Sitting of 1 February 1979

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (Lords) (By Order)
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL (Lords) (By Order)
EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday at Seven o'clock.

  INVERCLYDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    SOLICITORS IN THE SUPREME COURTS OF SCOTLAND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Toomebridge—Burntollet (March)
    Mr. Dunlopasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost, in manpower and money, of policing the march from Toomebridge to Burntollet.
    Mr. Wm. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers, soldiers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment were deployed on 5, 6 and 7 January 1979 for the protection of the procession of supporters of imprisoned criminals from Toomebridge to Burntollet; what is the total cost to the police authority in respect of the officers so deployed; and how many hours of police time were spent on this operation.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): On each of the three days of this march, an average of 850 police officers, three companies of Regular soldiers and one company of the Ulster Defence Regiment, together with their various support services, were deployed to assist in preserving peace and public order. It is not possible, without disproportionate cost, to provide a figure for the additional expenditure incurred by the security forces operation.
    Mr. Dunlop: Does the Secretary of State agree that the so-called civil rights commemoration order is nothing short of an exercise in coat-trailing and provocation, designed to contain large numbers of the security forces? Does he also agree that a total ban should have been placed on this parade and that it should have been confined to the village of Toomebridge where, as I am sure he is aware, there is almost 100 per cent. support for the IRA and its activities?
    Mr. Mason: The Government decided that the march was legal because the Chief Constable had estimated that there would be no serious public disorder. The marchers complied with the Act and gave notice that the march would take place. However, the Chief Constable did enforce some route changes on the way.

    1647
    The hon. Gentleman should note the encouraging fact that at no time during the course of the three-day march were more than 250 people marching en route and that at the final rally at lunch time on Sunday there were fewer than 500 supporters. The main objectives of the march were to obtain support for the Maze prisoners and the "Troops Out" movement.
    It failed miserably in both these objectives.
    Mr. Ross: The Secretary of State says that 850 police officers, three companies of Regulars and one company of the UDR were deployed, on average. Surely he is obscuring the fact that between Dungiven and Burntollet 1,440 police officers, six companies of Regulars and heaven knows how many members of the UDR were deployed. If the reason for banning a march is that it will lead to serious public disorder, how does the Secretary of State arrive at the conclusion that there was no such danger when over 2,000 members of the security forces were needed to protect the march?
    Mr. Mason: I have to rely upon the judgment of the Chief Constable in these affairs, and his judgment was right. The UDR, the Army and a number of police were in operation. The turnout was small—smaller than anticipated—and there were no serious incidents en route.
    Mr. Fitt: Has my right hon. Friend any indication of the cost to the security forces of the protection given every year in Northern Ireland to the marches of the Orangemen between March and August to commemorate the doings or misdoings of a Dutchman who had fallen out with his father-in-law in this country?
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend knows as much as anyone in this House about marches in Northern Ireland. He also knows that it is a democracy and that we allow marches and demonstrations provided that notice is given under the public order provisions. Provided that the Chief Constable feels that there is no danger to public order, there is no reason why marches should not take place.
    Mr. Neave: With regard to the conditions in the Maze prison, which was the subject of the march, we very much
    1648
    welcome the pamphlet that the Secretary of State has just published, through official sources, to help put the record straight. Will he circulate this pamphlet to embassies and high commissions all over the world, and especially the official photograph showing that the cells were deliberately smeared by the prisoners in this dirty campaign? Will he also intensify such counter-measures as he can take and seek television time in the United States and Europe to answer this crude propaganda?
    Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I did not anticipate the subject of the Maze prison arising on a question relating to the march to Burn-toilet. I have circulated the pamphlet to every Member of Parliament and to every national newspaper north and south of the border as well as in Britain. It has been circulated to all the media, and many copies will be going to foreign embassies and consulates abroad.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a unique view of democracy that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) holds when he suggests that people should demonstrate only when they have 100 per cent. support for the demonstration? Does my right lion. Friend agree that to ban any march in Northern Ireland, without a great deal of good reason, would be to lend ourselves to a viewpoint that we do not hold? Does he further agree that demonstrations should be allowed to take place wherever possible?
    Mr. Mason: I think that in general terms my hon. Friend is right. We have to consider seriously the main goals of the march, the likelihood of provocation en route and whether the demonstrators are intending purposely to march into areas where they know from the outset that there will be confrontation and conflict. We take such matters into consideration, together with the Chief Constable's advice to me, and wherever possible we allow the marches to take place.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the dispute referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was not a family row but had to do with deep principles?

    1649
    May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he dared to take such a simplistic view of these matters as the hon. Member for Belfast, West is taking, he would find himself in serious trouble not only at Burntollet but at other places?
    If so many members of the police and the Army were deployed on that occasion, why was it that law-abiding citizens going about their lawful business were banned from part of the parade route and directed to go another way, and were even told that if they insisted in going along the Queen's highway they would be arrested?
    Mr. Mason: I cannot be responsible to the hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say, for every incident that might have taken place en route. There were no serious incidents. That is the main point. The Chief Constable's estimate of the march was right. I cannot afford, in my job in Northern Ireland, to take a simplistic view of any incident that arises there.
    Mr. Mates rose—
    Mr. Biggs-Davison rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the two hon. Members who have risen, but on other questions I shall call fewer hon. Members to ask supplementary questions, in order to make up the time.
    Mr. Mates: Since the march concerned protests about conditions in the Maze prison, may I thank the Secretary of State for affording the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and myself the opportunity of visiting the Maze prison two weeks ago? May I congratulate the Government on what they have done in their robust—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Congratulations must wait until after Question Time.
    Mr. Mates: May I ask the Secretary of State to say once more—because it needs to be repeated endlessly—quite unequivocally that he will not give way to the protesters at the Maze, and will maintain the standards of prison discipline which are current throughout the United Kingdom? Will he also say that he will continue to consider as United Kingdom prisoners all those who
    1650
    have been convicted and are serving sentences in the Maze prison?
    Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased that he was able to take part in the all-party parliamentary visit to the Maze prison. It is part of our policy of gradually allowing views from impartial observers to emanate from there. As the hon. Gentleman knows, members of Northern Ireland political parties and Church leaders have been to the Maze. We decided that this policy was right. The observations of the all-party parliamentary delegation were encouraging.
    There will be no return to political status in the Maze for any of those protesters—they might as well know it now—whether I stand at this Dispatch Box or whether it is a Conservative Minister. There will be no amnesty, either. The Maze prison is one of the finest prisons in Western Europe. The facilities granted to the prisoners who conform are better and more advanced than those afforded to prisoners in Great Britain.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In deference to other hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, I shall not ask a supplementary question.

    De Lorean Motor Company (Contract)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give further details about the contract between De Lorean Cars and Lotus Cars Ltd.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): The contract between the De Lorean Motor Company and Lotus Cars Ltd. is an agreement between the two companies, to which Government are not a party. I cannot, therefore, provide details of its terms. A joint statement issued by the two companies on 16 November 1978 indicated that Lotus would co-operate in the completion of the design and development of the DMC 12 sports car to be produced in Northern Ireland and that the work would include the building and testing of prototypes.
    Mr. Cryer: I welcome the Government's efforts to provide jobs in West Belfast, but will my right hon. Friend provide me with ammunition to use against those critics who argue that the contract with Lotus to provide research

    1651
    and development indicates that subscribing £53 million to De Lorean Cars was perhaps a little hasty, on the basis of two prototypes? I am alarmed when my right hon. Friend says that the Government are not involved in the contract, because they are providing far and away the largest sum of money. Does not this indicate that the research and development have not been fully completed?
    Mr. Concannon: If my hon. Friend wants ammunition, all I can say to him is that the assistance on this project consists of grants and loans. From the outset of the negotiations I was aware that further design and development work would be required. The selection of the company to undertake the work was a matter entirely for the De Lorean Motor Company. I was delighted to learn that Lotus had agreed to undertake the task, in view of its well-known ability and experience. It would be intolerable if the Government were to require every commercial agreement made by companies to be vetted and agreed by the Government. In the case of the De Lorean company, with such financial criteria being applied to the company, I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep the matter very much under control. We have nominee directors—or the Northern Ireland Development Agency has nominee directors—on the board.
    Mr. Gow: Will the Minister of State confirm that the maximum possible commitment by the Government to this project is £65 million? Will he tell the House what will be the rate of return on that part of the £65 million which is not a grant?
    Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. He has upped the ante already, from £53 million to £65 million. He might be adding to the £53 million, which was granted by way of loan, the £13 million which has come from private sources to De Lorean, which the company is using.

    "Opportunities at 16" (Birley Report)
    Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further consideration has been given to the Birley report on "Opportunities at 16".
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): One of the main aims of the study group which presented this report was to stimulate further discussion on the problems of young people as they move from school to adult life and work. My noble Friend the Minister of State has decided to convene a major conference in the Ulster polytechnic on 8 February 1979 at which the main issues considered in the report will be discussed. Invitations to attend the conference have been sent to over 500 representatives in education and industry in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that in the course of this conference, and in any future discussions that take place, industry, the Government and the trade union movement in Northern Ireland will be involved to ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the Birley report?
    Mr. Carter: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Both trade unions and industry were represented on the study group which drew up the report and they will be a party, on a much wider basis, to the discussions that will take place on 8 February. We hope that recommendations of a real and proven kind will come from that conference to assist young people in the transition from education to employment in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Kilfedder: As, sadly, there is a deplorable shortage of well qualified young people entering industry and commerce in Northern Ireland, does the Minister agree that immediate positive action should be taken to bring together the principals of the grammar and high schools and lecturers in institutions of further education in Northern Ireland so that they can exploit the resources available for technical and business education in the Province? This is absolutely necessary for the benefit of the Ulster students.
    Mr. Carter: The groups mentioned by the hon. Member will be represented at the conference, as will representatives from commerce and industry. The hon. Gentleman has raised a serious question. In Northern Ireland we are short of people in various skills and professions. We must do all that we can in education, commerce and industry to make sure that we get

    1653
    the right supply. I hope that this conference will help towards that end.
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost of the insulation programme undertaken by the Housing Executive in the current year; and what is the estimate of the programme for the coming year.
    Mr. Carter: The estimated cost of the current financial year's programme is £666,000. It is estimated that £700,000 will be spent in 1979–80.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that many of the contractors fail to comply with the specifications laid down by the Housing Executive? Have those contractors who have failed in that way been paid in full? If so, will steps be taken to recoup the sums that will be required to meet the remedial costs?
    Mr. Carter: I am not in a position to confirm or deny what the hon. Gentleman has alleged. If he has specific cases, he should refer them to me. If work of substandard quality has been done, we shall ensure that public money has not been squandered.
    Mr. Stallard: Will these insulated houses be for sale before or after insulation? Is the Minister aware that, given the peculiarities of the waiting lists in the Six Counties, the decision to sell off 53,000 houses could result in a further polarisation of the two communities in that part of Ireland?
    Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend's question has nothing to do with insulation, but I shall send him a detailed reply.
    The article which no doubt inspired the question was misinformed and did not give an accurate assessment or picture of what is intended in Northern Ireland. The figure of 53,000 is a pipedream. We shall not sell 53,000 houses in Northern Ireland. To ease the minds of my hon. Friends, I should add that not one house in the public sector will be sold while there is a continuing demand for rented accommodation.
    Mr. Bowden: Is the Minister satisfied that retired people and pensioners are getting their fair share of this programme? If not, will he make sure that they do?
    Mr. Carter: They are the first priority in the whole programme. Dwellings for old and retried people are at the top of the list. As far as I know—I shall let the hon. Gentleman know if this is not the case—they are receiving priority treatment.

    Livestock and Livestock Products
    Mr. Torreyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why it is necessary under the common agricultural policy for restrictions to be applied to livestock and livestock products entering Northern Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom Pendry): The EEC rules would normally preclude import controls on livestock and livestock products between member countries. But under EEC derogations Northern Ireland maintains strict import controls in order to protect the Province' high animal health status. Northern Ireland has been free from the major animal diseases such as foot and mouth, swine fever and swine vesicular disease for many years and both the Government and the EEC take the view that it is important to protect its status. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the chief veterinary officer and the staff of the Department of Agriculture for their excellent work in this area.
    Mr. Torney: I recognise the excellent record of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland in securing disease-free livestock production, but will my hon. Friend say in what way this strict animal health control will affect trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Pendry: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Coming from him, I take them as a compliment. Livestock and livestock products from Great Britain are admitted to Northern Ireland only under certain conditions. Livestock products are imported only under licence. All farm animals are subject to quarantine. Cows are not admitted because of the risk of illness and disease. There are no animal health bans on products going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
    Mr. Farr: As agriculture is Northern Ireland's biggest industry, should not there be a debate on the effect of the

    1655
    CAP on Northern Ireland agriculture and, at the same time, a discussion on the serious impact that the advent of EMS will have on the economy of Northern Ireland from the agricultural point of view? We note that it will mean the dismantling of what has been a successful monetary union of the British Isles.
    Mr. Pendry: It is not for me to give the answer that the hon. Gentleman requires. I am sure that the powers-that-be are listening to what is said.
    Mr. Wm. Ross: Since the Court of Justice of the European Communities recently pronounced on the activities of the Northern Ireland Pig Marketing Board, is the Minister satisfied that there will continue to be reasonably good facilities for the sale of pigs and the control of pig marketing in Northern Ireland? Is the Minister aware of the strictures in that judgment on the control of the land frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?
    Mr. Pendry: The hon. Gentleman will have read my reaction to that court action. We are confident that we can, within the existing structure, maintain an orderly system for pig farmers.

    Gas Industry
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of the Northern Ireland gas industry.
    Mr. Concannon: I regret that the completion of the review of the total energy problem to which I have referred on earlier occasions has been delayed because of the involvement of those concerned with the review—including myself—in work on all the problems that have been going on in Northern Ireland, of which my Department has borne the brunt. I shall make the Government's proposals known as soon as possible.
    Mr. McCusker: Is the Minister aware that his reply will be greeted with great disappointment in Northern Ireland, in view of the promise that he gave on a number of occasions last year? Does he concede that the events of the past month have shown just how vulnerable the gas industry in Northern Ireland is to industrial action and inclement weather? As the British Gas Corporation expects
    1656
    profits of £300 million this year, will he investigate whether some of that money could be used to extend the pipeline to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Concannon: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question deals with the vulnerability of the gas industry in Northern Ireland to disputes. The Northern Ireland economy as a whole is more vulnerable than that of anywhere else to industrial disputes. We have said a great deal about this. I should now like to get back to the job that I should have been doing this past month and make sure that the review is out as soon as possible.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the proposals for the gas industry go ahead they are bound to affect the amount of solid fuel sold in Northern Ireland? Should not we take into account the fact that the 1 million tonnes sold there now are very important to British miners, especially bearing in mind that there are 440 million tons of coal on the ground in Great Britain and that every attempt must be made to sell as much coal as we can? Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that whatever proposals are examined and brought forward they will not affect the solid fuel market in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Concannon: My hon. Friend should be pleased about the efforts that have been made in Northern Ireland. The take-up of coal has increased by 13 per cent. One of the energy problems in Northern Ireland is the present surplus. Anything that we do with one source of energy is bound to have an effect on other sources. That is one of the problems which I hope will be brought to the attention of the House when my report is ready.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the gas industry in Northern Ireland is in a sad and sorry state and that as long as he puts off his decision there will still be deterioration in the industry? Will he confirm that solid fuel has a majority of the market in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that the price of gas—
    Mr. Ashton: All gas and gaiters.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: —in Northern Ireland compared with the price in the rest

    1657
    of the United Kingdom is at least is at least half as much again? Will he confirm that he will make adecision—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be a confirmation service.
    Mr. Concannon: The price of gas in Northern Ireland is about three times higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is because of decisions taken some time ago to base the energy requirement in Northern Ireland on oil. To be fair, there is really no gas industry there. There is a fragmentation of 13 different companies and local authorities. If Northern Ireland, when it had the chance, had gone the same way as the gas industry in Great Britain did when it had the chance, the industry in Northern Ireland would probably now be thinking about profits.
    Mr. Farr: The House recognises that the Minister has had much to do recently. However, I remind him that it was 1977 when the report was first submitted to him by the British Gas Corporation. Will he assure the House that when he makes his final recommendation he will take into account all the information on the latest finds in the Morecambe Bay field and the possibility of the bulk carriage of gas?
    Mr. Concannon: I shall obviously do that. The Minister has been busy not only recently but for some time. I shall take into consideration the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I ask the House to be patient for a little longer. I shall report as soon as possible.

    Water Service
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will institute an inquiry, of which the results could be made public, into the state of equipment and plant and the conditions of work in the water service supplying the southern part of the counties of Down and Armagh.
    Mr. Carter: No, Sir. We are aware of the state of equipment and plant at the Fofannybane water treatment works which supplies the southern parts of the counties of Down and Armagh, and we are taking urgent steps to improve working conditions there.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Minister aware that it is widely believed, whether or not cor-
    1658
    rectly, that the recent industrial action was partly due to the state of the equipment and the management of the service in the area? Would it not be in the interests of both the Department and the Government to make the facts known as objectively as possible, whether that is done by means of an inquiry or otherwise?
    Mr. Carter: The recent industrial dispute was not connected in any way with the state of plant. That has been known for years. We have had reports, and we are working on them. Recommendations have been made to bring the plant up to modern standards. The tragedy of the dispute was that it held up the process of bringing the plant up to modern standards. We do not see the need for a report, because we are well aware of the deficiencies.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the war against terrorism in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Mason: In the period since I last addressed the House on 6 December, the increased level of terrorist activity, which had commenced in the middle of November, continued during the remainder of December.
    Four soldiers and a prison officer have met their deaths; three of the soldiers were killed in a gun attack on a patrol in Crossmaglen on 21 December.
    Since the end of December, two members of the Provisional IRA have died in an explosion, possibly caused by the premature detonation of bombs which they were carrying. There have been fewer terrorist attacks on commercial premises in January.
    In 1978 the RUC charged 843 persons with terrorist offences.
    Mr. Townsend: Following the death of deputy governor Albert Miles, and bearing in mind the current callous campaign against prison staff, what new proposals is the Secretary of State putting forward to protect prison officers who have an essential duty to perform on behalf of us all?
    Mr. Mason: Prior to Christmas, a special attempt was made to frighten,

    1659
    intimidate and possibly kill prison officers. Unfortunately, those responsible succeeded with the deputy governor. There was an attempt by the Provisional IRA to change the policy of Her Majesty's Government over the Maze protest. It did not succeed by Christmas, and it will not succeed in future. The prison officers have all been given an assurance by the RUC that they may have a personal weapon if they wish and that if they think they are being threatened they will be given a special guard.
    Mr. McCusker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite some of the favourable trends that have been seen in the war against terrorists, seven young uniformed soldiers were killed in South Armagh last year, as against two in 1977? What is being done by the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence to lessen the risk that young men have to face in South Armagh while maintaining a security presence?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman represents that area. There is a great deal of hostility towards Her Majesty's Forces in the areas of South Armagh and Crossmaglen. I am sorry to say that the death rate increased in those areas, but throughout the Province there was a noticeable decline in deaths in 1978 among the UDR, the police, the Army and civilians.
    Mr. Fitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all elected representatives from Northern Ireland deeply deplore and deprecate the murder of young British soldiers and members of the security forces in Northern Ireland? Is he satisfied with the instructions that are given on the yellow card to the British Army and with the steps that are taken to save innocent persons' lives? Is he aware that allegations have been made in Northern Ireland, founded or unfounded, and believed by many, that at least 10 innocent persons have been killed by members of the British Army who have not carried out the instructions on the yellow card? Is he satisfied that the yellow card does not have to be brought up to date to ensure the protection of young innocent lives?
    Mr. Mason: I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend said about himself and
    1660
    many hon. Members—indeed, I hope all hon. Members—being impressed by the courage and dedication of the British soldier in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will not be responsible for the beginning of rumours that 10 innocent people have lost their lives in the Province because of the soldiers. The soldiers operate under the rules on the card. It is difficult for these young men to carry out their exercises and operations if they feel that they do not have the support of the local community, and especially of the political leaders. I hope that my hon. Friend will give them the lead that they require.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of both British and Spanish reports that members of the Provisional IRA have operated with terrorists of the Basque separatist organisation ETA, and that members of that organisation have taken part in activities in the United Kingdom, are the Government satisfied with the co-operation between European and other western countries against the common enemy of Western civilisation?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman may know that at the Provisional Sinn Fein ardheis that was held recently in the Republic of Ireland representatives of the Basque terrorists were present. Undoubtedly, there is a tenuous link. We keep in touch with our embassies and consulates abroad and warn them if we think that there is anything developing from that link.
    Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: Do not the murder figures as a whole in Northern Ireland show a reduction? Is not that a fact that we should regard as encouraging?
    Mr. Mason: My right hon. Friend is right. In 1976, 296 people died in Northern Ireland. In 1977 the number fell to 112, and last year, in spite of the La Mon House restaurant incident, it fell to 81. Progress is being made in that respect. There are fewer deaths, fewer woundings and fewer shooting incidents. We never talk about success, but we talk about progress, and progress is definitely being made in that regard.
    Later—
    Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hasten to assure you that this point of order has nothing to do with

    1661
    gas and gaiters—or your gaiters, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious point that I should like to bring to your attention.
    Today, on question No. 9, in answer to a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), the right hon. Gentleman implied that all those who had been shot by the British Army and killed in Ulster were in some way guilty. I rise to defend, and ask your ruling on, two men. I hasten to say that neither question is at present before a court.
    One case concerns John Boyle, a Roman Catholic constituent of mine. The other concerns Jim Taylor, a Protestant constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop). Both men were shot and killed by the British Army many months ago. No action has yet been taken, although the pathologist's report made it perfectly clear that John Boyle was shot three times in the back.
    Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to indicate the point of order on which he wishes me to rule?
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on whether it is right for the Secretary of State to give an answer which indicts two innocent men.
    Mr. Speaker: That is a question for the Minister. I cannot rule on what a Minister should say.
    Mr. Fitt: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and in support of what he said about the response that I received from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to my supplementary question, is it not your opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, namely, the life and death of his constituents, is far more important than what we have listened to for the past hour? Would you reconsider your decision, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that those who were shot by the British Army were guilty of a crime, when the facts are completely contrary? I could name people in addition to those named by the hon. Gentleman.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As for the person Boyle, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), directions for a prosecution have now been given by the Director of Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. I suggest that it would be better if the matter were left there.
    Mr. Speaker: I was about to say to the House that the Minister is responsible for whatever statement he has made. He carries that responsibility. It is for the Minister to decide whether he wishes to come to the House to deal with the matter. There is nothing that I can do, especially as the matter is sub judice in one instance.

    Industry (Government Assistance)
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list the criteria that he applies when the Government decide to give financial assistance to industry in the Province; and whether he is satisfied that the criteria always result in a proper allocation of public funds.
    Mr. Concannon: When considering applications for selective financial assistance under the Industries Development (Northern Ireland) Acts 1966 and 1971 regard is normally paid to a project's potential viability and the extent to which it would result in the creation or maintenance of employment or the strengthening of industry in the Province. These criteria are similar to those applying in Great Britain and are designed to ensure a proper allocation of public funds. I am satisfied that they are being correctly applied.
    Mr. Gow: To what extent is the return on capital on the investment put up by the Government one of the criteria? To what extent will there he a reasonable return on capital from the De Lorean investment?
    Mr. Concannon: In both those instances there is a good deal of financial and commercial information that is best kept confidential. On one side we have the Northern Ireland Development Agency, which has to act commercially, whereas I, in the Department of Commerce, have a little more latitude.
    Mr. Kilfedder: So that proper guidelines are drawn up to protect public money, will the Minister set up a public inquiry to reveal the truth and to expose the corruption that existed in connection with the contract entered into with Mr. Hoppe, the former managing director of the Belfast shipyard? The Government of the day here and the then Stormont Government were guilty of aiding and abetting tax evasion on a massive scale in relation to this man's considerable salary and compensation.
    Mr. Concannon: The Hoppe case hardly arises on this question. I have answered previous questions from the hon. Gentleman on the matter. I have pointed out that this contract between Harland and Wolff and a Swiss company was in 1971, before Harland and Wolff was nationalised. His question has nothing to do with the administration of the Harland and Wolff shipyard at this time, but concerns other people in 1971.
    Mr. Litterick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Treasury has estimated that British Exchequer net expenditure in Northern Ireland now exceeds £1,000 million a year? The House knows in considerable detail the pattern of civil expenditure in Northern Ireland, but it knows nothing of the amount of military expenditure. Will he undertake to give the House the necessary information which will enable hon. Members to ascertain how much money is being spent on military operations—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a separate question. This deals with industry.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: When public money is provided for industry, is that industry exhorted to buy British? If so, why is the De Lorean company being allowed to employ French consultants in its factory construction programme?
    Mr. Concannon: There has been some bickering about De Lorean. I thought that my press statement this week would have backed up what I have been saying about the company. Spin-offs have already taken place in Northern Ireland. Two of the contracts have gone to local firms. I should have thought that that was a matter for rejoicing and an answer to the sceptics.

    Economic Council
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange to make public advice which periodically may be given to him by the Northern Ireland Economic Council.
    Mr. Concannon: To date, all the advice which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been given by the council has been made public, although circumstances could arise in which it would be desirable to preserve the confidentiality of work carried out on his behalf. In the case of research carried out or commissioned on the council's own initiative, the decision on whether to publish the findings rests with the council itself.
    Mr. Farr: The Council has already made reports to the Minister on energy and on agriculture. It is at present engaged in studying external links between Europe and the United Kingdom, and it is also studying industrial matters. Would it not help the country generally if this advice were made more readily available? What has happened to the Northern Ireland plan? Does it still exist? Will he say something about it?
    Mr. Concannon: I thought that the reports were readily accessible. If there are problems, I shall examine them and make sure they are sorted out. The programmes already considered by the Economic Council have been published. Work is still proceeding on the five-year plan. Discussions are taking place with interested parties. I hope that the assessment of the Northern Ireland economic situation will be published shortly.

    Mount Street Clinic
    Mr. Bradfordasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Mount Street clinic will be made available for youth or community activities in redevelopment area 31; and what are the starting and completion dates for the floodlit football pitch also promised for this area.
    Mr. Carter: Consideration has been given to leasing the Mount Street clinic for community activities but because of the high cost of putting the premises in order it has been decided to offer the property for sale on the open market.

    1665
    The floodlit all-weather football pitch is only a part of the facilities to be provided in nearby Ormeau park, and it is hoped that work will commence on this expensive facility in June this year. I am confident that the Belfast city council will endeavour to see the project completed as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Bradford: Is the Minister aware that this area has had to exist on mere promises? It has been deprived of a proper housing scheme, and now of a proper community facility. When will a community facility be provided to meet the needs of this large housing conurbation?
    Mr. Carter: I should have thought that the expenditure of £600,000 on an all-weather football pitch was an excellent example of the way in which the Government are trying to provide social facilities in South Belfast. It is not for the hon. Member to come to this House asking for more public expenditure while at the same time voting for public expenditure cuts in the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order at the end of Question Time, if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to wait until then.
    Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
    Mr. Speaker: It will save the time of Prime Minister's questions if the hon. Gentleman does not raise his point of order now.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Very well, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Prime Minister if he will state his public engagements for 1 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be hold-
    1666
    ing further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. McCrindle: Has the Prime Minister had time to consider the great concern felt by many people over the statement by Mr. Arthur Scargill indicating that trade unionists should ignore the legal decision in last week's court case on secondary picketing? Does not that contrast with the right hon. Gentleman's statement last week that there is freedom under the law to cross a picket line? Does he agree that, carried to its logical conclusion, Mr. Scargill's incitement is a recipe for anarchy?
    The Prime Minister: I have noted a great many comments made during the course of recent industrial disturbances. The position of the law in relation to this matter was stated by the Attorney-General. Any private citizen in this country is entitled to express his own view, but I stand on the expression of the Attorney-General which, I think, met with general agreement when he stated the law.
    Mr. Heffer: As 1,000 workers have been told that they are to be made redundant at the Plessey works, as 2,500 workers have been told that they are to be made redundant at the Dunlop works, and as we have 100,000 unemployed on Merseyside, is my right hon. Friend prepared urgently to meet the Labour Members of Parliament from Merseyside to discuss this whole question and come up with some positive proposals to deal with one of the most serious unemployment situations in the whole country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that he does not have to ask me that question publicly for me to be willing to meet himself and his colleagues, as I have done on previous occasions. I should be happy to meet them again. Perhaps he will give me a few hours' notice before we meet. Merseyside is generally regarded as being a serious problem, and I hope that Merseyside will do all that it can to help itself.
    Mrs. Thatcher: As the Prime Minister will have spent some time today considering the grave situation which affects many hospitals, will he state clearly whether it is the Government's policy to encourage volunteers to help the doctors and nurses

    1667
    to carry out their prime duty towards the patients?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be answering a private notice question on this and kindred matters at 3.30 pm this afternoon, as the right hon. Lady knows. I should therefore prefer that any considered comment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—on the general matters that have been raised about the Health Service and the hospitals was made by him, as I think the right hon. Lady will understand. On the question of volunteers for hospitals, I cannot say that the Cabinet has particularly considered that matter this morning. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Opposition are like a rabble."] With respect, they are not like a rabble, they are a rabble.
    What I would say to the right hon. Lady is that it is not acceptable in any community that sick human beings, be they adults or children, should be denied food, and proper attention forbidden to them by the actions of people. [Interruption.] Will Conservative Members please allow me to continue for a moment? Therefore, I trust very much that all those concerned in this dispute will return to work and allow negotiations to continue on a proper basis.
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is not always my task to do what the Prime Minister prefers. As the buck stops with him, I must press him on this matter just a little further. It is precisely because the things about which he spoke are not acceptable, and precisely because many of the tasks could be done by volunteers, that I ask him where his duty lies. Is it towards the patients and towards the doctors and nurses who help the patients? Is he, therefore, prepared to encourage volunteers to go in? In some hospitals they are working well. Will he make his position clear?
    The Prime Minister: I should prefer to leave this to the hospital management committees. They are in charge of each hospital. It may well be that in some hospitals it will be preferable to bring in volunteers. But in other hospitals the management committees may not wish to do so. This is not a matter of Governmental responsibility, although Conservative Members may seek to make
    1668
    it so. What we want to do is to see that the hospitals are kept open and that patients are properly treated, by whatever methods the management committees themselves believe are desirable.
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Prime Minister have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer today and suggest that he includes in the emergency Budget, which will be inevitable in two or three weeks, proposals for the introduction of a national minimum wage? This has been SNP policy for some time. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that its introduction would at least go some way towards alleviating the present troubles?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to an emergency Budget, the hon. Gentleman should not assume anything of the sort. In fact, according to the latest figures that I received yesterday from the Department of Employment, the average level of major pay settlements is still a little under 10 per cent. One or two of the more extravagent settlements have hit the headlines, perhaps because of the disruption that they have caused, but that, I am told, is the latest position in relation to private settlements, and that must influence the Government in a number of ways.
    The introduction of a minimum wage is always a matter for consideration. But so far there has been no general agreement on its introduction. Clearly, it would have some impact, provided that people who were well above the minimum wage did not insist on maintaining their differentials. But so far we have been unable to get agreement on that.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend take some time off today to examine the dreadful story about Indian girls coming to this country being tested to discover whether they are virgins? What moral justification is there for this? Will he please put aside 10 minutes of his time firmly to rule out such a monstrosity?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the House and hon. Members will have been disturbed at what they have read about this matter. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is inquiring into it, and I am sure that he will want to inform the House if a question is put down in due course.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Prime Minister cancel his engagements for the rest of the day, take the first train to Liverpool and take personal charge of the negotiations with the men who even now are refusing to bury bodies unless they are in a decomposed state? This is causing great distress to relatives. One lady wanted to dig a grave for one of her relatives, was allowed into the cemetery but at the last minute was refused permission to do so. Surely this is a matter which should now have the Prime Minister's personal attention.
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the national leaders of the unions concerned have advised their members to resume normal working. In the light of what the Secretary of State for the Environment said yesterday, I trust that they will take into account the feelings of the House. I understand that the instructions from the national unions have gone out today. We must wait until tomorrow to see whether they have been accepted by the members themselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a further statement on this matter tomorrow.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that the sympathy which he has expressed for hospital patients and their families would be more readily understood if he used his high office to make a personal appeal for volunteers to ease their suffering?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether that would be the best thing to do. As I have said, there is conflicting advice from those responsible for the administration of our hospitals about whether volunteers would help the situation. I am sure that it is far better that the hospitals themselves should take this decision. That is surely a reason for leaving it to the local hospitals, who know their circumstances best. The Government have no objection to the introduction
    1670
    of volunteers if the local hospital authorities believe that that is the best way of handling the situation.
    Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend today be looking at the agenda for the first meeting between groups of Minister and the TUC with regard to economic problems and picketing? Will the whole philosophy of the "going rate" be under consideration, since in relation to some of the more extravagant claims a number of very responsible trade unionists are now saying "That is the going rate. Do not expect us to settle for less."?
    The Prime Minister: I have heard that view expressed often. It is an interesting reflection that those who said that under no circumstances could they accept a norm now want the going rate. If the going rate is not a norm, I do not know what it is. If everyone gets the same going rate then, as my hon. Friend indicated, everyone else will want to jump on the bandwagon and we shall have leapfrogging. That is why I welcome the approach by some trade union members of the general council who have headed a pamphlet entitled "A better way". Indeed, there must be for this country.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I make a suggestion to the Prime Minister with regard to the burial situation in Liverpool and the North-West? Since this is a question of deep concern to both sides of the House, and since Liverpool is a city with a great religious tradition, would it not be helpful if the Prime Minister were to appeal to the two great Christian leaders in Liverpool—Bishop Sheppard and Archbishop Worlock—to use their good offices to bring about a settlement of this problem?
    The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will be glad to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been in touch with the leaders of the Churches. I believe that they are using their great influence to try to secure a return to work I earnestly repeat what was said by my right hon. Friend yesterday. I trust very much that those concerned will return to work and will take into account the great desolation they are causing to families and those who are bereaved.
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).
    Mr. Spicer: Is the Prime Minister aware that last week British ports were virtually in the control of workers' soviets? Therefore, will he urgently consider the fact that, whereas the British shipping industry has so far lost £15 million, the chief beneficiary is the Soviet merchant marine fleet which somehow manages to move its cargoes in British ports—cargo which, incidentally, is priced at a figure which clearly indicates a massive subsidy by the Soviet Union?
    The Prime Minister: Without necessarily accepting all the hon. Gentleman's premises, I shall consider the matter.
    Mr. Pavitt: In the concern and balanced thought which I know my right hon. Friend gives to the problems of the National Health Service, will he today give further consideration to the problem of nurses' pay? This matter is in two parts. There is an immediate problem, because next Tuesday an important Whitley council meeting is due to take place and therefore time is of the essence. Secondly, there is a long-term problem in the reorganisation of the negotiating machinery, which my right hon. Friend will be able to further after we have won the general election.
    The Prime Minister: On the subject of nurses' pay, I remind my hon. Friend that proposals and discussions are taking place to determine a basis of comparability. We could settle all these disputes straight away if we were willing to pay what were asked. However, I do not think that that proposition would commend itself to the country, to the Opposition, or to the taxpayers and ratepayers. Nevertheless, low-paid workers must expect to obtain a reasonable increase in pay to help them, and those higher up the scale can help them to do so. I trust that there will be a return to some co-operation in these matters, as distinct from, I was going to say free collective bargaining, but it would be more true to say the free collective vandalism that is now taking place.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
Mr. Patrick Jenkin(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a further statement about industrial action in the National Health Service.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): The impact of industrial action in the National Health Service remains serious. The effects vary across the country, with very serious disruption in some places which is causing me great concern—for example. Westminster hospital, Great Ormond Street hospital, and the store strike at Bolton.
Most of the country has emergency-only ambulance cover, and between one-third to one half of the hospital service is dealing with only emergency cases. The most serious disruption is in the Northern, North-Western, London, Mersey and Trent regions, but in most parts of the country services have been reduced.
The trade unions involved in this dispute made it clear from the beginning that their members should maintain emergency and essential services. The fact remains that such action is now taking place, and it is therefore essential to take all possible steps to protect the safety and well-being of patients.
In some cases local action has clearly gone beyond the level approved by the unions. This has rightly caused great concern to the Government, the House and the whole country. The leaders of the trade unions have shared that concern, and, while I deplore their policy of calling any form of industrial action in the NHS. I acknowledge the genuine efforts they have made to keep matters under control They have co-operated fully in the "hotline" arrangement between my Department and the union headquarters—an arrangement that has been helpful in solving a number of local difficulties. They have also produced more detailed guidance to their members on the need to preserve essential and emergency services.
Last night I met general secretaries and national officers of the four unions involved to impress upon them the seriousness of the position and the need to

1673
ensure that essential services are maintained. I welcomed the further advice that they have given to their members and I sought clarification on a number of points—for example, the impact of industrial action on highly dependent long-stay patients and the need to have adequate warning of local industrial action. They have agreed to consider the points that I put to them. In the meantime, they believe that the more detailed guidance will be of real help in keeping the action within tolerable limits.
It is essential that Health Service staff taking industrial action should, at the very minimum, stay within the bounds set in the more detailed advice agreed by the unions on Tuesday night. Even this may pose risks to patients. But anyone ignoring that guidance would be acting in a reckless and irresponsible manner.
This must be avoided, and effective communication between NHS management and unions can help to avert it. That is why I am today taking steps to ensure that health authorities are fully aware of the need to bring in full-time officials of the trade unions concerned immediately when industrial action goes beyond tolerable levels.
The position is serious, but it would be a great deal more serious if many nurses, doctors, administrators and other staff—as well as ordinary members of the public—had not rallied in this difficult situation. The House and the country will want me to express our thanks to them.
Mr. Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that was a statement of unbelievable flabbiness? Does he recognise that what is going on in the country presents a horrifying picture of mounting chaos in the National Health Service?
I turn first to the point which was put to the Prime Minister by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Secretary of State now give the Government's full and unqualified support to NHS staff and volunteers who are struggling to keep the NHS going in the present difficult conditions?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the guidance, which in the press was referred to as the code of practice. Is he
1674
aware that nobody to whom I spoke this morning had seen the code? Is he further aware that nobody knows what is in it? Does he appreciate that the "tape" carries the information that the unions in central London have decided to refuse to recognise any such code? Will he undertake to publish immediately the details of the code, so that at least nobody will be able to deny knowledge of it?
When the right hon. Gentleman met the general secretary of NUPE, Mr. Fisher, did he ask him to withdraw the union's official call for the maximum possible disruption of services—and, if not, why not? Will he recognise that the time for dithering is over? [Interruption.] Those of us
who last night saw the Secretary of State posturing before the television cameras believe that it is time he took action.
Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman referred to "mounting chaos". In some parts of the country action is being taken by irresponsible minorities, and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to condemn those who act irresponsibly. The vast majority of those who work in the Health Service are genuinely seeking to maintain the service in the interest of their patients.
I was asked about staff and volunteers—a matter dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who believe that decisions about management should be taken by local management, now want us to issue some edict from the centre. We are in a local situation. The services can best be maintained not only by existing staff but by willing volunteers. Of course that is welcome, but it is essential that those decisions should be taken by local management.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about those who failed to follow the guidance and he also asked whether I would publish it. Anybody who read the newspapers this morning will have seen a summary of the guidance. I shall immediately place it in the House of Commons Library. I have been assured by the unions today that yesterday the guidance was circulated throughout the country. I must tell shop stewards, who say that because they have not seen the guidance they will refuse to co-operate, that they are going against the

1675
express wishes of their union leaders. I condemn those stewards for doing so. They are committing acts of great irresponsibility.
Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend try to learn the lesson that by competing and vying with the Tories in condemning a section of workers in this intractable and difficult problem he will only inflame the situation? Will he accept from me that, as the Prime Minister has already said, these people are entitled to a bigger wage? Therefore, will he not make them a much bigger offer in order to get them back to work? If we could wave a magic wand and get them all back now, the same problem would remain and they would be out again very shortly.
Mr. Ennals: I certainly never vie with Members of the Opposition in making criticisms of those who work in the National Health Service. I believe that the vast majority of those, including those taking industrial action, are responsible. Those whom I have condemned are those who are not providing emergency services. I believe that my task here is to ensure that the truth is known. Some of the allegations made by Opposition Members are not correct. On the question of pay, discussions have been proceeding this week in the hope that a settlement can be found. Of course, these are matters of concern. They must be dealt with properly through the Whitley Council machinery, and this is what is being done.
Mr. Scott: Is the Secretary of State aware that the country will be shocked at his complacency? This strike is not being contained; it is spreading at an alarming rate. Is he aware that the country will regard with revulsion the use of sick children as a lever in order to pursue industrial action? Those who are taking this irresponsible action, in particular those who respond to queries about essential supplies by saying "What code of practice?" are digging the grave of a decent society.
Mr. Ennals: There has been no indication at all that I have been complacent. I have sought throughout, first, to prevent industrial action, and now to ensure that it is effectively contained. Nationally, the unions have co-operated in trying to ensure that industrial action is kept within tolerable limits. Whenever there have been immediate and urgent problems, I have
1676
sought to bring pressure to bear and to try to ease situations quickly. The hon. Gentleman knows the position that I and all my colleagues have taken about irresponsible action which can damage the lives of children or any patients who depend on the National Health Service.
Mr. Penhaligon: How many times has the Secretary of State made that statement to the House in the past three weeks? What advantage has he obtained from the previous meetings he has held with the unions? What advantage does he expect to obtain from this one? If the advantage is zero, what does he intend to do?
Mr. Ennals: Since yesterday we have a code of practice that has been worked out by the unions to try to ensure that minimum damage is done as a result of the industrial action that has been embarked upon. That was an important step forward. Our task is to seek to bring this industrial dispute to an end. In the meantime, as long as there is industrial action it is the task of Government and of the unions, who instituted the action, to keep it within tolerable limits. That is what they are trying to do.
Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while there are some hard extremists in the trade union movement, many of them quote references from speeches of Conservative Members in support of their claim? Also, is he aware that the leader of the ambulance men in West London wants nothing to do with the Labour Party because he says that the majority of his members are supporters of the Tory Party? It is about time the Leader of the Opposition got in touch with some of her Tory trade unionists, who are right in the middle of breaking the rules in COHSE, and asked them to behave in a proper and civilised manner—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's question was to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Leader of the Opposition and her right hon. and hon. Friends would use what influence they have in order to advise restraint and moderation and to try to ensure there is order, it

1677
would be better than some of the exaggeration and condemnation that we have heard from the Floor of the House.
Mr. Crouch: Will the Secretary of State use such influence as he has now to carry out what he has just said—that he and the Government will not tolerate this action by militant minorities in the Health Service? Will he demonstrate not only that Parliament will be supreme in this matter but that the Government will be supreme and will ensure that the sick are not put at risk?
Mr. Ennals: That is precisely what the Government seek to do. We have a situation in which union leaders have come together with responsibility and worked out a code of practice and guidance for their own members. It is only fair to see how this works. In the meantime, we should use all our influence to ensure that both lines of guidance that help to provide emergency services and services for the elderly are properly carried out.
Mr. Crawford: Will the Secretary of State tell the Secretary of State for Scotland that there is a serious situation at Ninewells hospital, in Dundee, where a five-day all-out strike has been begun by ancillary workers? This will have serious repercussions throughout Tayside. Is this not the final example of man's inhumanity to man?
Mr. Ennals: The Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of that situation and is doing what he can.
Mr. Orbach: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although he said that Westminster hospital was one of those that had closed, as did The Daily Telegraph this morning, I have just returned from Westminster hospital in the last quarter of an hour? I had a full examination which began at two o'clock. [HON. MEMBERS: "By volunteers."] Not by volunteers. I was seen by consultants and nurses and was looked after in the pharmaceutical department. I was very happy with what happened to me at Westminster hospital. I hope that the Secretary of State will realise the provocation that is being caused by Opposition Members, who should be helping us to deal with this matter.
Mr. Ennals: I am glad that my hon. Friend had good treatment at Westminster hospital, as I did in the middle of last year. It is true that those who are able to go to that hospital can get treatment, but it is also true that, on the whole, admissions are now being turned down. Generally, even emergency cases are not able to be accepted, but, as my hon. Friend says, it is not closed. This is one example of the way in which exaggeration can do great harm to the National Health Service and to those who work in it.
Mr. Blaker: Does the Secretary of State recall saying earlier this week that it is difficult to draw the line between urgent and emergency cases, on the one hand, and those in which delay would be harmless? Does he really think that there are many cases in which delay will be harmless? Does he recognise that this point is particularly important in areas such as mine, where there is a high proportion of old people?
Mr. Ennals: I have no doubt at all that where a hospital is down to emergency treatment only and people who would otherwise have gone in for treatment, either as in-patients or as outpatients, are for any reason unable to get to the out-patients department, inevitably a delay is likely to be damaging. One cannot get away from that. However, we ought to look at what the unions have said, namely, that
"Services in relation to cardiac, dialysis, cancer, intensive care and accident and emergency patients and children must be fully maintained at all times."
They have said that
"No services should be reduced to a level where satisfactory cover cannot be maintained in respect of emergency and high-dependency patients; in particular, delivery and distribution of drugs, oxygen and fuel must not be impeded."
Mr. Pavitt: Whilst I do not minimise the present difficulties within the NHS, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that there are more than 1 million employees involved in the various sectors of the Service, 500,000 beds in our hospitals and thousands of children at being successfully treated in of the difficulties? Is it not deplorable that political capital should be made out of the very positive difficulty that arises and that, particularly

1679
in the West Midlands, doctors with a political bias can use their waiting lists as a weapon against the trade unions?
Mr. Ennals: I deplore the way in which some situations, be they in the Midlands, London or elsewhere, have been used for party-political purposes. This is deplorable and it is very damaging to the Service. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although in many parts of the country emergency services have been held up, patients are being dealt with with great care and great sincerity by those who work for the NHS. Therefore, we must express appreciation to all those in the Service who are doing their best, now under very difficult circumstances, to retain services.
Mr. Eyre: In view of the dire situation in Birmingham, will the Minister undertake to publish within half an hour the precise details of the code of conduct? Will he call upon trade union leaders to undertake that members of their unions who do not observe their code of practice will immediately lose their union membership?
Mr. Ennals: The last matter is not for me. However, the code of conduct has already been published, and I shall ensure that it is made immediately available to the public, to the press and to everyone within half an hour.
Mr. Roper: My right hon. Friend has referred to the stores strike at Bolton, in my constituency, which is causing very great concern. Can he tell me of anything that has been done to deal with this disturbing situation?
Mr. Ennals: There have been discussions during the course of today to deal with the situation, which is very disturbing. Equally, local management involved in these discussions with the unions knows that if it wants to raise this at a national level and involve the national officers of the trade unions, we are immediately ready for that to be done.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the Secretary of State take a slightly more robust attitude about voluntary workers, as compared with that of the Prime Minister? Will he admit to the House that decisions in these matters cannot be fobbed off on to management committees because they are policy decisions which should be
1680
made centrally if the NHS is to remain national? If the right hon. Gentleman is too timid to persuade management committees that are terrified of their unions to allow voluntary workers to work in hospitals on hospital work, will he at least try to persuade such committees to allow voluntary workers to continue to do the work that has always been done by them, such as running Red Cross libraries and hospital shops, and not be turned back by the picket lines for doing work that they have always done, even when the NHS was fully operational?
Mr. Ennals: I do not think that much is served by a competition in robustness. It is very easy to devise words of condemnation as though we were competing with each other, so I shall not seek to vie. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows, from statements that I have made time after time to this House, where I stand in regard to industrial relations in the NHS.
On the question of management, I had the opportunity this weekend of discussing with chairmen of all the regional health authorities the best way in which they could respond to this very difficult situation. What they said—I believe that it was right—is that management must respond in the ways that are best to meet local situations. They were not wanting national edicts about what should be done, because almost every situation is different, and it is they themselves who want to have the opportunity of taking those decisions. They do not want to be told precisely what to do from London.
Mr. David Young: In view of the stores strike at Bolton, to which the Minister previously referred, and because many of these hospitals were in a near-derelict condition before the dispute began—indeed, before the present Government took office—will he keep hon. Members concerned informed of the situation as it develops?
Mr. Ennals: I promise that before the end of the day I shall inform both of my hon. Friends who have asked questions about the stores strike of the exact situation. I shall keep my hon. Friend in touch.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more Members on each side of the House.
Mr. Graham Page: Is the Secretary of State aware that when a number of my constituents offered their voluntary help to the hospital authorities—both district and regional authorities—they were refused? They were turned away, because the authorities said that they had no instructions and no directions. They also applied to the emergency committee, the Government's regional committee, and received the same discouragement. Is there a deliberate refusal of voluntary help because of a fright of the unions?
Mr. Ennals: The work of our hospitals the year round benefits greatly from volunteers, who do an enormous amount that adds to the humanity and warmth of the care of patients. Volunteers are still working in the Health Service. In some situations where there has been a breakdown of emergency services, they have responded to calls to help. I think that whenever a call goes out to volunteers, they will respond. Of course there is no opposition from the Government side to the normal work that volunteers can do in a hospital. What is not right is that they should seek to do professional tasks which are carried out by others in the hospital.
Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if society is asserting that certain groups of workers should not come out on strike, society must face that problem and create the wages and conditions under which they are not compelled to come out on strike? Do not two things follow from that? First, the whole country would welcome and accept an immediate substantial payment towards the low-paid public service workers as a means of returning to sanity in the incomes policy position in this country. Secondly, will my right hon. Friend consider the kind of agreement that was made last year with a similar group, the firemen's union, on a link basis, to give us a long-term solution? Will my right hon. Friend try acting on those two propositions?
Mr. Ennals: Certainly this period of industrial dispute and the inevitable damage that it does to the NHS must cause us to reflect on the way in which those who work in the Service can use the strike weapon, or the weapon of industrial action, for the purpose of wage bargain
1682
ing. These questions must be reflected upon, perhaps with a little more coolness than we can expect in exchanges across the Floor of the House.
As regards the low-paid, my hon. Friend knows of the initiative taken by the Prime Minister, which is the point from which discussions have proceeded between those working in the NHS, particularly the NHS ancillaries, to see whether we can find a basis of a settlement, recognising the points made by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Raison: Does not the Secretary of State understand that he and he alone is responsible for what happens in the NHS? Does he really contend that throughout the NHS over the last year there has not been a very strong sense of a complete vacuum of leadership, and does not he realise that everything that he has said today reinforces the impression of a vacuum?
Mr. Ennals: It would be extraordinary if we thought of the National Health Service as a sort of one-man band, in which the Secretary of State issued edicts from the Elephant and Castle as to how everything should be run throughout the regional health authorities and the area health authorities. That would be a nonsensical way of handling the Health Service. We have suffered enough from the reorganisation imposed upon the Service by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in the light of that experience we have to reflect pretty clearly on what lessons we can learn from the great damage done to the Service through the management structure imposed on it by the party opposite when in power.
Mr. Grocott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one surprising benefit derived from the present difficulties is that there is now apparently unanimous agreement in the House that there is only one satisfactory way in which to deal with sick people, and that is by dealing first with those who are most sick, and so on, until we get to the end of the queue? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend now take the Opposition at face value, if this indicates their conversion to this principle, and introduce legislation, which would have widespread support in the House, to abolish private practice and private medicine?
Mr. Ennals: I must say that I find it very difficult to take the Opposition at their face value. Therefore, it is difficult to proceed on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
Mr. William Clark: Is the Minister aware that his statement today will have given no comfort whatever to patients throughout the country—in fact, the very reverse? Will he, when he sees the official trade union leaders, suggest to them that the irresponsible minority, the small commissars throughout the country who are not paying attention to what the official trade union leadership is saying, should have their union cards taken away? Lastly, does the Minister realise that his complacency and sheer incompetence in running the Health Service call for only one thing, his resignation?
Mr. Ennals: That is easy, cheap stuff to throw across the Floor of the House.
I think it is true that the irresponsible minority who have taken action within the Health Service that has gone far beyond the guidelines and advice of their unions have not only endangered patients' welfare but have done great damage to the trade union movement itself. Some of them—I believe that it is a small and irresponsible minority—are challenging both the spirit of caring one for another within British society and the sense of brotherhood that is a basic element of our trade union movement.
Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attitude of Opposition Members is in startling contrast to that displayed when the consultants were in dispute with his predecessors in power? Does he also agree that it is enormously difficult for the low-paid workers in the Health Service to get attention focused on their dispute without taking some action that is bound to cause offence and disturbance to some people? Finally, does he agree that in view of the merits and justice of their claim it would be better to settle it earlier rather than later?
Mr. Ennals: Naturally, I should like to see a settlement of this dispute as quickly as possible, and I said in the House the day before yesterday that I do not think—I regret this—that we can expect to see an end of the dispute until
1684
there has been a wage settlement, which I hope will be reached as soon as possible.
In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is certainly true that there is a striking difference between the attitude taken by the Conservative Party to the action of the doctors, which did very great damage to the Health Service, and the attitude that they are taking now. I believe that we should condemn industrial action that does damage to the Health Service, whether it comes from doctors, nurses or anyone else who works in the Service.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that last statement was totally false? Does he not recollect that both I, on many occasions, and my predecessor the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) have repeatedly condemned strikes in the National Health Service wheresoever they occur, and that my hon. Friend's remarks were made with specific reference to the industrial action taken by doctors in 1975? Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that last statement, therefore?
Mr. Ennals: I welcome the statement now made by the right hon. Gentleman but if he is going to talk about irresponsible statements, I would refer to a question that was put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on Tuesday. I have a very long statement here alleging that I had made some statement in relation to a consultant in Birmingham. That is absolutely irresponsible. I made no statement in relation to the consultant in Birmingham; I simply published a statement that had been issued that day by the area health authority.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall saying a few minutes ago that you would take three more questions from either side, and quite rightly you recognised, following those six questions, the spokesman for the Opposition to seek specifically to deal with the matter that the Minister had put before the House. That, of course, was the exercise by you of your discretion, which I think everyone would support. But in those circumstances must it not be right, to protect the balance of the House, that when the spokesman for the Opposition speaks again at the Dispatch Box on a specific

1685
matter, he gets a specific answer? He did not get such an answer.
Mr. Speaker: I want to make it clear once again that when I tell the House that I will take two or three questions from either side I always exclude the Opposition Front Bench, because very often I have to call on the spokesman to ask the final question. That custom has now become well established.
Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members will have heard the Minister in his opening statement refer specifically to the Trent regional authority as one of the three most seriously affected areas. May I seek your guidance on how an hon. Member representing one of the constituencies in the East Midlands can catch your eye, because I do not think that any of us have been called upon?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is impossible, whoever sits in this Chair, to call everyone who is affected by the current dispute. It is an impossible position, and all I can do is my best.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: The notice announcing the private notice question that was in the Members' Lobby this afternoon was specific, in that it referred to the term "industrial action". Since the National Health Service is not an industry, and since there is a world of difference between action and obstruction, is there any way in which the House can be defended from this sort of misrepresentation, because clearly what we have been discussing this afternoon is social mutiny?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to talk to his hon. Friend who tabled the question.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a question which from time to time we have had to deal with—the question of the transfer of questions for the Prime Minister. It is very well understood in this House that where a question clearly falls within the sphere of another Department it is quite proper for the Prime
1686
Minister to transfer it to the Secretary of State of the Department concerned. We now have a series of questions which are in order, and very few that escape that particular barrier, but when a question is put to the Prime Minister asking whether he, the Prime Minister, will meet a specific body within the country, if that question is transferred to, say, the Secretary of State for Education or Health, the answer is immediately given that the Secretary of State may well be prepared to meet the interests concerned. But the question is not posed to the Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State is already prepared to have that meeting. The question is put to the Prime Minister. Is it possible, therefore, for guidance to be given whether it is possible to put a question to the Prime Minister whether, in certain circumstances, he and not his departmental chief may be prepared to meet a certain section of the community?
Mr. Speaker: The House knows that I am not responsible when Ministers transfer questions. That has been explained many times. Perhaps I can repeat the advice that I gave earlier; the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his right hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Vaccine Damage Payments Bill.
TUESDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Supply [6th alloted day]. There will be a debate on the disruption of the education services, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill.

