Sitting of 8 November 1979

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
DUMBARTON DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
GREATER GLASGOW PASSENGER TRANSPORT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
KILMARNOCK AND LOUDOUN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
SCOTS EPISCOPAL FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
STIRLING DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Orders for consideration read.
To be considered upon Thursday 15 November.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Cash Limits
    Mr. Higginsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures

    TABLE 1

    CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ASSIMILATED BLOCKS (4)

    Class and Vote number (1)

    Accounting Department

    Description of expenditure

    Percentage of wages and salaries in cash limit (3)

    I

    1

    Ministry of Defence

    Pay etc. of armed forces and civilians, stores, supplies and miscellaneous services

    75

    I

    2

    Ministry of Defence

    Defence procurement

    5

    I

    4

    Department of the Environment (Property Services Agency)

    Defence accommodation services

    10

    I

    5

    Ministry of Defence

    Defence dockyard services

    55

    II

    1*

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Overseas representation: diplomatic and consular services

    65

    II

    2

    Department of the Environment (Property Services Agency)

    Overseas representation: accommotion services

    0

    II

    3

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    British Broadcasting Corporation external services

    55

    II

    4

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    British Council

    35

    II

    5

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Foreign and Commonwealth services

    0

    for the total wage and salary component included under each public expenditure cash limit.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Biffen): I will arrange for a table to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Higgins: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will at no stage put forward proposals to increase the cash limits to accommodate wage settlements in excess of the payroll assumptions set out in those limits?
    Mr. Biffen: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: If the right hon. gentleman is setting a cash limit including pay, will he count that as a pay norm?
    Mr. Biffen: No. The statement last week on the public spending White Paper indicated that the figure would refer to cost increases rather than to specific wage increases.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it not the case that in large areas of the public sector a cash limit on wages is, in effect, an incomes policy? If the Government are running a public sector incomes policy under the guise of cash limits, they should say so clearly.
    Mr. Biffen: Nothing about the Government's cash limits policy bears any comparison with the statutory control of wages undertaken by the previous Government.
    Following is the table:

    Class and Vote number (1)

    Accounting Department

    Description of expenditure

    Percentage of wages and salaries in cash limit (3)

    II

    8

    Cabinet Office

    Secret service

    N/A

    II

    10

    Ministry of Overseas Development

    Overseas aid

    0

    II

    11*

    Ministry of Overseas Development

    Overseas aid administration

    65

    III

    5

    Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food

    Other agricultural and food services

    0

    III

    7*

    Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

    Central administration

    30

    III

    8

    Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food

    Support for the fishing industry

    0

    III

    9

    Forestry Commission

    Forestry

    5

    III

    10*

    Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food

    Departmental administration

    85

    IV

    2

    Department of Industry

    Miscellaneous support services

    0

    IV

    4

    Department of Trade

    Pay, general administrative expenses, export promotion and trade, co-operation, tourism, regulation of trading practices and other support services

    50

    IV

    7

    Department of Industry

    Scientific and technological assistance

    15

    IV

    8

    Department of Energy

    Industrial support

    0

    IV

    9

    Department of Energy

    Scientific and technological assisance, nuclear energy

    65

    IV

    11*

    Export Credits Guarantee Department

    Central services

    90

    IV

    13

    Department of Trade: Consumer Affairs

    Pay, general administrative expenses and consumer protection

    35

    IV

    14*

    Friendly Societies Registry

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    (2)

    IV

    15*

    Office of Fair Trading

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    80

    IV

    16

    Department of Employment

    Labour market services

    0

    IV

    18*

    Department of Employment

    Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

    50

    IV

    19

    Department of Employment

    Manpower Services Commission

    25

    IV

    22*

    Department of Employment

    Departmental administration

    (2)

    IV

    23*

    Department of Industry

    Central and miscellaneous services

    (2)

    IV

    24*

    Department of Energy

    Administration and miscellaneous services

    (2)

    IV

    25

    Department of Employment

    Health and Safety Commission

    50

    VI

    3

    Department of Transport

    Roads etc., England

    0

    VI

    4

    Department of Transport

    Transport services

    0

    VI

    6

    Department of Trade

    Shipping and civil aviation services

    15

    VII

    7*

    Department of Transport

    Central and miscellaneous services

    (2)

    VIII

    4

    Department of the Environment

    Central environmental services etc.

    10

    VIII

    6

    Department of the Environment

    Royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings and ancient monuments

    20

    VIII

    7*

    Department of the Environment

    Central administration and environmental research

    70

    IX

    1*

    Lord Chancellor's Department

    Administration of justice: England and Wales

    (2)

    IX

    13*

    Treasury Solicitor

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    90

    X

    4

    Department of Education and Science

    Universities etc.

    60

    X

    6

    Department of Education and Science

    Educational Services

    0

    X

    9

    Department of Education and Science

    Libraries, England

    40

    X

    11*

    Department of Education and Science

    Central administration services

    90

    X

    12

    Department of Education and Science

    Agricultural Research Council

    45

    X

    13

    Department of Education and Science

    Medical Research Council

    50

    X

    14

    Department of Education and Science

    Natural Environment Research Council

    55

    X

    15

    Department of Education and Science

    Science Research Council

    10

    Class and Vote number (1)

    Accounting Department

    Description of expenditure

    Percentage of wages and salaries in cash limit (3)

    X

    16

    Department of Education and Science

    Social Science Research Council

    15

    X

    17

    Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History)

    British Museum (Natural History)

    90

    X

    18

    Department of Education and Science

    Other science etc.

    0

    X

    19

    Trustees of the British Museum

    British Museum

    70

    X

    20

    Department of Education and Science

    Science Museum

    65

    X

    21

    Department of Education and Science

    Victoria and Albert Museum

    55

    X

    22

    Trustees of the Imperial War Museum

    Imperial War Museum

    75

    X

    23

    Trustees of the National Gallery

    National Gallery

    30

    X

    24

    Trustees of the National Maritime Museum

    National Maritime Museum

    70

    X

    25

    Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery

    National Portrait Gallery

    50

    X

    26

    Trustees of the Tate Gallery

    Tate Gallery

    50

    X

    27

    Trustees of the Wallace Collection

    Wallace Collection

    90

    X

    30

    Department of Education and Science

    Arts Council and other grants

    5

    XI

    1

    Department of Health and Social Security

    Health and personal social services, England

    75

    XII

    4*

    Department of Health and Social Security

    Administration and miscellaneous services

    (2)

    XIII

    3*

    Privy Council Office

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    90

    XIII

    4*

    Treasury

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    80

    XIII

    5*

    Customs and Excise

    Pay, general administrative expenses and capital expenditure

    90

    XIII

    6*

    Board of Inland Revenue

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    90

    XIII

    7*

    Department of Transport

    Driver and vehicle licensing

    55

    XIII

    9*

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    (2)

    XIII

    10*

    National Debt Office

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    (2)

    XIII

    11*

    Public Works Loan Commission

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    (2)

    XIII

    12*

    Department for National Savings

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    60

    XIII

    15

    Civil Service Department

    Central management of the Civil Service

    70

    XIII

    16*

    Public Record Office

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    (2)

    XIII

    18*

    Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    (2)

    XIII

    20*

    Land Registry

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    75

    XIII

    22*

    Charity Commission

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    90

    XIII

    23*

    Ordnance Survey

    Pay, general administrative expenses and capital expenditure

    (2)

    XIII

    24*

    Cabinet Office

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    90

    XIII

    28*

    Parliamentary Commissioner and Health Service Commissioners

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    90

    XIII

    29*

    Public Trustee

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    (2)

    XIV

    1

    Department of the Environment (Property Services Agency)

    Office and general accommodation services

    5

    XIV

    2*

    Department of the Environment (Property Services Agency)

    Administration and miscellaneous services

    60

    XIV

    3

    Stationery Office

    Stationery and printing

    35

    XIV

    4

    Civil Service Department

    Computers and telecommunications

    10

    XIV

    5

    Central Office of Information

    Publicity and departmental administration

    20

    Class and Vote number (1)

    Accounting Department

    Description of expenditure

    Percentage of wages and salaries in cash limit (3)

    XIV

    8*

    Government Actuary's Department

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    (2)

    XIV

    9

    Civil Service Department

    Civil Service catering services

    (2)

    XIV

    10*

    Paymaster General's Office

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    70

    XV

    2

    Northern Ireland Office

    Law, order and protective services

    15

    XV

    3*

    Northern Ireland Court Services

    Administration of justice: Northern Ireland

    80

    XV

    4*

    Northern Ireland Office

    Central and miscellaneous services

    55

    XVII

    1

    Department of the Environment

    Rate support grant and supplementary grants to local authorities

    0

    XVII

    10*

    Crown Estate Office

    Pay and administrative expenses

    90

    XVII

    14

    Department of Transport

    Transport supplementary grants: England and Wales

    0

    TABLE 2

    CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNASSIMILATED BLOCKS(4)

    Accounting department

    Cash block (1)

    Description of expenditure

    Percentage of wages and salaries in cash limit (3)

    Home Office

    HO1*

    Pay and general administrative expenditure

    80

    Home Office

    HO2

    Law, order and protective services

    0

    SCOTLAND

    Scottish Office

    SO1*

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    75

    Scottish Office

    SO2

    Rate support grant for local authorities in Scotland

    0

    Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

    DAFS1

    Agricultural services and fisheries support

    5

    Scottish Courts Administration

    SCA1*

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    85

    Scottish Development Department

    SDD1

    Motorways, trunk roads and other environmental services

    5

    Scottish Economic Planning Department

    SEPD1

    Regional and industrial development

    5

    SEPD2

    Manpower Services Commission

    0

    Scottish Education Department

    SED1

    Education, libraries and arts

    5

    SED2

    Social work

    0

    National Library of Scotland

    SED3

    National Library of Scotland

    70

    National Galleries of Scotland

    SED4

    National Galleries of Scotland

    45

    National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland

    SED5

    National Museum of Antiquities Scotland

    60

    Scottish Home and Health Department

    SHHD1

    Health

    65

    SHHD2*

    Law, order and protective services (central support and other services)

    55

    Department of the Registers of Scotland

    DRS1*

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    (2)

    Registrar General's Office, Scotland

    RGO(S)1*

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    (2)

    Scottish Record Office

    SRO1*

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    (2)

    Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer

    QLTR1*

    Pay and general administrative expenses

    95

    Accounting department

    Cash block (1)

    Description of expenditure

    Percentage of wages and salaries in cash limit (3)

    WALES

    Welsh Office

    WO1*

    Pay and genera administrative expenses

    0

    WO2

    Health and personal social services, roads, education, libraries, arts, other environmental services and agriculture

    55

    WO3

    Regional and industrial development

    0

    WO4

    Manpower Services Commission

    0

    Notes:

    (1) Central responsibility for expenditure control is exercised by the Treasury and the Civil Service Department, depending on the nature of the expenditure concerned. Blocks controlled by the Civil Service Department are indicated by an asterisk.

    (2) In certain cash limits, indicated by this footnote, the total of wages and salaries expenditure exceeds the cash limit, which is based on expenditure net of receipts.

    (3) Percentages are given rounded to the nearest 5 per cent.

    (4) Tables 1 and 2 both relate to cash limits on central Government voted expenditure. The cash limits on the capital expenditure of local authorities and other bodies contain little pay. The limits on nationalised industries relate to their external financial requirement.

    National Savings Certificates
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to change the present ineligibility of males between the ages of 60 and 65 years to hold retirement issue National Savings Certificates.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The terms and conditions of all National Savings media are regularly reviewed, and the age qualification and any other proposals received for this issue of certificates will be considered in due course.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend look at this proposal as a matter of urgency? Will he recognise that the proposal meets three criteria supported by the Government? These are, first, that we all want to encourage savings; secondly, that the proposal would not initially cost a penny; and, thirdly, that in an age of sex discrimination, it recognises that men have equal rights with women.
    Mr. Lawson: I shall be glad to look seriously at the proposal, as my hon. Friend suggests. However, I believe that when this instrument was introduced, the previous Administration felt that it might be simpler if post offices, where most of the certificates are brought, were to apply the same age limits as for old-age pensioners.
    Mr. Cwilym Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the simplest option is to move towards sex equality and allow men to retire at 60? Will he take note of the latest figures produced by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services? They show that the cost of reducing by one year the pensionable age for men would be only about £200 million.
    Mr. Lawson: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that sex equality is not one of the Treasury's many responsibilities.
    Mr. Stokes: I declare an interest in this case. I am not particularly keen on legal sex equality, but I cannot see why I am not allowed to lend to the Government in the same way as my wife is.
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is welcome to lend to the Government, and there are many instruments available to enable him to do so. However, when this scheme was introduced by the previous Administration it was felt that it would be easier, in order to reduce misunderstandings about the qualifying age, to have the same age limits as those applying to the old-age pension. I shall be happy to look at the matter again.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he will consider the matter seriously and urgently? With inflation rising rapidly towards 20 per cent., and clearly out of control, does he agree

    591
    that his Government have an additional obligation to protect the savings of the elderly?
    Mr. Lawson: I do wish that the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a Treasury Minister in his time, would not take such pleasure in exaggerating the rate of inflation.

    Currency (Purchasing Power)
    Mr. Cockeramasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the purchasing power of the half pence coin has depreciated since February 1971; how much the penny is now worth in relation to the penny coin in February 1971; and if he will now demonetise the halfpenny and two-and-a-halfpenny coins.
    Mr. Lawson: The purchasing power of the ½p coin has fallen by two-thirds since 1971. It follows from this that the purchasing power of the 1p coin now is two-thirds that of the ½p in 1971. I have no plans to demonetise the ½p coin, which is still in strong demand. On the other hand, the old sixpence has effectively dropped out of use and the question of its demonetisation is now under review.
    Mr. Cockeram: Will my hon. Friend accept that the ½p coin has been reduced to the role of a supermarket gimmick, which is an irritation both to the housewife and the shopkeeper? Has not the time come when we should face the fact that the housewife would be better served by a discount on a special offer at 49p, for example, rather than one at 49½p?
    Mr. Lawson: This is a matter of judgment, but there is a continued demand by the banks for this coin, which does not really support what my hon. Friend suggests. I understand that during this financial year the Mint expects to strike more than 200 million ½p coins in response to the demand from the banks.
    Mr. Dubs: Would not the housewives of the country be better served if the Government reversed their policies of increasing inflation so that the value of our money remained static?
    Mr. Lawson: The Government's policies are precisely directed to bringing down inflation.
    Mr. Neubert: Does my hon. Friend realise that to one hon. Member at least
    592
    his answer is extremely disappointing? Will he confirm that the ½p coin is now worth little more than a farthing was in 1961 when it was abolished? That was 10 years before decimalisation. Will he also confirm that production costs of the coin now exceed its face value? If savings are to be made, why not in this area? Would not my hon. Friend wish to go down in history as the Minister who abolished the absurdity of a vulgar fraction in our currency and removed us from a league of countries with fractional coins, which includes Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and the Irish Republic?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is wrong on at least two counts. The cost of striking the ½p coin is less than so there is still a profit in it. Secondly, the one cent coin that is still in currency in the United States is worth less than the ½p here. However, I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's assurance that I will go down in history.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Minister arrange for some professionals to work out the purchasing power of half of the pound note that the Prime Minister spoke about during the election campaign. Will he make a statement to the House on this matter?
    Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was at that time making the real point that under the previous Administration the value of the pound had halved. In fact, it had gone down to less than half. This points to the mockery of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches attacking the Government. We are getting inflation down, although many difficulties are involved in tackling the problems that we inherited from the previous Government.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the Government increased the cost of living by 4½ per cent. at a stroke in their last Budget and that the increase in the mortgage rate, which is now inevitable in January, as the Prime Minister has admitted, and the increases in fares, fuel charges, rents and rates guarantee that we shall have more than 20 per cent. inflation in the new year?
    Mr. Lawson: That question was worth about ½p.

    Financial Targets
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further consideration he has now been able to give to the establishment of medium-term borrowing and monetary targets; and with what results.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I am considering whether there would be advantage in formulating more precisely the Government's longer-term monetary objectives which I set out in my reply of 19 July to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the publication of objectives showing a steady decline over the years ahead in monetary targets, and a commensurate decline in the public sector borrowing requirement, might well be a considerable reinforcement of the Government's central camgaign to beat inflation? Can he assure the House that it remains his intention that in the next financial year the PSBR will have a lower target in money terms than it had this year?
    Sir G. Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of arguments that are certainly valuable and important. The PSBR for next year will be announced at the appropriate time. I assure my hon. Friend that it will be consistent with the Government's policy of securing a reduction in the rate of growth of the money supply.
    Mr. Tapsell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied with the present method of measuring and controlling the money supply? Is he yet in a position to express a view about suggestions that have been made for moving to a monetary-based system of control?
    Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend will appreciate that all those who are concerned with the management and measurement of the money supply are constantly aware of the imperfections of the instruments of measurement and seek to improve them. One of the suggestions for improvement that is under consideration is the one to which he has referred.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the PSBR next year is bound to be higher than this year unless there is a substantial
    594
    increase in taxes in the next Budget? That being the case, is it not necessary, according to Conservative philosophy, for money supply targets to be higher next year than this so that there is no inconsistency between the Government's borrowing and monetary policies?
    Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman must wait and hear what is announced in due course. If his diagnosis is already to the effect that next year's PSBR will have to be substantially increased, I hope that I can look forward to his enthusiastic support in our plans for the reduction of public spending next year.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the publication of these targets is necessary to reassure the public that the first objective of the Government is to control inflation, particularly as recent figures show that the money supply, as widely defined, and including commercial bills, is growing at about 16 per cent. a year?
    Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend draws attention to a significant argument in favour of what has been suggested. However, it is not the only argument to be taken into account. My hon. Friend can rest assured that the Government are determined to bring and keep the money supply under control. The latest figures suggest that it may take longer than we anticipated to bring down the massive rate of growth of the rate of money supply that we inherited from the previous Government.
    Mr. Cant: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer conscious of the fact that we are once again approaching the "Grand Old Duke of York" syndrome? In effect, the money markets are such that the money supply is increasing not by 16 per cent. but by 17 per cent., including accommodation credits, and that we are on the verge of round-tripping, which will further increase the money supply. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that by next week, if he intends to finance his PSBR this year, he will, in effect, have to raise the minimum lending rate? When will he do something about the gilt-edged market in order to bring some sense into the situation in which we are confronted with new crises every six months?
    Sir G. Howe: It is unwise to speculate on future changes in the rate of interest.

    595
    That depends on a number of factors. The hon. Member knows that the figures for any one month are bound to be erratic. He will understand that by far and away the most important contribution that can be made to bring all these factors under control is an effective reduction in the size of the public sector as a proportion of gross domestic product.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the Chancellor aware that if, as a result of a consideration of medium monetary objectives, he were to adopt the practice of fixed advance public monetary targets he would be adding to the commitments in his party manifesto and creating an unsustainable burden for his office?
    Sir G. Howe: I always listen attentively to advice from the hon. Gentleman—but not too attentively.

    International Monetary Fund (Substitution Account)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards the United States' proposal within the International Monetary Fund for a new substitution account or fund, and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the practical problems involved in setting it up can be overcome, a substitution account of the kind proposed by the managing director of the IMF could in principle make a limited but useful contribution to the stabilisation of exchange rates. Detailed proposals have, however, yet to be formulated and considered.
    Mr. Hooley: Does that mean that Her Majesty's Government support this arrangement in principle? Does the Chancellor agree that we need an internationally acceptable currency reserve system that does not depend upon the vagaries of the economy of any one country?
    Sir G. Howe: As I told the conference of the IMF in Belgrade, provided that the practical problems involved in setting up a substitution account of this kind are solved it could, in principle, make a limited but useful contribution to the stabilisation of exchange rates.
    Mr. Healey: The limit of the contribution depends entirely upon the size of
    596
    the account. Does the Chancellor agree that if the Government were to press as many other Governments have done, for an account that starts at at least £10 billion SDR and rises rapidly to £50 billion, that would make quite a substantial contribution?
    Sir G. Howe: The answer to the question is that it depends upon the size of the account, although, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are many other factors to be considered.

    Capital Gains Tax
    Mr. Moateasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received to extend relief from capital gains tax to private houses owned by landlords of licensed premises and others who are required, as a condition of their employment, to reside at their place of work.
    Mr. Biffen: An employee required to live at his place of work who owns a house which he intends in due course to occupy is entitled to relief from capital gains tax if he sells that house. Landlords of licensed premises employed by breweries are covered by this rule. I have received one representation asking for it to be extended to self-employed landlords.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfair that someone who is debarred by the terms of his employment from ever occupying the house that he needs for his retirement should find himself subject, at some later stage, to capital gains tax? Will my right hon. Friend review the situation?
    Mr. Biffen: There are real problems of definition in respect of the self-employed, but I give an undertaking that the matter will be reviewed.
    Mr. Scott: In the light of the continued reduction in the availability of private rented accommodation, particularly for single people, will my right hon. Friend consider exempting from capital gains tax those residential landlords who let part of their premises?
    Mr. Biffen: That is extending the issue somewhat, and any Chancellor will wish to protect his revenue base in the next Budget.

    Exchange Controls
    Mr. Harry Ewingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net effect of industrial investment in Scotland as a result of his decision to abolish exchange controls.
    Mr. Strawasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect of the abolition of exchange controls on investment in United Kingdom manufacturing industry.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The removal of controls is likely to benefit industrial investment at home. Overseas investment helps our exports and strengthens our international trading position. The effects cannot, however, be quantified.
    Mr. Ewing: If the Chancellor is so confident that the effect will be beneficial, and if the reverse turns out to be the case—with a consequent net outflow of capital investment—will he guarantee that the outflow of private capital investment will be replaced by public investment? If he will not give that guarantee, will he explain why?
    Sir G. Howe: I do not give that guarantee because the experience of recent years does not suggest that the answer to our problems lies in an expansion of public investment. Much public investment has been used to little avail in terms of real return. The answer to our problems lies in the creation of conditions that are hospitable for successful and effective private investment. The Government are doing that.
    Mr. Straw: If the Chancellor is so confident about the effects on investment of the abolition of exchange controls, will he explain two things? First, will he explain the projection by his Department on 29 October—leaked in the Financial Times—that over the next four years production in metal using and vehicle producing industries will decline by over 20 per cent? Secondly, will be explain why, since his announcement of the abolition of exchange conrols the Financial Times index has gone down by over 60 points? Is he aware that it is suggested in most of the financial journals that companies fear that money that should be used on investment in this country will be diverted abroad?
    Sir G. Howe: The hon. Gentleman's diagnosis on the last matter is entirely at fault. I do not know about the forecast that he has quoted, but if he believes that any forecast that points to a decline in the production of motor vehicles, or anything else, in this country in the years ahead is attributable to an announcement about the relaxation of exchange controls made only a few days ago, he will believe anything.
    The hon. Gentleman must surely understand that the reduction experienced in the production of motor vehicles in this country was due not to Government gestures of that sort but to the continuing inability of some sections of the motor industry to achieve sensible patterns of industrial relations to enable them to compete with imported vehicles.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there has never been a shred of evidence that industrial investment in Scotland has been seriously inhibited by a shortage of finance? Does he agree that the problem has been a lack of profitable opportunities?
    Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend has put the matter precisely in the right perspective.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not serious that the problem of exchange controls is not quantifiable? Does the Chancellor agree that that is hardly surprising, since British banks and their subsidiaries can now lend abroad without the Bank of England knowing? Is not this a serious state of affairs?
    Sir G. Howe: It is a serious state of affairs only to those who seek to govern the country by attempting to gain knowledge of everything that happens. That is not possible. The hon. Member would do well to remember that the catastrophic economic conditions experienced under the previous Government developed as a result of their policies and had nothing whatever to do with the existence, or otherwise, of exchange controls.
    Mr. Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on a statement made by Sir John Methven, updating Professor Reddaway's report, that, with few exceptions, investment overseas will always encourage British industry and is likely to increase production and jobs?
    Sir G. Howe: I agree with that. The analyses that have been made of the likely impact of investment overseas have shown that the main reasons for decisions to invest overseas were related to the creation and expansion of overseas markets. In most cases such investment has been seen to stimulate our exports.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it not true that a side effect of the abandonment of exchange controls by the Government is the difficulty in controlling the money supply and the resulting pressure of interest rates created by that abandonment? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if MLR rises next week, as is likely, one of the reasons for that will be the abandonment of exchange controls?
    Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman should not speculate on interest rate movements. Surely he appreciates that there are many other factors, of far greater significance, affecting this matter. They include, for example, the sharp upward movement in interest rates in the United States.

