and the many brutal murders of our statesmen and soldiers. Ireland, on the other hand, needs to forgive the plantations and evictions, Cromwell and William III and the long period of the penal laws. The Orange tradition needs to forgive Catholic attitudes to such matters as divorce, abortion, birth control, mixed marriages and civil liberties. The Green tradition needs to forgive years and years of discrimination and derision. It needs to forgive injustice and institutional violence. All of us, whether we are English or Irish, and whatever our political stance may be, need to forgive those very many wounds that have been suffered, wounds both ancient and modern. That, I suggest, is the kind of spirit which must underlie the politics required to put right these very great economic and social problems.
7.35 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for initiating this important debate. He spoke with real understanding, and we know of his long concern and work in Northern Ireland. We are very grateful to him for it. I am chairman of the British/Irish Association, to which my noble friend has just referred. We exist to promote friendship between the peoples of England, Scotland and Wales on the one hand and the people of Northern and Southern Ireland on the other. In this connection, we have had a great many meetings over many years and initiated important studies on the economic and social developments of Northern Ireland and we work together with Co-operation North, to which my noble friend also referred. Furthermore, and perhaps less respectably—wearing my academic hat—I have been an external examiner for many years in Irish universities. I must have examined more theses on Irish economic and social questions than any other person still extant. Perhaps that gives one the background to some of the questions which have been raised tonight.
1240
I want to make a couple of simple points. It is astonishing (is it not?) how amazingly well our compatriots in Northern Ireland have maintained their ordinary daily lives throughout this disgusting and degraded campaign of terror. Despite everything, most people still go to work, most children still go to school, students take their examinations—as I know—elderly people go to their pubs and their clubs, and surely there can be no greater tribute to the spirit of man than the way in which the people of Northern Ireland have carried on living. Most humbly and respectfully, I take off my hat to them.
This very strength of social life is the best hope that we have that the violence will not be victorious. In the long run, and it may be a very long run, the power of ordinary people to insist that they will live their ordinary lives as they wish to lead them, and not according to the high-flown theories of the terrorists, is very great. If only the British people insist on holding on in Northern Ireland, then the ordinary people of Northern Ireland will be successful, and the United Kingdom will remain united, which is what practically everybody wants to happen, even if they are "nationalists" in theory.
Having said that, my Lords, I want to turn at once to the immediate subject of the debate, the problems of the economy and of society in Northern Ireland. The position is in some respects, as has been said throughout the debate, very grave. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the unemployment figures: Over 20 per cent. in Cookstown and certain other parts of the Province, and over 10 per cent. throughout the Province. These figures are a scandal. But if we leave unemployment on one side for the moment—and in what I hope will be a short speech I want to return to it at the end of my remarks—I want to concentrate on some other aspects of the social and economic questions there.
We have to be careful not to talk down Northern Ireland, not to present the position as though the problems are so great that nobody in their right mind will ever go and live and work there. I read the other day that the housing conditions in West Belfast were "the worst in Europe", and I think that my noble friend Lord Hylton rather emphasi-

1241
sed this in part of his speech. Are they really worse than Naples? Are they really worse than the bidonvilles in Lisbon? I am not at all sure that these sorts of exaggeration are not part of the myths of English history.
A century ago every single Royal Commission on housing said that the slums of Dublin, of Belfast and of Glasgow were all called "the worst in Europe". Of course, there were no comparative studies whatsoever to back up this hyperbole. I do not think conditions in the Province require this exaggeration. In parts they are indeed bad, very bad; and all that it is necessary to say without exaggeration is that they are not good enough, judged by the standards of the rest of the United Kingdom, and that they should be improved. I think that is the key point we should make.
Furthermore, many of these standards in the social services in Northern Ireland are in fact uniform throughout the United Kingdom. This is a point which is often forgotten in senatorial elections in New York and other parts of the Western world. Since the war, expenditure per head on social security in Northern Ireland has been identical to that of the rest of the Kingdom, for the simple reason that the social security system is nationwide. Expenditure per head on health, to which the noble Lord, Lord Smith, referred so movingly, and on education is higher in Northern Ireland than in the rest of Britain.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, can the noble Lord indicate how long those figures have been higher? At what stage did they become higher?
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will do me the favour of referring to a book I wrote some years ago called The Costs of Education, he will see that this position has been maintained fairly consistently since the late 1940s, as a result of a variety of complex questions: that is something I shall be coming back to in a moment.
It is also true that, bad though the conditions of housing may be, the subsidies on housing are actually higher in Northern Ireland in some respects than in the rest of the country. These points should be made and they should be made
1242
known, because it is popularly supposed that Northern Ireland is the part of the country that gets the least public expenditure. Personally I do not believe that is true, and the reason it is not true is that the poorer an area is in the United Kingdom, generally speaking, the higher the level of public subsidy it receives. If we add to the higher level of social services—the higher expenditure per head—the higher public subsidies which exist for job maintenance, I think we reach a conclusion which is worth dwelling on. Northern Ireland is to a great degree one of the most socialised societies in the world. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made this very fair point, and I think we should dwell on it. A higher proportion of its national income depends upon the State than anywhere else that I know of in Western Europe.
At this stage I would tend to wonder whether we may not be asking the wrong questions. I respectfully ask this of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and also of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. Should we not be a bit cautious about believing that requests for further public expenditure in Northern Ireland, continually increasing public expenditure, will actually yield very much in terms of solving the problems which we all wish to see solved? A good deal is already being spent in the North and yet the problems remain. I would doubt whether substantial public expenditure would solve many more problems. Of course, it is true that the Republic of Ireland gets £3 a head per week from the Common Market while the Northern Irish are paying 10s. a week each for the privilege of belonging to the Common Market. Just stopping that would, I assume, make a pretty big difference to Northern Ireland. After all, if we stopped paying Brussels the thousands of millions a year we are paying now we could put up child benefit allowance throughout the Kingdom by £2 a week, which seems to be a not inconsiderable contribution to alleviating many of these social problems. However, that is a side issue.
In my view, the problem now in Northern Ireland is not really in the field of public expenditure. It is not a question of increasing public expenditure but of the difficulty of stimulating private expenditure in the economy. I would venture to suggest that it is there ultimately that the

1243
problem of unemployment must be solved. I strongly support the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, in his plea for further studies on this matter.
In recent years the Republic has been relatively successful in generating economic growth, largely by stimulating the private sector. It really has had an astonishingly successful story in the last few years. I have no time tonight in this short debate to develop this theme, but I really do think it is the central question to which we should direct our thinking over the next few years.
Northern Ireland has until quite recently, as the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said, been by far the most successful part of the island of Ireland and it has often been the one of the most successful parts of the United Kingdom as a whole, largely through the activities of private business people. If that atmosphere could be regenerated, as it has been in the South, I would have thought that in a very few years we should see a radical solution to this general problem of unemployment, which lies at the basis of everything that has been said in the debate.
7.45 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I should wish to join in thanking my noble friend Lord Underhill for initiating this important debate. From a Northern Ireland viewpoint, I should also like to compliment him on the objective and constructive way in which he dealt with the issues. As he indicated in his opening remarks, the noble Lord is no stranger to Northern Ireland. I have been pleased to be associated with him for over 25 years in dealing with Northern Ireland affairs on industrial and political matters. I know especially of his strong commitment and concern to improve the wellbeing, the social development and the job prospects of our young people. He rightly drew attention to the unhealthy situation which only at our peril can be dismissed as a situation of such a peculiar and local nature, not relevant to the rest of the body politic. Some people would try to put it in that category.
The problems, difficulties and issues of Northern Ireland are far-reaching. They cannot be contained within the Province and treated mainly as security matters. However much some would wish to sweep
1244
the problems of Northern Ireland under the carpet, to use the vernacular, they remain with us and have to be dealt with by appropriate social, political and economic action.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, indicated that it was necessary to maintain hope and I should like to say that when this debate was known throughout Northern Ireland, it raised a certain interest, and interest generated the hope that at least someone and some persons in Westminster were beginning to look at some of the economic problems. I think that is a very important part of the attitude to adopt in both Houses here.
From this side of the House, I warmly welcome the interest and thoughtful concern expressed by all the speakers who have taken part in this debate. I would not want to single out any one because all of them have contributed very valuably to aspects of the problems we are confronted with. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, mentioned something about his notes. I think someone has been looking over them because all the noble Lords seem to have gleaned matters from my notes.
I should particularly like to mention the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and I should like wholeheartedly, as I am sure other noble Lords would wish to do, to join in paying tribute to all the staff of the Royal Victoria Hospital. They do tremendous work, and indeed at this time last year I had the experience of having a detached retina and had to spend a few days over Christmas in that particular place. I can speak not only of their skill but of their care and of the anxious way they have to go about their work. I hope, of course, that the Minister will not the matters mentioned by the noble Lord.
Before I attempt briefly to underline matters which may be amenable to some positive form of action and decision, I feel I should try to ensure that my remarks are considered in their proper perspective: from my point of view this is important. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said he would confine his remarks to social and economic matters. I, too, shall make every attempt to do that, but I am afraid I cannot speak of social and economic matters without in some way attempting to bring in the whole aspect in which the economic and social decisions are made.

1245
My first point concerns the talks initiated on 20th November by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right honourable Humphrey Atkins, about the proposed conference and political initiative. On the day that the Working Paper for a Conference on the future system of Government for Northern Ireland was published, I publicly indicated support for the consultations by stating—and here I quote from the remarks that I made at the time:
"The document is constructive and should be welcomed by all, including the Parliament at Westminster, as a first step in the consultative process. However, I believe that the issues for the future peace and prosperity of the Northern Ireland people are far too important to be left to politicians alone to decide. All persons of goodwill, and interested in promoting a brighter and more hopeful future, especially for our children, should seek to use their influence to bring about successful and effective political structures of government for the Province.
"It is vital that the proposed consultations should be earnestly and sincerely tackled, particularly by elected representatives, so that the Northern Ireland people may be enabled to work together for their own general well-being, and to afford us a position that could allow us to regain respect in the world at large. I support the efforts to secure a transfer of responsibility and of powers which will best serve the interests of the Northern Ireland people".
That was my view on 22nd November. It is still my position concerning the proposed consultations.
At the same time, I would add that, while the Government and public representatives cannot ignore controversial issues about constitutional matters and the politics of law and order, I believe that we add to the problems by relegating employment and social difficulties to far too low a priority for public comment and attention. Much more should and could be done to promote informed public debate, and to provide positive leadership concerning the need for economic progress and development.
It seems to me that any political proposals for the future of Northern Ireland should not be taken—and indeed, they cannot be taken—as realistic, humane or honest, unless they take into account and pay explicit attention to the position of the Northern Ireland economy and the future economic and social wellbeing of its people. International competition and trading today demonstrates that political idealism about national independence does not necessarily lead to
1246
economic autonomy. Whatever doubts may exist concerning the definition of the "Irish dimension", I believe that the real heart and soul of the "Irish dimension" transcends political borders and constitutional issues. The genuine "Irish dimension" is concerned with the boundaries to human happiness, the freedom from fear, and the right to life in all its fullness, in terms of civilised living and opportunities for jobs, homes and the general well being of all the Irish people. I am glad to say that there are many in the North and in the South who share in and work according to these principles.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, and others have mentioned efforts that are made to promote functional co-operation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Underhill also dealt with this point. I believe that this is an area which ought to be developed by noble Lords in this House, and by others directly concerned with Northern Ireland affairs. At this stage, it may be too much to ask the Government to take an active interest in the promotion of North-South co-operation. But certainly the Government ought to be aware of the measures that are available through the EEC, and should make sure that those are well-known and promoted through the proper channels in Northern Ireland. In this, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Duke.
The second point I wish to make is that the history of chronic unemployment in Northern Ireland is a long and sad one. With the possible exception of a few years during the Second World War, chronic unemployment has been with us since the foundations of the State in 1920, during 60 years of successive United Kingdom Governments, together with the Stormont Government and the more recent Administrations in the Province. They have all sought in varying degrees to analyse, to diagnose, to alleviate and to remedy the employment problems and the relevant social deprivation.
When I look at the economic direction taken by successive United Kingdom Governments in the past decade, I often wonder what might have happened to Northern Ireland had there been no political upheaval, for in the past 10 years full employment has been more or less abandoned as a prime target of economic policy. If we in Northern Ireland had

1247
been subjected to the full impact of that strategy, I have no doubt that unemployment would now be over 30 per cent.—more than twice the present level. Here I am possibly agreeing with some of the analyses made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. Up till now, we have been spared such a doctrinaire approach, because successive Governments, Conservative and Labour, saw a connection between political and economic instability and political and social insecurity.
While no one has ever claimed that political differences could be eradicated by the treatment of economic ills alone, it is a fact that in other more prosperous parts of the Western world, such as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Newfoundland, with pronounced religious and national differences, the communities have not flared up in civil disorder, destruction, terrorism and murder. Their relative prosperity has provided a social unity and a national economic purpose.
Northern Ireland has attracted a growing proportion of public investment during the past 10 years, which has not only protected the Province from massive unemployment but may have done quite a bit to reduce the level of violence. There can be no doubt that Government intervention in the provincial economy can and is preventing the political and social instability from getting worse. I believe it is implicit in this approach to the real and current problems of one region of the United Kingdom, that the philosophy of State intervention and public expenditure has held together the basic fabric of our Northern Ireland communities. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, will probably differ from me in his approach to this. As my noble friend Lord Underhill has warned, these may be some of the reasons for a closer study of the Northern Ireland situation by Members of this House and by others who do not wish to see high unemployment and other forms of alienation disturb and disrupt the social fabric of other parts of the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Minister and others may bring some influence to bear on the Select Committee on Unemployment, which has recently been appointed by this House. I hope that the members of that Select Committee will include Northern Ireland in their visits and studies. It has been
1248
held by many that we in Northern Ireland have had good cause since 1945 to be grateful to successive Governments for pursuing socialist policies in the Province. I have heard this more than once admitted freely by Northern Ireland Unionist politicians, who understand the background in much detail. The causes and the effects of civil unrest must be tackled for their own sake, for there is no denying that suitable remedial measures in the social and environmental fields help to create a more favourable climate not only for public and private developments, but for political initiatives and community reconciliation.
Therefore, while all these problems are now at the door of the present Government waiting for decisions and action, one cannot attempt—nor would I attempt it—to pin blame on this Government for past years of neglect, nor can one take away from the creditable performance of the previous Labour Government in their promotion of policies and in the provision of funds to carry out economic expansion, industrial training schemes, programmes of housing development and environmental amenities and in the provision of greatly needed community and recreational facilities. All these projects continue to play an important part in promoting general well being, in repairing the social fabric, in building community morale and in maintaining the hope that has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
I should be the first to admit that in the early months of a new Government one can hardly expect immediate and dramatic improvements in the economy and in employment. But by the same reckoning one can understand and note the expressions of alarm and despondency when all the signs indicate a serious worsening of the situation. Among other matters, there is rising unemployment, the closure of major works, cuts in public development programmes, rising costs of fuel, clothing, rates, and other matters.
I do not want to undersell Northern Ireland. This is not a trumpet of alarm which has been sounded by me. Many respectable bodies and persons have sounded this note within the last few weeks. The Minister will know about the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions' publication of October entitled Jobs: an Action Programme. This has been referred to al-

1249
ready by my noble friend Lord Underhill. This programme was discussed at a conference of full-time trade union officials in Northern Ireland. Contained in that document are the following remarks:
"At the time of preparing the document a change of attitude in Government thinking on industrial aid has placed an immediate question mark over at least 2,000 jobs in manufacturing industries. By the time of going to print there is considerable evidence to justify our fears, and one need only to mention the recent redundancy in Harland and Wolff and in the man-made fibre industries as a clear-cut illustration of the effects of the wind of change in Government policy".
At the same time, they say that Government departments are assessing the possibility of cuts of the order of 10, 15 or 20 per cent. which could put up to 6,000 jobs at risk in the Civil Service. There are other remarks on how alarmed they are about the situation.
Trade unionists were so concerned about the position that, because of the relationships which exist between the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the British Trades Union Council, a meeting was arranged on 12th November. The General Council of the TUC visited Northern Ireland to discuss the grave and urgent problems confronting Northern Ireland, and a statement issued after the meeting contained the following statement:
"The General Council representatives paid tribute to the efforts of trade unionists in Northern Ireland to maintain employment and economic development in the face of severe structural and economic disadvantages and of international recession, now being reinforced by the misguided and pernicious economic policies of the British Government".
The TUC representatives noted that employment in Northern Ireland is more heavily reliant upon the public sector than employment in Great Britain, and shared the fear of the Northern Ireland Committee that recently announced reductions in public expenditure, coming on top of cuts already being effected, would lead to a savage increase in the rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland—which is already among the highest in Europe. The outcome could only undermine the efforts of the trade union movement and other people of goodwill to promote peace and reconciliation.
Another body that has gone on record within recent weeks is the Northern Ireland Economic Council, whose chairman is a noted international economist, Sir Charles Carter. I had the good fortune
1250
to serve for 11 years on the Economic Council, and know that it is a very responsible, able and, indeed, concerned body. Sir Charles Carter ends the report by saying:
"Clearly the next year"—
that is, 1980—
"is going to be more difficult. All the indications are that real incomes will fall and that unemployment will rise, while some sectors like man-made fibres and part of the agricultural industry have entered into an unusually difficult period. Nevertheless, there are some more hopeful signs on the horizon. There is no reason to believe that the present successes in job promotion will not continue, although the recession in economic activity will make inward investment even more difficult to obtain than in recent years. Thus, there are some optimistic features to relieve a generally gloomy short-term economic outlook".
I should like to make some positive contribution to the debate by putting forward proposals for the Government to consider. I should like to refer to the statement of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of State, Mr. Hugh Rossi, when speaking on the Public Expenditure White Paper for 1980–81, in which they indicated that it will be the Government's aim to ensure that resources made available for public expenditure are used to the best advantage. The Minister continued:
"We are intent on reducing waste and inefficiency so that all our resources can be effectively devoted to tackling the serious social, economic and environmental problems in Northern Ireland".
Mr. Rossi said something of a similar nature. I know that trade unions and employers wholly agree that more effective use should be made of the financial and other resources which are being made available in Northern Ireland. There is no disagreement regarding the use of finance, so far as Northern Ireland employers and trade unions are concerned. One Minister indicated that he is considering future investment and incentives, and in the Investors Chronicle of 5th October he said:
"I am hopeful that we may be able to use Northern Ireland as an experimental area for different social incentives and do not rule out the possibility that, if the Treasury is able and willing, we might try some form of taxation concession as an experiment".
I should like to ask the Minister whether any progress has been made regarding the experiment. If I may turn to the report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council,

1251
they say that data and statistics are an important aspect of trying to get decisions right in the employment field.
The report draws attention to figures relating to the gross domestic product in Northern Ireland. While discussing the relevant data, the report says on page 4:
"We should like to take this opportunity of commenting on the data and nature of the available national income and expenditure statistics for Northern Ireland. The more recent data of GDP is for the sector relating to 1973, while statistics for GDP by factor income and for personal incomes are only available on a provisional basis for 1976. Such information is fundamental to a clear understanding of the overall development of the regional economy, and we hope the Government will give priority to providing more up-to-date statistics in this area".
Without entering into a discussion on that, I should like the Minister to take it on board and say whether something can he done about it. It has been known in the Province for some time that the need for relevant statistical data is a very important factor in economic planning and decision making.
Turning to the unemployment statistics, page 7 of the report deals with the lack of proper employment information. Because of time, I shall cut short my remarks and say that although there has been a substantial improvement in official manpower statistics in recent years we urge the Department to continue its efforts to improve the accuracy of employment statistics. So even in the case of data relating to employment we are dealing with it in a very vague and indeterminate way.
I see that 23 minutes have gone by, so I shall be as brief as I can. I have almost a mandate in respect of this particular aspect of Northern Ireland affairs, so I hope that the noble Lord will bear with me—as other noble Lords should also do.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I have no objection to the noble Lord continuing, but this is a short debate and its time is limited. I shall be unable to reply to a great many of the points which the noble Lord has raised, because that would put me beyond the time that I am allowed to speak. As other noble Lords have restricted themselves, I hope that he will understand my feelings on this.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, according to my calculations we still have about half
1252
an hour and five minutes. The Government have initiated and pursued very pronounced fiscal and monetary economic policies. Surely the policies were decided only after full investigation and research and calculation of results in both the short term and the long term. Can the Minister indicate what is likely to be the unemployment figures for Northern Ireland in July 1980 and henceforth? Can he deny the figures which have already been produced by Professor Gibson, speaking at a conference on 6th December, when he said that unemployment in the United Kingdom would be 1.3 million in 1980, 1·5 million in 1981 and 1–7 million in 1982? In relation to Ireland he said that there was a direct correlation and unfortunately unemployment should remain around 60,000 to 65,000 in 1980, be at perhaps 70,000 in 1981 and close to 85,000 in 1982.
I do not (to repeat myself) want to undersell Northern Ireland. All I will say is that other persons are drawing attention to these problems and I should like the Minister and the Government to indicate their concern and either to refute this or to say what action has been taken to counter it. Energy has already been dealt with.
I should like to say again in connection with waste and efficiency that in Great Britain there is a scheme promoted by industry, local authorities and some Government agencies to have reclamation schemes for waste materials brought under some sort of control. These schemes are particularly successful with the recycling of glass, with paper, with textile and metal waste products. The Glass Manufacturing Federation has produced some very useful explanatory leaflets about the bottle bank glass recycling scheme which I understand saves 4 million gallons of oil annually in Great Britain. Apart from the direct benefits which should accrue to the Province from such a scheme, I believe that a programme of this kind should have a general psychological effect and make the community aware of the benefits of saving waste materials.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, on a point of order, if the noble Lord will give way. The noble Lord has spoken for 27 minutes; there are 26 minutes left before the end of the debate. The House expects that I shall reply to as many as possible of