1687
THURSDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Crown Agents Bill.
FRIDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Credit Unions Bill.
Motion on EEC documents R/3185/78, R/3089/78, R/3090/78, R/3146/78, and R/3093/78 on the Communities budget.
Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to put three points to the Leader of the House. This is yet another week in which the right hon. Gentleman has failed to provide a day for hon. Members to discuss current disputes as they affect their constituencies. We all know from the many questions that have been asked that many hon. Members wish to have more time available to them properly to bring before Ministers the full effects of strikes on hospitals, schools or otherwise, and the lives of their constituents. Will he please provide a day? We have a half Supply day only and we are giving it for that purpose, but not once since Christmas have the Government provided a day.
Secondly, the EEC documents on the Communities budget are extremely important and will require at least a half day to discuss. I take it that it is the right hon. Gentleman's purpose to provide that half day and that, should the Second Reading of the Credit Unions Bill continue for longer than expected, he will provide extra time so that we shall have a full half day to discuss the Communities budget.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there have been various statements today about the future of our defence contracts with Iran. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on that important subject?
Mr. Foot: I shall take the three matters raised by the right hon. Lady in reverse order.
On the last matter, concerning Iran, the Foreign Secretary will in any case be answering questions next week. I think that it is next week. But if it is thought desirable that he should make a special statement on this subject, I shall certainly consider any such representations. [Interruption.] I thought that it was next
1688
week. If I am wrong, in any case I have already said that if the House would like to have a special statement from the Foreign Secretary on this subject I shall certainly consider it.
The second matter related to the business on 12 February. It is our hope that there will be longer than an hour and a half to discuss those EEC documents. It is certainly hoped that it will be a considerable time, because we do not believe that it is likely or necessary that the Credit Unions Bill will take the whole of the time. If that does not prove to be the case, I agree with the right hon. Lady that we should on some occasion try to provide extra time. If we discover that we do not get the extra or necessary time on that Monday, we shall have to make some other arrangement.
On the first question, I fully understand the right hon. Lady's desire that the Government should provide time for these matters. If the House looks at the way in which we have dealt with these questions, as I said last week, it is evident that the House has had an opportunity of raising these matters. There will be further opportunities of raising them next week. I think that the House is adapting itself to deal with this situation in a sensible manner.
Mr. Stoddart: Will my right hon. Friend consider setting time aside for a debate on industrial relations and the future of wage bargaining? That might then give us an opportunity to find out and reconcile the conflicting and often absurd statements made by the Opposition, because they could perhaps tell us exactly how they would solve the present problems without the use of troops, bayonets, and so on.
Mr. Foot: I fully accept that the House might wish to have a further opportunity of discussing many of these questions. But this issue figured prominently in the debate last week, when the House of Commons confirmed its support for the Government's approach to the matter.
Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of the concern expressed by Opposition Members about the use of volunteers to maintain essential services, will the Lord President find time to debate early-day motion 209 standing in my name and the names of several of my right hon. and

1689
hon. Friends, calling for the establishment of a corps of volunteers, under the control of the Home Secretary, to ensure the maintenance of essential services threatened by natural disaster or industrial action?
[That this House calls for the establishment of a Civil Emergency Force under the control of the Home Secretary consisting of part-time volunteers with the necessary skills, or ready to undergo the necessary training, to ensure the maintenance of essential public services disrupted by natural disaster or industrial action.]
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise any early time to discuss the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Mrs. Bain: Will the Leader of the House clarify whether the Supply day debate on Tuesday will be wide enough to include the Scottish education service, where disruption is particularly worrying in view of the advanced time scale for its examination system?
Secondly, may I yet again ask whether the right hon. Gentleman envisages an early debate on the shipbuilding industry? Is he aware that since British Shipbuilders last week announced expected closures at Falmouth and Teesside there is a great deal of uncertainty throughout shipbuilding communities? Is not the best way to counteract rumour, speculation and denial for the House to have an early debate or at least a statement from the Department of Industry?
Mr. Foot: On the first matter, the subject is selected by the official Opposition. I should have thought that the questions that the hon. Lady wishes to raise would be in order during that debate.
On the second matter, I shall certainly consider whether it is desirable or necessary to have an early statement on the shipbuilding industry. I cannot promise it for next week, but I shall certainly look into the matter as the hon. Lady has raised it.
Mr. Spearing: Will the Lord President tell us whether the debate on the EEC budget on Monday week will be on a motion to take note? Will he also tell us which budget will be taken note of—the Council's or the Assembly's? Since
1690
they are in disagreement, is it not all the more important that we should have a motion setting out Ministers' duties concerning the Council? Will he also inform those of his hon. Friends who do not think that we should have such a motion that their action will be interpreted as wanting to send the power from this House to the EEC institutions?
Mr. Foot: On the first question, all these matters will be in order in the debate. As I have already indicated to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, we certainly envisage that there must be sufficient time to discuss the various aspects of the documents which will be before the House.
The second question, which my hon. Friend has raised on a number of occasions, I fully accept is an important matter that the House still has to resolve. The Procedure Committee has made a report on that subject. I hope that at a fairly early date we shall be able to debate that matter, too.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to early-day motion 212, which has been signed by 112 right hon. and hon. Members, referring to the statement made last Thursday by the Secretary of State for Social Services when he strongly criticised the director of radiotherapy at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham? Bearing in mind that a few moments ago the Secretary of State denied that he made that statement, and as his Minister of State on Tuesday confirmed that he made it and strongly supported it, would it not be sensible to have the Secretary of State come to the House next week to make a statement so that he can, preferably, withdraw his remarks, which have done great harm to the National Health Service in Birmingham, and clarify matters to the House, because there has been considerable confusion all round?
[That this House regrets that the Secretary of State for Social Services is not prepared to withdraw his remarks dissociating himself from the Director of Radiotherapy at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham despite the fact that over 100 doctors and nurses at the hospital have confirmed Mr. William

1691
Bond was right to state that cancer patients' lives were at risk because they were sent home as a result of the National Union of Public Employee' action; further regrets this slur on Mr. Bond's professional reputation; and believes doctors rather than union officials know when patients' lives are at risk.]
Mr. Foot: I think that my right hon. Friend successfully disposed of that matter this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If Opposition Members wish to put down any further questions on the subject, the Order Paper is open to them.
Mr. Wigley: Will the Lord President, as a matter of urgency, find time to debate early-day motion 202, standing in the names of Labour, Liberal and Plaid Cymru Members, which relates to the use of the Local Government Act 1972 by Conservative groups on South Glamorgan and Gwent county councils to use ratepayers' money for political purposes?
[That this House deplores the proposed misuse of ratepayers' money by Gwent and South Glamorgan county councils who intend to spend it on literature advocating a 'No' vote in the referendum on the Welsh Assembly; supports the assertion by the Secretary of State for Wales that the use of the Local Government Act 1972 in this way is extremely dubious, and opens the door to possibilities of further misappropriation of funds; and calls on these two county councils to reconsider their unfortunate decisions and to leave the resolution of the Referendum to the good sense of the residents of their two counties.]
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate on the subject. However, it certainly seems a peculiar way to use ratepayers' money, and I think that the ratepayers might have something to say about it.
Mr. Rooker: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 211?
[That this House does not believe that it was the intention of Parliament in passing the Social Security Pensions Act to deprive men and women of their jobs simply because they were forced to give their incorrect age to their employer in order to obtain employment; regards the intention of the Government to inform
1692
all employers of the age of those workers who have reached retirement age as an invasion of individual privacy which will cause untold human misery to the individuals and their families; and therefore calls upon the Government urgently to bring forward an Order amending employers' contribution payments before the end of the current financial year so that this information is not divulged and to include arrangements for any such worker who wishes to remain at work to continue to pay national insurance contributions without extra benefit or refund.]
Will he give time to debate that matter next week in order that the House may decide whether it was the intention in 1975 to pass an Act which this year will give the Government power to tell employers in this country the ages of their employees? If so, people who in the past have had to tell fibs about their ages in order to get jobs will face a difficult problem this year if they reach genuine retirement age, because they will be forced out of their jobs. The reason why they were forced to tell fibs in the first place was the result of the age discrimination practised by this society on people over the ages of 40 or 50 who found difficulty in getting jobs.
Mr. Foot: I accept everything that my hon. Friend says on the subject. I agree that it is a question that the House might wish to raise and discuss. I know that my hon. Friend says that time is short, but he is an extremely ingenious Member and I should be surprised if he did not find a further opportunity of raising the subject.
Mr. Rost: I believe that the Leader of the House is ducking his responsibilities in the most disgraceful way by failing to provide at least one day—preferably two—of Government time to discuss the increasing chaos from which the nation is suffering. Has the Leader of the House not noticed that there has now been more than one month of increasing shambles and that every statement has had to be squeezed and bullied out of Ministers on the Front Bench? No Minister has volunteered to make a statement about anything. It is time that the Leader of the House stopped ducking his responsibilities and allowed us a proper debate.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has just made a totally false statement. If

1693
anyone outside this House is inclined to believe him—I do not suppose that there are many who will—it will be misleading and injurious to the reputation of the House. My hon. and right hon. Friends volunteered statements on a series of occasions during the past two or three weeks. Statements have been made in answer to private notice questions but more generally Ministers have volunteered statements—for example, the statements made day after day by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that have served the House extremely well. The troubles are serious and the House wishes to be informed of them. Anybody who believes that the House has not been so informed cannot have been applying his mind properly to the business of the House.
Mr. William Hamilton: May I make a novel suggestion to my right hon. Friend? Will he arrange, as quickly as possible, preferably next week, an early debate on the problems of the low-paid in juxtaposition with a debate on the Peachey Corporation? That would show the greed, venal deceit and corruption in the City, as represented by the Tory Party, as against the problems of the poor, with which the Government are most concerned.
Mr. Foot: I am not sure about the juxtaposition of debates. It is a matter of interest that during the whole of the period the only demands made upon myself and the Government for discussions and answers about the low-paid have come from Labour Memers. The Government are fully aware of the serious concern that hon. Members feel for the low-paid. We shall continue to put our minds to the subject. A debate may be held at some stage on the subject, although it did enter into recent debates.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is the Lord President aware that it is well over two years since the annual Welsh day debate was held? Has he abandoned the practice of holding that debate? Is he further aware that many of the services that are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales have been badly disrupted by the present industrial disputes? Will he therefore arrange for his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State
1694
for Wales to make a statement to the House next week, so that we may have the opportunity of questioning him?
Mr. Foot: I will examine the last suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman. No proposition has been put forward for abandoning the Welsh day debate, and none would be accepted. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman taking an interest in Wales. I hope that he will vote "Yes" at the referendum and assist the Government.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 187?
[That this House is strongly of the opinion that films which are categorised as 'X' films at cinemas and which it is prohibited to show to persons under the age of 18 years should not be shown on television.]
The motion seeks to stop the showing on television of films of sex and violence that are regarded as unsuitable for cinema showing to persons under the age of 18. The motion has been signed by 119 right hon. and hon. Members from all parties in the House who are concerned about the evils that the showing of these films may bring. Will the Leader of the House give us an early date in order that the matter can be debated?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a date, although the number of Members who have signed the motion shows that there is considerable interest in the matter. It is a question for the broadcasting authorities, and if the House wishes to alter their decision there will have to be a debate. There are other opportunities for raising debates. Private Members have extensive rights and I believe this to be a suitable proposition for the use of those rights.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Leader of the House aware that the main anxiety felt on Iran is not only the safety of British citizens but the potential large-scale loss of exports and jobs? Will he therefore reconsider whether it is appropriate for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement as requested by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? I believe that it would be better for the Secretary of State for Defence or one of the Industry Ministers to make such a statement. The matter is urgent, and

1695
I hope that a statement will be forth-coming next week.
Mr. Foot: I accept the urgency of a statement. However, I have a sense of priorities and I must give prior consideration to the request of the right hon. Lady.
Mr. Christopher Price: Has my right hon. Friend studied the House of Lords' judgment that appeared this morning exonerating the magazines and newspapers that printed the name of Colonel Johnstone last year? The judgment found against the Attorney-General, at considerable cost to the taxpayer. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the judgment is an excuse for the Committee of Privileges to get on quickly with its deliberations, so that we can have a debate to clear up the matter?
Mr. Foot: I have not yet had the opportunity of studying the judgment of the House of Lords; therefore, it would be wrong for me to comment upon it. I do not believe that while a Committee of this House is sitting I should comment upon the speed or slowness with which it conducts its affairs.
Mr. Aitken: Does the Lord President recall that under the terms of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 the Government are currently preparing to bring in a statutory code of conduct that will deal largely with trade union matters that appear in the press? Does he believe that higher priority should be placed on statutory codes of conduct for picketing, including picketing in the National Health Service?
Mr. Foot: I recall the debates when the hon. Gentleman raised those matters. However, I am doubtful whether the second question that he raises can be dealt with satisfactorily by statutory means.
Miss Richardson: Now that the Home Secretary is looking urgently into the practice revealed by the case of the Indian lady who arrived at London airport to be subjected to an examination to discover whether she was virgo intacta—[Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. When the Home Secretary is ready to report, will the Leader of the House find time for a discussion so that the House may let its feeling be known on this degrading practice?
Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is no laughing matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated that the Home Secretary is now urgently studying the report. I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend but I do not know whether there should be a debate.
Mr. Marten: I do not believe that the Leader of the House is aware that the EEC documents that are to be debated on Monday week are of fundamental constitutional and financial importance. I believe that shovelling them on after a Bill about credit union is not treating the Common Market with the respect that it deserves. Will he therefore bring the debate on as first Order of the Day, as the Bill is not of great importance?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise to do that, but I acknowledge the importance of the matter. The House will want time to discuss it. If we find that there is insufficient time under the proposed arrangements, we shall re-examine the matter.
Mr. Heffer: Together with other hon. Members from Merseyside, I have been requesting for a considerable time a discussion on the Floor of this Chamber on the problems of Merseyside. In view of the fact that there are now 100,000 unemployed on Merseyside, 2,500 declared redundancies at Dunlop, and another 1,000 at Plessey today, and in view of the fact that most of these are private enterprise companies, is it not time for the Government to bring a great deal of pressure to bear, through the National Enterprise Board, so that something may be done about these problems?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should have an early debate so that the subject can be discussed in depth? If it cannot be done immediately, could it not be done in the week when we are due to have a recess as a result of nonsense such as the referendums in Scotland and Wales, especially as there are real problems in areas such as Merseyside which need the fullest discussion?
Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend that the position on Merseyside is very serious. I fully appreciate his reasons for expressing his concern. I cannot make any promise about an early debate on the subject, but I shall look into his representations. There are other parts of the

1697
country which have similar claims, although I am not in any way seeking to diminish the significance of the problems on Merseyside.
Mr. Blaker: It is quite right that Ministers should regularly make statements in the House about the industrial disputes that we are suffering, but does not the Leader of the House realise that that is not enough? What is required is a debate, preferably over two days, so that Back Benchers can ventilate and properly debate the anxieties and difficulties of their constituents. The right hon. Gentleman used to have a reputation as a defender of the rights of Back Benchers. Would it not be nice if he did something to recapture that reputation?
Mr. Foot: In reply to an earlier Opposition suggestion to the effect that the Government had not volunteered statements, I tried to correct that impression, because it is completely false. The Government, throughout the whole of this period, have never been backward in ensuring that the fullest information was given to the House. It is perfectly natural that the right hon. Lady and other Opposition Members should press for the Government to provide time. Even so, it is quite wrong for the impression to be given that the House of Commons has not had full opportunities to debate this matter. We had a full debate last week, on a motion chosen by the Opposition. The House of Commons repudiated the Opposition's view and upheld the view of the Government.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have already risen. Mr. Cryer.
Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend clarify his previous answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) concerning a debate on the Peachey report? My right hon. Friend did not indicate whether he was prepared to make time available. The report exposes the seamy side of capitalism and exposes shortcomings in company law.
As the Companies Bill is going through the House, is not an early opportunity for debating this report necessary,
1698
in order that we can put through legislation to stop the kind of behaviour, which has outraged all decent people throughout the country? Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are many company reports which are gathering dust, which have never been debated, and which this House should examine in detail?
Mr. Foot: There are such reports. I am not sure whether any of the issues raised in the Peachey report could be dealt with by any amendment of the Companies Bill that is now going through the House. It is obviously a matter that will be studied both in Committee and on Report. This is an illustration of the way in which the House of Commons provides many opportunities for raising such questions.
Mr. Michael Latham: Are we to have a debate on the public expenditure White Paper soon, or are the Government waiting until they have announced their further cuts?
Mr. Foot: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is eager to hear the Expenditure Committee's comments. I am sure that he is as much on tenterhooks as I am to hear what the Committee has to say. It might be regarded as discourteous if we were to have the debate before we had the report of the Committee.
Mr. Grocott: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the very important White Paper dealing with local government's organic change. In view of the tremendous effects that this would have on very many people who work in local government, and that it is the first time that we have had an opportunity to put right the damage to ratepayers inflicted by the Conservative Government's reorganisation of local government, will he agree that we should debate this very important subject very soon?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise it very soon, but I fully accept that the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is one of major importance for ensuring a restoration of democratic rights which were taken away by the Conservative Party. My own city of Plymouth had essential rights taken away by the Conservative Party. It is eager to get them back. I am glad to say that this is going

1699
ahead. I should be happy to have such a debate and, indeed, to participate in it if I had a chance to be called.
Mr. Steen: I assume that the Lord President has seen early-day motion 217, entitled "Embalming of Dead Bodies", in my name and in the names of a number of my hon. Friends.
[That this House believes that the death grant should be temporarily raised by at least a further £18 to meet the additional costs to relatives of deceased persons for embalming bodies which cannot be buried or cremated as a result of the current strike of grave diggers and crematorium operators.]
Is he aware that today in Liverpool there are 278 corpses unburied and that, because of the risk of deterioration, the family of each of the deceased is having to pay at least £18 for an embalming process? Will the Lord President ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services comes to the House and tells the House whether, as he pays out benefits to strikers' families, he will pay out a special embalming fee to the family of each deceased?
Mr. Foot: I do not think that the method suggested by the hon. Gentleman is the best way to deal with the subject. The whole House listened most carefully to what was said yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I think that he will be coming to the House to make a further statement on the subject. He has stressed to the House and to the whole country the seriousness with which the Government view the position.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his remarks about the need for a debate on the Peachey report, taking into account that many of us would like to know just who organised the parties at No. 10? We all understand that there are such things as bottle parties, but it is quite another thing to have people dragging cases of champagne behind them when they go to these functions.
Would it not also be appropriate to give an opportunity to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to come to the House and explain his role in the affair—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows that criticism of another hon. Member—[Interruption.] It sounded to me very much like criticism. It did not sound like a compliment, at any rate. The hon. Member suggested that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) might come to the House to explain. I think that those were the words. Hon. Members may express criticism of the personal conduct of another hon. Member only on the basis of a motion before the House
Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, so that the right hon. Gentleman can come and explain his role in the affair—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not repeat that the hon. Gentleman is not to cast a reflection by implication upon any right hon. or hon. Member of the House
Mr. Skinner: The point has to be made, Mr. Speaker, that if there has been any reflection cast upon the right hon. Gentleman initially, it has been done by the authors of the Peachey report, and I am suggesting that an opportunity should be given to him to come along—
Mr. Speaker: Order: The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. Mr. Grylls.
Mr. Grylls: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 175, signed by hon. Members of all parties, asking the Secretary of State for Industry to publish British Shipbuilders' corporate plan?
[That this House calls on the Government to place in the Library of the House a copy of British Shipbuilders' Corporate Plan.]
It is a matter of immense importance to hon. Members in every part of the House, as it concerns the future employment in and size of the industry. Will he arrange for a debate on this very important matter?
Mr. Foot: I have already replied to a question on this matter. The British Shipbuilders' corporate plan was received at the end of December and is now being carefully examined. The plan contains commercially confidential material and cannot, as such, be made public. My right hon. Friend will, however, be considering,

1701
as part of his review of the plan, what information can be made available to the House. I have already indicated that I shall see how soon that statement can be made.
Mr. Loyden: Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on the question of a debate on Merseyside or North-West unemployment, does my right hon. Friend agree that as most firms to which he referred are in the private sector—and the National Enterprise Board was set up for the purpose of assisting in those situations where private sector industry had failed—we should now review the role of the NEB? Now that there is an amending Bill before the House, could we not take the opportunity to discuss the role of the NEB in the problems of regional unemployment?
Mr. Foot: I shall fully take into account what was said by my hon. Friends. It is highly desirable that further measures should be taken to deal with the extremely serious unemployment situation in Liverpool. However, considerable measures have been taken by the Government already and considerable amounts of public money have been devoted to that purpose. That does not mean to say that there is not much more to be done. My hon. Friend must appreciate that a considerable amount has been done already.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: With reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), is the Leader of the House aware that, unfortunately, my right hon. Friend is unwell and in hospital? I am sure that we all wish him a speedy recovery.
As to the Peachey report, would it not be prudent to remember the old adage that people in glass houses should not throw stones?
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) began his question by indicating a reference to No. 10. He was not drawn to order for that. An hon. Gentleman has just made another reflection upon the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). He was not drawn to order for
1702
that. Surely justice in this House should be even-handed.
Mr. Speaker: It should be, I quite agree. However, the hon. Gentleman should be factually correct. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not, in my hearing, mention No. 10. He referred to bottles of champagne. No name was mentioned. I waited until a name of a right hon. Member of the House was mentioned. I would have done the same for anyone, as the House knows.
Mr. Molloy: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if he would reconsider the request from the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Opposition that we should debate the current situation of the lower-paid workers in local goverment and the hospital services? As we understand it from speeches from Opposition Members, if there is any settlement that might result in an increase of wages the Opposition will oppose it, as it will increase rates. If the Government give a subsidy, that will increase taxes. The Opposition appear to have no solution. If there were a debate, we could gain some idea of what precisely the Opposition mean. At one time they do not seem to mind increases for local government workers as long as there is no increase in rates and as long as the Government do not give any subsidy or increase taxes. We want to know what other miracle the Opposition have in mind.
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is mistaken in this. I have not received any request from the Opposition for a debate on the low-paid. I have heard from them only on the subject of what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) in the debate last week, when he flatly turned down even the proposal for the £3·50.
Mr. Brooke: I entirely understand that you, Mr. Speaker, were not able to accord us a debate on the refuse situation in South Westminster earlier this week. However, would the Leader of the House ensure that the Departments of his Government make a small substitute contribution to the solution of the problem by moving their garbage to the Westminster emergency dumps, like all other ratepayers?
Mr. Ron Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department of Trade report into Peachey indicated examples of more being spent in one night on champagne than an ambulance worker can earn in a year? Does he accept that there are many Government supporters who are appalled and outraged by this report? We believe that there should be a debate and that any Members of Parliament who have been involved should explain how they became involved.
Mr. Foot: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. However, I cannot promise an early debate on the subject.
Mr. Canavan: Will the Leader of the House reconsider what he said? It would be ideal to give the House the opportunity to discuss the need for a better, stricter code of conduct for Members of Parliament and Ministers. The revelations in the report about the free gift schemes for certain Members of Parliament, including former Ministers, is in danger of bringing Parliament into disrepute, especially at a time when the trade unions are under attack for defending the rights of low-paid workers, many of whom earn less in one year than the amount that was spent on one extravagant champagne junket at No. 10 Downing Street.
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friends and others may wish to debate that and other aspects of the report. However, I cannot offer the immediate prospect of a debate on the subject. Some aspects of the report no doubt arise in other fields as well, as was indicated by my hon. Friend who originally raised the matter.

PUBLIC SERVICES (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
Mr. Cormack: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the effects of the current industrial unrest, in particular on hospital patients and on burial, cremation and other local authority facilities".
Since yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when I made a similar application in respect of the crisis in the National Health Service, the situation has become even more acute. It is now even more essential that we should have a debate. I submit that its scope should be widened beyond what I suggested yesterday.
In spite of the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, it appears that the appalling situation resulting from the action of certain gravediggers and crematoria workers has deteriorated. During the past few hours news has come through of an extension of the dispute in the public services in Scotland and increased industrial activity by school caretakers.
I am sure that most hon. Members will agree that the matter that deserves the greatest and most urgent attention is that arising from nationwide unrest in the National Health Service. In spite of attempts to agree a code of practice to alleviate the results of that unrest, there are more and more acute cases of real distress. Since I have been in the House this afternoon I have been handed a copy of the code of practice, which indicates clearly that services for children must be fully maintained at all times. At the same time I have been informed that NUPE has called a 24-hour all-out strike at Great Ormond Street children's hospital. That one example illustrates the need for the debate.
I submit that in the distress and discomfort of hospital patients and their relatives, in the anguish of the bereaved and in the anxiety of those who see more and more of the services upon which civilised living depends being threatened, we have a chorus of protest that we cannot and should not ignore.

1705
I know the constraints under which you have to operate, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the significance of the business before the House. However, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will feel that the matters to which I have referred—especially the example of the Great Ormond Street strike—justify an immediate debate before the weekend.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) has repeated the application that he submitted to the House yesterday. His application today is in wider terms, referring to
"the effects of the current industrial unrest, in particular on hospital patients and on burial, cremation and other local authority facilities".
Yesterday I told the hon. Gentleman that I could not grant his application. I used the words "this day". I have spent a great deal of time today considering the matter anxiously. I believe that the best way in which I can serve the House, having listened to the exchanges and having listened with especial care to the hon. Gentleman's submissions about what is happening in the country, is to follow the course that I took a fortnight ago on the lorry drivers' strike and to say that if the hon. Gentleman will make his submission on Monday, and if I believe that the circumstances warrant an emergency debate, the debate will take place at seven o'clock on Monday night.
I inform the House that in addition to the application that has just been made I have received notices of application under Standing Order No. 9 from eight other hon. Members—namely, the hon. Members for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott), City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
All the applications relate to different aspects of the same general situation described by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West, with whose application I have just dealt. They may all be covered in debate if and when an emergency debate is granted.
1706
I recognise the pressures that all hon. Members have to take into account during a period of widespread industrial unrest. I recognise the pressures from their constituencies. However, I hope very much that hon. Members will be prepared to exercise restraint in the interests of the House and will not follow up applications under Standing Order No. 9 when they know that they will receive only the same answer as I have already given.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I agree with you about applications under Standing Order No. 9. As you know, the Secretary of State for Scotland has wide-ranging responsibilities. It would be helpful if, instead of trying to get in on statements made on almost a daily basis by other departmental Ministers, you were to see your way to consider an application under Standing Order No. 9 on the serious situation facing local government and other services in Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: Certainly. I take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am deeply grateful to him and his colleagues on both sides of the House, who, I believe, have acted in the best interests of the House.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that you thought that the application that I was to make today had anything to do with the matter that will be debated on Monday. My application has nothing to do with that situation. It relates to a matter relevant to the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast.
Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I should have said that the hon. Gentleman's application was an exception. The others all relate to the crisis in the country.
Later—
Mr. Radice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respect your ruling on Standing Order No. 9, but you will be aware that my own Standing Order No. 9 submission was in slightly wider terms than the one we have just heard. If you call an a emergency debate on Monday, will you allow hon. Members to range widely over the disputes in the public services as a whole?
Mr. Speaker: If there is an emergency debate, it will be on the Adjournment. An Adjournment debate is always very wide.

ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BELFAST
Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"that four patients admitted to the Royal Victoria hospital on 15 January died before they could get treatment in wards 10 and 11 because of deplorable overcrowded conditions".
The conditions have nothing to do with the present industrial unrest or with strikes among hospital workers. A top consultant surgeon at the Royal Victoria hospital issued a statement in which he described the present condition of the Royal Victoria hospital as
"outrageous and a discredit to any concept of modern medicine".
He gave as an example that on 15 January no beds were available in wards 10 and 11 and that of the 29 patients admitted four died before they could receive any treatment in those wards. That is a matter of great concern in Northern Ireland. I take this opportunity to raise it on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) gave me notice this morning that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific
1708
and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"that four patients admitted to the Royal Victoria hospital on 15 January died before they could get treatment in wards 10 and 11 because of deplorable overcrowded conditions".
The hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly raised a serious matter. He knows, as the House knows, that under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. The hon. Gentleman knows that I decide not whether the matter should be debated, but merely whether there should be an emergency debate tonight or on Monday. I regret that I cannot submit his application to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, on the interruption of business at this day's sitting, any Amendment selected by Mr. Speaker to the Prime Minister's first Motion relating to Special Commission on Oil Sanctions (Joint Committee) may be moved, and Mr. Speaker shall thereupon put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the said Motion and any such Amendment, if not previously concluded, and shall then proceed to put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining Motions and any Amendments selected by Mr. Speaker which may be moved thereto.—[Mr. Michael Foot.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
Ordered,
That the Nurses and Enrolled Nurses (Amendment) Rules Approval Instrument 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 49) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RHODESIA (OIL SANCTIONS)
  5.2 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): I beg to move,
  That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses to be known as "the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions" be appointed to consider, following the Report of the Bingham Inquiry, the part played by those concerned in the development and application of the policy of oil sanctions against Rhodesia with a view to determining whether Parliament or Ministers were misled, intentionally or otherwise, and to report.
  Mr. Speaker: Before the Attorney-General begins his speech, I should tell the House that I have selected the following amendments: amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore); amendment (b) in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon); amendments (e) and (f) in the name of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop); amendment (h) in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton); amendment (k) in the name of the hon. Member for Tiverton.
  It may assist the House if I explain the procedure that I suggest should be followed. When motions setting up Select Committees are moved in the House, they usually go through "on the nod". For that reason, the Questions on orders of reference, nominations and powers and so on are put en bloc to save time. But when such motions are debated, and more particularly, as today, when amendments have been selected, it is clear that the practice is to put a separate Question on each motion.
  I propose, however, that all the motions before us in this instance be debated together first, together with such amendments as I have selected, so that we may have a broad debate on the whole matter and discuss all the amendments and all the motions.
  At the conclusion of the debate tonight I shall, in accordance with the business of the House motion that has just been passed, put forthwith the separate Questions on each motion, calling first each Member whose amendment I have selected to move his amendment if he so
  1710
  wishes at the proper place in the motion concerned.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might it not save individual hon. Members from seeking to catch your eye on a number of different occasions if all the amendments that you have decided to call were moved formally right at the beginning? In those circumstances hon. Members would need to speak only once, and could refer to any of the amendments they wanted. Otherwise, would it not be out of order for hon. Members who had caught your eye to refer to amendments that had not yet been moved?
  Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that it will help the House if we continue as I have suggested, and have a broad discussion, with hon. Members feeling free to refer to amendments that have not yet been moved but are on the Order Paper. It will make better sense for the whole of the House if the matter can be dealt with in that way. There will be an opportunity at 10 o'clock tonight for those who wish to divide on their amendments to do so.
  Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you clarify what you said about the Divisions? Will we take the motion, paragraph by paragraph, with the appropriate amendments, as we come to them, or will we deal with all the amendments first before coming to the motion?
  Mr. Speaker: The amendments come first, as is the custom of the House, and I shall put the Question "That the amendment be made". Then I shall put the motion, or the motion as amended, as the case may be, as the main Question. At the end of the day, we will all be very clear about it.
  The Attorney-General: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for that indication of the procedure to be followed.
  During the debate on the Gracious Speech last November, two days were devoted to Rhodesia. An important aspect of that debate turned on the question of what, if any, further inquiry should follow the publication of the Bingham report. On behalf of the Government, it was repeatedly stated that the views expressed by right hon. and hon. Members

  1711
  would be studied and that the Government, following that study, would bring forward their proposals for consideration by the House. It was made clear that the issue was essentially one for Parliament.
  In that debate, my function was objectively to describe the possible choices so as to try to assist the House in weighing up their advantages and disadvantages. I believe that that process secured two benefits. First, the predominant view of the House became clear. It was that there should be a further inquiry and that it should be a parliamentary inquiry. Secondly, having fully deployed the pros and cons on that occasion, it is not necessary for me to repeat them today. I had expected that to be greeted with acclamation.
  Having accepted the predominant wish of the House for a parliamentary inquiry, the Government have been concerned to preserve, so far as practicable, the essential safeguards to which I referred in my speech in November. Indeed, the need for them was voiced by many others, both here and in another place.
  In December, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the form of inquiry which the Government proposed in order to give effect to their assessment of the wishes of the House and of the need to preserve their safeguards. At the same time, he made it clear that the decision is for Parliament: to accept it, to reject it, or, subject to one important consideration, which I shall come to later, to amend it. The type of inquiry proposed, taking the form of what we have called a Special Commission, has now been on the Order Paper since we returned after the Christmas Recess. The House has had full opportunity to study it.
  In their report, Mr. Bingham and Mr. Gray investigated in detail the way in which oil had reached Rhodesia since 1965. The task given to them, which they accomplished with scrupulous thoroughness, was to establish the facts and in particular those facts which suggested the leakage of oil through possible breaches of British sanctions legislation during the periods of two Labour Governments and one Conservative Government. The legislation was in force in all three periods.
  As I informed the House in November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has referred the Bingham report to
  1712
  the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director at once arranged for a senior police officer to lead the investigation into the possible commission of criminal offences. I can tell the House that that investigation is proceeding with all practicable speed. But it was not Bingham's task to consider issues of political responsibility whether to Parliament or more generally. It is that to which the controversy was mostly directed in our debates.
  Some right hon. and hon. Members, and certainly most of those who spoke in another place, saw no need for a further inquiry and thought that it would be a useless exercise in raking over the ashes of the past. Many speakers pointed to the problems which such an inquiry could pose if it is to be effective. But the predominant feeling, certainly in this House, in the Government's judgment, was that the issue of responsibility should not be left to the historians. Both in Fairness to all who were involved, and to some who have been attacked, and so as to avoid any charge, however ill founded, of cover-up, the majority of those who spoke in this House expressed the view, and expressed it strongly, that responsibility should be investigated while the participants are still available to give their accounts.
  The Governent have taken account of those differing views. They have concluded that the exceptional nature of the events covered by the Bingham report and the importance of the questions raised by hon. Members justify the predominant feeling in this House in favour of a further inquiry. This is indeed consistent with the path of openness which has characterised the Government's whole approach to these events. The further inquiry proposed will be another step along the same path.
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the function of the proposed Special Commission will be mainly to make political judgments. But, in making these judgments, the inquiry must be as fair as is possible to all who were in some way concerned with the material events. It is, moreover, essential that the inquiry should not damage the processes of government or the interests of this country abroad. It is with these considerations in mind that the Government have decided to recommend the particular form of a

  1713
  Special Commission, with terms of reference concentrated on the major political issue, with a carefully devised procedure, and with members drawn from both Houses of Parliament.
  If these resolutions are carried, the Government's intention is to nominate two of my hon. Friends—I repeat, my "honourable" Friends. I cannot speak for other parties, which, of course, will make their own nominations. But I hope that what I have said will help to relieve the fears, at least of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and others, with regard to the Commission's composition.
  The terms of reference will, we believe, enable the Special Commission—
  Mr. Ivor Clemitson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what the total size of the Commission will be? On 15 December, the Prime Minister said that the Commission would be composed of eight Members drawn from both Houses, sitting under the chairmanship of a Lord of Appeal. That could mean eight or nine. It could mean eight inclusive of the Chairman or eight exclusive of the Chairman. Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify that point?
  The Attorney-General: The Government's hope is that the total number will be eight. Of course, it is a matter for the other place to pass a motion in relation to its part of the composition of this Special Commission.
  The terms of reference will, we believe, enable the Special Commission to concentrate upon the issue of political responsibility not dealt with by Bingham, and to avoid traversing again the ground already covered by Bingham. Equally, it will be able to avoid the areas of criminal investigation which are being conducted under the Director's guidance. Thus, it will be for the Commission to investigate the way in which successive Governments pursued the oil sanctions policy, and to do so as deeply as may be necessary in order to ascertain and report whether Parliament and Ministers were misled concerning that policy. If the Commission concludes that Parliament or Ministers were misled, whether intentionally or not, it will have the further task of seeking to determine the responsibility
  1714
  of those, whether Ministers, officials or persons outside Government, who were providing, or failing to provide, information.
  There is a strong consensus that any inquiry should be completed quickly. The Government believe that with those terms of reference the Special Commission should be able to carry out its investigation speedily. But it is also important that any inquiry should be effective. The Government believe that the powers and the procedure proposed for the Commission should enable it to reach effective conclusions. It will have the power to send for persons and papers.
  In an amendment which he may or may not move, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) asks that that power should expressly extend to compel the attendance of Members of the House of Commons. Of course, it is true that the power as proposed in the Government's motion does not confer a power on the Commission itself to compel a Member of the House to attend. But I find it very hard to believe that any right hon. or hon. Member would be minded to decline an invitation to appear before the Commission if invited to do so. However, if that should happen, which I would regard as being a most unlikely and reprehensible action, the Commission could bring the matter to the House and the House would then be able to move the necessary motion. It is unusual to do in these circumstances what the hon. Member proposes. Therefore, I hope that the House will come to the conclusion that we can follow the normal precedent and that such an amendment will not be necessary.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the purpose of the inquiry would be to reach "effective conclusions". That is a most interesting concept. Can he give the House an idea of what an effective conclusion in this context might be?
  The Attorney-General: An effective conclusion will be to give to the House as full a report as is possible on the conclusions reached on the terms of reference of the Special Commission. No one could ask the Special Commission to do more than that, and the hon. Gentleman

  1715
  could not expect anyone to do better than that.
  Mr. John Lee: My right hon. and learned Friend was dealing with the question of compelling hon. Members to attend. The gravamen of his argument was that it was not necessary to provide for this now but that if a situation arose the matter would come back to the House for this power to be granted. Would not it be better to anticipate the situation? It may not be necessary, but it would certainly avoid a measure of delay if anyone proved to be obdurate.
  The Attorney-General: I do not think so. We are following the precedent which has been followed in countless inquiries of this kind, when it has not been thought necessary expressly to give the power to a Select Committee to call hon. Members before it. I do not know of any case—perhaps there have been some—where hon. Members have refused. I think that it would be undesirable to set a new precedent which would be liable to be followed in some other cases—perhaps not all—and would suggest that there was some particular reason for supposing that right hon. and hon. Members would in this case behave in a way that they do not normally do.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since he has referred to my amendment, is the Attorney-General aware that this House ordered all its Members to enter into the Members' register any business interests that they might have in certain categories? To his knowledge, one right hon. Member has consistently refused to do so. With that knowledge, how can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assume that Members will automatically make themselves available when they are not ordered to do so by the House, when they do not necessarily comply with orders which the House has made?
  The Attorney-General: That is an entirely different matter. However, in a matter that all right hon. and hon. Members would regard as being as important as this one, they would not treat it in the same way as a single right hon. Gentleman has treated a matter that he clearly does not regard as being important. We
  1716
  ought to be able to leave it at that and assume that right hon. and hon. Members will act in an honourable way. In the last resort, however, as I have said, we have our remedy.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear in the terms of reference that the question of the Beira patrol will be included? It is not clear in the terms of reference whether commercial activities are covered. Will the Attorney-General reaffirm to the House that the question of the Beira patrol, which ran for almost 10 years, will be referred to and that the rights and wrongs of a situation which incurred great expense will be considered.
  The Attorney-General: The terms of reference have been drafted in a way that will enable them to be construed by the Special Commission as widely as possible. It is for the Commission to decide, though I would have thought that the Beira patrol was part of the oil sanctions story. It is a matter for the Special Commission to decide whether that matter falls within the scope of those issues which it regards as being relevant and important to investigate.
  Mr. Clemitson: On the question of attendance of witnesses, in his statement of 15 December my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the precedent of the Dardanelles Commission. That Commission and the Commission on Mesopotamia were set up by Act of Parliament. Section 21 of that Act specifically says that the Commissioners shall have all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge thereof and talks about enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise.
  The Attorney-General: Of course, if we had decided that we required a statutory type of inquiry we would have set it up, by a resolution of both Houses, under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. Provisions of a similar kind are already incorporated into that Act, and the Act would have applied. But this is a parliamentary inquiry, where we are making our own rules, and so far as possible the Government propose to follow the ordinary rules in inquiries of this kind. Therefore, the particular requirement to which

  1717
  my hon. Friend referred is one that is not necessary. I hope that the House will accept that and leave it there.
  I have said that the House will have the power to send for persons and papers and it may be that the papers will be more important than the persons in this context. Those papers will include Cabinet documents and Government files. The Government recognise that this step is unprecedented but are convinced that it is required. They are also convinced that it ought not to become a precedent. But short of leaving the verdict to history this step is inevitable in the circumstances of the oil sanctions story. If Parliament believes that that story should be fully and fairly investigated, the Commission must see the material contemporary documents. To rely wholly on the fallible, and perhaps differing, recollections of past events would be fair neither to the investigated nor to the investigators.
  Sir Harold Wilson: In connection with the papers, will the Government for their part make available to the inquiry the evidence for their statement to the United Nations in 1976 that the competent United Kingdom authorities, having examined the issues, were satisfied that there was no evidence of sanctions-breaking by any British company. That was said in September 1976. Will the Government give their full documentation and how they came to say that?
  Secondly, will the Government provide all the papers relevant to the discovery, by The Sunday Times—nobody else knew about it—last September of further sanctions-breaking by BP? That allegation was denied by BP on that day but later admitted by it. With regard to Cabinet papers, does the Attorney-General agree that the Government should hand over for inquiry not only departmental minutes and Cabinet and Cabinet committee papers referring to sanctions-breaking but all those papers referring to sanctions generally? If there were no suggestion of sanctions-breaking, the competent authorities presumably could not have known that it was going on, but if there were meetings and documents saying everything that was known to Government Departments about sanctions and they did not refer to sanctions breaking, that in
  1718
  itself is important and will obviously be essential to the inquiry.
  The Attorney-General: I will come to the way in which the Government propose to the House that this should be dealt with, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is not the wish or intention of the Government that any material document in the Government's possession should be held back. The problem will be the vast quantity of documents which may be marginally material. I shall come to that shortly.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend going to say something about the fact that the period with which the Committee will be dealing spans more than one Government? Since we accept in its entirety the Government's offer—and, indeed, the offer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson)—that any papers should be made available subject to the safeguards to which he has referred, and given that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was against this inquiry and was unhappy about the papers of a Conservative Government being made available, what will happen to the papers of that period?
  The Attorney-General: I shall be coming to that in due course. What I was saying concerned the difficulty in inquiring into these events without having the fullest reasonable documentation. That would not be fair to the investigators or the investigated—still less would it have been satisfactory to the public or opinion abroad. It is for these reasons and because of the special circumstances and importance of the task which the Commission is being given that the Government are prepared to agree in principle that the customary rules will be waived. However, it is essential that these rules should not be relaxed more widely than is required for the particular purpose.
  I gave the reasons for that in November and I shall not repeat them. The Government therefore propose that papers bearing on the inquiry—and I use that term in the widest possible sense, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson)—shall be made available to the Special Commission only through its Chairman. As my right hon. Friend

  1719
  the Prime Minister explained, it is proposed that the Chairman should be a Lord of Appeal. It will be for him, with the assistance of the Treasury Solicitor—into whose possession all potentially relevant papers will be placed—to examine and decide, if necessary after consultation with the other members, which of those papers shall be made available for the purpose of the inquiry. Similarly, the Chairman will decide which of those papers it will be essential to publish or to refer to in the report of the inquiry.
  There is an immense amount of marginally relevant material. It will be for the Chairman, whose judicial experience will make him peculiarly well suited for this task, to confine the documents which are disclosed and considered to the essential minimum so that the matter can be dealt with as quickly and as fairly as possible. If he is in doubt as to whether any particular document or series of documents will be helpful and material, he will be able to consult the other members of the Special Commission. If a witness desires to bring a particular document to the Commission's notice, it will be for the Chairman under this same procedure to decide on its materiality and importance to the issues which the Commission will be considering. Former Ministers will have the customary opportunity to consult contemporary documents to which they had access at the time.
  Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: I wish to take up the subject of using the Chairman as a filter. My right hon. and learned Friend says that the primary object of setting up the Special Commission is to establish a political responsibility, and I agree with him. Yet the Chairman, who is not a politician in the normal definition of the term, will be asked to decide on the materiality of evidence in a political inquiry. Surely it is essential that in the first instance all members of the Commission, and not merely the Chairman, should have a right to decide on the materiality of a document.
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is entitled to his view. But the Government's view, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear when he announced the setting up of this inquiry, is that the arguments in favour of not releasing Cabinet documents and public
  1720
  documents—documents which are not normally released other than within the rules in the Public Record Act—are so strong that, although this occasion is regarded as unprecedented, it is none the less desirable, indeed essential, that the number of documents which are made available to the inquiry, and subsequently when a report is made, should be confined to the bare minimum that is relevant. We believe that a Lord of Appeal, who is not likely to be ignorant about political matters and who will have the opportunity of consulting his colleagues if he is in any doubt, is the right person to act as a filter for this purpose.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: What are the criteria which the Lord of Appeal will use in describing what the Commission will or will not see? Furthermore, what are the criteria by which he will decide what shall or shall not be published? For example, is he to have discretion to decide for himself whether Cabinet documents shall be published?
  The Attorney-General: In regard to the first point, it will be a matter for the Lord of Appeal to decide what, in his experience, is likely to be material and not simply peripheral. This is on the clear understanding that the Government are making these documents available as a special exception. It is felt that one should not travel any wider than is necessary beyond the bounds of materiality. That relates to the investigation itself.
  As for the report, I hope that the Chairman, consulting as necessary the Special Commission, will be able to go much narrower, and that he will not find it necessary to append to the report a large number of documents of the kind which normally are not published if it is possible to give their effect or to produce the necessary conclusion in the report without publishing the document.
  Sir Harold Wilson: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I pressed for this inquiry, and I want it to be a proper inquiry. Is he aware that there will be anxiety in the House and outside it if we have the system he is describing involving a Law Lord? I am making no reflection on the Law Lords, who have vast experience, although not always vast experience of administration and the

  1721
  conduct of industry, the Government or the Civil Service. Will this not put hon. Members, and indeed Members of another place, in an individious position? Is there any reason in the mind of my right hon. and learned Friend for not trusting hon. Members? Are they likely to betray secrets of this kind? Surely if they betray secrets or offer to peddle them outside they will be amenable to the discipline of this House, which will come upon them in a terrifying form. Surely there cannot be two or three different classes of members of the inquiry.
  The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton earlier drew attention to the fact that there may be wide ranges of documents which, although not necessarily relevant to sanctions breaking, may nevertheless be relevant to the task of the Commission. The major function of the Chairman, which is a function with which an experienced judicial officer is highly familiar, is to decide, if necessary consulting his colleagues, which are the material documents, and certainly whether documents brought to him by the Treasury Solicitor or those which a witness may wish to tender to the Special Commission are material. Therefore, members of the Commission will not be compelled, required or permitted to travel any wider than is necessary for the purposes of the inquiry.
  It is not a question of trust. It is a question of confining as narrowly as possible the exception to the normal rules—rules to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton has subscribed strongly in the past. Judicial officers, such as a Lord of Appeal, are well used to this task of examining documents and deciding whether, on balance, they should not be disclosed.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My right hon. Friend the Member for Huy-ton (Sir H. Wilson) said that judges are not necessarily well versed in administration. But the issues to be investigated by the Commission are highly controversial political issues and relate to the conduct of politicians and civil servants in relation to the House. In that area not even a Lord of Appeal is necessarily well experienced. Surely the judgment of what is or is not material is in this case as
  1722
  well to be dealt with by a politician as by a lawyer. If we are to trust the members who are to investigate this matter, surely we can trust them with the question of what they should select and disclose.
  The Attorney-General: As I have said, if the Chairman of the Committee feels it necessary because of any doubt on a document to consult other members of the Special Commission, he will do so. There will be seven other members, all of whom will presumably be well skilled in the arts of politics. I do not think that the Lord of Appeal in the chair of this body will find himself in difficulty about giving full weight to the political aspects of this matter.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before the Attorney-General leaves the question of collecting the evidence, will he tell the House the position concerning the Official Secrets Act and the Naval Discipline Act? Within the House we may know the extent of parliamentary privilege, but the Attorney-General should state publicly that there can be no prosecution under the Official Secrets Act for revealing to the Committee information which would outside the House be an offence, and, in terms of the Beira patrol, that there could be no prosecution under the Naval Discipline Act. He has not made it clear whether the judge is in the dark and feels around, hoping to find relevant information, or whether naval officers are expected to send in any information that they may think is relevant, as individual civil servants send in information that they may think is relevant. We need to cover this ground.
  The Attorney-General: As the hon. Member knows, proceedings in Parliament are absolutely protected, as are authorised parliamentary reports of those proceedings.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Attorney-General is completely undermining his own case. He said earlier that there were two alternatives—the second inquiry or, ultimately, the verdict of history. If the second inquiry is fundamentally based on the exercise of discretion, however wise, surely the final judgment must remain with history.
  The Attorney-General: The House will have the opportunity to express its view on that matter in due course. I am

  1723
  putting to the House what the Government propose, and they regard this part as absolutely essential. Without it, the Government would certainly not have put the proposal to the House.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Attorney-General has not answered my point. As I understand it, the protection that the privilege of this House extends to witnesses is punishing those who take legal action against them. Will the Attorney-General confirm that it is not the case that a naval officer who submits evidence contrary to the Naval Discipline Act or the Official Secrets Act is not committing an offence? He would still be committing an offence, but the privilege of this House can act against anyone who brings a charge against him or who tries such a case. Will the Attorney-General confirm that we would be misleading people outside if we led them to believe that passing this motion turns into not an offence that which is an offence? All we can do is block prosecution.
  The Attorney-General: My understanding of the law in this respect is that it is founded on article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which is part of the law of the land. That makes it quite clear that proceedings in Parliament are absolutely protected in relation to the courts of the land. If I am wrong on that, the hon. Member will no doubt have the opportunity of showing me that that is so.
  Sir Harold Wilson: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for giving way again. Will he tell us what precedent there is for the distinction between members of a Committee set up by Parliament? Secondly, is he not proposing that the Committee shall consist of first and second-class members? Is it not an affront to hon. Members who are used to receiving highly sensitive and secret material in their membership of Select Committees? I have less experience than most, but as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I remember that we heard a great deal about nuclear weapons. This material was highly sensitive, it was never leaked and no one was asked whether he was a Privy Councillor. We did not have a Lord of Appeal on the Committee. Is it not offensive to suggest that hon. Members appointed by the Government and noble Lords are in a second-class
  1724
  capacity and cannot be trusted with this material?
  The Attorney-General: It is not offensive and is not intended to be offensive to any Member of this House or of another place that their task should be confined to only that which is essential. As my right hon. Friend has stressed on many occasions, in this field the conventions and rules that govern us—and he knows the reasons for those rules—normally require that there should be no disclosure within the 30-year period. That is the Government's dilemma in trying to give effect to what they understood to be the preponderant wish of the House that there should be a parliamentary-type Committee, while at the same time giving effect to what the Prime Minister has said is an absolute sine qua non of an inquiry of this kind—that is, that there should not be a free range among governmental and Cabinet documents in the course of the inquiry.
  The procedure for making Government papers available is through the recommendation of the Prime Minister to Her Majesty. It is the convention that the papers of a previous Administration are not made available without the consent of the Prime Minister who led that Administration. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) takes the view that it is not right to set up an inquiry of this kind at all. But both he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton have, as I am informed, agreed to give their consent in relation to the papers of their respective Administrations, provided that Parliament agrees to establish a Special Commission.
  I must also make it absolutely clear to the House as a whole that acceptance of the procedure that I have described and which is contained in the Instruction is a condition precedent to the Prime Minister making his recommendation to Her Majesty. The Prime Minister emphasised the paramountcy of this consideration on 15 December when replying to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, and his decision is unchanged. On no other basis will the precedents be waived.
  Mr. MacFarquhar: Is the Attorney-General saying that if an amendment is passed to the resolution put down by the Prime Minister, it will not be accepted