    Fiscal Policy
    Mr. Adleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he deems it necessary to equate national expenditure with national income.
    Mr. Lawson: Any attempt by the nation to spend above its income is likely to lead either to a worsening current balance of payments and higher overseas debts or to a lower exchange rate and faster inflation. Neither is a viable course in the long run.
    Mr. Adley: Has not my hon. Friend merely identified the situation that pertained when the Government took office, namely, that the previous Government were spending more money than the nation was earning? Does he agree that most people dislike the taste of the medicine as it goes down but know perfectly well that what the Government are doing is the only means of reversing the economic course upon which the previous Government set the nation?
    Mr. Lawson: The answer is "Yes, Sir".
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that under the previous Administration some of us below the Gangway advocated
    600
    that the PSBR should be equated, in percentage terms, to the gross national product, taking into account inflation? We argued that the rise in PSBR should be calculated on that basis. Since PSBR will rise again this year, and thus fail to pacify Tories both in Parliament and in the country, may we have a categorical assurance that the Chancellor and his fellow Ministers will not use the argument about calculating PSBR as a percentage of the GNP?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman was a persistent critic of the previous Government. I know of his keen interest in the public sector borrowing requirement. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, we shall make an announcement about the PSBR for the forthcoming year at the appropriate time.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Radiceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the progress of the economy.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not be satisfied with the progress of the economy until our industrial performance has improved, the rate of inflation has been brought down and sustainable long-term growth has been resumed.
    Mr. Radice: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that the economic outlook is grim? Inflation has risen by 6 per cent. since the general election, the Government forecast that there will be 300,000 more unemployed by the end of the next financial year, the interest rate is likely to rise and the CBI predicts an economic recession. Is it not time that the Government made up their mind, took their courage in both hands and put the country first, by changing their policies?
    Sir G. Howe: I admire the enthusiastic fortitude of the hon. Gentleman urging us to change our policies. He might have noted that the CBI, when commenting on the difficult economic circumstances that lie ahead, made it clear that it looks for no change in policy. It recognises that our policies are necessary to correct the economic decline caused by the previous Administration. It is remarkable that in all the flannel from the Opposition and the demands for the Government to

    601
    change their policies we have no evidence that the Opposition have a constructive alternative to offer.
    Mr. John Townend: In order to reduce the percentage of gross national product taken up by the public sector, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider putting a ceiling on inflation-proof pensions in the public sector? Does he agree that they are likely to accelerate in the next decade?
    Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend assumes that inflation will continue to accelerate in the next decade. I do not accept that. I recognise that attention should be given to the recommendations made by the Expenditure Committee on the way in which and the basis on which the cost of inflation-proof pensions should be paid for by those involved.
    Mr. Jay: Since it is many months since the Chancellor's incentive Budget, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman yet detect any sign of national revival as a result of his incentive policies?
    Sir G. Howe: If the right hon. Gentleman were to travel round the country, as I do, he would find many firms, workers, employers and many who have returned to the country since the Budget—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who has returned?"]—who see a great deal more sense now in taking decisions to invest, expand and take risks than they did under the previous Government.
    Mr. McCrindle: The CBI has indicated its satisfaction with the Government's policies. Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied with the response from industry in terms of investment, following his incentive Budget?
    Sir G. Howe: It is not appropriate for me to criticise, attack or pass judgment on the scale of response. My hon. Friend must realise that decisions to invest, on the future of businesses and on movements in the pattern of the economy take place over a long period. I am satisfied that there is a great deal more optimism about the future of the economy now than there was before the last election.
    Mr. Healey: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that the CBI is not putting its money where its mouth is? Is
    602
    the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the CBI's last survey of investment intentions showed a collapse in investment, following a collapse of confidence? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not listen to his friends in the CBI, will he examine the stock market and watch it giving the thumbs down to his policies?
    Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman is far too enthusiastic in passing judgment on the economy over which he presided until recently. He must recognise that the effective judgment of the CBI on our policies lies in its continued support for the total rightness of those policies in the absence of any alternative being proffered by the Opposition.

    Gross National Product
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual average of growth in the gross national product between 1974–5 and 1978–79.
    Mr. Biffen: It was 1½ per cent. at constant 1975 prices.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Does not that miserable figure demonstrate clearly the enormity of the task to which my right hon. and hon. Friends have set their hands? Does my right hon. Friend understand that the evidence is overwhelming from all parts of the country that the wealth creators, large and small, are solidly behind the Government's present economic policies?
    Mr. Biffen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I am sure that the figures demonstrate that last year's public spending White Paper predicated a rate of growth and a rate of increase in public spending that was in no way validated by the experience of the economy under the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. John Garrett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the outlook for the gross national product in the first two years of this Government's administration is about minus 1 per cent. or possibly minus 2 per cent.? Does he accept that the Government's inflationary policies are driving the country into a deeper and worse recession than is faced by any other country in Europe?
    Mr. Biffen: The White Paper published last week states that the immediate prospects for output are poor. That comment would not have been made without careful deliberation. Behind us is a record of facile and easy promises made by the Labour Government. If the country emerges reasonably unscathed from the economic recession, it will be because profitable activities are encouraged and not harassed.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the previous Government virtually ruined the economy during their five years in office? In view of the need urgently to catch up with other countries, what rate of growth does my right hon. Friend wish to see once the current medicine has begun to work?
    Mr. Biffen: I have no particular views about the desirable rate of growth. That is something that industry will tell us, rather than us telling industry.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that not only is the immediate prospect of growth poor, but that there is no evidence that over the next four years the growth rate will, on average, be in excess of the 1·5 per cent. that he has mentioned? Will the right hon. Gentleman now reply to the serious question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about investment intentions?
    Mr. Biffen: I do not want to speculate on the average rate of economic growth during the lifetime of this Parliament. However, I know that, on the whole, politically motivated investment has a poorer record than has business motivated investment.

    Value Added Tax (Listed Buildings)
    Mr. Gummerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek to exempt building works on listed buildings from value added tax?
    Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Gummer: Is that not a pity, since all changes to listed buildings must be in the form of repairs because no new construction is allowed and VAT bears heavily upon them? Many of those repairs are paid for out of public subscriptions, and more money has to be
    604
    raised to cover VAT. Is my hon. Friend aware that much of the money is provided by Government grants? Would it not be better to exempt listed buildings from VAT and allow people to raise more money to protect our historic homes?
    Mr. Lawson: We are not out of sympathy with the need to help our national heritage, but this is not the right way to do it. If relief were to be given it would give rise to demands for comparable relief on other types of repair work. The tax at stake for zero rating all building repair and maintenance work is as much as £300 million in a full year.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Were not the problems involved made much worse by the increase of VAT to 15 per cent. in the last Budget? Does the Financial Secretary agree that that was a disastrous decision? Will be re-examine the VAT rate, reduce it, and so bring down the rate of inflation?
    Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman has a curiously simpliste view for one who purports to understand monetary policy and the causes of inflation. Does he really believe that the rate of VAT determines the rate of inflation? If so, how does he explain why, when his right hon. Friend reduced the rate of VAT from 10 to 8 per cent., in the following 12 months we suffered the highest rate of inflation—about 35 per cent.—that the country had ever had the misfortune to experience?

    Expenditure
    Mr. Parryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the savings arising from cuts in public expenditure.
    Mr. Biffen: I refer the hon. Member to the White Paper on the Government's expenditure plans for 1980–81, Cmnd. 7746. published on 1 November.
    Mr. Parry: Any savings in expenditure affect the poor and result in handouts to the wealthy—especially in switching expenditure from education to defence and from health to law and order. Will the Minister tell us the human misery effect in real terms that the cuts will have on the sick, the disabled, the elderly and schoolchildren?
    Mr. Biffen: As the premise was a travesty of the facts, I cannot answer the second part of the question.
    Mr. Marlow: When my right hon. Friend sees some benefits from the savings in public expenditure, will he consider the impact on families of the increased price of school meals and school transport, as there has been a transfer in money and wealth from families to other sections of the community? When the next Budget comes, will my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. and learned Friend to consider increasing child benefits?
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has asked a formidable question. However, I do not believe that he would suppose that I could seek to forecast my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget for next year.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the Chief Secretary clarify the unemployment effects of his public expenditure White Paper, to which he referred last week? He told us that the average number unemployed next year would be 1,650,000, excluding school leavers. Will he confirm, as his forecast shows, that if he includes school leavers the figure will be over 2 million by the end of next year?
    Mr. Biffen: The unemployment forecast to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was a working assumption. Any student of the exchanges between the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) will appreciate the distinction between those two terms. As far as there is an impact on levels of employment in the prospective year, it is to be derived not from the public spending White Paper, which predicates stabilised public spending, but from the recession which operates throughout the Western world.
    Mr. Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most rapid increase in public expenditure revealed by the recent White Paper is in respect of interest rate charges? Has he noted that interest rates in the United States are now at a higher level than when General Lee threatened Washington during the American Civil War and that this is undoubtedly a symptom of an international interest rate
    606
    war which has largely replaced the international tariff rate wars of previous eras? Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor contemplating an initiative with OECD countries to prevent any further advance down this road, which must lead to a world depression?
    Mr. Biffen: My right hon. and learned Friend is in constant contact with other Chancellors through the medium of OECD and other international institutions. I am sure that he takes my hon. Friend's point to heart.
    Mr. Horam: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that just as alarming to the ordinary person is not merely the reduction in expenditure but the increase in charges in the White Paper, which will put up the cost of living considerably, the increases of VAT in the Budget, and the increases in nationalised industry prices still to come? What will be the increase in the retail price index following the White Paper? Does that include or exclude the increases in rates and rents that we now expect?
    Mr. Biffen: The increase in the retail price index next year, arising from the items specifically listed in the White Paper, will be approximately 1 per cent.

    AVGAS
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to alter the duty on AVGAS.
    Mr. Lawson: The taxation of hydrocarbon oil is kept under review, but my right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to alter the taxation of AVGAS relative to other hydrocarbon oil.
    Mr. Brown: How does my hon. Friend account for his answer when the duty on AVTUR JET A1 gas is 3·5p per imperial gallon, while the duty on AVGAS is 36·77p per imperial gallon? How does he account for the unfairness between the two rates of duty and the comparatively high rate of duty on AVGAS?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point. However, he must realise that there could be equalisation in the opposite direction. It would be possible to increase the duty on AVTUR.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 8 November.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with President Kaunda of Zambia. This evening I shall preside at a dinner for President Kaunda.
  Mr. Canavan: Why the indecent haste to rush through the Rhodesian legislation today and repeal sanctions next week? Does not the Prime Minister realise that she is taking the risk of jeopardising a peaceful settlement simply to appease the Right-wing racialists on her own Benches?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal dealt with the statement and all the questions superbly yesterday. I have nothing new that I can usefully add.
  Mr. Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend take time during her busy day to contact the governors of the BBC to express extreme concern about the way in which the "Panorama" team seems to have encouraged the IRA to break the law in Northern. Ireland?
  The Prime Minister: We got in touch with the BBC the moment we saw this report in the newspapers this morning. Since then the BBC has issued a statement saying that what happened would appear to be a clear breach on the part of the "Panorama" team of standing instructions about filming in Ireland. [Interruption.] I am reading the statement. The governors have asked the acting Director-General to complete his inquiries quickly and report back to the board on action to be taken.
  My hon. Friend will know that this is not the first time that we have had occasion to raise similar matters with the BBC. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I think that it is time that the BBC put its house in order.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Following the evidence of this treasonable activity on the
  608
  part of the BBC "Panorama" team in setting up what was a joint operation with the IRA, may we have an assurance that the names of those concerned will be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions?
  The Prime Minister: I think that this is a matter for the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I think it right that I should leave these matters in their capable hands.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Will the right hon. Lady—as I am sure she understands—convey the feeling of the whole House that it is not the duty of the media in this country to stage-manage news but to report it, and that affairs of this kind, in which the BBC, or anybody else, sets out deliberately to manufacture news to prove a point, are distasteful to and considered reprehensible by every one of us?
  The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to make it clear that the BBC said that there was no question of this programme being transmitted.
  Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 November.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given.
  Mr. Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the course of a busy day to telephone her European NATO colleagues and urge them to resist the blandishments of President Brezhnev in his attempts to make unilateral reductions in nuclear arms? Does she agree that the West must stand united in the face of the deliberate and continuing military buildup on the part of the Warsaw Pact countries?
  The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the first duty of the Western Governments is to provide for their own security. If we wish to negotiate on disarmament we should do so from a position of strength and not of weakness.
  It is noteworthy that President Brezhnev's remarks were made at a massive military parade in East Berlin, at a time when the Russians have far more modern theatre nuclear weapons than we

  609
  have. Therefore, we must bring our own up to strength and up to full modernisation.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: During the course of the day, will the Prime Minister consider the humane action of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in attempting to secure the release of the American hostages in Tehran? Does the right hon. Lady support that action? Will she also note the constructive part that that organisation is now playing in world affairs? Is it not time that the Government recognised the PLO?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are doing everything that we can to assist our friends the Americans in the grievous situation in which they find themselves. Because of that situation, I think that the less said that might do anything to aggravate it the better.
  Mr. Graham Page: Having regard to the prevalence of the crime of mugging, extending, according to reports, to British Legion poppy sellers, will my right hon. Friend spare time today to discuss with her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ways of speeding up measures to enforce law and order?
  The Prime Minister: I saw a report in the press to that effect. If that is happening, it is about the most reprehensible and disgraceful action that anyone could possibly imagine. We have given great priority to law and order, and we shall do all that we can to protect poppy sellers.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: As the Prime Minister is in favour of public expenditure cuts, will she consider cutting unemployment benefit, by providing public investment to create jobs in the North-West?
  The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to get more genuine jobs going, and those come from fostering small businesses in the private sector. We cannot go on staying in yesterday's jobs or putting more into nonproductive jobs when we wish people to put more of their effort into productive jobs with real prospects for the future.
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 8 November.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave earlier.
  Mr. Allaun: Amidst her many preoccupations today, will the Prime Minister pause to think that they would all be wasted in the event of a Third World War? Therefore, will she ask our representatives at NATO to negotiate on Mr. Brezhnev's offer on disarmament? If she argues that we can negotiate only through superior military strength, and if the Russians adopt the same attitude, it becomes a logical impossibility for one side to be stronger than the other, and hence the arms race will end in disaster.
  The Prime Minister: Our best insurance policy against a Third World War is to have regard to our own defences. I think that it was an American President who said "We should never fear to negotiate, but we should never negotiate from fear".
  Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider replacing the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman has been dithering since his appointment six months ago, he must be held responsible for the failure to provide security for the Ulster people and he is about to embark on a conference without considering the views of the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will have anticipated my reply, which of course is "No, Sir". I hope that he will look with interest at the White Paper on future proposals for Northern Ireland when it comes out in about the third week in November.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Prime Minister spare a little time in her busy day to speak to the Secretary of State for Defence and urge him to make a decision on the order for 77 Chieftain tanks for Vickers at Elswick which negotiated the tender? Is she aware that it is five and a half months since my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) and I first entered into correspondence with her asking for an urgent decision on this issue? Is she further aware that the Vickers plant at Elswick is to go on short time on Monday—probably a two-day week—due to her dilatory action?
  The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been very active in this matter and has raised it before. He knows that it is under consideration and that the answer partly depends on the further orders for tanks that we hope to receive.
  Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 November.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.
  Mr. Gardiner: The Prime Minister will be aware that the residual sanctions that will remain in force against Zimbabwe-Rhodesia after the coming week will permit a degree of discretion to the Government in their enforcement. Will she give instructions to her Ministers to interpret or to apply those remaining sanctions with discretion and flexibility, if only to ensure that British firms are enabled to make the appropriate preparations to establish sales forces in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, ready for the resumption of legality?
  The Prime Minister: The remaining sanctions, which are the vast majority which do not come under the 1965 Act, stay until they are positively revoked. We would expect them to be revoked the moment a British Governor sets foot in Rhodesia. Beyond that I will, of course, draw the mechanism to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I should like to revert to the Prime Minister's meeting with President Kaunda today. Having already had the advantage of a conversation with him, I shall not be surprised if he raises a point similar to that raised by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). In these circumstances, and as President Kaunda will be here today and tomorrow, will the right hon. Lady consider, at this very late stage, that as the business proposed for Monday, which has not yet been announced, is not vital it could be of great use to the House if we were to take the Second Reading of the Bill today and the Committee and remaining stages on Monday? If she accepts that suggestion I shall use what influence I have, whatever it may be, or however small it may be, with my hon. Friends to ensure that the Government get the Bill, perhaps late on Monday night
  612
  or Tuesday morning. That would give us the opportunity for discussions with President Kaunda and for reflection.
  The Prime Minister: We are always prepared to consider things through the usual channels. However, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, our fear is that his influence might fall just a bit short of securing the full guarantee. If we can have that guarantee—[Interruption.] We should have to get the Bill away from the House on Monday, to be in their Lordships' House on Tuesday. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that he can ensure that, I suggest that we consider it through the usual channels.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I give that undertaking on behalf of my hon. Friends if the Committee stage is put back to Monday, although we shall have to go very late in view of the number of amendments that have been tabled. Indeed, we shall go very late tonight and tomorrow if we take them today. I am not bargaining. I am trying to put forward a sensible suggestion. I am commenting on the fact that there are a number of amendments which, if I read the House aright, will take us a long time to deal with tonight or tomorrow. We all know that the length of hon. Members' speeches can depend upon whether there is an understanding. I can enter into an understanding, if the right hon. Lady will, to deliver the Bill to the House in time for her to get her sanctions, even though we are opposed to them. The right hon. Lady has a majority in the House. We shall argue the case, but we shall get the Bill through in time for her to take whatever action is necessary on that matter if she will fall in with the proposal that I have made.
  The Prime Minister: I suggest that it be further considered through the usual channels.
  Mr. Bowdenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 November.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.
  Mr. Bowden: I accept the necessity for control of Government expenditure, but will my right hon. Friend spend a few moments today talking to the Secretary of State for Social Services about the new

  613
  heating allowances? It is not intended that those who receive rent and rate rebates should receive these allowances. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would be unfair because many hon. Members have advised pensioners in their areas to take rent and rate rebate allowances rather than apply for supplementary benefit, with which they would get the heating allowance, and thereby get a little more money?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of that factor, but I hope that the people affected in that way will consider whether it is to their advantage to take their supplementary benefit allowances rather than rent and rebate allowances. The generous heating allowances under the new scheme can be as much as £50 per person. Pensioners might find that it is better for them to go for supplementary benefit than for rent and rate rebates.

  QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
  Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to Prime Minister's Question Time. I wonder whether you have any helpful suggestions how this tide of almost insatiable curiosity about my right hon. Friend's daily doings should be stemmed. I am sure that we all agree that my right hon. Friend does many interesting things almost every day, but to have no less than 18 people asking, as they have today, what she is doing seems to me to make an undue farce of our proceedings.
  Several Hon.Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The open question is quite a change. It happened during the previous Parliament and is happening during this one. It is almost an abuse of our procedures, but the House reacted strongly when I protested. I wish that the Procedure Committee would look at the whole question.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the announcement of next week's business, may I, on behalf of most of my colleagues who are supporting the amendments on the Southern Rhodesia Bill, say that we associate ourselves fully with what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition
  614
  said. We hope that that will cause a change in the business announcement that will be made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: Buisness Statement—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Protection of Trading Interests Bill.
Proceedings on the Isle of Man Bill.
TUESDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Supply [5th Allotted Day]. Debate entitled "The failure of the Government to support the woollen and textile industries," until about 7 o'clock.
Motion on cuts in the British Broadcasting Corporation's external services.
WEDNESDAY 14 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the European Communities (Greek Accession) Bill and of the Shipbuilding Bill.
THURSDAY 15 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill (Lords) and of the Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
FRIDAY 16 NOVEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the British Aerospace Bill.
Mr. James Callaghan: In view of the exchanges that have just taken place I know that the Leader of the House will be considering the prospect of an amendment to Monday's business and I will urge him further on that, so that the "usual channels" can have their usual discussions. However, we hope that he will be able to come to the House very early in the course of the debate today so as to facilitate progress and also give us an answer on this matter.
Secondly, referring to the business for next week, the Opposition will put down a motion on the failure of the Government to support the woollen and textile industries. As for cuts in the external

615
services of the British Broadcasting Corporation, we shall have no difficulty accepting, and tabling as a motion, the motion that already stands on the Order Paper.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I take it that that is a provisional announcement. With regard to the very reasonable offer made to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as she made clear it will be discussed through the usual channels. In the interests of the whole House, I hope that it will be possible to make a statement later today.
Mr. Emery: Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware of a view expressed by a number of Members during the last two weeks? During next week, will he consider acting on a reference to the Procedure Committee so that we can take steps to try to limit the length of supplementary questions at Question Time? Might we not revert to the practice of only one question being allowed to each Member, instead of two or three questions? Will my right hon. Friend refer that to the Procedure Committee?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: In answer to my hon. Friend's supplementary questions, I think that that is a matter for Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Renée Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great interest throughout the House in the report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service? Can he give an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity to debate that matter before the Christmas Recess?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give the hon. Lady an undertaking in categoric terms. I am certainly aware of the importance of that report, and I will consider the matter.
Mr. Alton: Will the Leader of the House provide an early opportunity to discuss the findings of the committee of inquiry into the death of Darryn Clarke, published one hour ago? In view of the serious implication that starving social services departments of funds can lead to the death of young children such as Darryn Clarke, it is a matter of vital importance that the House should have
616
the earliest opportunity to discuss the findings of that committee. Can the Leader of the House give us that undertaking?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: In these controversial matters it is always wise not to jump to conclusions, as the hon. Member has done. I have not read the report. It has only just been published. I shall look at it and consider what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Peyton: Has the Leader of the House yet been persuaded by his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence that we should have a debate on the SALT treaty before it is ratified by the Senate? There are many who think that the contents of that agreement are a very eloquent testimony to Russian skill and determination in negotiations.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly consider the important representations made by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Leader of the House recall that he made a commitment to me two weeks ago that he would consult the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers about making a statement on the iniquitous practice of invading the privacy of jurors by vetting them before they are empanelled? Can he say when that statement will be made?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I said that I would consult the Lord Chancellor. In fact, my right hon, and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my hon, and learned Friend the Solicitor-General are considering the matter and I will let the hon. Gentleman know the result of those deliberations in due course.
Mr. du Cann: May we have a prompt debate on the Government's public expenditure White Paper?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: There will certainly be a debate on the public expenditure White Paper before Christmas.
Mr. Michael McGuire: When may we expect a debate on the affairs of the North-West? If time cannot be found for a debate in the Chamber, do arrangements still exist for debates in the Regional Affairs Committee? If they do, we have only then to agree on the team to take part. Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the last time we debated the North-West in the Regional