1253
the noble Lords who have restricted themselves to 10 minutes. I think that, now that he has had the longest innings of anybody, the noble Lord must be very nearly content.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I will just finish with two matters. First, a plea for the Linen Hall Library, which this morning I indicated to the Minister through his private secretary that I would raise, together with a number of other matters.
The final point I should like to make is a vital one so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. It concerns industrial relations. Because of the background of industrial relations in Northern Ireland, may I ask the Minister to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State that those responsible for industrial relations in Northern Ireland—that is the Government, employers, trade unions and the Labour Relations agency—shall be given every encouragement to work out solutions suitable to the needs of Northern Ireland? As there is no devolved Government machinery by which these matters can be discussed, steps should be taken to bring the main parties together at an early date to see how far consensus can be reached between the parties. The necessary resources should be available to ensure that the harmful economic effects of avoidable industrial unrest shall be reduced to a minimum.
My Lords, I apologise for speaking for some time. I think your Lordships will understand that Northern Ireland has been going through very sad experiences both in employment and in other matters, and finally I should like to pay tribute to all those workers—which includes managers—who have helped considerably to maintain the Province by production and other methods.
8.15 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I hope I did not show undue haste to hear the end of the excellent and very important contribution to this debate made by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. I am sure that noble Lords will wish to join me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for tabling this Motion which has led to such a fascinating debate. He claimed not to be an expert but subsequently he proved
1254
himself to be so. We have covered many of the topics which might be discussed in the debate on the draft Appropriation Order and I intend to follow the pattern of the noble Lord, so far as the clock allows, in order to take the next debate rather more swiftly.
The seriousness of the United Kingdom's economic situation does not need underlining. Northern Ireland has to contribute to the measures needed to revive the economy because the benefits of success will accrue to the Province as well as to Great Britain. If the economy overall is stagnant it is difficult, if not impossible, to have an effective regional policy. A better climate for investment means more industrial expansion and higher employment and a more prosperous economy can, of course, support more expenditure on services such as health, housing and education. In these circumstances it must be a prime concern for all in Government to see that we get the best possible value for every pound we spend. The noble Lord who has just sat down made that one of his themes, and I welcome it. This means establishing our order of priorities with the utmost care and keeping a close eye not merely on the amount of public expenditure but on its effectiveness.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, led very rightly on unemployment and indeed other noble Lords have quite rightly and predictably made this their main subject. The Government are very much aware of high unemployment. What is more we are aware of pockets of unemployment higher even than any which have been quoted this evening. Noble Lords will understand that the whole of the Government's economic and industrial policy is directed at this very problem throughout the United Kingdom, and, since it is more acute in the Province, that is where the chief effort is directed.
My noble friend Lord Hylton referred to the difficulties of the young unemployed. As the Minister responsible for education and youth, I am particularly aware of the fact that the young unemployed are under a different threat to those in the rest of the United Kingdom; that is the threat of recruitment into an organisation which alone in some areas can offer them any status, any employment or any monetary reward. That is a terrible situation and I welcome every effort to cure it, including

1255
such imaginative programmes as were brought in by the Government of our predecessors—the Youthways Scheme for turning people who were thought to be unemployable actually into desirable employees, and they do it with great success.
On the matter of assistance to industry we are making efforts to provide financial assistance to local industry. The package currently on offer in Northern Ireland is highly attractive and carefully designed to lead to the creation of as many new jobs as possible. We have had a number of successes in attracting new companies to Northern Ireland. To quote only quite recent examples, American Monitor International Limited invested with 250 jobs and the National Supply Company (United Kingdom) with 150 jobs. Two local companies have also demonstrated their confidence in the future of the Province by expanding their plant. The Burlington (Savile Row) Shirts Limited—noble Lords may in fact be clothed in their products at this moment—and the Cooneen Knitwear Company Limited—and I might be able to say the same about that—have both announced 200 extra jobs. Ministers, by official and unofficial tours in the United States, are also assisting in promoting inward investments.
In our election manifesto we recognised that Northern Ireland's industry would continue to require Government support. This commitment was ratified in July when, following the Statement that the geographical extent of the assisted areas and levels of assistance available in Great Britain were being reduced, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that he had no plans to change either the level or the form of industrial assistance available in Northern Ireland. In other words, my Lords, that is a ratification of our belief that this is an area of the greatest importance.
Financial assistance to industry forms a major part of public expenditure in Northern Ireland and its successful application is vital to the uphill struggle for reducing unemployment. We are, therefore, anxious to ensure that the industrial incentives are cost-effective and competitive with those being offered elsewhere. Nevertheless, we are not complacent about our performance in this sphere and have
1256
therefore initiated reviews of both the industrial development incentives and the institutional framework within which they are administered. These reviews will provide a sound basis for decisions about the future handling of industrial development in a cost-effective way, and they include an inquiry into the proper deployment of taxation to encourage industrial development and exports.
All the political parties in the Province have declared their commitment to the success of the local economy. Few things could do nearly as much to improve the prospects for the economy and boost the confidence of investers both outside and inside Northern Ireland as agreement by the parties on how Northern Ireland is to be governed for the future. Local political leaders, working through local institutions, would have the opportunity to mobilise the ambitions and energies of the whole community in the vigorous development of the economy. These would be only a part, but an important part, of the benefits that will be gained by the people of Northern Ireland if and when they can bring themselves to agree a form of self-government.
It would be foolish to expect miracles. Not all the factors for success would be within Northern Ireland's control. Progress would depend not only on local enterprise and performance but also on the state of the United Kingdom and wider world economy. Northern Ireland's ability to determine its aims and priorities and to help itself would however be significantly enhanced. I only hope that the ordinary people of Northern Ireland will exert the extraordinary talent they have, to which my noble friend Lord Vaizey referred, of living normal lives in abnormal circumstances. I hope that their increasingly anxious and impatient voices will reach the ears of those who stand to represent them and compel them to recognise their real desire to establish an agreed devolved constitution in the Province. Within such an agreed framework, his very proper concern to accelerate private rather than public investment could do a great deal to cure the economic ills that so severely accentuate the political problems of the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, spoke very helpfully on this matter and gave his perceptive and continued support

1257
to the White Paper initiative. He suggested there should be wider discussion of these and other matters in the Province, and indicated the feeling of a vacuum of leadership. We are in a vicious circle, because there is no point in going into local politics if local politicians have no power and authority, but if local polititians have no power and authority, then they do not produce leaders, and that is why it is so difficult now, I believe, to get the community moving towards the settlement which the community in fact wants. I do not underestimate, and I have already said that I recognise the excellence of, some of the schemes promoted by the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Blease.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the gas industry. I can tell your Lordships this. The Government are aware of the dangers of being dependent on only one source of energy. There is no indigenous energy worth financing in the Province. The study for the proposal of a natural gas pipeline led us to conclude that the level of subsidy required to introduce natural gas could not be justified either in terms of the number of consumers who would benefit or the price at which the gas could be sold. In the light of this decision, a policy of continuing to subsidise existing undertakings which presently incur heavy losses could not be sustained. The various undertakings are now in consultation with the Department of Commerce formulating proposals for their own futures. It may be to this that the noble Lord referred rather dramatically as imminent collapse.
In considering assistance towards an orderly rundown of those undertakings which decide to close, the Government will take account of the interests of consumers who will require to convert or replace their appliances, and of the employees who will be affected. The cost of gas and domestic electricity in the Province is higher than on the mainland. The Government are aware of the importance of ensuring that the situation does not result in undue hardship for domestic consumers or for industry. The movement of energy prices will be monitored to see whether changes in the gap between those in Great Britain and Northern Ireland call for further action.
In the medium to long term, Northern Ireland's access to adequate and reliable
1258
supplies of electricity will depend on achieving a significant diversification away from the present excessive dependence on oil as an energy source. The Northern Ireland Electricity Service is therefore urgently preparing a report on the costs and benefits of converting the second phase of Kilroot to coal firing. The Service's preliminary findings are currently being finalised. Interconnection with Scotland on the electricity grid is another option and study on this is pressing ahead. The NIES is currently evaluating the technical data on the seabed conditions along the proposed or possible route of the inter-connector. An urgent review of the means of restoring effective inter-connection with the Republic is also under way. So this area is not neglected.
On housing, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who raised the point that he was worried about the state of and the lack of size of the existing stock. This year, expenditure will be almost £50 million on this head. In 1980–81 expenditure is expected to be between £55 million and £60 million. It is, however, important to increase the effort to upgrade the existing housing stock, particularly in inner Belfast, and generally in the maintenance of public sector housing. In 1980–81 the Housing Executive is planning to spend around £70 million, as against £50 million this year. So that is a considerable increase, and the first time, I believe, that maintenance has exceeded building of new stock in provision. In additon, the Government are anxious to see that the private housing sector increases its contribution.
I should like to refer to the moving speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who put a brief visit to very good purpose and followed it up with some very apposite reading, if I might say so. He asked one specific question about the 1978 Education Act. There is one example of a school which is seeking to become an integrated school under the Act. In the initial stages various flaws in the drafting of the Act have made this a slower process than anybody hoped. But the noble Lord can retain an interest and if he likes to get in touch with me I will keep him in touch with it. He also asked about the teaching of history, knowing, no doubt, that I am an historian. I shall not be drawn at length, but I draw his attention to a history competition being promoted by the

1259
Church's Central Council for Community Welfare; following its inauguration last year as a pilot project in the Western Board, it is now being promoted thoughout Northern Ireland by the Belfast Telegraph. It is receiving financial support from my department. It is open to young people in schools, colleges and youth groups, who may choose to work jointly. The general aim is to remove mythology from Irish history. This year's theme is settlements in Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough produced an interesting proposal on the internal repair of houses which I shall pass on to my friend who has responsibility in these matters. On the question of the payment of rents particularly in arrears or out of supplementary benefits, I would say that some of what he wants is already to hand, because at present there are approximately 50,000 tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive receiving supplementary benefit. In some 3,100 cases the rent is being paid directly to the NIHE, either by the Commission, in 400 cases, or under the benefit allocation arrangement, 2,700 cases. There has been criticism of the Supplementary Benefits Commission's refusal to pay rent direct in all cases where the claimant is a tenant of the NIHE. At present the power to pay rent direct is used only in cases where a claimant is persistently defaulting because of an inability to budget properly—for example, due to alcoholism or mental instability. However, consultations are currently taking place to see whether further improvements in these arrangements are possible. So the matter my noble friend raises is in fact in hand.
He then moved to agriculture and advised us to stop the slaughter and provide the fodder. Although I have farmed for many years, I am out of date. Rather than give the noble Lord an answer off the cuff, I shall refer his question to my honourable friend in another place, who will reply to him. He is doubtless aware of the Meat Industry Employment Scheme and, in fact, referred to its expense. The current movement of the relative values of the pounds of the two countries means that this expense is now reducing from the 1978–79 level and the expenditure is expected to be roughly £11.6 million for beef and £4 million for the pig sector in
1260
the ensuing year. I am going through this matter as fast as I can but some noble Lords will be left out and will receive letters.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, reminded us of the results of the wicked and horrible deeds that are perpetrated in the streets and indeed the by-ways of the Province. The service of the medical, surgical and nursing staffs of the hospitals is beyond praise. He referred to the soldiers in the corridors. I would remind him that they are not there simply to prevent the—and I must put the word in quotation marks—"rescue" of assassins who have been wounded in an attempt to escape. They are also there to prevent the assassination of people under treatment after a previous attempt. We saw that happen very recently. Those soldiers are necessary and without them the conditions would he worse. He referred to two specific problems, the first of which related to a multistorey car park. I must apologise to the noble Lord for the fact that, although he gave me advance notice of the question, I misunderstood that part of it and I must ask one of my friends in another place to reply to him.
He also referred to the rents charged to the nursing staff. For a variety of reasons, including a freeze on rent increases, rents were last reviewed in 1976 and were then set at 1973 levels. The present increases are aimed at bringing rates up to date by 1st July 1980. But, acknowledging the size of the increase, the department decided that it should be introduced in two stages, the first as soon as practicable and the second from 1st July next year. As in England, the new rents are related to public sector housing rents. This is more favourable to tenants than the previous system where rents were related to the private sector and were determined by the district valuer. However, following the appeal against the new rents by tenants of Broadway and Victoria Towers, to which he referred, the district valuer has recently completed the review of the notional annual value of the flats in these blocks, as requested.
In the majority of cases the revised values reflect a reduction of between 26 per cent. and 36 per cent. compared with the former values. That will result in a corresponding reduction in the rent and rates element of the charge already notified to the tenants. The fixing of the charges, for

1261
heating, maintenance and other services provided by the Board is rather complex, and the department, in conjunction with the Board, has also been carrying out a review of these charges to ensure that only items properly payable by the tenants have been included. That review should also be completed shortly. I hope that this will help the noble Lord to see that the problem he has raised, which is a real one, is being dealt with.
My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn raised a number of questions on taxation and other matters to which I shall not reply in great detail. On the question of the tax concession on exports, I should point out that officials from interested departments are currently examining the possibility of having some kind of concession on exports. However, any such arrangement must, contrary, I think, to his own supposition, conform with EEC rules on state aids to industry and they must also be consistent with United Kingdom fiscal policy. Because of difficulties in satisfying the EEC rules, the Irish Republic has, I understand, decided to phase out its tax concession on exports and to replace it by a lower rate of profits tax. It may not be as easy as my noble friend thinks.
As regards the European Investment Bank, the Department of Commerce has publicised the facilities available to small firms from the European Investment Bank. Unfortunately the response has been disappointing, as has been noted, but the Department is not aware that any project has been held back due to lack of investment funds in Northern Ireland. If the noble Lord is aware of exceptions I should be glad to hear of them and pass them on.
The noble Lord referred to LEDU and I think that one or two noble Lords pointed out that home grown is best grown. It is also best rooted and least likely to be blown away. I could not agree more with what has been said about LEDU and therefore I could not say less, because time presses. That also was a theme touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. In fact, he then proceeded to illustrate the effects of excessive taxation which leads to dishonesty. This is an hereditary disease, but I believe that it is curable.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to Co-operation North, the aims of which
1262
are admirable. I am sure that my honourable friend will study the report very closely and I shall draw it to his attention. He also quoted a very moving prayer. Although I would endorse what he said, I do so with great embarrassment and humility. Forgiveness is difficult enough to practise, but far more difficult to preach. Who am I—and, with great respect, who is he—to preach forgiveness to people who have had friends mutilated, who have lost their children, whose homes have been blown up, whose places of work have been burnt out and who have had to leave for another country? Who are we who have not suffered these dreadful strokes not of fortune, but of villainy, to preach forgiveness? None the less it must be said.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, then produced some agreeably conservative economic policies. I congratulate him on those. My noble friend does not seem to have considered Northern Ireland's receipts from the European Community. In fact, it was allocated £46.8 million from EEC funds between January and September, and it is likely to receive a net benefit from the Community this year. However, Northern Ireland suffers, like the rest of the United Kingdom, from the fact that our contribution ought to be reduced.
I should now like to leap, regardless, into my peroration over the heads, I fear, of one or two noble Lords who deserve better. I should like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in his introduction, referred eloquently to a number of pressing problems which beset the Province. I should, in conclusion, like to place them in their proper context. That context is the economic position of the United Kingdom as a whole, which must itself be seen in the context of a difficult and unforgiving world economic climate. No man is an island and in Ireland, North or South, one has to retool one's quotations: no Ireland is an island either.
When this Government came to power they were to discover vast commitments to spend public money and there was no way in which that money could be obtained without either a crippling increase in taxes or a level of borrowing that would have discredited us in the eyes of the economic world. This was coupled with high unemployment, low productivity, a

1263
level of investment that did not suggest that it was about to be cured and a chronic condition of inflation. In order to turn round so many unsatisfactory and even dangerous trends, we decided to stop the growth in public expenditure, to reduce the burden of direct taxation and to encourage a climate where both earnings and investment should be worthwhile occupations. That meant a cut in planned, but not immediately in existing expenditure. The Province of Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom is subject to all the disabilities of the country as a whole, and as a part of the whole it will also benefit from every improvement we can contrive. In fact, a number of the disabilities are felt in the Province to an exaggerated degree and noble Lords have referred to them. For example, the unemployment rate. The Province, therefore, stands to gain a great deal more job for job and pound for pound than does the rest of the United Kingdom when our present economic policy eventually bears fruit. The medicine we have to take may taste nasty, but it is strong. It will not cure us overnight, but cure us it will!
8.39 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their helpful and constructive contributions. In view of the time factor, may I briefly say that everything will be on the record and will no doubt be commented upon widely in Northern Ireland. I can only hope—and I am sure that your Lordships will hope—that what has been said here may be of help to the people of Northern Ireland in their determination to get over their problems. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

APPROPRIATION (NO. 3) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
8.40 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved. The Draft Order would authorise the issue out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund of additional
1264
financial requirement of Northern Ireland Departments in the current year. The amount being sought is £33 million and would bring the total Estimates provision to date for 1979–80 to £1,675 million. The first schedule to the draft order lists the services for which the extra provision is required, and further information is contained in the autumn Supplementary Estimates volume which is available in the Library.
The largest amount sought relates to agricultural support, where some £17 million will be used for production, processing and marketing schemes. Of the £14 million required by the Department of Health and Social Services, about £12 million is needed for the higher rates of supplementary benefit and other allowances payable from November 1979. Those two points draw this debate very closely to the one that we have just concluded. I commend the order to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th November, be approved—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1978 (CONTINUANCE) (NO. 2) ORDER 1979
8.42 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved. As the House well knows, terrorism continues to bedevil Northern Ireland; and that is the reason for proposing once again that the Emergency Provisions Act should continue in force for a further six months. Your Lordships will expect me to give, as is customary, an analysis of the current security situation in Northern Ireland. What I would like to do is to give an analysis which seeks to avoid the two traps of unnecessary pessimism and unqualified Optimism, both based on too narrow an interpretation of a few well-publicised incidents.
Contrary to general impressions, the level of violence in 1979 is not much

1265
higher than it was for 1978. The pattern of violence, however, has changed and there are certain geographical areas of Northern Ireland—particularly the counties of Armagh and Tyrone—where there has been a marked increase in violence. But taking Northern Ireland a a whole, and taking all the indicators together, 1979 has seen only a slight upturn in violence over 1978. There have, of course, been some terrible incidents in 1979 and these have rightly shocked us all. One hundred and four people have lost their lives so far this year, 56 of them members of the security forces and nine of the Prison Service.
The figures I have quoted show to what an extent the Provisional IRA have concentrated their venom this year upon the security forces, and—more strikingly still—upon the Prison Service. In the Prison Service we have a body of men who are carrying out their onerous task courageously, effectively, and without complaint. The prison governors and their staffs are not members of the security forces; yet they are specifically attacked by the Provisional IRA as if they were. The role of the prison officer is to treat those committed by the courts, whether under sentence or on remand, in accordance with the requirements of prison rules—which broadly speaking are the same in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain. They are not in any way concerned with the circumstances of the offences for which the men and women in their charge were sent to prison. If the Provisional IRA believe that by their attacks on prison officers, they will further their campaign for special concessions for convicted criminals who belong to their organisation, I have to tell them that they are wasting their time. The Government will grant no such concessions. If the Provisional IRA are hoping to break the morale of the Prison Service, I am glad to say that I have not the slightest reason to suppose that they are having any success. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the courage and devotion to duty which the prison staff have shown.
I am sorry to say that in recent months there has been an increase in what appear to be sectarian killings. There is something peculiarly obnoxious about killing a man because he holds a particular creed or a particular family name—and to some foreigners it must appear that everyone in
1266
the Province is either called Montague or Capulet. These assassinations can profit no one. They will simply add to the spiral of violence. I have to make it clear that the full weight of the law will be brought to bear on the perpetrators of violence, regardless of their origin or their motive.
It would be foolish to pretend that terrorism does not continue to pose a serious problem, particularly in parts of Belfast and some of the Border areas. Besides the continuing attacks on the security forces and prison officers, the co-ordinated bomb and incendiary attacks on 26th November show that the Provisional IRA does retain the ability to cause disruption and destruction on a significant scale; but I am pleased to say that a significant number of these devices were neutralised by the security forces. I know your Lordships will agree with me on the great debt of gratitude which we and all the people of the United Kingdom owe to the dedicated and immensely brave men and women of the RUC and the Army who, like the prison officers, daily put their lives at risk in the service of their fellow citizens.
Your Lordships will wish to know what the Government themselves are doing in the face of the continuing terrorist threat. We remain fixed in our resolve to eliminate terrorism and to restore normal policing throughout Northern Ireland. The essence of this policy is that the RUC, with the Army in support where necessary, should bring terrorists to justice before the courts. But there are many ways in which the security forces frustrate the evil designs of the terrorist. Since the beginning of July when I last moved the renewal of this Act, 124 firearms and over 20,000 rounds of ammunition have been recovered and 62 explosive devices have been neutralised before they went off. The most effective means of defeating terrorism, taking terrorists out of circulation through the processes of the law, is being pursued with vigour. So far this year 625 persons have been charged with terrorist offences, 44 with murder and 34 with attempted murder, and up to the end of November 805 persons have been convicted of such offences, including 52 of murder and 16 of attempted murder. These are figures which are not sufficiently often seen in the Press.