  1725
  by the Goverment and they will ignore that decision of the House?
  The Attorney-General: I am saying that if this part of the resolution containing the Instruction at the end, governing the way in which Cabinet and Government papers are dealt with, is amended to alter the arrangements proposed there, my right hon. Friend, as he said on 15 December, will not recommend to the Queen that Government papers be made available.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Attorney-General has made an important and crucial statement. Are we to understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has agreed, without condition, that the documents of his Administration should be made available to the Commission?
  The Attorney-General: As far as I understand it, the right hon. Member has agreed that the documents of his Administration will be made available, provided that the Special Commission is set up in these terms. I cannot tell the hon. Member whether he has said that in precisely those terms, word for word.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I am slightly confused by the Attorney-General's last statement. Will he indicate which amendments, if carried, would lead the Prime Minister to withdraw any recommendation to the Queen to set up the Special Commission?
  The Attorney-General: It is not a question of withdrawing the recommendation. I have explained to the House—and I am sorry the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) did not hear—that Government papers, whether of the present Administration or a past Administration, are by convention not made available except by recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day to the Queen. If the safeguard that is built in to the Instruction at the end of the resolution is one which the House feels it cannot accept, the Prime Minister would not then feel entitled to make that recommendation to Her Majesty.
  Sir Michael Havers: Will the Attorney-General confirm that any of the proposed amendments to the last
  1726
  paragraph on the Order Paper, if successful, will mean the end of the recommendation of the Prime Minister? Is it a condition that that paragraph remains absolutely as it is now?
  The Attorney-General: I shall have to consult the list of amendments before I can answer that. Two of them have not been selected. The only one with which we are concerned is in paragraph 9, to leave out the words "if necessary". If the House deleted the words "if necessary" so as to make it an obligation on the Chairman to consult the members of the Commission on all documents, then the consequence that the right hon. and learned Member mentioned would follow.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: If this House by majority expresses its will to set up a Committee, generally within the terms of reference, and the Prime Minister then refuses to accept that decision, is this not contempt of the House?
  The Attorney-General: The Prime Minister has a duty of the highest importance to this House—no one disputes that—but he also has the highest duty in relation to the custody of Government and Cabinet papers, and to the ordinary rules, procedures and conventions which have been followed by Governments and never brought to an end.
  I made it abundantly clear in my speech in November the problem that arose if Government papers were made available. We have produced what we believe is a sensible and viable compromise which will enable such papers as are material to be made available to the Special Commission. If the House asks for greater erosion of the basic principles, my right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that he will not accept that.
  Mr. David Steel: I understand what the Attorney-General is telling the House, but I do not think he has given a full answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers). My understanding of the Prime Minister's view is that it is not just amendment (k) which is concerned with this, but amendment (a), which would alter the nature of the Commission altogether, and amendment (h), which deals with the subject of publishing the proceedings. All of these bear on what the Attorney-General has just said.
  The Attorney-General: I agree entirely that amendment (a) is so fundamental that it totally alters the whole concept. Any amendment—and I was looking at those which amend the Instruction—which fundamentally alters the basis that I have put forward would lead to the consequences that I have outlined.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The Attorney-General has been very reasonable and patient. I agree that the subject matter requires proper investigation but at this rate we shall never have any debate, and we shall spend all the time dealing with interventions.
  Mr. Lyon: But this point is absolutely fundamental to our constitution. The Attorney-General is claiming that, if the House passes a resolution, it will not be binding upon the Prime Minister because he is purporting to exercise some power of the prerogative. I have never heard of such doctrine since Cromwell came to this House. I do not accept that there is any authority for the proposition that the Prime Minister can reject a motion passed by this House. If I am wrong, I should like to hear the authority.
  The Attorney-General: It is not a question of the Prime Minister not accepting a motion passed by this House. It is a question of an executive act which is required to make available certain Government papers over which the Prime Minister, as Her Majesty's first Minister, has custody and control. It has nothing whatever to do with the motions before the House. That particular function is a function of the Prime Minister as such, which he can exercise whether there is a motion or not, The Prime Minister will not exercise that function which is within his power as Prime Minister except on the basis that the House passes the resolution in substantially the terms before the House, and particularly having regard to this principle which is absolutely cardinal.
  Mr. Peter Rees: The Attorney-General is making the position clearer but we still have not reached a final point. I understand about the Prime Minister's recommendation to the Queen, but, supposing
  1728
  that some amendment which offends against the principle that the Attorney-General has laid down were to be carried tonight, would the Prime Minister refuse to recommend to the Queen in respect of the papers only of his own Administration, or those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and those of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) as well? If his recommendations were only in relation to the papers of his own Administration, do we understand from the Attorney-General that the right hon. Member for Huyton would none the less allow his Administration's papers to be examined? Would this also apply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup and his Administration's papers? Are these conditional consents, or what?
  The Attorney-General: I can understand the uncertainty of the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal about this aspect of the matter because it is complex. The Prime Minister of the day has custody and control over all Government papers, Cabinet papers or whatever they may be. That applies to those of both current and past Administrations. But it is one of the normal conventions that before the documents of a past Administration are looked at or released the Prime Minister of that day will, as a matter of courtesy, give his consent or withhold it.
  The right hon. Member for Sidcup, if he saw fit—but he has not—could say "No. Courtesy or not, I shall not give my consent to the papers of my Administration being made available." The Prime Minister's function is to make a recommendation to Her Majesty in respect of all the papers. Of course, he would not do so in respect of the papers of the Administrations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton or of the right hon. Member for Sidcup unless, as a matter of courtesy, they gave their consent. That does not arise in this case because they have both given their consent.
  The Prime Minister is therefore in a position to make those papers available as well as his own. The condition precedent that I have emphasised, and must emphasise again speaking on behalf of the Government, is one that applies to all documents—not any single part of them

  1729
  but all Government documents and Cabinet papers that may be material to the issue of the Special Commission. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that to the House on 15 December when replying to the Leader of the Opposition, and his decision is unchanged.
  The Special Commission will sit in private, as is normal in the case of Select Committees when considering the conduct of individuals. It was the procedure of the Select Committee on the conduct of Members about two years ago and it is the usual procedure of the Privileges Committee. If there is criticism, it will come out in the report.
  Anxiety has rightly been expressed about those who may necessarily be involved in this inquiry knowing in advance the case that is being alleged against them so that they are able, if they so wish, to have the benefit of legal assistance. It will be for the Special Commission to determine how, within its terms of reference and the powers given to it, it proceeds. I am sure that it will have those considerations very much in mind. The Commission will have power to hear counsel if it so decides. It will be for the Commission to decide whether to follow the advice which I gave when the House set up the Select Committee on the conduct of Members and to inform, in advance of its report, any persons whom it intends to criticise of the nature of the criticism so as to give them an opportunity to reply. I hope that the Commission will be guided by that advice, which the House will recall was the subject of controversy when the report of that Select Committee came out because that Select Committee had not followed that advice.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the Director of Public Prosecutions have completed his inquiry before the Special Commission starts its meetings? If the Special Commission starts its inquiry before the Director of Public Prosecutions has come to a conclusion, could not some of those who might appear before it find themselves at a serious disadvantage?
  The Attorney-General: I shall come to the link between the Director of Public Prosecutions' investigation and that of the Special Commission, if the hon. Member
  1730
  will allow me to take the matter in turn. Indeed, it is the very next matter.
  One of the motions on the Order Paper requires me to give the Special Commission such assistance as may be appropriate. This of course I shall do. But the particular importance of it is the possibility of difficulties which might arise should the Special Commission and the police—and through the police the DPP—encroach upon the same area of investigation. This is a difficulty which arises in any large-scale inquiry where there is a concurrent inquiry by the police. It is a difficulty which arose in relation to the Crown Agents inquiry. By regular contact with the DPP and the Chairman of the Commission, I hope to avoid those difficulties. That is the primary reason for the insertion of that proivsion in the motion. It is for the House to decide, subject to the reservation that I have made quite plain.
  The Government commend the Special Commission to the House as the best means of ascertaining the truth, speedily and effectively, of protecting the national interest and our system of government, and of avoiding the unfair exposure of individuals to premature and unjustifiable attack and condemnation. In the Government's view, the subject matter of this inquiry is pre-eminently within the province of Parliament. We believe that an inquiry conducted by the parliamentary Special Commission is essential so that it is seen that there is no cover-up, so that those attacked have an opportunity to deal with the allegations in the most appropriate forum, and so that the full truth may be revealed.
  I therefore invite the House to adopt these motions and let the Special Commission get on with its work in order that this chapter in the story may be speedily concluded.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Attorney-General for the extremely lucid and painstaking way in which he dealt with what is a very complicated problem and an issue that has no precedent in the House.
  This debate is not about the Bingham report as such—that debate was held on 7 and 8 November last year—although, clearly, the Bingham report must be the

  1731
  constant background to our discussions. It would certainly be unwise to mix up this issue with any general consideration of policy on Rhodesia. It is not a debate on sanctions. It is not a debate on Rhodesian policy. Those matters have been discussed by the House. I also hope that it is not a party political debate, although there are certainly strong feelings about the proposition.
  This debate is about the constitution, the role of Government and the role of Cabinet secrecy within Government. Members of the House must take responsibility as Members for their decision. There are differing views on the Opposition Benches. There are differing views on the Government Benches. There is no party line. There is no Whip on the Opposition Benches and I imagine that the same applies to the Government Benches. Is that so? Ministers indicate that it is so. There is a free vote for the Opposition.
  However, I have no doubt that since the Prime Minister announced the Government decision to table this motion on 15 December, opinion on the Opposition Benches has tended to harden against it, because the conviction has grown among hon. Members that there are dancers and difficulties in the course on which the Government are counselling the House to embark. We saw some of those difficulties and dangers today in the debate that has already taken place.
  The more I reflect upon the matter, the more I am driven to the conclusion that the course that the Government are advocating is unnecessary, untimely, likely, to prove ineffective, and contains grave dangers both for the reputation of this country in the world and to our tradition of constitutional government.
  I deal first with the point about the lack of necessity. By common consent, the Bingham report is a thorough, painstaking and objective report. It goes into this matter at great length. It runs to 500 pages. It is a truly comprehensive document. It was the Foreign Secretary himself who said, on 7 November:
  "The report is a model of careful research and balanced judgment. It brings out a whole range of facts and issues and provides helpful background for the specific debate tomorrow night on the order to renew section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965."—[Official Report, 7 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 696.]
  1732
  That is a judgment that was echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
  I believe that that view of the Bingham report will command widespread support throughout the House. The facts are all there. There is one file which has not been published because, I understand, it deals with the actions of individuals. That has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If, after the DDP and his staff have studied that file and the report that has been published, it is thought that the criminal law has been broken, no doubt they will take the appropriate legal action. If the criminal law has been broken, it is essential that those who are responsible should be brought to justice and should be punished.
  What is left? There remain the political issues. One of those questions is how much the Government headed by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) during the period 1966–68 knew about the swap arrangements made by certain oil companies to ensure that oil went to Rhodesia. If the right hon. Member for Huyton did not know about them—this is another question—was he culpably negligent in not knowing? Should he have taken steps to inform himself on this point? Those are two political questions.
  There is the further political question, which is also a question partially of fact. This concerns the famous meeting on 21 February 1968 attended by the then Commonwealth Secretary, Lord Thomson as he now is, when he was informed of the arrangements by the oil company—I am sorry. I have mixed up two meetings. It is the famous meeting of 6 February 1969. There was a previous meeting, but it is not quite as well known as this one. However, the critical meeting was on 6 February 1969, when the oil companies explained to Lord Thomson what was going on. Did the then Prime Minister know about that meeting, and, again, should he have known about it?
  The right hon. Member for Huyton said that he did not know about it, and he has declared so in the House. I do not want to go back into that again. The right hon. Member defended his view very thoroughly and at great length, in what I can call an apologia pro vita sua. Perhaps it was of the same length as the

  1733
  original by Cardinal Newman, but not necessarily of the same spiritual quality. But the defence is there.
  Lord Thomson takes another view. That was summed up in a report in The Guardian in September 1978, in which Lord Thomson maintained that he
  "conveyed in writing to the Prime Minister and other Ministers most directly concerned a full account of all that passed at my meetings with the oil companies".
  Sir Harold Wilson: I think that the hon. Member is getting just a little confused, because the September 1978 comment was not about that. The Guardian comment was not, in fact, about the second meeting. It was about the letter.
  As to the letter, there was no doubt that I saw it, and I said so in the House. It included the phrase that a Minister was being asked in the House of Lords to deny that any of this was going on. Indeed, a special occasion was seized for that to happen in the House of Lords.
  The question which mentioned British and French was interpreted by me, and I think by others, at that time, as meaning the leakage from Laurenco Marques, about which I had been asked by the Cabinet to complain to General de Gaulle, which I had done. There is a slight confusion.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I am not seeking in any way to pass judgment on the matter. I take the view, however, that questions of this sort are much better resolved by the historians of the matter once the protagonists in this have passed from the scene to their various rewards. We cannot anticipate the judgment of history and it is futile to attempt to do so. The Attorney-General rather dismissed history. He did not quite say that history was bunk, but he did not think that the judgment of historians was very important. They are the only people who can really give an objective judgment on this matter, and they will need a certain passage of time before they can do so.
  To be fair—having referred to the right hon. Member for Huyton—there is a further political question. It is the question whether the Conservative Government knew of the swap arrangements. There is no evidence in the Bingham report that
  1734
  the Conservative Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup did know. There are no records of any meetings between oil companies and Ministers in that period of the Conservative Government from 1970 to 1974 that ire referred to in the report.
  On the point about whether the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend, knew the records of the preceding Government, my right hon. Friend made it quite clear in the debate on 8 November that he did not know. That is, as the right hon. Member for Huyton knows, the practice of Governments. The rule is so strong that it might well be called a convention of the constitution. The incoming Government do not have access to the papers of their predecessors.
  In this connection I refer to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup on 8 November:
  "It is accepted in government that it is not only Cabinet records and Cabinet Committee records but the minutes on which a Minister writes his opinion or asks for advice and the minutes on which officials advise him, and it has also been accepted that what a Minister says to an official in discussion is also not repeated to his successors in an Administration."—[Official Report, 8 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 992.]
  Sir Harold Wilson: The hon. Member is absolutely right about this. There is the exception, which I mentioned in the House, that on any matter affecting relations with third parties, particularly international questions, of course an incoming Government must be told what has been said to them, because otherwise a Prime Minister would look very foolish at international gatherings. Also, it helps such degree of continuity of policy as is considered desirable by both Governments.
  However, every Government must tell international organisations the position over many years. That was why I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—although I do not know the Government's position on it—why it was that in September 1976 Her Majesty's present advisers informed the United Nations, virtually in these words—I am rather simplifying it—that there had been no question of British oil companies supplying oil, themselves alone or with others, in the sense that has now been shown to have happened in Bingham, and that this had not been happening. For them to say

  1735
  that it had not been happening and to say that the position was exactly as it was in 1968, when it was not going on at all, suggests that the present Government are equally unaware of these things, and I would have thought they would be aware if it had been happening.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree that it is a convention that is flexible in its application in the sense that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.
  It is also clear from the Bingham report that the swap continued until 1974 and beyond, and this raises the same question as I raised with regard to the right hon. Member for Huyton, namely, ought the Prime Minister of the day to have known of these arrangements? There is no evidence that he did, but it is fair to ask whether he ought to have known and whether he ought to have done more. But, again, that is a political, not a judicial, question and it can be judged and seen only in a historical perspective.
  So on this point I conclude that the facts and certain questions can be both established and raised by an inquiry—indeed, they have been—but the other issues, the political questions, can be decided only by historians. They cannot be decided by contemporary politicians, however many inquiries are held, because however hard one strives one cannot, in the nature of things, be objective in matters such as this. The history of previous Select Committees which are parallel to this Commission proves that abundantly.
  My second point is that it is an extraordinarily untimely moment for the Government to produce this Commission. Quite apart from the difficulties that I have outlined, is it possible to imagine a more unsuitable moment to embark on the inquiry, during one of the gravest crises, if not the gravest crisis, that this country has faced since the war? I agree with the Prime Minister when he says that we are facing a moral issue, and the gravity of the crisis is precisely that we are up against the question whether, under the stresses that have been induced by various strikes, industrial action, and so on, we can remain a community sustained by shared values and a sense of common interest; or is British society about to dissolve into a welter of conflicting interests and pressure groups in which
  1736
  everyone pursues particular interests, some legitimate, others not, pressing them to the limit, without any self-discipline, self-restraint or concern for the common good? That is the issue which makes our present position so grave and it is that question to which the Government should be addressing themselves, instead of diverting the political and other energies, the energies of this House and its hon. Members, into what I suspect will turn out to be a dead end.
  My third point is that the inquiry is likely to be ineffective. No doubt some new facts will emerge, but it is highly unlikely that there will be anything startling or anything very new. The political questions will remain at the end of the inquiry, just as they exist at the beginning, and those who are dissatisfied with the Bingham report will not be satisfied when this report sees the light of day.
  Indeed, they say as much. It is quite clear, it is already there. Why look in the crystal ball when one can read the Order Paper? There, in the name of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedge-more) and his hon. Friends, is an amendment of a radical kind which is really a manifesto of their dissatisfaction with the proposed arrangements. They want the whole inquiry to be held in public and they want all the evidence, including the relevant Cabinet papers and departmental files, to be published.
  Well, the Attorney-General has made it quite plain that the Prime Minister will not agree to that, and the hon. Member and his hon. Friends have made it equally clear that they will be satisfied with nothing less than that. So there is going to be a great clash of opinion within the Government over this.
  I ask myself this question, and I think it is a fair one: who really wants this inquiry? There is no very strong evidence that the Prime Minister wants it. To do him justice, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have made it quite clear what they want, and they have followed their desire to a logical conclusion. I wonder where the Leader of the House stands on this. Perhaps we shall hear at the end of this debate. Perhaps he is a great protagonist of this course. But it is quite clear that the Prime Minister, while tabling these suggestions, is not exactly in the van in leading for this approach.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied the debate that took place on this matter and the demands, requests or pressure for an inquiry that came from many quarters. Perhaps, as he is commenting on the views of some of my hon. Friends—who will no doubt put their own views in the debate—he will give us his view on the view that was expressed by the chairman of the 1922 Committee, who made a very strong plea that there should be a further inquiry. Indeed, he almost suggested that it would be a disgrace to the House of Commons if that did not occur. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give his judgment on that attitude.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have, of course, read very carefully the speech of the chairman of the 1922 Committee. As a former member of the Executive, I attach great importance to that Committee, its officers and its chairman, and I can assure the House that I have modified what I had thought of saying in the light of that speech. Had I not studied that speech closely I should have spoken in a much more unambiguous way than I have. The chairman's remarks have been subsumed into mine.
  The fourth point, which I think is perhaps the most important point of all, is that we are embarking on a dangerous course, dangerous first of all to the reputation of this country. I know that those who support this scheme are not animated by unpatriotic motives; they think they are going to do the country good. I am afraid that they are not, because the mere fact that an inquiry of this sort is set up is damaging to the reputation of the country, since what is going on is in effect an inquisition into the whole process of parliamentary government as we have known it in this country and into the assumptions on which it is based.
  The first assumption on which we all base our actions is the integrity of Ministers and their respect for this House, and here a question mark is raised straight away over that. The second thing we all rely upon is the morale and the standing of the Civil Service. If we make the suggestion that the Civil Service could have deliberately set out to mislead Ministers, if we raise that question, we are again attacking a basic assumption, which is
  1738
  accepted throughout the world, that we have an incorruptible, impartial and dedicated Civil Service.
  Perhaps I might intervene in the sedentary dialogue between my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Norman Tebbit) and the Leader of the House, which is no doubt most interesting but is out of place in the middle of my constitutional reflections.
  I turn now to the danger to the constitution.
  Mr. MacFarquhar: The hon. Gentleman said that the raising of questions regarding the integrity of Ministers and civil servants would do us great damage in the world. Nevertheless, the questions have been raised. Does he agree that, their having been raised, if it were seen that there was no attempt to answer them, it would be far more damaging than to have the inquiry?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman's point would be valid if there were a great demand for this inquiry, but there is not. There is a demand from a minority of people, but there is no general demand throughout the country for this inquiry. Although there is a demand from a number of hon. Members, I do not think that it has passionately gripped the House. Looking around, although the membership here is distinguished, this is not one of those occasions on which the House of Commons is in fact demanding that something be done. The Prime Minister is proposing something and the House may, with many reservations, acquiesce in it.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman speaks about "this inquiry". I want to get clear whether his opposition is to any further form of inquiry of any kind until, as he put it, the historians get at the matter in years to come, or to the form of inquiry which we are proposing.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: My view is that we do not need any further inquiry into this matter. We need to await the result of the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions on what further action needs to be taken through the criminal law.
  We have no written constitution; we have only procedure and convention. The thing on which our constitution rests

  1739
  perhaps more than anything else is the convention of Cabinet responsibility and unity and Cabinet secrecy.
  The importance of Cabinet secrecy is that Cabinet responsibility depends on secrecy for its maintenance. In this respect I should like to quote from "The English Constitution" by Walter Bagehot, edited by myself, but not written by me. I quote him as an authority on the constitution. Writing on the Cabinet, he said:
  "The meetings are not only secret in theory, but secret in reality."
  I offer that point to the right hon. Member for Huyton
  "By the present practice, no official minute in all ordinary cases is kept of them. Even a private note is discouraged and disliked. The House of Commons, even in its most inquisitive and turbulent moments, would scarcely permit a note of a cabinet meeting to be read. No minister who respected the fundamental usages of political practice would attempt to read such a note. The committee which unites the law-making power to the law-executing power—which, by virtue of that combination, is, while it lasts and holds together, the most powerful body in the state—is a committee wholly secret. No description of it, at once graphic and authentic, has ever been given."
  [Interruption.] I am quoting from 1867.
  "It is said to be sometimes like a rather disorderly board of directors, where many speak and few listen—though no one knows."
  After the late Mr. Crossman we know something but I do not think that we know all the truth.
  I am not saying that the doctrine of Cabinet secrecy has not undergone development. The constitution is not a fossil; it is alive and growing. Nevertheless, the foundation of Cabinet secrecy is there. It was so strict that until the War Cabinet of 1916 there was no formal agenda and no minutes were kept of the Cabinet. The only record of the Cabinet was the Prime Minister's personal letter to the Sovereign. That was the only record of the Cabinet. When the secretariat was formalised in 1916, minutes began to be taken. But those documents were always most closely guarded, and they are today. There was the 50-year rule of restriction, now replaced by the 30-year rule.
  Both the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister have stressed the unprecedented nature of this application to make these documents available. It is not secrecy for its own sake that lies
  1740
  behind this rule; it is for the proper working of Cabinet government. If every Minister was free to reveal what happened in Cabinet and the documents thereto, there would be an end of Cabinet responsibility. If a Cabinet Minister knew that everything he said was to be published later, that would be an end of any frank and open discussion in Cabinet. Every Minister would be looking not back over his shoulder but forward over the shoulder and to the pen of his neighbour waiting to see what version was likely to be peddled around in future.
  That is the case against the publication of documents such as the Crossman diaries, fascinating though they may be—and I confess to having read them. However, I found that any reference to me seemed to be totally inaccurate. If the general level of accuracy of the diaries is the same as the level of accuracy regarding references to myself, they are not very valuable documents.
  Sir Harold Wilson: Hear, hear.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Huyton agrees with me. Those diaries were a glancing blow. But I think that, potentially, this is a more serious one that is being aimed by the Prime Minister. I fear that we shall return to the bad practice of Ministers taking away their own Cabinet papers in order to prevent them being published or being published in a prejudicial context.
  Those are strong constitutional arguments against this Commission, and we must seriously consider them. I hope that the Lord President of the Council, who holds very high office in the State, will address his mind to these constitutional points of a general character when he replies to the debate.
  There is a free vote in this House. The views that I have expressed are personal, but I think that they fairly represent the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Shadow Cabinet and the majority of Opposition Members.
  The Prime Minister, in putitng this proposal before the House, has embarked on an imprudent and dangerous course. It will not achieve the aims which it sets out to fulfil. While leaving the critics unsatisfied, merely whetting their appetites

  1741
  for further revelations, it will threaten two of the fundamental doctrines of our constitution—Cabinet responsibility and secrecy. That is too high a price to pay to satisfy the gentlemen who cluster below the Gangway on the Government side and who appear to have intimidated the Prime Minister—lawfully, no doubt—into losing his judgment and derogating from his constitutional responsibilities.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I am sure that we all agree that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has put his case with his usual eloquence. He has argued with impeccable logic, moving from false premises to false conclusions. We can all summon Bagehot in aid at this time of our need. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that, in his introduction, Bagehot was so antithetical to the democratic process that he wrote:
  "Vox populi will be vox diaboli".
  We have heard the same kind of feelings expressed by the hon. Member for Chelmsford as were expressed by Bagehot.
  The hon. Gentleman, in effect, said that he strongly believed in Florentine corruption, which is secret government by secret processes, and he is prepared to use the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility to uphold that view of our constitution. In that sense, I think that he has probably opened a fundamental division between the two sides of the House. Everybody must be disappointed that he has told us that the Leader of the Opposition does not really want any inquiry at all. To that extent, my first words to the Government are congratulatory. I must congratulate them on having decided to set up an inquiry.
  The Prime Minister recently gave an example of lawful intimidation relating to the right hon. Lady and the grandson of Winston Churchill. But an example of lawful intimidation which must have seriously wounded parliamentary democracy was announced on behalf of the Prime Minister by the Attorney-General today. He said that if the House passess amendments about the Production of certain Cabinet, Cabinet committee and departmental papers, the Prime Minister will not recommend to the Queen that the usual rule be relaxed.
  1742
  That is not becoming conduct in a Prime Minister who heads a parliamentary democracy. That is not government by integrity. I do not even believe that the Prime Minister is exercising his usual standards of decency. I hope that this message will go back to him. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister, in effect, to threaten the House in that fashion.
  I said that the hon. Member for Chelmsford spoke from false premises. He began by saying that all the facts were known and that there was nothing new to come out. It is certainly not my purpose to stand here and make revelations even if I had any to make—although I do not think that there is much about the Bingham report to come out which I do not know, so I am not worried about it in a personal sense.
  But it does not matter what I know or what the hon. Member for Chelmsford knows. What matters is what the public know and whether they have legitimate concerns about the values by which we are governed and the integrity of the constitution. Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe in the integrity of the constitution, but I come to an opposite conclusion.
  The hon. Gentleman said that Bingham had seen that all the files had come out except one. I can assure him that that is not true; not nearly all the files have come out. There are plenty of files from the old Ministry of Power, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence which Bingham did not see and which the public do not know about.
  I do not even believe that Bingham got to the core of the cancer which I regard as being involved in sanctions-busting. I shall not go into the merits or even say what I believe that core to be, because that is for the inquiry to decide. We are here only to say what is the best method of getting the facts out. But the reason why I do not think that Bingham got to the central cancer is that he concerned himself with the basic process of sanctions-busting and with what happened from then on. He did not concern himself with the discussions leading up to the legislation or with the period between the legislation and the sanctions-busting.
  It is my contention, for what it is worth—I do not think that it is worth that

  1743
  much; what is of value here is the evidence—that if the public knew the way in which industrialists, civil servants and Ministers discussed the legislation that they intended to pass and which they did pass and what happened between the passing of the legislation and the beginning of sanctions-busting, they would see a value system that they would not put up with. They would never countenance it.
  In that sense, the hon. Member for Chelmsford is right. Of course it will damage the integrity of the constitution if that value system comes out. But how much more, as one of my hon. Friends said, will it damage the integrity of our constitution if all we can do in this House is say "There may be unpleasant things to come out: let us not deal with them in too much detail"?
  I believe, and here I become more friendly to the hon. Member for Chelmsford, that he touched on a raw spot when he asked who wanted this inquiry—or who wanted an open inquiry. The amendments that I have put down amount to two things. First, they call for a much wider inquiry than the Government want. The Government have carefully qualified the inquiry with the phrase
  "with a view to determining whether Parliament or Ministers were misled, intentionally or otherwise".
  I do not believe that that is adequate, for the reason that I have given. I do not believe that Bingham got to the core of the relationship among civil servants, industrialists and Ministers.
  We want an inquiry to go into that central relationship and deal with the relationships among those groups and also involving foreign Powers. I suspect that when the public learn about some of the meetings which went on between industrialists and the Head of the South African Government, their eyes will pop open at the way in which we are governed and in which this business was conducted. Therefore, essentially, we need a wider inquiry than the Government have suggested. Certainly we need a more open inquiry.
  One thing and one only about the inquiry is relevant. In this sense, the hon. Member for Chelmsford has got it right. The Government have equivocated and, in my view, they have made a mistake. All that matters is the evidence. We need
  1744
  to see the witnesses giving their evidence to make judgments about them giving their evidence. Anyone who has been a barrister—far too many hon. Members, myself included, have been in that invidious position—know that it is by watching witnesses give evidence and by looking at their demeanour and the way in which they respond to cross-examination that one learns a lot about the value of the evidence.
  Secondly, we want to see the written evidence, and we want to see it all. We want to see those Cabinet files. But, more important, we want to see those departmental files and we want to let the public see them and make up their own minds. They do not necessarily want my view of what has happened—or the hon. Gentleman's view or the Prime Minister's view. They, and we, should be allowed to see the witnesses. We should be allowed to hear the questioning and see the written evidence.
  I believe—I am sure that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will think that I am getting slightly contentious now—that there have been a number of pressures on the Cabinet and a number of different strands which have led to this curious suggested inquiry, with the arbitrary presentation of evidence by the Chairman, possibly in conjunction with his Committee, and witnesses questioned in private.
  We are discussing something that stands somewhere between moral corruption and treason. I do not use that last word wildly, because the least important thing in the inquiry is the legal aspect. It is not my concern to get civil servants, industrialists or Ministers into court. That is the trivial aspect of the case. The important aspect is the value system which produced the result which it did.
  I have made some inquiries of various people, and it seems to me that three strands led to this suggested form of inquiry and that there were three pressures not to have the sort of open inquiry that I and some of my hon. Friends would require.
  The first strand, to put it crudely and in the vernacular, is that we are not dealing with minnows. Some of the lawyers have taken that attitude to this sort of inquiry. In a sense, that attitude has been borne out not only in high places fairly

  1745
  near the centre of Government but also by Mr. Rees-Mogg and some of his colleagues on The Times before it went out of print.
  The Times wrote that it would be unreasonable to put the full weight of the law into operation in this case, because a number of eminent top people were involved. That is a curious proposition from a newspaper which believes in the rule of law—one law for the mighty and one for the weak, one for the rich and one for the poor, and perhaps one for the rest of us and one for the friends of the people with whom Mr. Rees-Mogg and his colleagues move in conjunction.
  That pressure has come on people, but another pressure has come on the Cabinet. That is the pressure which says "We must sweat it out." In other words, there has been pressure not to have an inquiry. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) mentioned the Beira patrol. If one were the Minister running the Beira patrol at that time, spending several million pounds of public money on an abortive exercise, one might want to sweat this out. I can understand that there might be fear in the stomachs of some of the people concerned, but I do not believe it is right to sweat it out—even by holding a limited inquiry where evidence is not given in public.
  Some people have taken the extraordinary attitude that if a full-blooded inquiry is held Labour Members will criticise civil servants and industrialists. What do we make of that? It has been said that our Civil Service is incorruptible and impartial. I question that. If there has been something between moral corruption and treason committed by industrialists and civil servants, do we say that the public should not know it? If we suspect or know it, should not Labour Members criticise the industrialists or civil servants at an inquiry where those criticisms can be mooted?
  Bearing in mind his speech, I am sure that the Attorney-General will be pleased to answer the important questions about civil servants. It is now known that certain Cabinet documents were given to Mr. Bingham. That raises a number of terrifying questions about the Civil
  1746
  Service. I speak as a former civil servant and I know, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir. H. Wilson), that there is a strict rule that Cabinet papers on departmental files should be returned to the Cabinet Office at the end of the period of office of a Government. It would appear that the rule was broken recently by the Foreign Office. There is also the 30-year rule governing the publication of Cabinet papers.
  When the Foreign Office handed those papers to Mr. Bingham, they were published and the 30-year rule was broken. I hope that in winding up the Leader of the. House will be able to correct me, but studies reveal that the papers were given to Mr. Bingham without the consent of the Foreign Secretary. Therefore, three strict rules have been broken.
  A fourth point is that no papers—if there are any—concerning the Conservative Government reached Mr. Bingham.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Mr. Bingham and Mr. Gray were appointed by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. They did not receive Cabinet papers. However, they did receive certain documentary material. Therefore, the arguments of the hon. Gentleman against the Government and the Secretary of State are unfounded.
  Mr. Sedgemore: It is my understanding that Mr. Bingham received Cabinet papers, and that the rules to which I have referred were broken.
  It has been suggested to me that it was accidental that the papers were handed over and that the Foreign Secretary was not consulted. If that is so, and such accidents occur in the Foreign Office, the time has come to have somebody running the office who is less accident-prone. I refer to the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office.
  At the time that the papers were handed over, the parties were passing off the blame among themselves. Some worried Ministers sought to say that they had been misled by civil servants and industrialists, civil servants said that they had been misled by industrialists, and the industrialists said that they had not misled anybody. Therefore, one is bound

  1747
  to ask whether the giving of the papers to Bingham was accidental or whether there was something more serious behind it. As far as I can see, that point cannot be examined in the inquiry.
  In the Christmas Recess I read Haldeman's "The Ends of Power". The book depressed me and made me wonder whether that is the way in which modem Governments function in modern society. Three images presented themselves. One was McCarthyism. There are historians present, but I do not believe one needs to be a historian to see that the values of the one are similar to the values of the other. The other two images which sprang to mind were British. One was Suez. That occurred about 10 years before sanctions-busting, but it does not need a historian to tell us that the values of Suez are not different from the values of sanctions-busting.
  As I read the book, an almost unanswerable question came to my mind: would Suez have happened if a Labour Government had been in power? I shall not try to answer the question, but I make the point because I feel that it brings out the seriousness of what we are discussing. We are discussing international relations, international duplicity, unhappy relations between civil servants and industrialists, and an unhappy state of affairs among civil servants, industrialists and Parliament.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, but will he take it from me that, had a Labour Government been in power at the time of Suez, the troops would not have been stabbed in the back by the Opposition as they went over the beaches?
  Mr. Sedgemore: I do not believe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a helpful point. Whether he agrees with me or not, we are now discussing serious constitutional issues. I believe that the public have a right to this knowledge in an open inquiry—even if that means that in the process the reputations of some innocent people are damaged.
  Just as in Watergate the tapes were important, in this case the departmental files are of critical importance. For the first time in my life I see the value of
  1748
  departmental files. Everything gathers on them—people sign their names on documents and there are telegrams about this and that. For me, Government departmental files have become things of beauty and they are what the public want.
  I hope that the House will have the courage to pass the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and myself. If it does, it will be a good day for the democratic process; if not, it will be a bad day for the democratic process.
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. David Steel: I shall return to the amendments of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) at the end of my speech. I do not propose to detain the House for very long because I made a lengthy speech on this subject in an earlier debate, to which reference has already been made.
  I welcome the terms in which the Government have put forward the motion and the setting up of the Special Commission. I believe that the case put forward by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) against having a further inquiry was shot down by the events that have occurred since the publication of the Bingham report. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bingham report was thorough and that further inquiry was unnecessary. However, we have already been enlightened by the debates that have taken place in this place and in another place after the publication of the Bingham report, when further information came to light.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Luton, West that a great deal more has still to come to light. I argue more strongly now in favour of a further commission of inquiry and I base my argument on the fact that the statements made in these two debates by some of the main participants, namely, the two previous Prime Ministers and previous Ministers who were involved, lead one to the conclusion that further inquiry is necessary.
  There is the question of who was right, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) or Lord Thomson of Monifieth. There is also the question not of what the incoming Conservative Government were told but what they were doing during their period of office to pursue their publicly proclaimed policy.

  1749
  This seems to me to be a matter of some importance.
  These issues cannot just be swept aside as being of purely academic interest to future historians. The hon. Member for Chelmsford accepts more or less that further inquiry is called upon, but he says—I do not wish to be unfair to him—that we should allow that inquiry to take place after the normal lapse of time, after many of the personalities are out of operation, or deceased, that there should then be a great advance in publications and great use made of the Public Lending Right Act, as it would then be, and that historians would have a general field day.
  The hon. Gentleman's argument might have some force if this were purely a domestic political consideration, but it is not, and I have been very forcefully reminded of this in the past few weeks. During the Christmas Recess—it was immediately after the announcement by the Prime Minister that the Commission would be set up—I was travelling in Africa. In the countries that I visited, some politicians were aware of the fact that I had taken an active part in calling for such an inquiry; others were not. At no time in my travels did I raise the question of the Bingham report, yet in every country that I visited—Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique and Rhodesia—the question was raised with me. I was able, as a Member of this House, to say in reply to the questions that we were not leaving the matter as it stood and that the Prime Minister had told the House of Commons that there would be a special inquiry. I said that I could not guarantee that the House would accept the findings of the inquiry and that this would be a matter for the judgment of the House of Commons, but I was able to reassure all those who were concerned that further action was at any rate contemplated by the Government.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Chelmsford that it would have been a pretty poor answer for me to have said to those who were much exercised on these matters, and who are calling in question the integrity, if not the honour, of this country in its policies in Africa, "These are very interesting matters, my friends, but let us leave them to future historians." I am afraid that that is not
  1750
  a view that is taken in those countries. We have to take account of the very strong feeling which has been raised on this matter in other countries.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not advancing, as one of his principal arguments, the idea that because the leaders of other countries are interested in what is in the Cabinet papers we should breach our custom and our constitution and reveal them. I am sure that he would not think that it would be right, for example, for this House to suggest to the Zambian Government that their State papers on the matter of sanctions-busting should be subject to the sort of inquiry that the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) wants to have. If I were a Zambian, I would think that that was impertinence.
  Mr. Steel: I see no reason why the Commission should not trail its net fairly widely and attempt to secure whatever external information it can get. I am not making such a simplistic point. I am not in any way diminishing the point made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford concerning the constitutional aspect. I think that his reasoning was sound. What I am saying is that at the end of the day we have to make a balanced judgment about these dangers, which he was right to draw to the attention of the House, as against what I know from my recent experience to be the very real anxiety in other parts of the world about the record of British policy.
  The hon. Gentleman gave us another reason for not pursuing the inquiry when he said that this was not the right time for it. He said, in effect, that the country is in a hell of a mess and that we ought not to be wasting time now on issues of this sort. My view is that we must look at these things in perspective. We have talked a great deal in this House—indeed, I have myself—in recent days about intimidation. The intimidation that is going on in this country is as nothing to the widespread scale of intimidation taking place in Rhodesia at the present time.
  The public policy of this country has failed in Rhodesia. It is a tragedy. If at the time of UDI or, indeed, in the years since UDI—I do not want to refer

  1751
  to the period of office of any one Government—the policy of this country had been to wash our hands of the whole affair and to recognise the regime, passing the whole problem to the United Nations or to Rhodesia itself, that would have been reprehensible, but it would at least have been a straightforward, honest and openly declared policy. If we had said "This is a rebellion against the authority of this House and we shall deal with it in the usual way by putting in the troops", that would have been a commendable policy, but it was not the decision taken by the Government.
  We were left, therefore, with the publicly proclaimed policy, not only in this country but internationally, that the matter would be dealt with by the use of sanctions. That was a policy endorsed by both Conservative and Labour Governments, it was taken to the United Nations, and legislation was passed through this House and ratified by the House. We, as Members of the House of Commons, were told time and time again that certain things would flow as a result of that policy.
  We now discover that, although that was the proclaimed position, something quite different was going on. To say that somehow we should ignore this, that it is all very interesting and that historians will look into why it happened, is to misunderstand the importance of maintaining some kind of reputation in this country for honest international dealing.
  That is why I support the terms of the motion, which has been very carefully drafted, and that is why I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Luton, West. I think the Government are correct—no doubt after a great deal of hesitation—in bringing forward their motion and in striking the balance in this way. I believe that because the production of Cabinet and allied papers will be essential to the work of the inquiry it makes the Commission almost unique. That is why it has a unique form, with a Law Lord in the chair and members from each House of Parliament. We have to accept that, because the question raised by the revelations of the Bingham report is almost unique.
  My only advice to my colleagues—who are as free as every other Member of any other party to ignore it—is that they
  1752
  should resist the amendments. I do not wish to have it suggested—I thought I heard a sotto voce comment—that Members of my party ignore my advice any more then members of other parties ignore the advice of their leaders, and on this occasion the Members of my party are entirely free, of course, to make their own judgment. But I advise resistance to the amendments which, however superficially attractive, might endanger the success of the entire operation. The hon. Member for Luton, West, having heard what the Attorney-General told us, must surely accept, if he stops to think about it, that that would be the result if we were to follow his course. I would advise him, therefore, to think twice before pressing his amendment to a Division.
  Whatever my respect and regard for the Prime Minister, I have never regarded him as being the most enthusiastic apostle of open government. We have to live with the facts and not pretend that they are otherwise. I hope that the House will not endanger the position by passing amendments which would in my view be foolish in the circumstances, and that we shall give a welcome to the Commission. I hope that it will do something to rescue the rather sorry reputation of this country in this matter over the last decade.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It is my hope that at 10 p.m. the choice before the House of Commons will be a clear choice between setting up a Joint Committee, with sufficient powers to discharge the task that is entrusted to it in the first declaratory paragraph of the motion, and rejecting such a Joint Committee endowed with the necessary powers.
  It would be unsatisfatory to the Members of this House, and to the esteem in which one would wish them to be held outside this House, if the question were a different one, namely, whether this House should accept or reject a Joint Committee which, by negligence or deliberately, in the terms of the motion setting it up, has been deprived of the necessary powers to enable it to discharge the task given to it in the first declaratory paragraph.
  It is my contention that the Government motion contains defects of such a

  1753
  serious nature that I would rather see it rejected than see a Committee set up but shorn of the powers that it needs, knowing that it may well fail in its task because of Government incompetence or because the Government did not intend it to succeed in the first place.
  Let us first dispose of a bit of spurious window dressing. The motion describes the Joint Committee as
  "the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions".
  It is not a Commission, special or otherwise, of any kind. It has no commission, Royal, special or otherwise. It has no powers that a Joint Committee does not have. Nor does it have any attributes. Indeed, calling it "Special Commission" adds nothing to its powers or its significance.
  Why, then, the Government might say, do I object to this bit of window dressing? I object to it because I believe that it will mislead. Outside the House there are people who are familiar with the term "Royal Commission", which has a legal significance. I think that they are likely to be confused by the term "Special Commission" into believing that it has some import when it has no import whatsoever. For instance, evidence given to a Royal Commission may have a special status under the Official Secrets Act. But there is no such thing as evidence given to a Special Commission, because the term "Special Commission" has no meaning. It has no existence. We are talking about a Joint Committee of the Commons and the Lords.
  As we look at the phraseology that the Government adopted, either through incompetence or malice, we find that its defects are not marginal. They are serious. They are not just theoretical. They are practical. The Committee will have power to send for persons, papers and records. Unless we give it specific powers to send for Members of the House of Commons—which would be matched by the Lords empowering their complementary half to send for Members of the House of Lords—it cannot force the attendance of unwilling Members of either House.
  The Attorney-General led us to believe that this was an entirely theoretical consideration that could not or would not
  1754
  arise. Would it not? The Attorney-General himself in this Parliament refused to give evidence to a Select Committee of this House. He wrote asserting that he had no duty to give evidence or to advise Committees of the House unless he was ordered to do so by the House of Commons. However, this motion does not order him to assist the Joint Committee. It says:
  "That Mr. Attorney-General shall give such assistance to the Special Commission as may be appropriate."
  But who is to be the judge of what is appropriate—the Joint Committee or the Attorney-General? As it does not say that it is the Joint Committee—call it "Special Commission" if you will—the Attorney-General is at liberty to do the same to that Committee as he did to a Select Committee of the House in this Parliament and say "I have not been specifically ordered to assist it and I refuse to do so."
  There is another case in this Parliament. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refused to appear before a Select Committee as he did not want to give evidence about the Iranian Chrysler contract. I hope that I have established to the satisfaction of the House that this is not just a theoretical matter of something that could happen hypothetically. I am dealing with events that occurred in this Session of Parliament and with one of the Ministers sitting on this Front Bench. Yet he claims that this is something that could not happen. Why, therefore, did the Government not endow this Joint Committee—or the half of it that is subject to the resolution of this House—with that power? This defect may be remedied by inserting the words
  '(including Members of the House of Commons)'
  after the words "persons" in paragraph 3. That is the power to summon Members. The power to force the attendance of the Attorney-General is given if, in paragraph 6, we leave out the word "appropriate" and insert the words
  'required by the Special Commission'.
  The Joint Committee then has the power—which will be matched undoubtedly by a parallel mirror resolution on behalf of another place—to send for Members of either House and to send for the Attorney-General if it should require his assistance.

  1755
  When we follow on through this motion we find other interesting aspects. This body will be empowered to send for persons, papers and records. Yet in paragraph 9 the Instruction is limited to papers. Why is it not extended to cover records? Is it through negligence in drafting, or with intent? If it was with intent, with what intent? Why is it that records may be sent for but the Instruction does not apply to them? It applies only to papers. There must be some reason, unless it is sheer incompetence. I tabled an amendment to insert the words "records". The amendment is not so attractive that it will be called.
  It will also be noted that the Instruction applies only to papers that have been submitted. It does not apply to papers that have been sent for. There may well be a distinction between the two.
  By analogy, President Nixon offered to submit tapes selected by him to an investigatory body. However, the investigatory body realised it would not be able to discharge its function in that wise. It sent for what it wanted. Yet this Instruction applies only to papers submitted to the Special Commission and not to papers which have been sent for by the Special Commission. That is why I put down an amendment to insert the words "sent for or" in paragraph 9 after the first word "papers".
  Alas, that is a defect that must remain in the motion as it has not been selected by Mr. Speaker for moving and Division.
  As we progress through the final paragraph of the motion, we find two highly significant words—"if necessary". The paragraph reads:
  "That it be an Instruction that all papers submitted to the Special Commission shall first be examined by their Chairman who shall determine, if necessary after consultation with other members of the Special Commission, which of the papers should be seen by the members of the Special Commission."
  Who shall decide when necessity arises? Is it the Chairman or the members of the Joint Committee who shall decide? That is not clear. Not being clear, it lies within the power of the Chairman to say "As the words immediately following are 'Chairman who shall determine', I interpret it as meaning me. I
  1756
  shall decide what is and what is not necessary."
  I do not interpret the deletion of those two words—the subject of my amendment (k), which the Chair has selected—as meaning that the Chairman is bound to show the members of the Joint Committee every paper that he sees. I interpret it as meaning that he would be bound to discuss with them the characteristics of papers that he showed them and those that he withheld from them so that they would know what was being withheld from them.
  Although we are told that the Chairman of the Joint Committee is to be a distinguished judge, that is not defined in the motion. The normal procedure, as set out by "Erskine May", is that the members of the Joint Commission elect their own Chairman unless the procedure is set out in a motion. Unless there is an instruction to the Committee to elect Lord Scarman, we cannot he certain that he will be the Chairman. It may be that that event will follow.
  Whatever Lord Scarman's admirable attributes may be, I am not aware that he has extensive experience of government or politics. If someone is to judge what events, including advice and information, influenced Ministers in taking certain action and in not taking other action, or in making certain statements to the House when they might have made other statements, what is needed is considerable experience either of the House or of government. To entrust that task solely to someone who has experience of neither seems to put the remaining members of the Joint Committee in a position in which they will be asked to agree a report not knowing what evidence there has been which they would have considered relevant had they seen it and which they have not seen because someone else decided that it would not be relevant for them to see it. That is a matter of immense substance.
  I accept that there is a strong argument that it is difficult to preserve complete confidentiality and that that is the practical difficulty in putting all the papers before the entire Committee. Surely the reasonable compromise would be for the Chairman to be bound to consult the other members of the Joint Committee about what papers they should and should not

  1757
  see. That seems to be a reasonable compromise. If the words "if necessary" were deleted by the passage of amendment (k), there would be a situation, although not in my judgment a perfect one, which would represent the nearest one to perfection which we are likely to achieve in a motion of this sort.
  I hope that when the time comes the House will agree to the passage of amendments (e), (f) and (k), which the Chair has indicated it will allow to be put to the vote although they will not be debated. That will enable the substantive motion on which the House votes to be one of accepting or rejecting a Joint Committee adequately equipped to carry out the task that appears in the first declaratory paragraph.
  The House will do a great disservice to itself and to the country if it establishes a Joint Committee that fails in its task because it has been denied from its birth the minimum necessary powers to be competent to discharge its task.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) devoted his speech to the details of the motion and the amendments. His speech was none the less valuable for that.
  I shall address myself to two central themes. The first is whether we need a further inquiry. The second is, if the answer is "Yes" to the first question, what sort of inquiry should we have?
  It is right that the House has been reminded of the origins of the debate. It is not merely a technical matter of setting up a committee, nor does it stem solely from the publication of the Bingham report. It arises from the unilateral declaration of independence in Rhodesia.
  As we have already been told, the Government of the day had three choices. Their first choice was to do nothing in recognising the new regime. Their second choice was to send in troops and to put down the regime by force. Their third choice was to adopt some middle compromise position. The Government decided to take the middle compromise position and to apply sanctions, saying that sanctions, although a compromise and middle position, would be no less effective in ending the illegal regime than
  1758
  the use of force. We were told that the rebellion would come to an end in weeks rather than months.
  It was not the failure of sanctions to bring down the regime in weeks rather than months that led to the great concern of those who knew that oil was reaching Rhodesia against the declared position of Governments of both political persuasions and the decision of the United Nations. The failure vigorously to apply the policy of oil sanctions, although it applies to other sanctions as well, is directly responsible for the loss of life that is now taking place in Rhodesia and has taken place for some years in the recent past. It will continue for a long time to come. The loss of thousands of innocent lives of blacks, whites and whatever other colour has made no difference. Those lives have been lost because of the failure of the application of the sanctions policy. That gave rise to demands for an inquiry, the report of which was eventually published and is now known as the Bingham report.
  The Bingham report made clear that there had been a breach of sanctions. We all knew that. It told us that British companies were involved in a way that we did not know previously. It told us that certain Ministers and Government Departments knew much more about it than any of us had cared to think possible. When the Bingham inquiry was established it was said by some that we should not learn anything beyond that which we already knew about oil reaching Rhodesia. However, the Bingham report told us a great deal. I should not like to forecast what will emerge from the further inquiry that the Government have set up. In principle, I applaud the decision to set up a further inquiry. If we knew what would emerge from it, there would be no need for the inquiry.
  It may be that a great deal of valuable information will come out of the further inquiry. It may be that we shall discover at what level the decision was taken to neglect the sanctions policy. We may learn what considerations were taken into account when it was finally decided that we did not need to worry about British oil companies conniving at getting oil to Rhodesia.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that not only the integrity of certain civil

  1759
  servants is involved. More is involved than the integrity of individual Cabinet Ministers or the Cabinet or Cabinets of the time collectively. There is involved the integrity of the policy of the British Government.
  The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who has now left the Chamber, said that it would be impertinence for Heads of African Governments or others in Africa to suggest that our constitutional processes should be rigorously examined. He said that it would be impertinence for hon. Members to suggest to the Zambian Government that their Cabinet papers of the period should be rigorously examined. If any stones need to be lifted to see what is crawling underneath, it does not matter where they exist, whether it is Zambia, Mozambique, Britain or anywhere else. We have to look for the information. We have a direct responsibility in this House for the policy of our Government. What is at stake is not simply the cleansing of conscience and clearing up the past but the future.
  Other issues of great importance are being dealt with in Africa today. Our Government say, for example, that they are not supplying arms to South Africa. There are many issues on which we need to know how Government policy is made. We need to learn how to ask the right questions. Looking back on replies they received from Ministers about oil reaching Rhodesia, a number of hon. Members now realise that they did not ask the right questions. We did not know the right questions to ask. To get the right answer, one must ask the right question.
  The whole future of Southern Africa is at stake if we fail to answer the question "What are you going to do to find out why the policy was broken?" This is no simple matter that we can easily slough off. Those hon. Members who believe that they can vote against this motion in its entirety and against the principle of a further inquiry had better think again, particularly if they imagine that they are helping international relations and that their action will not be taken into account in the world.
  If we are to have an inquiry—we must have one—what kind of inquiry should it be? In my view, it should be the most open inquiry possible. If the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton,
  1760
  West (Mr. Sedgemore) is not carried, I shall support in its entirety the Government recommendation. That would be better than nothing. I am not as certain as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton. West that the public are demanding that great and beautiful thing, the Civil Service file. The fact that it is in plain covers does not necessarily mean that the contents are lurid. But we ought to see every possible document.
  I want to refer briefly to the proposition put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on behalf of the Prime Minister—I know he would accept that this is the Prime Minister's view—that if the House dares to assert itself and changes one or two of the fundamental premises written into the resolution, the Prime Minister will not recommend to Her Majesty that the papers be made available. That is the most preposterous remark I have ever heard in this House. It must be the most preposterous remark made in the House for many generations.
  We are dealing with a convention. I am sure that constitutional historians better versed than myself will agree that at one time we were told that if the 50-year rule was broken the whole fabric of democratic and Cabinet government would fall apart. We took a bold step and knocked the rule down to 30 years. We are saying, on this special occasion, that there should not be a time limit. But the 30-year rule itself is a convention. If it wishes, this House can decide that the 30-year rule should not apply. Are we being told that the Prime Minister will defy Parliament, and defy the orders of this House, encouraged to some extent by the Opposition?
  I wonder what the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) or the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) would have said last December when the House defeated the resolution on the Government authority for sanctions if the Prime Minister had stood at the Dispatch Box and said "It is all right. The House has taken a decision that the Government shall not apply sanctions in the industrial situation, but I am the Prime Minister and I shall take no account of Parliament's view. Sanctions will continue". Would any Conservative Member, never mind a

  1761
  Labour Member, have remained silent? We would have heard about constitutional crisis, dictatorship, failure to accept the will of Parliament and demands for the Government to go to the country. I realise that the Conservatives consider this issue to be a matter of lesser importance, that they do not consider sanctions against Rhodesia to be as important as sanctions on companies.
  The Attorney-General: Is not my hon. Friend aware that this is not something that has been sprung upon the House when the motion was put on the Order Paper? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his announcement on 15 December, said:
  "I should not be prepared to advise Her Majesty to make me free to disclose Cabinet papers, except under the very rigid conditions which will be laid down in the resolution which will be placed before the House in due course."—[Official Report, 15 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 1185.]
  My right hon. Friend was stating clearly that the Government would not put down a resolution except in those terms, and those are the terms which the House will have to accept.
  Mr. Hughes: I am aware of that. I was not surprised when I heard the Attorney-General state this principle. I am not saying it has been sprung upon us, but I am saying that it is thoroughly wrong.
  I consider myself an experienced Back Bencher with some experience in government and, therefore, an ideal person to serve on the Committee. I do not want to be too unkind to the Prime Minister, but it ought to be said that I took great exception to his coming to the House on the last day before the parliamentary recess to make his statement without any prior announcement that it was to be made. It would have been different if he had said earlier in the week that he intended to make a further statement about the inquiry, on the Friday. That would have been proper. I do not complain in the sense that hon. Members have to choose whether to remain here for Friday sittings. I maintain, however, that the statement was made very late and that a number of questions were raised. If I recollect correctly, Mr. Speaker did not wish to encourage too much questioning
  1762
  of the Prime Minister because Back Bench Adjournment debates were due to take place.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Let us not confuse the issues. The Prime Minister is entitled to put down a motion in any terms he wishes, and to add conditions to it if he wishes. But, if the House overrules him, he has no right to say that he will not present the motion as it was passed by the House. If he did say that, it would be a gross violation of our power and we ought to assert it here and now. I did not feel strongly about this matter until I heard the Attorney-General. After that assertion of Government power, the House has to say that they were wrong.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my view that it would be a contempt of Parliament, and a contempt of Members of this House, if the House decided to pass an amended motion and the Prime Minister were then to say that he did not accept it. That, in essence, is what we are being told.
  I want to addres myself to the question of executive privilege and the threat to the constitution raised by the hon. Member for Chelmsford. The hon. Gentleman said that the very fact of raising the question of integrity of civil servants and Ministers was a threat to the constitution. He quoted from Bagehot in 1867. He seemed to be suggesting that the doctrine of Cabinet secrecy, and the inviolability of the rule that Cabinet papers should not be seen, except in a certain period, was absolute and that there was never any time when or any condition whereby these matters should be challenged.
  In drawing this analogy, I ought to make it perfectly clear that I am not drawing an analogy between the Prime Minister and former President Nixon. That is not my intention. But when some of the questions were raised about the executive privilege of President Nixon, it was said that the rule of law and faith in the constitution of the United States would be undermined. When the former President stood by executive privilege and denied to the elected representatives papers, tapes and various other things, they went ahead and destroyed any idea of executive privilege. They were absolutely right to do so.