617
Affairs Committee we had an omnibus agenda? I would prefer in our next debate to restrict it to one simple subject, such as the consequences of the Government's expenditure cuts for the North-West.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance. These matters have been raised in Adjournment debates, I shall certainly look at the matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to make their questions as brief as possible. If they do I hope to be able to call everyone rising to speak.
Mr. Rippon: Will my right hon. Friend consider saving the time of the House by indicating that the Government will accept the motion on the BBC's external services, which the Leader of the Opposition has said he will put up for debate? That motion will certainly receive a great deal of support from the Conservative Benches.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will certainly consider what my right hon, and learned Friend said. The whole problem may be solved when the facts are fully known. This year the provision for the BBC external services is £40·3 million—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that the information is interesting, but it had better await a later time.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am only trying, Mr. Speaker, to help the House. I certainly bow to your ruling, but when the facts are fully known the demand for the debate from both sides of the House will die away.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House ensure that for the debate on Tuesday, which will take place in Opposition time—which perhaps is a measure of the Government's lack of concern for the textile industry—representatives are here from both the Department of Industry and the Department of Trade? If they are, one cannot be played off against the other. In addition, attitudes that are of vital concern to the woollen textile industry about both the
618
industry and the multi-fibre arrangement can be brought into the debate, and Ministers will be able to answer to the fullest extent possible.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I believe that it is ordinary constitutional practice for a Supply day to be used in order to raise these matters. The arrangement has nothing to do with the Government's concern for our future. I shall certainly consider the hon. Member's request about speakers.
Mr. Crouch: Can my right hon. Friend comment on the working and possible impact of the new Select Committees on the work of this House? For example, if the Select Committee on social services should choose as one of its first subjects to examine the Merrison report on the National Health Service, may we be assured that that would not preclude a debate on the subject on the Floor of the House?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am glad that, as the Order Paper shows, the Committee of Selection has proposed names for all the Select Committees. I shall be tabling a motion to this effect next week. I think that we should wait until the Committees are in existence before deciding on the sort of points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Robert Hughes: In his reflections on the reasonable proposition advanced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for changing Monday's business, will the right hon. Gentleman, as well as taking account of the needs and wishes of the House, bear in mind that by transferring the remaining stages to Monday an atmosphere may well be created that will help the Foreign Secretary at Lancaster House?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am very well aware of the important considerations that have been raised. Of course, I always react reasonably when reasonable statements are made—for instance, by the Leader of the Opposition. I feel a great deal of sympathy for him. He must be the only leader of the Labour Party to be in limbo and purgatory at the same time.
Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is ample support from the Government side of the House for

619
both the points made by the Leader of the Opposition?
My right hon. Friend referred to the British Aerospace Bill. May I refer him to early-day motion No. 164 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) and myself and 80 of our hon. Friends which seeks to enshrine the principle of allowing private enterprise to purchase parts of State corporations, particularly where those corporations are unwilling or unable to maintain the manufacture of certain parts?
[That this House welcomes any private sector investment in British motor car manufacturing; and trusts that Her Majesty's Government will not permit, under the guise of non intervention in management, the Board of British Leyland to close M.G. Abingdon by preventing the sale of M.G. to private-sector competitors of the state-subsidised Triumph T. R. sports cars.]
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is possible to arrange a debate on this matter as soon as possible?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly consider that. I have seen the motion on the Order Paper. British Leyland is prepared to consider any sensible proposal about the future of MG. Of course, it is up to BL to decide which course of action is in its best commercial interest, unhampered by Government intervention.
Mr. Newens: Since General Suharto will be visiting this country next week, and since discussions will be taking place on many important issues—no doubt including the invasion of East Timor by Indonesian forces, which has led to tremendous suffering and many deaths among the indigenous population—may we expect a statement on the talks? That would enable hon. Members who are deeply concerned about these issues to discover exactly what is happening.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's concern to my right hon, and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the five hon. Members who have been rising will put brief questions I shall be able to call them all.
Mr. Greville Janner: When will the Leader of the House give instructions for the restoration and repair of the Palace of Westminster to begin and for the so-called temporary railings in Westminster Hall to be removed? If it is not to be soon, may we have a debate about it?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That matter is being considered by the Services Committee.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the Leader of the House realise that there is greater unity behind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the Rhodesian question than exists on the Government Benches? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us believe that the enabling Bill has been brought forward to patch up the differences on the Conservative side? In view of my right hon. Friend's constructive suggestion, will the right hon. Gentleman consider an application to Mr. Speaker for a brief adjournment of the House during which discussions could be held through the usual channels before we reach the Second Reading? We should then know what the situation was, and that would have a bearing on the debate.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate the hon. Member's desire to help, but I think that discussions through the usual channels are now taking place. I hope that they will have a constructive result without the need for an adjournment.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Leader of the House agree that more than just the convenience of the House and of Members is at stake in the discussions that are taking place about how we deal with the Rhodesia legislation? Does he accept that the situation is such that we could risk civil war in Rhodesia? Is he aware that if the legislation is passed precipitately and the Government implement a settlement that does not have the support of the Patriotic Front, they will be culpable, in bringing about the possibility of civil war?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not want to follow the hon. Gentleman into the more controversial parts of that question. However, it would be in the best interests of everyone in Rhodesia if the strong views that are held in the House can be expressed within a reasonable compass of

621
time, and if the ordinary procedures of the House can be followed.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Leader of the House undertake to provide time before Christmas for a debate on the effects of Government expenditure cuts on the British Council?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The British Council and the expenditure on it can be discussed within the general debate on the White Paper.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears that my arithmetic a little earlier was wrong. It was my mistake. I realise that three other hon. Members have been seeking to catch my eye, and I will call them.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that it is important that the House should know what the Government intend to do, in response to my right hon. Friend's request, before we begin to discuss the business motion that is likely to be moved in the next 10 to 15 minutes?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate that that would be an ideal course of action, but there are complex issues that have to be discussed and the details have to be worked out through the usual channels. I do not think that it is likely that we can meet that deadline, but as soon as possible I hope to be able to tell the House if there is anything constructive to say.
Mr. Weetch: Could the Leader of the House find an early opportunity to provide time for a debate on the report of the Royal Commission on legal services?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall consider that request for a debate, together with the request that I had earlier from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). There is another Commission report that we have to consider. I shall try to find time for them, but it cannot all be done in a hurry.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the disastrous situation in Cambodia and the implications of our continued recognition of the obnoxious Pol Pot regime?
622
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early day motion No. 144, signed by a large number of Members of all parties in the House, calling for that question to be reconsidered, so that the House may have the opportunity of expressing its view on this issue.
[That this House, deeply concerned at the effects of famine in Cambodia, welcomes the aid programme of Her Majesty's Government; calls for it to be continued throughout the present crisis; and urges the reconsideration of the recognition of the Pol Pot régime.]
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's request. What is taking place in Cambodia is an affront to the conscience of mankind. The recognition of the Pol Pot regime is a question that is being considered by the Government and a statement will be made on that in the near future. Meanwhile, I shall give full consideration to the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within the memory of the whole House that when I inquired whether he would refer to the Procedure Committee for consideration the matter of raising several different questions under one supplementary question, my right hon. Friend replied that this was a matter for Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that the Leader of the House is quite within order to refer a matter of this nature to the Procedure Committee? I appreciate that it is not appointed until a matter is referred to it.
Is it not correct that only a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, you indicated to the House that the position of the Chair would be strengthened if the views of the House could be ascertained on this matter and if the Procedure Committee considered the point?
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The House knows that from time to time I appeal to hon. Members to ask but one supplementary question when they are called. As I explained to the House only a few weeks ago, it was indeed the custom until about 15 years ago that if an hon, Member asked two supplementary questions he was chopped down and not called again

623
for a long time. The invisible disciplines were exerted.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right in what he says. Any hon. Member can propose that the Procedure Committee should look at the matter. I do not wish to push the burden on to the Leader of the House. I realise that if I have the good will of the House—but only if I have the good will of the House—I can stop hon. Members who, when I call them to ask a supplementary question, ask two or more questions. But I expect to have the full support of the House when I do so.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps I may intervene in order to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). I do not think that I had fully understood his point. I thought that he was referring to the practice, but he was referring to the theory. That is where I come in, and I will consider it, but I do not wish in any way, Mr. Speaker, to encroach on your prerogatives.
Mr. Speaker: I always give way to the Leader of the House on theological matters.
Mr. Cryer: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I be quite clear that you are not proposing, now, to undertake the practice of curtailing supplementary questions, and that you are saying that you would do this only when the will of the House was clear, presumably after a debate by the House, otherwise the will of the House could not easily be expressed—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that I know the will of the House. It is only when hon. Members are on their feet that they forget the will of the House. I would not accuse the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) of ever asking more than one supplementary question, but it is quite conceivable that I am wrong on that issue.
Now that a considerable number of hon. Members are present, I will state that on Monday at Question Time I shall intervene when an hon. Member has asked one supplementary question and ask him to resume his seat so that the Minister may answer that question. I look to the House for its support.

MISS BETTY HARVIE ANDERSON
Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that I have written on its behalf to Dr. Skrimshire, the husband of one who is better known to us as Betty Harvie Anderson, whose death was announced today. She was the only woman to act as Deputy Speaker in this House and was held in high affection and esteem by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Her devotion to this House was reflected in her distinguished service as Deputy Speaker. As hon. Members will appreciate, it is a difficult job. We salute the memory of a truly right hon, servant of this House.
MISS BETTY HARVIE ANDERSON
  BILL PRESENTED
    BRITISH AEROSPACE
    Mr. Secretary Joseph, supported by Mr. Secretary Pym, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Nott, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Adam Butler and Mr. Michael Marshall, presented a Bill to provide for the vesting of all the property, rights, liabilities and obligations of British Aerospace in a company nominated by the Secretary of State and the subsequent dissolution of British Aerospace; and to make provision with respect to the finances of that company: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 November and to be printed [Bill 74].

STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not absolutely certain whether it is Mr. Speaker or the Leader of the House who orders that Standing Orders be reprinted up-to-date. It says on the face of the Standing Orders
"Ordered by The House of Commons"
but I do not remember ever hearing a motion that it be done. As the present issue is as obsolete as 17 May 1979 and additional orders now have all the motions for setting up the new Select Committees, would it be possible to arrange for an up-to-date set of Standing Orders to be printed and made available to Members?
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I shall find out whether the

625
Leader of the House, myself, or someone else is responsible. I think I have now found the answer—if I can read it. The order is made by a formal entry in the Vote. I shall see that it is done.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That if the Southern Rhodesia Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Southern Rhodesia [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, and that the Southern Rhodesia Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any flout.—[Mr. Waddington.]
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you indicate whether you will be calling my amendment?
Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: Then may I speak to the motion?
Mr. Speaker: Later on, maybe.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The motion is that the Southern Rhodesia Bill should be debated and that the debate should be continued until any hour, in the expectation that the Bill can be completed at one sitting.
This is a Bill of profound significance for the future of Southern Africa, and it is not too emotional or high-flown to say that lives depend upon a wise judgment about the course of the Bill and the time that we take to study it. The Opposition are incensed by the presentation of the Bill at this stage of the negotiations at Lancaster House. We are not opposed to the production of an enabling Bill to allow the Government to carry out the terms of an agreement that has been reached by all three parties to the consultations at Lancaster House, but it is essential before an enabling Bill is passed that there should be such an agreement.
If there is not such an agreement, the effect of the Bill that we are called upon to discuss is that the Government will have the power legally to take control of Southern Rhodesia again, to conduct the business of government in Southern
626
Rhodesia up to the election, to have elected within Southern Rhodesia a Government who, by the time scale envisaged by Her Majesty's Government, are intended to be a Government headed by Bishop Muzorewa, and to confer legality upon that Government by recognising them there and then.
The Government's argument in presenting the Bill is that they do not have the power legally to confer independence because they do not have the independence Bill and the constitution in it. In fact, they will have had legal authority to take Rhodesia up to the brink of independence, to have a Government elected on their terms by their conception of what is a fair election, to recognise them, and, if they are recognised, to try to pass them off as the fully independent Government of Rhodesia, who could in those circumstances call in South Africa and accept the help of a foreign Government in fighting the guerilla forces. If that were to be the scenario, there is no one in the House who would want it. The only reason why there is not the same ferment of revolt by Conservative Members as by Labour Members is that so far the Government have been able to persuade Conservative liberal critics that they are getting near to an agreement at Lancaster House.
If there were an agreement and the Government brought forward the enabling Bill, they could have the Bill in a couple of hours. In those circumstances, no one in the House would want to oppose it. If all the parties at Lancaster House had agreed on the terms of a new constitution and they had all agreed that an enabling Bill was necessary, no one would want to put a barrier in the way of stopping the war and ending the loss of life.
In those circumstances, what is the rush to prepare the Bill now and to produce it today when no agreement has been reached at Lancaster House? Some of my right hon, and hon. Friends take the view that all that this is about is the embarrassment that the Government may feel on having to introduce a sanctions order before next Thursday, and the revolt that may follow on the Conservative Benches. I have no doubt that that is in the mind of the Government, too.
If that were all it were, they know that they could get the sanctions order. They know that there is a majority for the order

627
in the House. It would cause them some embarrassment to have a large revolt, but it would not be so embarrassing if they were ultimately to get an agreement a few days later and were able to say "I told you so.".
I believe that the real reasoning of the Government in producing the enabling Bill before they have an agreement at Lancaster House is that they suspect that they will not get an agreement. I believe that they are hoping to have legal authority to push through an agreement bilaterally with the Muzorewa regime when they do not have the assent of the Patriotic Front. They would have the legal authority of the House to do that because they had already obtained an enabling Bill.
If that is in the Government's mind, nothing more disreputable has been put before the House. In addition, there could be nothing more dangerous for the future of Southern Africa. The reality of power in Southern Rhodesia is that the Patriotic Front has military control of a considerable section of the country. It has the capacity to continue fighting as long as it wishes. Only if the Patriotic Front gives its assent to an agreement will the war stop. If the Patriotic Front is not in agreement, whatever we do in the House will not bring the war to a close one day earlier.
If we were to give the Government the authority to bless the Muzorewa regime and to bring about an appearance of legality that extended the war, the blood would be on our hands as well as on the hands of those who are taking part in the fighting. I do not believe that the House wants that to happen. I do not believe that the House recognises that that should happen.
In discussing the motion, the issue is whether there is such urgency as to make it necessary for the Government to have the Bill this week. If we leave the Bill until there is an agreement, the Government can have it within a day. They have talked for nine weeks on the independence negotiations and another day will not hurt very much. I want the war to end as soon as possible; so does Bishop Muzorewa, so does the Patriotic Front and so does everyone who has the best interests of Rhodesia at heart. I do not want to prolong the Bill by appearing to bless an independent Muzorewa regime
628
that does not have the assent of the Patriotic Front. We must remember that the Patriotic Front can dictate whether the war continues.
Conservative Members, with their preoccupation with sanctions and their own constituency interests, should recognise that there is a real danger if the Bill proceeds today.
I hope that even at this late stage the Government will reconsider. We have made them a reasonable offer. I should prefer not to have the Bill until an agreement is reached. However, if the Government accept our offer, we can delay the passage of the Bill until Tuesday night. By that time President Kaunda will have had discussions with the Prime Minister. By that time President Nyerere could have indicated his view. There could be discussions with the other frontline States about what should happen if there is to be a breakdown in talks. By Tuesday night we will know probably better than we know now what the ultimate outcome of the talks at Lancaster House is to be. If that were possible, I am sure that the House would be in a better position to decide whether the Bill should proceed.
Mr. Fell: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about all stages by Tuesday night?
Mr. Lyon: I have always understood that we shall reach the end of discussion in the House by the end of Monday's business, which may go into Tuesday but will not interfere with Tuesday's business. It is my understanding that the Bill could go to another place on Tuesday afternoon. It seems that that is a fair offer. Indeed, it gives more than I should want to give if I were asked to consider the matter afresh.
The Government have a majority to push the Bill through. If the offer is accepted, the parties at Lancaster House will have only the weekend to make plain their views about the outcome of the negotiations. If there is to be an agreement, and if all parties agree that there can be an agreement, there is no one in the House who will not give the Bill a fair wind. If there is not to be an agreement, it is only right that we should stop the Bill now. It is dangerous and it could produce more bloodshed than we have seen hitherto.
Mr. Newens: I also wish to oppose the motion that stands in the name of the Prime Minister and concerns the business of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has pointed out, the motion provides for the Southern Rhodesia Bill to be rushed through all its stages in one sitting.
No one can doubt that it is a most important Bill. It raises issues of vast import for the future of Africa and of this country. In the opinion of many hon. Members, the Bill may contribute to the continuation of the civil war in Southern Rhodesia, and we all wish to bring that to an end. In those circumstances it is vital that the issues involved should not be dealt with at one sitting and rushed through the House in the way here proposed.
That is particularly important in view of the situation at Lancaster House. We were told by the Lord Privy Seal yesterday that an agreement was near, but some of us believe that it is not as near as was suggested, and there is at least doubt about it. If we were to rush the Bill through in one prolonged sitting we might jeopardise the long-term agreement at Lancaster House. In those circumstances it is highly unadvisable for us to proceed at this stage.
Further, the time allowed by the Prime Minister's motion would not be sufficient for hon. Members to express themselves on all the issues that are raised. Yesterday I raised a point of order concerning the position of right hon. and hon. Members who may wish to deal with some of the principal issues at stake. The Bill raises the question of sanctions, security and other issues about the future of Southern Rhodesia or Zimbabwe. The House should consider carefully whether it would be right to rule hon. Members out of order if they raise such matters or if they are not given adequate time to discuss them. If the motion were passed today it would be impossible for hon. Members to discuss those issues in full.
Such important issues require lengthy discussion. I remind the House of the amount of time required to discuss devolution in the previous Parliament. Unless it can be proved that the Bill should go through today because it is absolutely essential for agreement at Lancaster House, it would be totally
630
wrong for these discussions to be thrust on one side and to deny right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity of putting forward their views at this stage.
We have had to discuss on many occasions matters of crucial importance to the future of former British colonies, and in several of those colonies blood has subsequently been shed. Had further consideration been given to the measures at the time, a great number of the problems might have been avoided. As an example, the difficulties in Ireland are still with us, although many people hoped that they would have disappeared half a century ago. We should not today take a decision in haste that could lead to the perpetuation of the problems in Southern Rhodesia and the whole of Africa for a long time to come.
Unless agreement is reached at Lancaster House, the civil war will continue. In those circumstances it is important for hon. Members to have time to reflect.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York said, we do not yet know the position of the front-line States. President Kaunda is here and discussions are shortly to take place. It will be totally wrong if we are unable carefully to weigh the words of President Kaunda and other front-line Presidents before taking decisions on these important issues.
It is not merely a question of the continuation of the civil war or a settlement in Southern Africa; it also concerns Britain's standing in Africa and the world at large. We have international obligations, and if the Bill becomes law and is acted upon we may find ourselves in breach of those obligations. Should that happen, there will be adverse effects on Britain's standing in the world, and some countries may choose to take economic sanctions against us. That would be most undesirable in present circumstances.
If democracy is to have any meaning we must resist the Government's intention to push the Bill through regardless.
A further consideration is that many of us have long felt that if important issues have to be discussed hon. Members are not at their most alert and freshest in the early hours of the morning. Through tiredness, some hon. Members do not make the contributions that they would wish. Unless there is a pressing

631
need, it is wrong for us to embark on an all-night discussion on such an important matter.
Some of us wish fully to express our views on the amendments, and, as all hon. Members know well, we may be subjected to pressures from colleagues who wish to get away. By keeping the House here in the early hours of the morning we may be causing considerable inconvenience and difficult to colleagues. That is a responsibility that we are forced to consider. I do not believe that the Government have made out a case for proceeding through the night and placing hon. Members in that difficulty.
There is no justification for carrying on the debate through the night. The supposition put before the House yesterday, that the Bill is essential to implement the agreement, was based upon the idea that that agreement was near. Many of us believe that judgment to be invalid.
If the Bill is rushed through, the Patriotic Front—the party to the discussions which is unlikely to reach agreement—may see it as an ultimatum. My hon. Friend the Member for York said that it was the Government's intention that if the Patriotic Front did not reach agreement they would not bother about that unduly but would implement the agreement based upon the consent of the Muzorewa Government. The House should wake up to the fact that agreement is not likely to come next week.
Yesterday the Lord Privy Seal, when answering questions on the matter, hinted that he was not clear about the outcome of events if agreement was not reached with the Patriotic Front. Indeed, I believe that his right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary said something different in another place. My right hon. and hon. Friends would like to know what will happen if agreement is not reached with the Patriotic Front. The Government must undertake not to implement the Bill that we are being asked to rush through the House. Of course, it would be too late to ask for that when the Bill has gone through the House. Therefore, it is important to resist the Bill strongly today, so that all those matters can be cleared up.
Many of us feel that the Government are not only concerned to avoid splitting their ranks on the issue of sanctions next
632
week but are also anxious to present the House with a fait accompli, should the negotiations break down next week.
We all wish to see an end to the war. No. hon. Member can dissent from that wish. We all wish to see peace in Southern Africa—it is in the interests of everybody. Therefore, we should not allow a Bill to be thrust through the House which may jeopardise that peace eventually being achieved. If we allowed the business motion to go through we would be accepting a state of affairs before the outcome of these matters was known. It is vital to resist the proposal on the Order Paper that would give effect to the Bill today.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument. Why will matters be different on Monday night? How will the problems be resolved at that stage, in terms of the offer that has been fairly made on behalf of the Opposition and supported by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon)? What will happen over the next three or four days to resolve all those problems?
Mr. Newens: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. These matters are important. If it were clear by early next week that the front-line States were opposed to the Bill and its effects, and that agreement was some time off, even Conservative Members, as well as Opposition Members, would consider the Bill to be inapposite at this time. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) does not share that view, but some of his right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed misgivings about the matter and may feel that we may be placed in breach of our international obligations. The vast majority of Opposition Members, if not all, are opposed to the measure. Strong pressure may well be brought on the Government next week to postpone the Bill if no agreement has been reached.
If it became clear next week that an agreement was unlikely, after the Bill had passed through all its stages, it would be too late. It would be no use crying over spilt milk. Therefore, those of us who can envisage that possibility should object strongly at this stage. I appeal to Conservative Members to consider the points that I am raising. The Bill would carry much more force with the support