1267
The search for effective measures to thwart the terrorist is constantly pursued. For reasons which I know the House will appreciate, I do not intend to detail all of these measures. I should, however, like to mention a number of important developments. First, as the House will know, the target strength of the regular RUC was raised from 6,500 to 7,500. This was at the end of August and by the end of November the strength stood at 6,580 compared with 6,110 at the end of 1978. The widespread support for the RUC is illustrated by the continuing high number of applications to join the Force, since the increase in the target strength was announced. These extremely encouraging recruting trends are matched by many other improvements in the capability of the RUC. The vehicle fleet is being steadily increased; a new and very advanced teleprinter system has been commissioned; a modern command computer system is due to be operational next year and a massive building programme is in hand to provide increased accommodation and facilities for the Force.
The Chief Constable undoubtedly has at his command a thriving and modern police force, well-equipped to fight terrorism but still mindful of its other responsibilities to the community including, for example, its regular community relations work. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to two men who have played a crucial role in maintaining the effectiveness of our security efforts in the Province. Under Sir Kenneth Newman the RUC has steadily grown in strength and ability. The fact that the morale of the Force has also remained high, in spite of the extraordinary demands and stresses imposed upon it by the terrorist campaign, is a measure of his outstanding leadership and of the respect in which he is held by those under his command. In the same way, the cool determined efficiency and professional response of the Army in the aftermath of the tragedy at Warrenpoint in August are equally clear evidence, if that were required, of the impact and firmness which General Creasey has brought to the Army's work in Northern Ireland. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join with me in expressing our gratititude to both the Chief Constable and the GOC for the unenviable burden
1268
which they have shouldered with such fortitude during the years of their appointments.
I am sure that the House will have been heartened by the recent major successes of the security forces of the Irish Republic against our acknowledged common enemy, the IRA. These include the large arms find in Dublin Docks, the arms finds in the Border areas and a number of convictions for terrorist offences, including the murder of Lord Mountbatten. These are just illustrative of the fight being waged against terrorism throughout Ireland.
I have instanced some of the ways in which we are maintaining the drive against terrorism. We shall not shrink from any further measures that we may consider necessary to overcome the threat. The keynote to our policy is flexibility: flexibility in the use of manpower, in the disposition of forces, in the choice of operational tools, in the individual response to particular terrorist activities. But there are two things we must not do. We must not take actions which would have, at best, a cosmetic effect; nor must we adopt draconian policies which, dramatic as they may sound, would involve in practice a far less efficient use of security force manpower or would undermine the success we are having in isolating the terrorists from both local and international support.
The shadow of terrorism in Northern Ireland should not be allowed to obscure the very real progress which is being made there in many economic and social fields, nor will the Government be diverted from their determination to find an acceptable means of restoring to the people of Northern Ireland more responsibility for their own affairs, which is a common factor to both debates this evening. In many parts of the Province the spirit of the people and their will to restore their lives to normality, and maintain it in abnormal circumstances, give me much cause for optimism and admiration.
To sustain this optimistic spirit we must ensure that the security forces are given the full support of the law in their hazardous task. That law gives them certain powers which are out of the ordinary, and it is essential that Parliament should consider carefully every six months that it is right

1269
to extend them. The Commission of which the noble Lord, Lord Plant, is chairman—the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights—has properly made it its business to reinforce that obligation. They have been giving close study to the Emergency Provisions Act and its operation, and they have concluded that the time has come for us to begin to allow some of the stronger provisions of the Act to lapse.
The noble Lord is aware that the Government have not felt able to agree with this view. But the House should be aware that we fully respect it, and will be swift to restore the position when we are convinced that it is safe to do so. For the time being the Government do not consider that it would be right to relinquish the powers which Parliament has made available to deal with those who disregard the law, the value of human life, and all civilised conventions, including Parliamentary democratic government, in pursuing their evil purpose. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 28th November, be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I should like to join the Minister in his tribute to the security forces, and particularly to the staff of the Prison Service who do a worthwhile, honourable and very difficult job. I also recognise that when this order was debated in another House yesterday it had some six hours of discussion spent on it. I note the noble Lord's remarks concerning the Human Rights Commission and Lord Plant's role in that Commission, and I would support the order for approval for a six months' period.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord that the next time this order is debated we should deal with it at an earlier time when certain subjects could be raised? I think that this is the second time that it has been moved at the end of a long day, when people are fed up with listening to the problems of Northern Ireland. I think there is an issue which cannot he let go, and which will take me one minute to mention. I should like to support a statement by the honourable Member for West Belfast, Mr. Fitt, only I would put it in slightly different terms.
1270
I was amazed that the Secretary of State should say that he was confident that the Irish Government would be as persuant in its security policy as the previous Government. It does not seem to me, when Mr. Haughey's own peers were judging him and saying that there was a flaw in his make-up and that Ireland wanted his leadership as much as a man wanted a hole in his head, that that was exactly the thing to say at this particular moment. But the issue is clear that the Secretary of State, having made this statement, which to me is an amazing statement, must make absolutely clear to the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic that there is no British withdrawal and that Ulster is British. If we do not have that, then the few sectarian murders he has mentioned will become a flood. I support absolutely Mr. Fitt in that tremendous fear. It must be absolute, because we know the present price. It is nothing to do with us who governs the Irish Republic, but we know his history and have seen his own peers judge him. This is something of which we are very conscious.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for his reception of the Motion. I would assure the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that the House never tires of his voice nor that of Lord Blease under circumstances when the clock permits. I will see that the usual channels will fix up an earlier debate for this subject in the sad event of our debating it yet again in six months' time.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, might I ask him if he could tell me whether it is true or untrue to say that if our law was in conformity with the law in the majority of EEC countries—
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is out of order. My noble friend had really sat down.
Lord DUNLEATH: I accept that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINERAL EXPLORATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
8.55 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Mineral Exploration

1271
(Northern Ireland) Order 1979, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th November be approved.
The order before the House makes provision for the payment of grants to persons carrying out mineral exploration activities in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland does not have an extensive mineral industry and in fact only one mine, for salt—no one raised that in a penal context in the earlier debate—is operating commercially at present. However, we are hopeful that further exploration of the area will in time lead to the identification of commercially viable deposits. Most mineral rights in the Province have been vested since 1969 in the Department of Commerce which in that period has issued 53 prospecting licences. Seven licences covering an area of 725 square miles are currently held by prospecting companies and a further four applications are being considered. This I think attests to the interest being shown in the Province by mining companies. The range of minerals being sought is considerable. Apart from salt, which seems to exist in abundance, the companies are searching mainly for base metals but also for coal, lignite and uranium.
The effect of the order will be to allow the Department of Commerce to pay grants to companies and individuals involved in these activities. This will bring Northern Ireland fully into line with Great Britain as the order will largely reproduce those provisions of the Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act 1972 which relate to minerals. The fact that the Act of 1972 did not apply to Northern Ireland did not give rise to concern until March 1977. Prior to that date persons undertaking prospecting operations in Northern Ireland could claim assistance under the Capital Grants Scheme operating in the Province. However, when this scheme was revised to exclude non-manufacturing categories prospecting activities become ineligible for grant. As a result companies operating in Great Britain had an advantage over those carrying out similar functions in Northern Ireland. This order will correct that anomaly.
The order itself is short and contains only three articles. Articles 1 and 2 deal largely with procedural matters and the
1272
meat of the order is in Article 3. Article 3(1) gives the department general authority to pay grant for mineral prospecting operations. It is intended that the Department of Commerce will draw up detailed provisions at a later date and that the grant scheme will be similar to the one operated under the Great Britain Act of 1972. Article 3(3) fixes the upper limit of grant at 35 per cent. and allows the department to impose conditions on persons receiving grant. The one condition specifically referred to will allow the department to "claw back" grants from operators whose prospecting activities enable them to identify viable ore deposits. This provision is intended however to apply only where profitable extraction results.
Article 3(2) is intended to safeguard environmental interest by requiring that no one can claim grant without first satisfying the Department of Commerce that planning permission has been obtained or is unnecessary. Most prospectors will have to obtain a licence from the department. This is an additional safeguard since the department will normally consult a wide range of interests, including planning authorities and district councils, before granting a licence.
Article 3(4) sets a ceiling on the total amount of grant payable under the order but also makes provision for this to be increased if required.
Lord PEART: Come on!
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord says "Come on!". I have one paragraph to go. It might not be of great interest to the noble Lord, but on the other hand we have the readership to he considered of the people affected by this order. Article 3(5) provides that a report will be made annually as part of a statement already prepared by the department on its mineral development activities. This report will include information such as the number of companies assisted and the amount of grant paid in each year.
Perhaps I should comment on the definition of minerals in Article 2. Only minerals as defined under the Mineral Development Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 for the purposes of prospecting licences, will be eligible. I will not read them out,

1273
but as in Great Britain natural gas and oil are not included, as these are the subject of separate legislation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th November, be approved. —(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUILDING REGULATIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
9 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, this order consolidates the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and related legislation. It does not make any changes of substance in the existing law but brings it together in one order. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November, be approved. —(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PERJURY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
Lord ELTON: My Lords, this order consolidates the Perjury Act (Northern Ireland) 1946 and the enactments amending it. It does not make any changes of substance in the existing law but brings it together in one order. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November, be approved. —(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONTROL OF FOOD PREMISES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
9.1 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, this order will strengthen control of hygiene in food premises by bringing legislation in Northern Ireland into line with that in force in the rest of the United Kingdom. It will close a potential loophole in the Food and Drugs (Northern Ireland) Act
1274
1958. At the moment persons convicted of food hygiene offences may, on the application of a district council, be disqualified by the courts from using premises for the purposes of a food business. A court order can be circumvented and this will prevent it, but unless noble Lords wish to pursue the matter in greater detail, when I shall be happy to answer questions, I simply beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd November, be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HYPNOTISM BILL [H.L.]
9.3 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule—[Amendments to Hypnotism Act 1952]:
Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved the Amendment:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("living").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I shall be brief in view of the important business which is to follow. I raised the point with which the amendment is concerned with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in Committee and, not unnaturally, because I shot it at him without notice, he did not know the answer. The word in question appears in the new, amended section of the Hypnotism Act 1952, where it says that subject to certain conditions:
"No person shall give an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism on any living person".
The significance of the word "living" has completely defeated me, because obviously one could not hypnotise a dead person, and I cannot think of any reason for the inclusion of the word except that this is a copying of the words used in the 1952 Act.
As we are amending that Act by this Bill, it seems that a further amendment to leave out that word would be apposite if, as I surmise, it has no significance. However, I understand that the noble Earl has found some significance and will tell the House about it; and if your Lordships then agree that it is sensible to include the word, I shall withdraw the amendment at once.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am sure the House is always grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, for spotting what may be loose and superfluous phrases in Bills. As he said, he raised this point in Committee and I then promised to investigate this mystery of why it was necessary to emphasise the word "living" in the phrase "living person". As the noble Viscount said, the schedule to the Bill is lifted out of the 1952 Act, but of course one should have been aware that that would not suffice his critical revisionary appetite.
I have taken advice, and the best advice I am given is that if one did not have the word "living" in front of "person", but simply used the word "person" on its own, juridically it could be termed a company. It does not have to be a living person; it could be a company. I do not think even the greatest hypnotist would claim that he could hypnotise a company, even if some chairmen can. I hope the noble Viscount will accept that explanation and withdraw the amendment because I submit that retaining this phrase is necessary, avoids offending the finer feelings of parliamentary draftsmen and adds clarity to a small Bill which has a certain confusion endemically in its subject.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandys has lost his voice and it falls to me to express the Government view on this amendment, which is apparently that it does not matter very much whether the word remains in the Bill or is removed. We therefore feel that if the noble Viscount wishes to insist and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull does not object too much, then the amendment could reasonably be made.
Viscount SIMON: For my part, my Lords, I should like to stick to the amendment, if the noble Earl does not object too much; but perhaps he does.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

OVERSEAS STUDENTS: FEES AND FUNDING 1980–81
9.6 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether
1276
they will give a full account of their plans for fees and funding of all students from overseas, including funds provided to the British Council for that purpose, in the academic year 1980–81. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Question was based originally on a single sentence in paragraph 33 of the White Paper on Public Expenditure. It reads:
"New overseas students or their sponsors will be expected in future to meet the full cost of their tuition".
However, in that single sentence are wrapped up many implications and consequences, and I must say at once that I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the help she and her office gave me in providing information about a number of the matters involved.
I recognise that time is moving on and that there is a long list of speakers. I shall therefore endeavour to be as brief as a subject of this importance and complexity allows. I shall seek to set out in general what I think are the main issues involved, and I am sure that many of the noble Lords who are to speak later will be able to enrich that by individual and close knowledge of universities, of students and of the welfare of students and the problems they face.
First, I should say that it seems to me that this proposal concerning the fees of overseas students dwarfs any previous proposal about them that has ever been considered. I notice, though it was before I was a Member of this House, that in July there was a debate here on a proposal for an increase of student fees, but in that debate, to take one example—that of the fees of undergraduate students—what was in issue was an increase of those fees from £770 to £940. Now we are told that if the full fee is to be paid, the figure for the undergraduate student—for postgraduate students it will he a higher figure, and many of those whom we are discussing are postgraduate students—will not be £770 or £940, but will be at a minimum £2,000, £3,000, or £5,000 according to the nature of the course pursued; and those are minimum figures. Whereas in the debate in July the Government claimed to be saving £6 million, I understand that they now expect—though I shall throw some doubt on this later—to make an economy for the public purse of about £90 million.
As I say, this is a proposal that dwarfs all others, and I do not think that we shall need in this debate therefore to look back and consider what was done or said over student fees by one Government or another in the 'sixties or 'seventies. We are now dealing with a quite different order of proposal.
I want first to put this question to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. What do the Government think, or hope, will happen as a result of this measure? Are they working on the assumption, for example, that the students will turn up and pay up in the same numbers as they do at present?—because as a matter of fact it is only on that assumption that the Government would save the £90 million. But I find it difficult to believe that the Government are really expecting that to happen. But let us suppose for a moment that that is what happens—that the number of overseas students attending our universities is the same—and the Government can then say that they have succeeded in shunting £90 million off the shoulders of the British taxpayer on to foreign students, their parents or their Governments.
But even if the numbers remain the same, the students will be different. Fewer of them will come from poorer countries. There is, I believe, already some tendency for this to occur in universities which have experienced earlier rises in fees. That will mean that students from countries desperately in need of knowledge, particularly in certain fields, will be the ones most likely to be deprived by this. Not only will it in future be students from richer rather than poorer countries—even if the numbers keep up, and that is a great if; it will be individually the wealthier, rather than the poorer, students. I believe in some universities there is already some anxiety as to whether they can keep up academic standards when there is created a situation in which the range of students who can even afford to approach the university is limited.
At this point, I would add what might be called a detail, but it is a detail of rather moving importance. Is any special provision to be made for the needs of refugee students?—because they will find the requirement to pay full fees of particular
1278
difficulty. In a reply on 27th November to a Question for Written Answer the noble Baroness said something about students from countries in the European Community. She said something, but I think she will agree that it was not then precise; the Government had not decided what their position would be. When the Government are looking at that problem, can they also look at the problem of refugee students?
So far as I have spoken on the assumption that the number of overseas students stays up to a figure of between 80,000 and 90,000, which it is at present, and I am asking whether the Government hold that assumption. But I am bound to say that I do not think they do, because they have already expressed some anxiety about student numbers, in particular research students, by putting forward an award scheme for those whom it is hoped will be research students doing work of exceptional value. To begin with, it is to affect 500 such students and possibly build up later to 1,500. To begin with, £1 million, and I presume that it might rise to £2 million or £3 million, if the scheme goes ahead as the Government suggest. I think it fair to say that this proposal has been received by the universities with very moderate enthusiasm. The vice-chancellors said that the scheme was not the best way to attract the most able future research workers to Britain and the secretary-general of the vice-chancellors' committee said that it will do very little to undo the harm caused by the Government's full-cost fees policy. But the fact that the scheme is put forward indicates, I think, that the Government have some anxiety about the number of students, and are making a tiny attempt to relieve their anxieties in that field.
I return now, my Lords, to what I believe to he the much more probable assumption—and, I expect, the assumption the Government are making—that there will be a marked falling off in the number of overseas students. Let us see what the results of that will be—first, on the universities themselves. The Government have told universities that the grant to universities will be reduced by 13 per cent. in view of the fact that they will, one hopes, be getting the fees from overseas students instead. Of course, if that happens, if all the students turn up

1279
and pay the full fees, the universities might not fare so badly; but it is extremely unlikely that they will. So when we look at this proposal, although in form it appears to be a proposal to shift the cost of students' education from the British taxpayer to the foreign Government, to the foreign parent or to the foreign student, what it is in practice is a way of reducing expenditure on the universities. That is what is really going to happen.
I suppose one can say, "Well, these are hard times, the Government need money, and every institution has to be looked at". But what a curious way the universities are being looked at. I suppose that if one tried, one could make a case for saying that certain economies can be achieved in the universities, but would you really begin by saying that a university's resources are to be cut down to a greater or less amount according to the proportion of foreign students that it now has? Because although, as the vice-chancellors have pointed out, in general it is one-eighth of their income that will be at risk, in some institutions it will be one-third of their income that is at risk. This is going to be an operation completely indiscriminate; and if the number of overseas students goes down, the university lacks its grant and the student fees do not come in, the Government will surely accept that a university cannot he expected to shrink its expenses in proportion to a reduction in the number of its students. There are, of course, overhead expenses and it is this fact that makes a great deal of the calculation about what is saved a rather shadowy and unreal one.
If the result is that you have universities with unused facilities as foreign students cannot come forward to pay the full fees, in some cases they will be facilities provided for courses specifically designed for the needs of overseas students. Courses of that kind are very necessary. Some countries, for example, have a great need to send their people to this country to learn more about the proper conduct of agriculture, and some universities in this country have set to work to meet that need. A possible result of what the Government now propose is that all the preparations made for those courses will be so much waste.
Surely the Government know that if you are talking about economy it is not
1280
enough to play about with figures of money. You must consider what is happening to resources; and what is most likely to happen here is an actual waste of resources. I wonder whether the Government have considered this aspect of the matter. The cheerful way in which they have talked of £90 million, the cheerful way in which they have talked of cutting the university grant in the expectation that the overseas students' fees will make it up, suggest they have not fully considered what will happen. I think they may take the advice which has been tendered to them in some university quarters that, before bringing this scheme into operation, they should hold a speedy inquiry and find out exactly what will happen in certain universities, because I think that that preliminary work has not been done.
Those are likely to be the results on universities. What about the results of this proposal on the country as a whole? Much has been said—and I notice that much was said in the debate in July—on the value to this country of having a body of overseas students here; and if I run through the points about that briefly, it is not because they are unimportant, but because I think we are all familiar with them. There is the value of the research work done by students; there is the advantage to our balance of payments which comes from expenditure by the students and their relatives visiting here; there is the undoubted advantage of having overseas in the future in important commercial positions people who have close connections with this country. These advantages cannot be precisely quantified; but I do not think that anyone will maintain that they do not exist. The great weight of business opinion, and that of the people who do this kind of business, is that it is a decided advantage to us to have abroad in commercial positions people who have pursued their university studies here. Then there is the political advantage, the desirability of having in the future people in important political and governmental positions in their country who have had their university education here rather than elsewhere.
I would say this. If the Government do not believe that that is important; if the Government do not believe that it is of great advantage to the influence and the prestige of this country to have overseas

1281
students; if the Government do not believe that, then they are unique among all the developed countries of the world in that disbelief. The Russians have no doubt about it at all and neither have most other countries with highly developed university systems. I say no more about those matters. They have been very much discussed in the past. I accept the difficulty of quantifying. But I say that here are real, if not exactly measurable, advantages; and they all have to be put in the scales against the "paper-£90-million" which the Government say they are going to save. One must come to the conclusion that the damage is not worth the alleged saving.
I think I will end on another point, not as mundane as the advantages to trade and so on. I think that it adds to the character and dignity of the universities—which is one of the things that the word means—to have people from many countries. The university itself is enriched. Our country, said Pericles, in his great panegyric on his own city, is an education to all Greece. We could make a comparable claim on a larger scale. It was one of the glories of this country that we were a centre from which learning radiated throughout the world. I think that the Government have been too hasty to pursue what may be only a shabby economy without regard for certain more permanent values.
Finally, my Lords, if I say little about the British Council, it is not because it is not important, but because I think we shall have an opportunity to discuss that next week. But it is sad at the time when students are going to be put to this immediate difficulty over fees that the British Council which helps them in so many other ways—with grants, with advice about accommodation and generally enabling them to fit into the life of this country—is, itself, to suffer reductions which are going to make it close some of its local centres, reduce the work of the London centre and reduce, I believe, by half the grants that it makes to students. Altogether, I think that we have the signs here of a policy put in with too little forethought and to little imagination; and I beg the Government to think again.
9.23 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, once
1282
again, thanks to the very welcome initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, we are discussing what we on these Benches regard—and I am sure I am right in saying what the noble Lord himself regards—as the extraordinary and indefensible attitude of the present Government towards overseas students. Once again, we shall no doubt hear the noble Baroness who is to reply on behalf of the Department of Education and Science explaining, with, I am afraid, a certain complacency, that what the students bring into this country on balance by way of foreign exchange is non-existent because it is unquantifiable. Once again, she will read out her brief to the effect that the students must bear what is always referred to as the full cost of their education. Here, in case she still refuses (as she did last time) to accept the argument—and, I think, the irrefutable argument—advanced on this matter in the recent study by the London Conference on Overseas Students, may I quote a passage in a letter to my noble friend Lord Avebury, from the much respected Professor Cattermole of Essex University, one of our leading professors in engineering: He writes:
"The sum of money withdrawn from University Grants Committee funds appears to be the result of multiplying total university costs by the proportion of overseas students. Thus it vastly overestimates the true 'subsidy', in three respects. First, the average cost of any activity is greater than the marginal cost. We need some basic provision for staff, equipment, etc. for British students, and the cost of taking additional students is less than proportional: equally, the savings we could make by not taking them are less than proportional. Secondly, only part of our costs is attributable to teaching: a significant part is attributable to research, much of it to direct utility. Thirdly, the calculation ignores external effects: these are very varied; but include (at least) the money brought into the United Kingdom by overseas students, and the effect on trade of goodwill engendered by British education".
Exactly how much of the alleged £100 million deficit would vanish into thin air were these principles applied to the calculation is open to argument; but no reasonable person can now doubt that by far the greater part of it would. Only the Treasury sticks to its original estimate, so it cannot apparently be changed because, as we all know, Governments always tend to believe that the Treasury is never wrong and is always right. And, of course, if it were changed, the entire Government case would simply go by the board.