  1763
  We are right to say that there can be no absolute doctrine of executive privilege, or the privilege of Cabinet papers, if we think that the matter is serious enough. I happen to think that this matter is serious enough to merit going ahead with the widest possible inquiry.
  The motion is drafted in terms suggesting that there should be a Joint Committee of both Houses. What is the Government's intention if the other place decides not to take part? I suspect that discussions have taken place through the usual channels, which might well result in the other place accepting this, but, if by chance it should decide not to do so, may we have an assurance that a Committee of this House will be set up to do precisely the same job?
  Of course, I accept the dilemma and problems that the Government have had to face in coming to a satisfactory solution in order to have a further inquiry. I applaud their decision in principle to have a further inquiry. It is in the highest traditions of the Labour Party and Labour Government that we should be willing to go ahead and investigate matters, even though embarrassing things may emerge. I am sorry that the Government have not gone to the extent of making the inquiry as open as I would wish. But I applaud the principle.
  I shall support some of the amendments tonight, but my right hon. Friends can be assured that I will support the proposition on the Order Paper if that is what survives.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I concur with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in at least one point—that this is a very melancholy debate which relates to a very sad chapter in the history of our nation. On whatever side of the House we sit, we must look back on the events that occurred 10 years ago with a sense of shame and a sense of concern about how even now the matter can be remedied.
  We owe a considerable debt to Mr. Bingham and Mr. Gray for the quality of their report. However, I take issue with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North on the two questions that he raised—whether an inquiry is necessary at all and, if so, what form it should take.
  1764
  My reading of the Bingham report led me to the clear conclusion that at the very least one could see the outlines of a conspiracy. I refer the House particularly to what I believe is the key section of the report. It occurs on page 111 and relates to the role of the then Government and their relationship with the oil company and the swap agreement. It states:
  "Oil would still reach Rhodesia, but it could be truly said that it was not British oil. In the minds of the Groups, the significant thing was HMG's acceptance that oil would continue to reach Rhodesia. It thereafter seemed to them that HMG was more concerned about allegations of sanctions breaking (and in particular with allegations that British oil was reaching Rhodesia) than with any attempt to prevent oil reaching Rhodesia."
  Slightly further on, in the next paragraph, it states:
  "It was undoubtedly felt to be desirable that the Total arrangement should not be publicly disclosed; this was (perhaps primarily) because of the indication given to the companies that HMG would not disclose it, but also because of the use which could be made of the information by critics of British sincerity."
  That seems to summarise not only the large report but also the dismal history of what happened. I must confess a divided feeling on this. I feel ashamed at what has happened. I have strong sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgmore) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, but I would like to know rather more about who knew, when did they know and what did they do about it.
  I lived in America during the unrolling of the Watergate episode. There is something to be said for a nation facing what has happened, and inquiring into what has happened, regardless of whom it may affect. Certainly, no one is above the law. I feel this strongly, because I see in the Bingham report the clear outlines of a conspiracy. At the same time, I respect the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and other hon. Members relating not only to the need for an inquiry but also to the form of the inquiry.
  The Prime Minister specifically referred to the fact that this inquiry would be based upon the precedent of the Dardanelles Commission. That is probably the worst precedent which could have been chosen. The Leader of the

  1765
  House never ceases to remark that I write history but never make it. I actually wrote the history of the Gallipoli campaign, and I am convinced that the Dardanelles Commission is the most inadequate of all precedents for a great variety of reasons. It was one of the causes of the creation of the 1921 Act, because the Commission itself was so inadequate.
  But the essential problem of the Government's proposals are as follows. This inquiry will sit in private. It will publish its findings, but not the evidence. The agreement on the availability of Cabinet papers depends on the agreement of former Prime Ministers, not necessarily former Ministers or officials, and the test of the relevance of Cabinet papers is to be applied by the Chairman, whose name we do not yet know.
  These seem to be formidable arguments against the Government's proposals. But I should like to put the argument on a rather different plane. I feel that it would be unwise for this House and this country to look back at a time when not only its domestic but also its international problems are so substantial. I have very deep sympathy for the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North about our reputation in the Third world, and particularly in Africa. I have thought very greatly about that. But I have come to the conclusion that it would be wise for us to accept the Bingham report, to accept whatever blame lies upon all of us, whether or not we were in the Government, to regard that chapter as closed and as a nation to look to the future, not only nationally but also in Africa. It is for that particular reason that I shall vote against the Government's proposal.
  7.49 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Clemitson: We are dealing with some very fundamental questions. We are dealing with questions about the probity of civil servants and people in public life. We are dealing with questions about the relationships between people in public service and people in the service of private companies. We are dealing with the relationships between Governments and multinational companies. We are dealing with relationships between Ministers and civil servants. As the right
  1766
  hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said, we are dealing with the very standing of the Government of the country in the eyes of other people in the world.
  It seems to me that though the breaking of oil sanctions was in itself a serious enough matter the sort of questions which are raised run far wider than this particular issue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said earlier today that we did not want to have a cover-up or a whitewash in this inquiry. It would need to be seen as something established by this House itself.
  Against that background and the seriousness of the fundamental issues, I believe that we should judge this motion according to several criteria. The first is that the composition of this Commission—it should, as the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, be called a Joint Committee—should be seen to have the approval of this House and not be something cobbled up in a corner by the different party establishments. Second, there should be the maximum possible openness in the Commission's proceedings consistent with the requirements of national security and the reasonable protection of those individuals who might be implicated. The third criterion is that the inquiry should be as broad as possible.
  Looking at the motion against these criteria, I make one or two points. I was disturbed by what the Attorney-General said earlier today concerning the terms of reference. He seemed to imply that the scope of this inquiry would be very narrow. Perhaps I misheard or misinterpreted him, but he seemed to imply that. My hope is that the terms of reference as set out in the motion will be interpreted as widely as possible, because we are concerned with the whole complex of relationships as among persons, Governments and companies. If the inquiry is too narrow, we shall be dealing with matters out of context. This would be wrong.
  Second, on the question of the membership of the Commission, I was pleased to hear the Attorney-General say that the two people to be nominated from the Government side would be hon. Gentlemen rather than right hon. Gentlemen. I hope that the other two parties will follow this good example. However, there is a second point about the size

  1767
  of the Commission. When I asked the Attorney-General today about its size, he told me that there would be eight members. That is not quite the end of the matter, is it? Surely there is nothing to stop the House of Lords—assuming that it agrees to the setting up of this Commission—saying that if the House of Commons is to have five members, why should not the House of Lords have five, or even more? What guarantee do we have that the membership will be eight, with five members from this House and three from the other House? This point needs to be cleared up.
  My third point concerns the secrecy of the Commission's meetings. The Prime Minister called in aid the precedent of the Commission on the Dardanelles. This was the one precedent to which he referred in his statement on 15 December in this House. Whether or not that Commission performed its job well I do not know, but the point is that it was created by an Act of Parliament rather than by a resolution of the House. In this context, that seems to me to be a red herring, because the fact was that in the Act that set up that Commission power was given to it to decide whether its meetings should be open.
  I find that quite remarkable because, after all, the country was in the middle of a war and the Commission was to investigate matters concerned with the conduct of the war. Yet, for good or ill, it was thought fit to leave it to the Comission itself to decide whether or not its meetings should be open.
  If that was good enough in 1916, it ought to be good enough now. The motion as it stands clearly bars all public meetings. It is made quite clear that all meetings must be in private, leaving no discretion to the Commission. Here we come back to the question of trust. Do we, or do we not, trust the members of this Commission? Do we trust them sufficiently to accept that they will have due regard to such matters as national security and the protection of those individuals who are implicated? It seems to me that in this motion we are saying that we do not trust the Commission members. That is a rather poor basis on which to start.
  The basic point is that the issues at stake are fundamental ones, about the
  1768
  nature and integrity of Government and Parliament. If everything is done behind closed doors, suspicions about a cover-up or a whitewash will inevitably arise. Though the Attorney-General is seeking to avoid that situation, suspicions will surely arise unless there is the maximum openness in the Commission's proceedings.
  The motion appears to give the Chairman of the Commission enormous and exclusive powers. According to the motion he may consult the other members of the Commission, but he is not required to do so. He may, as the hon. Member for Tiverton pointed out, consult his colleagues if necessary. Who is to decide when that might be necessary? Presumably the Chairman himself. This will obviously create the possibility of tension between the Chairman of the Commission and the other members. It will be very difficult to avoid tensions in that situation. Again, we encounter the question of that trust which the House should surely place in the members of the Commission. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Lyon), and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who found astonishing the statement by the Attorney-General that the Prime Minister will not make Cabinet papers available unless this House passes the final paragraph of the motion in an unamended form.
  The Attorney-General said that this inquiry was a matter for the House. If it is a matter for the House, how can the House carry out its proper functions without the full freedom to do so? Surely it is quite unacceptable that the decisions of this House should have to be taken under what amounts to a threat or duress.
  I welcome the setting up of this Commission, but I make three points. First, the terms of reference should be interpreted in the widest possible manner. Secondly, we need a serious reconsideration of the ban on the Commission meeting in public, and, thirdly, we need to reconsider the exclusive powers given to the Chairman.
  8 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Whitney: I am happy to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) about the gravity of the

  1769
  position, but not about the details of the mechanics of the Commission. I believe that we must re-examine the principle at stake.
  I was happy, in the debate on 7 November last year, to recognise the need to consider the case for a further inquiry, but having carefully considered all that was said in that debate and the statement by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government subsequently, and having listened carefully to what has been said in this debate, I have reached the clear conclusion that the case for a further detailed inquiry into Rhodesian sanctions does not stand up.
  Nothing has been said to show that any good can be achieved by such an investigation. We have all had clearly proved to us the amount of damage that can be done to the interest and standing of this country. We must also take into account the situation in Rhodesia. Do we believe that another long and painful raking over of the sad but cooling embers will do anything but make the possibility of finding an adequate solution to that dreadful problem any easier? Clearly, such an inquiry will make the situation very much worse.
  When the debate began, I was not sure whether it was possible for the Government to move away from the principle of having a Commission. The statement made by the Foreign Secretary on 24 January, somewhat appropriately at an anti-apartheid rally, made it clear that he regarded the matter as a fait accompli. This leads us to the question of the relationship between the function of this House in debating the matter and the policies adopted by the Government.
  Let us imagine that on a free vote hon. Members accepted that the case for an inquiry did not stand up, and that the Government accepted that decision. There would be an outcry. We know whence such an outcome would arise. There would be an outcry. We konw and loud protestations about the sanctity of open government. As a former civil servant, nobody could be more passionately devoted than I to the need to improve and open up government. I am well aware of the damage done to the efficiency of the Administration by the resort to official secrecy, and I very much
  1770
  hope to play a part in the proceedings on the Official Information Bill.
  I also share the anxiety of all hon. Members about the need to restore the balance between the legislative and the executive arms of government. I am convinced that an inquiry such as is envisaged will not move in this direction and will do nothing to improve the quality of government. Indeed, I believe that it will achieve the reverse. It will make any Government, whether the present or a future Government, and their servants still more furtive and timid.
  What more do we need to open up? Nobody can answer that in full detail. I endorse the compliments which have been paid to Mr. Bingham and Mr. Gray, who carried out a very full inquiry. Since that inquiry the debate has indeed opened up. There have been debates both in this House and in the other place. We have also had full statements from the principal actors in the drama. I refer to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) and Lord Thomson of Monifieth. There has been an exchange of letters in The Times, and I am sure that there will be many more articles in the press as a result of this debate. Surely enough information exists to understand that it was a sorry tale, that the decision should probably not have been taken in the first place, and that its execution left a great deal to be desired. It was a sad episode in our history. All that is known. What more can we expect?
  Is it suggested that we wish to bring the wrongdoers to justice? The Attorney-General said this afternoon and in the debate in November that the probability was that the Commission would make more difficult the process of bringing to justice any offenders against the law of this country. The Director of Public Prosecutions has already taken up the inquiry and is handling the papers. If that process runs in tandem with yet another inquiry, the one may prejudice the other and that would create serious legal problems. That could result in difficult legal procedures and could probably render them inoperative altogether. That is not the result which I or other hon. Members would like to see.

  1771
  What other objective is there? The Attorney-General spoke of a political objective. Would we achieve the objective of embarrassing former Members of this House or of another place who were Ministers at the time when these events occurred? What contribution would that make to good government or to our country's interests? Is it being suggested that some unfortunate civil servant should be put into the stockade? Will we discover that some notional civil servant may have been in cahoots with Mr. Ian Smith or with the oil company tycoons? In my Foreign Office days I never had any responsibility for Rhodesian affairs, but I should be most surprised if one were to find a civil servant who is in that category.
  I yield to nobody in my admiration of the British Civil Service. It is rare to find in it the fault of foolhardiness, or any readiness to take bold, independent decisions. I regard that as a laudable quality and, if it ever existed at all, it is rapidly disappearing.
  The pressure has always been for civil servants to get clearance. Anyone who has been in Government service will know the process. It is inconceivable that any civil servant involved in such a sensitive area as sanctions on Rhodesia would not have obtained political clearance. Therefore, I do not believe that anything significant will emerge in this regard in the area of a conspiracy by the Civil Service. On the information that I have, I would be happy to set at rest the fears expressed so passionately by the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore).
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Are not the good name and good faith of this country also at stake in the world at large? If efforts are not made to get to the bottom of the affair, will not people abroad believe that the British Government were not sincere in what they were seeking to do and were indulging in a cover-up? Should not we all be proud of the good name and good faith of this country and see that they are maintained by going ahead with the inquiry?
  Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was just arriving at that point. The good name of this country is precisely what we should be discussing, and we should keep it at the forefront of our considerations.
  1772
  What will be the result of the inquiry? I have established the negative results. One clear result will be that the good name of this country will be further tarnished. Britain's standing reached one of its lowest points in history when, two days after Bingham emerged, the Prime Minister was obliged to fly to Kano and apologised to President Kaunda of Zambia for Bingham.
  Mr. Foot: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not attempt to persist in saying that that was the reason why the Prime Minister flew to Kano. He flew there in order to have consultations with the President about the immediate critical situation that Zambia had to face and to offer friendship and support to a friend of this country.
  Mr. Whitney: If the Lord President reads the record, he will see that I did not say that that was the reason why he flew. I said that that was what happened at Kano, among other things.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I had occasion in October to talk to the President of Zambia about Kano. He specifically denied that Bingham was ever discussed at that meeting.
  Mr. Whitney: My information is contrary to that offered by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). Where should we be if there were a decision not to pursue the Bingham inquiry?
  I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). There would be a serious protest, not only from President Kaunda but from President Nyerere, General Obasanjo, Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe. That would certainly be the case. I am also certain that we should have that chorus backed up by the Soviet propaganda machine. That is what happens. It would be a two-day wonder, but no more than that.
  We have far less to apologise for in this action and much else in relation to Southern Africa than many of the other participants in the drama. I would be interested in the conversations referred to by the Leader of the Liberal Party, when African leaders were talking about Bingham. It would be interesting to talk to African leaders about their role in Rhodesia over the past 10 or 12 years. Nearly

  1773
  every country that has dealt in this sphere could have its own Bingham. We should not be mealy-mouthed about that. That is the way the world is working. If we move against the grain of that, we do ourselves serious harm.
  The standing of the House is at stake in everything that we do. As has been mentioned, this country is at a point of severe crisis, domestically and internationally. In order to be seen to act responsibly in this House, we must understand the realities of the world, where British interests lie, and what we can really achieve. We can firmly make it clear that the breaking of oil sanctions was a sorry story, and Bingham exposed it. We must leave the rest to history. This House and this Government must get on with the job of protecting British interests and solving the problems of this country.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: When I saw the motion on the Order Paper I was concerned that the members of the Committee appointed by this House should include a goodly sprinkling of people who were not Privy Councillors. On the whole, Privy Councillors tend to be either members of Cabinets or senior members of Government. A Privy Councillor is a member of Government who is seen to be a good boy, rather than a bad boy, and therefore the climate of Privy Councillors is conducive to explaining away any difficulty in which the Government find themselves. I want to see someone on the Committee who will apply a critical mind so that when we get the report we shall know that we have the plain unvarnished truth.
  I was glad to hear that the two members of the Committee who will be nominated from the Labour side of the House will not be Privy Councillors. I hope that that example will be followed by the other parties. Therefore, I have decided not to push my amendment which has been selected.
  I am intervening in the debate for two reasons. The first is the question of Cabinet papers. An enormous mystique has grown up around this question. We have heard the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) reading what Bagehot said 100 years ago, but things have
  1774
  changed since then and minutes are kept of Cabinet proceedings. Anyone who thinks that Cabinet proceedings are anything like the revelations in Richard Crossman's diary is in for a shock. As a junior Minister, I saw some Cabinet papers. I was not bound either by any oath as a Privy Councillor or by the Official Secrets Act, and I found those documents extremely dull. It was difficult to find out who said what, because, apart from naming the Minister who introduced the discussion, the debates are recorded in general terms. I do not believe that any great danger would be done to the fabric of our society if we discussed Cabinet papers on a wider basis than we do at present. But there is strong resistance on the part of members of the Opposition as well as the Government to allowing that principle to prevail.
  I suspected that there would be a compromise, and compromise there is. That compromise goes too far in my view, but initially I was prepared to accept it. However, in the light of what the Attorney-General has said, I feel more disposed to vote for the amendment put down by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
  It is one thing for the Prime Minister to say that this is a serious matter, and, although it is not normal to disclose these documents and he personally does not want to, he has agreed to do so in the interests of indicating to the House that there is nothing to hide, knowing that there are certain careful safeguards, and hoping that the House will accept them; it is quite another for him to say that if these safeguards are not agreed to be is not prepared to release the documents. That is an impertinence to the House and a contempt of it. It is not within the power of the Prime Minister to flout the authority of this House expressed in a vote. On that basis, I am persuaded to vote for the hon. Member's amendment. If the Prime Minister were to flout the authority of the House, he might find himself in some hot water. The House has ways of expressing its disapproval of that kind of conduct. I am sorry that the Prime Minister's motion was put in such terms.
  The other matter which has arisen in the course of the debate which prompted me to speak is perhaps even more serious.

  1775
  It is the attitude of the Opposition as indicated by their official spokesman and by almost every Opposition Member who has spoken. It may be a free vote, but it looks suspiciously as though the whole of the Opposition will vote one way. I do not regard that as a satisfactory response to the challenge with which we are faced by Bingham.
  It has been asked "What more do we need, since Mr. Bingham has disclosed so much?" From the debates that followed Bingham, we know that there is an acute conflict between the account put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and the account put forward by Lord Thomson of Monifieth in the other place. It was said that a Cabinet Minister sent a document across to Downing Street and the Prime Minister of the day said that he never saw it.
  I am not so sanguine about civil servants as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). I recall when I was a Minister and he was a civil servant and we had our discussions. I cannot say that his response encouraged me to believe that civil servants do not sometimes act in a manner inconsistent with the directive of a Minister.
  Mr. Whitney: We have never really gone through this, and I do not want to delay the House, but I hope that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) will agree that as a civil servant I followed my duty by pointing out the errors of certain courses as I saw them. If he, as Minister, elected to follow a certain course, I followed that loyally.
  Mr. Lyon: Since in this House we always accept the word of hon. Members, I should like to believe that. I can only tell the House that, until the hon. Member assured me just now, I was in some doubt. If anybody wishes to know more about it, he ought to consult a report in the Library by a gentleman called Hawley. That report was disclosed to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), though I do not know where it came from. From that report it is perfectly clear that civil servants in the post in which the hon. Member for Wycombe was then, Deputy High Commissioner, took a very strong view which was different from that of the Minister. Indeed, the civil servants pursued their
  1776
  own policy long after the Minister told them not to do so.
  Mr. Whitney: I should like to pursue this. I understood, when the hon. Gentleman began his remarks about me, that he was suggesting that I was in some way linked with the Hawley report. I should make it clear that I had left that post before the Hawley report and its leakage occurred. This is obviously not the appropriate time to discuss any particular episode.
  Mr. Lyon: I accept that it is not the appropriate time. I am simply making the point that it is not the case that civil servants always act in accordance with the direction of their Minister. I have concrete evidence from my own experience that they always present the Minister with papers that they should present, but it is not the case that they always keep the Minister fully informed on matters about which he has a right to be informed. However, I am not aware that that occurred in the case of this account from Mr. Bingham.
  On an issue which is of such importance as the avoidance of sanctions, it seems to me that it would be very difficult indeed for a civil servant to take upon himself the responsibility of not informing his Minister. If it happened—and I do not put it entirely out of the realms of possibility—we should know about it. As yet, I do not have complete assurance from the Bingham report that it did not happen.
  If the Commission were to come forward with clear evidence that Ministers had not been informed by their own civil servants, I am sure that the hon. Member for Wycombe would recognise that that would be a matter of first importance. This House would then have to act upon that information in order to ensure that civil servants were more accountable to their Ministers and to Parliament. For that reason, I believe it is of supreme importance that we go right to the end of the story and retrieve every morsel of information that we can about what did or did not happen.
  If it becomes plain, as it might, that there are defects in the way in which Ministers are served by their civil servants, or that there are defects in the ways in which Ministers account for themselves

  1777
  before this House, it becomes more and more clear that what we have to do is to increase our power over the Executive and over the civil servants. I hesitate to make the case when the Leader of the House will be winding up this debate, but the case would then become stronger for strong Select Committees which would be in constant communication with civil servants and Ministers about the development of policy as an ongoing thing, and as that happened they would be able to avoid this kind of thing.
  I make two final points. It is suggested by the hon. Member for Chelmsford that the country is not really terribly interested in whether we have an inquiry. I think that that is right; but it is right for all the wrong reasons. It is right because most people, having read about Bingham, have said "What else do you expect from politicians?" I believe that cynicism to be the greatest threat to our democratic system. Far more threatening than the trade unions or the right to strike or picket is the cynicism that Parliament is not a body in which people can have trust. I want to remove that cynicism. It is essential that we should have the report of the Joint Committee, if only to remove that cynicism.
  Then, further, there is a case for trying to explain to our people why it was—if this is what the Commission finds—that, Ministers having decided that the operation of sanctions would involve us in difficulties with South Africa which they did not want to take on, they therefore decided not to come to the House and say publicly "This is the dilemma and this is what we have decided to do." They tried to conceal that difficulty by making or, at least, sanctioning a swap arrangement which was a breach of sanctions but, at any rate, enabled them honestly, or apparently honestly—I am never much given to the idea that just because the words are not wrong something is not a lie—to say that the oil was not coming from British companies.
  If the Prime Minister of the day had come to the House and said "This is our dilemma", the House would have had to discuss it. It would have had to ask whether sanctions could proceed in that case, or it would have had to say "If
  1778
  sanctions are to proceed, we must take on South Africa."
  I accept that that, particularly at the time, would have been a serious development of policy in Southern Africa. I happen to believe that it was the right policy to follow, and that if the Prime Minister had come to the House with that dilemma I would have known my answer to it. I do not say that it is the answer that the House would have given, but I know what I would have said. We would then have had a discussion about the real issues underlying sanctions, whereas what we did was to continue, unbeknown to ourselves, a charade in which we played our parts.
  Those of us in the so-called Back-Bench Africa lobby were constantly saying that such-and-such should be done, when we did not realise at the time that a swap arrangement had been sanctioned by our own Government. Had we been able to use that information as part of the dialogue in forming policy, it is possible that a different policy would have emerged, a policy which would have been more effective in dealing with the Rhodesian problem, and a policy which would have led to the collapse of Mr. Smith long before the fighting broke out in earnest in 1972. The loss of many lives would have been avoided. We never got to that because some people, members of the Government, apparently took a decision that they would not tell.
  The political process cannot develop unless we know all the facts, unless we have a sensible discussion about the facts and arrive at policies that are properly related to the facts. I do not believe that a policy can be built upon sand merely because it is convenient as far as public opinion is concerned that the harsh nature of the reality should not be disclosed. I fear that in many ways until quite recently we were pursuing that kind of policy in relation to whether or not there should be support for an internal settlement. The reality is that the internal Government have lost all credibility within Rhodesia, yet we are still arguing in this House on the basis of assumptions that are totally unjustified by the facts.
  If for that reason alone, I think we should have the full facts before us about what happened and a proper discussion

  1779
  of what implications that has for policy making in the future.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I am almost diffident about intervening in what had become a rather interesting and private debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). I look forward to hearing on another occasion a full statement of my hon. Friend's case and particularly of his relationship with the hon. Gentleman when he was a Minister. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I do not think that the Opposition will be presenting a united front on this. He may even have the uncomfortable experience of finding himself in the same Lobby as myself on the main issue, and may even want to reconsider his position after hearing that.
  I agree with him, and not with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, that the Bingham committee's report, admirable, cogently argued and lucid though it may be, cannot possibly be the last word on this whole question viewed as a political and historic episode of some importance. This is no criticism of Mr. Tom Bingham and his colleague, because their terms of reference were far too narrowly drawn to throw up all the essential evidence on which to form a political judgment on this very important episode.
  The fullest and most cogent case against the setting up of the Special Commission was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who is not present at the moment. He made the point first that this was really a matter to be left to historians. Of course, no one is better equipped than he to make that observation, except perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), and we have been particularly privileged to hear contributions from both of them. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Leader of the House?"] I do not know whether or not the Leader of the House can be considered a historian I know that he has made a contribution to history and has written a biography of his predecessor in Ebbw Vale, but I do not know whether he regards that as a political work or a work of serious history. Perhaps he will enlighten us when he replies to the debate.
  1780
  At any rate, the historians and men of letters in our midst make a particular and often sparkling contribution to our debates.
  I do not believe, however, that whatever conclusion we reach or whatever conclusion the Special Commission reaches will prevent historians of the twenty-first century from going over this ground again. I am not conscious that because a Select Committee was set up to consider the Jameson raid—which I find to be perhaps the closest parallel, because these questions of connivance and collusion and, indeed, the integrity of a Minister, in that case Mr. Joe Chamberlain, were at stake—it was important to determine as one of the issues how far Mr. Chamberlain knew of the plans of Dr. Jameson. But that is a matter of history and I do not propose to take the time of the House to go back over it.
  The point I wish to make is that certainly the conclusions of that Select Committee have not prevented a future generation of historians going over that ground in infinite depth and with infinite care, and I am quite certain that future historians, particularly perhaps when the missing filing cabinets provided to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) by the Peachey, property company have turned up, will find a rich fund of material to go over.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The chess set as well.
  Mr. Rees: Yes, the chess set. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), like his hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore), has a keen nose for what I think the hon. Member for Luton, West described as moral corruption and treason. Perhaps I do not have quite such a sensitive nose. I certainly do not detect any particular connection between a silver chess set and the matters with which the Special Commission will be concerned.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I understand that earlier Mr. Speaker deplored any reference to that matter. I think that it would be better not to refer to it.
  Mr. Rees: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for encouraging me to move away from that subject. I succumbed to the blandishments of the hon.

  1781
  Member for Fife, Central. I shall leave it at that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and, indeed, Labour Members were concerned that the so-called Special Commission would be ineffective. I do not propose to traverse ground covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) with his usual expertise. I defer to him on parliamentary procedure and powers.
  I doubt whether the Special Commission will be short of oral evidence. I feel that every right hon. Member who is in any way concerned with these matters will be only too ready and anxious to give his version of events to the Special Commission. For instance, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Huyton with the written word, his reminiscences on "The Governance of Britain" and oral evidence will endeavour to clarify his own position.
  However, I entertain some doubts about the quality of the documentary evidence which may be available, particularly Cabinet papers. I recognise the delicacy of the Prime Minister's position—indeed, any Prime Minister's position—and the constitutional proprieties. But I must say to the Attorney-General, whom I know to be an advocate of skill and tact, that the message that he conveyed to the House this afternoon was similarly tactless. It has not done anything to allay the concern of those who have been considering this matter.
  I should have understood if the Prime Minister had said that his Administration's papers, if certain amendments were carried—I am still unclear as to which amendments he takes exception—would not be available. But, whatever the strict constitutional position, I do not feel that the Prime Minister was entitled to say that he would not be able to make a recommendation relating to the Cabinet papers of his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton or of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It must be a matter of judgment for them whether to make those papers available on the condition that the Cabinet papers of this Administration are made available.
  As the Prime Minister has not been present, perhaps I may convey to him—
  1782
  I hope not presumptuously, but I think that I am echoing the views of many of his hon. Friends—that the message was a little tactless. I hope that, whatever the outcome of tonight's votes on the various amendments, he may choose to reconsider his position on that matter.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Has my hon. and learned Friend got the same impression as me—that the Prime Minister is prepared to disclose anyone's papers but his own?
  Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is a man of great experience and charity. I think that that was a perfectly proper observation. I think that I can leave it there.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that the Special Commission was a diversion of effort. So far as I can gather, only five hon. Members will be involved. I doubt whether we shall be in a position to debate their conclusions until possibly the further side of a general election. I have no doubt that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are concerned with the present discontents in the country and problems in their constituencies, but I do not think that this Special Commission will be substantial enough to divert our attention from more pressing problems.
  I am sensitive to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford—he may not have put it in this way—that a minimum of secrecy is necessary for the efficient despatch of Government business. I am also sensitive to the argument that perhaps a minimum of humbug is needed if the decencies of public life are to be preserved. I leave the argument there, because my hon. Friend deployed it far more effectively than I could.
  However, I hope that this debate will not be regarded as lying between those practical men of affairs who have experience of government and are concerned with the proper conduct of business and those who are without that experience and possibly with ulterior motives and who believe in total exposure. I hope that I have no ulterior motives and I do not believe—I say this to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe—in total exposure.

  1783
  However, as I have considered this problem, another aspect has struck me. Sanctions were introduced by the Administration of the right hon. Member for Huyton as a matter of high national policy. Whether he was right in so doing, we are not now concerned to debate. I merely put it on record that I believe that it was a mistaken tactic that has proved entirely fruitless and has inflicted a great deal of unnecessary embarrassment on this country. But, as a consequence of the sanctions policy, the Queen in Parliament created offences under the criminal law. Some of our compatriots and some companies have already been prosecuted.
  I asked the Attorney-General a question about the number of prosecutions that there have been for breaches of the Rhodesian sanctions orders. With his usual candour and comprehensiveness, the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied:
  "There have been 10 prosecutions for breaches of the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968, of which nine have been successful. One prosecution is pending."
  That is presumably the Lucas prosecution, which has now come to a conclusion satisfactory to the company.
  "There have also been 24 prosecutions for breaches of other legislation relating to Rhodesian sanctions, of which 21 have been successful. Three cases are pending.
  In cases where there have been convictions, fines ranging between £10 and £50,000 have been imposed. In some cases, where imports to the United Kingdom have been concerned, goods have been confiscated."—[Official Report, 6 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 46.]
  As I said, there has been in the public eye the prosecution of the Lucas company and some of its directors. I would recall to the House the fact that one of the directors, a Mr. Lock, was prosecuted for what, in lay terms, amounted to negligent misconduct because he should have known what was carried on by a branch of his company in South Africa. I am happy to state that he was acquitted, as was the company, although one employee of the company was convicted and fined £500.
  In the debate on the Gracious Speech on 7 November, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that the Director of Public Prosecutions would be pressing on with prosecutions in this field, that the Government, so far as they were entitled to do so, would throw their weight into this
  1784
  area and make certain that any infractions of the orders would be brought before the courts and that—I suppose—he hoped they would be prosecuted with the full rigour of the law.
  I feel that if a person were charged with breaches of these orders, certainly with breaches which occurred before the debate on the Gracious Speech, he would be entitled to argue that he thought—indeed, the public thought, as probably most of the public do—that the Government who introduced the sanctions orders initially had considerable doubts about their ultimate efficacy and that although perhaps they had initially been ignorant of breaches of the order in the most important sector, that concerned with the import of fuel oils into Rhodesia, they subsequently connived at, if not colluded over, these breaches.
  I am not saying whether that is true or not—that will be a matter for the Commission—but that is certainly the impression that has been left on those of my constituents with whom I have talked about this question since and before the publication of the Bingham report.
  This is one of the central political issues to be elucidated. But it is not entirely a political issue, because it also touches on the administration of justice, as I have said previously to the House. Any advocate called upon to prepare his speech in mitigation on behalf of a client who had been convicted of a breach of these orders might well point to the minutes of the meeting presided over by Lord Thomson of Monifieth—may I say that I have considerable personal regard for the noble Lord, both for his charm and his integrity—on 21 February 1968. There was a subsequent meeting a year later on 6 February 1969. If I were defending a client in breach of the orders, I would draw the attention of the court—although I might be ruled out of order for so doing—to a consideration of how far the Government which had created the offences of which my client had been convicted had connived at breaches of the orders.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Whited sepulchre.
  Mr. Rees: My right hon. Friend has a great gift of phrase, a great knowledge of the Bible and classical literature. I recall with pleasure his memory of

  1785
  Plutarch in other debates. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he will catch your eye in the debate.
  I believe that a court called upon to determine the penalty in a case such as the one I have described would have to consider whether the Government which created the offence believed that the sanctions orders would contribute effectively towards resolving the problem of UDI. The problems of the impotence of the Government of the day were real. But if one is to create a criminal offence one must come to the House and the country with the cleanest possible hands.
  Whether the penalty for the offence would be pecuniary or a term of imprisonment, the court would have to consider how far the Government had been guilty of connivance or collusion. I do not suggest that the Attorney-General should encourage the Director of Public Prosecutions—he cannot of course give instructions to that Department—to consider the prosecution of his right hon. Friend the noble Lord Thomson of Monifieth or of his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton. That is an absurd suggestion and I do not make it.
  Those who tangle with criminal law in the future, upon the encouragement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, are entitled to have these questions answered. I am conscious that we cannot answer them in the highly charged atmosphere of this Chamber. We do not have the material or the necessary skills to do so. Therefore, in the interests of justice and not of partisan politics, some other form of investigation must be devised.
  I confess that, like many of my hon. Friends, I am not enamoured of the so-called Special Commission and, as I have indicated, I have reservations about its powers. However, I do not believe that any Member of this House or the other place would shirk his duty and not appear before the Special Commisison. If he did, I believe that it would be right for the Special Commisison to draw inferences unfavourable to him.
  I feel that the terms of reference of the Special Commission are a little meretricious. Of course, it would be right for the Commission to consider whether
  1786
  Ministers were deceived, and the question of how far the House was misled will be a key issue. None of the papers was available to the House. Another key issue is how far the Cabinet and the Ministers of the day connived and colluded or how far they remained in ignorance of what was going on.
  In the absence of more attractive and practical proposals, and in the hope that the Special Commission will address itself to what I regard, and I hope the House regards, as an important issue, I shall support the motion.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) referred to the undoubted fact that the British Government, generally speaking, were not interested in this matter. Judging from the attendance in the Chamber, the majority of Members of this House are not interested either. But that, as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, is no good reason why we should not go ahead to ascertain the truth.
  Indeed, British politics might have been in a healthier state if the Government which perpetrated the Suez disaster had set up a similar committee to ascertain the truth of that disaster. Perhaps we could trace the cynicism now prevalent among the British public to that crisis. However, we have never yet learnt the truth of it. It is very important for the credibility of Government, for the credibility of our Civil Service and for the credibility, more importantly, of the nation as a whole that we should bend every endeavour to get at the truth, however unpleasant it might be for individuals or Government.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) was a fairly high-up civil servant. I do not want to criticise the Civil Service unduly, but he would appear to have been the sort of archetypal civil servant who makes us deeply suspicious of the whole set-up of the Civil Service. Speaking more as a civil servant than as a politically sensitive representative of this House, he admitted, in effect, that it was a sorry tale and that therefore we had better wrap it up.
  I take a completely opposite view, precisely for the reason that, if it is a sorry

  1787
  tale of deception by somebody, it is imperative that we should use all our endeavours to get to the truth, however distasteful it might be and however destructive it might be of the careers of individuals, be they Members of this House, civil servants, oil executives, or anything else. If there are wrongdoers, they must be identified and suitable punishment must be meted out "pour encourager les autres".
  This, more than any other issue that I remember debating in this House, is a political matter of great concern to this House, to our people and to our credibility as a nation in the world. Politically the reputations of former Ministers—and perhaps of existing Ministers—are at stake. Constitutionally what is at stake is whether this House was deliberately deceived by Ministers of the Crown of both Governments and whether Ministers were deceived by civil servants.
  There is a very important matter to which reference has not yet been made, and I hope that the Joint Committee will undertake to investigate it. I refer to the relationship between BP and the Government. The Government have a major shareholding in BP, yet there was evidence that there was either no relationship or that some very questionable relationship existed between the British Government's directors in that company and the Government themselves.
  Not least in importance is a matter which has been referred to by several right hon. and hon. Members in the course of the debate, and which was referred to by the Attorney-General, namely, the Prime Minister's doctrine. I could scarcely believe my ears, but I knew very well that the Prime Minister had said it on 15 December because I was here at the time. It was, I believe, in reply to a question from me that he laid down the astonishing doctrine that if this House does not do what he thinks we ought to do, he will take no notice of it. I tell my right hon. Friend that that is an outrageous and completely unacceptable doctrine, and that we shall not accept it. I hope that no Back Bench Member—and, indeed, no Front Bench Member, apart from Cabinet Members—will accept that doctrine.
  I turn directly to that statement by the Prime Minister on 15 December. After it the Leader of the Opposition had some
  1788
  startling and ominous things to say. The right hon. Lady said that she wanted speedy conclusions, otherwise the interests of the United Kingdom would be damaged. What did that imply? Surely the implication of that was that if we investigated in depth and discovered the facts the Government would be damaged, and that therefore we should have a speedy, inconclusive whitewashing exercise to safeguard the good name of this country. That doctrine was propounded by the right hon. Lady. She almost inferred that the more inadequate the inquiry, the better our interests would be protected in this country and presumably in Africa. The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) shakes his head. I hope that he will read what his right hon. Friend said on that occasion. He may then draw his own conclusions.
  The Prime Minister was questioned more effectively, I thought, by the former Tory Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), when he referred to the question of the evidence to be taken in private. My amendment refers to that point. In reply the Prime Minister said that if the evidence was not taken in private—if it was taken in public—private characters might be jeopardised, and character assassination of private individuals might take place which could not be remedied easily in the short term. In the nature of events we must take that risk. It is unavoidable. My amendment seeks to deal with that matter.
  All parties pay lip service to the principle of open government until they become the Government. Then suddenly they backtrack. We have repeatedly tried by a variety of measures to obtain more open government. Concessions have been made reluctantly by successive Governments by means of a multiplicity of Green Papers. We have not made much progress in all the time that I have been here in implementing the principle of open government. The idea of having the evidence taken by this Select Committee, with the safeguard that it would be at the discretion of the Chairman and his Committee acting together, would be sufficient safeguard against the abuse of individuals who gave evidence to the Committee.
  Many years ago we heard in Parliament the same argument about Select Committees of other kinds. We always

  1789
  sat in private until relatively recently. The argument was always put by Governments that the press would report the proceedings week by week. The outside public would therefore obtain a bowdlerised version of what was happening and the evidence would be out of date when the report appeared. The press and public would therefore have been fed with inexact, inaccurate, scurrilous stories of which the press is capable. Those arguments were advanced over a long period of years against allowing the public inside the Select Committees. Eevery Select Committee now allows in the public. None of the dangers feared at that time has arisen.
  Mr. Costain: There is still a problem. The press is allowed to report the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee, but as a member of that Committee I am not permitted to give official evidence. It is still half a story. I could not take part in a television programme tonight because a report has not been made to the House.
  Mr. Hamilton: As far as I understand the hon. Gentleman, that is a case for saying that we should go even further and introduce the television camera. I am all in favour of that. If we are to get an accurate description for the public of what goes on in this place, our proceedings must be as open as possible. I should be all in favour of having television cameras in Select Committee rooms and in the Joint Committee.
  The former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup, advanced a valid argument about having a report produced by the Committee but published without the accompanying evidence. Nothing could be more calculated to convince the public that a whitewashing exercise had taken place than to produce a report but not the evidence. We should be saying "There is the report, but we shall not tell you the evidence on which it is based." I can think of nothing more damaging to the standing of the House than that procedure.
  There has been and still is constant pressure on the Government not to appoint a majority of Privy Councillors. The argument has been conceded by the Government but the Opposition may take
  1790
  a different view. We have no control over the Opposition, but I hope that when the membership is ascertained a resolution will be put before the House and we shall be able to amend the membership. If a resolution comes before us, and if the Opposition have appointed Privy Councillors, we shall move amendments to delete the Privy Councillors' names and to replace them with Back Benchers. If that procedure is adopted, we shall have that privilege.
  We may talk about the nuts and bolts but we must not lose sight of the principle. My hon. Friends the Members for York and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) put the matter in the right perspective. It is highly politically charged. Whatever faults we may find with the terms of reference of the Committee and its composition, it is extremely important to our friends in Africa, to the Third world and to everybody in Great Britain to ensure that the House of Commons, a democratically elected assembly, is willing, despite the damage that may be incurred by former Ministers and civil servants, not to shrink from ascertaining the truth. I only wish that the Tory Government had done so in 1956.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: It is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the House of Commons must not shrink from ascertaining the truth when its honour is involved.
  The hon. Gentleman tried to make a party political point about Suez. I could make a party political point about Admiral Byng and the muitny of the Nore. Neither Suez nor the mutiny created a new criminal offence. Sanctions did so, and many innocent persons, including constituents and those running smaller companies, have suffered. There is a proper emotional viewpoint for the British public to hold. We have all had cases where, for example, a sick person has not been able to return to Britain or where a few goods—for example, a couple of leopard skins or a cow hide—have been prevented from being imported because of sanctions. Everyone in Britain has connections with those who have suffered because a new criminal offence was created by sanctions.

  1791
  The honour of this House is very much involved. I want to look back at the reason why the Bingham report was published. Admittedly, the Foreign Secretary instigated the report, but I hope that the Government are aware that the reason it had to be instigated was because an action was being taken in international law by the President of Zambia and by a British company, Lonrho, against international oil companies.
  I am one of the sponsors of the Official Information Bill. It is wrong to imagine that the Bingham report is sui generis to the House of Commons. It arose only because these international actions were being taken by Lonrho and by the President of Zambia against various oil companies. Let us get that straight.
  The Attorney-General: That certainly is not true. Those actions, no doubt, were taking place, but the Bingham inquiry was set up as a result of certain information being passed to the Foreign Secretary, who consulted me. That information indicated there may have been sanctions-breaking. It was entirely as a result of that. It had nothing whatever to do with anything else.
  Mr. Fraser: This can doubtless be investigated when the Committee is set up. I am told that a great deal of information came from either the President of Zambia or from the Lonrho company in this country. That will be shown later. To imagine that the Government have acted out of their good will is not the fact. This will undoubtedly be shown by the evidence put forward to this Committee.
  I have spoken about the emotional angle and the suffering created for many people by a new criminal offence. There is a much more important angle which should be investigated. People say let history decide. This might have been acceptable 80 years ago or 50 years ago, when Britain was a great Power and this House of Commons was regarded with great respect by the people of this country. It is no longer regarded with respect. That is why I believe there must be a proper inquiry.
  Faults have been committed at a very high level. The main argument for setting up this Committee is not simply the emotional feeling that small men have been persecuted while the great get away.
  1792
  It is not the tradesmen that people want to see hung in this country, it is the politicians. That would be very popular.
  I want to raise the question of the deceit of the House of Commons over a long period of years. The most obvious area of deceit occurred over what was called the Beira patrol. Again and again, the House was told that this was essential to the maintenance of sanctions. If one looks at the evidence, it is clear that the Beira patrol had no influence on the flow of oil into Rhodesia. By 1965, when sanctions were set up, one ship was stopped going in. After that, they all went in to Lourenco Marques without let or hindrance.
  By 1970, the port of Beira had seized up and yet ship after ship, officer after officer, and crew after crew of the Royal Navy were engaged in this fruitless patrol at immense cost to the taxpayer and because we were not allowed to use Simonstown, great damage was caused to naval hulls. This needs to be investigated. Yet when I asked the Attorney-General this afternoon whether the Beira control was to be included within the terms of reference, he was rather doubtful. This is something which cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds. That is why it must be made clear that the witnesses called will not be subject to prosecution under various naval Acts. That is why I feel very strongly, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), that the Joint Committee should have the absolute ability to send for the right persons and papers.
  I would like to see the harbour master from Beira sent for. There are two of them, both Portuguese. They know how many ships were wasting their time. They know what it cost the taxpayer, not in terms of money—that is for an accountant to quantify—but in terms of steam, men and ships. Yet again and again we were smoothly told that this was central to the maintenance of sanctions.
  There is another question which ought to be investigated by this Special Commission, namely, whether British sailors were actually protected by international law in the pursuit of their patrol. Looking at the various articles of the United Nations, I have reason to believe that if ever they had taken action British sailors

  1793
  could possibly have been put on a charge either of piracy or of murder. Yet this went on year after year, and the House of Commons was told that it was essential.
  There are many people who say "Let the dead bury the dead, let this be wrapped up in history" I disagree. The fair name of the House of Commons is at stake. Let this investigation be set up, and allow it to send for witnesses under proper protection.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: I agree with the last words of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) that the honour of the House of Commons is at stake, as is the honour of successive British Governments. That is why I still support the setting up of this Special Commission.
  It has been said that there is not much interest in this matter. I suspect that is right. We would be wrong to think that the people of this country, who have problems with hospitals, heating and so on, are bothered about this debate. But we must face the fact that the people of this country have for some time not bothered a great deal about foreign affairs. We have become increasingly parochial. But, the questions having been raised about the honour of the House and the honour of successive British Ministers, this inquiry is essential with regard to British reputation abroad, where British behaviour in foreign affairs still counts. It should be seen that we have no desire to draw a veil in order to protect individuals or Governments.
  The question that arises in this debate relates to the form of the Special Commission. There are two issues in this respect. There is the issue of confidentiality—of whether or not papers and witnesses should be seen privately. There is also a totally different question, which is the extent to which the Government are prepared to trust the honour of Members of Parliament.
  I do not go all the way with my hon. Friends who have argued for a virtually total openness of the hearing of witnesses. When one is dealing with former senior Ministers and other senior officials, one cannot be sure in advance that a probing question will not produce an answer
  1794
  which may not be totally germane to the inquiry but which may affect some aspect of national security. So long as it is understood that evidence will be published after the Special Commission has heard it, and has considered whether any portions need to be sidelined or excluded, I believe that the Commission can sit in private. I have no worries that there will be a cover-up by a Special Commission of this House if it were to sit mainly in private.
  What does concern me is the doctrine enunciated from the Government Front Bench, namely, that if certain amendments are accepted by the House the Government will not see fit to recommend certain things to Her Majesty the Queen. It seems to me totally intolerable that the Government should trust a High Court judge, however learned and honourable he may be, and not trust the Members of this House, especially since, as we all know, they will be hand-picked by the Government Whips and the Opposition Whips for their general moderation and reliability.
  I find it intolerable that the Government have rejected the amendments of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I do not always see eye to eye with him, but on this occasion it seems to me that it is a derogation of the power of the Special Commission that the Government motion says that the Attorney-General should give assistance to the Special Commission "as may be appropriate". That leaves it in the hands of the Executive totally to decide when, and when not, to give assistance.
  The Attorney-General: Will it satisfy my hon. Friend if I tell him that I shall be at the service of the Chairman of the Special Commission whenever he wants me?
  Mr. MacFarquhar: I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend, whom I regard truly as rightly honourable, would intend that. But we have had cases in the not too distant past where Ministers of the Crown were required to appear before a Select Committee and were prevented from doing so by the Government. However honourable my right hon. and learned Friend may be, I believe it is correct for the House of Commons to insist on the

  1795
  amendment of the hon. Member for Tiverton, seeking to delete the word "appropriate" from the Government's motion and to insert the words
  "required by the Special Commission".
  Equally, if one is to trust the Members of the House of Commons, as I believe one should, I do not believe that the other amendment of the hon. Member for Tiverton, namely, to insert the words
  "(including Members of the House of Commons)"
  after the word "persons" in paragraph 3, is necessary. I agree with the Government that any Member of this House who decided not to appear in front of a Special Commission would in effect convict himself, and I doubt whether any hon. Member would behave in that way.
  The other major question concerned the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Tiverton to delete the words "if necessary" in paragraph 9. This is also fundamental, because for the Chairman of the Commission to decide whether he should consult hon. Members on what is, by Government admission, a highly political matter—a decision to be taken by someone who is not a Member of the House of Commons—seems to me to display a total mistrust of this House. It appears also to undermine the sincerity of the Government's whole approach in setting up the Commission.
  It seems to me that there is a compromise which could be offered by the Government. If the House is prepared to accept the confidentiality of the proceedings of the Special Commission, it would seem that the Government should be prepared to accept that hon. Members are to be fully trusted. I hope therefore that they will be prepared to accept the amendments to which I have drawn attention.
  9.19 p.m.
  Sir Michael Havers: One wonders, having heard the speech about the great demand of the country for this Commission, why that demand has not been reflected by a better attendance in this House. Several times during the course of this debate there have been no more than three Back Benchers on either side of the House and there has usually been one—the Attorney-General has faithfully been here most of the time
  1796
  —on the Front Bench. This is the debate that is meant to be exciting the attention of the country.
  I ask, first of all, why we need another inquiry. Nobody could say of the Bingham report that it was not a full, detailed and first-class report. Are some Members hoping, perhaps, to indict other Members, or some civil servants?
  The right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) wants an inquiry, but made a detailed speech to the House at some length making it clear that no blame lay upon him. Does the House not accept his word? In the same way, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) told the House that there was no discussion of any kind about sanctions-busting and that nothing was known about the swap arrangement entered into by the previous Government. That assertion is supported by the absolute lack of any document to the contrary. Does the House not accept my right hon. Friend's word?
  Why are we undertaking the exercise at all? In a long speech the Attorney-General—it was no fault of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he had to suffer many interruptions—demonstrated clearly the difficulties that arise for the Special Commission following this proposal. Does the country demand it? I have not had one letter on this subject, nor have all my hon. Friends to whom I have spoken about it. Certainly the House, judging by the lack of attendance today, does not seem to demand it. Today's attendance has been worse than many an attendance on a Friday. Are we frightened that we shall be accused of a cover-up? If that is the case, why have there been no letters to hon. Members on this subject?
  What pressure from the press has there been? There has been the usual pressure from certain people who hope to find scandal to sell their newspapers. But the pressure is remarkable by its absence in the last few weeks. In my view, some of the pressure appears to come from those who hope to be able to damage reputations—those of Members of this House, civil servants, or even that arch-enemy, the multinational.
  Much more important is the reputation of this country. The damage to this country could be enormous, especially when there are extravagant allegations, such as

  1797
  those made by the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore), particularly if they are repeated in the way he made them today. Furthermore, there will be damage to the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility and to Cabinet secrecy.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Which of my allegations does the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard as extravagant?
  Sir M. Havers: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten his own speech? Anybody who listened to it would have been horrified by his remarks.
  Free and frank discussion, as described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup in the debate on 8 November, is essential to Cabinet collective responsibility and Cabinet secrecy and to make Cabinet discussion work. If I may paraphrase an important speech delivered in another place on 9 November last year, are we not reaching the stage where it has become a standard reflex action to follow the report of one inquiry by establishing another to investigate the original inquiry? We are in danger of suffering from the national neurosis of seeing conspiracies everywhere we look.
  Bingham made the fullest possible inquiry. It has been published in full, the DPP is considering the, matter in terms of a possible criminal offence, and there is no evidence in Bingham of any cover-up. Are we not hurting ourselves by unnecessary self-inflicted wounds?
  The reputation of Great Britain is not the end of the matter. To my mind, the most serious consequence of the Government's proposal is that the setting up of the Commission involves a serious constitutional change—namely, the disclosure of Cabinet papers.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General says that it is unprecedented, but the Government are convinced that it should not become a precedent. I hope he will forgive me if I say that that is a piece of convoluted nonsense, because if it happens it will be a precedent. It does not matter how hedged in the restrictions are; the moment one breaks the rule, the precedent exists. To say that the Government are convinced that it will never become a precedent defeats the whole purpose of what we are discussing.
  1798
  What safeguard for secrecy is there? I listened with interest to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton, but we must remember what bitter experience has taught us in this place. We must remember that there are leaks from Select Committees and that often the leaker cannot be traced. We have had cases in which every member of the Select Committee—one of whom is very likely, if not certainly, to have been the leaker—has denied it. Leaks do not have to be by a Member of Parliament. If the Commission examines Cabinet documents, inevitably some of those documents will be put to witnesses and will be seen by their advisers.
  In those circumstances, how can it be said, as was said by the former Prime Minister in his rather bland and confident way, that the sanction of the House's anger for any breach would be an effective deterrent? Such a sanction would be totally ineffective without knowing who it was who breached the secrecy. Our track record on that is not good.
  The proposed breach of this rule, the creation of this precedent, is so serious that it outweighs any need that there may be for the Special Commission. There is no way of repairing that dam once it has been cracked.
  If the Special Commission is set up, what will be the minimum safeguards? The Government's motion, unamended, is the absolute minimum safeguard that must be imposed when dealing with Government and Cabinet documents of this kind. I agree with the Attorney-General's view. He has had a rough ride. He has perhaps had to bear the blame for the Prime Minister. But on 15 December the Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear. If there were to be a Special Commission that would allow Cabinet papers to be seen by the Chairman and perhaps by members, witnesses, counsel and others involved, that would be such a departure from the rules that it would create the first breach of the dam and safeguards would be essential. There should be no doubt in the minds of those who show shock when the Attorney-General uses a well-known legal phrase that exactly sums up the position—that this is a condition precedent to the setting up of the Commission—that the last paragraph should remain

  1799
  inviolate. We agree entirely about that. If the Commission is set up, those safeguards are absolutely essential.
  On whether access should be limited to the Law Lord presiding, judges often look at documents where privilege and especially Crown privilege is concerned, in order to rule whether a claim for Crown privilege is justified. Documents will be restricted, and the Crown or other parties in civil litigation will seek to say that a document is privileged for one of many reasons. The trial judge will often decide to look at a document and rule upon its admissibility. Can anybody say that a Law Lord is not eminently suitable to do this job, particularly with the assistance of the Treasury Solicitor? To command public support, it will not be enough to leave the Treasury Solicitor with that odious decision. That decision must be made in co-operation with a member of the Commission.
  It will be a huge task. I was horrified when the Attorney-General spoke of the enormous amount of documents that are marginally relevant. I feel sorry for the Law Lord who has this immense task. But, for a speedy and effective result, common sense demands that we have such a filter. Even if a judge is not a politician, he is able to decide questions of relevance and materiality.
  The motion provides that, if he is in doubt, he can consult the other Commissioners. Why does that make the other members—to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Huyton—"second-class citizens?" I suspect that they will be delighted to be relieved of this burden. If I were a member of the Commission, which, thank God, as a Minister in the the Administration, I cannot be, I should be perfectly willing to trust the judgment of the Law Lord and the Treasury Solicitor. I would welcome the fact that I only had to deal with the documents that they had decided were relevant to the issue. Any dissension from this view means that those who dissent are saying that they do not trust either that eminent Law Lord or the Treasury Solicitor, and I will certainly not subscribe to that.
  Mr. Lee: Is not the right hon. and learned Member addressing himself to the wrong question? The other Members of the Commission will be saying to themselves "Am I not to be trusted, along with
  1800
  my Chairman, to decide what is relevant and to keep confidences when I have been sworn, as it were, as a member of a Commission and given a solemn and serious task to perform?"
  Sir M. Havers: Even if the motion provided that there should be a quorum of two Commissioners, and if one could expect a Special Commission of 10 persons presided over by a Law Lord to be able to go through a mass of those documents with the Treasury Solicitor, within a couple of days the absentee rate would be so high that I doubt whether there would even be a quorum.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My right hon. and learned Friend has fallen into the trap of assuming that the name that the Government want to use is meaningful. He has referred to "Commissioners". This is not a Commission of any sort at all. The members of it will not be sworn to anything. This is just a Joint Committee of two Houses. It is not any kind of Commission.
  Sir M. Havers: I am delighted to be corrected by the expert behind me. I do not think that I said "sworn". I used the word "Commissioner" because that is the term used in the motion. Any form of inquiry during which a person against whom an allegation may be made or imputed cannot hear all the evidence or cannot cross-examine all the witnesses who might incriminate him must be unsatisfactory. Such an inquiry where the evidence is not published leads to gossip and rumour. The names of the witnesses are bandied about, spies wait outside the room to see who is called in and who is not. Press photographers hang around trying to catch them as they come out or go in. It is not a satisfactory form of inquiry.
  On the other hand, if we are to have an inquiry this is the inevitable consequence of the breach of secrecy rule and cannot be done otherwise. This is perhaps another reason for thinking again as to whether we need the inquiry at all. But if we do have the inquiry we on this side agree with the strict limitations set out in the last paragraph. We have a free vote tonight, but this is my view and I have discussed it with many of my hon. Friends. We even see the reason for the unusual use of "lawful intimidation" by