633
of the entire House behind it instead of being pushed through by a majority in the face of a determined and convinced minority. The agreement would be more difficult to put into effect at international level if the Bill were pushed through.
The Government should recognise that if the Bill is taken next week and if an agreement has been reached, it will receive the blessing of all parties in the House. That would be preferable to pushing the Bill through the House at this stage without the support of the minority. I hope that the Government will give the matter serious consideration and tell us why, if they do not accept this point of view, they think it desirable and important to push the Bill through the House. If they are pushing the Bill through to save them from party differences—I am not suggesting that that is necessarily the case—all hon. Members would consider that behaviour to be disgraceful. If something is being done purely for party advantage and against the long-term interest of the people in this country and in Southern Africa, it is to be deplored.
Mr. Porter: I understood the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) to be speaking on behalf of those who wish to amend the Bill. He said that if there was to be a delay until Monday they would not put any difficulties in the way of the Government. However, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) appears to be saying that the delay should take place in case the Bill is to be put off until Monday. I thought that the hon. Member for York was speaking on behalf of the Opposition hon. Members below the Gangway.
Mr. Newens: I speak for myself on the issue. No doubt many of my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with me. I was not saying that everyone agreed with me on every aspect of this matter. Nor did my hon. Friend the Member for York say that. My hon. Friend did not say, or imply, what the hon. Gentlemen has claimed. I should like to clarify the position so that the hon. Gentleman need be under no misapprehension.
If it became clear next week that agreement was still some distance away, and that the front-line States were opposed to the Bill and to the effects of the Bill, and if it also became clear that the Bill,
634
in the judgment of many hon. Members, would not help to end the civil war but would perpetuate it, my view, which I hope would be shared by everyone on this side of the House, and perhaps by some hon. Members on the Government side, would be to say that the Bill should not go through at this stage.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my hon. Friend explain to the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) that the only proposition before the House at this time is that the whole matter should be driven through today? If the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port wants to be constructive, he should direct his remarks to his own Front Bench in whose hands this matter rests.
Mr. Newens: What my hon. Friend says is true. There is no other proposition on the Order Paper except that which provides for all the proceedings to be rushed through today. If any of the expressions of opinion, suggestions, hints and promises that were voiced earlier today are made good, it is possible that our problem will to some extent be resolved, although I emphasise that I am not suggesting that the Bill would be timely, even next week.
Mr. John Townend: The hon. Gentleman seems to be indicating that the Patriotic Front should have the right of veto over these discussions.
Mr. Newens: I believe that we need to get an agreement. One cannot get an agreement unless all parties to the agreement are eventually satisfied. To talk in terms of a veto, one is posing the question whether there should be an agreement with all the parties or, if necessary, only with some. My view is that we must seek agreement with all the parties. Unless we achieve such an agreement, the civil war will continue. We are talking about the continuation of the killing, the disruption and the ruination that is taking place in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
We should take a long look at the situation. I believe that the Bill is likely to precipitate a situation in which the civil war will be carried on. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends yesterday congratulated the Government on the progress that they had made to date in the talks. Many of us would agree that the

635
talks have gone further than we might have expected at one time. Should those talks break down and should the war continue, it will be extremely difficult to take a new initiative and such an initiative would not be likely, anyway, to be in our hands. We are at a crucial crossroads. More care and more delay may enable us to achieve a reasonable result or at least satisfy ourselves that we have gone as far as possible in achieving a reasonable result. Surely we should not accept a state of affairs in which this procedural motion is rushed through the House.
Mr. Temple-Morris: Hon. Members on the Government Benches wish to be helpful, but Back Benchers are in a hopeless state of confusion. To take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter), how does the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he says with what his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) says? I understood the hon. Member for York to say that the Government could have the Bill on Tuesday, come what may. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) now says that unless there is agreement between all three parties we shall suffer next week exactly the same resistance as he is now displaying. How does he reconcile his position with that of his hon. Friend the Member for York?
Mr. Newens: I do not believe that there is any deep rift between my hon. Friend the Member for York and myself. If there is, I respect the view of my hon. Friend, but I still hold to my view. My view is that if the Bill next week is seen to be damaging to the possibility of a settlement, it ought not to go through. If my hon. Friend the Member for York wishes to interrupt, I will give way.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I remind my hon. Friend, and, perhaps, hon. Members on the Government side, who have not looked at the Order Paper, that 15 sets of amendments have been tabled. One of them, at any rate, allows us to discuss the whole of the White Paper and all the constitution. I do not know what hon. Members can do with that. But on that one set of amendments, I could talk for eight hours. Recognising that another 30 votes could take place, I believe it is possible that even if the Government Front Bench are not inclined to allow us
636
to conclude the debate next Monday, it will not be through the House by next Monday anyway. In the meantime, hon. Members will be here on Saturday and Sunday. I intervene in my hon. Friend's speech only to indicate that there may not be much difference in practice between us. It is a question of the wear and tear on hon. Members on the Government Benches.
Mr. Newens: My hon. Friend has clarified the matter so far as he is concerned. I hope that hon. Members on the Government Benches will see clearly the point I am making. When the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) mentioned that Conservative Back Benchers were hopelessly at sea—
Mr. Mikardo: Not only on this matter.
Mr. Newens: Not only on this issue, as my hon. Friend remarks. I want to ask the hon. Member for Leominster whether he believes it would be a good idea to push this measure through at this stage as swiftly as the Government propose. I believe it is totally undesirable. If Labour Members had remained silent and allowed the procedural motion to go through, we might have been guilty of allowing a Bill to be passed which would have had long term repercussions that none of us, on either side of the House, would think desirable.
There is a suggestion, I am told, that the Government intend to concede that the Bill should not proceed in the terms set out in the procedural motion. But, at this stage, at 20 minutes to five, we have received no definite indication that this is the situation. Hon. Members may say that talks are taking place all the time. But if we were to give way, who is to say that those talks, let alone those at Lancaster House, might not break down? If they broke down, we should still be faced with a procedural motion, and one well knows what the situation would be. If Conservative Members were asked to vote for it and we were asked to vote against it, that would be pushed through.
I hope that hon. Members will not regard this as some sort of fractious and unreasonable opposition. We are very deeply concerned about the fundamental principles which are at stake if this matter goes through.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Ioan Evans rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. McNamara.
Mr. Newens: I was giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans).
Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that, since the hon. Gentleman was making that point for the fourth time, he was concluding.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Perhaps I may tell my hon. Friend that I believe that he and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) are doing a service to the House, because it would be wrong for us to proceed to make a decision on this motion without knowing the Government's intentions. It is important that this debate should continue until we know the Government's intentions.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may help the House on that matter. There are several other hon. Members seeking to catch my eye to talk on the motion. Mr. Newens.
Mr. Newens: I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak, Mr. Speaker, and I shall shortly be bringing my remarks to a close. But I make no apology for taking up the time of the House with what many of us feel is a vital issue. With due respect, we frequently discuss in the House all sorts of trivial matters at very great length. On this issue the future of Southern Africa is at stake. Those of us who feel strongly about this issue would be in dereliction of our duties if we did not raise this matter now.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York points out, at this stage no Government statement is before us. None of us knows that the Government will not stick to this particular motion, nor do we know what alternative, if any, they may be proposing.
In these circumstances, it would be totally wrong of the House to proceed to vote in favour of the motion. I hope very much that all hon. Members will weigh what I have said very carefully indeed, because it will be no use saying afterwards that we ought not to have had the Bill, and had we not taken this step other things might have been possible. Once the talks at Lancaster House break down finally, civil war will continue indefinitely. We here have a duty to see
638
that nothing is done which makes that more likely. I hope that not merely my right hon. and hon. Friends but also some Conservative Members will support my point of view.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Having frequently spoken from the Opposition side of the House in opposition to procedural motions that appeared to be rushed, I can well understand the passion with which the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) has spoken. In the many years that he and I have differed across the Floor, I have never doubted his sincerity. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that I have never listened to a more effective demonstration as to why Mr. Speaker is right to be introducing the 10-minute speech rule. I shall be very brief in what I say.
In no way do I disagree with the hon. Member about the vital importance of what is at stake. Of course we all wish to see an end to the war. But I hope that the hon. Member will not conclude that, because he feels passionately about it, he has any monopoly of concern for the ending of this war and that I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who support the motion are not just as concerned as he or any of his hon. Friends that this war rapidly be brought to a conclusion. I hope that he will concede us that.
Mr. Newens: The hon. Member obviously thought that my speech was too long. He must have missed part of it. I said that I believed that all tight hon. and hon. Members were concerned to get peace in Southern Africa. We may differ about the terms, but I certainly believe that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends are sincere in their desire to get peace.
Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to the hon. Member. However, although he made every one of his other points about seven times, he did not make that point very clear.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the length of my hon. Friend's speech and suggested that it ought to come within the ambit of the 10-minute rule. Is he not aware—he must remember his days in opposition—that the one weapon that an Opposition have is time? The 10-minute rule is not

639
intended to take away that power, be cause that rule is related only to Second Readings, which are within confined limits. If we were not to have the right to delay business in order to get across serious issues of great importance to the country and to the party, we would be emasculated. I hope that there will be no suggestion that because we are delaying this motion today we are acting against the practices or the procedures of the House in any way.
Mr. Griffiths: I shall not comment on those remarks, Mr. Speaker, which were obviously addressed more to you than to me. In commenting on the speech of the hon. Member for Harlow, I merely said that I thought that it was a very good advertisement for the advantages of the 10-minute rule.
Two matters concerned me when the debate upon this procedural motion arose. The first was that things might be said in this House that would have a sideways effect on what is going on in the discussions at Lancaster House that would be damaging to the prospects of a settlement. I am bound to say directly to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), whose sincerity I also recognise, that when he says—I am paraphrasing it—that it is the Government's intention so to arrange things that the Muzorewa party will be given a sort of built-in advantage which will enable it to carry the day, which I refute as being totally untrue, I suggest that what he was doing was making the task of the Foreign Secretary and others at Lancaster House more difficult, because he was virtually placing his name and, by implication, those of many members of the Labour Party, on the view that the Patriotic Front may well come to feel—-namely, that the talks are being arranged to its disadvantage. Whether or not the Patriotic Front feels that, it is not the business and not the duty of any Member of this House to give to the Patriotic Front an impression that could prolong the war in Rhodesia. The hon. Member did that.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious charge. Therefore, I am grateful to him for giving way so that I may answer it. If we are to discuss the Bill, as we shall, in great detail over a long period, including all the details of the negotiations, it is
640
inevitable that we shall express views about the kind of proposals that have been put forward about the nature of the bona fides of the participants in the discussions, which in some way may inhibit a good agreement coming out of them. Does not all that indicate that it would be far better to have the discussion on the Bill after there has been an agreement at Lancaster House, and not while the negotiations are continuing?
Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way to him again. I think that I am now entitled to make my speech, just as his hon. Friend the Member for Harlow made his speech. I say only this: it is right, of course, that the hon. Member and all his hon. Friends should give their views, as they undoubtedly will, on the nature of the negotiations and on the nature of the Bill and its implications. I accept that. But there is this difference: we are now discussing a purely procedural matter—the question when we are to discuss the full Bill.
We are talking about a timetable—no more and no less. The difference is that, when we come to the substance of the Bill, a Minister will speak and express the views and intentions of the Government. I believe that the Government will make clear beyond peradventure that the idea that they are arranging things for the exclusive benefit of the Muzorewa Government and the disadvantage of the Patriotic Front will be wholly and convincingly refuted by the Minister. If after that Labour Members wish to express their anxiety, they will have the opportunity to do so.
My concern is that there will be a sideways effect on the Lancaster House talks from what is said in the House this afternoon. When the Patriotic Front forms its judgment about the state of play and assents to an agreement, as we hope it will, it is far better that it should do so in the full context of what the Government are able to explain to the House, rather than as a reaction to remarks made this afternoon by the hon. Member for York without the benefit of having heard the Minister first.
I am sorry that on a procedure motion the hon. Member for York was able to put into the hands of the most doubting members of the Patriotic Front delegation a suggestion which I believe is untrue and

641
which I am sure that the Minister will demonstrate is untrue when he has the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friends have given a number of reasons why this procedural motion should not be passed. We are now waiting for just one reason why it should be passed. Without elaborating too much, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) will give us one reason, because the Lord Privy Seal was unable to do so yesterday. We have heard no reasons at all why the Bill should be pushed through today.
Mr. Griffiths: I take the point, but it is not outside the calculations of everyone in this Chamber that there are negotiations under way, not only at Lancaster House but also in a smaller room close to us. Therefore, my second concern is not only that some unintended remark could compromise the negotiations at Lancaster House but that it could also compromise the negotiations on the timetable taking place in the House.
The Leader of the Opposition, who speaks for most of the Opposition, said that while he was doubtful about certain aspects of the Bill, particularly the sanctions clause, he would nevertheless give a fair and honourable undertaking that if the Government were to proceed with the Bill, and if they made a concession which would give us Monday as well for the remaining stages, he would see that the Bill was delivered. Those were his words, not mine.
Subsequently the hon. Member for York, who described himself as the one who organised the amendments, gave a similar undertaking. He supported the Leader of the Opposition. On that basis the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary began talks with a view to achieving what the majority of hon. Members want—an agreed timetable for the Bill.
Now we are in a different position because it has become apparent that the "shop steward" of the amenders, the hon. Member for York, cannot carry the shop floor with him. Whatever he might say, his troops will not necessarily be bound by it. Thus it is becoming clear that the Leader of the Opposition may not be able to carry out his undertaking.
642
What will be the position of the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary when representing the majority of hon. Members? They seek an accommodation with the Opposition on the timetable motion. I suggest that there is an eloquent revolt against the Leader of the Opposition's undertaking on the timetable—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is how it seems to me.
The Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary are having complex discussions with the official representatives of the Opposition with a view to achieving a timetable which will involve concessions by the Government. I hope that there will be concessions by the Government, but I must point out that the position will be very difficult if the undertakings given by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for York are not worth the words in which they were couched.
While I am mainly concerned about the possible sideways effect on the Lancaster House talks, I also believe that we need some clarity from the Opposition Front Bench on whether their undertakings on the timetable can be fulfilled.
Mr. McNamara: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), but I disagreed with his interpretation of the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Lyon) and Harlow (Mr. Newens).
Quite apart from the Rhodesia problem, a situation has arisen in which many people on the Opposition Benches felt that there had been an affront to the procedures in the way in which the Government sought to push through the Bill in all its stages in one go. We regard this as an affront to the major minority party, and indeed to all minorities in the House. That was the purpose of my amendment and the reason why we are debating the motion this afternoon. We wished to show the Government that we did not want to be treated in this way.
The essence of democracy is that in the long run the majority gets its way in the House. Although many of us may regret it, that is the case. But, equally, it is the essence of democracy that the minority has a proper opportunity to examine what is being presented by the majority, and that it should also be

643
allowed to seek to persuade the Government to change their mind. The minority seeks to do this by careful argument and by drawing attention to factors which the major party may not have considered in reaching a decision. We would have been denied that process on the basis of the presentation of the Bill yesterday and the suggestion that we should complete all the stages today.
When my hon. Friends and I put down our amendments to the Bill yesterday and the motion today we were seeking to ensure that we would not be trampled on by the Government in the way that they suggested yesterday afternoon and in a way that Conservative Members would never have accepted when they were in opposition. We will not accept that kind of treatment.
Looking at the arrangements made by the Government, it is clear that we will have a paltry Second Reading if we take a vote at 10 o'clock tonight. It is now 5 pm and we anticipate a couple of Front Bench speeches. We might vote on the closure and the substantive amendment. Sonic hon. Members may wish to pursue important points of procedure. Legislation of such constitutional and world-wide importance should not be treated in this way. We must have the opportunity to examine the issues carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for York pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow that there would be 15 individual debates within the principal debate. If we assume that, on average, each debate lasts two hours, that totals 30 hours. If we had a vote on the closure or on particular amendments, that might take a further 10 hours. That means that we spend two days on this Bill from whatever time we start the business after the votes this evening. That is not the right way to examine important and historic issues. We must examine them carefully and precisely.
There may be Divisions as the Bill goes through Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow may get the chance to vote against the Bill. We should have proper discussion on all issues. Opposition Members could behave in a dilatory fashion, but it is not our intention to do so even though that is the only weapon of Back Benchers when attempting
644
to persuade the Government to scrutinise these matters more carefully.
Mr. Burden: Surely, if agreement cannot be reached through the usual channels, we shall complete all stages of the Bill in one prolonged sitting. According to the undertaking by the Leader of the Opposition, if we get agreement through the usual channels, we can take Second Reading today and the amendments and remaining stages of the Bill next Monday by sitting until a late hour. Those are the only two propositions before the House.
Mr. McNamara: I agree. The first option which would take us through all stages of the Bill at one go would work, but it would not be good for the legislation and I hardly think it would be a good thing for Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. A protracted debate would also produce frayed tempers.
Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a third possibility—that we should drop this grotesque proposal, introduced in the middle of complicated and delicate negotiations, to push the Bill through?
Mr. McNamara: We might wish that the Government would do that, but it is not their intention. The Government will get their Bill, but they should seek to get it with the minimum of hostility from the House. That will mean, not that there is universal agreement, but that the Bill will go through with reasonably good humoured arguments on the issues and not while tempers are frayed in the middle of the night.
This debate is significant for my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and myself. My hon. Friend was elected to this House on the day UDI was declared. I was elected in the subsequent by-election and throughout both his campaign and mine UDI played an important part. Since that time we have looked on sadly at what has happened in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. We have seen the failure of talks, the inability to reach agreement, the tragic events in Angola and Mozambique and the pressures forced upon Mr. Smith and others to negotiate. After all that, the Government are now saying, that we can suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye, put right in one sitting of this House the mistakes of the past 14 years. For the sake

645
of the people who have died, on whatever side in the Rhodesian conflict, and because of what has happened to innocent people and to the economies of several countries, it would be wrong for us to rubber-stamp this measure.
Yesterday the Lord Privy Seal said that this was simply an enabling Bill, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for York and other of my right hon. and hon. Friends have shown that by their amendments, it is more than that. The powers which can be assumed under this Bill—through Orders in Council and other ways—are such that it would be possible to reach a settlement and establish a constitution for Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. By pushing this Bill through, by agreement with one or other of the parties at Lancaster House, the Government could then wash their hands of the issue and say that, having legislated, that is that. I feel that there are pressures upon us to resolve the problem in this way. In justice to ourselves we should not brush this problem under the carpet in so short a time.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is my hon. Friend saying that this Bill could be passed before it is established that the constitution has the support of the people of Rhodesia as a whole? That is one of the six principles.
Mr. McNamara: My right hon. and learned Friend has argued my case succinctly.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds spoke of his fears that by passing this legislation we might influence events at Lancaster House. I believe that that is the danger. With this Bill the Government could, even with that degree of objectivity that they have shown throughout these negotiations, put a pistol to the head of Bishop Muzorewa or the Patriotic Front and demand acceptance under the threat of a deal with the other side. That will not help.
We should not pass this legislation when every agreement is contingent upon another. A constitution is contingent upon interim arrangements, interim arrangements are contingent upon a ceasefire, and a ceasefire is contingent upon constitutional arrangements. To rush through this measure will do a grave disservice to the negotiations.
Mr. Crouch: The hon. Member is not making himself absolutely clear. Is he saying that we should not consider the Bill at all or that we should not rush our consideration? He has not commented on the Leader of the Opposition's observations both yesterday and today when, in a reasonable way, he asked for more time for reflection. He asked for the Committee stage to be concluded on Monday.
Mr. McNamara: I shall make myself clear. I would not have introduced the Bill at this stage when negotiations are taking place at Lancaster House, nor would my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Foreign Secretary. However, the Bill has been presented and we are faced with that problem. We are faced with either rushing the Bill through today or giving it a Second Reading today and completing the remaining stages on Monday.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that a number of us are determined to vote against the Bill in any case?
Mr. McNamara: I am dealing with the question of time.
Those of us who are passionately concerned about this issue intend to examine the amendments properly. It is not our intention to prolong business to such an extent that the Government do not have reasonable time to enable the Bill to go through the House of Lords and be passed. That is our intention if the Government give us an undertaking. It is not in my power to say that not one of my hon. Friends will get on his hind legs and seek to prolong the debate by speaking at interminable length. My hon. Friend the Member for York has said that if agreement is not reached he could speak for eight hours on one amendment and then perhaps have to refer to his notes. We do not want that to happen.
We do not want the Government to introduce this Bill, but they have done so. We accept that the Government must have their Bill and that it must go to the other place. We recognise the problems involved in renewing the sanctions order. All we want is a reasonable time to discuss the issues. We want to be treated properly.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: There has never been a shadow of doubt in the minds of

647
the majority of my hon. Friends about what the Leader of the Opposition said. I urge the hon. Member to address his mind to the Leader of the House, who has a duty to the whole House. Should my right hon. Friend make an agreement with the Opposition that the Bill will be achieved by Monday night at a late hour in the knowledge that a number of hon. Members will do their verbal best to thwart it? What sort of agreement is that?
Mr. McNamara: Every agreement that is made through the usual channels is on the understanding that each hon. Member is a free agent. That is the way it must be.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is there a split in the Labour Party?
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member should not tempt us. We are trying to be helpful during these difficult negotiations. The hon. Gentleman could tempt us into dealing with certain difficulties within his party that would arise if nought came of the negotiations. I am not underestimating the ability of this side of the House to discuss the legislation right through until Monday.
Miss Joan Lestor: I will see my hon. Friend outside.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Peace has broken out.
Mr. McNamara: I read the footnote to an article by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) in one of today's newspapers. I shudder to think what my wife will say when she reads in Hansard the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor).
We believe that the Opposition have been trampled. We are trying to accommodate the Government while at the same time preserving our position as Back Benchers. Some statements from the Government Benches are not helpful. Some of us took much persuading to agree with the Leader of the Opposition's proposition. We have undertaken to ensure that, if we achieve a concession, the Government will have their Bill in time for it to go to another place on Tuesday. We believe that that is fair.
648
The offer made by my right hon. Friend during Prime Minister's Question Time two hours ago should be sufficient for us to reach agreement so that we could now be debating the Second Reading. I regret that the Government have not seized that opportunity so that the issues may be examined properly. If we continue in this manner, neither the Government's case nor the Opposition's case will be presented properly before the country. The Government will lose out as much as the Opposition. That is not good enough when we are dealing with an issue of constitutional and historic importance. I urge the Government to think carefully about what we have said and to accept the compromise that they have been offered.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: During my time in the House I have seldom heard arguments from one side convince Members on the other to change their intended course of action. I hope that my remarks on this procedural motion will not result in any hon. Member talking for too long when the Bill is considered in Committee.
It is reasonable for the Government to get into a position from which they can deliver their side of any agreement or settlement made at Lancaster House. I do not believe that it makes a great deal of difference whether the Bill gets through all its stages by tomorrow, or at an extension of this day's sitting, which might be tomorrow, Saturday or Sunday; whether it passes through the House of Commons by Monday; or whether it goes through, by agreement, with a break for the weekend, or straight throught. It is up to the House to decide. It is for the usual channels to say, when they come to their own view.
Two important issues were raised. The first was the effect on the procedures of the House. In my time in the House I have seen Governments, normally of the Labour complexion, force measures through the House. I have no doubt that during the next four years I shall see the same done by my Government. On most occasions I shall be relatively happy for that to happen.
Another issue is the effect of this procedure motion on the negotiations at Lancaster House. The point was made—no doubt it will be made again on Second Reading—that this enabling Bill should