1283
None the less, once more we shall hear that, given the alleged cost of educating overseas students in this country, the only sensible thing to do—this, undoubtedly, is what the noble Baroness will say—is to let market forces loose in the sphere of education, admitting (with some grudging exceptions) only those foreigners who are so rich that they could obviously send their sons to any seat of learning anywhere in the world if they so chose, irrespective of cost.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has said, it is obvious that, this being so, this will result in a heavy fall in the total number of students. It is impossible to argue the contrary. There will no doubt be a tiny concession regarding postgraduate students, some 5 per cent. of whom we understand may be the subject of special grants, though how they will he selected, and on what grounds, is something of a mystery.
Finally, if only not to infuriate our EEC partners, even beyond the point at which they were infuriated recently in Dublin, we shall probably hear that students from the Community will only be charged about ten times the nominal charges of most European universities. A great concession! Unless there is an unexpected increase in the number of scholarships to be granted to the poor Third World, that will be all. The possibility that by largely exempting EEC students from fees two or three times those charged even in America, we may expose ourselves under the Treaty to the necessity of admitting students from the Lomé Convention countries on similar terms does not seem as yet to have occurred to the Government. No doubt they would be absolutely horrified if it ever did.
Almost all leading academics, I think I am right in saying, are now ranged against these self-inflicted wounds—because that is what they are, rather than cuts—explaining how, in addition to depriving us of undoubted benefits that overseas students bestow on our benighted land, they will probably result in severe hardships from many universities and polytechnics, some of which may have if not to close down altogether at any rate to lower their standards, which would be a terrible thing to do. To no avail: the Government apparently believe that the academics are of no electoral importance,
1284
I am afraid, and that they have the votes behind them in that the country as a whole does not think much of students—and particularly of coloured students.
Even if it should be the intention of the Government to economise, not so much on account of overseas students themselves, which has already been shown to be no economy, but directly on expenditure on universities and polytechnics, if that should be their sole objective, what is the point of a policy which, far from hitting the more unpopular, and no doubt the least efficient educational establishments which have few or no overseas students, penalises exclusively those institutions which, by reason of attracting students from abroad, are presumably the most efficient and therefore the ones it is most desirable in the national interest to subsidise and maintain? What is the point of that?
The policy, in other words, has not been properly thought out: it has not been thought out at all. It is a kind of blunderbuss which has been fired off almost at random in response to a rather half-baked ideology; and for that very reason it is going to cause infinitely more harm than good. What courses, I wonder, will the sons and daughters of the rich foreign friends of the present Government take? They will no doubt be well able to afford the £5,000 a year necessary to become a dentist. But what son or daughter of an oil sheikh is going to go into that profession, or even to become a doctor, for that matter? Perhaps a few, in the hours they will be able to spare from their attendance at Annabels or the Clermont Club, will be serious enough to obtain a degree in engineering, but not very many, as we might think. Will they take any active part in the extra-curricular activities of the universities and polytechnics which they may favour with their presence? Perhaps that will be beneath their dignity. Probably, in their expensive "digs", they will go in for the soft options, in which case the seats of learning, deprived of grants they can only recover by fleecing the foreigner, may well find themselves even further in the red, because they will only get £2,000 instead of £5,000 per head. And when these rich characters do get back home, what prospect will there be of their providing the men and women who are likely to come to the fore in the next generation and thus create goodwill towards Britain, to say nothing of creating

1285
trade? Not much. The bright boys of the future will mostly have been well trained in Moscow or in East Berlin, if not, of course, by our main competitors.
My Lords, just listen for a moment to what a director of Balfour Beatty Limited says—they are responsible for some £400 million of contracts annually. I quote:
" In Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, where university education is largely British oriented, we have an in-built advantage: the chaps who have returned from university training in the United Kingdom know its quality and they think in United Kingdom terms. Now in the Philippines it is all the other way: they think in American or Canadian terms, their post-graduate Mecca is a United States university, and, naturally enough, when it comes to placing a huge contract, they look first in that direction. The Americans know it and they encourage overseas students in a number of ways—bursaries, facilities for work, low fees—whereas we are foolish enough to raise the fees time and again. It is utterly short-sighted, and the long-term effects (to our disadvantage) are incalculable ".
Broke we may be, but really, however broke, there is no impelling reason for us to go in for a purely self-defeating exercise.
But quite apart from students who will not come if these extortionate fees are introduced, what about the students already studying here? We understand that the Government have magnanimously agreed to exempt students in mid-course; but what provisions are there for the 37,000 students on preliminary, non-advanced courses? I do respectfully ask the noble Baroness to reply to that question. Are they to be forced to give up before embarking on the higher qualifications most of them came for? I would remind the House that in the only comparable increases imposed by Her Majesty's Government in 1967, students going on to higher courses were cushioned from the differential fees and had to pay a maximum of only £50 extra, which was recoverable in cases of hardship from a special DES fund. Surely something similar to that will be organised this time, or are the Government going to be absolutely hard-hearted and do nothing of the kind?
A couple of years ago the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs and the Council for Education in the Commonwealth put forward the idea of a commission, whose object would be to work out and submit to the Government for approval schemes for both regulating and making the best use of overseas students in this country. We
1286
certainly did not exclude—of course we did not—the possibility of some quota scheme or schemes. We quite realised that there might well have to be some limit set to the total number of students in this country. We did not deny that. This scheme for a commission was not actually turned down by the Labour Government, who were still considering it when they fell. But it was quite soon rejected by the present Government, on the simple ground that it was a Quango—a beast whose extermination, as we all know, has been ordained by Mrs. Thatcher. I am afraid that perhaps the real reason was that it might somehow interfere with the sage confabulations of the civil servants who, in my view, are primarily responsible for the present mess.
Undaunted, we then suggested that at least Mrs. Thatcher might take a leaf out of Mr. Heath's book and give a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister—one of the eight, I think—some powers of co-ordination of rival departmental policies, in the same way as these were conferred on Mr. Anthony Kershaw in 1971. Clearly this was an error. The personal assistant of Mr. Blaker, who—that is, Mr. Blaker—had said that he would consider this suggestion seriously, later informed me that it was not acceptable. Liaison between the various departments was perfect, the private secretary said. We must therefore assume that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in complete accord with a policy which, as explained by the Mauritius Finance Minister at the Conference in Lusaka, is causing much distress and heartburning in the Commonwealth and great satisfaction behind the Iron Curtain. Apparently, that is what the Foreign Office thinks is a very good policy.
I repeat that I have scarcely any hope that this debate will induce the Government to abandon their foolish plans, though possibly they may modify them to some very slight extent. It is true that the fuss we made here about the proposed slashing of the BBC Overseas Services had some effect, and that when it was repeated in the other place the Government actually executed a U-turn. But I am afraid that there are fewer votes in overseas students, and even fewer in the British Council, which is associated in the popular imagination largely with "culture"—a word which tends to grate on a British ear—and whose

1287
splendid work in connection with the propagation of the English language and democratic ideas is often quite ignored.
And yet only two years ago this House indignantly repudiated the very proposals of the Berrill Report that have now effectively been resuscitated by a Tory Government. Where are the Tory champions of the British Council now? Where are the defenders of its crucial role in the teaching of English and the propagation of British political principles in the world? They are no doubt terrified of incurring the wrath of the embattled lady who, so we are told, is going in the near future to take on the unions, cure inflation, beat unemployment and lead us to the Promised Land. Loyalty, therefore, before conscience every time! That seems to be the basic Tory principle.
We shall have an opportunity shortly, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said, to discuss the proposed dismemberment of the British Council, so I shall not enlarge on it this evening. All I would say in conclusion is that it is a sad moment, both as regards students and as regards the British Council, when we turn our backs on the great civilising mission which this nation has for so long performed. If, therefore, these iniquitous proposals ever come before your Lordships in the shape of a White Paper—and no doubt the Government will try to avoid doing that—we on these Benches, at any rate, shall divide the House against them and we shall certainly hope that, as two years ago, a large majority of your Lordships will share our indignation and express it by your votes.
9.40 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: My Lords, I wish to contribute four points to your Lordships' debate for which we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. I wish to assure the noble Baroness that on this occasion at least I approach the problem in no party spirit or with no party interest. Indeed, I must declare an interest. I hold a Chair in the University of London at the London School of Economics, and on this occasion I speak largely against my background of some 27 years of teaching and research in universities.
1288
My first point is that it has surely been made quite clear by the Vice-Chancellors and other spokesmen for the universities and polytechnics that they are not asking for any privilege or exemption on the matter of overseas student fees. Given the Government's policies—which it is not tonight's debate to challenge—universities can expect to have their resources straitened and diminished, but what they do not expect is that they should be diminished on a totally irrational and arbitrary basis.
University finance has been said to be in chaos, and partly that is true. Every Government of the last decade, including the last Government, bears its share of the responsibility for that. But the issue of overseas student fees is quite separate from the other diminution of university resources. It is irrational because it is based on a false assumption—insistence by the Government that the cost of overseas students must be calculated on a full unit cost basis; namely, the income of a university divided by the total number of students in that university.
The Government have already rejected —and the noble Baroness rejected it in this House—the report of this year's London Conference on Overseas Students, which argued that the right approach is one of marginal cost. Whether that is exactly the right approach it is very difficult to say, but the full unit cost cannot be right. If I hold a seminar with 30 students and if 10 overseas students are taken away, the cost to the university is not diminished by one-third, as the Government appear to believe. The cost of the building, of salary and of heating the building is the same. And if 10 students are added to the seminar, the cost is not increased by 25 per cent. Whatever the correct calculation may be, the full unit cost cannot be the right one. There is no university in any higher education system in the world which uses the full unit cost as the basis of its calculation for student fees. If it is used in this case, it will make our higher education system the most expensive in the world.
Secondly, if the Government still cannot accept any other basis than the full unit cost, even given what I believe to be a false assumption, how can it be right to deduct from the income of each university—I speak of universities because I know more about them than about polytechnics—a percentage according to the

1289
percentage of overseas students attending that university, as history and chance have bequeathed that percentage to that university institution? The overall cut is 13 per cent, but taking the percentages which will be applied according to the number of overseas students, it will be 8 per cent. at Cambridge, 29 per cent. at Essex, 11 per cent. at Oxford, 37 per cent. at the London School of Economics, 4 per cent. at Keele and 33 per cent. at the University of Manchester's Institute of Science and Technology. If it were applied to schools, it would be 74 per cent. at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. This is a wholly arbitrary way of reducing income. If income has to be reduced, let it be reduced in a more rational manner. As the Vice-Chancellor of Southampton University said in The Times on 27th November:
" The method is appallingly crude. The Government is setting out to prune roses with an axe—and a blunt one ".
It is worse than that. To use the London School of Economics as an example—and I pray it in aid not through any special interest but as an example which will apply to some other universities as well—we have a thousand or more overseas students, many of them very talented graduates. On the Government's calculations, it appears that the full unit cost will come to something just under £3,000 a head, so the deduction will be in the nature of £3 million from the London School of Economic's income. We cannot make up that income by taking more home students. That has been made clear to all universities by the University Grants Committee and the Government. We are told to go out and replace our overseas students by finding others. If we do that and charge the minimum for arts and social science students—as indeed we are bound to do while the market is being tested, because every other institution is charging that figure—we charge £2,000 a head, which brings in £2 million. So, even if we replace every single overseas student, the institution is £1 million short on this arbitrary calculation.
How can that possibly he right? Indeed, what is the pressure on universities?—and it seems to me that this is the point on which the public deserve to be better informed. The pressure on universities is not to take fewer overseas
1290
students; the pressure on many universities will be to take more overseas students and worse still the pressure on very many universities will be to admit more overseas students not on the basis of academic standards and academic merit but on the basis of whether they can pay. The illogical and irrational result which I cannot believe is intended by the Government is that the universities should become racketeers. Some people say that foreign students are already a racket in certain places. If they are, I do not know of them, but that should be investigated. Certainly, the pressure is to become racketeers and to overcrowd our seminars to the disadvantage of able, and especially able home students, with the sons and daughters of the western world's rich men who are not serious students. I cannot believe that is the right policy to present to universities to replace the stock of talented students who now come for the most part into British higher education.
That leads to my third point—because there is another problem. The Government appear to have taken this decision on the basis that there are suitable overseas students available who can afford these colossal new fees. In your Lordships' House on 7th November in the Official Report at column 813, the noble Baroness herself said, as many Government spokesmen have said:
" The fact is that every time the charges to overseas students have gone up so the number of students in this country has increased ".
That was true between 1976 and 1978, but the Government surely cannot go on saying that now, in the light of their own statements. On 22nd November in another place at column 381, the Minister, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, said:
" In 1979–80 there were about 17,000 overseas graduate and postgraduate new entrants to British universities as compared with 18,672 in 1978–79 ".
That is a decrease of some 9 per cent. and it is not unrelated to the previous Government's increase of fees by 30 per cent. The level was 9 per cent. down on 30 per cent.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Does he not think that the decrease in the number of overseas students was due to the request, in fact the instruction, which came from the UGC on the orders of the then Secretary of State, requiring uni-

1291
versities to decrease the number of overseas students to the figure that they took in 1975 minus 7 per cent.?
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: My Lords, I was about to advert to the quota point, if the noble Lord will allow me to develop the argument. There was the factor of the quota which was imposed on universities but such evidence as I have heard from those in charge of admissions in various universities also relates the decrease to the increase in fees. That is to say, two factors were at work, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is quite right to remind your Lordships—the quota and the increase in fees. I do not know how many overseas students the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has discussed this matter with, but I have discussed it with a few and it is perfectly clear that the 30 per cent. increase in fees was a factor in that 9 per cent. decrease. What can we expect in 1980–81 after further fee increases of between 100 and 400 per cent.?
On 28th November Dr. Rhodes Boyson, during a debate in another place (at column 653 of the Official Report), said:
" Some fall in the total number of overseas students is anticipated in the academic year 1980–81 but it is not possible at this stage to predict what that proportion will be ".
I suggest that there is now on the record a very great weight of evidence predicting on reasonable grounds what that fall may be. Perhaps I may select four published statements out of dozens. On 15th November in The Times the Master of Balliol and two other heads of houses in Oxford estimated that they would lose between one-third and a half of the number of our overseas students. On 29th November the Daily Telegraph reported a spokesman of the University of Bristol as estimating a drop of about one-third. In the Observer of 18th November the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, Master of St. Catherine's College, Oxford, estimated the loss of about a half.
In The Times Higher Educational Supplement on 23rd November Professor Haszeldine, the Principal of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, was reported as estimating that between 35 and 40 per cent. of his overseas students would be lost. And he added:
" If that were the case the university would no longer be able to pay its fixed costs ".
1292
University after university is predicting, after a careful look at the matter, that something like 30 per cent. at a conservative estimate is the probable drop in the number of students.
On 27th November the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Rhodes Boyson, answering for the Secretary of State in another place, said:
" The Government have no plans to close down any British university within the next five years ".
The Government, I suggest, are obliged tonight to tell us how it is going to avoid that, if not by planning at least by mistaken policies, because the cuts which have to be suffered by some institutions risk closures of departments and possibly even of some institutions themselves.
That brings me to my last point. Dr. Page, the Vice-Chancellor of Reading, said on 14th November that the new fees—and I quote:
" could price British universities out of the market for overseas students. The consequent fall in university income would have disastrous consequences for home and overseas students alike ".
The consequences for our own home students will not be felt only in closures or redundancies. The international character of their educational environment, which matters a lot to many people in universities, will be seriously impaired. Moreover, universities which have for decades been centres to which foreign students have looked, and especially students from the Commonwealth, will find the role that they play fading away. Special arrangements, it seems, are probably to be made for EEC students. That one can welcome. But one half of the foreign students in universities are from the Commonwealth. Already since 1977 various factors have caused a huge drop in the number of students from the poorer countries, over 20 per cent. from Kenya, over 20 per cent. from India. Although I accept that the quota is a factor, it cannot be an accident that the larger drop has come from the poorer countries. The fee increases are clearly a major factor.
Students are telling us—by which I mean myself and the colleagues to whom I speak every day—students from the Commonwealth, from Canada, Australia, Nigeria, are telling us every day, that next year those behind them from the universities who would like to come

1293
here will not be able to afford it. They will go to the United States—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, says, no doubt in some cases to Eastern European countries.
There are various educational bodies throughout the world which are expressing alarm at the Government's policy, and if the Government will not listen to British voices perhaps they will listen to voices abroad. I quote one example, of which I could send the noble Baroness a large number. The Council of International Educational Exchange in the United States, which represents 170 colleges and universities and educational organisations in the United States, on 7th November at its meeting in New York City unanimously passed a resolution urging the British Government to reintroduce arrangements for the reception of overseas students on conditions no less favourable than those obtaining for United Kingdom students as soon as possible. I quote again:
" The object was preserving and strengthening the strong ties which have meant so much to the development and dissemination of knowledge and for mutual understanding between our nations ".
The international position of British education is also something which is at stake. Everything which has so far happened has proved how correct was the perception of the chairman of the Vice-Chancellor's Committee, Sir Alec Merrison, who spoke on the 16th October 1979 on behalf of all the Vice-Chancellors in saying:
" The effect of these policies upon our universities and students both from home and overseas is potentially disastrous. They will undermine institutions which are vital national assets and of international renown ".
Sir Alec Merrison went on to say that his committee, the Vice-Chancellors, implored the Secretary of State to think again. I would join in asking the Government what are their plans for the many university institutions which, with present policies, will in 1981–82 face very large deficits indeed. They may face closures of departments or institutions, but they will not be closures which are planned on academic grounds. If there is a case for the closure of certain departments, or indeed of certain universities, then let that case be made. Let it be made rationally and in a way that can be dis-
1294
cussed. But closures which are the erratic spin-off of an irrational policy on overseas students' fees which apply arbitrarily, by the accident of history, according to the percentage of overseas students who happen to be at a university in any particular year—that is a policy of chaos.
The noble Lord, Lord Bullock, the Master of St. Catherine's College, Oxford, was surely right when he urged the Government, in his letter to the Observer on 18th November:
" To postpone the scheduled increases and institute instead a thorough-going inquiry … into the whole question of overseas students ".
If there are undesirable practices as regards the presence of overseas students in certain departments or universities, let the case be made. But, for those of us who are teaching in the universities, the present policy means that in two years' time it may well be found that, for the sake of £100 million—or 10 Jaguar fighter planes—a heritage of higher education has been irreversibly damaged and totally changed in a way which I cannot believe is the intention of the Government.
9.57 p.m.
The LORD BISHOP of OXFORD: My Lords, after the recent welcome reappearance of The Times, three supplements of obituary notices were published of distinguished persons who had died during the past year. It was immediately striking how many of those scholars and scientists who had rendered long and outstanding service to this country had been born outside her shores, but had received a welcome, first from the academic community, and later from our people as a whole.
The policy of the Government towards overseas students, as evidenced by the proposed steep increase of fees in 1980–81, appears to run counter to this tradition, at once admirable and profitable, in British life. The arguments for such drastic increases are, so far as I am aware, entirely those of short-term economic benefit. It is right to underline the word "short-term" for it surely cannot be doubted that the education and training of overseas students in the institutions of this country have in the long term benefited our economic interests with the students' various countries of origin. No doubt these benefits are difficult to