  1801
  the threat that it is a condition precedent that these safeguards remain inviolate. If we are to have a Commission, I would not accept any Commission that went any wider than the one proposed by the Government.
  9.33 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) started his remarks in the same way as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) by posing the question whether it is necessary to have this inquiry at all. I shall follow the sequence of events put by the hon. Member for Chelmsford and answer his questions accordingly.
  I believe that it is necessary to have an inquiry for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it is necessary because of the debate in the House on this subject. We promised in that debate that we would listen to what was said. Had we come to the opposite conclusion, come back to the House and said that there was no need for any inquiry, all the charges of contempt of the House that have been used this evening would have been justified to the hilt.
  During that debate we had a series of requests from all parts of the House for another inquiry. My hon. Friends, who have been consistent throughout on this subject, pressed for the inquiry, and obviously, if we had not proposed it, they would have been fully entitled to say that we had neglected and rejected the consistent advice that they had given ever since the publication of the Bingham report. They gave us that advice in the House of Commons. They gave us similar advice at the Labour Party conference and other such places where these matters were fully and properly debated. I agree with what my hon. Friends have said today—that it would detract from the honour of the House if they had not pressed for an inquiry of this nature.
  It was not only my hon. Friends who pressed for an inquiry. I shall not attempt to make any point about the inconsistency of members of the Opposition Front Bench. I listened to the previous debate and to the speech of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the
  1802
  chairman of the 1922 Committee. I have cited him and I know it apparently touches on some terrible sensitivities on the Opposition Benches if I even mention his name. Why not throw him out of the chairmanship? We should then know what their views were.
  The right hon. Member for Taunton spoke in strong terms. Not only did he plead that there should be an inquiry but he also indicated, in a sense, that it would be a disgrace to this House of Commons if we did not proceed. Those are pretty strong words. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) holds to the view that the right hon. Member for Taunton and others gave on that occasion. Therefore, it is not a question of the Government listening only to Labour Members.
  The Leader of the Liberal Party pressed very strongly for such an inquiry. Therefore, in bringing forward this motion, we are responding to the consistently importunate demands of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Among those who have pressed for an inquiry, has not the Lord President omitted President Kaunda of Zambia? Is not the reality of this situation that the Prime Minister, in order to get out of a difficult situation in Nigeria, promised President Kaunda that he would have this inquiry, and tonight is the pay-off for that?
  Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement is absolutely false. That is not the truth. The pressure, the demands, as I have already indicated, came from the House of Commons itself. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Zambia and had a meeting with President Kaunda. I do not know why that should be regarded as a matter for attack by the Opposition.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is a fact.
  Mr. Foot: It is not a fact at all, and I hope that hon. Members will not repeat an accusation that has already been denied on a series of occasions. It was denied by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), who saw President Kaunda shortly afterwards, and denied by many others. I do not know whether Opposition Members have any interest in trying to sustain relations between this country

  1803
  and Zambia. I am not quite sure whether any of them is interested in doing so. I believe that the way in which that intervention was made does not assist in that purpose at all.
  There are other reasons why we believe it is right that there should be an inquiry. I believe that it accords with the highest traditions of this House and this Parliament. One of the strengths of the British House of Commons has always been—or has usually been—that we are prepared to examine and scrutinise charges of misdemeanours, mistakes or errors that have been made by previous Administrations or by those charged with executive office on behalf of the country.
  Anyone who takes his children through Westminster Hall and sees the place where Warren Hastings was tried and acquitted will see one of the great—[Interruption.] He was tried by Parliament, and what happened in this House of Commons was that many Members of this House—Edmund Burke, Charles James Fox and Richard Brinsley Sheridan—fought for the idea that there should be a proper examination of accusations that are made. I believe that it was to vindicate the honour of this House that that happened.
  I believe that the demand that has come for the fullest proper exposure and examination of this question is in the same tradition. It has been made in accordance with the highest traditions of the House. Therefore, I believe that all the sneers and jeers, from whichever quarter of the House they come, and the suggestion that there is something evil or malicious in the demand that there should be such an inquiry, should be dismissed.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Warren Hastings was tried by the House of Lords at the suit of this House by a procedure which was only once again ever followed because it was considered not to conduce in any way to justice or to the credit of this House.
  Mr. Foot: I do not agree with the right right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of history. I was indicating that one of the reasons why the reputation of this country in India was sustained was precisely because a small number of Back Benchers in this House—as most of them were—
  1804
  demanded that there should be a full investigation. Of course, it was a different kind of investigation, but they demanded a full investigation into what had occurred. I believe that the honour and reputation of this House was sustained by those processes. It is part of that demand which leads to this proposal as well. Therefore, for those reasons, too, it is necessary to have the inquiry.
  It is necessary also in the interests of the general relations of this country with other countries. As the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone said, many accusations have been made. Accusations of hypocrisy have been made against the Government and others engaged in the activities at the time. It is right that those accusations should be examined, and those who have been charged should be able, if they can—as I believe many of them can—to exculpate themselves entirely from such accusations.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), in the earlier debate and on previous occasions, urged that there should be such a full examination, the House also had an obligation to take that into account. Right hon. and hon. Members who may have been subjected to the kind of attacks to which my right hon. Friend was subjected had every right to say "Let the documents be produced and let us see, and let others judge whether our claims are correct."
  Therefore, I hope that the House will recognise that, whatever may have been the temper of this debate today, there has been a very strong demand in the country for such a further inquiry. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] I have already recapitulated to those hon. Members who were not present for the earlier debate how widespread was the demand we had for debates from many quarters.
  Mr. Tebbit: Who from?
  Mr. Foot: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying "Who from?" I have cited a considerable number of Opposition Back Benchers or prominent Members who pressed us for this as well. Therefore, in responding to this demand, request, or whatever one cares to call it, we are responding, as we are perfectly entitled to do, not only to the views of many right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches but to those in

  1805
  all parts of the House who have put this matter forward.
  Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman can quite correctly point in the official record to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have asked for an inquiry. However, he said that there was a widespread demand throughout the country. Where is this widespread demand throughout the country? I have not received a single letter from a constituent, and I should be surprised if any other hon. Member has received one. Who is making this demand?
  Mr. Foot: I do not think that anyone in this country who wants to concern himself with this kind of maintenance of its reputation would be likely to communicate with the hon. Gentleman. They would not think that it was a very useful operation. But there are many other hon. Members who have had representations made to them. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must not be so disrespectful to some of his hon. Friends who take a different view on the matter.
  Having decided that there was every ground for an inquiry, as I have said, and that an inquiry was necessary, the next question was what sort of inquiry it should be. Of course, that raised considerable problems. The hon. Member for Chelmsford said that an inquiry such as this would be ineffective and would raise serious or dangerous constitutional principles. This is, in a sense, the kernel of the debate and of the reason we have proceeded in the way we have. Of course, there are serious problems involved of constitutional questions concerned with Cabinet secrecy, and it is precisely because of those problems that we have come forward with a proposal for a different kind of inquiry from the kinds of inquiry we have had before.
  However, before I come to that special aspect of the matter, let me mention this. We looked at the other forms of inquiry that we might have embarked upon for this purpose. We might have embarked upon a tribunal of inquiry, which is the way some of these inquiries are conducted. I have seen some of these inquiries set up by this House in years past, and, although some of them conducted their affairs perfectly properly and satisfactorily, some tribunals of inquiry
  1806
  set up under the 1921 Act, in my opinion, and indeed in the subsequent judgment of the House, have done grievous injustice to individuals.
  That injustice sprang almost inevitably from the way they proceeded, but partly also from the fact that they proceeded in public, with no charge being made against the people there to be examined and with the possibility that entirely innocent people might have their reputations and their records undermined without any proper reason and without adequate compensation.
  That happened on a number of occasions, and that is why some of us fought very hard to try to get that rectified. The report of the Salmon committee made recommendations for trying to safeguard such inquiries against such dangers, but I do not believe that any of those hon. Members who have looked at this in years gone by would claim that all those dangers have been removed. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) made this point, but other hon. Members have said that it is possible that some innocent people may suffer in the process. No one can give a guarantee against that in any kind of inquiry, but I believe that this House of Commons, above all other institutions in the country, should be very careful before proceeding along a line which runs the severe risk of many innocent people suffering, even for the high purpose of trying to discover—[Interruption.] I know it is an argument against, but it is an argument that has to be balanced if we are to consider what form of inquiry is the right one to have. That is one reason why we said there should not be a tribunal of inquiry such as had been urged on us by some hon. Members in the debate.
  Another obvious alternative we considered, and one which was put forward in the debate from both sides of the House, was to suggest the normal form of Select Committee. I can understand the case for that. Some of my hon. Friends wanted a Select Committee of this House, acting in the normal way in which a Select Committee operates, but that brought us directly up against the whole question of Cabinet papers and Cabinet secrecy. If we were to set up an ordinary Select Committee of the House, and if that

  1807
  Select Committee were to be dealing with Cabinet papers as it deals with other papers in other matters now, we would be setting a precedent with enormous potentialities. There is not the slightest doubt about that.
  Indeed, some hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West, for instance—are in favour of having an arrangement whereby Select Committees examine Cabinet papers as well as the rest. By the way, I do not join those who wish to attribute some special mystique to Cabinet papers. For light reading I much prefer Byron's letters or something of that sort, and I recommend that hon. Members who wish to use their time profitably should not spend it reading Cabinet papers. But the allocation of Cabinet papers almost indiscrimately, as some would argue for, or at any rate with very few safeguards, to Select Committees of this House would not merely entail the risk of transforming the relationship of the House of Commons and the Government in ways that would not be an advantage to the country as a whole, but would destroy altogether the basis of Cabinet government in this country, and I am strongly opposed to doing that.
  I am in favour of protecting the confidentiality and secrecy of Cabinet discussions. If that principle is abandoned, so far from it leading to open government, I think that it will lead to a new form of closed government. I do not believe that any Cabinet, charged with the essential tasks of governing the nation, would permit every debate and discussion that it had to be open to the public and to Select Committees in the way that some of my hon. Friends would like. Therefore, I am strongly sympathetic to the view that we must have very careful safeguards for dealing with this situation.
  That is precisely why we came forward not with an orthodox inquiry of any kind that we have had before but with what we thought it was right to call a Special Commission, because it is a Special Commission. I know that has given some offence to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). But if we called it a Select Committee people would ask "Why not treat it in the same way as ordinary Select Committees?" If we called it a tribunal, they would ask "Why
  1808
  has it not got the powers of ordinary tribunals?" That was why we went about it in this way. We want it to be special and to be identified with the House so that people should not make any mistake about it. Therefore, we propose to establish it as a Special Commission and to set out the general arrangements under which it can deal with Cabinet papers in a special way.
  That is why we have argued—not argued, but inserted in the proposal, and I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon agrees with us—that the Commission should sit in secret and publish its findings in the manner that we have suggested. That is also why we have set out in the last part of the motion the method of sifting Cabinet papers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman treated that part of the argument with extreme fairness. He put forward reasons why he did not wish to have an inquiry at all. But he said that if we are to have an inquiry, this is probably the best way to get the best safeguards to guard against the dangers which most of us recognise. I suggest that we have made a substantial effort to deal with the natural fears which were bound to arise.
  My hon. Friends the Members for York, Luton, West and Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) have urged that they wish to have an inquiry which will not whitewash in any sense but will have the power to go into the facts and will command support throughout the whole House. In proposing to the House who shall serve upon the Commission, we shall of course take that into account. The names that we propose will have to be brought before and approved by the House. I believe that that is the proper way to proceed. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends, when they see how we propose to act in that direction, will also feel that we have taken account of their representations.
  Some of my hon. Friends—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—asked what would happen if there should be a conflict between the House of Lords and the House of Commons about the arrangements for these proceedings. That is an important matter. We had to consider it carefully because we are seeking to set up a Special Commission with some representation from the House of Lords.

  1809
  We want that representation partly because of the question of the Chairman, for the reasons indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. We also believe that, because the other place has been partly involved in these events, it is a worthwhile way to proceed. If we are to succeed in setting up a Commission on that basis, we must have the support of the House of Lords as well. Securing the support of the House of Lords is not always easy or automatic.
  The other place will be discussing not this precise motion but a comparable one in a day or two. We hope that, this motion being passed by this House, as I hope and believe it will be, the House of Lords will pass a complementary motion which will enable the proceedings to go ahead.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North asked what would happen if the House of Lords upset the apple cart. I do not want to put any evil ideas in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition—I know that she hardly raises a whisper with their Lordships on any occasion—but, if this motion is passed and seen as the will of the House of Commons, I hope that the other place will take that into account.
  When the other place had its previous debate, there was much less enthusiasm for this inquiry than there was in this House. It did not have such a passionate advocate of an inquiry, on either side, as the right hon. Member for Taunton.
  Perhaps some of those voices will be heard again in the House of Lords. However, I hope that their Lordships will also take into account what I believe will be the decision of this House and that we shall then have the inquiry along the lines suggested in the motion.
  Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that the Prime Minister was in some way threatening the House in what was said by the Attorney-General. That is not a proper construction. As the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon said, the Prime Minister made the position clear when he announced the inquiry—there was no concealment. I think that the Prime Minister deserves more congratulation on his candour than criticism for his alleged arrogance. He
  1810
  made it plain how be believed we should proceed.
  Clearly, we had to take into account the novel situation that, if this inquiry were to be effetive at all, it was absolutely essential that Cabinet papers should be made available or it would be a farce. But, that decision having been made, it was then essential in our view to have all the protections that the motion involves. That is not threatening the House but putting before the House a considered judgment on the best way of carrying out the will, not of every hon. Member, but of the overwhelming majority.
  Mr. MacFarquhar: It may not be threatening the Members of the House of Commons, but surely it shows that Members of both Houses who will be on the Commission are not trusted as much as the Chairman of the Commission, who will be a Law Lord. If we concede confidentiality, surely the Government can concede some right of hon. Members to see copies.
  Mr. Foot: There is no suggestion that what we propose involves any reflection on the other members of the Commission. The unprecedented nature of this Commission, its powers and the importance of the questions that it is to examine are all reasons why hon. Members invited to sit upon it will be eager enough to do so. I believe that it will discharge its duties to the honour of the whole House. That is the way to carry on faithfully the requirement of ensuring that, when such accusations have been made, the House shall examine them to the full and shall provide facilities for them to be examined and for conclusions to be reported to the House, as every such body will have to do. This House will then be able to pass its own judgment.
  We shall do a great service, by passing the motion, to the good government of this country, to the honour of the House of Commons and to the way in which the House is prepared to scrutinise these matters.
  Mr. Speaker: I am now required, by the Order of the House, to put forthwith the Question on the motions and the amendments thereto which I have selected.
  Amendment proposed:
  (a) in line 1, leave out from "That" to end and add
  'a Committee of ten members of this House be appointed to consider the part played by those concerned in the development and application of the policy of oil sanctions against Rhodesia with a view to determining: (1) the role played by industrialists, civil servants and Ministers, (2) their relationships with each other and foreign governments and (3) whether Parliament or Ministers were misled, intentionally or otherwise and to report:
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to obtain such specialist advice or help as they think fit; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time:

  Division No. 62]

  AYES

  [10.00 p.m.

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Bean, R. E.

  Kerr, Russell

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rooker, J. W.

  Buchan, Norman

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Canavan, Dennis

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Stoddart, David

  Carmichael, Neil

  Lee, John

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  English, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Flannery, Martin

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Madden, Max

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Newens, Stanley

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Hooley, Frank

  Ovenden, John

  Mr. Brian Sedgemore.

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Kilfedder, James

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Eyre, Reginald

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speithorne)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Knox, David

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Bates, Alf

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Beith, A. J.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Ford, Ben

  Loveridge, John

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Luard, Evan

  Biffen, John

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Luce, Richard

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Freud, Clement

  McCartney, Hugh

  Body, Richard

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  George, Bruce

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Bottomley, Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Golding, John

  Magee, Bryan

  Brotherton, Michael

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marks, Kenneth

  Buchanan, Richard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Buck, Antony

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mather, Carol

  Budgen, Nick

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Gray, Hamish

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grylls, Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Carter, Ray

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  Moate, Roger

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Molloy, William

  Clegg, Walter

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Monro, Hector

  Cockcraft, John

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Coleman, Donald

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Cowans, Harry

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Crouch, David

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Murrey, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hurd, Douglas

  Neave, Airey

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nelson, Anthony

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Newton, Tony

  Deakins, Eric

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Ogden, Eric

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dormand, J. D.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Pardoe, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Johnson, Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Park, George

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Parker, John

  Druffy, A. E. P.

  Jopling, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Dunnett, Jack

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Penhaligon, David

  Eadie, Alex

  Judd, Frank

  Percival, Ian

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Perry, Ernest

  That the proceedings in so far as they involve the examination of witnesses shall be held in public save in so far as the Committee shall determine that it would be against the interests of national security to do so:
  That all the evidence including relevant Cabinet papers and departmental files shall be published as an Appendix to the Committee's report".—[Mr. Sedgemore.]
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 177.

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Stainton, Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Ward, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Stanley, John

  Watkins, David

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Rowlands, Ted

  Stott, Roger

  Wellbeloved, James

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Whitney, Raymond

  Sever, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tebbit, Norman

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Shersby, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt. Hon Margaret

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Tinn, James

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Tomlinson, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Torney, Tom

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Mr. Robert Rhodes James.

  Snape, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put,
  That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses to be known as "the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions" be appointed to consider, following the Report of the Bingham Inquiry, the part played by those concerned

  Division No. 63]

  AYES

  [10.12 p.m.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Ovenden, John

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

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Pardoe, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Park, George

  Bates, Alf

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Parker, John

  Bean, R. E.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Penhaligon, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Hooley, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Buchanan, Richard

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Buck, Antony

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sever, John

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Judd, Frank

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Carmichael, Neil

  Kerr, Russell

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Carter, Ray

  Kilfedder, James

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Knox, David

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Lamond, James

  Snape, Peter

  Coleman, Donald

  Lamont, Norman

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cowans, Harry

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Crouch, David

  Lee, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cryer, Bob

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Luard, Evan

  Stoddart, David

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Luce, Richard

  Stott, Roger

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Deakins, Eric

  McCartney, Hugh

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Dormand, J. D.

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Tinn, James

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Tomlinson, John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Maclennan, Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Eadie, Alex

  Madden, Max

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  English, Michael

  Magee, Bryan

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ward, Michael

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Watkins, David

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wellbeloved, James

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ford, Ben

  Molloy, William

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  George, Bruce

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Golding, John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Gould, Bryan

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

  Graham, Ted

  Newens, Stanley

  Mr. Tom Cox and

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Ogden, Eric

  Mr. John Evans.

  in the development and application of the policy of oil sanctions against Rhodesia with a view to determining whether Parliament or Ministers were misled, intentionally or otherwise, and to report.
  The House divided:Ayes 146, Noes 67.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Grylls, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  Percival, Ian

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hastings, Stephen

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Biffen, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Body, Richard

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hurd, Douglas

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Budgen, Nick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)

  Shersby, Michael

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Clegg, Walter

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Stainton, Keith

  Cockcroft, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Costain, A. P.

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Stanley, John

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Tebbit, Norman

  Eyre, Reginald

  Loveridge, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Mather, Carol

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Moate, Roger

  Whitney, Raymond

  Freud, Clement

  Monro, Hector

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Goodhew, Victor

  Neave, Alrey

  Mr. Ivan Lawrence and

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Mr. Robert Rhodes James.

  Gray, Hamish

  Newton, Tony

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses to be known as "the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions" be appointed
  1816
  to consider, following the Report of the Bingham Inquiry, the part played by those concerned in the development and application of the policy of oil sanctions against Rhodesia with a view to determining whether Parliament or Ministers were misled, intentionally or otherwise, and to report:
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining motions.
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) wish to move amendment (b)?
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: No, Mr. Speaker.
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee of five Members be appointed to join with such Committee as the Lords may appoint to consider the said matters and to report accordingly:

  Division No. 64]

  AYES

  10.22 p.m.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

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

  Hooley, Frank

  Rhodes James, R.

  Bean, R. E.

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Body, Richard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Bottomley, Peter

  Kerr, Russell

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Kilfedder, James

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Budgen, Nick

  Lamond, James

  Sever, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Crouch, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cryer, Bob

  Lee, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  English, Michael

  Loveridge, John

  Stoddart, David

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Tebbit, Norman

  Flannery, Martin

  Madden, Max

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Moate, Roger

  Ward, Michael

  Ford, Ben

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Whitney, Raymond

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Nelson, Anthonym

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Goodhew, Victor

  Newens, Stanley

  Gould, Bryan

  Newton, Tony

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Ogden, Eric

  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  Ovenden, John

  Mr. Ivor Clemitsop.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Freud, Clement

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  George, Bruce

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Bates, Alf

  Golding, John

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Beith, A. J.

  Graham, Ted

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Pardoe, John

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Park, George

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Parker, John

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Penhaligon, David

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Carter, Ray

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Coleman, Donald

  Judd, Frack

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Cowans, Harry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Knox, David

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Luard, Evan

  Smith, Rt. Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Snape, Peter

  Deakins, Eric

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Dormand, J. D.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Magee, Bryan

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Dunnett, Jack

  Marks, Kenneth

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Eadie, Alex

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tinn, James

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Millian, Rt Hon Bruce

  Tomlinson, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Molly, William

  Torney, Tom

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time.—[Attorney-General.]
  Amendment proposed: (e), after 'persons', insert
  '(including Members of the House of Commons)'.—[Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided:—Ayes 67, Noes 89.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Watkins, David

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Mr. John Evens and

  Wellbeloved, James

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Mr Thomas Cox.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time.
  Ordered,
  That Two be the Quorum of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit.

  Division No. 65]

  AYES

  10.32 p.m.]

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Gould, Bryan

  Newens, Stanley

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

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Newton, Tony

  Bean, R. E.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Body, Richard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Rooker, J. W.

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hooley, Frank

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kerr, Russell

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kilfedder, James

  Sever, John

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Crouch, David

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cryer, Bob

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lestor, Miss Joan Eton & Slough)

  Stoddart, David

  Drayson, Burnaby

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Ward, Michael

  English, Michael

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Flannery, Martin

  Madden, Max

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Moate, Roger

  Ford, Ben

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop and

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar.

  Goodhew, Victor

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Graham, Ted

  Park, George

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Parker, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Penhaligon, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Rowlands, Ted

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Buchanan, Richard

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Carter, Ray

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Judd, Frank

  Snape, Peter

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Stallard, A. W.

  Coleman, Donald

  Knox, David

  Stott, Roger

  Cowans, Harry

  Luard, Evan

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolion W)

  Davidson, Arthur

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Tinn, James

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tomlionson, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Magee, Bryan

  Torney, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

  Marks, Kenneth

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Millian, Rt Hon Bruce

  Watkins, David

  Dunnett, Jack

  Molloy, William

  Wellbeloved, James

  Eadie, Alex

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Freud, Clement

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. Alf Bates and

  George, Bruce

  Pardoe, John

  Mr. Joseph Dean.

  Golding, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Attorney-General shall give such assistance to the Special Commission as may be appropriate.—[Attorney-General.]
  Amendment proposed: (f), leave out 'appropriate' and insert
  'required by the Special Commission'.—[Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 57, Noes 84.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Attorney General shall give such assistance to the Special Commission as may be appropriate:
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to appoint persons to carry out such work relating to the Special Commission's inquiry as the Special Commission may determine:
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  That no person not being a member of the Special Commission shall be present during any of the proceedings of the Special Commission unless required by the Special Commission to be present for the purposes of their inquiry.—[Attorney-General.]
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) wish to move his amendment? He is not here.

  Division No. 66]

  AYES

  [10.42 p.m.

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Penhaligon, David

  Bean, R. E.

  Kerr, Russell

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Body, Richard

  Kilfedder, James

  Rhodes James, R.

  Bottomley, Peter

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Lamond, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Latham, Arthur (Peddington)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle Of Wight)

  Cryer, Bob

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Skinner, Dennis

  English, Michael

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Spearing, Nigel

  Flannery, Martin

  McKay, Allen (Penstone)

  Stoddart, David

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Madden, Max

  Torney, Tom

  Freud, Clement

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ward, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Newens, Stanley

  Wise, Mrs, Mrs Audrey

  Gould, Bryan

  Newton, Tony

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ogden, Eric

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hooley, Frank

  Ovenden, John

  Mr. Dennis Canavan and

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Pardoe, John

  Mr. William Hamilton.

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Armstrong, Ernest

  George, Bruce

  Moate, Roger

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Golding, John

  Molloy, Williams

  Bates, Alf

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Beith, A. J.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Bean, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Graham, Ted

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Blaker, Peter

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Brotherton, Michael

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald king

  Budgen, Nick

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Carter, Ray

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Part, George

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Parker, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Coleman, Donald

  Judd, Frank

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Cowans, Harry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Cox, Thomas (Tooling)

  Knox, David

  Sever, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamont, Norman

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  Loveridge, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Luard, Evan

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Depatford)

  Dormand, J. D.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Snape, Peter

  Eadie, Alex

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Magee, Bryan

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stott, Roger

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I move it in his absence?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes.
  Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment (h) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), to leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'the proceedings of the Special Commission shall be open to the public unless the Commission from time to time decides otherwise.'.—[Mr. Canavan.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes, 47;Noes 105.

  Tinn, James

  Whitney, Raymond

  Tomlinson, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Mrs. Ann Taylor and

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Mr, Bryan Davies.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that, based on page 649 of "Erskine May", if the next motion that you are about to put to the House were to be carried out, the House would be appointing the first secret Committee since 1857—over 122 years. The House of Lords, if "Erskine May" is correct, would be appointing its first secret committee since 1847–132 years.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very interesting. But what is the point of order?
  Mr. English: Would it not be the first Committee since that time forbidden by order of the House to admit any member of the public or even a Member of the House to sit and listen to it?
  Mr. Speake: Order. The House does many things that it did not do 100 years ago.
  Main Question put and agreed to.

  Division No. 67]

  AYES

  [10.52 p.m.

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

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Newton, Tony

  Bean, R. E.

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Ovenden, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pardoe, John

  Body, Richard

  Kerr, Russell

  Penhaligon, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Kilfedder, James

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lamond, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Crouch, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Cryer, Bob

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Loveridge, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  English, Michael

  McDonald, Dr Oanagh

  Skimmer, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McKay, Allen(Penistone)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Madden, Max

  Stoddart, David

  Freud, Clement

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tebbit, Norman

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Whitney, Raymond

  Goodhew, Victor

  Monro, Hector

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gould, Bryan

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Mr. Ivor Clemitson and

  Hooley, Frank

  Newens, Stanley

  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslon.

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Carter, Ray

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Beith, A. J.

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Deakins, Eric

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Coleman, Donald

  Dormand, J. D.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Cowans, Harry

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Buchanan, Richard

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Ordered,
  That no person not being a member of the Special Commission shall be present during any of the proceedings of the Special Commission unless required by the Special Commission to be present for the purposes of their inquiry.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it be an Instruction that all papers submitted to the Special Commission shall first be examined by their Chairman who shall determine, if necessary after consultation with other members of the Special Commission, which of the papers should be seen by the members of the Special Commission for the purposes of the inquiry and which of the said papers and records should be shown to parties interested or their Counsel or agents, or to witnesses, and which of such papers and records may be retained by members of the Special Commission or such parties, Counsel, agents or witnesses, and which of such papers and records shall be included in or referred to in any report.—[Attorney-General.]
  Amendment proposed: (k), leave out 'if necessary'—[Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 78.

  Eadle, Alex

  Magee, Bryan

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanashire)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Snape, Peter

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Stott, Roger

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Molloy, William

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Golding, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tinn, James

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Tomlinson, John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Torney, Tom

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Park, George

  Ward, Michael

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Parker, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Judd, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Knox, David

  Sever, John

  Luard, Evan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McCartney, Hugh

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Mr. Alf Bates.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. GRAHAM and Mr. THOMAS Cox were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That it be an Instruction that all papers submitted to the Special Commission shall first be examined by their Chairman who shall determine, if necessary after consultation with other members of the Special Commission, which of the papers should be seen by the members of the Special Commission for the purposes of the inquiry and which of the said papers and records should be shown to parties interested or their Counsel or agents, or to witnesses, and which of such papers and records may be retained by members of the Special Commission or such parties, Counsel, agents or witnesses, and which of such papers and records shall be included in or referred to in any report.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

  DANGEROUS DRUGS
  That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.—[Mr. John Evans.]
  Question agreed to.

  LABORATORIES (HEALTH AND SAFETY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Evans.]
  11.3 p.m.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: This is a very important debate that I am opening tonight, because it concerns not only the health of people working in laboratories but the risks that emanate from laboratories to all the working people in this country. This arises from the recent smallpox outbreak, which is only the tip of the iceberg—there have been at least three outbreaks associated with smallpox since 1966. Not only that; as research into the health of laboratory staff shows, they suffer from infections and parasitic diseases as a result of their work. Indeed, this is one of the major causes of their absence due to sickness. In addition, they run a very high risk of contracting tuberculosis and hepatitis. The risks are five or six times higher than for the rest of the general population.
  Taking into account the high risk level which occurs for medical laboratories and other areas in the National Health Service, it is an absolute disgrace that the NHS—which was, after all, established to prevent sickness in the general population—should fail so lamentably to protect the health of its own staff.
  The failure to protect or provide an occupational health service for the people who work in the National Health Service is an absolute disgrace. It was recommended by Tonbridge in 1966 and Harrington in 1975 that an occupational health service be set up. It was rejected on the ground of cost, although health

  1827
  and safety should be a priority in the NHS.
  The Secretary of State recently outlined the steps in relation to the category A pathogens. In addition, the emergency inspections carried out in Birmingham, the closure of part of the Colindale laboratory, and the requirement of Lister laboratory in Elstree to improve its precautions in this direction give rise to concern among the people working there and the public.
  Nine category A pathogens are officially listed and defined as organisms, viruses and materials. They are extremely hazardous to laboratory workers and may cause epidemic diseases to spread. Clearly this is a risk to those working in those laboratories and therefore to the community at large.
  We are aware of this alarming situation. In view of the public disquiet that has been aroused by the events in Birmingham and the fact that what happened in Birmingham may be happening in other laboratories, there is a need—I stress this—for a full-scale, in-depth public inquiry into the storage, handling, transport, research into and use of dangerous pathogens. Nothing less will satisfy the public in relation to laboratory conditions.
  A central register of all medical laboratories handling pathogens should be established. At present we do not know where we are. We have a right to know where dangerous pathogens are located and handled.
  There is also a need for new rules to tighten up on the transportation of pathogens coming into and leaving this country. Some of the stories that we read are horrifying. Pathogens have been transported in ordinary civil airliners. We do not know how the pathogens were passed from Paddington to Birmingham. I should like to know how pathogens are transported. We must tighten up the regulations on this matter.
  There is another need. The World Health Organisation is involved in this. We should ensure that the work conducted in liaison with the WHO is subject to monitoring and review. We should take a greater interest in what is being done by that body. This matter should be investigated. The public have a right to know about it.
  1828
  Inadequate safety standards are part and parcel of the problem. It affects not only laboratories handling dangerous pathogens but all medical laboratories. There is a lack of procedure and implementation. We must ensure that there is monitoring and enforcement of adequate safety standards. Lack of Government finance has held back safety measures and prevented them from being the first priority. That has caused much disquiet.
  Crown immunity must go in all Government Departments, especially in the Department of Health and Social Security. The Health and Safety Executive was set up as an independent organisation, with powers to issue provisional enforcement notices. The premises at Birmingham happened to belong to the university. If the premises had belonged to the National Health Service, the Health and Safety Executive could not have issued an enforcement order and could not have begun a prosecution. That is a reason for abolishing Crown immunity. Safety cannot be left with employers.
  That is not merely my argument. The TUC and the Health and Safety Executive have recommended that the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 should apply to Crown premises. The introduction of such a provision is long overdue. However, there is still resistance by the Government, especially the DHSS.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement on the Shooter report, he said that the provisions of the 1974 Act were accepted. If that is so, why do the Government not scrap Crown immunity? By so doing there could be enforcement notices and prosecutions. Until that happens we must continue to wonder why the Government want authority to remain in their hands.
  Generally within the DHSS, committees composed of experts examine these matters. They determine what safety precautions should apply and how and when they should be implemented. There is a conspicuous lack of consultation with staff, representatives of trade unions and members of the public. That cannot continue.
  The most recent set of microbiological safety standards was drawn up by Sir James Howie in 1977. What did the working party report? It stated that arising from the recommendations would

  1829
  be a requirement for substantial expenditure on premises to make them safe, on equipment and on additional training. It reported that there would be the need for more safety officers. It made no excuse for reporting in those terms. Its view was that Sir James had made essential recommendations.
  It was found that safety arrangements were inadequate but badly designed, and antiquated laboratories are still in use. There has been the type of cover-up that we are led to believe takes place in the DHSS. A working party composed of DHSS officials was set up to advise on implementation. Apparently it regards the Howie recommendations not as essential but as objectives to be reached over three years. That is not good enough. That will not do.
  It is also disturbing that no extra money is being made available and that money for safety precautions will have to come from elsewhere. That is not good enough. I would have thought that safety precautions would be considered an absolute priority within the National Health Service, and that they would have set the standards for the rest of the country. But that is not the case.
  I have referred to dangerous pathogens, but there are other areas where codes of practice need to be updated or introduced. These include post mortem rooms, medical physics and radiography to counter the risk from chemical, mechanical or electrical hazard in pathology laboratories, as distinct from the disease hazards. The DHSS seems to find itself incapable of dealing with safety matters. I hope that the Minister will consider these matters. I have discussed them with him in the past. I have taken deputations to see him. It is no longer tenable to try to defend Crown immunity. The responsibility for drawing up safety standards should be given to the Health and Safety Executive.
  A common code of practice should be drawn up by the Health and Safety Executive that would apply not only to microbiological hazards in the National Health Service but equally to all medical laboratories handling dangerous pathogens. A sound base should be established for enforcing more stringent regulations in relation to all classes to pathogens.
  If this work were passed to the Health
  1830
  and Safety Executive, a new advisory committee might be established to handle dangerous microbiological hazards. I can envisage under that advisory committee three sub-committees to deal with dangerous pathogens category A, dangerous pathogens category B and another dealing with genetic manipulation. New draft regulations should be prepared to cover all three.
  I think that the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group has done a wonderful job in relation to genetic manipulation. It has advanced into a new area based on the principle that scientific developments should be publicly controlled and scrutinised in the interests of health and safety and public accountability. GMAG consists of people other than scientific experts. The role of trade union representatives in relation to GMAG has meant that the public interest has been foremost.
  I have shown that there is a greater risk to laboratory staff than to the rest of the public. They have a right, a major interest and a lot of knowledge to impart in relation to the promotion of safety standards in laboratories. There can be no substitute for trade union representatives. We should utilise their knowledge.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will take many of these points on board, because it is now, in the light of recent events, that we must make these laboratories as safe as we possibly can. If we are to do that, we cannot leave it to the ordinary scientists. I am not criticising them. I understand that they want to break scientific harriers and see the advancement of scientific research, but that also incurs dangers, not only to the people who work in the laboratories but also to the general public. That has been seen in what has happened in Birmingham and elsewhere.
  Indeed, if we do not begin to control what is happening in laboratories, there could be a very serious outbreak which could affect many people in this country. Rather than risk that, let us make sure that safety standards are excellent. That is what we must aim for. I do not think that anything less than that will satisfy the public.
  To do that we must involve those who work in the laboratories, and also the trade unions that represent them. We

  1831
  must base any reform of the Dangerous Pathogens Advisory Group on GMAG and we must also have a public inquiry into the handling of dangerous pathogens.
  11.21 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) has rightly focused attention on an issue which has aroused considerable public interest and concern of late—the health and safety of laboratory activities. He has spoken graphically and knowledgeably of the risks inherent in much of the work undertaken in hospital clinical laboratories, in laboratories engaged in experimental work in genetic engineering and in work with dangerous pathogens and other dangerous materials. He has highlighted what he sees as serious shortcomings in our existing control arrangements.
  Let me say at the outset that there is much common ground between us. The Government and the Health and Safety Commission share many of his concerns. We are jointly seeking to develop an appropriate framework of statutory controls within which laboratory activities can be carried on in a way that will have full regard for the health and safety of both workers and the public, but which will nevertheless afford our research scientists and technicians that degree of freedom so essential if we are to continue to advance our knowledge and understanding of the many problems that confront us today. My hon. Friend recognised that in his remarks.
  We must never forget that the scientific breakthrough in the laboratory today may be the forerunner of a development that will bring untold benefits to many workers and the public in the future, and we must be careful not to impose unnecessarily stringent restrictions that might damage our prospects of making these beneficial advances.
  I welcome this opportunity to explain what the Government and the Health and Safety Commission are doing to secure improvements in our standards of laboratory health and safety, and I want to show that we are fully alive to many of the problems my hon. Friend has mentioned and are devoting considerable attention and resources to them.
  1832
  He will not expect me to deal with all his points on the spot, but I ought perhaps to point out that many of the points that he has raised bear very much on the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and, more particularly, Social Services.
  First, I should remind the House that with the coming into operation of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in April 1975, all laboratory workers—scientists, technicians and ancillary staff—were brought within the protection of health and safety legislation. All laboratories, whether in industry, Government, hospitals, universities or research institutes, are now subject to the Act. It gives protection by placing specific responsibilities and duties on all those concerned in the work situation—management, employees, the self-employed and the suppliers of plant, materials and equipment—in fact, everyone with a vital part to play in the elimination or reduction of risks. The Act also placed on the Health and Safety Commission and Executive the overall responsibility for the development and implementation of policies to promote health and safety in all work activities, including laboratory activities.
  The range of these activities is very wide—from genetic manipulation to the development of defence weapons—and embraces work concerned with routine testing and analysis, the development of new equipment and new production methods and processes and long-term fundamental research aimed at advancing the frontiers of our scientific knowledge. There is a commensurately wide and varied range of hazards posed by these activities, but we have in the Act the necessary framework for the development of control systems appropriate to the degree of risk involved. No matter how effective our legal systems of control and our arrangements for enforcement, however, it must be recognised that health and safety in the laboratory depend ultimately not on regulations and inspections but on the wholehearted co-operation, commitment and continual vigilance of all those directly involved in the day-to-day activities of the workplace.
  One of the principal aims of the Health and Safety Commission and

  1833
  Executive, therefore, is to foster and encourage, through the provision of relevant information and advice, a thorough appreciation of the nature of the risks involved in particular processes and operations or in the handling of dangerous materials and a fundamental understanding of the essential requirements for a safe and healthy working environment.
  My hon. Friend expressed particular misgivings about health and safety standards in hospital clinical laboratories and laboratories engaged in genetic manipulation and work with dangerous pathogens and has called for improvements in the arrangements for providing employees with information about risks associated with this work, for more involvement, and for the training of the staff who work with particularly dangerous materials. I can assure him that the Commission and Executive share many of his concerns and are playing a very active and positive role in current developments in this sphere.
  There is, for example, already a very close relationship between the Executive and the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to advise laboratories on the standard of precautions to be observed in carrying out experiments in genetic manipulation. The Executive's inspectors are now carrying out a programme of inspections of the laboratories concerned. The Commission and GMAG are also keeping under close review the need for further regulatory measures to back up those which are already in force. In such a rapidly developing field, however, the need for such measures must be capable of very clear definition, otherwise controls introduced prematurely might defeat their objective by becoming speedily outdated.
  As my hon. Friend will know from the statement on the Shooter report made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in the House on 24 January, the Government have accepted the substance of that report. They have agreed that the present voluntary arrangements for the control of work with dangerous pathogens must be substantially strengthened and given legal force to provide the fullest safeguards both for those working in the laboratories and for the public at large. The Health and Safety Commission has agreed to
  1834
  prepare, in consultation with all interests concerned, proposals for regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act which will require all laboratories working with, or intending to work with category A pathogens to notify details of their proposed work to the Executive and such other bodies and Government Departments as may be appropriate.
  The Commission is also discussing with my right hon. Friend and other Ministers concerned the question of its relationship with the Dangerous Pathogens Advisory Group and the composition of that group and the further action that needs to be taken arising from the recommendations in the Shooter report.
  Inspectors of the Executive are already engaged on a programme of inspections of all laboratories handling category A pathogens. As a result of one such recent inspection carried out by the Executive's inspectors, in collaboration with the Dangerous Pathogens Advisory Group and officials of Government Departments concerned, the Central Public Health laboratory, Colindale, has undertaken to comply with the terms of Crown prohibition and improvement notices issued by the Executive and has accordingly agreed not to undertake further work with category A pathogens in its existing laboratory without the prior agreement of the Executive and the implementation of further safeguards.
  Mr. Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend intend to deal with Crown immunity?
  Mr. Grant: I shall come to that matter very shortly.
  As part of its planned programme of inspections of hospitals and universities, the Executive will be paying particular attention to laboratory hazards and seeking to foster the development of systems of work that accord with the best health and safety practices and ensure that all laboratory activities are carried out with due regard to worker and public safety.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will shortly be issuing the Howie code of practice—my hon. Friend mentioned this point—relating to clinical laboratories and postmortem rooms to the National Health Service with guidance on the timetable for its implementation, and the inspectors will then be looking for improvements

  1835
  in standards in line with the code's recommendations.
  I now come to the matter of Crown immunity. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that most of the laboratory activities which present the highest risks to workers and the public are carried on in NHS and other Crown laboratories and has expressed the view that the Executive is powerless to secure essential improvements in safety precautions in these laboratories because of the Crown's immunity from enforcement and prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. As I have emphasised on numerous occasions in the House, however, the specific exclusion of the Crown from the enforcement provisions of the Act does not enable Crown bodies to escape their obligations. The Act is binding on the Crown, and the Crown as employer is subject to the same duties as any other employer.
  As my hon. Friend also knows, the Government are currently considering a paper presented by the Health and Safety Commission which has suggested that amending legislation should be introduced to remove the Crown's immunity under the Act. I can assure him that my ministerial colleagues and I are as concerned as the Commission to secure compliance in Crown establishments. How this is best achieved, however, and whether it necessitates a change in the law are matters to which we are still giving thought. In the meantime, the Commission has introduced a special form of Crown notice which the Executive's inspectors are serving on Crown bodies in circumstances where a statutory improvement
  1836
  or prohibition notice would have been served on an employer in the private sector. As I have said already, the Government are committed to taking whatever action is necessary to secure compliance with the Act. There is no reason, therefore, to assume that notices and recommendations issued by the Executive will not be honoured and observed by all Crown bodies, just as they have been recently by the Central Public Health laboratory at Colindale. Indeed, if my hon. Friend or anyone else has any situation in mind where this does not take place, I shall be only too pleased to look into the matter if he lets me know about it.
  I hope that it will be clear from all I have said that the Health and Safety Commission and Executive is fully mindful of the various hazards to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention and is taking positive action, in consultation as necessary with my ministerial colleagues concerned, to ensure that workers and the public are fully safeguarded from the risks involved in laboratory activities and that there is the fullest co-operation between all the various bodies and advisory groups with responsibilities in this sphere. No one involved in this area of activity—and here I echo my hon. Friend—can afford to relax his guard for a moment, and both the Health and Safety Commission and Executive and the Government will do everything possible to underline this necessity.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Political Talks
  Political Talks
  Arrests (Military Authorities)
  Arrests (Military Authorities)
  Cockroft Report
  Cockroft Report
  Water Service
  Water Service
  Coalisland (Drilling)
  Coalisland (Drilling)
  Northern Ireland Economic Council
  Northern Ireland Economic Council
  Roads (Gritting)
  Roads (Gritting)
  Irish Republican Army
  Irish Republican Army
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners and Low-paid Workers
  Prisoners and Low-paid Workers
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Visitors (Crimes of Violence)
  Visitors (Crimes of Violence)
  Immigration Detainees
  Immigration Detainees
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Mr. Almirante
  Mr. Almirante
  Industrial Dispute (Intimidation)
  Industrial Dispute (Intimidation)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Craftsman Training Centre, Venice
  Craftsman Training Centre, Venice
  Physical Education Teachers
  Physical Education Teachers
  Open University Courses
  Open University Courses
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  International Mathematical Olympiad
  International Mathematical Olympiad
  TUC
  TUC
  CBI
  CBI
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  HEATON MERSEY
  HEATON MERSEY
  EMERGENCIES (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  EMERGENCIES (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY
  COWDENBEATH
  COWDENBEATH
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  "MORNING STAR" (DEPARTMENTAL ADVERTISING)
  "MORNING STAR" (DEPARTMENTAL ADVERTISING)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
ENERGY
  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
  Pulverised Fuel Ash
  Pulverised Fuel Ash
  Colliery Waste (Use)
  Colliery Waste (Use)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  Passport Office
  Passport Office
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
WALES
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Whale Products
  Whale Products
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "MORNING STAR" (DEPARTMENTAL ADVERTISING)
  "MORNING STAR" (DEPARTMENTAL ADVERTISING)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Accommodation
  Members' Accommodation
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Cargo Vessels (Sale to Pakistan)
  Cargo Vessels (Sale to Pakistan)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
EMPLOYMENT
  Executive and Professional Register
  Executive and Professional Register
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unfair Dismissal (Claims)
  Unfair Dismissal (Claims)
  Employed Persons, Scotland (Compensation)
  Employed Persons, Scotland (Compensation)
  Scofisco Limited, Shettleston
  Scofisco Limited, Shettleston
  Divers
  Divers
  Factories Act 1961 (Prosecutions)
  Factories Act 1961 (Prosecutions)
  Manual Lifting
  Manual Lifting
  Health and Safety Commission
  Health and Safety Commission
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  Professional Consultants (Reports)
  Professional Consultants (Reports)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Renal Dialysis
  Renal Dialysis
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Child Benefit and Tax Allowances
  Child Benefit and Tax Allowances
  Social Security Benefits (Rent)
  Social Security Benefits (Rent)
  Community Schools
  Community Schools
  Dental and Optical Charges
  Dental and Optical Charges
  Walsall District General Hospital
  Walsall District General Hospital
  Otological Services
  Otological Services
  Health and Social Service Workers (Co-operation)
  Health and Social Service Workers (Co-operation)
  Hospital Waiting List (Basingstoke)
  Hospital Waiting List (Basingstoke)
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Royal Free Hospital (Site)
  Royal Free Hospital (Site)
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Portugal (Pensions Agreement)
  Portugal (Pensions Agreement)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  Form BO 3TD
  Form BO 3TD
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Walsall)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Walsall)
  Area Health Authorities (Meetings)
  Area Health Authorities (Meetings)
  Hernia and Gall Bladder Operations
  Hernia and Gall Bladder Operations
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Professional Consultants (Reports)
  Professional Consultants (Reports)
  Expenditure (North Sea Oil)
  Expenditure (North Sea Oil)
  Taxation (International Comparisons)
  Taxation (International Comparisons)
  Physical Education Teachers
  Physical Education Teachers
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  European Community (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community (United Kingdom Contribution)
  Taxation
  Taxation
TRADE
  British Airways (Helicopter Search and Rescue Unit)
  British Airways (Helicopter Search and Rescue Unit)
  Third London Airport (Maplin)
  Third London Airport (Maplin)
  United States of America (Trade)
  United States of America (Trade)
  Bankruptcies and New Businesses
  Bankruptcies and New Businesses
  COMECON
  COMECON
  Houses (Noise-Insulation)
  Houses (Noise-Insulation)
  Gatwick (Scheduled Air Services)
  Gatwick (Scheduled Air Services)
  Shipping Industry (Picketing)
  Shipping Industry (Picketing)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  Fishing Vessel "Do it Again" (Loss)
  Fishing Vessel "Do it Again" (Loss)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
INDUSTRY
  Steel Industry (Corby)
  Steel Industry (Corby)
  Vehicles (Electrical Propulsion)
  Vehicles (Electrical Propulsion)
  Former Civil Servants (Appointments)
  Former Civil Servants (Appointments)
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Falmouth Docks
  Falmouth Docks
  Cargo Vessels (Sale to Pakistan)
  Cargo Vessels (Sale to Pakistan)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  Cambridge Instrument Co. Ltd.
  Cambridge Instrument Co. Ltd.
  Steel
  Steel
ENVIRONMENT
  Allotments
  Allotments
  Archaeology (Metal Detectors)
  Archaeology (Metal Detectors)
  Council House Tenants (Rent Arrears)
  Council House Tenants (Rent Arrears)
  Slurry
  Slurry
  Rentcharges Act
  Rentcharges Act
  Shopping Precincts (Retail Outlets)
  Shopping Precincts (Retail Outlets)
  Sewers (Construction)
  Sewers (Construction)
  Bricks
  Bricks
  High-rise Flats
  High-rise Flats
  Severe Weather Conditions (Ministerial Order)
  Severe Weather Conditions (Ministerial Order)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
TRANSPORT
  Road Maintenance
  Road Maintenance
  Tyres
  Tyres
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  Road Vehicles (Dipped Headlights)
  Road Vehicles (Dipped Headlights)
  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
SCOTLAND
  International Year of the Child
  International Year of the Child
  Industrial Disputes (Supplies of Salt and Yeast)
  Industrial Disputes (Supplies of Salt and Yeast)
  Youth Unemployment (Alloa, Stirling and Falkirk)
  Youth Unemployment (Alloa, Stirling and Falkirk)
  Hill Farming
  Hill Farming
  Education (Cost)
  Education (Cost)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  Home Completions
  Home Completions
  Development Agency (Investment)
  Development Agency (Investment)
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Employment Vacancies
  Employment Vacancies
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Strathearn Audio Company
  Strathearn Audio Company
  Development Agency
  Development Agency
  Catering Establishments (Regulations)
  Catering Establishments (Regulations)
  Tourist Board (Appointments)
  Tourist Board (Appointments)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  Maze Prison
  Maze Prison
DEFENCE
  Iran (Contract Work)
  Iran (Contract Work)
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Parachuting
  Parachuting
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  "Morning Star" (Departmental Advertising)
  Muscat and Oman
  Muscat and Oman

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Derby):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

AIRCRAFT NOISE INSULATION GRANTS
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: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 make a statement on the proposed method of financing the noise insulation grant schemes for domestic dwellings around Heathrow and Gatwick Airports.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, these schemes will be financed from revenue derived by the British Airports Authority from their operational activities.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while hoping that I can be grateful for that Answer, does it mean that they will be financed from actual revenues of the British Airports Authority without the necessity to increase landing charges for aircraft?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is a matter which the British Airports Authority will have to consider in fixing their landing charges as from 1st April 1979.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, has not the Minister really intimated that the question I asked him was correct—in other words, that the landing charges will be increased to pay for this? Furthermore, is it true that the Charges Group of IATA met with the British Airports Authority on 26th January to decide the range of such landing charges? If so, can the Minister give us the results?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am unable to answer the latter part of the question; I have no knowledge of that. However, I can say that the landing charges will be considered in relation to this additional cost and only in so far as the costs upon airlines are reflected in fares will it fall upon passengers. There will be no separate charge.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is not the noble Lord saying that the landing charges will cover the cost? Is he not saying, with the extra words, that in point of fact the cost of insulation will result in higher landing charges? Is that the position?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is a matter for the British Airports Authority. However, my guess would be that it would increase the landing charges. Let us try to get this matter in perspective. The cost will be spread over a number of years. If it is spread over three years, the additional cost per passenger would be 20p. I believe that the majority of people who travel by air would willingly pay an extra 20p in their fare if they thought that it would relieve the noise nuisance to those not only living near the airport but living under the flight path.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, that is all very well, but what will be the percentage increase in landing fees to cover the cost of these schemes? Can the noble Lord also give an indication of the total cost of the schemes during their first year of operation?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can give no indication of the increase in landing fees. That is not the Question before the House. I can say that the cost of the schemes is expected to be £19 million, but if it were spread over a minimum of three years, as is my guess, it would be £6 million for the first year.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord says that the cost is to be 20p per passenger, how can he then say that he does not know by how much the landing fees will increase?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is quite easy because I do it by simple arithmetic. I divide £19 million by three

325
and I get approximately £6 million. I know that there are just over 30 million passengers and so I end up with just under 20p per passenger. I think that that calculation will stand the light of day.