649
not be passed until or unless a settlement was reached at Lancaster House. I do not believe that that view is correct. Whatever arrangement we come to, we should try to ensure that some part of the deadlock at Lancaster House is given a chance to be broken down. I hope that the consultations now going on behind Mr. Speaker's chair—unless they have now finished—will go on at Lancaster House this weekend. Perhaps President Kaunda can help on that.
One matter seems to be dividing the participants. I refer to the length of time up to the elections. It should be possible to take into account the fact that there is a rainy season now in Rhodesia. For that reason the election last year was put off until April. It applies just as much now. There may be the opportunity of persuading the participants at the Lancaster House conference to recognise that they have the opportunity of spinning out their discussions for another few weeks, with a consequent loss of life. Instead of that, I hope that they will come to some arrangement for an earlier ceasefire—in the same way I hope that there will be an earlier ceasefire on this motion in this Chamber—but still fix a time when the elections will take place. In the same way, I hope that we shall know when there is likely to be a decision on the Second Reading, Committee stage and Third Reading of the Bill.
There are other points of deadlock at Lancaster House into which I shall not go. They are probably better kept until the other stages of the Bill. It is important to realise that the Government should have the power to put into effect without delay the provisions of the Bill. It is reasonable for the House to allow the Government to have the Bill passed through all its stages either at today's sitting extended or by Monday. If Government Front-Bench Members are interested in my view, I prefer to take the Second Reading and Committee stage at this day's sitting and keep the Third Reading until Monday.
Miss Joan Lestor: My hon. Friends, with their well-known eloquence, have already covered many of the reasons why we believe that the proposition put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader
650
of the Opposition is the correct one for the procedure on this Bill, now it is obvious that the Government are determined that the Bill should be before the House at this time. We wish very much that the Government had not decided to bring this Bill forward, for several good reasons.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has his arguments round the wrong way when he tries to put the onus on the Opposition for the way in which we look at the Bill and the way in which we want to have it discussed.
The Government, when having these discussions—which I hope are fruitful—and the whole House must bear in mind that we have sat through many decolonising processes and independence constitutions, certainly over the years that I have been here, and longer than that. None of those constitutions ranks as important as the one we are now discussing.
It is of paramount importance, in view of the history of Southern Rhodesia, and the outcome, if we get it wrong, that every point of view is heard, is seen to be heard and that the proper processes of justice and law are observed.
There were differences in the presentations yesterday, in the House of Commons and in another place, about how the Bill would be considered and what was the situation—differences about emphasis, the ceasefire, and arrangements for the interim period. Those points need deep examination and clarification.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) referred to deadlock at Lancaster House. I believe that that is so. Perhaps for the first time he and I are in agreement. However, the Government have not said that. Yesterday they said that they were on the eve of an agreement and that they would achieve the agreement. Yesterday, from behind the Chair and in another place, I was accused of belligerence. It was said that everything would be all right and that the agreement would be achieved. We are asked what we were worried about. This is what we are worried about.
The Patriotic Front case has not been given anything like the airing that it should have been given by the press of this country. I have sat at press conferences with the Patriotic Front and seen

651
very little reported in the press the following day. I do not blame the Government for that. However, we hear two sides of the story. We are told that we are on the eve of an agreement and that the problems of the interim period, the security forces and the length of time before the elections will be solved. We are told "We can have the Bill. There is no problem. Give us the blank cheque and the legal authority. Everything will be all right." But next we are told that there is deadlock at Lancaster House.
The Government should consider how that appears in the eyes of Africa, the front-line States and of people in this country and abroad who always understood the case of the British Government, of whatever complexion, to be that any agreement must be seen to have the acceptance of the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I had the privilege of visiting Lusaka at the time of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference and of monitoring carefully what happened there. It seems to me that what was agreed there has not so far been carried out at Lancaster House. Therefore, for those reasons—for the sake of the appearance of the matter and the questions that need deep searching—it is in the interests of the Government, the Opposition and all parties concerned at Lancaster House that the proposition to change the procedure put forward by the Government should be adhered to.
I do not know what is being said or whether we are on the eve of an agreement. If the matters of the interim period, defence, the security forces, the ceasefire, the refugees, and people returning to vote, have been agreed, would it not, in the interests of democracy and of the future, have been far better for the Government to agree to delay the Bill's passage until it could be discussed in the full knowledge of what had—or had not—been agreed at Lancaster House?
Mr. Temple-Morris: May I repeat what my hon. Friends and I put to successive Opposition speakers? The hon. Lady talked as though the Bill was not appropriate until the Lancaster House conference was concluded. Does she agree with her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston
652
upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who was asked a question a number of times and eventually said that the Bill should be ready to go to the House of Lords on Tuesday? As the hon. Lady is concerned, is she able to give that commitment?
Miss Lestor: I do not believe that the Bill should be brought before the House unless and until agreement has been reached at Lancaster House by all parties concerned. But the Government, in their wisdom or lack of it, have decided to bring forward the Bill. Therefore, because we do not have the overall majority in the House—we would not be in opposition if we had—we have to use whatever methods we can to ensure that we are able to examine the Bill in detail, to put forward amendments and to argue them.
At the end of the day, whatever assurances are or are not given, the ball is in the Government's court. I shall oppose the Bill unless agreement is announced during the passage of the Bill. It would be a different matter then. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot ask me for a guarantee that I will support the Bill on Tuesday, or whenever it goes to the Lords. I shall oppose the Bill unless the Government are able to say that agreement has been reached and that is verified by all concerned. If all parties reach agreement, we shall cheer as loudly as anyone because we would have a constitution and an interim period acceptable to all.
For me to be asked to drop my opposition to the Bill on condition that the Government allow the new procedure is to put an onus on me which should be on the Government. I suppose that at the end of the day the Government will dictate whether the Bill is carried. I cannot dictate that—I wish that I could—unless my eloquence is such as to persuade enough Conservative Members to come into the Lobby with us if we decide to oppose the Bill. We shall know that only when we know whether there has been agreement at Lancaster House, and that we do not know.
As has been said earlier, the President of Zambia is in this country. The Prime Minister said that she was seeing him today. Considering what was agreed at Lancaster House and as the President of Zambia, the President of Tanzania and the front-line Presidents were all deeply

653
involved in setting up the constitutional conference, it is insulting, not only to the President of Zambia but to the House, for discussions to be taking place with the President—someone closely involved—and for us to be asked to discuss the Bill without knowing his view or the views of the front-line Presidents.
The matter is more complicated than saying that the Opposition wish to frustrate the passage of the Bill. No one would cheer louder than I—and I was involved in this matter even before I entered the House of Commons—if we had agreement at Lancaster House and could proceed to put forward the constitution and have free elections in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
It is because we fear the outcome if this matter is not considered properly that we ask the Government to delay bringing forward the Bill, to accept the proposition put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, to give us time to examine the Bill, to argue our amendments in the proper way and to get more information on what is happening at Lancaster House. Are the talks deadlocked, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, or are we on the eve of an agreement? If we are on the eve of an agreement, the Government should give us the details before the Bill is passed so that we know what we are doing.
Mr. David Price: The speech made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) shows the difficulty in which the House finds itself. We have not been able to hear the Government deploy what I should call the broad Second Reading case. Inevitably, the hon. Lady moved beyond the procedural motion, not only on to the Bill, but on to the negotiations. I am sure that she would agree that it is difficult, during the course of negotiations, for those of us not personally involved to discuss blow by blow the successes which are being gained.
Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
Mr. Price: I want to be brief. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
I want to make three points with which I hope the House will agree. First, whatever personal views we may have about the negotiations, we all want to see a
654
successful outcome. We are probably all agreed that it would be better if we could get all-party agreement in the House. That point was made by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). If this procedural motion stands in the way, I hope that there will be room for negotiation. That is clearly what is taking place now, but some of us wish that it was being resolved a little quicker.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman said that he would require to hear the Government's argument on Second Reading for the necessity of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been following this matter, but not in tremendous detail. Does he agree that it would make sense if, having had the Second Reading, we were to have a couple of days for reflection before the Committee and remaining stages?
Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman tempts me. I have such confidence in the ability of my right hon. Friends that I know that I am more likely than the hon. Gentleman to be totally convinced. However, like him, I have not yet heard that argument. It is a pleasure to be anticipated.
My second point follows the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). The hon. Gentleman posed the fair question: why do we need the Bill at this stage? I am sure that point will be dealt with by whomsoever of my right hon. Friends moves the Second Reading of the Bill. However, we must resist the temptation, as it were, to stand behind my right hon. Friends in their negotiations and tell them which cards to play. I have always been doubtful about President Wilson's famous tenet about open covenants openly arrived at. I am in favour of open covenants, but I am almost certain that good open covenants cannot be arrived at openly. There must be a certain degree of privacy and discretion.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose—
Mr. Price: Before giving way to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), I ask him and other hon. Members to reflect on what is probably the most important negotiation that any one of us has entered into: getting engaged and married. How many of us would like

655
to have carried out the negotiations for that covenant openly? I think that most of us would agree that it is better done with a degree of covertness and discretion. I suggest that goes for diplomatic negotiations, too. The world is the worse for negotiations by television, press conferences, leaks and so on. Debate in the House at the wrong time can be equally bad.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that he is arguing against the introduction of the Bill until there is agreement at Lancaster House? If we have to discuss the Bill, we have to take stands; we have to decide on positions; we have to make comments about the negotiating arguments of the various parties. In those circumstances, we shall inevitably be drawn into the kind of quagmire that I, as well as the hon. Gentleman, want to avoid. Therefore, should we not leave the Bill until there is agreement?
Mr. Price: With respect, it depends upon the nature of the Bill. That is what we shall be discussing when we get to it. If this were a Bill of great detail, there would be merit in what the hon. Gentleman said. But this is an enabling Bill. There are trigger clauses which will be brought in only when the negotiations are completed. Until the negotiations are completed, the legislation will not be active.
Having given way to the hon. Gentleman, I find myself almost involved in making a Second Reading speech. That illustrates the difficulty that we are in on this procedural motion. I am almost in danger of doing what I criticised the hon. Member for Eton and Slough for doing—namely, discussing the Bill and the negotiations when we are on a procedural motion. I am sure that the House would agree that we should not get involved in trying to mark the cards to be played at Lancaster House.
Much has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the fact that a civil war is going on in Rhodesia and that the aim of the negotiations is to end it. Certain hon. Members have spoken as if only two parties are involved. That view is too simple. Both delegations are complex. Other people are involved, including this House. What are commonly called the front-line Presidents
656
and other countries are involved. The matter is highly complex and it can be over simplified. Therefore, the more quietly these things are done, the better.
Thirdly, I think that we should congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the enormous progress that has been made. We should recognise that, whichever party is in Government, we have little effective power in Southern Africa. Therefore, if this process is to succeed, it must be largely by influence. I hope that the House will not adopt any postures tonight that will make my right hon. Friend's position in the Lancaster House negotiations more difficult. There is a great deal of good will towards the negotiations and towards a successful conclusion. I hope that we shall keep to that spirit.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Nothing has been advanced so far on this procedural motion to explain why the Bill should go through in such haste. One thing that ought to bind and tie all the Members of this House together, from whatever quarter of the House they come, is the desire to achieve peace in the colony of Southern Rhodesia. So much life has been unnecessarily lost that I am sure we would all wish to end the conflict quickly.
The Government's case, as expounded in discussions earlier in the week, is that the Bill is necessary at this time to facilitate the carrying out of the agreement at Lancaster House. But a great deal of uncertainty and suspicion has been caused, not only in the House but among some of the parties involved in the talks, by the fact that on Tuesday it was widely reported by the news media that the Government were to try to get a Bill through the House by the end of the week.
When I raised the matter on a point of order on Tuesday and asked whether the Leader of the House, who was present at the time, had sought to make a Business Statement, he sat quiet and said nothing. It was only yesterday that we had confirmation that the Bill was to be published and that we would proceed to deal with it in one sitting.
I accept that there is a need for an enabling Bill—there is no question about that. But if we accept also, as I do, that at the end of the day all the parties

657
involved in the discussions and negotiations will sign on the dotted line there will be no need for Second Reading speeches on such a Bill except for those of a congratulatory nature saying what a wonderful thing has happened. Nor will there be need for amendments to be moved. The same process will apply in the other place. The Bill would then be law and matters would be settled. If agreement is so close, why do we have to rush the Bill? If agreement had been freely offered, the Bill would be freely accepted.
What the Government do not understand is that we are seeking to preserve a negotiating atmosphere at Lancaster House. One hon. Member has said that if we were to suggest that the Patriotic Front was suspicious, we would be putting words into its mouth and would be encouraging it to be suspicious. Anyone who has had discussions with the Patriotic Front—or even someone who has not—and who has followed the reports in the press, such as they are, must be aware that there is an intense feeling of suspicion among Patriotic Front members. The Patriotic Front is greatly concerned that every concession it has made has not been matched by any concession by Lord Carrington. Is it any wonder that there is a great deal of suspicion at Lancaster House?
If we think back, we see that Mr. Robert Mugabe and Mr. Joshua Nkomo, quite apart from being the heads of armies that had to fight a war to achieve the conference at Lancaster House, were incarcerated for 10 years hundreds of miles from the nearest city, with very few people around.
Mr. Nkomo then suffered almost the ultimate humiliation. I believe that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) who went to Rhodesia and asked to see Mr. Nkomo. Mr. Nkomo was brought hundreds of miles in the back of an enclosed van with not even a cushion to assist him during the journey. Is it any wonder that in such circumstances people are suspicious? There is not one of us who would not be. The same is true of Mr. Mugabe. He spent many years in detention.
The irony is that of all the so-called terrorists—I am glad that that term has been dropped, to a large extent—of all
658
the liberation leaders, the only one who was ever convicted of an offence was the Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole. We do not hear much about him these days, but there was a time when he was the darling of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). Suddenly, within 24 hours of being a terrorist, Mr. Sithole was a great statesman. It shows how we can come to terms with life.
I have no doubt that if we can reach agreement with all the parties at Lancaster House and there is an election, whoever is elected—whether it is Mr. Nkomo who is President or whatever transpires—will be welcome to come to this country, take his place among the world's statesmen and reside at Buckingham Palace for the weekend.
If there is no agreement, the situation will be entirely different. If there can be no all-party agreement at Lancaster House, not only must everyone think about what he must do, but the Government must think about what they must do with the enabling Act, assuming that it has been passed. We are all realists in the House, and I do not think that anyone will misinterpret my words when I say that the reality is that the Government will get their way and put the Bill on the statute book. They certainly will not do that without opposition. I could never agree to vote for it in present circumstances.
But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the blunt reality that the Government, having got a majority in the House, will get the Bill through. This is where the suspicious aspect enters into it.
I do not want to make a Second Reading speech, but as I read the Bill there is nothing in it which indicates that it will come into effect only if there is all-party agreement at Lancaster House. It is a straightforward enabling Bill. Once it is on the statute book, the Government can do with it what they will. They can, if they so wish, decide to conclude the bilateral agreement with the Salisbury delegation and proceed to do what is required to facilitate elections.
Hon. Members must realise that discussions in the House have an impact outside. It sometimes seems that some of us think we live in a cocooned world and that what we say will have no effect on the outside world. I do not want to be

659
provocative about this, but the fact remains that the Government's election manifesto, if it did not specifically dot the i's and cross the t's, certainly gave all of us, including many Conservative Members, the distinct impression—almost a distinct assurance—that one of the first acts of the Government would be to lift sanctions and recognise the SmithMuzorewa regime.
Given the fact that we allowed UDI to pass almost without comment or any real action, the history of politics in Rhodesia over the past 20 years, and the fact that we went through producing the sanctions orders and yet connived at allowing oil to enter Rhodesia to fuel the economy, how can we not understand the problems faced by the Patriotic Front when it tries to learn to trust the British Government? Yet it is something that we must understand and come to terms with.
The negotiations are at a delicate stage, and I do not believe that we are quite as close to agreement as the Lord Privy Seal suggested. The Patriotic Front members have made a great number of concessions in order to reach agreement. I am astonished at how conciliatory they have been. However, Lord Carrington, the Lord Privy Seal and others have failed to remove their distrust completely. It is most important that that distrust is removed. We desperately want an agreement out of the Lancaster House talks, but not a paper agreement. We want an agreement that will stick and provide peace and security for the new Zimbabwe.
It will be to the long-term disadvantage if the Patriotic Front is pressurised into signing an agreement which in its heart of hearts it knows it cannot keep. One of the factors that appears to be missing from the Government's calculations is that those who signed the agreement have to be able to sell it to their followers back in Rhodesia. That applies equally to Ian Smith, Bishop Muzorewa, Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo. Perhaps in some respects the task facing the Patriotic Front is the more difficult. They have to sell the agreement to the people who are wielding the weapons and, more important, to those who have been on the receiving end of the weapons of the Smith regime. They have to sell it to people living in refugee camps which have been bombed and attacked by marauding
660
troops who have crossed the border into Zambia, Mozambique, Angola and even Botswana.
I am surprised to have to say this to Conservative Members who seem to fail to understand it, but when a war is in progress it is difficult for people not to hate the enemy. During the Second World War, I was too young to fight, but as a young lad I shared the intense hatred of other youngsters not just for Nazi Germany but for Germany and every German citizen. Today, the Common Market aside, the people of Germany are our friends. When we hear people speaking German in the street we do not spit upon them or show rancour towards them. Such rancour does not disappear in five minutes, however, and that is true of Rhodesia as it is true of Britain.
I am not suggesting that postponement of our discussion through the weekend will end the rancour and bitterness in Rhodesia, because that would be nonsense. However, we are trying to avoid the injection into the situation of factors that would confirm the Patriotic Front in its mistrust of the British Government. By adopting a reasonable pace of progress we may have an impact on the Lancaster House talks far beyond what we might imagine. We are concerned that they should succeed. I am sure that the Government did not think seriously enough about what effect rushing the Bill through would have on the talks.
The events at Lancaster House are not taking place in a cocooned atmosphere. They are susceptible to what happens here and elsewhere. Against that background, the Government could have produced their Bill two weeks ago, timing progress on it to match the progress in the talks. The Second Reading debate could then have taken the form of a broad discussion of how we saw Rhodesia being governed through the transitional period. We could then have seen what came out of the Lancaster House talks before proceeding to the Committee stage and the tabling of amendments. I would hope for a spirit of flexibility from the Government which might lead them, like my hon. Friends, to want to move amendments during the Committee stage.
Mr. Crouch: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great care. He seems to be speaking to yesterday's brief, showing his dismay at what my right hon.

661
Friend the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday about the timing of the Bill. Should he not apply himself to today's brief, to what was said by the Leader of the Opposition about extending our consideration of the Bill, with time for reflection over the weekend? Does he not feel that there is flexibility on his own Front Bench?
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), first for saying that he has been listening with care and, second, for reinforcing the point that I am making.
I see that the Leader of the House has now entered the Chamber to make the statement we have all been awaiting, Mr. Speaker. May I give way to the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may come to a conclusion if he wishes.
Mr. Hughes: I hope that the proposition so generously put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, which has wide assent in the House, that we have the Second Reading debate today with remaining stages on Mondey, will have met with the agreement of the Government.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. I am happy to be able to report to the House an arrangement which I believe will do justice to the different views held by Members on the Rhodesia issue. It will meet the needs of Government and Opposition and will be in accord with the dignity of this House.
The House will be asked to approve the business motion forthwith. The Second Reading debate will commence immediately and will be concluded between 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock tonight. The money resolution will then be taken. The House will then be required to resolve into a Committee and we shall report progress immediately. The remaining stages of the Bill will be taken on Monday 12 November and will be concluded at a reasonable hour—that is to say, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, late Monday night or early Tuesday morning. The Opposition have undertaken to facilitate progress of the Bill to achieve the
662
Government's date for completion in order to obtain Royal Assent on Wednesday, 14 November.
Accordingly, the business for next week has been rearranged as follows:
MONDAY 12 NOVEMBER—Completion of the remaining stages of the Southern Rhodesia Bill.
THURSDAY 15 NOVEMBER—The business will now be: Second Reading of the Protection of Trading Interests Bill and of the Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and proceedings on the Isle of Man Bill.
I believe that this agreement is honourable and reasonable and will facilitate the successful outcome to the Lancaster House conference that the whole House desires.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Opposition believe that this agreement is honourable and was worth waiting for. Yesterday, the Opposition indicated that this was an important constitutional Bill that needed full consideration and should not be rushed through. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took that point further this afternoon, and we are glad that the Government have accepted our view.
We shall endeavour in the Second Reading debate tonight, and again on Monday, to discuss the Bill fully. There will be no fractious opposition. We shall consider each of the amendments. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put it, the debate should be concluded at a reasonable hour—either late Monday night or early Tuesday morning. We shall facilitate the passage of the Bill so that it will reach another place on time. We shall oppose the Bill, but we shall stick to the agreement, because that is the way that this House conducts its business.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That if the Southern Rhodesia Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Southern Rhodesia [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, and that the Southern Rhodesia Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.3 pm
  The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of the Southern Rhodesia Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  In laying this Bill before Parliament, the Government are taking an important step which will set Rhodesia on the path to legal independence, on the basis of an agreement in which we hope that all the parties will participate. Before explaining to the House the details of the Bill, I propose to set it in the context of the Government's policies towards Rhodesia since we took office in May.
  The House is familiar with the efforts of successive British Governments over 14 years to find a settlement to the problem of Rhodesia. Despite very considerable efforts, it proved impossible to reach a satisfactory agreement with the white minority regime. The result has been a bloody war which continues to take its toll even now, while talks to find a solution at the constitutional conference at Lancaster House are going on. The war has brought suffering to the people of Rhodesia and neighbouring countries.
  When this Government took office in May, we decided to give the highest priority to a further effort to bring Rhodesia to legal independence and peace. We were encouraged in this by the remarkable progress made within Rhodesia following the Salisbury agreement of March 1978 and the first-ever elections held on the basis of universal suffrage in April this year. That election, which saw an impressively high turn-out, produced for the first time an African Prime Minister and an African majority in Parliament and the Government.
  The Government recognised this to be a major step forward towards a solution.
  664
  But, at the same time, it was necessary if Rhodesia was to secure international acceptance, that independence should be seen to be based upon genuine majority rule. We decided, therefore, to consult the parties themselves, with Governments directly concerned and with our friends and allies, before deciding how to proceed. These consultations showed that there was a widespread view that the constitution in force in Rhodesia fell short of genuine majority rule; that there should be a further effort to find a solution which could involve the external parties and thus offer hope of an end to the war; and that a settlement would have to stem from Britain as the constitutionally responsible authority.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary went to the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government with the objective of securing their support for a renewed effort to achieve a settlement and end the war. The communique of that meeting set out the principles on which it was felt by the Commonwealth as a whole that a settlement should be sought. As I shall explain to the House shortly, we believe that we have already advanced a very considerable way towards fulfilling the requirements of the Lusaka communique.
  The immediate step which my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary took on return from Lusaka was to invite all the parties to attend a constitutional conference at Lancaster House. Our purpose in doing so was to be able to put to them proposals for a settlement comparable to the basis on which independence was granted to other former British territories. With the invitation we appealed to both sides to accept a ceasefire. Although Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues expressed their willingness to accept this, the Patriotic Front insisted that there could be no end to the fighting until the political issues in the present conflict had been resolved.
  The constitutional conference at Lancaster House has now been in progress for almost nine weeks. Throughout the conference, the Government's aim has been to reach agreement which will involve all the parties, since we recognise that only a solution which does so will offer a sure prospect of and end to the

  665
  war. The Government have remained, during the whole of this period, in the closest touch with the Presidents of the front-line States, as well as other Commonwealth leaders and many other Governments, and have been greatly helped by the encouragement and support which we have received. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary are having further discussions with President Kaunda, who is paying a most timely visit to this country this week.
  During those nine weeks, many of the objectives set by the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Lusaka have been achieved.
  The Heads of Government confirmed that they were wholly committed to genuine black majority rule. The independence constitution, which has been provisionally accepted by both sides at the conference, indisputably provides for this. They recognised that the internal settlement constitution was defective in certain important respects. These defects have been put right in the independence constitution.
  The Heads of Government accepted the constitutional responsibility of the British Government to grant legal independence to Zimbabwe on the basis of majority rule. The British Government are exercising that responsibility, and the Bill will enable them to take further steps in the process.
  The Heads of Government recognised that the search for a lasting setlement must involve all the parties to the conflict. All the parties are participating in the negotiations and the Government remain determined to do all in their power to achieve a settlement in which they can participate.
  The Heads of Government expressed their consciousness of the urgent need to achieve a settlement and bring peace. Throughout the conference the Government have constantly stressed the urgent need to bring an end to the suffering of the people of Rhodesia and of the neighbouring countries—sufferings which are no longer necessary with the achievement of a constitution providing for genuine majority rule.
  The Heads of Government accepted that independence on the basis of
  666
  majority rule required the adoption of a democratic constitution including appropriate safeguards for minorities. The independence constitution contains adequate safeguards.
  The Heads of Government acknowledge that the Government formed under such an independence constitution must be chosen through free and fair elections, properly supervised under British Government authority and with Commonwealth observers. The Government have put forward proposals to achieve this aim and have invited both sides to accept them. Bishop Muzorewa's delegation has accepted our proposals.
  The Heads of Government welcomed the British Government's indication that an appropriate procedure for advancing towards these objectives would be for them to call a constitutional conference to which all parties would be invited. The conference has now been in session as I said earlier, for almost nine weeks.
  Finally, the Heads of Government accepted that it must be a major objective to bring about a cessation of hostilities and an end to sanctions as part of the process of implementation of a lasting settlement. We hope that the conference will be able to move on very shortly to its third and final phase, which is the negotiation of a ceasefire.
  The stage which the Conference has now reached is consideration of the means of implementing the independence constitution. The Government have laid before the conference full proposals for this, and invited both sides to accept them. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. Our starting point has been the need, endorsed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government, for free and fair elections supervised under the British Government's authority. The Government decided that the essential basis for such elections was to create the conditions in which both sides would feel able to take part on an equal footing. This could be achieved only with the assurance that the administration of the country during the elections would be fair and impartial. We have concluded that this requires Britain, as the constitutionally responsible Power, to assume direct responsibility for the government of Rhodesia while elections are held.