1295
compute, but it is not a negligible argument which has been advanced by the London Conference on Overseas Students that the consequent trade benefits and the foreign exchange brought into this country together outweigh the alleged drain on our economy which has impelled the Government to make such a drastic increase in fees.
Moreover, the figures which have been quoted must raise a doubt whether the full-cost fees proposed for overseas students embarking upon new courses from 1980 genuinely represent the actual costs, or whether they are being used as a partial subsidy for home students, and one which many home students, be it said, show no signs of desiring themselves,
We have heard the suggestion that universities should, in effect, have their normal grant cut by the amount they are expected to "earn" from overseas fees. Such a suggestion seems highly inequitable both to the universities and to the overseas students, and when the world market in institutions of higher education is surveyed, it appears that we shall be in serious danger of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs—even if it sometimes takes a few years to lay them.
It would, however, be a grave reduction of the moral and intellectual perspective on this question, to speak of it only in terms of cost benefit. Even if we were to grant the Government's case as far as the economic arguments are concerned—and it seems to have been severely damaged already this evening—there is a moral obligation on the part of this country which the present proposals appear to disregard. The Bishops of the Church of England, the Church in Wales, and the Episcopal Church in Scotland, meeting in Salisbury last June expressed themselves as follows:
The welfare and proper development of many overseas countries depends on the building up of an educated leadership, and we believe that this country's continued contribution to that end, through the availability of educational opportunities, far outweighs any economies that may be effected by the present proposals ".
The building up of that educated leadership is probably the most priceless asset
1296
that any developing country can have. It has been one way in which Britain, even when unable to offer large-scale direct aid in financial terms, has played a notable part in the formation of a stable, political and economic life in developing countries. It would surely have to be a very substantial gain indeed—not one of the order of £90 million per annum, as projected—that made us resolve to sacrifice that constructive place in the affairs of other continents and countries and hand it over on a plate (for many of these students will assuredly seek their higher education outside their own countries) to more liberal hosts in North America, or Eastern or Western Europe.
It is a comparatively rare issue that drives the House of Bishops and the National Union of Students, not to mention the principals and vice-chancellors, to make common cause. The fact that this issue has done just that may be taken as a clear indication of the amount of feeling that there is against the proposal of the Government to establish the highest fees for overseas students in the civilised world. It may be argued that these bodies, taken together, represent only a small section of our population as a whole, and that they contain a number of interested parties. Yet there are times when academic communities are capable of arguing not merely for self-interest but for enlightenment and justice with regard to national affairs as well as their domestic ones. What else do we have universities for?—and, indeed, churches?
We are anxious, for the sake of Britain's good name and her place in the international community, and especially that of the future leaders of that community, to resist the present tendencies towards an illiberal prejudice against foreigners as such, for that is how it is bound to appear to public opinion both at home and abroad. We believe that in this case moral principle and a realistic estimate of our country's long-term gain point in the same direction, and the direction is that the Government should think again and modify very considerably their proposals for a swingeing increase in fees upon overseas students, irrespective of their ability to meet them.
10.2 p.m.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, your Lordships will know only too well by now that I do not share the views of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors about overseas students' fees nor, I regret, the views of the vast majority of my colleagues in the universities. Of this recent increase I shall just say this. The Government were elected on a mandate to cut public expenditure and this evening we have not yet heard one word about the economic recession which faces the world and with which this country, with its declining industrial strength, is unfortunately faced. I support the Government in their aim, that they must cut public expenditure and I do not blench when it affects the universities in which I work. But I do wish that, when they do cut it, they will not try to disguise the cut with a lot of twaddle about imposing an economic fee on overseas students. If I do not again rehearse the argument about marginal costs, that will be because it has already been done so ably by former speakers.
I noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, about the quality of students who would be likely to come to universities if this way of calculating overseas students' fees is observed, but I regret to say that I do not share his view at all. The overseas students who will come will not be composed solely of polo-playing playboys. In fact, as we well know, I would guess that Chinese parents in Hong Kong and Malaysia will not be deterred by the new level of fees. They are the shrewdest of entrepreneurs and they know value for money when they see it. A three-year degree in engineering or law, taught in English at a staff/student ratio of one to 10 or even one to 15, is from their point of view a snip.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but why should a shrewd Hong Kong merchant, however rich he may be, who wants to send his son to the best university, choose a course at a university here when he could equally send his son to America, where he would receive a better technical education for half the price?
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, I really must disagree with the noble Lord about the choice. The staff/student ratio in an
1298
American university at undergraduate level bears no relation to ours. Ours is infinitely more favourable. That is why there will still be numbers of these students who will come to this country. They are very able and clever students indeed. Just look at the class lists in the University of London in engineering and you will see Chinese names very often in the first class.
Of course it cannot be denied by the Government that inevitably students from poorer countries will in fact not come, and that among these will also be some of the ablest students. I shall not at this time of night retell the sad story of the universities' folly in turning down flat Mrs. Williams's 13 points which she put to them in 1969. They were points for saving money in higher education. One of those points was overseas students' fees. Of course the Vice-Chancellors like to argue that the Government got themselves into a terrible mess by not only expanding universities but by creating 32 polytechnics, upgrading the colleges of education, and creating the Open University. The Robbins proposals alone required a growth rate of 4 per cent., and we never achieved that.
I am afraid that my colleagues often seem to expect the Government to behave as if it was a student working out problems in algebra which are susceptible to rational answers. I do not believe that Government is like that. If instead we each of us did not take such a pride in fighting our own corner, and behaved less like syndicalists and tried to help the Government, whatever party forms it, I believe this country would be better off. But no, on this issue the universities have always decided to paddle their own canoe. Now, owing to the economic recession, the universities find themselves up an evil-smelling creek without a paddle.
If in the old days one asked what percentage of overseas students the universities thought it legitimate for Britain to admit, one never could get an answer. If one asked was 10, 20, 30 or 80 per cent. of available places a correct figure, no one would ever answer. I myself have always been in favour of a quota once I realised that this was the only way in which this problem could be contained. I was a

1299
little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, unless I misheard him, come out in favour of a quota tonight, because in times gone by I have always understood that he did not feel that that was the right way of tackling the problem, but I welcome that support because I believe that it is.
I think that the fees have been raised to a dangerously high level, but the trouble is that no one now believes the universities. I think that now several Vice-Chancellors would in fact agree with these views. There are several who now believe that the protests which have been delivered absolutely consistently in the past whenever fees have gone up have diverted attention from a much more serious problem. So therefore I am not asking the Government to reverse their policy; obviously they are not going to do that. It is not actually the principle of charging higher fees that I object to, it is of course the dramatic drop in the income which the universities are now going to have to face. It is that dramatic drop in income which makes me tonight ask the Government to be prepared, if necessary, to give emergency help.
My colleagues believe, as we have heard this evening, that in three years' time we shall be lucky if we get 30 per cent., 50 per cent. perhaps, of the overseas students that we now get, if we charge the minimum fees. Now I would much have preferred a settlement which took only 80 per cent. and not 100 per cent. of the overseas student cut from the universities. But I ask the noble Baroness: Will she give us an assurance that the level of fees will be reviewed in 1981 or, at the very latest, in 1982?
We have some cause to doubt that the new fee level is competitive. Harvard and Berkeley California, for example, are certainly, if you contrast the level of science and engineering fees, more favourable and, despite our bad track record in the past, the universities could this time be right. If they are right, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, said, real damage will be done.
As the noble Baroness knows, the universities are being subjected to a double
1300
cut; there is a cut in real terms as well as the potential cut in income from the overseas students. The base line for this year has already been reduced and I must tell the noble Baroness what this will mean for the University of London because the University of London is a curious place; not merely is it the university of the capital city, it is the mother of universities from all over the Commonwealth which for years took London degrees, and we are bound therefore to have more students from overseas than any other university.
It is not just a percentage of 19 as opposed to 13, the national average, that makes me say that; it is simply that there are whole institutions which over the years Governments have encouraged London to develop. It is those that will be at risk and I must tell the noble Baroness that unless we get some special recurrent funding, we calculate that the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, mainly concerned today with preventive medicine, the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, most of the institutes in the British Postgraduate Medical Federation and certainly the School of Oriental and African Studies, which was built up by the Scarbrough and Hayter funds, will close or become unrecognisable as the institutions they are now.
I hope the noble Baroness will believe me when I say that that is not a crude blackmailing statement; London will not adopt that course of action which will be most embarrassing to Government. But the rest of the schools in London University cannot carry these institutions by tightening their belts. They too are in trouble and, as we heard from Lord Wedderburn, the London School of Economics and, I can assure the noble Baroness, University College and Imperial College, forecast very heavy deficits if a policy of this kind, of the double cut, is carried through. The trouble is that London is a high cost university; the London allowance alone costs us £12 million. If that is the kind of calculation which, on this so-called free economic fee, is taken into account, no wonder we shall be so very embarrassed by the size of the cut.
But whatever happens to overseas students, I predict that with the present cut which is being imposed, some academic staff will have to be dismissed because we

1301
shall not be able to pay them. I have no doubt, in a way, that that is what the Government want. After all, that is what cutting public expenditure means. However, I feel I must warn the noble Baroness that the first member of the academic staff to be told that there is no money to pay him or her will, I would guess, be advised by the Association of University Teachers to fight his case in an industrial tribunal on the grounds not that he is being made redundant but that he has tenure to retiring age and that if the contract is broken he must be compensated accordingly.
May I therefore ask the noble Baroness if she will initiate now within the department discussions similar to those which took place when the recent closures of colleges of education occurred? The universities must surely have a national policy for the dismissal of staff and they are going to need such a national policy possibly sooner than we like to imagine; I do not mean next year and I do not necessarily mean the year after, but certainly in the third year of this policy I would expect that to happen.
If the noble Baroness tells me that the experience of the Crombie scheme so appalled the Department of Education and Science that they are never going to repeat the exercise, I shall not be entirely surprised. But again may I respectfully warn her that dismissal of staff will cost money. Government will have to supply that money if long-term savings—which they apparently want and which, naturally, they view the economic situation as dictating—are to be made.
I have not discounted the possibility that the present cuts are designed to make the universities live for a year or more off their reserves. Everyone is now talking about their reserves. The Public Accounts Committee are talking about their reserves. The AUT are talking about their reserves, so that universities can settle salaries at a 15 to 20 per cent. increase. But in most cases the reserves that exist exist for two reasons. The first is to maintain buildings—and some of the buildings are extremely old and are crumbling, and cost the earth to maintain. The second reason is that in the past Government finance has gone in this way.
1302
Government have announced an inadequate grant, and then in May or June, at the end of the academic year, have sent the universities supplementary grants which are not therefore built into the baseline and which have to be treated as non-recurrent money. I understand that, under the new Government policy of cash limits, this will not occur, but perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether the Government have a policy concerning the reserves of universities.
The matter of overseas students' fees was only one of the 13 points which Mrs. Williams put to the universities in 1969. In my judgment the cuts which the universities are now facing are only the beginning, because not only will public expenditure continue to be cut if the world recession deepens, but in the mid-'eighties the fall in the birth rate will enable the Treasury to demand—as they have in the schools—that the academic and associated staff in universities be reduced. That is another reason for immediately setting up machinery to deal with the problem of dismissal of staff.
But I believe that there is another reason for those 13 points to be thought of again. Dr. Rhodes Boyson has said publicly that he does not want the universities to descend to a general level of grey mediocrity—which is exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, was arguing. Dr. Boyson wants élite institutes such as the London School of Economics to be given priority. But this grey mediocrity will result if the universities do not consider how they can help Government. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she will invite her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to initiate discussions with the UGC and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors to work out a long-term plan for the cutting of costs, so as to maintain some institutions at their present rate of funding? Please do not destroy the top quality of research and teaching, even if inevitably in some places, in some departments, there must be a reduction.
I also wonder whether the agenda should not cover the possibility of various other points that were proposed at that time, 10 years ago, such as the two-year degree. Should it not also include designating some universities or institutes,

1303
or departments within universities, as the equivalent of the grandes écoles in France? I put this suggestion forward in a debate in your Lordships' House on 31st March, 1976, and I still think that it deserves study. The country cannot maintain the present level of teaching and research in all our institutions of higher education, but we can preserve it in some places in some of them.
10.19 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has put down a very timely Question. I have no grounds to speak with one hundredth part of the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on the subject; I was most interested in what he said. One remark he made almost caused me not to speak at all. That was when he referred to polo-playing playboys. I instantly recalled that in the days of my youth, playboy or not—and looking around, the only Member of your Lordships' House whom I can see who knew me in those days is the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—I did once participate in a game of polo. If that puts me outside the parameters of qualifications to speak in this debate, my Lords, I must at once resume my place.
My Lords, most of us understand the need to contain and, if possible, reduce the present level of public expenditure as a proportion of our current national income. As politicians, we also know that to restrain policies to which people have become accustomed is far harder than initiating new policies. Whatever methods the Government adopt are likely to prove unpopular. Each of us wants our own particular enthusiasm exempted. It is easy to agree that a particular cut will prove a false economy in a broader context; but unless we want the effort to contain aggregate public expenditure to prove abortive, I believe we are bound to accept that, with very few exceptions indeed, every public service must have some quite severe restriction imposed upon it—and universities, I am afraid, are no exceptions. Indeed, it is clear that the restrictions to be imposed on the universities are going to be quite painful to them, and will involve some reduction in the number of home students.
1304
The assurance of level funding, as it has been called, is proving a delusion, and is involving considerable confusion. The delays in notifying university authorities what they are going to have to spend in the year ahead, or in the current year, are very worrying to them. But the question with which we are concerned this evening is not university finance in general, but the level of overseas students' fees. Here, again, I believe we must be realistic and keep things in perspective. During the past decade, as has been said, the number of overseas students has more than doubled, and that is something of which we certainly have no reason to be ashamed. There seem to be wide variations in the individual resources available to different overseas students. Some are well endowed, others exceedingly hard pressed. But in view of the current rate of inflation in the United Kingdom, some increase in their fees seems unavoidable.
The question to me, therefore, is how much, and whether the fees charged to overseas students should in some way be more selective, if necessary. If the fees are drastically raised, as is proposed, the financial effects on some universities are going to be very severe, and, in the case of most universities, substantial. In the only university that I know at all well there are at present about 300 overseas students. They are much welcomed by the university. If, as a result of very sharp increases in fees, one-third of them, 100, are lost, that in purely financial terms means a loss to the university of at least £200,000, and perhaps more. But more important in the view of university authorities, I think, is that if the present flow is sharply reduced it will reduce an influence which is very beneficial to our country, both in the short-term and, more important, in the long-term, too.
While, therefore, I believe that some further increase in fees is justifiable, and indeed inevitable, the present proposals are, I think, too harsh. I hope the Government will, as they did in the case of the BBC External Services, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said, sit down and discuss with those who best know the problems involved some way of mitigating the harshness of the discouragements to overseas students who want to pursue their studies in the United Kingdom, and particularly those from the poorer Commonwealth

1305
countries, from which we have traditionally welcomed students.
I say that as an old Treasury man; because perhaps as an old Treasury man, I might have been expected to say precisely the opposite. But I covered myself by saying that I do not think that anybody could feel more strongly than I that we should contain overall Government expenditure as a proportion of our current income. I hope, therefore, that the Government will think this problem right through before they reach final conclusions. I should like to say how glad I am to see with us this evening my noble friend Lord Boyle after his recent illness. I trust that when he comes to speak in his turn that my one-time Financial Secretary will not say precisely the opposite of the few and far less authoritative remarks made by an old colleague.
10.26 p.m.
Lord GARNER: My Lords, many noble Lords taking part in this debate must have the feeling of having been here before because we have discussed this subject so frequently over the years. However, there are two differences, at least, on this occasion. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, rightly pointed out, is that the needs for reduction in public expenditure are very strong and far more stringent now than perhaps previously. Secondly, I must recognise that many of us, I included, expressed fears on previous occasions which do not seem to have been completely fulfilled in practice. But I must say that there is a big difference on this occasion in that the plans proposed suggest such a staggering increase as to amount almost to a difference in kind rather than in degree, particularly because, as has been said by other speakers, the incidence on individual institutions is far more disastrous than on some others because of the application of a rigid mathematical formula.
There is much that I could say on the general question, but I want to be brief at this hour and I am afraid, as I have already explained to the noble Baroness, that I may have to leave before the debate ends; so I will confine myself to one particular institution with which I happen to have been associated and treat that as an example. Some years ago, I succeeded
1306
the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, as President of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School and was very honoured to do so because it seemed to me that here was an institution in the forefront of medical research; it enjoyed an international reputation; it was pre-eminent in the training of both practitioners and teachers both in the United Kingdom and overseas. Standards of this sort take time to develop and traditions of value come only with the years. When they are there, one should build on them; once they are destroyed, they are very difficult to replace.
As we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who mentioned a particular case, we are faced with a situation in which much of this might be thrown away. The present plan—I understand that it is merely a plan—hit the Royal Postgraduate Medical School (as indeed it did a number of institutions) doubly, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said; and, first, by the insistence of a charge for overseas students. Here, we have conducted our own market research among the students to try to get the best estimate we could of what would be the likely effect of charging the minimum fee of £5,000. The result that we had (and it may not be absolutely accurate) is that the numbers of overseas students are likely to be reduced to one-third—reduced by two-thirds and not by one-third, as we have heard in a number of other places. That may or may not be so, but it gives an indication of the seriousness and the dimension of the problem. The second form in which the school will be affected is by the very severe reduction in grant with the result that, if the plan were carried out, the income in 1984 would be little more than half what it is now, if as much as that. No institution can hope to carry on the full complement of its work on that basis.
Therefore one is entitled to ask the Government whether they accept the view which the school certainly holds, and a view which has been endorsed by all visitors to the school from the university, from Government departments and other independent authorities, that it plays a vital part in the National Health Service, together with its co-operation with Hammersmith Hospital; that it makes a unique contribution in training and in

1307
research; and that it is one of the most important factors in maintaining the prestige of British medicine throughout the world.
From a Government which have made clear their belief in maintaining the standards of excellence and wish to promote enterprise when special genius is involved, one would naturally expect an affimative reply. An affirmative reply itself is not sufficient without the will there to attain the ends. I must make it clear that unless some other arrangement—one can think of a variety—can be made, the dire consequences that have been suggested might ensue. I do not believe that this will be allowed to happen; I do not believe it can be allowed to happen. Sometimes I seriously wonder whether all the departments involved in the Government fully realise the implications of what is being proposed.
I pose this question to the Minister tonight—not expecting an immediate reply, of course. There is an importance in the matter because we must know where we stand so that we can plan sensibly for the future. It is important not only in itself, but in relation particularly to staff and morale in the school:
" Hope deferred maketh the heart sick ".
Coming on top of all the cuts and reductions that one has endured over recent years, this further blow could be a cold douche to enthusiasm. Here I should like to pay tribute to the dedication and devotion of the very distinguished members of the staff. We must really try to get away from the present atmosphere of frustration and uncertainty, and be able to see the goal clearly ahead.
I believe in this country. Clearly some things are not going too well at the moment; clearly there is a need for financial restraint. I believe that there are some things that we in Britain do superlatively well which are of benefit not only to ourselves, the people in these islands, but also throughout the world. One of these is the high standard of medical practice, teaching and research. This could be at risk, with the danger of our falling into the category of a second class country in this important field where we have excelled for so long. I beg the Government, therefore, to think again before irreparable damage is done.
10.34 p.m.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, I do not want to assist in an operation of overkill but simply to make a few simple observations. It seems to me rather hard to arrive at a sophisticated breakdown of institutional expenditure per full-time pupil or student from public funds. I understand that the Tress-Brown index has come up with a figure of roughly £2,000 across the board. This must be the hub of a fan of costs ranging from somewhat lower to somewhat higher figures. This median figure (and some which appear in the CSO Statistics for Education, vol. 5) support the view that average cost per student is somewhat less than the department wishes to impose.
If universities, polytechnics and other further and higher educational establishments are being asked to make up a considerable part of their funding by the proposed increased charges to overseas students, this is a very vital part of their economy, and it is surely reasonable to allow them greater flexibility in what they charge. For example, Lancaster University was charging £1,230 last year for a full-time graduate student from overseas and £940 for full-time undergraduate students. What are they to do now? I think they had 484 overseas students last year. Reading says it will be in a terrible mess. There is a severe danger that an orchestral course that I know of, costing roughly £2,000, may be obliged to charge £3,000 and so on.
I fail to see how it can be sensible to lay down blanket minimum "economic" fees where costs vary widely and where many establishments would be happy to fill in some of their courses with students who are "marginal "—and I do not apologise for referring again to this question of marginality. It may be marginal in terms of expenditure but not in terms of income. Obviously, many universities have achieved a fixed level of resources—staff, buildings, libraries, and so on—which causes them to calculate student numbers in terms of "marginal utility", while the DES continues to work on a flat cost per student. I cannot see any reason why the useful principle of "marginal utility" should not be encouraged rather than banned. I should like to ask the noble Baroness to comment on that point.