SALT: CONSULTATION AND EUROPEAN INTERESTS
3.5 p.m.
Lord CHALFONT: 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 consultations have taken place with the Government of the United States on strategic arms limitation; and whether they are satisfied that the draft agreement now being discussed adequately safeguards the interests of the European members of NATO.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the United Slates Government has consulted closely at all stages within the Alliance on the progress of the SALT negotiations. We are satisfied that the interests of the European members have been adequately safeguarded, and we are confident that the new agreement when it is made will be an important contribution to stability and détente.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, I should like to ask him a supplementary question which covers two main points. Is he satisfied that this treaty can be adequately verified when it is finally negotiated in order to ensure that there is no cheating by either side? Secondly, can he assure the House that the interests of Europe are safeguarded, especially in the context of the Backfire Bomber, which I understand is to be left outside the provisions of the treaty, and the mobile nuclear missiles which the Soviet Union has targeted on cities in Europe? In connection with that, is he satisfied that the provisions for the limitation on the Cruise missile also adequately safeguard the security interests of the people of Western Europe?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, perhaps I may refer first to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question. As a former Minister himself with a distinguished record of service in this very field, I know that he will not expect me to go into detail on either SALT II or what is likely to be the agenda for SALT III. However, I can assure him that already, in anticipation of the fairly imminent agreement on SALT II, consideration is being given to the agenda for SALT III. On the first point he made—and I am very glad that he raised this point of verification—I would draw the attention of your Lord-ships to President Carter's statement in his recent State of the Union message. He said:
"We have very sophisticated proven means—including our satellites—to determine for ourselves whether the Soviet Union is meeting its treaty obligations. I will sign no agreement that cannot be verified".
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, if it is a fact—and the noble Lord will tell me whether or not this is so—that under the draft agreement, signed by Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Vance last December in Vienna, the Americans entered into an obligation not to communicate to their NATO Allies any technological details about the manufacture of the Cruise missile, is it not high time that the European members of NATO, and notably the major members of the Community, got together to pool their technique, if necessary to make this important defensive missile themselves?
Lord GORONWY- ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that there is general agreement that both technological co-operation and other co-operation within NATO can always be improved. On the first point made by the noble Lord—and I cannot go into detail—I would repeat the very carefully considered Answer which I made to the extremely important Question put by my noble friend Lord Chalfont. I said:
"The United States Government has consulted closely at all stages within the Alliance on the progress of the SALT negotiations".
That was the first point. The second point was whether the interests of the European members have been adequately safeguarded. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I have given an unequivocal affirmative answer on both points.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, my noble friend, in the course of his reply to my noble friend Lord Chalfont, said that he cannot be expected to go into detail; but some detail is surely essential. May I therefore ask him whether the strategic arms limitation understanding, which could be modified at any time if the Soviet Union decided so, is likely to cause any reduction in our conventional forces associated with NATO? We ought to have an assurance of that kind.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I cannot give such an assurance, but certainly one can join in the constructive hope that agreement in one sector of arms control can only affect favourably possible agreement in another sector. If indeed SALT II, and certainly SALT III, leads to a reduction in strategic armouries, then conceivably the chances for a reduction in conventional arms, particularly in Central Europe, may be made more possible. That is as far as my noble friend would go if he were still Minister of Defence, and that applies to the point he made about detail. I recall as a young Member of Parliament studying at his feet when he was a distinguished Secretary of State for Defence, when many a time he said that he too could not give too much detail about questions of this sort.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is not the noble Lord's reply a little complacent? Is not the SALT agreement in fact an agreement by the two great Powers not to defend themselves against the other Power's second strike capacity; not, in fact, to use counter force? Is not the principle and idea behind it that if both leave their breasts bare, it is as certain as anything can be that neither will provoke the blame? But, so far as Europe is concerned, does that not mean that NATO is now a trip-wire without a gun?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend either has not listened to the considered reply I gave to Lord Chalfont's Question or prefers to give his own somewhat individual interpretation of it. The fact remains that at all stages there was full consultation by the Americans with their NATO allies. In addition to there being consultation at all stages, naturally it embraced in
328
particular those aspects of the American/ Russian discussions which clearly affected Europe as well as other members of NATO.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, has the noble Lord, and have the Government, studied the recent book brought out by one of our most distinguished Generals, Sir John Hackett, and have they taken on board the urgent lessons to be learned from it?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have myself obtained a copy of that book, if it is the same one. It is a projection into the future about what might well happen. I have not completed my own study of the book but I can assure the noble and learned Lord that there is a very fair circulation for it in the localities which I frequent.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, while I should not wish to prolong this exchange unduly, may I return to one point in the Minister's answer to my supplementary question concerning verification, in which he mentioned that President Carter had called in aid the satellite reconnaissance missile as a means of verifying an arms control treaty. Is he aware that a satellite photograph is totally ineffective in verifying an arms control treaty, because although a satellite can photograph a missile it can neither tell you how many warheads there are in a missile nor how far that missile will go, which is an essential part of the proposed SALT II agreement?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend asked me whether I am aware; I think he might equally ask whether President Carter is aware of these facts. I have no doubt that, like us, the Americans study with great care what my noble friend writes and says on these matters, and particularly, if I may say so, his article of 31st October, and what he has to say about satellites. All I should say at this Box this afternoon is that clearly all these considerations, technological and otherwise, have been fully borne in mind in the exchanges between our American allies and the Russians. At all stages we have been consulted, and it is the considered view of Her Majesty's Government that, as a result,

329
the interests of the European members, including ourselves, have been adequately safeguarded.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, in conclusion may I ask whether all the European allies of America are as satisfied as Her Majesty's Government that European interests are being fully safeguarded in the forthcoming treaty?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I really could not answer for every other member of NATO. However, from time to time we do talk to our friends and allies in NATO. As a result, we are able to say that we are satisfied that the European members of NATO believe that they are adequately safeguarded by these agreements.

WATER CHARGES
3.17 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 on what principle water authorities are permitted to demand full payment of their charges for the supply of water to be made by a date half way through the period in which the supply to which the charges relate is effected.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, water authorities and water companies demand payment of instalments of water rates and similar unmeasured charges for water services in advance in accordance with long standing principles established by Statute. Payment in advance was provided for by paragraph 55 of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945 and before that by section 70 of the Waterways Clauses Act 1847, and has been carried over by the transitional provisions of the Water Act 1973.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I express my deep gratitude to the noble Baroness for that most interesting historical survey. Does it not in fact suggest that
330
the reason for the state of affairs indicated in my Question is simply historical, in as much as the present water authorities have replaced the old bodies which supplied water in return for rate payments, which arc dealt with on a different basis? Does it not seem a little odd to that Department of Government which is concerned with consumer protection, that a consumer should be expected to pay for a commodity of which he has only received half, and which if either the water authorities fall down on the job, as perforce they have done recently in the North-West, or the consumer dies, he may never receive at all?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the position is that the water undertakers need to raise the revenue in order to finance the services that they provide for the whole of the period in question. They have statutory backing as I explained in my original Answer. We think that if we transferred to a system where we charged, as it were, in arrears then it would create considerable practical problems, and it would require some transitional financing arrangements which of themselves would be bound to have an impact on charges. We cannot really see any worthwhile benefit to consumers in such a change, given the present pattern of charging methods.
The domestic water charge is payable in advance, but my understanding is that most of the authorities have a fairly long sequence before they actually get round to being really difficult about their money. In respect of a six months' bill, I understand that the Thames Water Authority makes its initial demand in October. In mid-December it gives the consumer a final demand and asks for payment by 1st January. In the middle of January it sends out yet another warning letter and indicates that there is a possibility of disconnection if the bill is not paid. Even later still the authority sends someone to visit the premises to see whether there is any reason why the supply should not be cut off, and later still it calls and disconnects it if the bill has not been paid. In March the matter is referred to the legal department to start proceedings for the recovery of the debt.
The water authorities are looking at this question of charging. The National

331
Water Council is looking at it. They have not yet submitted their findings to us. I am assured that all the water authorities are sympathetic. If people have difficulty in meeting their charges in one or two lump sums over the period, then if they go to see their water authority they can make the necessary arrangements to pay in more frequent instalments.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does not the prolonged procedure, which must cost a great deal in administration and adds to the overheads to the supply of water—which the noble Baroness has so conscientiously described—suggest that it would be much better to move to a system in which the suppliers of water were put in the position of every other supplier, of making a charge when they have made the supply?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the water companies are in the same position as the gas, electricity and all the other people. They render their charges for people to pay sometimes part in advance and part in arrears, and sometimes completely in advance. The system has to go on and the money must be found to finance it. One way of doing this is by asking domestic consumers—where it is not a measured supply—to pay at the beginning of the period; and where the amount of water supplied is measured, as is generally the case in agricultural areas, payment is made on the recorded delivery at the end of the year.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure us that consumers in those areas where water has been cut off during the present dispute will receive a rebate before they pay again?
Baroness STEDMAN: That I cannot answer at the moment, my Lords; but it is certainly a point that I shall take up with the Department and thereafter write to the noble Baroness.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, does Her Majesty's Minister know that the North-West Water Authority has increased its charges this month for the use of water for fire-fighting precautions only by 2,781 per cent.? How does that stack up with the Prime Minister's 5 per
332
cent.? Does the noble Baroness think that the Price Commission could possibly be interested? Does she not think that Her Majesty's Minister might prevent this excessive attempt to place a tax on safety?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I was not aware of the charges which the noble Lord has quoted, and I shall certainly look into them. I have a very personal sympathy with, and interest in, what is happening regarding fire precautions, having spent a considerable part of my life as a member of the Fire Service. Therefore, the noble Lord has my sympathy with what is being charged for fire precautions, and I shall look at that.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, did the noble Baroness say that the water authorities are in the same position as the other utilities, such as gas and electricity? Is it the case that the gas and electricity authorities can make advance demands for payment for gas and electricity not yet supplied?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in the standing charges on gas and electricity, as with telephone charges, one is paying part in arrears and part in advance. Until the 1973 Act most water authorities were levying their charges as part of the rate demand. Now the majority of them are levying their charges separately. They are a statutory undertaking, and it is only fair that they should have the right to levy their charges as other statutory undertakers do, and not confuse them with part of the ordinary rate revenue.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, are not the water companies receiving an abundant, or more than adequate, supply of water at the present time because of the change in weather? Accordingly, ought there not to be a reduction in charges?
Baroness STEDMAN: I do not think that the position is quite so simple as that, my Lords; there are other technical problems.

SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE
3.23 p.m.
Lord CACCIA: 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, now that nine months have elapsed since the Belgrade Conference, what steps are being taken to prepare for the next Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe due to take place in November 1980.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, during the period between now and the Madrid meeting in November 1980, we shall continue to consult regularly with our partners in the Nine and in NATO, and shall be intensifying our bilateral contacts on CSCE matters with the remaining signatories of the Final Act in an effort to ensure a fruitful outcome to the Madrid meeting.
Lord CACCIA: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply I should like to press him on two points. First, is there a reasonable prospect that through our contacts with the Nine a common front may be worked out between now and the time of the meeting in Spain? Secondly, on the home front, have the Government thought of the advisability of setting up at some time a parliamentary committee on similar lines to that done in the Congress of the United States, with its Commission on Co-operation and Security in Europe?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first point, certainly it will be our aim to achieve the highest common factor of agreement among the Nine preparatory to deploying the unified Western attitude in Madrid. We succeeded to quite a large extent in doing this before Belgrade, but I personally—and I was there—would have wished to have seen fuller co-operation among the Nine at that important meeting. We hope to do better in Madrid.
The creation of a parliamentary committee is a very interesting suggestion. It has been considered, and will no doubt be considered again. As the noble Lord knows, we had a monitoring committee, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, which did excellent work in bringing up to date the facts of achievement and shortfall among various countries in regard to the Final Act. But what form a monitoring
334
body should take between now and the convening of the Madrid meeting in 1980 is still for discussion. I should think that a parliamentary committee is at least as worthy of consideration as is any other form, and I thank the noble Lord for raising the matter once more.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, the Minister said that there was considerable co-operation between the members of the Nine in preparation for the meeting in Madrid. Can he elaborate on that in some way and say whether there are regular meetings between the Ambassadors of the eight other member States and his right honourable friend, or himself, as a means of co-operation during this period? If this is not so, does he consider that it would be a good idea to have these eight Ambassadors at the Foreign Office from time to time to discuss these matters?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly can confirm that it is an excellent idea. As I recall, the form it took in the run-up to the Belgrade meeting was that of very close bilateral meetings, because we have a special relationship with each one of the Nine. In addition there were meetings in Brussels, naturally—I will not say as part of the political cooperation, but allied to it—and certainly in NATO, where the Nine are included. No doubt all three forms of consultation will be used between now and 1980; that is to say, very close bilateral consultations, discussion among the Nine, and indeed within NATO.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say what steps have been taken by the countries behind the Iron Curtain to prepare for the next conference due to take place in November 1980?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, I could not with any authority say what is being prepared on the other side of the curtain, as my noble friend puts it. However, I can assure him that I, among others, have already begun bilateral discussions with countries in Eastern Europe. It is our intention not only to have bilateral discussions with our friends and allies, naturally, but also with as many countries as are willing in Eastern Europe, and indeed outside Europe, on the fringes of Europe. I believe that the

335
auguries for such discussions with eastern European countries are very favourable at the present time. I have just had a very rewarding exchange with the Deputy Foreign Minister for Hungary.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, has the noble Lord had an opportunity to study the quite excellent reports of the Congressional Committee set up to monitor the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act, which have certainly had a powerful effect in the United States in informing Congress about this matter, as well as informing public opinion? Arising from the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia—who chaired his own committee so well—is there not therefore a very clear case for there to be set up in this country a parliamentary Select Committee which will regularly inform public opinion?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I fully appreciate the force of what has been said by the noble Lord in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, said, and I have indicated that such a form of monitoring by us should command as much attention as any other form. We were very well satisfied with the way in which the monitoring committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Thomson, worked last year. That is not to say that we are not open to suggestions similar to those that we have heard today; namely, among others, the creation of a parliamentary commission, not identical with, but analogous to, the American experiment.

NHS: INDUSTRIAL ACTION
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further Statement on the industrial action in the National Health Service".
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after
336
3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell will answer this Question in the form of a Statement.

FOREIGN BOYCOTTS BILL: SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT
3.30 p.m.
Lord BYERS Lord BYERS rose to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on the Foreign Boycotts Bill [H.L.] (H.L. 265, 1977–78); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in opening this debate I wish, first, to suggest to the House that whatever may be thought of the recommendations in the report—and I believe them to be very important—the Select Committee has performed a remarkable task in assembling a considerable amount of information about the Arab boycott in a period of three months. The fact that this was achieved was in no small measure due to the patient, skilful and firm chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. We were also greatly assisted by the way our work was organised by our Clerk, Mr. Paul Hayter.
For noble Lords who may not have had the opportunity or time to read the report and the minutes of evidence in full, it might be useful to mention some of the major matters contained in it in addition to the specific recommendations of the committee; I shall refer to those specific recommendations later. For instance, the report describes the Arab boycott of Israel and how it works. It contains four important statements on this from the Boycott Office in Damascus, together with a copy of the form of questionnaire submitted by the Boycott Office to those wishing to trade in the Middle East with Arab countries.
The Questionnaire is interesting in that it asks these questions. The first is:
"Have you or any of your subsidiaries, now or ever, had main or branch factories or assembly plants in Israel?"
Secondly:
"Have you or any of your subsidiaries, now or ever, had in Israel general offices for regional or international operations?"
Next:
"Do you or any of your subsidiaries grant, or have you ever granted, the right of using its

337
name, trademarks, manufacturing licences or patent rights et cetera to Israeli persons or firms?"
Then:
"Do you or any of your subsidiaries participate or own shares, now or in the past, in Israeli firms or businesses inside or outside Israel?"
That one caught Metal Box Limited and got it on the black list. Next:
"Do you or any of your subsidiaries render, or have you ever rendered, any technological assistance to any Israeli firm or business?"
Then:
"Do you or any of your subsidiaries represent, or have you ever represented, any Israeli firm or business in Israel or abroad?"
It goes on to ask, and I do not know how many people are able to comply with this:
"Please give the names and nationalities of all companies in which you own shares and the proportion of shareholding as to the total share capital of the company concerned, together with the names and nationalities of the companies which hold shares in the share capital of your Group and/or any of your subsidiaries, and the percentage of the shareholding of the participating party as to the share capital of the party participated in".
One can see how this adds up to a great deal of time-wasting frustration. There is then a question as to whether companies have a prominent Zionist on the board and, despite denials from Damascus, there is a distinct overtone of anti-semitism in the questionnaire and in the boycott itself.
Refusal to answer the questionnaire or giving a reply which is unsatisfactory usually leads to blacklisting. This questionnaire shows the all-pervading nature of the Arab economic warfare against Israel, and the Foreign Office witnesses made no secret of the fact that this is economic warfare; and that is included in the minutes of evidence. There is a statement in the report regarding the Canadian position. It is in the form of a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, made on 21st October 1976. But since then an anti-boycott Bill has been introduced into the Canadian House of Commons and is now before it.
There is also a memorandum in the report from the Commission of the EEC clarifying the position of the EEC and the Treaty of Rome so far as the boycott is concerned. The report also contains a very useful letter from the Chief Executive of the Commission for Racial Equality
338
on the question of the boycott and the Race Relations Act, something which we may want to follow up in this House. There is also a copy of the relevant United States legislation on the boycott. Finally, there is a guide to anti-boycott regulations issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office here on certificates of origin and other matters.
I mention these aspects of the report to emphasise that it provides a wealth of information on the working of the Arab boycott on Israel and the attitude of other countries to it. As to the findings of the committee, I hope your Lordships will feel that these were by no means negligible, and if they were to be accepted by the Government and Parliament they would represent a major step forward in reducing the harsh impact of this boycott. There was, of course, no hope that the Bill which I sponsored would be passed into legislation. There was no Parliamentary time for it last Session and the Government are unlikely to give time for it in this; apart from anything else, we do not know for how long this Session will be going on. But the hostility of the Government and the hostility of the main Ministries involved would almost certainly have ensured its defeat in the last Session. However, I hope the nature and quality of the Select Committee's report may to some extent have modified these views.
In addition, witnesses representing trade and commerce on the whole took the view that United Kingdom legislation would result in a considerable loss of trade with Arab Middle-East countries. I do not think that has been proved and I do not think it is by any means certain. However, that was the view held by some of the witnesses. That view was advanced in the United States by similar business interests when the American legislation was being put forward. Indeed, the view was put forward to our committee, with some vigour, that the American experience had been too short for a considered judgment to be made. That was the view expressed last June and July. But since then the gloomy predictions that the Arab boycott legislation would result in a decline of United States exports to Arab countries and a consequent loss of jobs have proved groundless. According to statistics released by a United States Government agency, exports to the 14 boycotting countries from

339
January to the end of September 1978 showed a 12·4 increase over the same period in 1977.
The case of Iraq is interesting. Iraq is a real hard-line Arab country which never resumed diplomatic relations with the United States after the 1973 war, and Iraq increased its imports from the United States by 43 per cent. Even more significant were the remarks made by Mr. Stanley Marcuss. He is in charge of anti-boycott enforcement for the Department of Commerce in Washington, and he said recently, well after the United States legislation had begun to bite:
"Negative certificates of origin are fast becoming a thing of the past. Prohibited boycott conditions are ' falling out of letters of credit'. Saudi Arabia no longer asks vessel and insurance carriers to certify that they are not blacklisted".
Nevertheless, according to Mr. Marcuss:
"…answering boycott questionnaires in order to qualify to do business remains a troublesome area"—
but he added:
"there is a marked decline in the number of boycott-related requests filed with the Commerce Department".
In the six months ended March 1977 there were 60,000 such transactions. In the next quarter, ended June 1977, there were only 17,000 transactions, a move in the right direction.
I believe the boycott is harmful to British trade and I do not think we are all that different from the United States. I believe that if the Arabs want our goods because of quality, price and delivery, they will ignore the boycott as they do with the United States; but in the meantime it remains an unwarranted source of irritation and, in my view, an immoral restrictive practice in international trade. This same attitude was well expressed by the American Secretary of Commerce, Juanita Kreps, last November, when she said—and I quote:
"Over and over again we are told that United States companies, backed by the authority of United States law, are able to resist boycott demands and yet receive business".
She went on:
"I am convinced that if we insist on protecting our people from anti competitive behaviour and discrimination, if we insist that business without principle is business not worth having, then we will be successful".
My Lords, those were the sentiments on which my Foreign Boycotts Bill was constructed.
What I think is probably equally significant is the fact that Congressman Lehman, who is Chairman of the House Sub-Committee of the Committee on International Trade, has let it be known that he will be pressing the American Government in the course of this year to toughen up the United States anti-boycott legislation, and that, in particular, he will try to get the Government of the United States, in turn, to persuade countries of the EEC to come into line by accepting anti-boycott principles as a fundamental basis of their international trading policies. Therefore, we shall expect to see a good deal more interest on the part of the American Government in the way our own Government and others in the EEC conduct their international trade. Indeed, I understand that congressional hearings on this are just about to begin.
However, even if we assume that we are in a weaker position than the United States and that we have less "muscle" in this matter, the committee came to the conclusion that certain actions could be taken administratively. They also said that if these fairly modest administrative actions were adopted by the Government, and if they did not succeed in reducing the impact of the boycott, then legislation might well have to be considered. Mean-while, boycott activity in the United Kingdom continues. It affects a considerable number of companies, and even affects some of our own nationalised corporations. I am not going to deal with all these cases. They are well known to the Anti-Boycott Committee of the Anglo-Israel Chamber of Trade and to the All-Party Committee which exists in both Houses of this Parliament. But I shall refer to one case because it is a curious one and exemplifies what can happen.
This concerns a company whose identity I do not propose to mention publicly, although I am quite prepared to give it to the Government. This is a British company which is a subsidiary of an American company, and therefore has to comply with United States legislation. But the British company, in turn, has an Indian subsidiary, and this Indian subsidiary buys a certain ingredient from Israel in order to complete its final product. Now the Indian company has been asked by the Boycott Office if it has any of this ingredient left from the batch—a fairly small batch—which it bought four years ago, and

341
whether it will agree never again to buy this product from Israel. This pressure has been brought to bear on the Indian subsidiary of the United Kingdom company over a period of two years. The United Kingdom company has explained that it cannot agree to this because it is an American subsidiary; nor does it intend to agree to these demands and diktats from Damascus. The result is that the Indian company is now on the black list and the United Kingdom company is being similarly threatened. As the managing director of the English company said to me, "I do not think it is realised what a very unpleasant experience this type of harassment and pressure constitutes", and there are many other instances of this frustration and harassment, which I believe ought to be stopped.
My Lords, I now turn to the specific proposals made by the Select Committee, to which I would hope that the Government will give a positive and sympathetic response today, because the boycott is still causing a great deal of irritation, time-consuming frustration and is a restriction on trade with a friendly nation. After saying that the Bill should not proceed, the Select Committee stated their general conclusion in these terms—and I quote:
"Nevertheless, the Committee do not find the present situation satisfactory. The boycott thrives because it is not resisted and is even given the unsolicited help of British companies operating what amounts to a voluntary boycott. It is objectionable for those who are not a party to the Middle East conflict to be drawn into it and for the exercise of legitimate economic activity to be made subject to extraneous political conditions".
That statement in the report was very like the statement I have just read from Juanita Kreps, the Secretary of State for Commerce in the United States. I would hope that Her Majesty's Government would take note of that considered view of the committee as a background against which the specific recommendations were made.
The recommendations are these. First, the committee recommend that the Government should take a more positive line in relation to the boycott. They should increase their present activities in trade promotion and provide energetic consular help to all exporters attempting to expand Middle East trade. I should not have thought that was difficult to
342
accept. Secondly, the Government should urge companies receiving boycott requests to report them voluntarily to the Department of Trade, so that other companies can benefit from their experience. I personally should like to see reporting of boycott requests made mandatory, as it is under the United States and Ontario legislation, and as it will be if the legislation before the Canadian House of Commons is passed into law. But that was not the view of the committee; that is my personal view. Thirdly, suitable diplomatic opportunities should also be taken to persuade individual Arab States to narrow the application of the boycott, with the goal of eliminating its secondary and tertiary levels. Again, I should have thought that that was a modest and moderate proposal.
The remoteness of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade from the working of the boycott struck me as being quite appalling. There was a distinct overtone of "not wanting to know". When one considers that it is estimated that there are something like 50,000 boycott requests a year to British companies, and that over 1,000 United Kingdom companies are on the black list, it is surely incredible that no British Government Department has a copy of the black list. And yet an American witness, Mr. Will Maslow, told us that he obtained a copy of the black list by sending a cheque for $25 to the Boycott Office in Damascus. I am convinced that there is much scope for more effective diplomatic activity to reduce the impact of the boycott. I am sure that is not too much to ask of any Government.
The committee also concluded—and I quote—that:
"the Government should show that their opposition to the secondary and tertiary boycotts is more than a form of words. Their general policy of deploring the boycott and yet leaving all decisions to the commercial judgment of the companies without any reference to the Government's view is not wholly consistent".
The outcome of present practice, in the committee's view, is to make the Government appear not to be completely neutral. What the committee recommend (in paragraphs 111 and 112) is a policy more like that adopted by the Canadian Government, although not exactly the same. The Canadian Government not only deplore the boycott and allow companies to decide for themselves whether or not their

343
commercial interests require them to comply; they also actively encourage companies to observe the Government's statement of hostility to the boycott. Canadians who comply with the boycott in spite of public policy forgo Government support for the project concerned, and this policy itself is being tightened up under the new law which has just been introduced into the Canadian House of Commons.
My Lords, your Select Committee consider that companies should be made more aware of the political implications of the boycott. Company managements, including those in the public sector, should still be free, in the view of the committee, to choose for themselves whether or not to comply with the boycott. But the committee recommend that whenever possible they should avoid signing contracts which include conditions specifically discriminating against a friendly State. The committee say that Her Majesty's Government should seek to guide companies to this effect. If companies always decide to comply with the boycott for the short-term purpose of winning trade, they will, say the committee, allow the boycott to grow stronger and may in the long run produce effects contrary to Britain's commercial interest. I have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, whether or not the Government accept this view.
Another conclusion was that Her Majesty's Government should give careful consideration to the use of public funds in support of particular boycott-related transactions such as those involving direct compliance with the boycott in the form of a boycott declaration or a negative certificate of origin. That brings me to the question of the certificates of origin themselves. The Select Committee say this:
"The Committee find that the Government is vulnerable in their practice of authenticating negative certificates of origin"—
these are the certificates which say that none of the goods or components originated in Israel. The report continues:
"Although the authentication ('legalisation') of these certificates is performed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a routine aid for exporters, and the Apostille bearing the seal of the FCO is expressed as authenticating the signature on the document (not the document itself), there is no escape from the impression which this creates that the FCO condones such
344
documents. They become a party to the process by which the documents are issued. Assuming that the Government's opposition to the secondary and tertiary boycott means what it says, they"—
the Government—
"ought to dissociate themselves from this process. Otherwise they are trying to have it both ways.
"The Committee therefore recommend that Her Majesty's Government change their policy of authentication and that officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be directed not to authenticate the signatures on the negative certificates of origin. Such documents are among the most discriminatory forms of the boycott mechanism and it is undesirable that the Government should process a document which discriminates against a friendly state".
My Lords, in my view, one of the most unsatisfactory pieces of evidence presented to the Committee was that given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office witnesses on the question of whether or not the Foreign Office employees read the negative certificates of origin or whether they merely certify the signatures at the bottom of the document and do not examine the contents at all. In an exchange with the Chairman, with myself and with the noble Lord, Lord Caccia—and all this is recorded in the report—the witness said that on principle the contents are not read, and the contents are not authenticated. I suggested that this meant that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may well be certifying unwittingly a whole lot of improper documents every day. The noble Lord, Lord Caccia, asked pointedly whether they did not even look at the documents to see if somebody was applying, for instance, to export arms to South Africa or something of that sort. To that question the reply was:
"I very much doubt if anybody would be so foolish as to put a wholly illegal paper into our hands".
But, as Lord Caccia then said, you cannot know if you do not read it—it is as automatic as that. That is the system under which we operate today. The position is that if the documents are not read, any sort of certificate can be authenticated. If they are read, then the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a party to issuing a discriminatory document and legalising it.
As a result of legislation in the United States, the negative certificate of origin is a thing of the past and has been replaced, in many cases, by a positive certificate. In this country, I believe I am right in saying, only Iraq now insists on the nega-

345
tive certificate. When you consider the very unsatisfactory diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Iraq at the present time, then I suggest that the Government accept the recommendation of the Select Committee, particularly since negative certificates have been roundly condemned by the International Chamber of Trade and Commerce.
The final recommendation of the Committee is one of the most important ones. I think I can say that we were unanimous in suggesting that there should be an initiative to develop a common European policy which would be more effective than the efforts of any single State to combat secondary and tertiary boycotts. This is something that I wholeheartedly subscribe to. The Committee proposed that Her Majesty's Government should undertake to put the subject of the boycott on the agenda of the European Council. The Dutch have expressed their willingness to discuss whether a common policy can be formulated—and I think that this approach would find favour with M. Gaston Thorn, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, and in some other countries.
Non-discrimination is a fundamental principle of the Community and it is time, in my view and in that of the Committee, that this nettle should be grasped. Despite the very considerable amount of business which British companies do with Arab countries, compared with the relatively small amount they do with Israel, there is no doubt that substantial trading opportunities are being lost as a result of the boycott but, even more important, United Kingdom companies are being forced to participate in a form of international blackmail which has no place in a civilised system of international trading. I do not believe that we are any more vulnerable than the United States. I believe it is a myth that the Arab countries would remove their sterling currencies, for instance, if we implement these proposals. If they did, where else would they take them? They are not going to invest in a weak dollar. I believe that some definite practical action must now be taken by Her Majestys Government and that this should be done preferably with our EEC partners but, if necessary, without them.
My Lords, in conclusion I hope we shall not be told that the Government
346
cannot accept our proposals because they might aversely affect the Middle East settlement and might result in a loss of trade. This really is not an argument that stands up. The Select Committee proposals are not for legislation but for sensible moderate changes in administrative practice. The United States, having introduced really tough legislation, have not been accused of jeopardising a Middle East settlement—just the reverse, as Camp David showed—and their trade with Arab countries is increasing. The argument about affecting a Middle East settlement will not run. I hope that the Government will recognise the fair-minded way in which the Committee set about its task, and I hope that they will give a sympathetic response to proposals which should commend themselves to those who search for justice in international trade. I beg to move for Papers.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, after a year's medically enforced virtual silence in this Chamber I find myself returning to the fray on a similar issue to that on which I spoke in February last year. Then it was on human rights and the persecution of members of the Jewish faith in Russia. Today it is on the boycott. I would congratulate and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and his persistence in this matter. There is nothing in his speech with which I personally do not agree. While not giving much joy to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in pursuit of his Bill, I agree that the Committee has produced a most valuable report, particularly in the fact that by its summation of evidence it has highlighted and exposed to all those who are prepared to read it the extent, the unfairness and the hit-and-miss aspect of this pernicious boycott. We can be grateful for that. They made valuable recommendations which have already been outlined by the noble Lord and which I hope very much that the Government will implement. But in some ways I do not feel that they go far enough. It gnashes its teeth in anguish but it will not bite. Rather, I think, it has nibbled at some aspects of the problem. I regret the total rejection of the noble Lord's Bill because we could have amended it. It is a procedure at which your Lordships' House are highly accomplished.

347
The report refers briefly to the wartime economic blockade. I spent over five years of the last war as principal private secretary to the Minister of Economic Warfare, the third Earl of Selborne. In World War II economic warfare was fully recognised and a much more developed weapon in total war than ever before. We used every endeavour to prevent vital and useful supplies reaching Nazi Germany and her allies. But despite the fact that we ourselves were involved in total war and that we tried by persuasion and pre-emption to limit supplies from neutral countries reaching Germany, we never descended to the blackmail and boycott of neutral powers and neutral persons such as is imposed by the Arab countries now. Instead, we did our best to maintain normal, if far more limited, trading relations with the neutrals. No one, if I may say so, contributed more to those negotiations than a former colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, the late Sir Dingle Foot, who at that time was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry and a Liberal Member of the Government.
Economic sanctions involving boycotts and embargoes are a recognised weapon against your enemy. The Arab boycott of trade with Israel as such is a recognised weapon so long as a state of war exists between those two countries, though I hold the view that dropping the boycott, if only by Egypt, would make a truly tangible contribution to the current peace negotiations. We have heard from all the valuable information in the report that the Arabs make it as difficult as possible for a firm to establish what it can do and where, since a British company wishing to trade with an Arab country is required to agree to the terms of the boycott form issued by the particular country with which it is at that moment trading. A common instruction covering all the Arab States and issued from the Boycott Office in Damascus just does not exist; but, as the report documents, the Arab boycott seeks to dictate to officially neutral and friendly countries terms which discriminate against non-Israeli firms and individuals and, through its tertiary boycott, against non-Jewish clients and partners of companies, it seeks to direct their policy and impose an embargo on their trade.
348
To me, this blatant interference in the conduct of companies is blackmail. This discriminatory procedure challenges, I believe, the whole basis of the GATT agreements and, certainly, the principles of the Common Market, in that it would seek to coerce EEC nations against the principles of the Community into boycotting an Associate Member State, Israel. It is a denial of the human rights endorsed at Helsinki which this Government so repeatedly assure us they vehemently uphold. It has on occasions even sought to dictate who shall serve on the boards of directors of English companies. Even the Race Relations Board agree that this latter provision is discriminatory and contrary to the Race Relations Act.
It is particularly repugnant and shaming to me to find that it is now common practice for business and professional men to acquire two passports in order that they may not be denied entry into an Arab State because they have previously entered Israel and their passport carries an Israeli entry visa. They may only have gone to Isreal as a Gentile visiting Jerusalem and devoutly following the Stations of the Cross, but they will have an Israeli visa on their passport and their whole trip to an Arab State to trade can be ruined by the fact that they have been to Israel appearing on their passport.
The Government have time and again verbally deplored the boycott. But, in the interests of the nation, will they not implement active support of the many recommendations valuably made by this distinguished committee which have been detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers? We are told that, in theory, the boycott applies only to companies supplying arms, military aircraft, ammunition, ships or tankers, or if they have subsidiaries in Israel or go into partnership there. However, the variation in regulations between one Arab State and another, the difference in the terms, the phone-calls and the peculiar machinations which seem to go on when they want to blacklist a country, are so cunningly concealed that they are like a minefield: "Heads, I blow you up; tails, you commit suicide". A United Kingdom agency in Israel selling ping-pong balls or even Arab dictionaries could get itself banned under some of the provisions of the documents which the noble Lord read out.

349
I believe from the evidence of this report that the Arabs are using the boycott as a major propaganda exercise but are not prepared to deny themselves the goods they need. They can turn a blind eye to the companies that they wish to supply to them and, at the same time, use their muscle particularly on many middle-sized firms or individual professional men. We appear to be the prime victim. The United States and Canada, as your Lord-ships have already heard, have reacted vigorously and do not appear to have suffered. France contends that the boycott is illegitimate and, with true Gallic cunning, trades perfectly happily with both Israel and the Arab world. It is in Great Britain that it appears to have bitten hardest and, so far as the report establishes, there are 1,100 British companies on the black list. In the entire United States we are told there are 1,500—hardly a proportionate distribution.
In their report and in rejecting the noble Lord's Bill or recommending that it should not receive a Second Reading, the committee quite understandably laid great stress on the economic issues. But are we so desperately weak that we have to bow to the bully-boys? Because a nation of only barely 3 million imports less than a nation of 70 million, must the little nations lose out all the time and must we accept the injustices? Time was when Great Britain was proud to be the champion of the small nation. In section 121, paragraph 3, the committee emphasises, as the noble Lord has done, that we really should give active assitance to companies which refuse to yield to blackmail and who wish to trade freely in the Middle East with both Israel and the Arab countries. Can we not have that real mandatory assistance which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, outlined, and not just most charmingly expressed verbal lamentations which to the Arab countries have been like water off a ducks back?
The present Government endorsed Helsinki; they introduced a Race Relations Bill which is probably the toughest measure anywhere in the free world. All we are asking is that the Government practice what they preach and legislate by defending their own citizens from totally unfair and unwarranted discrimination solely because they are trading with Israel or are members of the Jewish faith. In furtherance of international agreements,
350
the United Kingdom should join with other Western powers and jointly protect these firms and neutral countries wishing to trade free from these boycotts.
Finally, many of the Jews in this country came here as the result of relentless persecution in Germany, in the war-time occupied countries or in the USSR. They came because they believed this to be a country of freedom and justice. In the arts, in science, in the law and in commerce they have made their contribution. Many families have been here for generations, and by doing nothing to protect those who are now our citizens and those gentiles who are our citizens and seek to trade freely, I think we are denying those people the very citizenship which led them to come to our shores.

NHS: INDUSTRIAL ACTION
4.10 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on the industrial action in the National Health Service. The Statement reads as follows:
"The impact of industrial action in the Health Service remains serious. The effects vary across the country, with very serious disruption in some places which is causing me grave concern; for example, the Westminster Hospital, the Great Ormond Street Hospital and the stores strike in Bolton. Most of the country has emergency-only ambulance cover; and between a third to a half of the hospital service is dealing with only emergency cases.
"The most serious disruption is in the Northern, North Western, London, Mersey and Trent Regions, but in most parts of the country services have been reduced.
"The trade unions involved in this dispute made it clear from the beginning that their members should maintain emergency and essential services. The fact remains that such action is now

351
taking place; and it is therefore essential to take all possible steps to protect the safety and wellbeing of patients.
"In some cases local action has clearly gone well beyond the level approved by the unions. This has rightly caused great concern to the Government, the House and the whole country. The leaders of the trade unions have shared that concern, and while I deplore their policy of calling any form of industrial action in the National Health Service, I acknowledge the genuine efforts they have made to keep matters under control.
"They have co-operated fully in the "hot-line" arrangement between my Department and the union headquarters—an arrangement that has been helpful in solving a number of local difficulties that have been brought before this House. They have also produced more detailed guidance to their members on the need to preserve essential and emergency services.
"Last night I met General Secretaries and national officers of the four unions involved to impress upon them the seriousness of the position and the need to ensure that essential services are maintained. I welcomed the further advice they have given to their members and sought clarification on a number of points—for example, the impact of industrial action on highly dependent long-stay patients and the need to have adequate warning of local industrial action.
"They have agreed to consider the points I put to them. In the meantime they believe the more detailed guidance will be of real help in keeping the action within tolerable limits.
"It is essential that Health Service staff taking industrial action should, at the very minimum, stay within the bounds set in the more detailed advice agreed by the unions on Tuesday night. Even this may pose risks to patients. But anyone ignoring that guidance would be acting in a reckless and irresponsible manner.
"This must be avoided, and effective communication between the National Health Service management and unions
352
can help to avert it. That is why I am today taking steps to ensure that health authorities are fully aware of the need to bring in full-time officials of the trade unions concerned immediately when industrial action goes beyond tolerable levels.
"Mr. Speaker, the position is serious, but it would be a great deal more serious if so many nurses, doctors, administrators and other staff—as well as ordinary members of the public—had not rallied in this difficult situation. The House and the country will want me to express our thanks to them."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.15 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. It is welcome at least to hear that the Government are acknowledging the very serious situation, which, as we have been reminding the Government for some days, has been growing. As the noble Lord the Minister has told us, one-third to one-half of the hospitals are on emergency admissions only, and it is patently clear to many of us that the position is today deteriorating. We believe that the emergency powers—they are small but effective powers—could have been invoked at a much earlier stage.
We also believe that the co-operation of the other services would be very important indeed, and for that reason I should like to ask the Minister one specific question. He has mentioned the Westminster Hospital and I mentioned it yesterday: it is on the front pages of the evening papers. I believe there is a very serious point of law here. Your Lord-ships will be aware that two vans blocked the main service road between Page Street and Horseferry Road, and were placed in such a position that it was impossible to bring in supplies. The question I should like to ask the Minister is this: have the police been instructed to perform something other than their duty, which is, of course, to ensure that obstructions to highways are removed?
We are glad of and we support the actions of the Secretary of State in all

353
he is doing to communicate with the unions so far as it benefits patients. But it is quite apparent to us that the "hot line" has not operated effectively in a number of specific instances. For several days now, as I said from the Despatch Box yesterday, sterile dressings and other vital supplies have not reached a large number of hospitals throughout the country. Our information is necessarily sketchy, and we are grateful to the Secretary of State for providing as much information as he has done. However, we are deeply worried about the position and we hope that the Government will further consider the invocation of emergency powers.
4.18 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches would wish to join in thanking the Minister for having repeated this Statement, and we, too, welcome such steps as have been taken to limit industrial action in conjuntion with the trade unions concerned. The part of the Statement which we most welcome is that which comes right at the end, where the Secretary of State says that the positions would be a great deal more serious if, among others, ordinary members of the public had not rallied in this difficult situation.
This leads me to say one thing in relation to one of the hospitals mentioned by the noble Lord, namely, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children. The action taken yesterday by the devoted ladies who voluntarily carried out cleaning and other duties in that hospital is greatly to be admired, as is the work of bodies such as the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Red Cross in places such as Liverpool, most seriously affected by these disputes in the public services generally.
Faced with these practical examples of what can be done, I should like to ask the noble Lord one specific question. Will the Government positively encourage further action by volunteers in engaging in activities which might in some quarters be regarded as strike breaking, but which in the case of occupations vital to the support of life, as in the National Health Service, may well more generally be regarded as praiseworthy public service?
4.21 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said. So far as Westminster Hospital is concerned, this is a somewhat new matter. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will understand me when I say that this is a matter that we have been considering this afternoon before the House sat, and it is one which will receive further consideration. It is a serious matter and we are not unmindful of that. I should like to say, in case it is not understood, that the "hot line" is between my Department's headquarters and the union offices of the four trade unions involved, and it is manned 24 hours a day. We share the view put by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. When my right honourable friend went so far as to draw attention to the contribution that ordinary members of the public have made, he was, of course, referring to the voluntary people and their efforts. The running of hospitals is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State; that is the responsibility of hospitals. But we would certainly foster and encourage anything that they may well be able to do to improve the services.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are dangers of victimisation in keeping the emergency services going? Is he aware that the case was reported yesterday in the newspaper of an ambulance man at Swinton, Manchester—a Mr. Hornby—who, at the request of a doctor, conducted a grievously ill patient to hospital? He has had his membership of his union, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, terminated, and has been sent to Coventry by his colleagues. What can the noble Lord do to protect men in this service, who are trying to keep the National Health Service going in the interests of the whole community, and to carry out the Government's own policy?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, these are difficult situations. We must face the fact that, at the present moment, temperatures and tempers are running very high in various parts of the country. This kind of thing is something that, however unacceptable many of us, if not all of us, find it, and however much we would deplore it, can perhaps be

355
best dealt with through the trade union involved, and we hope that when tempers have cooled a different kind of attitude will prevail.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say what are the guidelines which the Government have submitted to the unions involved, to bring a speedy end to the appalling incidents which have occurred all over the country?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the first point I would make is that the guidelines do not emanate from the Government. I am happy to say that the guidelines were drawn up by the four trade unions involved. As regards the National Health Service ambulance staffs, the guidelines which the trade unions concerned have agreed are that all 999 calls will be answered, all maternity admissions will be carried, all patients requiring radiotherapy and renal dialysis will be carried and terminal discharge will also be carried. So far as ancillary staffs within the National Health Service are concerned, services in relation to cardiac, dialysis, cancer, intensive care, accidents, emergency patients and children must be fully maintained at all times. No services should be reduced to a level where satisfactory cover cannot be maintained in respect of emergency and high dependency patients, in particular. Delivery and distribution of drugs, oxygen and fuel must not be impeded.
I want to stress that these guidelines have been drawn up by the four trade unions concerned. I know that some noble Lords will say that there is very little evidence of their being in effect at the moment. In point of fact, they are being effected in a large part of the country, but we recognise that there are pockets of resistance where they are not being operated at the moment. But my right honourable friend is seeking to do something through the usual channels, which in this case are the trade unions.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I am glad that the guidelines have been issued, but can the Minister tell us that in issuing the guidelines the trade unions have undertaken to take action against members who do not conform with them? Guidelines have no force of law, and guidelines
356
issued by trade unions who are not prepared to enforce them in individual cases, when they are in breach, are not worth the paper that they are written on.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: That is perfectly true, my Lords, but I was at some pains to point out that they are working in a large number of areas. We are just as disturbed as anybody else to feel that there is a resistance to these guidelines coming from some members of trade unions, when they have, in fact, been drawn up by their own trade unions, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made his feelings very clearly known.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that, when a member of one of these trade unions fails to comply with the guidelines, the trade union in question will withdraw his membership?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think that in the present climate it will serve any useful purpose at this time to suggest action of that kind. I think that we must wait and let the trade unions deal with this in their own way.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, the Minister spoke of tempers running high, and I understand that. But does he realise that the general public is quite horrified at the talk of a tolerable level of industrial action in these matters? Would he feel able to accept that people who know patients and have friends, who are suffering from this, really wonder when something will be done? Finally, may I ask the Minister whether, if the guidelines do not take effect within the immediate future, we may hope that the public will no longer be asked to put up with this kind of thing?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend and everybody associated with him would welcome an opportunity to bring all this to a speedy conclusion, and we are working towards that almost to the complete exclusion of everything else. I do not like to feel, when we are faced with the kind of situation that we are faced with at the present moment, when there is so much chaos and confusion, that we can accept anything that can be considered tolerable. But we

357
must remember that at the present moment the vast majority of members of the National Health Service are, in fact, working and are not taking strike action, either for a short period or for a long period.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: But, my Lords, may I revert to the question of the Westminster Hospital? Is it the case, as reported, that two vehicles had their tyres slashed and had to be removed by the Army? Has the noble Lord seen the reports on television of the action at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, and is it not the fact that the children at Westminster Hospital are having to be looked after by their own parents? The noble Lord has said that tempers are rising; but will he bear in mind that the temper of the public is a temper to be taken into account, too, and will he use his "hot line" to tell the unions that the whole credibility of their union membership and of their union organisation is now in question?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that the unions concerned are under no misapprehension as to how we feel; it has been made perfectly clear to them. If I may revert to the question of the Westminster Hospital, the position there was that these two vans were found to have their tyres down. The police endeavoured, so I understand, to pump them up again, but their pump was not strong enough, by virtue of the size of the tyres. Apparently, an individual went around the corner, off his own bat, and got hold of some Territorials who came round with special pump. When they found that they got no response they examined the tyres and found that they were slashed. As I have said, this is a matter which we are still looking into.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, would the Minister urge upon his colleagues that it would be widely regarded as a sign of strength and not of weakness if the Government were at once to initiate discussions with the other political Parties so that there might be a national approach to these problems?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think that I ought to commit my right honourable friend the Sercetary of State other than to say that I will
358
certainly pass on to him what the noble Lord has said.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why the Government will not have discussions with the other Parties?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not sure that it is for me to reply to that question. If I were to reply as an individual, all I would say is that at this stage I cannot see that any more could have been done than has been done already.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, the Minister will have noticed that the spokesman for the Conservative Party twice made the suggestion that the Government had erred in some way in not seeking emergency powers. If this is so, it is quite a serious charge which ought to be faced. Will the Minister be kind enough to tell us what else the Government can or cannot do because they lack the power to do it? Is there anything that the Government can do, or is this just hocus pocus—the ordinary Tory line of making a difficult situation more difficult?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, those of us who are in close touch with the situation find it very difficult at this stage to see what else the Government or, for that matter, any other Government which might be in power could do.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FER-RARD: My Lords, where union members will not follow their leadership, what the Government could do would be to instruct the police, when volunteers are prepared to do the work, to escort volunteers through the picket lines and protect them.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Viscount must know only too well that there is no evidence at all at the present moment that volunteers who wanted to do something have in any way been seriously impeded.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, my noble friend must understand that wherever there is action which is regarded as criminal, the right action should be taken against it. Obviously, we must be sure that that action is criminal in character and that we are not imagining things.

359
In his answer, my noble friend made it as clear as the noonday sun that the health authorities have a certain responsibility in this matter. But they have no power. The only people who have got the power are the Government, plus the Leaders of the two Oppositions, the CBI if necessary, and the TUC, if necessary. They have the power to get them together as quickly as possible and say to them, "This is a national problem and no individual action or voluntary action will suffice". That is the only way to tackle the problem and it should have been tackled in this way two weeks ago. We should not have had to wait until now.
Several noble Lords: Answer!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I thought that that was a statement, not a question.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, first may I associate myself with those noble Lords who have expressed appreciation of the more active approach to this matter which is being made by the Government to the trade unions. This at least is limited good news. Obviously, in the present situation there have to be difficult negotiations between the Government, the trade unions and those people who are, I shall now allow myself to call them, striking against the sick. That is what is happening. For that reason, I wonder whether the noble Lord could assure me that the Government are practically aware, not just theoretically aware, that it would be very dangerous in these negotiations to give any countenance to the idea that this kind of action is something that this country can tolerate indefinitely? In other words, it is important to give no point away on this particular thesis. I hope that the noble Lord can assure one that the Government are conscious of this and are putting it into practice.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend is on record time and time again as condemning what is taking place today in the strongest possible language—in language which could not be stronger. As I have said, he is consulting various people in order to see whether anything more can be done at this juncture, and I can assure your Lordships that he will do it, if it is possible.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind, despite what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that the Government, the CBI, the Opposition, the TUC, the Archbishop of Canterbury are powerless for one simple reason: that a high proportion of the strikers are part-time workers? If there is any attempt whatever to take action which the strikers do not like, or which even the unions do not like, it will be followed by unofficial action. The thing to do here, as with the lorry drivers, is to get this strike settled. When it is settled, you can table all the grievances and then collaboration can take place between the parties in a sensible, sane atmosphere. But to talk the sort of nonsense at the present time that is being talked is ridiculous.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall the quotation from the poem which says that so long as you go on paying danegeld you will never get rid of the Dane?
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I happened to listen to the one o'clock news—I do not know whether the noble Lord did—in which there was an interview between Robin Day and some of the strikers. I am not very much in favour of broadcasting all these things, but I listened with some interest to a member of NUPE being interviewed. He said that he had never had any instructions from NUPE headquarters and that he had never been told what the code of practice was. When Robin Day said to him, "Are you quite sure?" he said, "Yes". The arrangements for communications are, as the noble Lord has told us, satisfactory, but the information does not get through to the people. As I say, this was put out on the one o'clock news. Whether anything has been done about that, I do not know.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would not claim that everybody knows, because I could not prove it. I do not know how the communications are made, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was given an assurance by the four unions concerned that all their representatives in the districts and the regions who are handling these situations would in fact be informed of the guide-

361
lines; and included in that information would be the various matters which I read out earlier to your Lordships.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a specific question?
several noble Lords: Order, order!
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I detect from noble Lords that we ought to proceed. We are having an important debate and noble Lords have ventilated their strong feelings.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I think that the Minister ought to answer this question.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I know, but I think that we should proceed.