  667
  This was not a light decision. The responsibility will be a heavy one. Maintenance of a ceasefire will present grave difficulties. This is one reason why we have proposed that the interim period should be no longer than necessary for the people of Rhodesia to decide for themselves, under fair conditions, their own political future. But we believe that the only solution which both parties can be brought to accept is one in which the British Government accept responsibility for the election arrangements and for the day-to-clay administration of Rhodesia in the period up to independence. The complex schemes for power sharing during the interim period, which were a feature of the earlier proposals for a settlement, seemed to us impracticable. The crucial political decision in this period will be the choice by the people of the future Government. The role of the political leaders will not be to exercise control over the Administration but to explain their case to the people and seek a mandate from them. The Government will be ready to hand over power in Rhodesia to whatever Government are elected as a result of free and fair elections.
  Our proposals required Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues to relinquish power during the iterim period and hand over their functions to the British Governor. We were conscious that this was a great deal to ask. Bishop Muzorewa's acceptance of our proposals shows how far he is willing to go to bring about fair conditions for elections, and a settlement which will be acceptable to international opinion. We look to the Patriotic Front to show the same willingness to compromise. We are not asking either side to capitulate. We are asking both to compete peacefully for power on an equal footing—and, of course, to abide by the outcome of the elections. There can be no question of our handing over power to any party which is not ready to put its standing to the test in fair elections.
  Our full proposals have now been before the conference for a week. They were tabled after lengthy and intensive discussions in the conference. As soon as agreement is reached on the general proposals for the pre-independence period, we shall be able to move on to arrange negotiations on a ceasefire and its observance.
  668
  In that connection, the Government will be prepared to make proposals for the monitoring of a ceasefire, but we first need agreement on the political conditions for elections and the administration of the country.
  It is against this background of progress already made at the conference, and our hopes that it will shortly enter its final phase, that the Government have laid before the House the Southern Rhodesia Bill.
  The purpose of the Bill is to give the Government the necessary powers to implement the proposals which they have laid before the conference, so that when agreement is reached, as we hope it will be, there need be no delay in moving towards elections at the earliest possible moment. We are not seeking to pre-empt the decisions of the parties to the conference.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has just used the phrase "when agreement is reached ". Will he amplify that statement and say that what he means is when agreement is reached by all parties at Lancaster House?
  Sir I Gilmour: If there is not an agreement by all parties, there is not an agreement. That seems to me to be self-evident. If there is not an agreement and if the conference breaks down, which would be a tragedy, we shall have to consider how to proceed. But the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that an agreement means an agreement of all parties.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If the Government have to consider how to proceed in such circumstances, will it be their intention to use the powers for which they are asking in the Bill, or could we have an assurance that, if there is a breakdown in the talks, the powers in the Bill will not be used and that, indeed, the measure will be negated from then on?
  Sir I. Gilmour: As I said, if the conference breaks down we shall have to consider how to proceed, and we shall certainly welcome suggestions from the Opposition. It will be a very difficult decision to take. There are no alternatives which are particularly enticing. But I could not conceivably give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks, because we do not know what the circumstances will be. As I said several

  669
  times yesterday, we are seeking full agreement. That means the agreement of all parties.
  Miss Joan Lestor: In the right hon. Gentleman's argument yesterday he said that he was very near to an agreement and that the Bill would enable him to do certain things resting on that agreement. The crucial point is the status of the Bill if that agreement is not reached.
  Sir I. Gilmour: If the Bill is passed by the House, it will be in existence. What action is taken by means of the Bill will be for consideration by the Government.
  Miss Lestor: That is a blank cheque.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman unwilling to say that the Government would not use the powers under the Bill unless an agreement is reached?
  Sir I. Gilmour: I have already answered that question. If we are unable to reach agreement, and I hope that we shall—it has been our constant objective for nine weeks of hard discussion at Lancaster House—we shall have to decide how to proceed. I cannot go further than that.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the components of the agreement that we all seek is the conviction among all parties that they stand an equal and reasonable chance in the elections to which he and we are pledged? If that is not thought to be the position, the agreement that he seeks will be imperilled.
  Sir I. Gilmour: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We have been engaged on that issue for weeks. The whole agreement depends on that. As I have said several times, we are seeking to provide free and fair elections in which all parties can participate so that a new Government can be formed as a result of the elections, and to which independence will be granted by Britain. That is the objective. We very much hope that all parties to the conference will agree the proposals that we have put forward so that agreement may be reached.
  As I said in the House yesterday, the Government regret that the House has
  670
  been asked to consider the Bill at such short notice. I hope that the consultations that have taken place through the usual channels have received the general approval of the House.
  I emphasise that this is not an independence Bill. An independence Bill will be laid before the House in due course. To put it mildly, the circumstances of Rhodesia are unusual. Whereas the steps leading up to independence are normally taken under a constitution previously granted by the United Kingdom, that would not be feasible in the case of Southern Rhodesia. The Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 does not give the Government the powers needed to make the independence constitution or to introduce relevant sections of it before elections. The authority of the House must be sought for that.
  The Bill's purposes are threefold. First, it enables the Government to provide an independence constitution for Zimbabwe which will come into force when a later Act of Parliament confers independence on Southern Rhodesia. This power is conferred in clause 1. The constitution will be the constitution agreed upon at the constitutional conference. It will be made by Order in Council and laid before the House before the independence Bill is introduced. I remind hon. Members that as the text of the constitution has been agreed between the parties, contingent upon agreement on the interim arrangements, the order making it will not be subject to either affirmative or negative procedures. This is of course consistent with the practice adopted in the case of other independence constitutions.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the constitution referred to in clause (1) will be that which has been laid before the House in the form of a White Paper. The Bill in terms does not link the two. In the light of the exchanges that have passed between the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, are the Government giving an undertaking that no other constitution but that one will be made by the powers conferred by the Bill?
  Sir I. Gilmour: I did not say that it would be the constitution laid in the White Paper. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the White Paper is not in legal language but in ordinary language.

  671
  The actual constitution will be a legal transposition of that. That is the constitution that we propose to enact, and no other constitution.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: The first few lines of the clause state that provision may be made by Order in Council for an independence constitution for Zimbabwe. Will my right hon. Friend deal during the debate with the broad outline of the constitution which is in the White Paper, or will it be debated at a subsequent date? There are many items that need discussing.
  Sir I. Gilmour: I have told the House that that constitution will not be subject to amendment. It has been agreed, subject to agreement in later stages of the conference, by two other parties. It would be chaotic if the House were to amend the constitution, as we would have to reconvene the constitutional conference and start again. No doubt the constitution could be discussed on a motion, subject to the ruling of the Chair. It is open to anybody to say what he wishes about the constitution. However, I must make it clear that it is not subject to amendment. There is nothing unusual about that. It has happened in the past.
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Robert Maclennan rose—
  Sir I. Gilmour: I think that I should move on.
  Mr. Maclennan rose—
  Sir I. Gilmour: The ratio of interruption to speech has been rather high, and I must move on.
  Secondly, the Bill enables elections to be held prior to independence for the purpose of bringing the independence constitution into effect. Under clause 2 it will be possible to bring particular provisions of the new constitution into operation before independence, to enable elections to be held for the Parliament which will be established under the new constitution, there being no "lawful" constitution at present in force under which such elections could be held. At a later stage, but before independence, it will be necessary to bring other provisions of the constitution into operation
  672
  so that an Administration can be formed following elections. The relevant parts of the constitution would be brought into force by Orders in Council which would be laid before Parliament and expire at the end of 28 days unless previously approved by a resolution of each House.
  Thirdly, clause 3 provides for the making of Orders in Council for the government of Rhodesia during the period up to independence.
  The Government envisage that such orders will be necessary for a number of purposes. In the first place, an order will be needed to establish the office of Governor and to endow the Governor with necessary powers. As hon. Members will be aware, the appointment of a Governor is central to the Government's proposals for the administration of Rhodesia in the pre-independence period. It is important that we should be in a position to make the appointment and install the Governor at the earliest possible date so that there should be no delay in proceeding to elections and independence.
  It will also be necessary for the Government to continue existing laws. This will be needed for the successful administration of the country in the period before independence. It will, of course, be for the Parliament elected under the provisions of the new constitution to decide which of these past laws it wishes to keep and which it wishes to change.
  Finally, the clause will give the power to deal with the consequences of the expiration of section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act, which, as I informed the House yesterday, the Government do not intend to renew.
  A number of orders have been made under section 2. Some concern constitutional matters. The Southern Rhodesia Constitution Order provides the authority of the Crown and United Kingdom Ministers in relation to Southern Rhodesia. The Matrimonial Jurisdiction Order and the Southern Rhodesia (British Nationality Act) Order concern the lives of individuals and seek to minimise the hardships to them arising from the peculiar status of Southern Rhodesia. The Southern Rhodesia (Immunity for Persons Attending Meetings and Consultations) Order is important in allowing the present constitutional talks at Lancaster House to take place.

  673
  Clause 3 provides for a number of these orders to remain in force, for the good government of Rhodesia in the period leading up to independence and to avoid hardship to individuals. Many of these orders have been in force for some time, and the House has approved them by resolution. The House has not yet had the opportunity to express views on the immunity order. No further parliamentary procedure is proposed, but the House will have an opportunity to discuss it in the course of this debate.
  The Bill does not, however, continue the orders relating to sanctions. In this context, I stress two important factors. First, the Bill now before the House will, if enacted, enable the Government to take whatever action is necessary in relation to Rhodesia, depending on the state of progress at the conference up to and after 15 November. This includes the power to continue those sanctions covered by section 2 although, as I said yesterday, the Government find it hard to visualise circumstances in which this would be necessary.
  Secondly, the lapse of section 2 will not mean that Britain will cease forthwith to apply sanctions against Rhodesia. The greater part of our sanctions—those covering direct trade with Rhodesia and the transfer of funds—are covered by other legislation. It is the Government's intention that they should remain in force until there is a return to lawful government in Rhodesia with the arrival of a British Governor and acceptance of his authority. At that moment—and in the Government's view it is no longer far off—all domestic sanctions measures will be revoked. Those sanctions were imposed by the United Nations at Britain's request to effect a return to lawful government in Rhodesia and to defeat the efforts of the white minority to deny full political rights to the African majority. With the appointment of a Governor and acceptance of the independence constitution both these objectives will have been achieved. The full effect of sanctions will be rescinded, therefore, only when return to legality has taken place. It is the Government's hope that this will follow agreement at the constitutional conference to which all parties can subscribe.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: It is the agreement of all parties that concerns
  674
  most of my right hon and hon. Friends. If there is agreement between all parties, everything that the right hon. Gentleman has been describing will be necessary. If that is so, we understand why it is necessary to give effect to the powers in the Bill. If, unhappily, the conference ends without agreement, the proposed constitution will not have the agreement of the people of Rhodesia as a whole. If those are the circumstances, how can the right hon. Gentleman proceed with any of the matters that he has been describing until he has the agreement of the people of Rhodesia as a whole?
  Sir I. Gilmour: If we do not get an agreement, we shall have to decide how to proceed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that to give any party a veto in the proceedings would not be likely to facilitate an agreement. If vetos are allowed, we shall never obtain an agreement. We have made our hopes quite clear. It will be a tragedy if the conference breaks down. If that happens, we shall be faced with a number of disagreeable alternatives. It will be for us to consider how we should act. We shall be open to any suggestions that will lead to an improvement of the situation. I look forward to hearing the Opposition's suggestions on how we should proceed in the event of a breakdown. We must proceed on the basis that the Government need the powers in the Bill. Now that section 2 is not being renewed, we shall be denuded.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am sure that the whole House follows the right hon. Gentleman completely when he says that the Government need the powers. In the event of there not being an agreement, do the Government propose to use the powers in their purpose of providing a constitutional settlement that is not agreed? If it is a matter of having the powers confined to the constitution which is agreed, it will be possible by a small amendment to make it clear that the Order in Council will be used only to give effect to an agreed constitution. That does not mean the giving of a veto to a disagreeing party. It is merely making it plain that the only constitution that may be introduced by means of the Bill is one that is agreed.
  Sir I. Gilmour: That would be giving a veto. That is not the way in which

  675
  we are likely to achieve agreement. In the unfortunate event of not getting an agreement, we shall have to consider an alternative. I do not know what alternative the hon. Gentleman suggests. Would he like the present situation to continue without alteration? It would not be an agreeable position to be faced. That is why I say that we shall have to consider what we should do in the light of circumstances which we hope will not arise. However, if they arise, we shall have to consider what to do at that time.
  I emphasise yet again that it is the Government's aim to bring the conference to a successful conclusion with the agreement of all parties. The measure now before the House is fully consistent with that aim. It will ensure that once agreement is reached the Government have the necessary powers to implement it and to do so without delay. There is no reason to make the people of Rhodesia wait any longer to exercise their choice of Government in free and fair elections.
  The House will now wish to consider and debate the merits of the Bill before it. There will, of course, be other opportunities to debate Rhodesia over the coming weeks, both in relation to the independence Bill which the Government hope to bring forward shortly, and the various orders which will be made.
  The Bill sets in motion a process which the Government believe will bring Rhodesia to peace and to legal independence on the basis of genuine majority rule and free and fair elections. That will be to the benefit of all the people of Rhodesia and to the people and Governments of the adjoining territories, which have also carried a very heavy burden. It will bring to an end a sorry period in Anglo-Rhodesian relations. A solution is within sight. The Government have demonstrated their determination to achieve a fair and honourable settlement in accordance with the terms agreed by the Commonwealth leaders at Lusaka. We are ready to shoulder our full responsibilites. We must now ask those who have not yet committed themselves to the proposals which we have put forward to accept our good faith and join in irreversible progress to lawful government, the lifting of all sanctions, fair
  676
  elections and independence for the country.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawsliaw): I wish to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the official Oppostion.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill in the absence of a clear commitment not to use the powers contained therein unless agreement has been reached at the Lancaster House Conference and without a commitment to retain section 2 sanctions during the period before the return to legality.
  Our reasoned amendment covers many of the questions on which my right hon. and hon. Friends unsuccessfully sought clarification again and again from the Lord Privy Seal, not only this afternoon but yesterday.
  We are embarking on a debate of great importance, and we are united in believing that it is in the highest national interest for the London conference to be successfully concluded. Failure is unthinkable. Misery would ensue for the people of Rhodesia, black and white, and race relations would worsen, not just in Southern Africa but everywhere in the world, including our own country. There would be a loss of influence and reputation for our country and the ominous prospect not just of intensification of the war but the widening of it as other Powers became increasingly involved in the conflict. Those are all nightmare prospects but, unhappily, they are not far-fetched.
  The debate must be wide-ranging, and we could not accept that it should take place without some basis of fact. As a result, we persuaded the Government at the last moment to publish yesterday a White Paper on the constitution, together with a document on the interim arrangements, which was presented last Friday to the London conference and on which, I am glad to learn, considerable progress has been made. Both those matters were touched on by the Lord Privy Seal in his speech today and his statement yesterday, as was the still undiscussed final stage of the conference—the ceasefire to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. We are

  677
  conscious that the Lancaster House conference is entering its decisive stage, and we must have in mind the overriding objective that there should be a successful outcome.
  I shall follow in a sense the pattern set by the Lord Privy Seal in recalling the common ground that has so far been achieved. For 14 years, ever since UDI, Governments of both parties have refused to accept the Rhodesian rebellion. They have annually enacted sanctions against it and insisted that the six principles of a settlement be adhered to. That has not been easy, particularly for the Conservative Party, many of whose members have become vehemently and emotionally attached to the cause of the Rhodesia Front, which they have encouraged in its intransigence over the years. I pay tribute, however, to Conservative leaders who, although often sorely tried and tempted, have in the past refused to depart from what has been a national policy.
  We frankly had our moment of great anxiety earlier this year when the Prime Minister in her Australian speech in July appeared temporarily to depart from the general consensus of policy. She indicated that she was thinking of following the internal elections in Salisbury in March by recognising the Muzorewa regime. We sought to persuade her that that would be disastrous when we last debated Rhodesia on 25 July, shortly before the Lusaka conference. Her own second thoughts, advice from the rest of the Commonwealth and perhaps even our arguments led her to make a substantial switch in what appeared to be the direction of her policy and to agree at Lusaka with other Commonwealth leaders the following main points. They were that the Rhodesian internal constitution was basically defective, that the recognition of Bishop Muzorewa by Britain would lead to a disastrous isolation of our country, that an internationally supported settlement was essential and that an all-party conference had to be called and a major effort made to secure agreement and peace.
  On the basis of the Lusaka agreement there is much common ground between us. We want, and the Government want, to end white supremacy in Rhodesia by removing the unacceptable
  678
  privileges that were entrenched in the Salisbury constitution—the blocking mechanism and the de facto control of the whole State apparatus by the European minority. We want, and the Government want, a lawful Government in Rhodesia to be based on free and fair elections. We want, and the Government want, to stop the bloodshed and end the war. All three objectives are central to success at the Lancaster House conference.
  The White Paper which we had yesterday shows that agreement on the constitution has been reached, and it is obvious that considerable compromises have been made by all the parties to the talks to make that possible. The document on the interim arrangements reveals that agreement there does not appear to be beyond reach. Indeed, it appears that on many substantial points the parties are very close.
  I pause here to stress these points. First, fair and free elections will require adequate time for preparation. It is not a minor point and the Government must not be inflexible about it. If reaching agreement turns on whether the British Government can hold the ring for a period of not just two months and a few days but up to four months or more, it would be intolerable if it were allowed to slip away. It is basically a secondary point but of prime importance to those seeking to participate in and, it is hoped, win a free and fair election.
  Secondly, there has to be a positive broad observer role for the Commonwealth. All proposals for bringing in external or third forces have apparently been rejected. The one clear agreement—and it is there in the Lusaka communiqué—is that the elections should be supervised by Britain but observed by the Commonwealth. I hope that Commonwealth observers will be given the utmost freedom to supervise not merely the ballot box operation but all the procedures, including the administration in the country. That is the context in which free and fair elections can be held, if at all. I believe that there could be agreement that the Commonwealth has a positive role to play.
  Thirdly, during the election period the coercive military presence must be absent, whether that be the armed forces of the

  679
  Salisbury regime or those of the Patriotic Front. Law and order must be maintained by an effectively supervised police force.
  Those important points are not yet fully agreed, and if we are to convince all concerned that the elections will be free and fair, we must make progress on them. Finally and most crucially, there must be an effective ceasefire and an end to the cruel civil war.
  We encouraged the Government in that direction throughout the nine weeks of the London conference, and whenever we met the rival parties, we encouraged compromise. We urged impartiality and flexibility on the Government, and we made restrained and carefully timed comments and suggestions only when we felt that we had a duty to do so.
  It is against that background that I turn to the Bill and our reasoned amendment. We believe that the Government have made a major mistake in introducing the Bill now. The Bill should have been introduced not on the eve of the last and most vital stage of the negotiations but immediately after the conclusion of those negotiations. Our amendment states, first, that we want a commitment that the powers within the enabling Bill—sweeping as they are—will not be exercised unless an agreement has been reached at the Lancaster House conference. Secondly, we seek to restore the status quo in relation to sanctions affecting Rhodesia until there is a return to legality. They are reasonable demands.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made the point yesterday that the powers in the Bill, apart from the single but important exception of sanctions, would have been matters not for controversy but for normal scrutiny if the Bill had been presented at the conclusion of the Lancaster House conference. The Bill is controversial because it has been presented before the last and most crucial stage. Frankly, it seems that the Bill has been deliberately framed and timed to avoid careful and considered scrutiny by the House.
  Yesterday, we sought to discover the reason for the extraordinary timing of the measure and the yet more extraordinary timetable for its passage upon
  680
  which the Government were insisting. So much of the confusion that was witnessed during the early part of today was the inevitable consequence of the rush to get the measure through. Yesterday, we asked why the House was to be subjected to such an astonishing procedure. I listened today to what the Lord Privy Seal said. I heard nothing to convince me that any rushed procedure was necessary. We were offered two explanations. First, the Lord Privy Seal said that he wanted to proceed without delay, that the Government should be in a position to make arrangements to appoint a Governor and proceed with the interim arrangements for governing Rhodesia. As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, that could be done in a few extra days' time. I did not gather from what he said that he was so near the conclusion of the conference that the difference of three days in considering the Bill would be important, and that those days would be lost because agreement had been reached. However, I cannot seriously believe that the Lord Privy Seal would argue that case.
  The second reason that the right hon. Gentleman advanced was that the timing of the measure had to be related to the progress of the conference. Those were somewhat sibylline words. In the consequent exchanges it became clear that he was making a deliberate concession on sanctions to obtain the good will of the Muzorewa side of the conference. According to the Lord Privy Seal, to retain what I referred to as the 14-year status quo on sanctions, would be a "slap in the face" to Bishop Muzorewa. That indicates a shift in the Government's posture as the neutral chairman of the Lancaster House conference. Hitherto, the Government's position has been that, within the framework of the 14-year policy that acknowledged the continued illegality of the Salisbury regime, their purpose was to promote a compromise agreement on the three main subjects of the conference, the constitution, the interim arrangements and the ceasefire.
  The concession on sanctions to one side is bound to give the impression that the Government have departed from their stance of impartiality. That is bound to be unhelpful to the progress of the talks. Today's 6 o'clock radio news told us that the Patriotic Front did not turn up at