1309
My plea, in the first place, is for greater flexibility. After all, in the university and higher education system in this country we are fortunate in having highly responsible and able vice-chancellors, principals, registrars and bursars, some of whom are here this evening. It seems to me they must be given a wider field of manoeuvre and allowed greater flexibility in the application of these rules which have been, correctly I think, described as "crude "—" cutting roses with an axe "I think was the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn.
A further strange anomaly will arise if the Government's policy is pursued rigidly. It is a matter of simple domestic book-keeping and affects the funding of overseas students by the British Council, both through its own direct scholarships, which are at present around 500, and the scheme it administers on behalf of the ODA, which affects about 8,000 students. It seems to me absurd to tell the council, on the one hand, to cut its coat according to its cloth and, at the same time, to require it to pay, both on its own behalf and as an agent for the ODA, moneys and fees that will in many cases be higher than the full economic cost of courses in Arts, Economics, Political Science and so on; and to pay them to British educational establishments which would in those cases prefer to charge less, and could economically charge less, particularly if the principle of "marginal utility" is allowed to apply.
This is surely robbing an impoverished Peter to pay a reluctant Paul—and all inside the British domestic economy with no overall cut-back in public expenditure. It will simply mean the council will be able to fund even fewer scholarships, to the detriment of overseas students, in the majority of cases from the poorest countries, and at British universities, where the council was previously able to place these students. Surely, in a civilised and responsible society, it is possible to allow the British Council to liaise with universities and other further educational bodies and allow them to place students at reasonable fees to be agreed, where it can be shown that there is no additional public expenditure. This is an extension of the principle of reasonable flexibility. I end with a short quote from a letter from an old friend with vast experience of higher education in the Midlands. He writes:
1310
" Academic registrars and admission officers hope and pray that the Government will not be too drastic and that the proposed minimum fees will be reduced ".
10.39 p.m.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I have had something to do with overseas students, mainly African students from African Commonwealth countries, since I came back from Ghana in 1960, and that, I think, is my excuse for intervening in this debate. I am not animated by any political motive. Let me say, before I go on to my very few remarks, that I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in case I am not here at the end of the debate to listen to her reply. But I shall, of course, read it with the greatest interest in Hansard tomorrow morning, if that is the case.
I do not think a single speaker during the course of this debate has agreed with the Government's proposal for the increase in the fees for overseas students made in the White Paper, and I must say that I am deeply concerned about it. My main plea will be for the Government to think more carefully about the consequences of this decision before it is implemented. I am sure that it is true of Government policy, as it is of our own decisions, that we should, before we are absolutely certain, try to work out all the consequences and implications of what our actions on those decisions will produce.
It seems to me surprising that both the universities and other institutions of higher education in this country and the British Council, all affected very much by these proposals, have not as yet been fully consulted. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said that this preliminary work has not yet been done and that the Government should make their own inquiry. I entirely agree with that suggestion. I am told that the Overseas Students Trust, which of course knows more about the problems of overseas students than any other body in this country, is going to make an inquiry of its own, and I should have thought that such an inquiry was well worth waiting for, provided that it is proceeded with speedily.
I think, also, that the foreign and Commonwealth Governments who send students to this country should he brought

1311
into consultation. It would surely be disastrous for the policy proposed by the Government to be put into effect without such a careful consideration of the educational and political consequences, which might be a retaliation for what we have done, and those consequences, educational and political, should be weighed by the Government against the small economic advantage that they would gain.
I should like to suggest that such consultations, both here and overseas, should take place immediately and that there should be no increase in fees for overseas students, beyond the increase required by the rate of inflation, until such consultations have been completed and properly assessed. I noted that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who as usual took a very balanced view, said that he thought the increases proposed by the Government were too harsh.
I think that some unofficial reactions, which have come to my attention from some of the Commonwealth representatives in London, show what the attitude of the new Commonwealth is likely to be. My old friend Sir Leckraz Teelock, High Commissioner for Mauritius, has said—and he has allowed his words to be quoted—
" Now only very rich people will be able to study in the developed countries of the Commonwealth ".
Another comment—and, again, the High Commissioner has allowed this to be quoted—has come from Dr. Mattieri, High Commissioner for Sierra Leone. He said:
" We sent our boys to fight for you in Burma in the last war and even in the First World War. Now you are excluding us on the grounds of poverty ".
Indeed, the high level of the proposed university fees, which would make our universities among the most expensive in the world, will work most inequitably as between the new and the old Commonwealth countries. The poor, developing countries will not be able to afford these fees, while the affluent industrial countries will in many cases still be able to meet them. This is particularly unfortunate when it is remembered that the vast majority of Commonwealth students come here from developing countries. In the past these students have been one of the most valuable Commonwealth ties, and
1312
their loss will be a loss to the whole of the Commonwealth.
My second suggestion, which I hope the Government will consider, is this—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will pass it on to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whose absence at the moment I quite understand because she has been here from the very beginning of the debate. Even if the Government do proceed to increase the fees of overseas students—and some reduction in expenditure in all directions is, of course, inevitable in the present economic climate—I wonder whether an exception could be made for all postgraduate students, not just the 5 per cent. which I believe the Government would be willing to accept. These students are, after all, the intellectual élite of the countries from which they come, and such contacts at an impressionable age may be of great value to us, as they have been in the past, when these students return to take up responsible posts in their own countries. Moreover, they almost certainly lack at home the facilities they need for postgraduate work, which can only be found abroad. Most of these new Commonwealth countries can provide the majority of the university places in their own universities but not, of course, provision for research.
My final argument for accepting postgraduate students is that research work in their chosen field of study will add to a common fund of knowledge. It will benefit us as well as them and make possible that international collaboration on which the advance of knowledge in every field depends. I cannot believe that the cost of continuing scholarships or reduced fees for postgraduate students from overseas would not be ludicrously small as compared with the advantage of preserving this country as a Commonwealth and world centre for postgraduate teaching and studies.
10.48 p.m.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, in rising to make a brief contribution to this debate, may I make things clear as regards two questions which I am not going to argue? First, I am not going to argue against any cuts in real grants to higher education in general. In the present financial crisis some cuts are, in my judgment, probably inevitable. I often tell friends who grum-

1313
ble in a diffuse way about the uncertainties in this connection that while, for instance, staff/student ratios in the universities of this country remain at their present favourable level they had better confine their complaints to fellow countrymen rather than indulge in them abroad, because if they indulge in them abroad, where in general staff/student ratios are so much less favourable, they may be greeted with mirth.
Secondly, I am not going to argue against some raising of fees in general. Provided always that local support is given to those who cannot afford the cost of higher education, I see no objection to some raising of fee revenue in relation to grants. Having made those two points clear, I want to define my target: the subject of our present debate, which is the effect of current proposals for university finance, especially discrimination between foreign and domestic fees, upon institutions catering at a high level of graduate students in particular.
I shall not dwell on the moral aspects of this policy. Perhaps one ought not to get too agitated about this aspect of the problem. After all, discrimination is practised in Eire and in certain parts of North America. I will only say that I personally find it distasteful to say to students coming from abroad with adequate qualifications, "Oh, you come from Bohemia, I shall therefore have to charge you x per cent. more than a home student ". I may be squeamish in these matters but if I think of the duties of those who under present instructions will have to do that I am reminded a little of Adam Smith's stricture—which I hasten to say does not apply in the least to the noble Baroness—and I am distressed that I find myself probably about to venture on sentiments with which she will disagree. The stricture of Adam Smith's which goes through my head is that the sneaking arts of underling tradesmen are thus erected into political maxims for the conduct of a great empire. But perhaps it is all a matter of taste.
What I want to argue is that the system proposed is going to hit very hard those institutions which have the highest reputation for study at the graduate level—a level which until recently had not been attained by all the university institutions in this island. I speak on this subject
1314
with less than the diffidence with which I usually approach speaking in your Lordships' House, since for more than 20 years I had the honour to be chairman of the graduate school of one such institution, the London School of Economics. I shall argue first that the policies announced are inimical to the atmosphere and reputation of these institutions, and secondly that they may be financially disastrous.
I shall not linger long on the first line of argument. Anyone who has had firsthand acquaintance with a first class graduate school will testify how much it usually owes to the mixture of students from various parts of the world. Anyone who has travelled about the world in quarters of politics, business or learning will know how much the reputation of this country depends upon the dispersed loyalty and respect of the foreign alumni of such institutions. To use the term used by the noble Baroness, this may be non-quantifiable but it is, I humbly suggest, an unquestionable fact. But I must emphasise—and this has already been emphasised very strongly by other speakers—the probable disastrous effect of the proposed policy. Apparently it is thought that the numbers of high-grade foreign students will be maintained. With respect, I would say that that is likely to prove pure nonsense.
The impression seems to be that increases of the order of magnitude contemplated will not deter desirable entrants. Perhaps it is thought that possible increases from Opec countries and elsewhere will more than offset applications from poorer but very high-grade students from other parts—and in "other parts" I include the United States and Canada, not all of whose citizens possess the wealth of the Kennedys. My Lords, it does really stand to reason that a great many highly desirable students who have contemplated coming to this country and who otherwise would have come will now be looking elsewhere for somewhere cheaper, and institutions such as the Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the School of Oriental and African Studies, the Courtauld Institute and so on—institutions which depend for a substantial part of their income on the presence of foreign students—will be in grave difficulties.

1315
And these difficulties in certain cases—and this is very near home so far as I am concerned—will not be diminished by the cuts in subsidies to domestic graduates such as must be involved by cuts in the amounts allocated to scholarships by the Social Science Research Council, not to mention possible cuts in awards by the British Council.
These difficulties are not imaginary. I conjecture that all institutions of university calibre whose finances depend to more than a moderate extent on the recruitment of students abroad will face deficits which, on any reasonable conjecture of present policies of future intake, deserve the description of being truly alarming—and that statement takes account of the trifling provision for an allocation for students of quite exceptional ability. Do we really want, in the interests of prudent economy—and prudent economy is certainly incumbent on us—to throw such a disproportionate burden on just those institutions which contribute most to our present international reputation?
I must not go on, but I must say that at the end of a working life spent in institutions of this sort I would say this in all seriousness: if the present Secretary of State had deliberately set himself to create maximum embarassment to the main centres of excellence in higher education, and even to the destruction of some of them, he could not have done better.
11 p.m.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, in accordance with the precedent set by certain other noble colleagues, I should perhaps declare that I have been for five years the unpaid chairman of the governing body of the School of Oriental and African Studies and that therefore, to that extent, I have some interest in this subject. None the less, I have tried to keep my thoughts very short and as impartial as I can when considering the present situation.
The first reaction that we have had—and I am now speaking from the public relations point of view—from a Press organ has been, "London college to close down ". I think that if any member of the Government feels any grievance about the reaction to what has happened, that
1316
must support the argument of so many noble Lords, with which I fully concur, that there was room for more consultation and more and deeper thought about this matter. However, equally, I attach importance to expressing agreement with my noble friend Lord Annan, because one cannot conduct this matter on the basis that everybody else must save, but not me. That is not permissible. Therefore, from my personal point of view—and I speak under no instructions—clearly there must be some sacrifice somewhere by everybody if we are to be justified in putting up the strongest arguments we can for our own particular occupation.
If your Lordships will forgive me, coming from the stable that I do, I propose to make one or two remarks about the School of Oriental and African Studies, which may show a little more of what actually happens and what causes what happens. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for his kind remarks about SOAS. If the institution of SOAS were to go under as a result of this policy—I am sure that we shall fight not to go under, because we happen to think that we do a good job in an important realm of external policy—I think that it is only right to remind your Lordships of a little of what would be lost.
In this Government-created and promoted college—and I realise that Governments can change their minds—we make an effort, as one noble Lord said (I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, but I may be wrong) to harmonise activity and diligence in the common interest of institutions and individuals from foreign or Commonwealth countries and ourselves. That can only be a plus in the most literal financial or, equal in importance, intellectual circles. It cannot but be a plus to set against the minus. This has been demonstrated in all sorts of extraordinary ways, of which I shall mention just one example.
When the problem of our relations with Asian countries was beginning to extend, a special effort was made to introduce and foster the growth of the knowledge and trade, and so on, with the Japanese through the language techniques employed by SOAS. This was inevitably profitable because, as my noble friend has said, it encouraged our own occupation and our own understanding of the Japanese, and so

1317
it works. During the Second World War it worked simply because we had an extraordinarily good ability to understand what was going on in Japan, which we would never have had had we not made the acquisition of knowledge of Japanese attractive through having SOAS. I am not suggesting that all the advantages are available in wartime and not otherwise. By making study in SOAS attractive, this kind of cross-fertilisation brings results both in ways that are expected and in ways that are unexpected.
So we have what a friend of mine has described as a permanent resource or a permanent asset—some may call it a permanent weapon. If we make this facility less and less attractive—and I agree in the main with those noble Lords who believe that the amount that we shall be taking away will do this—then we are simply throwing away, not an asset directly in cash, but an asset of a deep and unexpected value which one easily overlooks, and at one's peril.
So when we looked at the paper yesterday and saw the headline "London college closing ", that did not wholly, over-melodramatically, express the situation, though my colleagues are tough and talented people. We do not want that to happen and we should hate it if it did, and certainly if it did for a wrong cause. As my noble friend Lord Annan said, at this point it is important for anybody speaking from any of these institutions to be honest about the situation and admit that in the present situation any Government are bound to want to economise and are bound to try to be fair in the economies that they make.
Therefore, it would be wrong to offer a kind of blank or total objection to every kind of economy that was presented. That would not be playing the game fairly. At the same time what has happened—and I am sure it was not the intention of the Secretary of State—has fostered a feeling of hostility towards the educational world; even an amateur must appreciate this. One way in which some of the edge could be taken off this situation—though, again, this is not an original idea; it was also presented by another noble Lord, if not more than one—is if it could only have happened in the way it should have happened. In seeking to achieve an economy, a number of people
1318
should have been consulted—I shall not say that they should have been taken into the Government's confidence because that would hardly be possible—including many of the notable Members of your Lordships' House and others, on the best way to achieve this, if it could be achieved, and on how to select people most fairly. That point has, in fact, been dealt with; they do not seem to have been selected at all. I think it will be found that in the part of the academic world in which I am involved that would certainly have been understood. The missile that has been thrown at the academic world in this way takes away the reasonableness of people who would like to help the Government in this situation. They naturally react in the opposite way when this is thrown at them.
I can say with a certain confidence—if your Lordships will excuse me for just a moment in a little bit of propaganda for our institution—that this institution is one which has by far the greatest international prestige compared with its rivals. There is practically no competition in this country at all. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that the only competition comes from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union very rarely does something that is not greatly to its advantage, so perhaps we might be humble enough to pay serious attention to this curious fact. If we have an organisation like this—and I know that others have similar merits, notably from the speech of my noble friend Lord Garner—do let us have a more reasoned examination of it. This is not a plea for delay for the sake of delay. It would be more sensible, in trying to add up to some extent the relative merits and importance of the various institutions, and also seeking ways—as many other noble Lords have said—to avoid the tremendous bump in the fees payable.
A great deal more could be said. I do not feel qualified to say it, but I did feel that as I felt strongly about this matter it was necessary to say something. I can assure your Lordships that if something can be done, the effect on morale will be great. If nothing is done, there will be a deep disappointment, and adverse effects, even if not to a tremendous degree, will quite undoubtedly follow.
Finally, I should like to express my gratitude to my old boss the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for raising this

1319
matter, which he did with his great authority and his great humanity. We are all extremely grateful to him for having raised it. I end with the hope that the Government, having launched this proposal in this way, will have another look at it and its effects and see whether they cannot improve on what they have said they will do at this particular time.
11.13 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has just said in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for introducing this Question. I should also like to echo what my noble friend Lord Amory said in welcoming back the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, after his serious illness. This debate is of great importance, as many noble Lords have already said, because it concerns our country's relations with opinion-formers in many countries. It also concerns the security and the condition, the health, of our higher education system, especially the universities. These are both matters of profound importance.
It is clear that the policy of differential charges for overseas students is not in itself a matter of dispute between the two main parties in this Chamber. The differential was introduced by Tony Crosland; it was then maintained by the present Prime Minister. It was increased by Fred Mulley, and in fact increased three times by Shirley Williams. Now the proposal is that it be increased again by the present Secretary of State.
During these years of differential fee increases the number of overseas students has undoubtedly increased, and—a point which has not been made so far—it has increased outside the public sector, in many institutions which, because they are private, charge the full economic fee, so there are many thousands of foreign students in this country already paying full economic fees.
There is opposition in principle to the policy of differential fees but, as I understand it, the present issue is whether the level of increase is now so great that the number of foreign students in the public sector will decline and—and I gather that is the point of Lord Stewart's Question—will decline, be it noted, in the public
1320
sector, including the universities, and not in the private sector. That is a question of fact and the indications are that the new level of fees is already discouraging foreign students, especially those in the postgraduate institutions where the maintenance of an international body of students is vital to the high levels of achievement to which we are accustomed, and I shall return to this important point on which several noble Lords have already dwelt.
There is another issue which must be raised at this stage. The manner of the new fee increase has added enormously to the difficulty of planning the efficient use of resources in higher education and in the universities in particular. Admissions for October 1980 are already well under way; we have little idea how much we have to spend and, in the case of overseas students, the uncertainty is almost complete. Several major institutions—the Manchester Institute of Science and Technology and the London School of Economics—undoubtedly face very severe financial difficulty, perhaps even going so far as bankruptcy, if this policy is maintained.
Candidly, I try to be as sympathetic as I can to Ministers and officials and I have been trying to imagine the discussions taking place in committees which must have advised my right honourable friend to take this bizarre course. The only reason I wish to live to be 80 years of age is so that I can go to the Public Record Office at Kew in 2009 and read the minutes of these extraordinary committees.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, may I inform my noble friend that there are other good reasons for wishing to live to be 80, which, with luck, I shall do if I can hold on for another five days?
Lord VAIZEY: If I can follow my noble friend's example in every respect I shall be delighted, my Lords. I am not necessarily opposing the principle of differential fees, although it would be idle to pretend that it has not caused strong feelings of ill will to successive Governments; it has not added to the popularity of one Minister of Education over the last 12 years. Nor am I opposed to reductions in public expenditure. I welcome them in general and often in particular. Realistically, we know, as the

1321
noble Lord, Lord Annan said, that the size of the relevant age group will decline from the mid-1980s onwards and it would be unreasonable not to expect reductions to be made in the provision for higher education.
I must however suggest to my long-suffering noble friend on the Front Bench that what is now happening is causing damage to the Government's reputation and damage to the stability and efficiency of the universities and the rest of the higher education sector. Moreover, it would be my respectful submission that substantial economies are attainable and that they should be pursued rather than this will o' the wisp. First of all, if some indication could be given of actual realistic levels of expenditure over the next five years, realistic plans could be made. The universities have shown themselves to be prudent, well run and highly responsive to public needs; they responded to demobilisation in 1945 with two-year degree courses, they responded to the need for more scientists and engineers and the need for more places following the Robbins Report. However, what they need to follow public policy is firm guidance, but all the University Grants Committee is doing at the moment is uttering feeble and, let it be said, semi-literate bleeps. I disagree here with Lord Annan; I do riot think it is the universities' fault. If there is selfishness within the universities, it is because clear guidance has not been given for several years.
Next, when Mr. Crosland introduced the differential fee system, he also introduced the binary system. The duplication of courses, of staffs, of buildings in higher education was bound to be expensive and inefficient, and so it has indeed proved. There are 17 physics departments in Greater London alone, and 90 in the country as a whole, many of them with vacant places. My noble friend, given the will and given a sensible body to overlook higher education, could save millions of pounds in the exact sciences alone over a period of years by careful planning of these scarce resources.
If we add to this other issues, many of which have been raised by my noble friend Lord Annan frequently in the past in this House and elsewhere—more students living at home, a re-examination of Student Union finances; a whole series of
1322
questions—I would submit to your Lordships that genuine savings could be made, and not the paper savings to which the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, so appropriately referred. But they require co-operation between institutions on both sides of the binary line. This co-operation does not take place at the moment because there is no financial inducement to any institution to undertake it, due to the fact that any money that is saved is grabbed back.
I would submit that overseas students are an easy target, and probably an unworthy one. Moreover, by the extreme uncertainty, and by the method of reduction, the costs of educating British students will actually rise. We shall keep our staffs, and we shall educate fewer students. The effects of the policy are capricious. However much the London School of Economics may be detested because of its socialist past—a fictitious past, as the presence of my noble friend Lord Robbins shows here—the Government can hardly be said to have wished to drive it to bankruptcy in 1982. If a college were to be closed, there would presumably be other candidates.
I support the need to cut expenditure. I have suggested in my speech that expenditure can be saved on a fairly large scale, and I regret that my right honourable friend has been advised to take his present course, rather than to go directly to the profoundly necessary task of planning the higher education system in such a way that its morale is maintained while public money is saved. I deeply regret that the present Secretary of State may very well fall into extremely bad repute generally, and be regarded as a thoroughly bad Minister because of this one, single ill-advised decision.
11.22 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham for raising this issue. I only wish that it had been possible to combine this debate with the debate that we had last night on immigration, because I believe that the views that have been expressed about the value of a mixture of cultures and of individuals from different cultures would have been particularly appropriate in view of some of the speeches we heard during yesterday's debate. It has been clearly proven by the

1323
noble Lords who at present are administering our institutions of higher learning in this country, or who have done so in the past, that the effect of the proposed plans of the Government will be to reduce the number of overseas students in this country. I hope that as my noble friend Lord Stewart is asking this Question, the noble Baroness who is to reply will answer the specific question as to whether her plans for expenditure on the fees of overseas students next year will in fact in her estimation reduce the number of overseas students.
I say this because what so far has been missing from the debate is consideration of the effect on British students of the absence, or reduction, of overseas students. I recall nearly 30 years ago taking a seminar in the University of Edinburgh, where there were a number of African students. One of those African students I particularly remember, because he is now President of Tanzania. His name, of course, is Julius Nyerere. If the increase in fees for overseas students which is now proposed had been in effect at that time, President Nyerere would not have been educated in this country. I would consider that to be, not so much a loss for President Nyerere as a loss for the hundreds of students at Edinburgh University and other universities visited by him during his student days in this country, who remember him today and who have been affected by him.
I would suggest that one of the most important aspects of the Government's policy towards overseas students should be the imagination to recognise the needs of British students—British students who are going to live for the rest of this century and for well into next century in a totally different world from that in which we were brought up; a world which is not a village but a world which has become a hamlet. The knowledge that our students have of overseas cultures (which, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford so movingly pointed out yesterday, can be learned only in the personal contact situation) is what we risk losing if the noble Baroness admits the argument, which has been almost totally universal tonight, that the effect of her Government's policy will be to reduce, and drastically, the number of overseas students coming to this country.
1324
There is one other point I should like to put to the noble Baroness, on a practical basis. I have done this before, and I still do not understand the logic of this Government's policies. It is surely proven that the education of overseas students in this country is of business advantage to the business world of Britain—and we are a trading nation. As one previous speaker (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn) pointed out, some of the largest and widest internationally-trading companies in this country are very concerned about the danger of losing the contacts which they make through the education of overseas students here, who go back to their own countries with a knowledge of the culture of this country and who naturally turn to this country in their position in either politics or the business and economic world. Surely the noble Baroness must recognise that, if this Government believe in their own policy of reviving the trading power of Britain, then this is in fact burying the seed corn which they themselves would rely on to extend our trading opportunities in the future.
However, what I want to concentrate on in the last few minutes of what I have to say tonight is how this can be done. How can we provide our own people—our own young people, above all—with this multi-cultural understanding which is essential for their peaceful life during the next half-century? How, at the same time, can we provide the links on which our business and economic health depend? And how can we move out of this negative attitude of the Government and have sufficient confidence in our own British culture to say—not, chauvinistically, "This is the best culture in the world "—" We have got something to contribute to the growing concept of a world culture, a culture of many components, one of which must be seen to be that of Britain "?
I believe that contained within the noble Lord's Unstarred Question is one of the most important answers to this question; that is, the role of the British Council. The British Council have unashamedly taken British culture in its widest sense: the practice of British institutions, the language of the British people, the practices, experiences and customs which have grown up in our own multi-cultural Britain; and taken them all over the world. Those who travel in many parts of the world know of the work that they have been