PRICE COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

FOREIGN BOYCOTTS BILL: SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT
Debate resumed.
4.39 p.m.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, if we may return to the debate, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for having enabled us this afternoon to see what Parliament and the Government think of the proposals which the Select Committee made. I should also like to thank the other Members of the Select Committee for showing me the indulgence that we all know is shown to a maiden speaker. This was my maiden chairmanship of a Select Committee. I very much needed that indulgence and the Select Committee were generous in what they did for me. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, was generous in what he said about the result. Still more, I thank them for the intensive work which they were prepared to put in, particularly during the last week or so of our discussions, in order that the House might have a report from us before the end of that Session.
I should also like to thank the economic specialist adviser whom we had to help us, Mr. Christopher Allsopp of New College,
362
Oxford, and to the Clerk of the Parliaments I must also add my thanks. I have had some experience, not of Select Committee chairmanships but of other chairmanships, and the member of the staff who has already been mentioned by name, Mr. Paul Hayter, I think is in fact the best secretary of any committee which I have ever chaired, and that is very high praise.
I should also like to thank the witnesses. We had, I think, 57 of them. The Arab Governments were a little shy of giving us many detailed answers to our questions, or indeed having many of them come before us, but that was made up for by the readiness of British businessmen and other such interests and those with knowledge of the Israeli position to come and help us. The consequence was that in a hard-working four months we acquired a tremendous lot of first hand information on a very difficult subject; and perhaps it is worth commenting that in my limited experience this was a rather good illustration of the value of your Lordships' House. Here was an important and difficult subject for which the other place has no time at present, and we were able to give it that kind of scientific inquiry, as well as the deliberation among ourselves, which I believe all of us who were involved in the subject think it deserves.
The reason why I think it is so valuable to have this debate this afternoon is that by some miracle we in the committee managed to achieve unanimity, and the only point on which we found we were not unanimous was one on which a Socialist and a Conservative agreed against the rest of us. This showed that it was a matter which was considered to be entirely outside the narrow limits of Party division. I think that part of the value of the report is that it sets out a lot of facts of which certainly we in the Select Committee were previously unaware and which perhaps I might commend to the House for leisurely reading.
Still more important, this afternoon, I hope we shall have from those on all sides of the House who were not members of the committee and from the Government, some indication of how they feel our recommendations should be treated. It was particularly happy that the last speaker in this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, should have spoken

363
as she did, so movingly and with such long experience, and she seemed on the whole to be supporting our recommendations, although no doubt they did not go far enough.
It seems to me that we must start with the fact that our exports to the Middle East are enormously important. If my memory serves me, the last time we counted, which was in 1977, because the full accounts for 1978 were not available to us, the Committee found that there were £2.7 billion worth of visible exports achieved to the Arab States. In that same year there were a very valuable £274 million worth to Israel. Between them, those exports constituted 8.4 per cent. of our total exports and those total exports represented, I think, nearly 30 per cent. of gross national product, compared with 10 per cent. in 1977, which represents the United States export total in relation to their gross national product. I am sure that the House would wish to have this in perspective and not feel that we are talking about trivial risks when we ask ourselves what ought to be United Kingdom Government policy and what should Parliament be asked to approve in relation to trade with the Middle East.
On the face of it, "go bald-headed for exports" might be thought to be the policy which I and the Select Committee should be commending to this House and to the Government, if this is one of the few growth points in the world and if we are in a position where we so earnestly need to exploit our continuing and, I hope, growing capacity to export the goods and services that people want. And let me just remind the House that what I was speaking of in regard to those figures were visible exports; on top of that there are invisible exports and the Committee made some attempt to find out the value of those, but we decided that it was not possible to give an honourable figure. Also there are the balances of sterling which the Arabs keep and which in theory at any rate they could move elsewhere. There are also the commodity markets, in particular the cotton market, to which reference is made in our report, which is riddled with boycotts. Quite apart from the Arab boycott, all sorts of boycotts affect the cotton that comes into the cotton market, and supposing that legislation of this kind were on the Statute
364
Book I think the cotton market would find it difficult to know what they should do about it.
Of course none of these things is in any way conclusive because it is impossible to recommend to Her Majesty's Government that their policy should be: "Oh business, Oh Government, go bare-headed for exports into the Middle East and for nothing else". So long as the boycott continues—and let us just note that nothing except the cessation of the problems of the Middle East and a settlement in the Middle East will remove the conditions which are the reason why the boycott exists, and therefore nothing that we do should risk at any rate the making of a settlement in the Middle East less likely—there is the fact that the objective of expanding exports has to be reconciled with two other objectives. One is that we do not get involved in conflict which one side regards as warfare in the Middle East, both Israel and the Arab States being friendly countries with whom we are therefore in a relationship of friendship—and let me say neutrality in any conflict that there may be. Perhaps still more important from one point of view is that we should not find undermined our convictions of life in our United Kingdom society. I do not wish to bring the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, into this matter, but he gave valuable evidence to us. What I shall call "the Mancroft case", although it arose some time ago, is something which none of us ought to forget. It is, to my mind, unthinkable that any British Government should not regard avoidance of that kind of degradation of our civilisation as one of the objectives of policy. Therefore, instead of bare-headed, flat-out plunging for exports and thinking of nothing but how we can increase the figure of £2·7 billion or whatever it is, we and Her Majesty's Government and Parliament have to reconcile the three objectives to which I have referred. That is why this is a difficult as well as an important subject.
I do not want to take time repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, so admirably summarised from the recommendations of our report. I can only, as it were, second his plea that the Government will this afternoon go as far as they can to give us a sympathetic and a satisfactory answer to all these various recommendations. But I should like to say a

365
word about one point which is not easy to put into words. We laboured—I think with some success—to make our meaning clear in the report. It is this: I think it is the Government's policy at the moment to say—and it has been the policy, so far as I know, of all Administrations that I can remember—"We deplore the boycott. We wring our hands, but we are sorry we cannot do anything about it. Every businessman must make up his mind and get what he regards as a worthwhile return by whatever means he likes." Of course, those are not the words Her Majesty's Government use when describing the status quo, but it is a not unfair description, I think. They say, "We deplore the boycott; you go ahead and take the decisions."
In fact, you cannot in practice take those commercial decisions without doing something political. It is, if I may say so, a waste of time to tell businessmen to use their commercial judgment. That is what they are there for and that is what they should and will do. But, in so far as there is a political element in the judgments which businessmen have to make, whether or not they are trading in the Middle East, it is surely for the Government and Parliament to lay down the political context within which they quite rightly say that the businessman must be free to take his own decisions in the interests of the workers, the shareholders and the country. It is for the Government to spell out their answer to the question by saying, "We do want to reconcile, we agree with the Select Committee, we want to reconcile those three objectives." Do they accept our suggestion, illustrating what we meant, on how that spelling out could be made clearer, more honest and more effective? We do think it should be accepted by the Government—and I very much hope that we may be able to hear that this at least is acceptable—that, however free the businessman is to take his own decisions, so long as there is a boycott, there is a political element and the Government and Parliament cannot escape involvement in what happens as a result of trading in the Middle East.
Let us note that we on the Select Committee are talking only about the secondary and the tertiary boycotts. It was not our business to talk about the primary boycott. The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, spoke about the
366
work of the Economic Warfare Department, which was very much in our minds. My personal opinion is that in time of war you have to have economic warfare, and that there is nothing inherently wrong in economic warfare. But, when the rest of the world is nominally at peace, there is something very wrong in trying to involve in the conflict persons other than those taking part in that conflict when both sides are in fact friendly countries—in this case, the United Kingdom. I ask the Government whether they can agree with us that something more than just deploring the boycott is necessary.
I shall not go over the detailed suggestions that we made, but I would summarise—interpreting the Select Committee's report on behalf of the Government and Parliament—by saying that we want to encourage courage among the businessmen. We want to say, "Do not extend the work of the Damascus Boycott Office." Do not say "No, no, we had better not do that. It is not within the boycott regulations and we could do it. This is normal trade with Israel, but you never know, it may come back on us. On the whole it will be safer to have nothing to do with it, whether it is tugboats, or with small or big undertakings in Israel, because that may eventually get us on the blacklist." The committee suggest that the policy of the Government towards British businessmen should be to encourage them to be brave, ingenious and persistent.
As the report documents, there is no such thing as the Arab boycott. We use the term for short, but each Arab State interprets the Arab boycott in this way or that; we therefore have a multitude of different States with different attitudes to the boycott. Accordingly, there is a way of bringing an informal diplomatic pressure to bear which we suggest should be very much increased with individual Arab States. There should not be a great boosting: "Please do not impose these intolerable requirements." If our representatives abroad said that, it might very well provoke a protest and make matters worse rather than better. But there are informal ways by which we have no doubt we could make progress in certain Arab States in getting them to be sensible about what they ask or do not ask if they want the services or the

367
goods that the United Kingdom businessman has to offer. So encouraging courage would sum up one aspect.
As part of that effort, the more everybody knows about what is happening and what there various States are doing differently from the others the better. That is why we ask the Government if they will invite businessmen to report on a purely voluntary basis to the Department of Trade, on the understanding that the Department of Trade will keep the information strictly confidential and will pass it round, without names, so that the business community in general can become better informed about ways in which they can trade with Israel and the Arab States without getting on the black list, adding without any difficulty that £274 million to the 2·7 billion.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question to which I am sure the House will want the answer? Which of the Arab States, if any, is giving a bigger benefit to this country in regard to its trading relationship than Israel?
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, I cannot answer that question. It is a perfectly proper question, but I cannot answer it.
If encouraging courage is one aspect, then the next is to discourage discrimination. We should encourage courage through wider information about the openings, and encourage businessmen to use their ingenuity to get through the boycott or to get round or bypass the boycott. However, we must discourage discrimination. We must let the businessmen know that if they can simply avoid signing a document which is patently discriminatory against a friendly State, they should do so. If they find that they have to do so let them, if possible, find the money from their own resources and not use public funds. If a private firm were to use public funds it could be taken to involve Her Majesty's Government—indeed, all of us—in what that private firm was legally doing.
I do not want to go into this matter because it has already been referred to, but let the hands of Her Majesty's Government be as clean as possible if they are telling businessmen to do the best they can to
368
avoid signing documents that are discriminatory against a friendly State. Let us have the courage to say that for very good reasons, in our opinion we have been authenticating through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, through the apostille, these documents in which the only thing that we mean to do is simply to guarantee that the Attorney's signature is O.K. I personally would not take so cruel a line. I think that the Foreign Office and Foreign Secretaries have been doing their best to sustain what to me has become unsustainable—the view that the authentication or legalisation of boycott documents by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has nothing to do with the content and therefore can be dissociated from the process of the boycott. I do not think that it can, and I very much hope that we shall hear that that will be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
I strongly commend those parts of the recommendations which deal with the European Economic Community, which is by far the greatest of the trading partners of the Middle Eastern States both for import and export purposes. Therefore, it is in the strongest possible position to talk frankly and effectively to States which are doing something which the European Economic Community, by its very nature and philosophy, does not like—namely discriminating. The underlying doctrine of the Treaty of Rome is clearly nondiscriminatory and that is why Clauses 84 and 85 enable co-operation agreements, no distortion of competition and so on. However, the Treaty of Rome—if I may guess—was drafted without a thought about the boycott. Neither the two clauses that I have mentioned, nor any other part of it, was designed to make it easy for the Community, as such, to say to the Arabs, or to anyone else who was proceeding in this way, "Shut up, if you want to work and trade with us".
Therefore it comes down to the need. Of course, the Commission is ready to help. The Dutch, as we have been told, are thought to be ready. The French have already legislated in a rather, if I may say so, characteristic way, because by an administrative arrangement immediately after the legislation they seem at any rate to have invalidated what they set out to do. However, they are members of the Community and anything that was said may not fall on deaf ears.

369
I have great sympathy—more, I think, than the noble Lord, Lord Byers—with any Foreign Secretary who is asked to stand up and be counted for the first time by saying, "Those Arabs must be bust and the Community must unite to have a new consensus of an anti-boycotting nature". But surely when we talk about an initiative it can involve all sorts of informal diplomatic matters. However, it is important that a consensus should be developed within the Community which will enable the Community to exploit its position of strength in doing its best to get the Middle Eastern world clear of at least the secondary and tertiary boycotts.
I was particularly glad that we were able to produce a nearly unanimous report. I was particularly grateful for what, in my own mind and dreams, I thought of as Scylla sitting on one side and Charybdis on the other, because I felt that fisticuffs might be the outcome, but there was nothing of the kind. I shall not say who, in my dreams, played either of those parts. However, the report was unanimous. It recommended that the Bill should not proceed, but it spelled out various matters which it thought were a better way of proceeding than legislation; and I think that it ought to be one of our rules always to avoid legislation. In this case in particular it would, on the face of it, be totally unworkable because 90 per cent. of the business evidence before us was dead against it and thought that legislation was wrong. Partly for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, mentioned about feelings in the United States, and partly for other reasons, I think that the committee was right to make it plain that it thought something needed to be done now and that if the measures that it suggested or other measures were not found successful in getting the reconciliation right between the promotion of exports, the avoidance of involvement in conflict in the Middle East, and above all avoidance of having one citizen set against another on the ground of his ethnic, racial or other character, then we should have to think of legislation.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, sits down I should like to ask him a question. Surely what has been said today by the noble Lord, Lord Byers,
370
is the most important thing that we have heard for years? A small number of us went to see Mr. Edmund Dell when he was Minister in the Board of Trade—or whatever its then name was—to ask about this matter. The Government have not only been tepid: they have been absolutely inactive. The importance of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is that if other Governments can take action surely we also can take action; but we have not taken any action up until now.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, I think that no action could be taken by me.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I, too, should like to ask a question. As we deliberately chose to play no part whatsoever in the negotiations which led to the drafting of the Treaty of Rome, is it not very difficult for us now to exercise great influence to get it substantially modified? We would not take part in the negotiations—indeed, we did not take part.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to say that what the committee had in mind and what I was advocating requires no amendment of the Treaty. It is simply action to be taken by consensus within the Council of Ministers. in due course amendments may be needed, but we were not suggesting an amendment to the Constitution. I was merely referring to the fact that as it stands the Constitution does not deliberately set out to make anti-boycott easy.
5.10 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for initiating this debate which gives those of us who had the honour and privilege of serving under the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, on the Select Committee an opportunity to pinpoint one or two aspects of our report. The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has mentioned that we took a great deal of evidence. We did indeed. As he has already said, it is quite fair to say that a great deal of it was on one side, whereas we did not take quite as much evidence as we should have liked from the Arab countries. However, that is a matter for them; they were invited but they did not come along.

371
One must accept that in war, or in warlike circumstances, an economic boycott of one side against the other or against each other is understood and acceptable. A country at war does not normally trade with its enemies. But what is wrong about this particular boycott is that it involves third countries whose only desire is to be friendly with both and to trade with both, and who should not be subjected to blackmail such as the boycott which we are experiencing involves.
Therefore, we should consider how best to assist British companies to trade with whom they wish and to combat the Arab boycott; to trade with Israel or to trade with any Arab country. It ought to be mentioned here—and mentioned quite fairly—that it is not every Arab country which uses a boycott. In some cases there is no such boycott. There are many instances of British companies trading freely both with Arab countries and with Israel. I think that that should be stated.
According to the Arab theory, their object in blacklisting is to prevent any British or American exporter—any of the third countries—from aiding the Israeli economy, not necessarily the war effort. Under that heading one could put almost anything that is exported, because obviously Israel would not wish to import if it did not help her in some way or another. So considerable difficulties arise and it is clearly difficult to understand the Arab reasoning behind the blacklisting of some exports. If there had been a black listing of guns or warlike materials, one could perhaps understand it. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, pointed out, in the questionnaire that has to be completed the questions are manifold and go into a great deal of detail about what actually is being imported into an Arab country.
I regret it, but our Government's attitude seems to be to "deplore" the boycott. However, they do very little about protecting British companies and they leave it to British companies to decide on any anti-boycott action which they think they can take or should take in their own business interests. Simply to "deplore" and to do nothing is not enough, because, as has already been said, France, Holland, the United States, to some extent Germany, Canada and many other countries do something, although
372
not necessarily the same thing. Now, of course, the United States has anti-boycott legislation. When the Select Committee considered the situation, the American legislation was very current and it was too soon to assess its effect upon American exports to Arab countries. However, I have since learned—as I think have many others—that there has been practically no loss of trade whatever as a result of the American legislation.
If legislation would help to combat the boycott—and I think it does—I would support it. But, short of that, there are actions which the British Government could take. I do not anticipate that tonight we shall be told from the Front Bench that the Government have legislation in mind. Therefore, perhaps the Minister will reply to the issues that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Redcliffe-Maud and Lord Byers.
The position in Arab countries differs from one to another. But surely our consular posts in each Arab country which applies some sort of boycott would be in a position to provide first-hand information for British exporters. In fairness, one or two of our posts overseas do that, but certainly not all. The Department of Trade could make available much more advice to British exporters than it does, although it does make some advice available, and it could assist those companies which want to, to complete the questionnaire which in itself is a threat of blacklisting to exporters. If a company feels that it is being unfairly blacklisted, should not the Department of Trade or the Foreign Office—perhaps quite informally—advise that company and tell it in what way other companies are able to avoid the boycott and so import their goods into Arab countries.
Like other speakers, I am sure that not only is the authentication of the negative certificates of origin a mistake, but it is somewhat objectionable that a British Government would be prepared to authenticate the signature on a certificate, the documents of which make it clear that the goods, or any part of the goods, did not originate in Israel. That is a negative certificate. I found that evidence given by the Foreign Office on this question of authenticating the signature most unsatisfactory. I hope that I am not exaggerating, but it almost seemed that they rubber-stamped and authenticated

373
everything that came in front of them. In fact, they said in evidence that it would be extremely difficult to sift out negative certificates from positive certificates. In my view that is a grave admission of a weakness in the Foreign Office which could be put right. If they are only legalising the actual signature on a document, I am sure that the Arabs are of the opinion that the attached documents—with the British Government's signature and a stamp on them—mean that in some way or another the British Government approve the negative certificates. I regret to say that but, it seems very much the case.
There is a deep feeling among our European partners that the Arab boycott is damaging to trade and quite unfair between the EEC members and, of course, the exporters of those countries. In our short visit to Brussels, which lasted two days, apart from the discussions around the table, it was made very clear from talking to officials that many of the European countries wish something to be done. Everyone wanted something to be done, and the official view was that unless it appeared on the agenda of the Council of Ministers, nothing very much would be likely to happen. Is it too much to ask that our Foreign Secretary should take the initiative? Whatever may be the outcome—it may fall flat on its face—could he not ensure that the question of the Arab boycott of Israel is put on the agenda of the Council of Ministers? If we get as far as that, then something worth while will have been achieved.
I do not want to go on, particularly in view of yesterday's debate about the length of speeches. Of course the best solution to the whole of the Arab boycott problem would be peace in the Middle East. However, I do not think that a little Government help along the lines I and others have suggested would imperil any peaceful activity being undertaken by our country, or America, or anyone else. On the contrary, it might help. It would certainly help those British companies whose sole desire is to export to any country in the world, and especially to the Arab countries and to Israel.
5.21 p.m.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, I often ask myself why, when someone mentions
374
the words Arab and Jew in the same breath, I get a feeling of, "Hush, hush, whisper who dares." The word "prejudice" springs immediately to the forefront of my mind. I submit that often in these affairs the word "prejudice" is particularly important, for in events and matters such as this undoubtedly there are two sides on both extremes, both of whom feel prejudice, and often one forgets to realise that there are many people in the middle who share no prejudice at all. That in general, I submit, is the view of the bulk of the United Kingdom. None of us, as has been apparent, supports a boycott on moral grounds. We are worried too over the impact of a boycott on the whole question of morality. Boycotts, however well organised or badly organised, are seldom, if ever, fairly applied. So something that lacks morality and is unfair should be opposed and condemned. I believe that that is the general attitude of successive Governments to all matters of boycott. This indeed is my own attitude.
Although I speak today with absolutely no prejudice, I have two interests that I should perhaps declare. I am a banker, and my bank is a member of the British Bankers Association, and the evidence we have submitted, really in good faith, leads us to believe that any form of action could be detrimental to our interests. I am also currently one of the deputy chairman of COMET (the Committee of Middle East Trade), which is the area advisory board of the BOTB. I should like to express the regrets of the chairman, my noble friend Lord Limerick, that he is unfortunately abroad today. The Committee of Middle East Trade also supports the idea of no action. While accepting many of the recommendations of the Boycott Committee, it would in the interest of trade, not willingly accept those that suggest any particular action. Thus it is a question of, if possible, "cool it", because if action is taken there is little chance that it could have any positive effect either on trade or on the strength or status of the United Kingdom, and it could be detrimental.
If the noble Lord, Lord Redclifle-Maud, will permit me, I wish to up-date some of the figures he has given today. Regrettably we must look at trade. We must look at visible trade; we must look at the

375
balance of payments, because our whole economy and lifeblood depend on it. It is often unfortunate that in many areas, particularly those where the boycott is applied, our exports should be of such great importance to us. We are, if I dare suggest it, in very dire straits indeed so far as our visible exports are concerned at the moment. Hidden underneath the effect of our North Sea oil is a worsening and dreadful trend on the visible front. Your Lordships will recall that probably only once in 60 years have we had a surplus on visible trade, and last year we had a deficit of £1.1 billion. That deficit, if we did not take into account oil, would have been even greater. Equally the policies of the current Government do not make it particularly conducive in the current climate for exports to increase, or for exporters to have any real confidence. Thus any market which takes large quantities of British goods, particularly visible goods which produce a large amount of employment at home, must be treated seriously not only in terms of what it represents today but in terms of the trend.
I am fortunate to have the export figures for last year. I am sure your Lordships will be pleased to note that for the first time we have shown a substantial surplus in our trade with the Arab world. The overall figure shows a surplus of something of the order of £463 million; a swing of almost £500 million since the 1977 position. More than that, in some areas we have seen a decline in imports, in particular from Saudi Arabia. The Arab world today accounts for 9 per cent. of the total exports of the United Kingdom; the Middle East as a whole something over 10 per cent. In looking at it we must also consider the growth that we may expect. Last year trade with the Arab world rose by something of the order of 14 per cent.; substantially higher than the national average. Trade with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and countries of that sort, often showed increases of over 30 per cent., or nearly 40 per cent. Even Iraq showed an increase of 29 per cent. There were decreases, it is true, in the lower Gulf, but the general trend is likely to be upwards.
If we consider the other alternatives around the world for our trade, the picture is not particularly bright. There is the situation in Iran, one of our biggest
376
markets, which has seen something around £700 million of United Kingdom exports last year. That situation is serious. We heard on the news yesterday of the cancellation of an order of £1,000 million worth of defence equipment. That market must be replaced somewhere. If I dare mention another market that causes me personal concern, because I wonder whether we might take action against that at some time or another, it is South Africa, which receives £650 million of British exports. All in all, I am not speaking for a hard line on trade before everything, but pointing out the importance of trade to us, and the essential importance of ensuring that our existing markets are not prejudiced in any way.
Figures have been quoted about trade with Israel. All of us would like to see an increase in trade with all countries of the world. Trade with Israel fell last year from £273 million to something around £243 million. Whether that fall, or how much of that fall, was due to the effect of the Arab boycott, I do not know. But one looks at the quality of that trade as well and realises that some £114 million in 1977, and I would estimate something over £100 million in 1978, was in the export of diamonds—effectively the re-export of diamonds. In terms of actual visible trade of manufacturers from the United Kingdom the figure was fairly small but very significant.
I can reply to a question raised just now as to how Israel compares with the individual Arab territories. The figure for Kuwait was £332 million; Saudi Arabia £786 million; Iraq £215 million; Bahrain £119 million; Dubai £273 million; the major markets in Egypt something over £200 million. These figures are quite important, but it is not the presentation of these figures that takes one away from the moral issues of a boycott. I believe as a banker, trader, and someone involved in that part of the world that it would be wrong to have any form of legislation, or any action as proposed by the Select Committee.
I think that the report itself has done a lot of good. It is quite a remarkable report not only in its content but in the way in which it is impartially presented, and with utter fairness. This report itself can do a lot of good for the British cause. I should like to feel that we might hint

377
to people that we would contemplate taking action, and leave some form of Sword of Damocles hanging over them. But to say that legislation should take place because the United States has done it, or the Canadians have done it, or because the French, with their peculiar legal system have done it, is totally wrong. From an American point of view I am not in any way denigrating the United Kingdom, but it would be wrong to assume that we could expect to exert the same influence over the Arab world as does the United States. Equally it would be wrong to assume that the importance of Arab world trade to the United States is as great as it is to ourselves. I believe that in the first nine months of 1978 trade from America with the Arab world increased in dollar terms by 14 per cent. United Kingdom trade increased in dollar terms by 28 per cent. with the boycotting countries, so there is an upward trend.
None of this detracts from the morality of the whole issue, but regrettably emotion is at stake. All the countries of the Mildde East and all those nearer the Equator always show a much greater feeling of emotion and sensitivity than those of the cold-blooded North. Often there is misinterpretation of action—sometimes deliberate, sometimes totally accidental—and there is a herd like instinct that grows with people following something not knowing why they are following it.
At present we have a situation in Iraq, historically an old friend of the United Kingdom, now regarded, as somebody commented today, as a hard-line Arab country; a Socialist country, but one which at the moment—since the issue of the report; I think since 13th August of last year has imposed a boycott on all United Kingdom trade. That boycott had nothing to do with the boycott in Damascus. The boycott was imposed by the Iraqis, I would say, because of a misunderstanding of the attitude of the United Kingdom Government and because of what someone might have called "little local difficulties" here, but effectively the terrorist situation.
Out method of law and fairness, which is absolutely correct and right, conflicts with their attitudes and opinions, yet we have an impasse, an impasse between two countries both of whom would like
378
to trade again. We have a delicate political issue to be overcome and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, can tell us what action Her Majesty's Government might be taking now vis-à-vis Iraq and can assure us that steps are being taken to obtain the release of people held in prison there and to encourage the recommencement of trade; because the increase I mentioned—of 29 per cent. last year—will undoubtedly fall away if no orders are placed, and orders are still at risk.
We must also consider the fact that regrettably our competitors—competing nations and companies—are not always themselves fair. Many of them take a hidden delight in the discomfort of companies on the boycott and may, unwittingly or perhaps wittingly, try to encourage the maintenance of that boycott, often when individual countries would wish to remove it. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, pointed out, the differing attitudes between the differing countries. If we see a peace signed between Israel and Egypt, part of the conditions are immediately the removal of the boycott. What encourages me is that at present there are innumerable individuals and enterpreneurs who are beginning to plan for peace in the Middle East. If there is peace, the growth in trade will go ahead at an even greater rate than it has while a state of war has existed.
I appreciate that it is hard for us, a nation with the history and background we have, to condone non-action on an issue of this sort, but that is the "action" I would recommend and wholeheartedly support. While I appreciate the enthusiasm of those who would like to encourage legislation and who believe it could have some effect, I would ask them to steer a happy course between what one might describe as the optimism of enthusiasm and the pessimism of intelligence.
5.35 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to the speeches that have been made and I wish at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for the remarkable presentation he made. I felt the same about the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, and others who have

379
spoken, but I cannot say the same about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. Of course, I anticipated his speech, having followed very carefully the proceedings which were taking place and having full information in regard to the evidence that was given. I wish particularly to thank the noble Lord who chaired the committee for the tremendously important work he did, for steering it the way he did and for spending so much time investigating the position, and I extend the same compliments to the members of the committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, touched on what to me and to every civilised person is something which he should consider to be against the sideline in which his particular interest is involved. I have no financial interest in this, though I need not tell your Lordships that I have, and have had for the last 50 years, a very keen interest in Israel, an interest which I have expressed in this House and elsewhere. My honest view is that Israel exists for the benefit of the whole world and that any action taken against Israel detracts from the importance of a State which has done no harm to anybody, which has been attacked by its enemies and the existence of which, if we are to maintain civilisation, is essential. In other words, if it were not for Israel being what it is, we should have to create something in the Middle East to deal with the principles about which the noble Lord spoke when he began, because the moral situation is extremely important in this whole matter.
Noble Lords who wish to participate in this debate are obviously wondering what they could say that has not already been said by Lord Byers and others. Not knowing where we would come in the order of speakers, we have tried to imagine what we could contribute to a debate of this kind. The subject under discussion goes far beyond this attack on Israel. The boycott was commenced years ago with a view to preventing the recreation of the State of Israel, which is the only democratic State in the Middle East. How dare we expose a State of this description to destruction, to condone an action which was designed to destroy it even before its existence! We must consider this vicious boycott as a move designed to wreck trade relations between
380
countries and those with whom they arc living in friendship and peace. I would tell Lord Selsdon with respect that it is the duty of the banks and the organisations with which he is concerned to take part in this tremendously important object.
The use of blackmail, to which I have referred on a number of occasions, and to which I still refer as "blackmoil", is now an attempt to ruin economically and so destroy a State which some country desires to destroy for its own evil ends. If this is allowed to prevail, a strong step will be taken against civilisation as we understand it. Any country, no matter how insignificant, if it has the fortune to acquire from natural resources a bountiful supply of a raw material essential to the economy, or, perhaps even worse, the health of other human beings in any part of the world, can, if there is the idea that it is expedient from a profit-making point of view to succumb to the blackmail, deprive the rest of humanity of that material.
I am not just speaking without facts, and I should like to give a simple illustration of the position where "black-moilers" have already used their pressure, even to the extent of preventing such a vital commodity as breathing aids to reach Israel. What a cry there has been, and is, in our own country today, that no steps should be taken to deprive anyone at all of medical assistance or anything of that nature. Here is a case which I shall quote to the House. I refer to one of the Chubb companies, which puts forward a plea that its breathing aid was an important asset in relieving the difficulties of sufferers. I have no doubt as to what would be the reaction of any citizen of any country to a threat to be deprived of such a help. This is a factual position in which a company is succumbing to this blackmail.
No one here doubts what my view is with regard to Israel. I do not think that anyone in this House, or in the other House, or indeed in the country has any doubt about this. What a despicable action, or appreciation, the boycott is for the vast help which the Arab world, no doubt including Arab bankers, among them those from the boycotting countries, get from Israel.

381
Certainly since 1937, but even before, it has been an open secret that thousands of Arabs, nationals of States at war with Israel, have nevertheless flocked to the Jewish State to receive high-level medical treatment and advice which is lacking in their own lands. They have joined other thousands from among the territories under Israel's control in benefiting from this humanitarian service, and have done so over the "open bridges" across the Jordan river. This is another constant reminder of Israel's readiness to trade and to conduct relations with her neighbours, whose response, as we have heard today, has been both to reject such overtures and, at the same time, to prevent other countries and peoples from contact with Israel.
With the greatest respect, what right have any, including the bankers, to brush aside this kind of thing for a temporary purpose? It is a temporary purpose, and I shall come to that in a moment or two. I hope that the House will forgive me for taking some little time on this matter, but I feel it deeply at heart. What right has anyone to interfere with this kind of action on the part of Israel? How narrow-minded and self-defeating such a boycott policy becomes, especially when the side employing the boycott is aware of the tremendous benefits which Israel has brought, and can bring, to its own nationals.
The logical direction of such an uninhibited and unrestrained Arab boycott would be not only to deny themselves—and that is surely their loss—but also to deny to us and to other enlightened countries not only Israeli products and services but the discoveries of Jewish scientists, such as Salk and Sabin, who have saved the world from the scourge of polio. This is merely one brief example.
One major interest of the Western world, we are told, remains the theme of Christian pilgrimages to the Holy Land, sacred to the three great monotheistic religions. The Arab boycott has sought, and still seeks, to prevent visits to Israel and its environment in which so many holy sites are to be found, purely on the grounds that all support for Israel must be denied, regardless of the motives behind it.
I have spoken on many previous occasions, and I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but
382
I feel strongly on this matter, as I am sure do other people who have also watched the situation from the beginning of the State of Israel, and even before then. Such people must be fully with me at present in what I am saying.
The nations of the world are successfully obtaining supplies of oil in their territories and territorial waters. These supplies are expanding daily, and it will probably not be very long before there will be sufficient oil and other forms of energy to meet the needs of the world. With the greatest of respect, I would commend this point to the noble Lord who has just spoken, in an endeavour to show him that he is on the wrong track from the point of view of assisting financial benefits to this or any other country. As I have said, these supplies are expanding daily, and it will probably not be very long before there will be sufficient oil and other forms of energy to meet the needs of the world. Everybody should then be in a position to overcome in no small measure any temporary loss of profits ensuing from their defiance of the wreckers of decent international trade relationships.
I should also like to raise the question whether it would be fair not to protect ourselves from this menace. After all, for many years Israel was a good and welcome customer for our products, and is better in regard to the balance of trade today than all but one Arab country, Saudi Arabia; and certainly no step which throws a spanner into the machine of international trade relationships and good will should be encouraged by any action of ours as against Israel or any similar nation with whom we have, and have had, good relationships.
I must confess that I was disappointed—and I am sure that the noble Lord, for whom I have the highest regard, will understand my fears in the directions to which I am going to refer for a few minutes—that the Select Committee examining the Foreign Boycotts Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, did not see fit to recommend that the Bill become law, despite the fact that during their several weeks of painstaking work they heard a considerable amount of evidence indicating the widespread nature of the boycott in this country and its damaging effect on British trade. Indeed, the last figures for the

383
trade between Britain and Israel showed that we increased our imports from Israel in 1978 by 18 per cent. to £189 million. As a whole, I strongly support of course that we must at once take the steps which have been proposed by the Select Committee. Our exports to Israel fell by an alarming 11 per cent. to £243 million.
Much of the blame for this loss of business can be laid at the door of the boycott and the increasing uncertainty, and even fear, that it engenders among British businessmen who are interested in trade, not politics. The committee decided, in its wisdom, that the actual loss of trade caused by British firms accepting the dictates of the Arab Boycott Office in Damascus was less than the potential loss in trade with Arab countries if Britain introduced anti-boycott legislation. I believe that this was a wrong decision, on many grounds—moral, certainly; economic, also—and can only open the door to even more pressure on British firms, not only by Arab countries but also by any other overseas country which may want to exert political pressure on us in the future by the use of such threats.
Leaving aside for one moment the moral aspect, which I believe is a most important one, let us examine briefly the situation in America. It is no good brushing America aside and saying, as the noble Lord did a moment or two ago, "We are different from America. America can afford to be decent; we cannot. America can afford to have legislation on actions against Israel; we cannot afford to have such legislation". I want to refer to the American situation because it is important from the point of view of the whole subject being properly discussed. There, your Lordships may recall, legislation has been introduced despite open threats from the Arabs that such a move would have dire consequences for trade between America and the Arab world. What has happened since the legislation was introduced? May I first of all quote what was said in November by Mrs. Juanita Kreps, the American Secretary of Commerce? She recalled those predictions and then added:
"I am happy to report that exports to Arab countries are up by 12 per cent.".
I should now like to refer to a speech made by Stanley Marcus, who is senior Deputy Assistant Secretary for Industry and Trade at the American Commerce
384
Department and the man responsible for anti-boycott enforcement. Addressing the International Trade Club in Chicago last March, he said that since the legislation was introduced:
"boycotting countries have shown both a willingness and an ability to make adjustments in their general boycott practices. Apparently there is a growing tendency on their part to view the US anti-boycott law as a legitimate attempt by us to protect our own sovereignty and to prevent American companies from engaging in anticompetitive behaviour".
My Lords, I sincerely wish that the Select Committee Report had resulted in our Government adopting a similarly tough line. Had they done so, I am convinced that the Arabs who do business with us would have adapted themselves, as they are doing in America, and would have continued to engage in two-way trade with us.
As my noble friend Lord Fisher of Camden and I explained in a statement submitted to the Select Committee, which your Lordships will find on page 108 of the report, we shall not be happy until legislation of some sort is introduced. In the meantime, however, as the next best step, I want to urge the Government as forcefully as I can to adopt all the measures recommended by the Select Committee. These recommendations, while stopping short of legislation, would, if implemented, in my view go some way towards curbing boycott practices and would, in addition, show to the Arabs and to the bewildered British businessmen that we are sick and tired of being told by firms in other countries whether we can trade with them.
At present, the British businessman seeking advice and guidance from the Department of Trade about the vagaries and complexities of the Arab boycott is left in the end to his own devices, the line being taken that he must decide on the basis of his own commercial judgment whether or not to bow to the demands of the Arab Boycott Office. In my view, this is simply not good enough. Therefore, I wholeheartedly endorse the recommendation of the Select Committee that Her Majesty's Government show
"a more positive attitude of resistance to the secondary and tertiary boycotts. Her Majesty's Government should show that their statements deploring the boycott mean what they say".
I am also glad that the committee recommend Her Majesty's Government to
"undertake an initiative in the European Council to develop a common fundamental policy of non-discrimination".

385
I sincerely believe that such an initiative on Britain's part would elicit a favourable response among many of our European partners, some of whom are already taking legislative actions against the boycott. Here is a chance for our own country to show a lead and to unite Western Europe in a common front against the insidious practices of the Arab boycott.
Before concluding—and I apologise to the House for the need to take a little more time, but I feel strongly on this matter, as noble Lords will understand— there is another aspect of this question to which I should like to refer. Soon, I say hopefully, Egypt and Israel will sign a peace agreement, that will have far-reaching implications for the whole area. I believe that such an agreement will be of enormous benefit to the sorely strained economies of both countries. Not only will they be able to trade with each other—and, as immediate neighbours, that is only logical and sensible—but also it will encourage overseas companies to invest there in a far bigger scale than ever before. To show their opposition to such an agreement, some of the hard-line Arab States will no doubt attempt to intensify the boycott and if we in Britain do nothing it will strengthen those forces which want to prevent peace from coming to the area. We should be, by implication, siding with them, even though the often-stated policy of our Government is a peace agreement based on the terms agreed at Camp David.
My Lords, I have outlined some of the reasons why I agree that Britain should introduce anti-boycott legislation. As that is apparently not to be, at least for some time, I can only again endorse the recommendations of the Select Committee and urge Her Majesty's Government speedily and unequivocally to accept them and to implement them. If they do not have the desired effect of eliminating the boycott in this country, then I agree with the Select Committee that we shall have to consider again the question of legislation.
6.2 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with me when I say how glad I am to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, has been able to break her painfully-
386
enforced silence over the last 11 months to take part in the debate this evening— and to take part in it so very effectively. In this debate, based on so excellent a report, there is very little left to say that has not already been said a great deal more effectively than I can say it. In the spirit of yesterday's debate which, unfortunately, I did not attend, I should be inclined to sit down now, but I want to take up two points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who is not in his place. The first point that he made was that any action to be taken by Her Majesty's Government would be detrimental to our very real and considerable economic interests with Arab countries. We are not, apparently, going to legislate, and I, for one, tend to share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that maybe it would have been a good thing to have taken the bull by the horns and to have had legislation. But I am not pressing that point of view, for it has already been decided that that is not going to be the line of action.
This leaves to Her Majesty's Government a wide range of action that they could take and it is clear that that action will be taken having regard to the very real interests to which the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon has referred. But what we are seeking—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, would not be able to prove his case against this—is that, having regard to those interests (and their importance is accepted) there is a wide range of things that the Government could do. They could start by ceasing to sweep this matter under the carpet. That, to a large extent, is what has been going on. They could limit themselves to providing much clearer information to the considerable number of people, who, we are informed, do not know what the pressure of the boycott is, what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. I find it impossible to believe that the mere provision of information is going to stop the Arab countries ordering new docks from this country. One's imagination baulks at the idea. That is the least that could be done; but even that would be something.
Then the Government could move on to stronger action in the diplomatic field. That, again, is surely something which could be handled with the diplomatic skill that this country has in a way which

387
could bring about results without really putting our economic interests at very great risk. Having no direct economic interests in the Middle East, it is, perhaps, easy for me to say that and, therefore, I say it hesitantly. However, where there is a strong moral case, as in connection with the secondary and tertiary boycotts— and one accepts that the primary boycott is a matter which continues with the cold war which exists in reality between the Arab countries and Israel—some risk, at least, on the economic front is not too much to undertake in this regard. I would underline here the element of hypocrisy which creeps in when, quite properly, we push our own policies of non-discrimination with regard to ethnic minorities in this country, while being so very hesitant to take action in this case where there are overtones of racialism —even if the boycott is not basically racialist in character but more in the nature of a military activity. Surely, from the wide range of possible action that is open to Her Majesty's Government they can find some alternative to the existing inaction which has characterised their attitude towards the boycott up to the present time.
The second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, was that, unlike the Americans, any action we took would be ineffective because, in comparison with the United States, we are not in a strong power position in relation to the Arab countries. Because of the greater strength of the Americans, in his view, they were able to take much stronger action than we in this debate are advocating. Of course, it is true that the Americans are in a position to bring greater pressure to bear on the Arab States than we in this country, by ourselves, are able to do. But here, surely, as other noble Lords have said—and this I underline particularly—is a case for the European Community countries to stand together. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, is very much in favour of both formal and informal action in foreign affairs and affairs of this kind being taken, wherever possible, in conjunction with our partners in the EEC.
If we want to be in a position to exercise real influence with the Arab countries in regard to the boycott, surely this is a prime case for acting together
388
inside the Community. Is it too much to ask that this should be considered as an item for the agenda not just of the Council of Ministers, but of the European Council when the Prime Ministers get together? They have many ways of communicating with each other on matters of this sort and if we take the initiative and it is made clear that we believe action should be taken on this front, then surely we can act together. Once we act together, any argument that our power base is inadequate falls to the ground. The influence of the Community countries is surely every bit as great as the influence of the United States.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I shall be brief. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in this extremely interesting debate which he has inaugurated. I should like to congratulate him and say that the work and support he gives to Anglo-Israeli relations, and to those subjects which come before us, is splendid and I should like to support him in all he does in this matter. I should also like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith. It is a very long time since we heard her voice and it was an enormous pleasure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, to hear her make such an excellent speech on this occasion.
I am no expert on the subject of boycotting, but I am deeply concerned about all forms of discrimination against race, colour, religion or politics. I condemn this kind of policy. In this country, where we spend so much time in Parliament, both in this House and in another place, passing legislation to prevent discrimination, this is one of the occasions when we can stand up and be counted because all of us feel strongly that this is discrimination and we do not like it. I suppose that it is quite unnecessary for me to say that of all the races in the world who have suffered from discrimination and persecution, none has suffered more than the great race of the Jews. We are always bitterly opposed to this in this country and we stand up for their rights and freedom.
There are occasions when discrimination amounts to blackmail. I certainly believe

389
that the only way one can deal with blackmail is to fight it. One does not deal with it by giving in to it. There are one or two facts connected with Israel which I have always felt militated very much against their powers in the world at large. I can well remember when I was a delegate to the United Nations, and we used to have discussions and debates, there were always 14 or 15 sometimes more—Arab States and supporters all on one side. When it came to putting the Israeli case, there was just one ambassador, one person from Israel, standing up for the State of Israel. That is unfortunately something that we cannot escape. It happens all the time. I imagine that when there is a conference in this country, in the Foreign Office for instance, one gets 14 or 15 ambassadors all backing one line and only one ambassador speaking up for Israel. So they are permanently at a disadvantage. We are deeply concerned that there should be fair play for all countries and that we should do our very best to counter this imbalance in every way that we can.
I read the report -not I am afraid from beginning to end, but the first part of it— with enormous interest. Obviously, there is a large proportion of business interests in this country who are not in favour of the Bill. Nevertheless, many British companies do trade with both the Arab States and Israel and this should be encouraged. I like the slogan which the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, gave us: "Encourage courage". That is something we can all adopt. Any attempt by Arab interests to prevent this should be resisted.
Noble Lords have spoken in the debate about the relationship on a trading and commercial basis between the Arab States and Israel, and it is perfectly true of course that this is internationally almost negligible. Before Christmas, I—as other noble Lords or their wives may have done—went into one of the big Marks and Spencer stores at Marble Arch. It was packed with people of every nationality and colour. There were hundreds and thousands of Arab women buying in Marks and Spencer at Marble Arch. I am perfectly certain that they did it in many other stores of that company. It is possible for there to be a breakdown of antagonism between the Jew and the Arab when it comes to practical things. Certainly in shopping and that type of situation there is no doubt at all that the Arabs are just as keen to take
390
advantage of the brilliance and excellence of Jewish commercial people as anybody else. This type of experience of watching on those occasions supports the second request of the Select Committee in paragraph 98 that the United Kingdom should retain her friendly relations with both Israel and the Arab States. I am sure it can be done.
The fourth point —that the British policy of non-discrimination between the people of the United Kingdom and any other race of any description in this country should be observed—is another of the recommendations which I strongly support. It is absolutely essential that any demonstrations in the United Kingdom, whether political or commercial, shall not be allowed if they are demonstrations against another race and, in particular, against the Jewish race. Here again, the courage that is being recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, comes in. We must bring discrimination of any kind within our Race Relations Act and not allow anyone to get away with discrimination as between the Arab or the Jew, whether or not it be commercial.
We are not to have the Foreign Boycotts Bill. Trading between British companies and Israel and British companies and the Arab States must be conducted on commercial grounds and not on a political basis. That is the message of the report. Listening to all the other speakers who know much more about commerce than I do, I feel that it can be done if we have one or two courageous actions by the present Government. I should like very strongly to support those noble Lords who have suggested that the subject of the boycott should be raised by our own Government in the EEC, where I am quite sure it will be favourably received. After all, there is a great group of European States learning to work together and working together, and all those States were involved in the Second World War. All are aware of—and, alas, some took part in—the agonies which the Jewish race went through. Therefore, it must still be in the minds of European statesmen.
I do not think that there is any influential forum where this matter could be discussed with more feeling and more understanding than the European Community. So I very strongly support the

391
proposal which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that Her Majesty's Government, among the many recommendations that people have been urging upon them—all of which I support —should be urged to take the advice of the Redcliffe-Maud Committee and heed the words of noble Lords here. At the first opportunity, they should get the Common Market, the European Council, to discuss this very important subject.
My Lords, I shall say no more because I agree with all that has been said. I urge Her Majesty's Government not to miss this opportunity of doing something practical on a subject which has been going on for a very long time.
6.20 p.m.
Lord MCCARTHY: My Lords, may I start by joining those who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for inaugurating this debate and indeed for inaugurating this subject and the committee which considered it. I should like also at this time to pay a tribute to the work which he did on that committee, which I think the chairman would agree was second only to his own. My problem is that I appear here as one of a minority of two—and the other has unaccountably disappeared. I was one who, with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, voted against paragraphs 112 and 121(7). I do not know whether that makes me a substitute Scylla or a deputy Charybdis; but since he is not here I have to do the best I can.
I want to explain very briefly why we felt we had to disagree to those paragraphs. I should say it is not because I, for one, disagreed with the mainstream of the argument in the report. In paragraph 98 the committee says that our policy should be basically decided by four things: first, we should do nothing to impede the negotiation of a settlement in the Middle East; secondly, we must maintain friendly relations with both the Arabs and Israel; thirdly, the right conditions must be provided for the United Kingdom to increase our exports world-wide and especially in the Middle East; and, fourthly, British policy of nondiscrimination within the United Kingdom between peoples of different races, reli-
392
gions and ethnic origins should not be undermined by the policies of foreign Governments.
The problem was that the more one considered them the more it appeared, at least to me, that three of those considerations, though very important, did not actually help one to decide in precise terms what to do about the Foreign Boycotts Bill and what to say if one did not want to proceed with it. We say in paragraph 99 that so far as we can see, so far as No. 1 is concerned, the Middle East settlement, the passage of the Foreign Boycotts Bill or any substitute measures we might suggest are very unlikely to have much effect on the likelihood of a Middle Eact settlement one way or the other. We say in paragraph 100 that, while the carrying of the Bill into an Act would almost certainly annoy our Arab friends, to do nothing about it would almost certainly irritate our Israeli friends; so that does not get us very far. We say, I think, in paragraph 116, that if it is the case—and we do not know whether it is or not—that the present Race Relations Act would not deal with an incident such as the Mancroft incident, then it jolly well ought to do so; but since we do not know whether it does or not, and since no incident has been reported to us at this time, that does not help us very much to deal with the Foreign Boycotts Bill.
I think the committee had to consider this issue essentially on criterion No. 3:
"The right conditions should be provided for the United Kingdom to increase her exports world-wide, and especially in the valuable markets in the Middle East".
That was really what it came down to; and the first point to make about that is that the major damage of the boycott has probably been done already. It has been done because of the many hundreds of British firms who grossly exaggerate the consequences of the boycott.
The fact is that the boycott intends to classify firms into three groups. There are those who have no trade involvement at all with Israel and are not affected by the boycott. There are those who have a fairly specific minimum level of involvement with Israel and should not be affected by the boycott; and there are those who have a fairly extensive involvement with Israel which is actually prescribed. I would suggest that the great majority of

393
firms do not export war material to Israel; they do not have factories or plants in Israel; they do not sell patents or technnical help to Israel; they do not invest in Israeli companies; they do not have their main company office for the Middle East in Israel—they would be very foolish if they did—and, whether in fact this is a good thing or a bad thing, they do not have prominent Zionists on their boards.
Essentially, that is the degree of involvement at the point at which the boycott operates and the important thing for the Government to do is to make that as clear as possible to every British firm which remotely considers the possibility of exporting goods to Israel. I think the committee came to the conclusion that it is by no means clear now, and that the efforts which the foreign Office make to help people to pass their forms through the Foreign Office sifting machine do not begin to deal with the problem. That is the central matter about which I think the Government ought to give us an undertaking today.
If we take the view—and I think it was the view of the Committee—that help and encouragement of this kind is thought to be of more assistance at this time than the passage of the Foreign Boycotts Bill, of course it will be said; "What about the United States?" The difference between our situation and that of the United States has also been stated most clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. I would add one other point. If you look at paragraph 74, you will see that we spell-out what the exceptions are in the legislation of the United States: they are quite considerable. I would suggest that the Boycotts Bill we are being asked to pass does not have those exceptions in it. It may be because of the exceptions, and particularly the unilateral selection exception mentioned in paragraph 74—as far as we can see, although it is very early days—that the boycott legislation in the United States is having substantially little effect. Therefore what we are saying, particularly in paragraph 105, is that the way forward is through trying to get rid of what we call "the voluntary boycott" or, if you like, the unnecessary boycott— the boycott which arises because people exaggerate the scope of it and because, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said, they are not sufficiently ingenious about how they approach it. What we
394
suggest, among other things, is to add to the pool of shared experience and create a better understanding of the actual scope of the boycott.
So I come to the area of difference between us. I find it difficult to square what is said in those paragraphs with what is said in paragraphs 112 and 121, or that part of paragraph 121 which affects paragraph 112. It seems that there we go back on the wholehearted discouragement of the voluntary boycott and we start trying to introduce something like the kind of pseudo-coercion of the Canadian or Norwegian approach. I am sorry to say this, but I do not think that in paragraph 112 the majority of the Committee found appropriate words to express their desires. I can see why they did not, because those desires are very difficult to express. What is said in paragraph 112 is that:
"Her Majesty's Government should give careful consideration to the use of public funds in support of particular boycott-related transactions, i.e. those involving direct compliance with the boycott in the form of a boycott declaration or negative certificate of origin".
I repeat "careful consideration". But such careful consideration would not mean necessarily, they go on to say,
"that public funds must never be used in boycott-related transactions; there may be good cases for such payment. But if companies need assistance to secure a contract which includes boycott conditions, they should normally go to the open market not to the tax payer for that money".
I have a number of difficulties with this paragraph.
In the first place, I cannot say that I quite understand the distinction between direct compliance and indirect compliance. Apparently, "direct compliance" covers boycott declarations and negative certificates of origin, whereas "indirect compliance" covers those other methods, random checks and questionnaires. I am not at all certain that boycott declarations and negative certificates of origin are necessarily worse, and indeed more direct, than random checks and questionnaires. Indeed, I am unable to understand the excitement which the notion of a negative certificate of origin arouses. I have explained my point of view many times, but people do not see it. It seems to me that the positive certificate of origin tells you all you need to know. It tells you where the goods come from. They come from this country, and if they come from

395
this country they cannot come from Israel. So why anybody should want a negative certificate of origin—
Lord BYERS: My Lords, does the noble Lord not see the distinction? A negative certificate which mentions Israel is a discriminatory document, whereas a positive certificate is not.
Lord MCCARTHY: No, my Lords, I cannot see that. The question is whether you have a basis on which to discriminate. If you have a positive certificate of origin, you have a basis on which to discriminate. If you have a negative certificate of origin, you also have a basis on which to discriminate. I know that some people find the name "Israel" offensive—they would rather have the name of this country—but to me it is a distinction without foundation.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to help me, as I was not on the committee? Am I to understand that a negative certificate may require much more than a statement that no part of the goods came from Israel? It may require a statement that no part of the goods came from any other country, or ' any commercial concern which is on the black list, which is a very long list indeed, and that is certainly a discriminatory document. I should be glad if the noble Lord would elucidate.
Lord MCCARTHY·My Lords, these things could just as well be put as part of other certificates of origin. In any case, these things are put in questionnaires and they do not form the basis of a distinction between a direct form of compliance and an indirect form of compliance.
Secondly, I do not know what the majority mean by "consideration". As I have tried to indicate, they are saying, sometimes, that as a result of careful consideration the Government should stop the money. But at other times we are told that as a result of careful consideration—and we are not told the grounds—the Government will continue to give it. Whether it would be in the case when the order was so large that we could not afford this practice, I do not know. But it does not seem to me
396
very precise, or to justify the distinction between direct and indirect forms of compliance.
Although I approve of the rest of the committee's report, I cannot approve of those parts which relate to a form of tokenism. It is as if we are saying that we have decided not to introduce a Boycotts Bill—and I think that is right— but that, although we cannot do some- thing along those lines, we want to do something, not because it would necessarily do any good or assist the main aim and stream of the report, which is that we should try to reduce the voluntary boycott, but because we must do something. That is a form of tokenism. It derives from a very honest belief, which is nevertheless erroneous, that because you disapprove of things you must do something about them, whether or not that has any effect at all, and you must take some form of legislative or administrative action. I suggest to the House, as I suggested to the committee, that there are many things in this world that we do not like and do not approve of, but we cannot do anything about them.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is he really saying that when we do not like a boycott, as we have here, when we do not like apartheid, when we do not like racial discrimination or a great many evils in this world at this time, we should do nothing at all about them? Is he saying that we should not even try? If so, I totally disagree with him.
Lord MCCARTHY: My Lords, I am not saying that. I am saying that such action as we take should be effective, and we should believe it to be effective. It should not be tokenism. I am saying that, to me, those paragraphs in the report are a form of tokenism.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, how can my noble friend guarantee that what we do will be effective? We have to try.
6.35 p.m.
Viscount SLIM: My Lords, when we had our debate originally I had to say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that I felt I could not follow him in this matter, and I have not changed my mind. But

397
what I should like to say to him is that the fact that he raised the whole matter and put it in the open, and the fact that the committee have done such an excellent job in producing the report, will clear the minds of many people. So I should like to thank him most sincerely for that.
I am against legislation, and I hope that I speak like many businessmen in this country. I am against it because however unpleasant a boycott may be, business has to be done, and, with some of that courage which the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, mentioned, British businessmen have found they way through the morass and the difficulties of the boycott situation. This, in itself, is sometimes distasteful, but it is practical, and when you know your way around somewhere you can generally do a little bit of business.
If we have legislation we become inflexible, and the opportunities that suddenly emerge are harder to define and to react to more positively and quickly in a matter of export and in selling British goods and services overseas into the Middle East. If I may say so with great respect to the Government—whichever Government this country might have— "legislation" is not a happy word to businessmen. We have already discussed filling in a few forms in regard to the boycott matter. I have a nasty feeling that if the Bill became law we should be filling in a great many more forms in Whitehall, and, as I have said, the whole procedure would slow down.
It is not right—and here I take issue with several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Byers—to look at the British case through the eyes of the American experience. I do not see the tie-up. I do not see the parallel in the ways by which our two countries look after themselves, the ways in which our two countries are formed and in the might and the richness of both of us. But it is good to see the American experience, and it is good to judge what other people do.
The noble Lord the Minister will know, as do many of us, that Arab unity as displayed today is a fairly fragile flower, and I should have thought that the Government, too, would need to retain flexibility. I should not have thought that legislation would help very much on this
398
issue over the whole gamut of Middle East affairs today. The boycott is a rallying cry to Arabs. It is one about which they feel deeply, and we have to understand that. I should have thought that this was a time for more co-operation, not less, with our Arab friends, and that we should try to iron out matters in a perfectly normal and sensible way. We all realise that it will take time, but if we can get some form of peace between Israel and the Arab world many of these problems should, might and, hopefully, will fall away.
I would ask the Minister about one point which is in the context of our debate today. I am particularly perturbed about the situation of Iraq with regard to business. I am even more perturbed about it if we are to be under severe pressure in Iran next door. The market in Iraq is there. My own personal experiences in that country are that, like anywhere else, it is not easy to pull something off, to get an order, to sell something, but that the goodwill, when you get to know the people, the businessmen and the officials, is there.
I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he thinks that the Government are showing sufficient initiative in order once more to normalise our relations so that commercial action can take place. I speak as Chairman of the Middle East and North Africa Committee of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and as one who sits on the Council of the British-Arab Chamber of Commerce. We have had to cancel quite a number of missions and major projects that were well under way, and also new areas of business.
I may be wrong—and I hope that the noble Lord will correct me if I am— but I cannot recall a Minister of this Government going to Baghdad. It may be that there is something about Iraq that the Government do not like. I completely concur with the actions which they took in this country; that was correct, honourable and what ought to have been done. But if the Government feel that they cannot send out a mission, or make better contact, we shall have to consider very carefully whether or not a completely non-political mission of businessmen—very few and carefully chosen—ought to go out there to see

399
whether or not they can break this deadlock. I should very much welcome the Minister's comments.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, that this is not the time to pass legislation. I do not believe that it would help the British businessman. This is the time to keep cool, to watch events, to try to co-operate, certainly with Israel and with the Arab nations, and get ourselves, in a perfectly non-political way, trading in both places. Today, the British businessman is more international than he has ever been. Operating from here, he is daring and courageous in many parts of the world. If we legislate to make things more difficult for him, he will merely take himself off to Peking or Sao Paulo and start again from there. Having read the most excellent report of the committee, I do not believe that that is their hope or intention.
May I suggest that no legislation should be passed at this stage? I think that this is a most opportune report—certainly, during my short time in your Lordships' House, one of the best that I have studied. It has taught me a great deal. The only other suggestion that I would make to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is this: why not make a précis of the report, print it in Arabic and send it out to some of our Arab friends? I find that one can look one's Arab and Israeli friends in the eye and talk perfectly honestly and openly about this matter. May I thank noble Lords for listening to me.
6.44 p.m.
Lord FISHER of CAMDEN: My Lords, I should like at the outset to express my appreciation of the valuable service which the Select Committee has rendered to this House and to the community at large by submitting its report in a well balanced statement. The Select Committee is also to be thanked for the enormous volume of evidence it has assembled and analysed, which ranges over many areas and conflicting viewpoints on the boycott problem. Our thanks are specifically due to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for his initiative and to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, for his outstanding chairmanship of the Select Committee. My observations are confined to com-
400
menting on some of the findings and recommendations contained in the report, since I have already had the advantage of communicating the views of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, over which I have the honour to preside, to the Select Committee.
In the introduction, the report mentions that some 90 countries direct economic boycotts against at least one other country. We have submitted that none of them has the blatantly and pervasively racial character of the Arab boycott of Israel—and by common consent this is the particular boycott on which the report focuses— which in its secondary and tertiary forms discriminates against citizens of this country and other countries on the ground of their religious, racial or ethnic origin.
Paragraph 36 of the Select Committee's report states:
"In spite of denials, it is clear that the boycott has sometimes shown anti-Jewish tendencies, as opposed to strictly anti-Zionist tendencies".
We have provided incontrovertible evidence of the fact that the Arab League Council's General Principles of the Boycott of Israel, issued in 1972, discriminates against Jews as such as well as against Zionist sympathisers.
In the very document in which the Commissioner of the Arab boycott of Israel protests against the non-discriminatory nature of the Arab boycott, details are given of the exclusion of foreign companies or firms owned or controlled by persons having "Zionist inclinations". The plain fact of the matter is that the distinction claimed to be made by the Arab boycott between Jews and Zionist supporters or sympathisers is non-existent. The overwhelming majority of Jews consider themselves, in varying degrees, as Zionists or as having Zionist sympathies, in the sense that for 'millennia, and going back to the destruction of the first Temple, the identification with Zion has been indissolubly linked with the destiny of the Jewish people as part of their religious and cultural heritage and is recorded in their daily prayers.
If there were any doubt of the racist character of the Arab boycott, the same passage of paragraph 36 of the report cites the fact that the phrase "Zionist tendencies" has to be read in conjunction with a decision of the United States Court of Appeals of April 1978, which describes

401
as the established policy of Saudi Arabia the exclusion of persons of Jewish religion, creed or identity from its boundaries, a policy shared by Kuwait.
If I have belaboured the unmistakably racist and anti-Semitic character of the secondary and tertiary features of the Arab boycott, it is because it is basic to our understanding of why it should be proscribed and banned from our economic and national life. It is therefore imperative that prompt and firm action be taken against these insidious forces which remind us of the racial hatred disseminated in this country and elsewhere in Europe in the late 1930s. I particularly welcome, therefore, the committee's recommendation that compliance with the boycott, which involves discrimination within the United Kingdom against people of different racial, religious or ethnic origin, ought to be brought within the Race Relations Act if, on a test case, the Act is found not to apply.
Another particularly valuable service performed by the Select Committee is its dispassionate, logical and objective appraisal of the economic consequences of legislation. The dire predictions of the Cassandras flow from the pens of those with vested economic interests at stake in the Arab world, whose purpose—as paragraph 94 of the report tellingly puts it—it clearly serves:
"…to stretch the potential risk of passing the Foreign Boycotts Bill to its maximum".
Fair-minded men of goodwill may differ in their conclusions. There are those of us who have expressed the view that, precisely because we are a trading nation for whom, together with others, the principles of non-discrimination and the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade, as enshrined in GATT and the Treaty of Rome, are fundamental, we must legislate on the lines of the Foreign Boycotts Bill. There are indeed several amendments which could and should be introduced in the light of the evidence assembled in the committee's report about the effect of other boycotts on British re-exporters, but I am still of the view that legislation in some form cannot be avoided. The opinion is rapidly gaining ground that, in the final analysis, Arab nations are pragmatic and realistic. We should like to think that the Camp David framework
402
accords, which make reference to the boycott problem, hold some prospect for its solution. However sanguine we should like to be in the context of the delayed peace negotiations, we must realise that the Arab states of rejection and confrontation threaten to extend the boycott to Egypt, should it enter into a peace treaty with Israel.
However, the trend discussed in paragraphs 90 and 91 of the committee's report has been confirmed. The regulations now operative in the United States of America under the Export Administration Act of 1977 and the Tax Reform Act of 1976 have not hampered United States-Arab trade. On the contrary, most Arab States have accommodated their regulations to meet the new requirements of United States law. Following the entry into effect under the Export Administration Act of regulations barring, as from June 1978, negative certificates of origin, the responsible official at the United States Department of Commerce reported in the middle of last September that, in the main, Arab Governments no longer required the production of negative certificates of origin. Instead, shipping certificates which provide positive information of the national origin are accepted as being sufficient. Prohibited boycott conditions previously insisted upon in letters of credit for Arab purchasers have now been relaxed. The United States law has thus shown itself to have brought about a reduction of boycott pressures and, far from there being reprisals, the United States sales to the 14 Arab boycotting countries increased by 10 per cent. in the first six months of 1978 as compared with the corresponding period of 1977.
Similarly, in Canada, the Government Bill became law on 9th November 1978. Thus, the secondary and tertiary Arab boycott effects based on discrimination in business relationships on the grounds of race, religion, national or ethnic origin, are now prohibited. Further, a sharpening of Canadian Government anti-boycott policy should be reported in the recent initiation of legislation obligatorily requiring the reporting of boycott requests on pain of a fine. It would therefore appear to have been insufficient to rely on voluntary reporting of such requests, at least so far as Canada is concerned.