  681
  Lancaster House. No doubt its representatives have been very worried about the implications of the right hon. Gentleman's actions yesterday. Equally important, there is a danger that what has been done will have adverse international repercussions. Britain went to the United Nations to ask for collective mandatory sanctions. Some of the powers in section 2, which will now lapse, are also contained in the mandatory resolution passed by the United Nations. Will the Lord Privy Seal deny that fact? What approaches has the right hon. Gentleman made or will he make to the United Nations about the shift in British policy? Does he expect other nations to continue the sanctions which we will allow to lapse?
  I remind Conservative Members that the renewal of section 2 year by year has been seen as a symbol of Britain's determination not to accept the fait accompli of the rebellion and our determination to return Rhodesia to legality. One reason for the hurried measure that was not advanced by the Lord Privy Seal—one which I suggested yesterday—is that he and his colleagues are not prepared to face up to their Back Benchers over the renewal of the sanctions order. But for that, the proper course of action would have been obvious and clear. There would have been a renewal of section 2 and a separate constitutional Bill.
  Time for debating the Bill could have been found easily. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear, we would have been entirely content to join in any arrangement to limit the renewal and timing of the sanctions order to any appropriate period the Government advanced. That could have been discussed in the ordinary way. Incidentally, clause 2 also gives power to establish the Governor. We could have reached that point and held proper discussions about an important constitutional Bill. It would not have detained us for an unnecessary length of time. [Interruption.] Surely, that is the reason. I have not heard one reasonable explanation for the rushing of the Bill other than the one which I offered to the House.
  Mr. Raymond Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the renewal of the sanctions order as a symbol. Does he agree that, thanks to the
  682
  progress that has been made by all parties in the Lancaster House talks, we have passed the stage of the need for symbols and we are now reaching the conclusion of the negotiations?
  Mr. Shore: I do not accept that that is necessarily so. I hope that that stage will be reached soon. However, the general rules should not be changed in the middle of negotiations. That cannot be done without some impact being felt on the minds of the parties to the negotiations.
  The most worrying question about the course of action proposed by the Government is whether they are contemplating, not an agreed solution, a solution accepted by all parties, but a so-called second-best solution—a bilateral deal with the Muzorewa regime. Under the Bill, the Government will have the power to appoint a Governor in Salisbury. When he arrives and assumes executive and legislative power the return to legality will have been achieved. In these circumstances, as I surely do not need to remind the House, a British-appointed Governor will become the commander-in-chief of the Rhodesian forces. If hostilities continue, he will be in the impossible position of directing the war.
  The Lord Privy Seal was questioned four times yesterday, by his right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) and by my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Lyon) and for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). I refer the right hon. Gentleman to some of his replies. To his right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, he offered no reply at all, as he will recall. To my right hon. and learned Friend and to my two hon. Friends, he failed to give any assurance that he would not proceed to implement the Act if agreement was not reached. Replying to my hon. Friend the Member for York, the Lord Privy Seal said:
  "If we fail in our endeavours, which I very much hope will not happen, we shall certainly have to consider how we should proceed."—[Official Report, 7 November 1979; Vol. 973, c. 419.]
  The Lord Privy Seal has repeated that on two or three occasions this afternoon.
  To my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich, the Lord Privy

  683
  Seal, when asked for the same assurance, said:
  "To do that would be to give a veto to one party or the other."—[Official Report, 7 November 1979; Vol. 973, c. 421.]
  He therefore refused to give that assurance.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker rose—
  Mr. Shore: I am not giving way at the moment.
  I believe this to be profoundly unsatisfactory. But the strictures that I would otherwise have delivered, which I assure the right hon. Gentleman are very strong ones, have been somewhat muted since I read this morning the Official Report of the proceedings in another place. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when asked the same question, said:
  "Sanctions will be taken off when the governor takes over in Salisbury, and he will take over when a ceasefire has been agreed. I would not say that all the shooting will have stopped, but not until the ceasefire is agreed will he take over."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 7 November 1979; Vol. 402, c. 833–4.]
  Comparing what the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in another place and what the Lord Privy Seal said, not only yesterday, but also half an hour ago, when the same question was put to him, I cannot help but feel that there is an extraordinary divergence between Foreign Office Ministers and that this is a matter of great moment.
  I must now put the issue to the Lord Privy Seal. I ask him to reaffirm firmly the pledge and the words given by his right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and to assert in this House of Commons that sanctions will be taken off when the Governor takes over in Salisbury and that he will take over when a ceasefire has been agreed and that not until a ceasefire is agreed, will he take over. I shall willingly give way to the Lord Privy Seal. He knows that this has been the heart of the question put to him. I hope that he will now give that assurance.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my right hon. and noble Friend. I do not
  684
  think that there is any difference between us. It is plain what my right hon. and noble Friend was saying. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to col. 833. There is another passage in col. 835. In that context, my right hon. and noble Friend is plainly talking about the circumstances for which we all hope, that is to say, an end to the conference and agreement between all the parties.
  Mr. Shore: I think that the right hon. Gentleman needs to have some further conference with his right hon. and noble Friend. Either one House or the other is being misled. There cannot be a reconciliation between the explanation that the Lord Privy Seal has offered and the actual context and text of the words used by his right hon. and noble Friend. I put it to him—this is why we have put our reasoned amendment in the form that it appears—that on this issue we want a complete and absolute assurance. If the right hon. Gentleman, in response to my direct invitation, is having some difficulty in construing the words of his right hon. and noble Friend, or if he thinks there is any advantage in having a further discussion with him soon, we are prepared for that assurance to be stated in the Government's reply.
  I am aware that this debate has started late, for reasons that are not our fault. I am aware that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to contribute. I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion. We have stated our main objections to the Bill in the terms of our reasoned amendment. We shall vote upon it. We cannot accept a Bill that deliberately excludes the reenactment of sanctions at this time in the context of the Lancaster House talks. We shall therefore not only vote for our reasoned amendment but oppose, and continue to oppose, the Bill itself.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Terence Higgins: There is complete agreement on both sides of the House on the objectives with regard to Rhodesia. We want to see a settlement that is genuinely based on the six principles. We want to see a return to legality which leads to recognition. We want to see an end to the war and a stable situation under which the white population of Rhodesia can be encouraged to stay and Communist influence

  685
  from outside Africa can be resisted. That is common ground.
  We have made remarkable progress since the debate that took place just before the Summer Recess. I suggested at that time that the existing constitution in Rhodesia did not provide the basis for a permanent settlement. That was regarded in some quarters as a rather idiosyncratic view. I was delighted to find that it turns out to be official Government policy and that considerable progress has been made. My right hon. Friends should be congratulated on the way that they have handled the negotiations. We now have the best opportunity since UDI to achieve a settlement. All of us must work together to ensure that the settlement is brought about on a satisfactory basis.
  I must tell the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) that I welcome the Bill. It provides a means of further progress, although a great many obstacles have still to be cleared. We must consider carefully what are the options open to us. I speak with great frankness. The option that all hon. Members want is a settlement on the basis I have outlined. In the absence of an agreement at Lancaster House, we may find that the situation deteriorates further, that the war continues and that, in effect, we have washed our hands of the matter. That would be utterly and completely disastrous. A third option would be for the Government to proceed on the basis of this Bill, even though an agreement had not been reached.
  I take up the point which the Opposition spokesman has just made on this matter. Over the years, he and I have studied a great many Bills in this House. Unless I am mistaken, my understanding is that the effect of the provisions for going ahead in the absence of an agreement—if one reads clause 3, which is effectively the clause which would enable the appointment of a Governor, together with clause 1, which I understand governs clause 3—would be that we could not proceed to that situation without a further Bill being passed.
  I am not sure whether I am right about that. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will confirm that that is so. But certainly my own feeling would be that if there were not an agreement and we were to proceed
  686
  to appoint a Governor in the absence of any agreement and a ceasefire, then—at the risk of using an emotive shorthand—we must recognise that we would be creating a Vietnam-type position. I think that that is something on which the House would be very reluctant indeed to engage, and which obviously we would need to consider at a later stage.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend can tell me whether my interpretation of the Bill as it stands is correct.
  I share the concern which has been expressed about the position on sanctions. It seems to me a rather strange position that we should, in effect, apparently be contemplating a position in which 20 per cent. of the sanctions are not continued and 80 per cent. of them are continued—although, of course if the Governor is appointed in time, that position may never arise at all. I suppose that that is still a possibility.
  But again, if this seems to be a development which jeopardises the possibility of an agreement, under the Bill, as I understand it, under an Order in Council, it would be possible to cover what one might call the gap—if such a gap in fact turns out to exist.
  Therefore, I think that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar is being a little premature in taking the position that he has taken. It depends on how the situation develops in the next few days with regard to both the international community and more generally.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Higgins: I do not think that I can, because I am not sure what the position is regarding the time limit and I have a complicated argument to put forward. If I have a chance at the end of my speech, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  We can gain nothing from a situation in which the international community does not go along with the agreement which has been reached. That is most certainly so, and I do not think that it can be seriously disputed. Secondly, we can gain nothing if in advance of the elections and the other proceedings taking place either side in Rhodesia can argue that the situation is unfair, because that would not advance the cause of peace there at all. We must take account of both the

  687
  international factor and the situation in Rhodesia itself, and that means that it must be seen to be fair.
  I believe that it is the task of all of us in this House to convince those who might feel that the action which is now proposed on sanctions unbalances the situation that that is not so. We have a task to convince them—I believe it profoundly to be true—that my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and the Government as a whole are negotiating in good faith and for the reasons I have mentioned, if for no other—that is, the self-interest of this country—that they are determined that elections can be held on a fair and equal basis.
  I hope profoundly that members of the Patriotic Front, for example, can be convinced of that, because I myself am convinced of it. We all have a task to persuade them that that is so, because otherwise the situation is fraught with very great dangers of the kind I have sought to outline.
  On that, it may be that there is some case, because of the knife-edge situation balancing one way on one day and another way on another day, for saying that my right hon. Friend would be right to consider some flexibility on the question of timing, if only for the reason I have just mentioned. There is no point in having an election about which one side can say in advance "We did not have a fair chance." I hope that the Government will not be inflexible on that point in the course of the negotiations. It would really be very sad if the matter were to become cumulative and if, as a result of that, the situation deteriorated and we lost this chance. We must do everything that we can to ensure that the negotiations succeed.
  In that context, I believe that it is important that we should support my right hon. Friends and the Government in the great progress that they have made. We have a real chance of bringing the matter to a successful conclusion. That would be a triumph for us in Britain as a whole, for us as a force in world affairs and, indeed, for the future of Africa and the entire world community. I wish my right hon. Friends well. I hope that we bring the matter to a successful conclusion.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not believe that this Bill, at any rate in its present form, is one which should pass this House, both on grounds of form and on grounds of the policy which it embodies.
  As regards form, much has already been said. The Bill gives wide and unlimited powers, first of all in relation to an Order in Council for the creation of a constitution, and, secondly, for arrangements for the governance of Rhodesia and the matter of sanctions in clause 3.
  The Government state that both these powers are to be used only in an express and specified context. They point out quite correctly that the constitution which is to be made is a constitution which will have been agreed, and that, therefore, it cannot be submitted to the ordinary play of the House—to consider, to amend, to accept or to reject. But there is nothing in the wording of the Bill which limits the powers of clause 1 to the making of any particular constitution. It is not satisfactory that we should give unlimited powers in an Act of Parliament upon the basis of a verbal understanding given in this House, however honourably meant—and, of course, it is—that the exercise of them will be specifically and, indeed, uniquely limited.
  Incidentally, it is a curious paradox that in so far as the interim period is concerned—with which clause 2 deals—this House will be able to say yea or nay to a modification of that constitution in the period up to the holding of the elections.
  There would surely have been no difficulty, if the Government realise the importance of this—I hope that they will—in attaching the power conferred in clause 1 to a specific constitution unambiguously defined in the terms of the Bill.
  Then we come to the similar difficulty in regard to the powers given by clause 3. There are to be exercised only in the event of what is called agreement—which I take to mean agreement on the published terms of the draft agreement, plus or including a ceasefire. But there is nothing in the Bill which limits in that way the right to use those powers. There is not the slightest reference to any document whatsoever, or any attendant circumstances, however defined. There is even a not

  689
  unimportant ambiguity in the verbal undertaking that the use of these powers is dependent upon an agreement; for suppose that an agreement is made and is broken, or suppose that a ceasefire begins but does not continue. Does that mean that these powers will continue to be exercised or will not continue to be exercised?
  Again, paradoxically, we were told in relation to the constitution that, because it was a matter of agreement between parties, therefore the terms could not be in any sense submitted to the House. In clause 3, on the contrary, this House is given a veto over the use of the powers, despite the fact that they, too, are to be in pursuance of and conditional upon an agreement.
  I say, therefore, that as regards the form of the Bill—and I am using the word "form" in a very wide sense—it is objectionable in the unlimited nature of the powers—and they are very sweeping powers—which which it endows the Government. But more serious still are the practical consequences of the use which it is intended to make of them.
  In 1965, 14 years ago almost to the day, the House made a statement in the Southern Rhodesia Act:
  "It is hereby declared that Southern Rhodesia continues to be part of Her Majesty's dominions, and that the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom have responsibility and jurisdiction as heretofore for and in respect of it."
  I suppose that never before has this legislature, or perhaps any other, written upon its statute book a statement so at variance with real facts; and be it noted that, in case we might have been taken merely to be making a formal statement, to be humbugging ourselves, we were careful to include the word "responsibility".
  Parliament not only claimed a jurisdiction—as some Chinese emperor might claim jurisdiction over large parts of Asia—but it also claimed a responsibility that it did not possess. This House can have no responsibility without the power to exercise it. Power and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. For the past 14 years we have lived in a twilight world, an agonising world, in which the pretence that Parliament is responsible for Southern Rhodesia has continued,
  690
  without any possibility of Parliament realising that responsibility because it did not have even a shadow of power.
  In 1965 Southern Rhodesia ceased to be part of Her Majesty's dominions as surely as the American colonies ceased to be part of His Majesty's dominions when that fact was recognised by the Treaty of Paris and the legislation by Parliament that applied the consequences to the law of this country.
  Mr. Tom McNally: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking about Southern Rhodesia today because the Patriotic Front has given him the right to speak about it in a way that other past references that he is making—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
  Mr. McNally: Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that the Patriotic Front has put this on the agenda of the House? That is something to which he should apply his formidable logic.
  Mr. Powell: On the contrary, the statement I have just made was as true when I first made it in 1965 as it is today. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to enter into the history of the last 14 years, it is my opinion that the decisive moment was the collapse of the Portuguese empire. It was that, more than any other single event, that rendered the continuance of the independent Government of Rhodesia impossible in the long run; but the governance of Rhodesia was not going to revert, whatever happened, to the responsibility and jurisdiction of this House. During those 14 years there were never circumstances in which Parliament had the means of exercising jurisdiction and responsibility in Southern Rhodesia.
  We are not now recognising that fact, however belatedly, and whether thanks to the Patriotic Front or to the collapse of the Portuguese empire. We are leaving fact behind and taking off into a further flight of fantasy. We are, we say, actually going to govern Southern Rhodesia now. It says so in the Bill: we are to make provision for the government of Southern Rhodesia under the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. So Parliament will pass from the 14-year-old absurdity of asserting that it

  691
  exercises the government of Southern Rhodesia to attempting to carry that out in reality.
  The Government will send out a Governor. I do not know what train the Governor will have, or by whom he will be accompanied. I suppose he will have the usual accoutrements of a governor—the plumed hat, the white uniform, the sword.
  However, the Lord Privy Seal is not unaware of the illusion and paper-thinness of the pretence upon which he has embarked and is inviting the House to embark. The Lord Privy Seal said that the responsibility was a heavy one. It is indeed. The Governor is to be responsible for the peace, order and government of Southern Rhodesia and responsible to this House for everything that he does, since it is Parliament which gives him the powers. The Lord Privy Seal said that he could encounter grave difficulties. He could indeed. There will have been a ceasefire, it is true, and the Governor will not be sent out unless that is declared. Gordon will not be sent to Khartoum unless the Mahdi has declared a ceasefire. But there have been ceasefires before in other parts of the world which have not lasted. Will the Governor come home when the firing starts, if it does? In fact, as the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary said in another place:
  "I would not say that all the shooting will have stopped."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 1979; Vol. 402, c. 833–4.]
  The Governor will arrive in a country which only a moment earlier was locked in a dangerous and devastating internal war as well as a war on its frontiers. He is to be responsible for and to command all the forces, including the police force. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said that "peace, order and good government" would have to be maintained by the police force in Southern Rhodesia. I accept that point; and the Governor will also be responsible for the police force. He will run the entire Government, because he will have displaced the existing elected Government—however elected—of Bishop Muzorewa: that gentleman will have bowed out as His Excellency arrives to be responsible for the entire administration of Southern Rhodesia, the "peace, order and good government" of that country as it will be on the day after a ceasefire, and the
  692
  peaceful and fair conduct of elections that will be conducted in an atmosphere far more electric and where the contending parties have far more to gain and lose than in any election in the United Kingdom—and even there in recent years there have had to be troops available at all the polling stations in one of its provinces.
  What is the point of Parliament pretending to accept responsibility for all that, responsibility divorced yet again from power? How many divisions will be sent? How many troops? None at all? Not a platoon? Not a bodyguard of marines? Of course we here miss our "bomber" nowadays, but will there not even be a detachment of the Royal Air Force? Yet upon the basis of an agreement and a ceasefire, a Governor is to carry out all this.
  The Government say that the Governor will be sent for only a short time. How do the Government know that it will be for only a short time? Suppose it should turn out that the elections cannot be staged in the circumstances which the agreement requires. What happens then? Presumably we shall continue to exercise the legal powers conferred on the Government—make one Order in Council after another under clause 3 of the Bill. But what real power will there be? We shall find ourselves with a farce on our hands, and what is farce could turn to personal tragedy and to disgrace that will come home to us. The very fact that we do not have power or real responsibility in Rhodesia—
  Mr. Frank Hooley: We have responsibility.
  Mr. Powell: We cannot have responsibility without power—
  Mr. Hooley: Of course we can. We may not be able to exercise that responsibility but we certainly have it.
  Mr. Powell: I say that there is no meaning in this House saying that it is responsible for Rhodesia. Would we say to our constituents that we are responsible for something when we have no power? Of course we would not—
  Mr. David Winnick: If Britain's responsibility is only a fiction, and has been a fiction since 1965, why is it that those who declared UDI are very much party to the Lancaster House conference?
  Mr. Powell: Because of the events of the past 14 years.
  Mr. Winnick: Our responsibilities remain the same.
  Mr. Powell: I am simply unable to understand the use by hon. Members of the term "responsibility". Responsibility means that one can be called to account for what happens; but one cannot be called to account for that which one cannot control.
  Mr. Hooley: Of course one can.
  Mr. Powell: I seem to have embarked upon a much lengthier seminar than I thought. I did not think that it would be necessary to explain to the House of Commons of all places, that one must control that for which one is to be held responsible; but apparently this is not a universally accepted doctrine.
  I conclude by saying that what I have stigmatised as a fiction in the last 14 years is now turning into a dangerous charade which may well leave us exposed, in the face of the world, impotent to ridicule and without conferring one atom of safety, security or well-being upon those for whom we purport to be responsible and for whom Labour Members like to think themselves responsible. This is not something for which the House should vote.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), especially as he has now put the case against the Bill, and in doing so has shown up the triviality of those in the Labour Party who will vote against the Second Reading tonight. The right hon. Member put the question so clearly—whether the Government can carry out what they aim to do. The House must face up to this. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with historical questions and compared the United States with Rhodesia. But the situation in Rhodesia is quite different.
  The Bill, provided it is supported by the country and provided that the Government accept its full meaning, is an action which must be taken. Although in the past I have been of the same opinion as the right hon. Member for
  694
  Down, South and have taken the view that what is gone is gone, I believe that there is now a great difference. At present some of the main contesting parties in Rhodesia see this country as offering the only chance of a solution to the Rhodesian problem. That is the responsibility that is thrust upon the House and the Government by events.
  At Lusaka the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister took an extremely bold decision on an issue that their Prime Ministerial predecessors had avoided. They put themselves back into the driving seat over Rhodesian affairs. We must now concern ourselves, not with the piffling questions raised by the Opposition, but with the vital question as to whether this country can carry out its role. The issue turns on this and this alone, not on the legal points or the interlocutions which we saw while we waited for a decision on whether we should proceed with the Bill. It is simply a question of whether the House and the country will accept responsibility for bringing about a solution to the problem, which is of enormous and immensely dangerous proportions.
  It is not just a question of Rhodesia, or of kith and kin, or whether Mr. Mugabe, Mr. Nkomo or Bishop Muzorewa should have power. It is a question of peace in Southern Africa, and these matters will turn on the conference and the resolution of this House.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South mocked Gordon in Khartoum and the fact that he arrived there only after a ceasefire. That point was also made by the Shadow Foreign Secretary. The fact is that the British Government cannot know the precise conditions in Rhodesia, and once we have resumed power there we shall have to deal with these conditions as they arrive. I do not want to see a repetition of the Mexican experience, which was bad enough and not dissimilar to the one to which the right hon. Member for Down, South referred. But if these events are not to be repeated there must be a profound decision by the House and the Government. They must back up the settlement and back it up if needs be with a variety of military equipment so that law and order is restored sufficiently to enable the election to take place.