1325
doing. But they have been doing more; and more specifically related to what I have been already saying. They are bringing, out of their own funds, overseas students to this country. They are administering the work of supervising, looking after and encouraging overseas students in this country. They are acting as agents of the Overseas Development Administration in the arrangements made for technical co-operation with students in this country. They have the Students' Centre in London and have offices all over the country.
I should like to ask this of the noble Baroness: Does she believe in the work of the British Council? Does she believe in the functions that the British Council have been set up to achieve? Does she agree with the repudiation of the Bell Report, as far as its condemnation or criticism of the British Council was concerned? If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative, then what hope can she give to the British Council, what prospects can she give to the British Council?—because she must know (and I am sure that she will agree with me on this) that an organisation like the British Council must be able to plan ahead. There is no use in talking about one year's cuts as though they were once and for all. The effect is exponential and the effect on the British Council will be exponential.
They have already worked out that if the present cuts (which they understand are to take place) are put into operation, this may well—dependent upon the size of the students' fees—cut in half the number of overseas students they can bring into this country. It may well run down the work of the Students' Centre until it has to be abolished. And it may well bring to an end the work that the British Council have been doing in helping British students to get experience in overseas countries, to place them in overseas institutions and to give them the experience that they will thereby get.
I ask the noble Baroness when she comes to reply to address herself to this issue and to tell this House, and through this House, the British Council, what are the Government plans, visions and objectives as far as the part that the British Council can play in the development of our multi-cultural student population in this country and abroad. Do the
1326
Government believe in the British Council? If they still believe in them, how are they going to sustain them without so fatally damaging them by making cuts which are bound to have an effect not just this year, or next year, but in three, five and seven years hence?
11.35 p.m.
Viscount CRAIGAVON: My Lords, I shall be very brief at this hour, and confine myself to just one point; that is, the long-term effects of the Government actions. I broadly agree with the robust realism of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I have been advocating quotas for many years. I fear the academic world has hardly seen the beginning of the real cuts. At the same time, I feel that the noble Baroness owes rational and coherent explanations of the Government's position to many of the powerful speakers that we have heard.
I know that the Conservative Party have always placed considerable importance on their foreign policy. It is very easy for us in this country, and the media, to fool ourselves about our importance in the world, especially as we all use the lingua franca of English. I accept that our international influence has been declining; but surely the one way and the cheapest way that we can have an international voice in the future is by casting a little educational bread upon the waters at this time while we still have valuable things to teach. What I am afraid is happening is that decisions on this matter are being taken by default.
As a younger Member of your Lordships' House, if I were able to look back at the present time from 25 years' hence, and if I found that our international influence was significantly diminished, it would not be due to positive decisions; it would be from a slow process of neglect and expediency, of which the British people would have claimed to have been hardly conscious.
I would add my appeal to the Government both for the benefit of ourselves in this country and for those we can help abroad through education, to take a much longer-term view of our traditional foreign education links. Some noble Lords may have read about the remarks of Dr. Rhodes Boyson in another place,

1327
when he said that the behaviour of Iran and Nigeria (two of the top three in numbers for sending us students) were not the best examples of the claimed benefits of educating their students, but in terms of spending money on foreign matters, we could have invested in aircraft carriers and a fleet like the Americans. But they would have been of no more use in resolving those delicate situations than is the American Sixth Fleet. It is more hopeful for me in those situations that a mass of Nigerians and Iranians have in the past been educated both here and in America.
It is on that basis, that we have shared part of our culture and ways of thinking with them, that the situation will be resolved; not the fact that we can send in the Fleet. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, can channel the traditional and laudable concern of the Conservative Party about foreign policy away from guns and slightly more towards hearts and minds.
11.38 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am delighted to have the pleasure of speaking in this debate but I am not as qualified as many other noble Lords to do so. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that I was rather surprised at the tone of his speech, because he seemed to prophesy what the noble Baroness is going to say. She is a very capable Minister and I think it is very dangerous to prophesy what somebody is going to say. I was wondering whether, when the noble Lord asked his charming wife to marry him, he prophesied what the answer would be. This seemed the kind of thing that he was saying.
There is a very good English language regional school in Singapore. The noble Lord may be pleased to know that the ASEAN countries are always turning to this college, and it is a college for what teachers learn English and our methods. The Filipinos and Thais particularly appreciate it. I should like to point out—I am afraid the noble Lord is not here—that the polytechnics get their grants from local authorities and not direct from the Government. I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, that he might tackle the Japanese to reinstate
1328
the position. They have plenty of money, and I do not think that learning Japanese did us much good in the last war.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I just interrupt for a moment? Possibly I did not make it quite clear, in my laudable effort to make my speech as short as possible, that a lot of the profit in having the Japanese here as our students and guests is that we learn a great deal about them, and that was very useful during a certain emergency in our history.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, having served overseas and having been in Indonesia, I did not think that the Japanese had learned very much from us at that time. I should like to quote from something Mrs. Shirley Williams said on 19th December 1978: I shall not quote all of it:
" So we face a twin problem:—increasing pressure on our resources, coupled with the indiscriminate nature of the tuition fee subsidy ".
She went on:
" It is well known, certainly to this audience, that I want to see a more rational system. I want to see £100 million tuition fees used positively to help selected groups of overseas students, in place of the present indiscriminate system—if "system" is the right word to apply to the present practice ".
I want to make a suggestion which may not be very popular, but perhaps we could work out some system. I have been through the details, but I shall not give all of them. I will only give the very low and the highest of the incomes per capita of many of the students. For example, in Bangladesh they only have 265 dollars per capita; Egypt has 200 to 499; Algeria has 500 to 536; Greece has 2,000 to 4,999; and Australia has over 5,000. I cannot see any reason why we should not bring in a sliding scale—not a means test. If they came as private pupils, they would pay the fee demanded by the institution concerned. Therefore I do not see that it can be any more of a means test than paying out of your own pocket for private education and having a sliding scale, so that the poorer countries get more help from the Government.
When I was in Malaya I had the opportunity of selecting and recommending students to come to Britain and study social science. I found it very beneficial to them. The pupils were all tied to serve for so many years on their

1329
return the establishment which sponsored them if they received a Government grant. I think it was very beneficial to the students to get outside their own country and see how others lived.
I should like also to stress that I tried to select some of the very poorest people who had average intellect. We trained them for a little while in the office in the country concerned—in Malaysia—and then sent them home, because one was apt to get very highly educated people who could not come down to the level of the people in the villages. These people, having started in the villages with their training, gave very useful service to the State.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned some of the countries which were interested and which had put forward ideas in regard to the future—countries that are—shall we say?—rather dismayed about the future: the Gulf States, Pakistan, the West Indies, Brazil, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, even Korea, Chile and Indonesia. I was at a lunch yesterday with the Deputy High Commissioner for India, and I asked him about this problem. He said that although they realised the difficulties here, they hoped to continue. He said that what they really hoped was that people would go back to their country, because they did need highly educated people back in India again. Education increases understanding, so we must give priority to Commonwealth countries.
I have been a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for 19 years, and it is a very beneficial organisation. When we have our annual conference, we all speak the same language and practically all have the same educational background. Therefore, there are better working committees and there is much better understanding. Education is very powerful in creating understanding. I should like to ask: Do we want to keep the Commonwealth? I ask that because it is language and education which keep the Commonwealth together. That is one of the reasons why I should like to make a plea that we look after the Commonwealth first.
Various Governments have been very generous over the years, because there have been 17 political upsets in different
1330
countries when students have been here. We all remember Biafra, and now we have people from Iran here. What have we done? We have paid for them from funds or from social security until they could manage, so we have been very generous. They have never been sent back, which is a very good mark for this country.
If students go to the United States of America, they will get a fairly good education more cheaply, but it is of a different type. That is what worries me, because when they go back to their own countries they will have different ideas from their parents and grandparents, who were educated in the British system. That is another reason why I prefer them to come here. Sir Roy Marshall, who is the Commonwealth Educational Liaison Unit chairman, called a meeting and said that he was going to consult the High Commissioners about the future of their students. It will be very interesting when we get the report, to read what they have to say.
I should like to mention Reading University, because I have a lot to do with it. The full economic cost is £2,000 for arts, £3,000 for sciences and £5,000 for medicine for all new students—and I emphasise "new students ". The cut by the Government for this university is 15·6 per cent., which is making the assumption that the shortfall will be made up by the university charging the full cost of fees. Unfortunately, this will not work, because the number of students never remains constant. Education in this country is among the most expensive in the world. I have been looking at the accounts for various universities in America. Stanford is approximately £2,600, Carnegie-Mellon is £2,000, Berkeley is £1,500 and the State University of California is £950.
We have quite a number of people who are here on scholarships and I should like to refer to this aspect because it is very important and we must not forget what we have done in this direction. Of sponsored students we have 1,334 United Nations Fellowships, 24 Council of Europe, 33 OECD, 7,497 British Study Fellowships, 572 overseas representatives, 61 British Council Fellowships and Euro-scholars, 89 Confederation of British Industry, 65 Marshall scholars, 193 Rhodes

1331
scholars and 9,227 British Council. So that we have a good number who will be sponsored in the future.
Reading University is one that I particularly like to mention, because it has advanced engineering, agriculture and rural development. That is why it is very important for students. Of the total student population, 13 per cent. is from overseas and they are largely British Council sponsored. I should like one Minister to be in charge of the development of policy; it leads to difficulties when several Ministers are involved. I should like the Minister to consider the development of a positive policy on overseas students, in collaboration with academic, professional and voluntary representatives of teaching in the institutions and local education authorities. I should also like my noble friend to tell me whether those overseas students who come here with their wives, and whose wives work to help keep themselves while their husbands are studying, will still be allowed to bring their wives.
Perhaps I should point out that the only private university, in Buckingham, charges £2,500 for a degree course. May I also point out that while there has been an increase in the number of students, there has also been a considerable increase in the number of countries sending those students, which makes a great deal of difference. We should therefore be proud of the expertise of those, many of whom we have heard in today's debate, who have spent so much of their time upon trying to improve the lives of young people by giving them the benefit of their knowledge.
I am president of the International Friendship League which runs hostels for students. Those hostels are not subsidised; they are self-supporting. Therefore I mix quite a lot with students. I should be very grateful, therefore, if my noble friend could answer those two points. I think that we have to give her all the support we can in the difficult days which lie ahead of her. I hope we shall see the benefits of the new policy and that next year we shall have another debate, when we will be able to see how things are working out.
11.52 p.m.
Lord BOYLE of HANDSWORTH: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for their kind personal references to me. The hour is very late, but I feel it would be wrong for this debate to end without one contribution from a representative of the large civic universities of the North of England.
I think the essential point was made at the very start of this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, when he said, with the typical precision which I got to know so well in the House of Commons over many years, that tonight we are discussing a quite different order of proposal from any we have discussed in earlier debates on the subject. The House should remember that absolutely crucial point.
1 have never taken a dogmatic view over differential fees—nor, indeed, have the senate or council of my own university. At recent senate meetings, professors of applied science who are in close touch with industry have gone out of their way to remind their colleagues that it is not only the universities which at present face acute difficulties and that we should always remember the particular problems of manufacturing industry, which is now having to face the consequences of a minimum lending rate of 17 per cent. But when one has said all that, there would equally be unanimous agreement within my university that, in the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, the present proposals of Her Majesty's Government are much too harsh.
When I say "unanimous agreement" I do not mean only unanimous agreement among academics and unanimous agreement among students. One ought to remember that these same views would be very widely endorsed by university councils and university courts representing lay people—indeed, with majorities of lay people. My own university council at Leeds at its first meeting this term unanimously endorsed the statement of Sir Alec Merrison to which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, referred in his speech earlier in the debate. When I made my annual court statement on 22nd November and answered questions for 40 minutes I was quite struck by the unanimity of feeling in court: that while

1333
everyone recognises the Government's difficulties and the nation's difficulties, none the less these particular proposals go a great deal too far.
Now, my Lords, why is this view so widely felt? The reasons have been given tonight, and I will repeat them very briefly in their simplest terms. First, there is the wide recognition that without the contribution of overseas students British universities would be quite different institutions, of much less value. The University of Leeds does not have a particularly high percentage of overseas students. Incidentally, our peak was reached as a percentage I think in 1975 or 1976. None the less this is as deeply felt at Leeds as anywhere else, and something else is deeply felt: we are not a regional university, we are something more indeed than just a national university. We are a part of what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, at one point in the report referred to, I think, as the international confraternity of universities. By that I do not mean only, or perhaps even mainly, arcane contributions to learning. I mean the part that universities like Leeds and Manchester and Liverpool and Birmingham play in validating international standards of professional performance that are held right across continental boundaries, and indeed right across ideological boundaries.
Secondly, I would make the point that fully one-quarter of overseas students are here to do research, and they play a vital part in the intellectual and scientific life of the nation and therefore in helping to keep academic disciplines alive. Thirdly—and this point was made most effectively just now by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon in his speech—all over the world there are men and women, often in positions of influence, who have a real understanding of the United Kingdom because they spent some of their formative years of their lives being educated in this country.
It is very easy for many of us here to state personal examples. I remember the one time that I met Tom Mboya on a visit to Kenya. There was absolutely no doubt that his time at Ruskin College was a formative influence on the rest of his life, and I well remember the conversation that we had. Over and above all these arguments of principle there is the final point about money. The Government's
1334
policy means making a double cut in university resources on an irrational basis, on a basis that makes rational planning for the future impossible.
I have only one other point to make, very briefly. It is natural tonight that we think of the Third World and also, as we certainly should, of the EEC, but I hope we shall never forget the British university links within the English-speaking world. It is an important fact about the University of Oxford that some 50 per cent. of all overseas students come from the United States—with something like 33 per cent.—or from Canada or from Australia. And as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, so rightly reminded us, believe it or not, by no means all American students are wealthy. There is the most extraordinary misunderstanding about this. Many of the most valuable and worth while students from the United States coming to this country are not in fact wealthy students.
I would venture to make this one point to my noble friend Lord Annan. He rightly referred to the quality of so many engineering students from Malaysia or from Hong Kong. He said that he believed they would continue to be supported by their families. I must say it is my own experience that quite a number of the ablest students, for example from Hong Kong, do get family support but it is, frankly, precarious support. At any time—and I think of a number of particular cases—such students may have to earn money themselves and become more self-supporting students in this country in order to carry them through their courses. I am afraid that it will be some of the ablest students that we might otherwise have attracted to this country who will now be very much affected by the differential in fees between the United Kingdom and other parts of the English-speaking world; and I think that will be very sad indeed. None of us should be in any doubt about the effect of the size of this differential, and of course it will not affect only those who are just about to come to university. The news of the change in policy is getting around to those who are at an earlier stage of their education in those countries.
I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, cannot have been looking forward to this debate. She must feel a little

1335
like the wife of Joseph Chamberlain on the eve of his 70th birthday after the cavalcade round the Birmingham park, when she said she felt beaten all over with little sticks. I certainly would not wish the noble Baroness or her right honourable friend the Secretary of State, or even the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the fate that overcame Joseph Chamberlain the following Wednesday. Nevertheless, I would say to her that I do believe the Government's policy may have far more severe effects both on numbers and on university finances than Ministers have any idea of.
I have an uneasy feeling Ministers have by now made up their minds quite definitely about policy for 1980–81. I would echo Lord Annan and beg the Government to stand prepared to review this policy for 1981–82 and for the following years. I do believe this is one of those issues where, if the Government were to show themselves more flexible, ready to review policy in the light of experience, that would stand only to the credit of the Government in the years to come.
12.1 a.m.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Stewart for introducing this debate. It seems very suitable that someone who has been both Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Education should have introduced this subject. The dramatis personae tonight are very much the same as we had on 5th July, though it is good this time to have some new actors and new voices. I am afraid the traffic of our stage is going to last considerably over two hours. The situation now is very different from that in July when the noble Lord, Lord Alport, asked what the Government's policy was with regard to the admission of overseas students to British universities. There was then considerable anxiety expressed at the increase of 3½ per cent. in fees for 1979–80. That now seems chickenfeed. What we are facing are increases for 1980–81 of 113 to 219 per cent. in universities, depending on whether the course is an arts or science one, and even higher increases of 155 to 251 per cent. for those in advanced education in the maintained sector. I should like to hear from the Minister the reason for the new differential
1336
between the universities and the maintained sector fees. I should have thought that many courses in polytechnics and colleges of higher education were particularly relevant for overseas students—textile courses, for instance. We have, unfortunately, no one in this House to speak for the State sector, but we should not ignore that sector in this debate.
Increases announced last month have provoked protest from academics, administrators and students which in unanimity of tone is unprecedented, and this is why it is vital to have the matter debated now, in the hope that the Government might, as with the BBC External Services, and for very similar reasons, have a change of heart. The last Government was not popular for making a differential and increasing fees for overseas students, but they were at least gradually reducing that differential. The present Government policy—and one wonders whether it has really been thought out; I do not believe it has—is quite different both in the scale of increases proposed and in the sense that these increases are being used as a direct instrument to impose public expenditure cuts on the universities, and it is a very blunt instrument.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that the need for public expenditure cuts had not been mentioned, but I think that is unfair. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn said that there may well have to be cuts but they should be planned cuts, and Lord Vaizey made exactly the same point. I think that probably we all realise that there should be some cuts, but this hatchet job is not the way to do it. I think that one can compare this blunt instrument attack with the plan in the new Education Bill, to cap the pool—and again that is a very poor instrument.
For the universities, planning, with all the uncertainty about how many overseas students will be taking up places by 1983–84 when all the overseas students will be paying the full fee, combined with very many other uncertainties, would be incredibly difficult. What the Government are proposing to do is to reduce the grants to universities by 13 per cent., assuming that the shortfall will be made up by overseas students paying full fees. But that 13 per cent. represents £107 million; and can it really be certain that

1337
sufficient overseas students will be willing to pay more than double the present fees? Indeed, £107 million is a very large sum to be uncertain about and, as noble Lords have pointed out, London has a far higher percentage of foreign students, and is therefore all the more vulnerable.
The Government have previously held that increased fees did not deter students from applying. But increases of this magnitude are certain to deter them. In fact, in the UCCA's recent Press release, the number of application forms received by 15th November from overseas students, compared with those of exactly one year ago, were down by 11 per cent. Just under half the expected total number have so far applied. Therefore, trends must be looked on as provisional. But in recent years overseas candidates have tended to apply more promptly than their United Kingdom counterparts, and if the tendency continues this year, that figure of 11 per cent. is likely to be an underestimate. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton referred to the numbers which Dr. Rhodes Boyson gave in a Written Answer in another place on 22nd November. That certainly seems to show that fees have had an effect.
I had planned to say a certain amount about the costing, but that really has been dealt with by other speakers. Therefore, shall just confine myself to saying that I do not think that the method of costing—full cost and average cost—is a fair one and that marginal costs are a better way of going about this.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals' Joint Working Party on Tuition Fees estimated that the short-term marginal cost was about half the average unit cost; and the long-term marginal cost about two-thirds. The Council of the Association of Principals of Colleges—that is, the equivalent in the maintained sector of the CVCP—in a paper for their Council, agreed that those estimates may be true of universities; but they considered that in their sector, if all full-time overseas students were taken into account, both the short-term and the long-term marginal costs would be substantially lower than these university-based estimates. They have written to the Secretary of State stating their thesis and they suggest that the facts could be discovered by the DES
1338
conducting a sample survey over the country in order to obtain actual marginal costs—short-term and long-term. Surely that would be a sensible and fair thing to do, and need not take a vast amount of time, before deciding finally on the astronomical rise that Ministers are suggesting.
The noble Lord, Lord Bullock, has also suggested an inquiry, as have several speakers this evening. I understand that no university in the world charges fees which are "average costs". Harvard Business School, one of the highest chargers, charges 60 per cent. Would the Government even now reconsider, and think of fixing fees on a basis that has been researched, and not put us totally out of line with the United States of America, Canada and other countries which otherwise may draw off students from this country with all the attendant benefits they bring? I am referring to benefits of trade, business, goodwill, and so on, which have been acknowledged by all parties in this House so I shall not take up the time of the House by enlarging on that theme now.
Another aspect that shocks is the arbitrary nature of the exercise. There has been no discrimination. A number of our academic institutions have been traditionally geared to educating large numbers of overseas students, particularly in London. Noble Lords have spoken powerfully of that, so there is no need for me to report what has been said. In Manchester UMIST will have to make up 35 per cent. of its income if it loses its overseas students. Surely some consideration should have been given to the very diverse nature of the institutions involved and their long traditions. One would have expected a Conservative Government to take heed and respect traditions such as these. I am very sorry that the health of my noble friend Lord Bowden prevents him being here tonight, for I am certain that we should have had him standing up and saying that wherever he went all over the globe he found engineers who had been trained at UMIST.
I should like now to turn to a different aspect of the subject—the distinction between postgraduates and undergraduates. My noble friend Lord Listowel and the noble Lords, Lord Robbins, Lord Vaizey, and others have spoken on this. The Government appear

1339
to have recognised that postgraduates might be a help to us; that the research they do and the teaching they undertake in the universities is a very valuable contribution. But to offer a mere £1 million to help support 400 to 500 students—about 2½ per cent. of postgraduates in universities last year, if my arithmetic is correct—is derisory. The selection of those to be benefited will, they say, be made by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors—a ludicrous idea. Obviously, the only way in which to distribute the meagre sum is to spread it around the universities, and it will be a very thin spread indeed.
If the Government are determined on change and cutbacks, surely it would be right to look on the situation of postgraduates and undergraduates as two quite different problems deserving different solutions. At postgraduate level overseas students should pay no more than home students. It is to postgraduate students that most aid money has gone in the past. It is in the post-degree courses and in research that we can make the greatest contribution to the international increase of knowledge, and in return receive help ourselves. Some universities would be very short of teaching staff if they did not make use of postgraduate research students.
Undergraduates from overseas can, I think, be looked at differently. A large percentage of them have in the past come of their own volition, unsupported by this or their own countries. Some, of course, have come as the result of the aid programme, and that should certainly continue as they will have been selected with care. But in many developing countries universities have been set up, often with our help, and it can be argued that first-degree courses should be supported there. If we make it too easy for their best pupils to come to England, we may draw off their cream and, therefore, lower their general standard. If certain courses are not available in those countries, or there are no suitable universities, that is a different matter.
But if the Government are determined to reduce the number of overseas students they should be far more discriminating. I suggest that it is positively harmful to international training and exchange of
1340
knowledge to treat postgraduates from overseas any differently from our own home-grown products. What about those of our own postgraduates who wish to study in foreign universities? We want to keep a two-way traffic going. Will the Minister be willing to raise again with her ministerial colleagues the special position of the postgraduate?
Next, I want to speak of the aid programmes organised by the ODA and the British Council. In her speech on 5th July this year (at columns 630–631 of the Official Report) the Minister said this—and I shall remind both her and the House:
" Many overseas students, for whom the United Kingdom Government take responsibility, come as part of the aid programme. I should like to confirm that their tuition fees will, as in the past, always be paid in full. It might be helpful if, at this point, I were to say a little more about them.
Our aim is to help developing countries to build up their own manpower resources, wherever possible through their own institutions. Where training in the United Kingdom is appropriate, we provide it mainly through our technical cooperation arrangements with individual countries, under which some 9,000 students are brought here every year on courses relevant to their country's development priorities. The selection of students and trainees is agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the overseas governments. A further 6,000 students are supported under other aid-funded schemes, including British Council scholarships, the British contribution to the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, Inter-University Council arrangements and support for refugee students from certain countries … Under the Fee Support Scheme, introduced for the academic year 1977–78, up to 600 new awards have been available annually for selected privately supported post-graduate students from developing countries, on courses of developmental value, who are recommended by their colleges and who have suffered hardship as a result of fee increases of recent years.
Training for development is an essential function of the aid programme and in general we expect to continue to provide support for overseas students, subject to periodic review in relation to changing priorities and to the money available. Therefore, many of the poor students come in this way and will continue to have their fees paid in full ".
That speech gives a total of 16,100 students, besides others where precise numbers are not given.
I should like to know whether the noble Baroness stands by what she said in July both as to numbers and the Government's willingness to pay their fees in full. If fees are paid in full, will the number of students remain the same?