403
Thus, in the United States the effectiveness of anti-boycott legislation has been established and Canada's anti-boycott stance is also being backed by laws at provincial and national levels. Many will, therefore, be disappointed that in this country the Select Committee recommends that the Foreign Boycotts Bill should not proceed for the present, in the absence of widespread support. While one may agree that piecemeal legislation should not have been recommended, a re-drafted version of the Bill to take account of valid objections would have been preferable. It is, however, encouraging to note that the committee does not exclude a future resort to legislation if the impact of the boycott on British business continues unabated.
In paragraph 110 of the report, the committee advocates a policy corresponding broadly to that of the Canadian Government, if not quite the same. Thus the committee recommends that, whenever possible, companies should avoid entering into agreements specifically discriminating against a friendly country, and urges that Her Majesty's Government should carefully consider whether public funds should be used for the support of particular kinds of boycott-related transactions. Yet the committee inconsistently concludes that the Export Credit Guarantee Department should not be required to stop guaranteeing boycott-related transactions, because this would not be compatible with promoting British exports. However, as the committee has noted, the equivalent Canadian body to the ECGD—namely, the Canadian Export Development Corporation—does not support commercial contracts containing unacceptable boycott clauses.
I would firmly take issue with the recommendation that the ECGD should carry on as previously and continue to guarantee boycott-related practices on the basis of business as usual. In paragraph 44 of its report, the committee observes that the ECGD is meshed into the boycott, since companies contravening the boycott will not be assisted because contracts in breach of boycott conditions are legally unenforceable in Arab countries. But has it occurred to the ECGD that contracts respecting Arab boycott secondary and tertiary clauses may be voidable under Community law? A note
404
by the ECGD submitted to the committee in April 1978 forms Appendix 7 to volume 1 of the committee's report. It reveals an attitude which I submit should be carefully re-examined in the light of our commitments under the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome. The position is similar to that of the organisation known as COFACE, which withholds compensation under insurance contracts with French exporters if loss results from the breach of boycott conditions accepted by a French export company in an agreement with an Arab importer. Both COFACE and ECGD may properly be regarded as undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, and as such are subject to the rules contained in the Treaty of Rome and specifically the competition rules.
It is arguable, based on the American and Canadian experience, whether the application of the competition rules to the ECGD would in fact obstruct the performance of its functions—namely the promotion of British exports. It is equally possible to conclude on the evidence from these countries, that a policy of refusal to insure or underwrite boycott-related transactions will result in the withdrawal of the boycott conditions to which that transaction would otherwise have been subjected.
I conclude with two further comments. First, the recommendation that officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should no longer authenticate signatures on negative certificates or origin is to be warmly welcomed. A case is known of a United Kingdom company which, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of a United States parent company, could not supply to certain Arab countries the United States-made goods of its parent. While United States companies are dispensed from providing negative certificates of origin in recognition of the fact that the regulations under the Export Administration Act in the United States permit only of positive certificates of origin, the United Kingdom subsidiary is doubly penalised.
On the one hand, it cannot be dispensed from importing goods on a negative certificate of origin because, in the absence of a United Kingdom law barring such compliance, there are no dispensations for United Kingdom firms by Arab

405
countries. On the other hand, the firm cannot contravene United States regulations applicable to it as a subsidiary of a United States corporation dealing in goods in United States commerce, thereby rendering it impossible to supply the negative certificate requested. The United Kingdom firm thus lost this sales opportunity, which is really the height of absurdity. Had the United Kingdom firm also been prevented by United Kingdom law from supplying a negative certificate of origin, there is little doubt that it would have received a corresponding dispensation from that Arab State.
Secondly, many of us will be able un-hesitantly to support the committee's recommendation that a very important instrument, and in fact the natural instrument in Europe, for reacting to the boycott is the European Community. Many of us will subscribe to the view that concerted action by the Community in rejection of secondary and tertiary boycott interference with European trade could not be resisted. The Euro-Arab dialogue is the best evidence of this. So far it is the Arab negotiators who have been pressing for unconscionable changes in the Community's policy in political matters in the Middle East conflict. It would undoubtedly be open to the Community to make clear that the members of the Community are united in their opposition to any extension of Arab warfare in the form of secondary and tertiary boycott into the field of the Community's internal trade. If the political will could be found for taking this line, there is virtually no doubt that it would have to be accepted.
The point which I and my colleagues have made is that if the United Kingdom itself were to legislate, the possibility of the application of Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome, calling for approximation of laws in Member States, would undoubtedly provide a more effective means of action, since, whatever doubt may exist about its application, it is clear that France, too, has adopted an anti-boycott law amending its penal code. But leaving aside the question of national legislation, the Community can, under Article 235 of the Treaty of Rome, via the Council, by unanimous decision and acting on a proposal from the Commission, take appropriate measures to attain one of the Community's objectives, should it be found necessary to take action for this
406
purpose and the necessary powers have not been found sufficient under the Treaty of Rome.
We know that an important objective of the Common Market is to ensure that competition in the market place is not distorted. Surely the will ought to be found among the Nine today to make it clear beyond doubt that the European Community will not permit the terms on which its members conduct trade to be subjected to interference on the most spurious and objectionable grounds, arising out of conflicts or disputes outside the Community for which it has no responsibility and where it aims at friendly relations with both parties. The Community would thereby make it clear for all foreign boycotts with secondary or tertiary aspects which the Community considers unauthorised that it will not permit the quarrels of others to interfere with the objectives for which the Community was created, nor to compromise principles of non-discrimination and free trade which it shares with other likeminded countries on a universal basis.
My Lords, it is my earnest hope that the thrust of this debate will be to support the Committee's recommendation contained in paragraph 119 of its report; namely, that Her Majesty's Government should take the initiative, in concert with likeminded members of the Nine, to place on the agenda of the European Council the Proposal aimed at the adoption, on a consensus basis, of effective measures to achieve the basic principle of non-discrimination by the elimination of all secondary and tertiary boycott practices in the Common Market.
7.6 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I intervene very briefly in this fascinating debate on the ground that I served as well as a very junior minnow among some Goliaths on the Select Committee. I should like to add my thanks to our distinguished chairman, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and say what a privilege it was to serve under his chairmanship. I would also add my appreciation to the Clerk of the Committee, whose skill and hard work produced such wideranging and comprehensive evidence for the Committee in a remarkably short time. I think the Committee owe a great debt

407
of gratitude to the Clerk for his assistance in drafting the report, under the ingenious influence of our Chairman, which allowed general agreement to the report by the Committee; that, I think, came as a considerable amazement to a number of members of the Committee.
My Lords, if one were to ask what the herculean efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, have achieved so far on the issue of boycotts, I would suggest two. The first is that his efforts have helped to lift a number of veils, exposing the issue in what I hope is a fair-minded, inemotional way. And the second is that there is now a strong case, which has been made out, I think, in the report, that the Government should show more political will and indeed honesty on this issue in a way which would seek to avoid any major damage to our commercial interests. I hope the Minister, when he comes to reply in his very best Welsh tones, will say that the Government will examine the recommendations and indeed will consider very carefully the recommendations that have been made.
At this stage of the debate I think it would be true to say that all the key arguments set out in the report, all the moral issues of accepting discrimination or the counter powerful trade arguments, have already been developed. I do not envy the Government's position on this issue. They, of course, have a massive responsibility to protect the nation's commercial interests. I would agree with them, if the noble Lord argues this, that the case of America has little relevance in reality to our own case. Against that, I think the report shows fairly bluntly that a policy generally to deplore and do nothing else can quickly become a morally bankrupt policy if the boycott is stepped up. There are two conclusions in the report which have already been mentioned once or twice, or perhaps five times, which I should like to draw to the noble Lord's attention yet again. The first is the position of the EEC. I think it is now vital, if the Government have any political will on this subject at all, that they should encourage the EEC to adopt a policy. I do not think it would be unwise for the heads of State to put this on their next agenda. In fact it they could make a joint declaration on this issue it would be very valuable.
408
The second issue is discrimination against the individual. There is perhaps nothing more repugnant in a boycott policy than the deliberate seeking out and removal of an individual from a company. We considered in the Committee what is known as "the Mancroft case". I do not recall precisely how many other cases there have been, but I came to the conclusion, as I think the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, did, that the Race Relations Act does not protect this sort of case. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able at the end of this debate to be quite firm on that issue and to say that the Government will protect individuals in these cases. I have sufficient faith in the Arab world that they would respect that.
I hope tonight that the Minister, in his reply, will indicate that the Government are seriously considering the recommendations and that they are now prepared to extract themselves, and indeed their predecessors, from the horns of a dilemma that they have sat upon for far too long. I believe, as other noble Lords have said, that the report has demonstrated that something needs to be done now.
7.10 p.m.
Lord WEIDENFELD: My Lords, almost anything I could or would wish to say is covered by the initial observations and conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Byers. If I still ask to be allowed to speak in this debate it is, in the first instance, to pay tribute to the noble Lord's efforts and to his distinction of having been the prime mover of a Foreign Boycotts Bill. In the event, those efforts have been somewhat thwarted by the recommendations of the Select Committee, largely in the name of political expediency and, alas! partly at the expense of mercantile morality. Yet we still have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for having argued his case courageously, rightly and convincingly and it is certainly due to him if some substantive elements of what he originally had in mind are contained or retained in the recommendations of the Select Committee.
Inasmuch as the report focuses, in essence, on one of the consequences of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is only fair to say that, should the present negotiations between Egypt and Israel reach a positive conclusion, the whole scope and range

409
and perhaps even the fate of the Arab boycott would be radically altered. For it is one of the crucial conditions of a peace treaty—I believe it is the contentious and crucial Clause 6—that Egypt withdraws from any active part in the boycott against Israel. It stands to reason that some other more moderate Arab countries would, explicitly or tacitly, follow suit. But, in any case, the character and effectiveness of this instrument of economic warfare would fundamentally change.
In the meantime, as the report states, British policy towards the boycott must attempt as one of its prime conditions to ensure that nothing is done to impede a negotiated settlement. The Foreign Secretary is quoted as saying that any change, whether legislative or administrative, which substantially alters the present situation would be bound to damage relations between the United Kingdom and the Arab States who would regard it as a political act marking a shift in favour of Israel and that would therefore hamper the Government's ability to continue effectively with peace negotiations.
With all due respect, I cannot agree with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and perhaps he will forgive me if I say, in all diffidence, that my guess is as good as his. For it can be argued that, on the contrary, anti-boycott legislation might impress the moderate forces in the Arab world. President Sadat might view positive action and a reaffirmation of principle on the part of a great trading nation such as Britain as a signal of firmness worthy of notice. After all, Canada, Norway and, interestingly enough France, have put far more teeth into their anti-boycott policy than we have, and they have not fared any worse in their dealings with the Arab world. The Dutch and Germans have taken robust diplomatic lines in stubborn defence of their fellow citizens and of the threatened companies.
As for the United States, the country which after all bears the main brunt of mediation in the conflict, legislation and application to commercial practice is muscular and tough and, if anything, stiffening, if we are to judge by the most recent efforts made by Members of both Parties in both Houses of Congress, efforts which I believe are to come to a
410
head in the current session on Capitol Hill.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon—and I hope he will forgive me when he reads Hansard, because he is not present— made an eloquent textbook case for moral appeasement and acceptance of the status quo on the plea of economic vulnerability. Yet he has quoted some very impressive figures and an array of statistics showing a growing volume of trade. I could put to him far more dramatic statistics showing steep rises in the volume of trade and exports on the part of the United States since the stiffening of the boycott regulations, and in a political climate in Congress, on the media and a regards public opinion which is passionately hostile.
Of the positive features of the report, I note with satisfaction that the committee does not rule out a need for United Kingdom legislation in the future if the impact of the boycott on British business cannot be reduced by the various measures it advocates or by other means. I certainly endorse the committee's concern that the boycott thrives because it is largely not resisted, and is even given unsolicited help by British companies operating what amounts to a voluntary boycott.
I believe that the Government should not only urge companies receiving boycott requests to report them to the Department of Trade on a voluntary basis, but I see no reason why that should not be a statutory requirement. Voluntary action so often proves ineffectual, atrophies, dwindles into nothingness. We have, alas! seen telling examples of that bitter truth in other sectors of our public life. No one can quarrel with the proposition that suitable diplomatic opportunities should be seized and that informal approaches may often be more productive than formal protests. Bilateral talks can be effective especially as the boycott is unevenly applied, and there are subtle distinctions prevailing in the minds of various Arab Governments.
A firmer stand against secondary and tertiary boycotts is essential. The example of the Canadian Government should be heeded, for Canada not only deplores the boycott while allowing companies to decide for themselves, but actively encourages business firms to observe the Government's official statement of hostility. There are numerous examples

411
where Canadian firms complying with the boycott forgo Government aid such as the withdrawal of financial facilities or the denial of help by trade missions abroad.
Perhaps one of the crucial touchstones of the Government's seriousness to show their true colours relates to the public sector. I hope that my noble friend the Minister of State will urge on the Government that they should heed the letter and spirit of this particular passage of the Committee's Report. When companies in the public sector enter into deals in compliance with the boycott, they should avoid signing contracts specifically discriminating against a friendly State. The same applies to the allocation of public funds to boycott-related public transactions. If companies need assistance to secure a contract which includes boycott conditions, it would be, I think, much more fitting if they were to go out into the open market and not to the taxpayer.
Finally, and most importantly, I agree with the committee's finding that our attitude to foreign boycotts in general, and to the Arab boycott in particular, should not be treated exclusively as a national British concern, but seen as what it is: a vital international problem. It is an essential part of our fight to preserve freedom of trade, if one likes, a fight for human rights in the field of international business, in which trading nations, great or small, must assert their legitimate claims.
The boycott issue is not merely a theatre of operations in the generation-old war of Arab versus Israeli. It is a test of our resolve not to let the globe shrink from a world map of open opportunity to an atlas of interdictions, a gazatteer of blacklists and blackmail, embargoes, sanctions and boycotts. If carried ad absurdum, the Russians would like us to stop deals with China, the Americans are frowning on the Cuban trade, some zealots would wish us to erase the Andes from the map of South America, and yet others would like us to jeopardise, with one magisterially dismissive sweep, most of our investments and interests in Southern Africa.
Although we must at no time lose sight of the need to keep in step with the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan
412
and the other trading nations overseas, our proper platform for remonstration and redress is the European Community. It is before the Council of Ministers of the Nine that we should forcefully press the case for a positive policy and concerted action. It has been suggested by noble Lords that the Foreign Secretary and our Government take initiative. In all frankness, on past records I think that that is far too ambitious a step to suggest. I should be very happy if they would just concur and speak up. Let us not just hid behind the banner of Europe, but keep a truly firm and manly grip on the flagstaff.
7.20 p.m.
Lord CACCIA: My Lords, at this stage in the evening perhaps it would be best for me merely to get to my feet to say that I had the honour to belong to this Select Committee, note the fact that with others I concurred in the conclusions and suggestions made, say "Me too" and sit down. However, I should also like to say "Me too" in particular to what has been said about our chairman and "Me too" to what has been said about the very clear way in which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, presented this report to us at the beginning of the debate and showed us the conclusions and suggestions.
If I stray from those short comments, I shall do so only on purely tactical questions. The first is the negative certificate. Here, it has sometimes been suggested that the action taken by the Department— to which I had the honour to belong for many years—was something done by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Of course, the constitutional position is that the officials of that Department take action on the direction of Ministers. Therefore, I am sure that the Minister who is to reply will say that he accepts that responsibility and that it cannot be welcome to him, personally, to ask officials to do the sorts of things about negative certificates which the present procedure prescribes; that is to say, one signs the negative certificate on the basis that one is only authenticating a signature and that one does not turn over the page to see whether the consignment will be for something quite bland or for something which is against the policy of the British Government. I would take as an example the trade in arms with South Africa. There-

413
fore, there is an objection here to Ministers requiring officials to do something which is against all sense and conscience any longer than they absolutely have to.
The second remark I would make in this tactical sense is about the European Community. In the ordinary way, this is the sort of question which I assume—I hope rightly—would be put to the Council of Ministers by the Commission. The role of the Commission is to put forward suggestions for things of this sort to the Council of Ministers. I rather doubt whether they would do so. They might hesitate on a number of valid grounds: that there are many other very serious matters to be considered, that this is not the right moment, that the Ministers would not welcome it, and so forth. We may say "All right". It has been suggested here that the Ministers might take up the call and say, "We shall take this in hand; the British Government should be the one to compel Ministers in the Council of Ministers to do so." Of course, one must be plain in this House and say that that carries a risk, because, although we are all members of one another to this extent, it is at the same time not altogether beyond the bounds of posibility that it will become known that it is we who have taken the lead and, if any penalties are to be exacted, they will fall on us.
Whether we think that that is a valid risk or one that can be disregarded, there are ways round it. I need not suggest them to the noble Lord the Minister of State, who will know much better than I how these things can be managed. After all, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the United States Government might have approached the European Community saying "We think that this is a subject with which you ought to deal". All right, let them do so. That would take away from British Ministers—if they wanted it taken away—the necessity of appearing in public to take a lead in this matter which might endanger the future of British trade. That is purely a tactical matter.
Lastly, Her Majesty's Government may feel that that situation now is not quite as we described it in the report. We said then—and I am sure that all the Members still hold this view—that the British Government should not do anything which might jeopardise the possi-
414
bility of peace in the Middle East. That must be a standing and permanent aim and object of Her Majesty's Government. However, since last summer events have occurred in Iran which of themselves have affected the stability of the Middle East altogether. It may well be that Her Majesty's Government believe that they should be careful and hesitate at this moment to do anything which might be thought by a number of Arab countries in that area to add to instability at a moment when nothing more need be done in creating anxiety.
I understand that, but I should have thought that the way the boycott is now operating—so diversely in different countries—means that this can be handled very successfully by Government direction, advice and help individually, taking into account the different positions in different States. If a general direction cannot be given at once that, for instance, negative certificates are no longer to be authenticated anywhere, could consideration at least be given to the fact that they should not be authenticated to countries which, on other evidence, quite plainly do not need them any more? Those are the only remarks I should like to make, except to repeat what an honour it was to serve on this committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and with a clerk who so admirably presented the diverse views which we at various times uttered.
7.27 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, at the outset I ought to say that a company of which I am a director acts as the London agent for Companies in the trade fair and exhibition business in countries throughout the world. One of the companies for which it acts in that capacity is based in Bahrain; the connection is a tenuous one, but I should not wish to leave it undeclared.
The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, declared himself to be a maiden. I can only say that the accomplishment of his performance leads me to wonder whether that can indeed be the case. This has been an extremely useful report, very elegantly and lucidly put together, and we are grateful to the noble Lord for having chaired the committee, to the members who served upon it and to the

415
noble Lord, Lord Byers, who set the whole process in motion and who will soon be telling us what he thinks of what we have said.
We are all aware of the very great importance to this country of our export trade, and we are all aware that our exports to the Middle East constitute a large and valuable proportion of that trade. Excluding subsidiaries, I understand that there are around 1,500 companies involved in generating an income of nearly £2·7 billion—a figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. My noble friend Lord Selsdon has shown that that account is now handsomely and successfully in the black. The greater part of that income is earned in trade with those countries most closely concerned with maintaining the boycott. Moreover, one of our chief trading partners is at this moment in the throes of a political upheaval that is likely at least to interrupt the flow of trade for an appreciable time, if no more. Therefore, what we are discussing is a matter of no small importance to the economy of this country.
We are also all aware of the intensity of feeling which the conflict between the Arab and Jewish peoples generates in those who take part in it, whether face to face or at a distance. The Bill upon which the committee has reported deals with one aspect of that conflict: the economic dimension of the Arab campaign against Irsael. Therefore, we know that we are dealing with a subject which will be far more emotive to many who read this debate than to Members of this House who, by tradition and training, are accustomed to dealing dispassionately even with matters relating to our own national interests. Notwithstanding this, many of our citizens and some of your Lordships feel a degree of personal commitment to one or other side in the conflict that makes them perhaps a little special in their pleading.
So what has to be made clear in general at the outset is that, so far as our nation is concerned, our relations with both sides in this long and bitter conflict are relations with friendly powers, and that we cannot therefore allow ourselves to be drawn into the quarrel on one side or the other to be made enemies where we have been friends. This is the position of
416
our country and the position therefore of its constituent parts, including its commercial and manufacturing houses.
Our only proper national stance at this stage must either be detachment or mediation. The right of Arabs and Jews to place embargoes on each other's trade is understood. We have done the same thing many time in our own history in pursuance of our own causes. That is a matter which is private to them. But the boycott as it is explained to us by the committee extends this operation to include third parties, and here we become involved.
No British interest ought to suffer in support of one side against the other. It was to prevent British companies being caught up in the quarrel that this Bill was originally drafted. That is an entirely proper aim. It was the function of the committee to see whether that proper aim had been achieved. In the view of the committee it had not, and I must say that I share the view of the committee.
In the first place, I am always suspicious of laws which seek to protect people by punishing them. The Arab boycott seeks in what the committee terms its "secondary effect" to harm companies which do not conform with its policy. The aim of the Bill was to harm those companies if they did. Businessmen, in effect, were to be given the choice of which stick they would be beaten by. That does not seem to me to fulfil the essential function of law, which is to create a secure area within which individuals and corporate bodies can act freely. I understand of course that the operation of the Act, if it were passed, could be pleaded in extenuation when failing to comply with the boycott, but I feel that that is a rather distant argument for the purpose. Business bashing has, I think, become too popular as a political pastime these days. Only a few weeks ago we saw Her Majesty's Government breaking a stick over the back of British Leyland, and they too had had to choose which stick they were to be beaten with. It is a bad choice, and one that a business should not be faced with.
In the second place, I believe that the scheme of compulsory notification set out in the Bill would be hideously cumbrous, slow and probably ineffective. I do not believe in the creation of bureaucracy as

417
the solution of more than a very few ills in life. If industry wants this system, let it ask for it or, better still, let it set up a voluntary system of its own. The committee asked point blank if they wanted it, and the unequivocal answer in almost every case was, "No, we do not".
I turn to the American example. Whatever view is taken of the economic results of the American anti-boycott legislation, and those I think have changed since the time when the committee took evidence, its political result at least is clear. It has made America's objections to interference with her trade plain for all to see. That is something which I believe we ought also to do. However, I believe we can do it without either generating new law or giving unnecessary offence to those with whom we wish to continue to trade on friendly terms.
At present the boycott States from time to time operate a system of requiring negative certificates of origin. These have been extensively referred to, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, with whom I happen to disagree. Normally a certificate of origin states baldly where an article, or a manufacture, comes from. A negative certificate lists the places offensive—and indeed companies within places not so listed—to the boycott States for a variety of reasons, sometimes tenuously connected with the primary boycott itself, and it has to state that neither the article nor any constituent part of it originates from, or is in any way connected with any of those places or firms.
The actual process of verifying and making this certificate is laborious for companies which sub-contract out, possibly to other companies which subcontract again for components in their manufactures. The nature of the inquiry is intrusive, and the dictation implied by it is unwelcome. I can best summarise the reaction of British industry to this imposition by quoting the passages from the evidence given by the Director-General of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, Mr. W. A. Newsome. I will take three related and brief passages from page 170. He said:
"Now, because chambers of commerce are completely opposed to boycotts the chamber of commerce will not so authenticate a certificate of origin if that contains any matter on the face of it other than a straight certification of the origin of the goods".
418
A little later he went on:
"If it does [contain such material] the chamber of commerce will not have anything to do with it; no chamber of commerce affiliated to this Association, authorised by us on behalf of the Department of Trade to issue certificates of origin, will have anything to do with it. We have nothing to do with that. If the trader decides—and he is a free agent—to do business on the terms proposed and therefore to make some form of boycott declaration he makes that on a separate sheet of paper".
Finally, he says as to the signature:
"It is on a negative declaration and it is simply authenticated as a signature. In no possible way can the chamber be seen to be certifying the content or the accuracy, the validity, of the declaration itself".
It is made absolutely clear in this way.
That, oddly enough, is very nearly an accurate statement of the position of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office also, as I understand it. They will not authenticate a negative certificate but only the signature upon it. There were exchanges, both this evening and in the committee, as to whether or not an official could properly, or did frequently or unintentionally, read any part of the document. Again this seems to me rather in the realms of theology. But they will not authenticate a negative certificate but only the signature on it.
If we are looking for a way to express the Government's dislike of, and opposition to, the boycott without adversely affecting trade, surely it is here presented to us as noble Lords have suggested. The imprimatur of the Foreign and Colonial Office, called an apostille—a word that I had not hitherto encountered— on a negative certificate, even though it relates only to the signature, has every appearance of approving the document, and certainly has to acknowledge the standing of the document as a matter of fact because it has been presented for the authorisation of the signature. Presumably the Department provides this service in the furtherance of British trade and declines to suspend it for fear of losing trade.
I very much doubt whether their position or the Government's position is sound on this. The chambers of commerce can quite well authenticate the signatures themselves. They can thus enable trade to continue unimpeded, and in so doing they give no indication at all of the official British Government position in the matter.

419
By withdrawing this service the Office would make their own position a great deal less equivocal than it now is. They would make their view abundantly clear to our Arab trading partners without giving them grounds for resentment. It would be a useful development for any approaches to the European diplomatic circle that was so carefully elucidated by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, and I hope that the Government will agree to look at this suggestion of the committee again. I hope they will also keep chambers of commerce, and especially COMET, up to date with the additional services they are offering to companies suffering from the boycott. I hope that the noble Lord will bring his influence to bear on this point.
I notice in this connection that a number of noble Lords were at pains to encourage the commercial branches of our embassies to increase their efforts in the Arab world. I hope that they do this world-wide. I should be very sorry if I thought that the commercial attaches and First Secretaries Commercial, and all the talent they have at their disposal, did not regard it as a personal victory every time Britian landed an order in any country in competition with any other country. I believe that a great deal of our success abroad depends on that frame of mind.
I agree with the committee that the withdrawal of ECGD facilities from transactions carried out in conformity with the boycott would be unwelcome at the moment. I think we can arrive at that position without the volte face that the French did with their COFACE organisation. But there is one other area that the Government should look at again with care. If occasions arise where large sums of public money go into subsidising a deal, I do not think it is proper that these should be harnessed as a weapon to be used by one side, in a conflict between peoples with whom we are not in conflict, against the other. Nor do I think we should suppose that our trading partners would necessarily expect us to. If the Government doubt this, let them read again the evidence already referred to and summarised in paragraph 70 of the report.
The Norwegian Government took exactly this stance and there was no loss of business; the offending clause was removed from the contract. On the whole,
420
we tend to forget in life at present in this country the respect which is naturally given to those who have the courage of their convictions and are prepared to stand on and speak out on them. Government aid in such cases should at least be in doubt, even if it cannot, for some reason not clear to the House, be withdrawn.
I cannot conclude without stating again the position made clear by my noble friend Lord Carrington when he spoke from the Benches opposite on one aspect of this matter nearly 16 years ago, when we witnessed the harassment of a Member of this House in pursuit of the policy of boycott:
"I must repeat that any discrimination against individual British citizens by foreign powers in pursuit of their potential ends is utterly repugnant and unacceptable and, indeed, is likely to be extremely counter-productive".
That, of course, is not a remark which should be restricted in its relation only to the two blocs we have discussed today, because we tend to lose sight of the fact that this is a Bill dealing with boycotts as a whole and not Arab boycotts only, and we should not allow ourselves to let our thinking become quite as polarised as it has.
That nearly concludes my case, but there is one other consideration which should weigh with us and which this House, and indeed Parliament itself, keeps too little in mind. It is our overreadiness to make laws. Legislation should be used as a framework within the boundaries of which men may move with freedom and security. Too often we use it as a pistol or a whip; if it sees any sort of difficulty nowadays, Parliament reaches for a statute like a millionaire reaching for his cheque book or a sheriff reaching for his gun.
Laws should not be made unless there is a clear and overwhelming case for them. They always cost Parliament time and the taxpayers money to enact; they always give rise to contention; they always need interpretation in the courts; they always cost money to police; they very often produce results different from those intended; and more often than not, as a result, they have to go back to Parliament for amendment at the expense of more of Parliament's time and more of the taxpayers' money. Very rare indeed is it that one half-hour of actual productive wealth creating work results from any of them.

421
We do not therefore confer laws on the public as a blessing, as we seem to imagine; we impose them, rather, as a burden. This rule is not confounded by the exceptions to it. Great as they may be, I believe that they prove it.
I am therefore opposed to the making of any legislation that is not clearly both necessary and effective. What has been said in this debate has not convinced me that the Bill considered by the Committee is absolutely necessary, though it has convinced me that in its effects it would be experimental. I do not think the Bill has passed either of those tests and, much as I sympathise with the wish to avoid foreign interference in our patterns of trade, I do not think this is the way to prevent it. Therefore I can commend your Lordships' committee for a thorough investigation of the matter and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for giving us an opportunity to say what we think, and I hope that certain people listening will blush a little when they realise the emotions which their actions have stirred among us.
I believe I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, ask why they should. I do not know whether she intended me to hear that remark, but as she has intervened already twice in the debate I shall take it that she is a participant. I mean that there have been certain extreme actions, and I referred to one recently when I told of the experience of one of my noble friends who had to leave the board of a company. That was an unfortunate move on the part of the people who I hope will read the Official Report of this debate, and in case they have forgotten how we feel about it, this is an opportunity for them to be reminded. That is what I meant.
My Lords, I believe this goes a little further than the charmingly expressed verbal opinions referred to by my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith, and I commend the conclusions of the committee to your Lordships.
Lord MCCARTHY: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will help me to understand by telling me whether he was actually saying that the Foreign Office could afford not to authenticate negative certificates of origin because they could be quite sure that British chambers of trade would do it for them? If that is what he is saying, could anything be more cynical?
Lord ELTON: British chambers of trade are already doing it for them, my Lords. If the document is acceptable to the other side, why should we add to this facility the appearance of condoning a policy which we condemn?
7.46 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who introduced this debate, did so with a combination of conviction and moderation which we always expect of him, and the debate has shown a greater understanding of the circumstances and operation of the Arab boycott than perhaps the House possessed some 12 months ago when we last debated this matter. We owe that increased understanding in great measure to the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, whose report is before the House, and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I wish very warmly to endorse the many tributes from all parts of the House which have been paid to the noble Lord and his colleagues today for the careful and thoughtful attention they gave to a highly complex and difficult subject. The report is a model of its kind, combining brevity, as reports go, accuracy and, above all, clarity. It will be of great value to everybody concerned with this issue, to firms and trades and organisations which are exposed to the operation of the boycott, and not least to the Government in their continuing study of this problem.
My task tonight is to give the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee and I shall comment on each of the committee's specific proposals and indicate, so far as I am able, what action the Government propose to take at this time.
As a preface to their recommendations and reflecting their sensitivity to the wider considerations, the committee suggested four conditions which they believed should underlie the Government's policy towards the boycott. They were:
"It should not impede a Middle East settlement; it should maintain the United Kingdom's friendly relations with the Arabs and Israel; it should promote United Kingdom exports; and it should preserve the principle of non-discrimination within the United Kingdom between people of different races, religion and ethnic origins".
The Government accept without qualification the importance of these conditions.

423
They are, indeed, the kind of factors the Government have always tried to take into account in formulating their policy in this field.
To take the first condition, we of course earnestly wish to see a lasting and full settlement in the Middle East providing a just solution to the Palestinian problem and allowing the Arab States and Israel to live and trade in harmony with each other. It is important to recall that the boycott is a symptom of a conflict which has troubled the Middle East, and indeed the world, for over 30 years, and the first objective of the Government is to contribute to the international effort to find a solution to this problem, and certainly, in the words of the report, "to do nothing to impede such a solution". In connection with the paragraph from which I have quoted, the report is concerned with the broader political and economic issues of the relations between this country and the Arab States and Israel.
This brings me to the second condition. Of course we fully agree with the committee's view that we should do everything we can to maintain friendly relations with Israel and the Arab States. That is a long-standing objective of British policy. Here, I wish to refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and, I believe, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who addressed themselves specifically to Iraq. Let us remember that this country has a long historic connection with Iraq. Our relations today are certainly not what we should like them to be. I hope that from this House, and from what I have said in response to the two noble Lords, there may be an indication that we might gradually resume that relationship. Incidentally, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, that we continue to do everything we can in regard to the personal basis which he mentioned.
In regard to the third condition, it is naturally the Government's objective to see this country's exports to the Middle East grow to the fullest extent possible. Sometimes the debate has suggested that this concern about the viability of our relationship with the Middle East in economic terms is somehow a personal predilection of Ministers. Ministers have a duty—and it is a difficult duty to dis-
424
charge—to do everything they can to maintain the fundamental fabric of our country and our society, and that means working day and night to shore up and to improve our economic performance abroad.
This is not a ministerial policy, it is a national necessity. When certain solutions are offered emphasising in words the importance of maintaining and promoting our economic viability but at the same time suggesting other action—though what precise action is not always clear to me—then I say that it is time to be absolutely clear about these things. Our first duty as a Government—it would be the duty of any Government—is to see to it that the United Kingdom maintainsand strengthens its essential viability in the community, otherwise it is useless to the Middle East or to the rest of the world.
The facts are as follows. Our exports to the Arab countries which operate the boycott are of enormous value, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. He quoted the 1977 figure. I have the 1978 figure. The figure of £2.7 billion has appreciated to £3.1 billion. That is an enormous sum. It is a high percentage of our total export efforts and, as the committee's report emphasised, we must do nothing to imperil it.
Although the value is smaller, we also attach importance—absolute importance—to our export trade with Israel, which in 1978 amounted to £240 million, which is a very high figure for a small country and another country with which we have deep-rooted and affectionate connections. I come from a small country, itself diminutive, devout, and democratic, which understands perfectly well what the Israelis are trying to do in building up their small country. Of course we attach the utmost importance to our trade with Israel and to the survival of Israel as part of the life of the world, and we hope that more British companies will look at the opportunities in this diversified and promising market. It is a market of very great potential for the future as well as of present importance to us.
Again, we deplore the boycott—and I make no apology for saying that the Government deplore the boycott. They do more than that of course. It is not a matter of using words, wringing one's

425
hands, and doing nothing. Some of the speeches I have heard have suggested that nothing is being done on the diplomatic front. I can assure the House that a tremendous amount is being done every day in the way of advising firms by both the Department of Trade and the FCO. I may say—and here those who are familiar with the business world will strongly support me—that my desk is piled high with letters which I greatly appreciate, because they are written to thank us for the work done by our own officials in the Foreign Office, and in the Department of Trade and other departments, as well as those en poste abroad, not least in connection with the problems of the boycott.
So, when I am urged somehow to strengthen the diplomatic effort, I really do not know how. Our chaps are flat out doing exactly that. Here I join with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I think that he put his finger on something very important when he said that we do not want the Bill, and therefore something must be done. It is no good saying that something must be done; you must decide what you are going to do. It is no good saying, "Some risk must be taken." How much risk must be taken in terms of jobs? The buck stops there; somebody must decide. These generalised remarks to the effect that this, that or the other should be done are not much help. I hope to tell the House exactly what we are doing, and what we propose to do.
Finally, there is the fourth condition: there can be no question of the support of this Government, or indeed of any possible Government in this country, for any kind of discrimination in this or any other connection. I shall return to this point in a few moments. Nevertheless, as the Committee recognised, acceptance of these conditions does not lead to an automatic or precise policy description. Indeed, some of the conditions reflect its reconcilable or mutually exclusive aims. There is therefore a need for balance and judgment. When I hear words like "hypocrisy" and "honesty" bandied about, I ask noble Lords to think carefully before using such words. Balance and judgment are essential in approaching complex and difficult questions of this kind. One can translate balance and judgment into deviousness, hypocrisy, and dishonesty, or indeed one can translate
426
those terms into balance and judgment and into the use of that far-seeing common sense which is always rooted in the need to serve our own country and our own community and, in so doing, be of some use to other countries and communities.
In the process of reaching their conclusions, the Select Committee established certain facts and made a number of judgments. Some of these are of great importance, and are worth emphasising. First, in the words of the committee,
"the overall total of Anglo-Arab trade is so large that a high degree of caution is needed in considering any measures which might have repercussions on it".
That puts it fairly.
Here, I should like to say that, when we compare the actions and performance of our friend and ally the United States, we are not comparing like circumstances with like. The sheer enormity of the British interest in this trade dwarfs, in proportion, the United States' interest in it. I am not speaking of influence now, I am speaking of the bread and butter—and I make no apology for that. Moreover, the internal situation—I mean the political situation—in the United States on the Arab-Israel issue is very different from what it is in this country. So I hope that nobody will quote the United States against this country in a "holier than thou" mood. There is no need to do that. We are very close friends and allies. There is (I never hesitate to say this) a very special relation between us still—and long may it persist! So a little less comparison between two very dissimilar circumstances.
Secondly, the boycott is a fact of life and a measure to which the Arab States attach considerable importance. The committee have been very frank about this. I refer to the fact that it is a symptom of an almost intractable problem of hostility that is at least 30 years old, and they feel about it in this way. Others feel about it in another way; but it is a fact of life. So how do we deal with it? By legislation of the kind that has been proposed? Clearly nobody supports that. By various means of persuasion, diplomatic and other? We shall see in a moment what can be done. But, thirdly, while the boycott does have an impact on our trade with both the Arab States and Israel, it need not affect unduly our trade prospects with either. We agree. May I,

427
in this context, draw particular attention to paragraph 34 of the report which underlines that in normal circumstances the boycott does not apply to normal direct trade with Israel? This is an area of persistent and unnecessary misunderstanding. Fourthly, the committee endorsed the view that it is proper to leave the final decision whether or not to comply with the boycott to individual enterprises and businessmen.
Noble Lords may be aware that these are points which the Government have themselves stated on a number of occasions. Indeed, we are encouraged by the extent to which the report has validated and confirmed the understanding of the boycott which the Government have themselves acquired over the years, and the view they have taken of the way that this problem can be best and most effectively handled. Nevertheless, while the committee do not question fundamentally the policy of the Government, they have made a number of suggestions for change, and it is to these that I now turn. I have already commented on the first recommendation, which identifies the four conditions. I would not wish to say anything further except to reiterate the Government's opposition to the boycott and their desire not to tolerate it any more than is inevitable in the circumstances of various businesses. We should like to end it. We shall do our best to mitigate it. In the meantime, it is right that we should state constantly that we deplore this kind of action in the international field.
I need say also very little about the second recommendation, concerning legislation. The committee themselves set out the right reasons for not pursuing this approach, and have done so clearly and strongly. We also agree with the proposal in Recommendations 2 and 4 that the best response to the boycott is to encourage the expansion of trade with the Middle East. The Department of Trade, together with the British Overseas Trade Board, monitors very closely our export performance in those markets, and continues to search for ways in which firms can be encouraged to seize the opportunities. There is a very effective co-operation between the home Departments and personnel on post. This is amply illustrated from day to day; and,
428
indeed, we owe a great debt of gratitude to our officials here and abroad for the magnificent work they are doing, both in the Middle East and in other parts of the world, on behalf of the British export trade.
A wide range of services and facilities has been developed to assist companies, and the British Overseas Trade Board, assisted by two very active area advisory groups, the Committee for Middle East Trade (Comet) and the British Overseas Trade Group for Israel, mounts a wide range of promotional activities designed to enhance the prospects for British goods and services. In recognition of the importance of the committee's recommendation, the Government will, with the help of these bodies, review our strategy and objectives to see whether more can be done. The performance is there. Certainly the structural basis is there; but we take due note of what the committee say in this recommendation, and certainly we have already started looking at this to see whether we can strengthen our effort. In due course the House will no doubt be interested to learn the results of this work.
Next I turn to the position of companies in relation to the boycott, which is the subject of two recommendations, 3 and 6. We of course agree with the committee's view that enterprises, including those in the public sector, should be free to decide their attitude to the boycott in the light of their commercial interests, and that, as is said in paragraph 110 of their report, firms
"cannot be expected to let their decisions as to what is in the interests of their company be affected by political issues or judgments".
Those are the words of the report. Nevertheless, we also understand the committee's wish that the Government's views should be more widely known, so that companies can take their commercial decisions in the knowledge of the wider context in which they are placed—a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made very effectively. We entirely agree. We are doing a great deal in this sense already, but I take very much to heart, and I am sure my colleagues will, what has been urged by the noble Baroness and others as to stepping up, if possible, this part of our operation.

429
We also respect the intention underlying the recommendation that companies should, wherever possible, avoid signing contracts which include
"conditions specifically discriminating against a friendly State".
It is, again, as the committee emphasised, a matter for the judgment of individual firms, and it may not in all cases, or indeed very often, be possible to resist boycott clauses and requests if orders are to be won. However, in some cases it may be possible to negotiate the relaxation of a boycott requirement, or to resist declarations which go beyond its normal scope; for example, that the company will not trade with Israel at all. In that connection, I repeat, every possible help, guidance and advice will be available from the relevant Government Departments, as it is now, for any businessman or firm who comes to them for help.
Taking into account the committee's views, it is the Government's intention, therefore, to amend the present note issued for the guidance of firms and to include in it a statement, the full draft of which I have here. I will not, at this point, read it to the House as time is going on and I have one or two more points to cover. But I can assure the House that there will be a strong clarificatory addition to the existing guidance note which I think will meet the wishes of the House and further help businessmen and firms.
The Department of Trade has for a long time encouraged firms which encounter problems with the boycott to contact them, and the accumulated experience has been used to advise other companies facing similar difficulties. This was a point emphasised by more than one speaker. This is being done. Information is coming in from firms which have to deal with boycott demands, and it is used in order to guide, advise and help other firms in coping with the boycott. It is simply a question of seeing how this can be done more effectively. We believe that this service, which is always provided on a confidential basis, has been much appreciated. To this extent, the recommendation that companies should report voluntarily their experience is welcome, and we hope that companies will continue to share their experience with us in confidence. Here, once more, is a direct
430
invitation to any firm who wishes to approach us to do so. That confidential information we, in turn, will use in such a way as to assist others to cope with these unnatural demands on commercial practice as they afflict other firms.
Next, in Recommendation 5, the committee ask that more diplomatic opportunities should be taken to reduce the incidence of the boycott. I have dealt with that. I merely repeat that the diplomatic effort is already very strong and, I think, effective. I can assure the House that we shall lose no opportunity of increasing its effectiveness further. Here I should like to take brief issue with my noble friend Lord Caccia, who seemed to me at one point to be painting a picture of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as peopled by officials, hapless officials, being chased by Ministers up and down corridors and forced to do things which were very repugnant to them. The noble Lord knows that this is not how it works. Ministers are responsible; but they come to their decisions having listened very closely indeed to official advice, as the noble Lords knows better than anybody, or almost anybody, in this House. It is shared responsibility of advice and of execution.
Lord CACCIA: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would allow me to intervene. I only said what I said after the noble Lord, Lord Byers, had said earlier that he thought that the evidence from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was unsatisfactory, particularly in regard to this aspect of the negative certificate of origin, for the reasons I gave. It was for that reason that I said that those actions were taken on Ministerial responsibility; and it was for this reason that I was pressing this point: Could the Minister not give us some assurance on the point raised by other speakers about the suggested cessation of the authentication of negative certificates?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not sure that that information has helped me or the House. Responsibility is indivisible. Once we slip into the position that Ministers blame officials and officials blame Ministers, the system will not work. Ministers have a duty. They have to defend policy and execution at this Box. Officials have their duty,

431
too, to give the best advice they possibly can to the Ministers, and, having given it and having had it adopted, jointly to assume the responsibility for its execution. However, it is a long time since I had a little brush with my noble friend, and a mere Minister should on occasion be allowed to tackle an august personage like a former Permanent Secretary.
I now turn to Recommendations 7 and 8 which concern the position of the Government in relation to the boycott. I should like to make it clear that it is not the practice for Government Departments to accept boycott clauses in their own contracts. I think that meets one of the points made by my noble friend Lord Weidenfeld. That would be entirely inconsistent with the Government's general position.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask this of the noble Lord for clarification? Did he say "nationalised industries" or "Government Departments"?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I shall give the House the extended note.
Lord WEIDENFELD: My Lords, I meant both.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is not the practice for Government Departments to accept boycott clauses in their own contracts. That would be inconsistent with the Government's general position. We have also given serious consideration to the wider implications of the recommendations. I have no note here on the practice with nationalised industries; but I am inclined to say, off the cuff, that this is the practice with nationalised industries. It is, however, an important point and I would ask my noble friend to allow me to address myself to it separately by Written Answer or a letter to him. I am trying to hurry. I think the House itself has argued away the question of economic sanctions like the withdrawal of ECGD facilities. We should not be less prescient than the French on this point, should we?
I now move on to Recommendation 9 concerning the authentication of signatures and seals on negative certificates of origin
432
or, to be more precise on the negative declarations attached to certificates in their normal form. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on this point. He made a cogent and clear request based on an acceptance of the real difficulties involved in identifying and isolating, as a group, the kind of document that he and I have in mind. There are difficulties. However, I am glad to respond to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, on this point and to the general wish of the House. We do need to assess more thoroughly how far any risks to our trade could be minimised and how any practical problems for our exporters could be overcome, side by side with seeking ways of meeting the committee's point about what I call the authentication of signatures. Therefore we intend to look further into the desirability and practicability of ceasing the authentication of signatures on this particular group of documents. Before making a final decision we intend to consult the industrial and commercial organisations on this matter, those directly concerned with export documentation. We shall start the process of consultation immediately after the debate, taking into account the views which have been expressed, and we shall announce our conclusion in due course.
Some noble Lords have referred to authentication as though it were a process specially devised to deal with boycott documentation. The fact is that it is a normal international practice performed with respect to signatures and seals on documents of many types. We ourselves require other countries to provide such a service. Authentication relates to the validity of the signature or seal on the document in question and not to its substance. However, we shall see whether we can identify and isolate this group because of what has been said about the symbolic meaning of this provision. If it is possible to do so, I think that I and my colleagues will be delighted to do so.
My Lords, I have no time to indicate to the House the varying requirements of varying Arab countries. Somebody referred to the fact that Arab unity is of (shall we say?) rather late growth. That is true. There is an engaging diversity of views and of practice and, certainly, that applies to this particular operation. The only

433
other point that I have time to deal with now is the suggestion, repeated by many speakers this evening, that my right honourable friend should raise the question of European action in the Council of Ministers. He explained in written evidence to the committee why Her Majesty's Government did not consider that there was a case for raising the issue of the boycott in the Council at that time. Naturally, we have given further careful thought to that suggestion and particularly to what the committee had to say about it in their report. I have listened carefully to those speakers who have raised this particular matter. I have to say that Her Majesty's Government do not consider the position has changed so far.
We have heard, notably from I think my noble friend, Lord Caccia, of the real hazards to this country—whose stake in this is greater than that of any other European country—of being seen to be ahead of the pack, as it were, forwardly stirring up things, and its action interpreted as deliberate action to disturb the fact of neutrality. It is far better to let the Nine—and we are only one of Nine— engender a consensus of attitude and action in this matter. I should like to say on behalf of my right honourable friend that as such a consensus is generated organically in the Nine, we shall certainly be ready to form part of it. I ask the House to consider very carefully whether it would be either effective or indeed productive for what we have in mind, and for this country, if it were with a flourish to make this gesture on its own in that forum.
My Lords, a number of other points were raised, but time has gone. I can assure your Lordships that, as always, I shall be going through the Official Report, and I shall fill the gaps in my response to the debate by writing to noble Lords and also by instigating Questions for Written Answer. I close on this note. We have heard a great deal about the need for us to maintain our friendship with the Arab states and with Israel. I have given some subjective as well as some official reasons for that. It is essential that we do. The Middle East, of which Isreal is a part—and a very important part, and potentially an extremely important part if we can have peace and toleration in that area—is perhaps the fastest growing area in importance to us in the West. I think
434
it was the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Slim, who reminded us of the instability—we hope only temporary instability—in the vast and potentially very strong country of Iran. There is from Morocco deep into the Pacific an Islamic world, perhaps reawakening to its own past and possibilities. It is essential that western democracy should so frame its policy and its actions that, as in the past so in the future, that world—the Islamic world, the Near the Middle East and all that attaches to it—remains natural friends and allies of the West rather than of any other ideology or purpose in the world. In all that, Israel has an absolutely fundamental role. So I say as a friend of Israel—officially so, as a member of the Organisation—that in watching our step in regard to what we do about the boycott, we must not impair and, still less, in peril, our profound commitment to Israel and its people.
8.23 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, at this time of night I do not propose to detain the House for very long. I should like to thank those who have taken part in this debate. It has been a good debate; it has been a worthwhile debate. On a rough count, I reckon that we had 12 speakers for the report, about three against, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who was for and against during the course of his 10-minute speech.
But I must say that I listened with a sense of growing disappointment as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, gave the Government's response to this report. I welcome, of course, the points that the Government have made: that they will do their best to mitigate the boycott and that they still deplore it. Also, they will review the strategy and objectives of COMET and BOTB. I think that is important. It is important that the Government should be seen to agree that companies should avoid signing false boycott clauses. These are pluses. The fact that the Government would welcome voluntary reporting is a good thing. I should like to ask whether they would consider setting up a system to make it easy for companies to report to the Government. They will need some help on that.
On this question of intensive diplomatic study, this simply did not come across

435
from the witnesses who appeared before us. It was a gap that we could see in the diplomatic activities. This ought to be reviewed with some care. Regarding it not being the practice of Government Departments, or possibly nationalised industries, to sign contracts with boycott clauses in them, I think that this is not true. I think that I can, in confidence, provide the Government with a very recent case, and there may be one or two others as well.
I am somewhat puzzled about the attitude of the Government on the authentication of the negative certificates. If it is good news, then I welcome it tremendously. If it is merely fobbing us off once again, then I do not like it at all. Knowing the noble Lord, I hope that he will take a personal interest in this, because this is one of the things which could quite easily be removed from Government responsibility and would give great pleasure in many quarters.
My real worry is over the attitude which the Government have expressed about an initiative in the EEC. It seems to me surprising that the views of a committee of this distinction, with a chairman who was a former ambassador, a member who was head of the Foreign Office for some time and containing two former Cabinet Ministers who went to the EEC, should not have elicited a more favourable reply from the Government. I hope that something more positive can be done, even to the extent that, if we are able—as I propose to try and do—to get this raised in the European Council, of our receiving support from Her Majesty's Government when the matter is put on the agenda.
I only want to say one more thing: I appreciate that many noble Lords have spoken who would have liked to have seen the Foreign Boycotts Bill go through the House in the normal way and become legislation. I can only say to them: "so would I". But we have to be realistic, there was not the parliamentary time and I do not believe that there was enough parliamentary support. I believe that we have carried out a useful exercise in getting this excellent report in front of the House, because that report has educated a lot of people. It may one day help us in getting legislation in this House or through the EEC. In the meantime, I think that it will be the wish
436
of the House that, having set up a Select Committee, we should agree that we take note of this report. I think it is the sense of the House today that we should do that. Owing to a technicality of my having moved a Motion for Papers, I am advised that if I want to avoid receiving four pantechnicons of papers relating to the boycott and international trade, I should, in accordance with the Companion and the instructions of the House, seek leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT LAW
  COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT LAW
  HORSE AND PONY THEFTS
  HORSE AND PONY THEFTS
  PORTS: EEC GRANTS
  PORTS: EEC GRANTS
  HEART DISEASES AND WATER CONSUMPTION
  HEART DISEASES AND WATER CONSUMPTION
  NHS AND PATIENT'S CHOICE OF DOCTOR
  NHS AND PATIENT'S CHOICE OF DOCTOR
  SMOKING AND ADVERTISEMENTS ON CANCER PREVENTION
  SMOKING AND ADVERTISEMENTS ON CANCER PREVENTION
  GATWICK: NIGHT MOVEMENTS OF AIRCRAFT
  GATWICK: NIGHT MOVEMENTS OF AIRCRAFT