1341
I hear that Somalia, for instance, wishes to send veterinary science students and that the allocation of money for that country will not be increased. As those courses are very expensive, fewer students from that country will be able to come.
The British Council say that unless more money is received the number of new grants available from council funds will drop by half. The number of technical co-operation trainees arriving this year, expected to be 4,600, are down to about 4,000 because the Government gave instructions to suspend action pending decisions. These students are precisely those whose presence in the country will be most valuable, for they are chosen in consultation with the countries themselves, and are chosen as people likely to assume positions of responsibility in their own countries on their return. Their training is related to other overseas development assistance. So these are vital people in building up future relationships. What are the facts about the numbers and funding money for 1980–81?
I understand that the British Council has 543 students here this year funded by the council, and there are nearly 1,400 under the Commonwealth Fellowship Scheme. Then there is the Rhodesian training programme. Last year I believe there were about 1,300 Rhodesian African students being trained in the United Kingdom, and others elsewhere. The programme has been directed towards assisting the creation of a cadre of trained manpower to meet the needs of an independent Zimbabwe. Are all these programmes to continue, and at what level? The cuts in British Council funding would lead one to expect not, or at least that there will be a big reduction. I hope for a very full reply from the Minister on all grants and awards and numbers—whether paid for by the DES, the FCO (now embracing the ODM), or the British Council. And I hope we shall not be told that it is up to the FCO to say what they do—the question under debate was directed to Her Majesty's Government.
Not only is the British Council likely to be able to support actively far fewer students from overseas—maybe half—but the general information and welfare services it provides for young people when they arrive will have to be reduced
1342
too. The help given to foreign countries in advising on the choice of suitable candidates for education here will have to be abandoned unless those countries are prepared to pay for the service. The British Council is being emasculated. Are the Government planning a slow death for it? Are they following the advice of the Think Tank in its report on overseas representation? I understand that this House rejected that advice in a debate in November 1977, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said.
Changing my tack, like my noble friend Lord Stewart I want to know what the Government's intentions are about fees for students from EEC countries. I put down a Question for Written Answer on this subject and had a reply on 13th November which, with respect, told me nothing I did not know before. In it the noble Baroness said that the Government were considering whether arrangements for overseas students might be modified to take account of the position of students from other member countries of the EEC. Now, four weeks later, have the Government made up their mind and, if so, what have they decided? It seems hard that Commonwealth students should be treated worse than Europeans. Is that still the intention?
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, made a powerful plea for Commonwealth students. One other class of students I have not mentioned already is refugees. We have behaved quite generously to Chileans, Ugandans, and others in the past. Is that to be continued? I read the other day that the noble Baroness had made some statement about the possibility of mandatory grants for the refugees from Vietnam; perhaps she could say something on that.
In the debate in July I acknowledged the difficulties and complexities of this whole subject, the immensity of the problems, administrative as well as moral, and I said:
" Any sudden change can have very dramatic effects. We "—
the last Government—
" had not succeeded in coming up with a set of proposals that satisfied us by the time Parliament was dissolved in April. It is over to the new Government now ".—[Official Report, 5/7/79. col. 624.]
Well, the new Government have taken action, precipitate action, I consider,

1343
with too little thought for reaction overseas or for reaction at home, unless they thought a reduction in overseas students would please certain people in the community, in which case I would call it an unpleasantly discriminatory policy.
I would ask the Government in all seriousness to pay attention to the great weight of protest, unanimous protest really, manifest in the House and in the country against what I must say are very foolish and shortsighted proposals. I ask them to consider the possibility of treating postgraduates differently from undergraduates and, if they must make increases in fees, to make them with greater sensitivity and caution, so that some of our great academic institutions will not think they are in danger of bankruptcy or closure in the next few years. The proposals they have made can only do harm to our own higher education system, to the educational standards we hear so much about from the Tory Party, and to our reputation and trade in many foreign and Commonwealth countries which have hitherto been our good friends and good trading partners.
12.22 a.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, no one could listen to this debate tonight without recognising the real worry about the implications both at home and abroad of the Government's decision to increase fees for overseas students to full cost from September 1980. I am grateful for the clear and frank views that have been expressed on this subject and I recognise the strength of feeling it has aroused. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that at any rate I am not in the least complacent about the subject, or particularly cheerful. It would be, after all, so much nicer to be in Government and have a lot of money to distribute to a lot of people, to be able to say to everybody precisely what they would like to hear, than to have to defend the difficult, complicated and hard decisions that we have had to take.
For my part, I should like to place on record that the Government are aware of the contribution that overseas students
1344
have made and continue to make to the intellectual and social life of our educational institutions. Nor have we left out of account the deserved reputation of our educational institutions as internationally renowned centres of learning. Quite apart from accepting students from other countries, our universities are in frequent contact with universities all over the world through visits by university staff and by exchanges of staff. There are also many links at the highest academic level and such valuable contacts will all continue.
If, however, we go back to 1970–71, when there were only 18,000 overseas students at our universities—about half the present total—I do not recall that anyone ever suggested that our universities were accepting too few students, that they could not be regarded as institutions of international reputation and repute or indeed institutions that were not influential in the world, and I was very interested in the rhetorical question which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, asked: what is the right number of overseas students to fulfil all these obligations with which I agree and the whole House agrees? Is it what it was in 1970, is it what it is today or is it the figure which the Government of the noble Baroness, Lady David, suggested and which would mean a drop of 21 per cent. in the current numbers of overseas students in our universities?
Well, who knows the answer to that question? But it is one to which I think we need to address our minds, because in asking it we all recognise that returned students often occupy positions of influence in their own countries and can be helpful in commercial and political relations with this country. There are many benefits which I recognise accrue to Britain, but I am sorry to have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who I know will regret it, that it is difficult to quantify what these benefits are, and we have yet to see figures which will stand up to rigorous examination on how one quantifies precisely the benefits that the overseas students bring. The provision of higher education in this country is of course a valuable part in a number of cultural agreements with other countries.
At the start of my reply I should like to thank noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble

1345
Lords, Lord Robbins, Lord Gore-Booth, and Lord Vaizey, for their references to the difficulties of the economic situation which the Government face. We came to office last May committed to reducing the level of public spending, and none of the decisions that we have taken, in the educational world or indeed in other departments, has been taken lightly, and the one to introduce full cost fees for overseas students certainly was not so taken.
The fact is that we are in a world which is very different from that to which we have been used for a long time. I understand that each year the grant to the universities has increased, with the exception of the year 1977–78, when it dropped by 1 per cent. in real terms as against 1976–77. When we are in a situation of no growth in the economy we must look at the future costs of universities, of education. Everyone who has spoken about the economies has said, "Ah! but this is the one important thing that must be saved." If I were to make this kind of speech to an audience of teachers, or to a school, or to some other part of the educational system they, too, would argue that theirs was the one and most important part. The fact is that when one starts to make economies they are always painful and difficult, and no one particularly wants to have to make them.
We decided that we could not afford to go on subsidising overseas students in this country at a cost of some £100 million a year. The previous Administration sought to control the subsidy by means of a quota and by charging differential fees for overseas students, but in 1978–79 that policy did not in fact prove to be effective. Resources were allocated in that year through university grant and Rate Support Grant sufficient to provide for 72,000 overseas students. In the event, 87,000 students came—an excess of 15,000, who were accepted by institutions and paid for out of public funds intended for home students. We therefore believed that a different and more effective policy was necessary because, as some noble Lords have indicated, we started with a rather confused background, and we have in fact opted for full cost fees.
I have been told by many noble Lords that we have used a blunt instrument, but
1346
in fact the full fees will apply only to those coming to the universities in the next academic year, and those students who are currently on courses will not pay the full fees. Of course it would have been far more pleasant to have stood here and been able to say that we could afford to continue to pay for all the subsidies on the overseas students, but the country's economic position does not allow us to do so. Public expenditure has had to be reduced, and I think it only fair that, as all sectors of public spending are affected, overseas students should not be exempt.
Perhaps I may now try to answer some of the specific questions that I have been asked. One point which has been made, and which I recognise, is that, whereas the percentage of overseas students over all universities in England and Wales is about 12 or 13 per cent. and in Scotland about 8 per cent., there are particular institutions and universities where the percentage of overseas students is very considerably higher. This was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I think, and by others; and I have been asked whether there will be a review of the effects of full charging. I should like to say that my right honourable and learned friend will keep a close watch on developments. The policy on full cost fees will be looked at when the position on enrolments is clear for the university and for the public sectors, but we do not believe we shall have a clear picture until we are well into the 1980–81 academic year.
I have been asked yet again about unit costs and marginal costs, and why we cannot in fact use marginal costs and not unit costs. I am advised that in fact the UGC grant is based on unit costs for students, and that in the academic year 1978–79 there were in fact 36,500 overseas students, whereas the grant, based on unit costs, covered only 31,000 students. It is thought that in the academic year 1979–80 there are 35,000 students—the figures are still provisional at this time of the year—whereas the grant was originally settled for about 30,000 students. It is in fact based on the unit costs, and the fact that there are more overseas students than have been allowed for indicates that the universities have been efficient and have clearly lowered their unit costs in order to be

1347
able to take in these extra numbers. But this is the way the funding is done, and it would be difficult, I think, to change over to any other form of costs, particularly in the institutions where they are clearly not just a marginal cost to the university.
It has also been said that our full cost fees in 1980–81 will be the highest in the world. This is not in fact strictly true. Our fees will be high because our costs are also high; not least as the result of our favourable staff/student ratios. For example, in British universities the ratio is 1 to 9·2 students compared with 1 to 20 in France and 1 to 23 in Italy. Our costs are high because our standards are high and because of the individual attention given to students—unlike some countries, where a place at an academic institution often means little more than access to lectures. Our fees will still be broadly comparable with those of the leading private universities in America, where the fee can be $5,600. But the fact is that a degree course in the United Kingdom is normally only three years, while in America, of course, it is four years. That is much more common. Therefore, the total average cost at a British university is lower. A British university is still a very good buy, and why everybody should take this appallingly depressed view about something which has attracted so many people and which, on close examination, stands up as being something of great value, I really do not know. After all, if one looks at European universities, in France it takes you between five and seven years, and in Germany between four and six years, to get a degree; and when one comes down to a first degree in three years in this country, it is a very remarkable achievement.
Indeed, we believe that our overall policy is more discriminating than some of its critics are prepared to acknowledge. As my right honourable and learned friend announced in another place on 27th November, there will be a new scheme of assistance to postgraduate students. My noble friend Lord Amory asked whether we would not try to mitigate some of the hardships; and, indeed, the scheme recognises the difference, which the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether we acknowledged, between undergraduates and postgraduates. In the first year of
1348
this scheme—that is to say, 1980–81—some 400 to 500 research students of high academic merit will receive awards equivalent in value to the difference between the fee for a home research student and the fee which would normally be charged to the overseas research student. On average, the award will be about £2,000 per student. Secondly, in view of our membership of the EEC, we are considering how students from other Member-countries may be given favourable treatment. I am sorry that I cannot add anything to this answer. I recognise that it does not advance the answer I gave to the noble Baroness about a month ago. But when I can tell her that I have the information, I will do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, asked me about refugees, as did the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I should like to say that the general responsibility for refugee students as a special category does not fall to the aid programme; but the ODA has given assistance in recent years to such students from certain developing countries. Some were already studying in the United Kingdom when they became refugees because of the political situation in their home country. Others were following, or about to begin, courses of further education in their own countries and came to the United Kingdom as refugees and continued their studies. These schemes covering refugees from Chile, Uganda and Ethiopia are administered by the World University Service with grants from ODA. The Uganda scheme will be phased out and replaced by a normal technical co-operation training programme when conditions permit. The noble Baroness, Lady David, also asked about possible Vietnamese students. I will write to her on that point. It is not yet clear how this will work.
The Government have reaffirmed their commitment to the principles and obligations of overseas aid. We continue to give substantial support to the execution of the developing countries' plans for social and economic advancement. For many years we have co-operated in the transfer of skills to the Third World. Over the years there have been changes of emphasis and new needs have emerged. The developing countries, with our help, have nurtured their own schools, universities and training colleges and have

1349
evolved their own cadres of administrators and professionally qualified people.
Our task now is to help the overseas governments and institutions to fill gaps and improve standards: by supplying those specialist skills which are in short supply; by sending them trainers of trainers; and by providing, in Britain, those kinds of academic or technical and vocational training and research facilities which in many of the developing countries are not yet readily available. Thus, our courses in many branches of technology, management of natural resources and public administration, to name but a few areas of training, are highly regarded by the governments and other institutions in some 120 countries. The range is wide and, although relevance to the social and economic needs of individual countries must be the major criterion, it is applied with considerable flexibility. Much of the training we support is on standard courses at universities, polytechnics and training colleges; but some 60 courses have been specially designed for the needs of the Third World.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, asked me about the British Council. I think at this late hour I will not rehearse all the arguments because I believe that there will be a debate in the House on this very subject next week. I should like to say that the Government recognise that the British Council has an important role both in the administration of the work with overseas students, including the placing of students and helping them with their accommodation and paying their allowances. One of the factors that I think one must consider both in the case of the British Council and, indeed, over the aid programmes is that if we could only get our economy right, if only we could put our own house in order, we should not have to go around apologising all over the world for the state of the country. I think there is something to be said, even if we have to cut back on desirable projects now, for getting our economy right rather than having to go round borrowing money, often to subsidise what appear to be, and are, in many instances, very valuable and nice projects; but at the same time not having the strong economy that we should like to see. We must put our own house in order first.
1350
In 1978–79 some 15,000 overseas students were supported in the United Kingdom under FCO, ODA and the British Council programmes. These are hardly the richest students and, although the students who qualify for support under these schemes form a relatively small proportion of the total numbers in Britain, we believe that they should continue to be the focus of our efforts on behalf of students from developing countries. Provision for aid-financed training programmes for 1980–81 has yet to be finalised, in the light of the Government's review of expenditures and having regard to the levels of aid expected to be available for each country. The costs of travel, fees and maintenance will have increased by 1980–81, and we cannot yet say what targets we will be able to set. But we expect to continue to finance a very substantial number of these key people, and we will meet their full fees and costs. Most of these people, as I say, are nominated by their Governments for courses related to the country's manpower needs.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, also asked me about the training programme for Rhodesia. Currently, there are 2,300 Rhodesian Africans who are supported at United Kingdom institutions at an estimated cost of £7 million. New awards have totalled 1,350 which is four times larger than last year's intakes, and makes the Rhodesian programme by far our largest training programme for an African country. In addition to the programme in the United Kingdom, we are supporting some 500 Rhodesian Africans at the University of Rhodesia, some 400 at educational institutions in other Commonwealth developing countries and 60 students at the YMCA Secretariat College in Salisbury, Rhodesia. These programmes will cost £1,600,000 in 1979–80.
The future of these programmes depends on the outcome of the Constitutional Conference. If there is an internationally recognised legal Government in Rhodesia with whom we can discuss their aid priorities for 1980, then we shall do so. Provisional figures of £8,110,000 for 1980–81 in respect of the programme at United Kingdom institutions for continuing awards only and £598,000 for the programme at the University of Rhodesia are being considered by the Treasury.

1351
We will also continue of course to support the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan and British Council scholarship schemes which maintain a valuable flow to the United Kingdom of overseas people, mostly at postgraduate level, of high calibre and promise.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question? I apologise but it has been a fascinating but sad debate. Regarding Commonwealth scholarships, have the Department of Education had any discussions with the Ministry of Defence? Is the noble Baroness aware that scholarships sometimes are given to young men from the Commonwealth who join our Army, Navy or Air Force to become engineers, dental surgeons or even surgeons in medicine? Are they interfering with scholarships for those people or are they leaving that to the common sense of the Ministry of Defence who want to fill up the echelons of medicine, the dental service or engineering?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am sorry, I do not think I can give an answer to that question at this time of night. May I write to the noble Lord?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Yes. I only wanted to get it on the record. Thank you.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, these schemes, the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship schemes, cover both the old and the new Commonwealth developed and developing countries. For a non-Commonwealth advanced country, the USA, there is the Marshall Scholarship Scheme. Under this Scheme 30 American graduates are brought to this country annually for a minimum of two years to read for first or higher degrees at British universities. The 1980–81 draft estimates of the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission provide for the support of 72 Marshall scholars in the academic year 1980–81 at a cost of £295,000 on tuition fees and maintenance out of a total expenditure of £385,000.
A number of noble Lords have asked me about our future plans and our arrangements. I have been particularly grateful for a number of constructive ideas that
1352
have been put forward. I have made a note and shall study carefully tomorrow the record of what was said by my noble friend Lord Vaizey, and I shall certainly draw that to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend.
In conclusion, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garner, and of course to the noble Lord Annan, for the constructive and helpful points that he made about how we might consider the whole question of university finance, and of course the problems that arise with the recognised fall in the numbers of home students following upon the drop in the birth rate. The Government see the rationalisation of course provision between universities as a possible way of reducing expenditure. It is recognised, however, that this would not be a quick or simple solution.
This and other schemes for making economies, whether selective or general, are, we believe, primarily matters for the universities and the University Grants Committee, but the professional advisers in the Department of Education and Science would always be ready to assist. I very much hope that these suggestions, which I believe are very valuable and which we will take note of, are matters that will be followed up—because we do recognise that, coming into a situation where we have had to make very difficult decisions within a relatively short period of time, is not the easiest way to go forward for a lot of people who have to plan for the long term. We should therefore very much like to see a number of these proposals followed up in the spirit in which they have been offered.
May I say in conclusion that the Government's policy of reducing public expenditure has meant that we have had to consider all aspects of educational expenditure, including that on overseas students. However, we do believe that, through the continuing aid programme, the new bursary scheme for post-graduate research students, and possibly students from other EEC countries, our policy will be as discriminating as possible. It will seek to strike the right sort of balance between meeting our international obligations, maintaining the international character and reputation of our institutions, particularly the qualities of excellence in so many of them, and at the same time spending only what we can, as a country, afford and no more.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
The Queen's consent signified; reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Second Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.
SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
  EEC MEMBERS: BASIS OF CONTRIBUTIONS
  EEC MEMBERS: BASIS OF CONTRIBUTIONS
  CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT 1974: PART II
  CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT 1974: PART II
  SPERM OIL IMPORT BAN
  SPERM OIL IMPORT BAN
  HOME INSULATION GRANT APPLICATION
  HOME INSULATION GRANT APPLICATION
  NATIONAL PARKS ADMINISTRATION: REVIEW
  NATIONAL PARKS ADMINISTRATION: REVIEW
  EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS): 22nd NOVEMBER MEETING
  EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS): 22nd NOVEMBER MEETING
  OXFORDSH IRE COUNTY COUNCIL: NURSERY SCHOOL CLOSURES
  OXFORDSH IRE COUNTY COUNCIL: NURSERY SCHOOL CLOSURES
  ETHIOPIA AND ARMS SALES POLICY
  ETHIOPIA AND ARMS SALES POLICY