  695
  Let no one—the Foreign Secretary. Labour Members or some of my hon. Friends who are trying to manoeuvre for the Left wing or the Right wing—be unaware of the grave dangers facing Rhodesia unless this measure is pushed through. One realises how serious it is as one looks around the world, and particularly at Africa.
  There are those who think that we can combine successfully negotiations in the United Nations, negotiations with all the persons and factions opposing a settlement in Rhodesia, and negotiations with the front-line States with their totally different attitude. To succeed in carrying out these things simultaneously and successfully would be like allowing a veto to be put on our proceedings and on peace by hundreds of thousands of foolish organisations throughout the world. That is why I believe the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are right to bring this Bill forward which should show—perhaps more clearly than it does—precisely where we stand.
  I am an old mastodon—I see a few others in the House—who attended colonial and other conferences as our colonies moved towards liberation or the formation of new constitutions. In the course of such negotiations there comes a point when we must say "This is it. On this we settle or fail". That moment has arrived in these negotiations and I believe that this Bill, in spite of what some hon. Gentlemen believe, will help to achieve a solution.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Arthur Bottomley: The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) spoke of past attempts to solve colonial problems. As a junior and as a senior Minister and latterly as an Opposition spokesman I was happy to share in that experience. In many cases colonial rule was successfully concluded.
  I played my part in trying to bring about the same situation in Rhodesia. The right hon. Gentleman said that a legal quibble divides us in our attempts to bring about a peaceful and successful conclusion to the Rhodesian problem. It is not that. It is fundamental if we hope to secure future peace in Zimbabwe Rhodesia that all parties are united in
  696
  that aim. We do not want history to repeat itself.
  When I succeeded the then Secretary of State, in the Conservative Government of 1964, there was all round co-operation on the Rhodesian problem. He told me of the five principles that his Government had put to the Rhodesians as the basis for a settlement and said that, if I could be big enough to put those principles to Rhodesia, the fact that they came from a Labour Government might convince the Rhodesians that they were getting off more easily than they expected.
  I did not see Mr. Smith when I became Secretary of State because he would not allow me to meet Joshua Nkomo. Until he had given consent to a meeting with Mr. Nkomo I did not see Mr. Smith. Joshua Nkomo was released from detention to talk to me. I spelt out the five principles to Mr. Smith and he accepted them. However, there was no attempt to keep to an understanding. If left to him, the same would happen today. Had there been a settlement we would not have experienced 14 years of bloodshed, hatred and misery. If we do not act now, that situation will continue for a long time, with the major Powers, and certainly the Communist Powers, spelling out a solution as they see it.
  The talks with the Patriotic Front have gone extremely well. Most of them are patriots doing their best to bring about a solution to the problems in their country. We would not have seen Mr. Smith and a Conservative Government parleying with the Patriotic Front had it not been for the Front's military successes. I make one or two practical proposals which may encourage the Patriotic Front to be more co-operative. I have not discussed with it the suggestions I am about to make, though I did talk to Robert Mugabe about trying to get a settlement.
  He told me that the Patriotic Front have gone a long way towards this end. He also said that if we asked the Patriotic Front to allow an election to take place and if the people who kept him in prison and murdered his comrades were to decide how the country would be run during the interim period, its answer would be "No". If I was in his position, I would say the same.
  It is unrealistic of the Government to think that preparations for elections in

  697
  Rhodesia can be mounted in two months. The Patriotic Front has a right to go back and lay its ground and build up some kind of support. I plead with the Government to extend that period.
  At the last general election I faced an assortment of opponents. One of the candidates was supported by the Fascists. There was a Workers' Revolutionary Party candidate and there were my good parliamentary friends the Liberals and the Conservatives. There could have been ugly scenes, but the police and the local authorities, because of their long experience, ensured that we were all good friends on polling night. There were no fights or difficulties. Not that I sympathised with the causes of some of my opponents. Nevertheless, good spirits and good order prevailed.
  Is it not conceivable that a few chief constables or local authority chief executives with reasonable staff support—after all, Rhodesia is not numerically a large country—could run the election there? That would create confidence in the election's being run in a fit and proper fashion. In spite of any ceasefire, however, there could be minor outbreaks. A Commonwealth military presence to keep opposing forces apart is a proposition that should be considered.
  I plead with the Government, therefore, if they really want a solution to the Zimbabwe Rhodesia problem, to support the Opposition amendment. I think it is a reasoned and realistic one which will ensure that in the future Britain can hold her head high and say that we secured a peaceful solution on honourable terms.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) read out to us the Act of Parliament by which Britain assumed the Government of Southern Rhodesia in 1965. The then Prime Minister, wisely or otherwise, rightly or wrongly, asked the members of the public services in Rhodesia to remain at their posts.
  It would be conducive to the good administration of their country during the interim period when a British Governor is there, and afterwards, if we now guaranteed the pensions of Rhodesia's public servants. The burden would not be very onerous. The total is £20 million
  698
  a year and I have no reason to suppose that we would have to pick up the bill. Without such a guarantee, I fear that people in crucial posts will leave the country and thus make the peaceful transition more difficult. Heaven knows, there are enough difficulties already.
  I do not share the view of the right hon. Member for Down, South that one cannot have responsibility without power. We did have the military power at the time of UDI, but we chose not to use it. We are not totally devoid of military power now and it may be extremely wise not to use it this time. There are in Rhodesia, as in many other countries, experienced administrators who will serve any Government elected in good faith, even a Government formed by the Patriotic Front. We owe it to them to guarantee their pensions. We have the power to do it and it is right and expedient that we should do it.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made a constructive and positive speech.
  I congratulate the Government on their progress at Lancaster House. They have been negotiating under exceedingly difficult circumstances. Speaking for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) summed up the views of the whole House yesterday when he said:
  "The prize of peace, a properly elected Government and lawful independence must certainly not be allowed to elude us after so many difficulties have been surmounted."
  All reasonable people in the House and the country hope and pray for a settlement. This is not an empty form of words. It is supported by the Opposition's attitude in the last few months during the negotiations. In spite of the differences that emerged during our earlier debate the Opposition's attitude has been helpful, as the Lord Privy Seal confirmed yesterday.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel)—the Leader of the Liberal Party—cannot be present because of domestic circumstances. He has been in touch with the Lord Privy Seal on a number of occasions. From the outset the Government have sought to involve all parties in the House in the negotiations. It is

  699
  therefore surprising that there was no advance consultation about the presentation of the Bill. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the Prime Minister, but there was no contact with the Liberal Party on this matter whatever.
  It may be said that the views of minority parties are not significant. That is an arrogant view for a Government to adopt. If there had been contact, our advice would have been that the legislation should not be introduced at this stage. I am anxious to be fair, but the Government's attitude has contributed to our suspicion that their prime motive in introducing the legislation so hastily is to avoid a potentially emotive debate on sanctions renewal in about a week's time. It is hard to see any other reason for the sudden emergence of the Bill. That point was well made by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar.
  The Lord Privy Seal said yesterday:
  "We must be able to act without delay to implement the final agreement … Any delay in putting a settlement into effect would cost further lives and could place the settlement itself at risk.
  "The purpose of the enabling Bill that the Government are introducing later today, is to enable us to implement the interim arrangements without delay."
  These are assertions, but they are not supported by clear argument. I cannot accept that the House would seek to delay an enabling Bill introduced after the signing of an agreement. I see no reason why, on the signing of an agreement, the Governor should not at once leave for Salisbury, secure in the knowledge that by the time he arrived the House would have given assent to enabling legislation.
  We are being asked to give approval to enabling legislation which gives the Government, in advance of an agreement, wide discretion on sanctions and in the event of a breakdown in negotiations—if that unfortunately took place.
  The clear and sustained position of all parties in the House has been that sanctions should remain in effect until agreement is reached, whatever form that agreement takes. I agree with the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar that it is illogical to argue that it would be a slap in the face for Bishop Muzorewa. That is particularly so since the proportion of sanctions under section
  700
  2 amounts only to between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the whole.
  We are also in the position of debating the negotiations at what is perhaps their most delicate stage. When referring yesterday to the ceasefire, the Lord Privy Seal said:
  "That is the main outstanding matter of the conference and it is almost the most important."—[Official Report, 7 November 1979: Vol. 973, c. 406–16.]
  It is not simply that Parliament is not the best place for negotiations, particularly those which require concessions. Words spoken here, sincerely but perhaps intemperately, can upset a sensitive balance. They can sour the atmosphere at a crucial stage. That is the major criticism of the Government for introducing at this stage, what we all accept to be necessary legislation.
  It is against this background that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I shall vote for the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition. In doing so I wish to make it clear that, while in the first part of the reasoned amendment it states
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill in the absence of a clear commitment not to use the powers contained therein unless agreement has been reached at the Lancaster House Conference",
  and this could be taken to imply that this represents an unqualified support for the Patriotic Front's position and a veto posture, we do not accept that such an interpretation is valid. I emphasise that that is not our view. One of the unfortunate aspects of this debate is that at this time and in these circumstances inevitably people are prone to take sides, and this could be most unhelpful.
  Of course we all have established positions. We all have declared views, but if the negotiations are to succeed, what is required are not only concessions from the participants but restraint and a degree of trust from us. That is not such an onerous requirement. It is easier for us to show restraint than it is for those engaged in negotiations. Our lives and future are not at stake—as are theirs. But I wonder whether restraint can be sustained through the long series of amendments with which we must deal on Monday.
  During negotiations one strives to avoid committing oneself to either side.

  701
  Regarding the final phase of the negotiations I wish to make only two points which are original but which I wish to place on the record. First the Government should look again at the involvement of the Commonwealth in the security arrangements. That makes sense. It is a concession by the Government which would be welcomed.
  Secondly, the time scale of the elections should not be too rigid. That does not mean that I am arguing in favour of six months. However, we should look again at the eight-week proposition.
  I am fully aware that I have not made what one could exactly describe as an exciting contribution. I did not intend to do so. In the present circumstances, the best speeches today will be the dull speeches.
  8 pm
  Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) made a restrained and objective speech. The reasons why I cannot agree with him will become obvious in the course of what I have to say. I support the Bill. However, it may lead us into a dangerous situation. Therefore I want to start by discussing what might have been.
  When they came to power the Conservative Government should have recognised the Muzorewa constitution and the general election in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia in April 1979. First, it would have left the future in the hands of Rhodesians and would not have meant the need for a great deal of interference by the Government or people of the United Kingdom. Secondly, it gave the whites a blocking power for a period of eight years. That was important. It would have ensured gradualism. The one thing that we have not had in Africa is gradualism. It was wanted by both races. For the first time the constitution was not imposed by this House as were those which we gave to so many countries in Africa. Gradualism was supported by the African majority in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. That made the constitution unique. I am sorry that that has not been continued—not because I want the whites to have any particular powers but because I want to ensure that there is gradualism.
  Those Members who have been in the House for any time know only too well
  702
  the number of constitutions that we have passed and presented to countries in Africa together with Bills of Rights. Nearly every one has been torn up at one time or another. Those safeguards in the Bills of Rights have disappeared. That is the history of Africa. We must accept that. I hope that the House and the Government will learn the lessons of post-war history in that continent, that irresistible pressures are exerted on even the most moderate Governments. The Government should have recognised that fact and tried to introduce some way of ensuring gradualism in the constitution. However, they did not do so. Why not? Two reasons were given. The first was that they could not recognise the Muzorewa constitution because it would not obtain international recognition; the second was that it would not end the civil war in that country. That is true. However, can the Government guarantee that either of those two problems will be solved as a result of this Bill? We all hope that they will be solved, but there is certainly no guarantee.
  The non-recognition of the Muzorewa constitution led directly to the Lusaka agreement. What followed was absolutely inevitable. I congratulate the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friends on what they achieved. Not many Members of Parliament would have believed that the Lancaster House constitutional conference could have gone on for nine weeks and achieved the success that it has achieved so far. We all hope that it will be brought to a successful conclusion.
  I am especially pleased with the Bill since it will enable Bishop Muzorewa to return to Salisbury and say that he has achieved the lifting of sanctions. Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 disappears on Wednesday. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) pointed out that section 2 of the Act was the core of the sanctions policy. Whether 50 per cent., 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. remains, is immaterial. Section 2 has been the psychological core of sanctions. It is important that Bishop Muzorewa should be able to return home after all this time and say "I succeeded in this". Africans tend to support those who they believe will win, and Africans, like people all over the world, want peace.

  703
  As an aside I say that if the Patriotic Front obtains power it is most unlikely that there will be peace in Zimbabwe, as its two wings are just waiting to get at each other. However, that is a controversial point. It will, I fear, be proved to be a true one.
  I return to the proposed constitution. In an earlier interjection I asked my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal whether we could debate the constitution. The financial and explanatory memorandum says:
  "This Bill enables provision to be made, by Order in Council, for an independent constitution for Zimbabwe."
  Obviously I shall not go into that at any length. My right hon. Friend said that we must accent the constitution as it stands. It cannot be amended. However, that does not mean that we cannot obtain clarification. There are a number of points that I should like to put to my right hon. Friend.
  The lessons of history in Africa show that safeguards and Bills of Rights are valueless unless there is a blocking mechanism in the constitution. The constitution we are given shows that the whites will have 20 per cent. of the seats in the Lower House for eight years and that the entrenched clauses in the constitution may be altered by a 70 per cent. vote. It is clear that the whites have no blocking mechanism. However all our debates on Rhodesia—HMS "Tiger", HMS "Fearless" and the Pearce Cornmission—hinged on giving the Africans a blocking right. In each case the white minority in Rhodesia agreed.
  The constitution says that those who live in Zimbabwe will become Zimbabwe citizens as soon as that country becomes independent. What will happen to those people who are patrials, whose father, mother, grandfather or grandmother were born in this country and who, although they may have lived in Rhodesia all their lives, consider themselves to be British? Will they have the right to return to Britain and maintain British nationality? That is an important matter. All Members of Parliament will have engaged in a great deal of correspondence about people from all parts of the old Empire and new Commonwealth, in which those points have been raised time and again. They have caused disruptions and great sorrow and sadness
  704
  to many families. That matter must be made clear to the House.
  I come to the question of confiscation of, and compensation for, land. The constitution says that compensation will be paid to those ordinarily resident in Zimbabwe. What will happen to those who own property in Zimbabwe but who are not resident? Does that mean that they will not receive compensation? There is scope for a wealth of misunderstanding in that clause. When we think of what happened in Tanzania, the correspondence I have had about land in that country and the sad incidents that have occurred to Englishmen and women because of this matter, we realise it must be cleared up as soon as possible.
  I now refer to public servants. This point was raised earlier. The constitution contains guarantees to public servants of payment of their pensions. They may remit those payments and pensions out of the country. That is guaranteed. But who will pay them? If things go well, Zimbabwe will enter on independence. If things do not go well and the civil war continues, what happens then? The public servants have no guarantee. I am informed—hon. Members on both sides of the House will think that this is important—that many contracts of the civil servants, the Army officers and police expire next April, at a time when Zimbabwe will enter on indepeendence. If those people pack up and return home—if they leave their country and go elsewhere—the future of Zimbabwe is grim indeed. Their services will be greatly needed in the difficult period that lies ahead for that country. Britain must give a guarantee to the pensioners. If not, they will leave and we shall be responsible for the subsequent crisis.
  I turn to the general election. If the war continues during the general election—we hope that it will not—what will happen? The Governor will be in charge of the security forces and can use them. There will, I believe, be much the same result in the general election as there was in April this year. What worries me much more is what will happen if there is a ceasefire.
  Anyone who knows about Africa knows that the war will go underground. It will then be far more difficult to control, as it is in Ulster today. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)

  705
  said, we shall have responsibility without power to exercise it. The right hon. Gentleman put it much better than I can.
  What will the Governor do in such circumstances? If there is a ceasefire, he must maintain a balance between the two sides. Intimidation is rife throughout Africa and in many other parts of the world. It will certainly be rife in Zimbabwe, because so much depends upon who wins the general election.
  There is a grave danger that British troops may have to be called in. We should then have not the Vietnam situation, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing referred, but a Suez situation. I believe that the Opposition would exploit any such situation, as they did in 1956. The country would then be split and the situation would be very dangerous. How will the Government then control the situation?
  It is therefore important that the interim period be kept as short as possible. The two months must not be exceeded. I hope that the Government intend to remain firm on that matter.
  I believe that Mr. Nkomo will get considerable support in Matabeleland. He is the leading Matabele and is, as it were, the father of independence. I am not sure how much support Mr. Mugabe will get in Mashonaland. In my view, he is much more an Old Testament prophet than a revolutionary leader. But we shall see.
  I repeat, what matters is that the general election be brought into effect as soon as possible, and certainly within two months. That is vital if we are to avoid chaos throughout Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
  To sum up: by not recognising the Muzorewa constitution, we are taking grave risks. We may, by this Bill and the subsequent general election, open Pandora's box. We should remember that what happened in Palestine was decided by the House of Commons. The world is still feeling the effects of what happened there as a result of our misjudgments.
  We are discussing not only Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, but the future of Southern Africa. If the Soviet Union succeeds in
  706
  its endeavours in Southern Africa either to create chaos or to install other client regimes, as in Angola and Mozambique, Europe is finished. The House may think that is an exaggeration. However, I remind the House that, because of the strategic importance of Southern Africa on the oil route and the vital need of industrial Western Europe for the minerals in that part of the world, whatever happens there will affect everyone in this country. I hope that we remember that when we consider the future of Zimbabwe. This is the first step along a path which could bring success and peace to all races in Africa and affect the whole balance of the world. If we fail, the world could face ultimate disaster in World War III.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I think that all who have contributed to the debate have recognised that, whatever course we run, we face high risks. The hon. Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall) added his voice to that proposition.
  The most ominous contribution to the debate was that of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
  Mr. McNally: As always.
  Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman attacked the Bill on the ground that it would involve us in an unacceptable risk—namely, that in sending out a Governor with the panoply of office but without substantial power we would find ourselves in an insupportable situation. The right hon. Gentleman put forward an argument that the Government must consider. Clearly we cannot duck out of our responsibilitiies for Rhodesia altogether. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we should, though I think he was.
  It is clear that there is weakness in the Government's position, and it must be compared with the position taken by the Labour Government. In the Anglo-American proposals, largely brought forward through the influence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the then Foreign Secretary, consideration was given to the question of power on the ground to ensure an orderly transfer of authority to the new Government.

  707
  We are all filled with admiration for the extent to which there was agreement at Lusaka, but there was a serious deficiency which has not been faced. Therefore, it is right in these discussions to consider what can be done about it. Within the Lusaka agreement, providing for the presence of Commonwealth observers, there is the possibility of giving some substance to the Governor's power on the ground so that we are not isolated in seeking to maintain law and order and to bring about an orderly transfer of power. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that, because of this deficiency and danger, we should avoid the responsibilities that we have assumed over many years.
  I turn now to why, with some reluctance and regret, I find it necessary to support the Opposition's amendment. My reasons are somewhat different from the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I say "with regret" because I believe that Governments engaged in delicate and difficult negotiations are greatly strengthened by enjoying, so far as possible, the unanimous support of the House of Commons. It is not desirable that the House should divide on this issue, but regrettably I feel that there is no option because the Government appear to be involving the House deliberately in the diplomacy of the settlement.
  The House of Commons, as has been stated by several hon. Members—notably the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston)—is not a fit place to conduct or participate in diplomacy. We can only offer our comments from the sidelines. We are not aware of the precise feelings of the parties participating in the discussions at Lancaster House. We cannot be seized of the considerations in the minds of the participants which are moving them towards or away from a settlement. Therefore, we must be extremely cautious about saying anything here which could influence the talks.
  The Lord Privy Seal did not explain, either yesterday or today, the necessity, in constitutional terms or in terms of providing the powers which will ultimately be needed if there is an agreement, for bringing forward the Bill at this time. I textually analysed his remarks with great care in the hope that such a necessity could be demonstrated, but neither yesterday
  708
  nor today, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), was he able to show the need for this Bill at this time.
  We are therefore forced to the conclusion that the Bill is not a constitutional necessity, because, clearly, the House would be ready to give the Government the power to set up the governorship as quickly as possible following an agreement. It is, rather, a necessity of diplomacy, which must be a somewhat suspect reason for bringing it forward.
  What is that diplomatic necessity? The only explanation we have had is that it would be an affront to Bishop Muzorewa to return from the constitutional conference with sanctions still in existence. So far as I understand it, that is the sole argument that has been adduced.
  If that is so, we are bound, as we are party to this exercise, to consider whether there are other arguments of equal weight that would lead us to believe that this is the wrong time to bring forward the Bill, such as the attitude of the other party to the negotiations at the conference.
  The Lord Privy Seal made clear in his statement, and in his answers to questions yesterday, that all the other parties at the conference were advised that legislation would be forthcoming. He quoted from that part of the negotiating document setting out the interim arrangements, and indicating that the House would be asked to legislate. What the Lord Privy Seal did not say—I suspect that it was not said in the negotiating chamber either—was that the Bill would be an enabling Bill that would give effect not to the constitution that had been agreed but to any constitution which the Government judged it right to bring forward. This must be the reason why the instantaneous opposition from one of the parties to the negotiations was expressed on the tabling of this Bill yesterday and why, apparently, there has been an interruption in the talks today.
  The whole House must hope and pray that the talks and negotiations will be resumed, and that the Government's decision today, which is welcome, not to press the Bill through all its stages with such unseemly haste will be taken as evidence of their good faith. I believe, and I am sure that the whole House believes, that the Government are acting in good faith

  709
  and want to achieve an agreed settlement. For that reason, I believe that the Government were unwise to bring forward this Bill today. I am not seeking to cast any doubt on the Government's good faith, merely on their wisdom.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point very well. As he accepts that the Government are acting in good faith, and as he wants the talks to resume, will he say whether the action of the Opposition in dividing the House and voting against the Bill is more likely to bring the Patriotic Front back into the talks, or more likely to keep it out of the talks, as we both fear?
  Mr. Maclennan: I have already said that I, like every other Member of the House, find it exceedingly difficult to follow the motivations of the Government from day to day and hour to hour. I expect that the parties to the discussions at Lancaster House are following our debates with great interest and that they will follow the substance of what we say as we cannot follow the substance of what they say. They will realise that the objections made by the Opposition to the Bill are founded upon fears that they themselves have expressed, fears that the Bill could be used—though I grant it is not the Government's intention—to bring into effect a constitution to which they have not given assent.
  I say to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that I do not apprehend that the Division on the Bill will make it any less likely that negotiations will be resumed. The participants in these talks believe that the House is concerned about, and taking on board, their points of view.
  The responsibility for the success of these negotiations, to which we are all committed, lies not with the House of Commons but with the Government. They have given their periodic and full reports of what is happening, but they have not given us reports which make it possible for us to judge fully the wisdom of the Bill. They have not, for example, indicated how close they are to agreement with the Patriotic Front on the interim arrangements. I do not believe that it would be possible for them to give any fuller reports than they have given on
  710
  this matter. I do not believe that until an agreement has been reached it will be possible for them to say that it is in the bag. Without such agreement it is very difficult for us to take a wholly supportive view of the Government's reasons for bringing in the Bill now, when clearly it could be used for purposes with which the House would not agree. The House would not wish the Bill to go through if an agreement were not arrived at, and that is why I say, with reluctance, that I find it necessary to support the Opposition amendment.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Michael Brotherton: I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will not take it amiss if I congratulate him on the moderate and temperate tone of his remarks. However, we on the Government Benches regret his conclusion that he will have to support the reasoned amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends.
  It is five years since I made my maiden speech from the Opposition Benches on the subject of the Rhodesia sanctions order. I recall the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) saying that it was the only maiden speech that he could recall
  "which concluded with the words, 'So I shall vote against the policy advocated by my own Front Bench.'".—[Official Report, 8 November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 1497.]
  We were a happy band of some 23 or 24 souls in those days. We grew enormously last year, and I am sure that the Front Bench will not take it amiss if I say that there is a possibility that the size of the vote against the sanctions order last year contributed a little to the form the Bill takes today. The Bill takes the first major step towards the abolition of sanctions, and therefore I give it a welcome, albeit a qualified one.
  Three years ago we dropped the Beira patrol. That was a great step forward. Now we have lost section 2, which will not be renewed. Regardless of the percentages that have been mentioned as to the proportion of sanctions affected, this is an act of great symbolism which means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said, that, irrespective of what may happen at Lancaster House in the next few days, the

  711
  Bishop will be able to go back to Salisbury and say "I have managed to get sanctions dropped."
  I give the Bill only a qualified welcome because I believe that the Government, like their predecessors, have gone down the wrong road in attempting to find a solution to the Rhodesia problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice said earlier, after the election in Rhodesia and after the general election here we should have recognised the bishop's Government. After all, my noble friends Lord Home and Lord Boyd went out to Rhodesia and certified that the elections were free and fair. The six principles enshrined by successive British Governments have been fulfilled. We are therefore entitled to ask our Government today how many more principles they want to impose. Is this, to use the words of one South African Minister, like a game of rugby which has to be played again and again until the right team—depending on one's view—wins?
  We may have gone down the wrong road, but we have to live in the world as we find it. We have to live with the policies that the Government have decided to pursue. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke of power and responsibility. I shall not follow him into the semantic romance in which he indulged, but I must ask my Front Bench, whose business this is. Some years ago Lord Home said that the time might come when we should have to go to the United Nations and say that sanctions had failed and must be dropped. I believe that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) was wrong in 1965 to send his emissaries winging across the Atlantic to the Security Council. I do not believe that the problem of Southern Rhodesia has ever been the business of the United Nations. It is the business of the Government of the United Kingdom and the people of Southern Rhodesia, and of no one else.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a historical note, may I tell my hon. Friend that with Lord Home, who at the time was Shadow Foreign Secretary, I went to the then Prime Minister, and Lord Home begged him not to go to the United Nations for the precise reason that we would have difficulty in lifting those sanctions in the House of Commons.
  712
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) ignored our pleas.
  Mr. Brotherton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That shows the sort of difficulty that can arise if one takes one's problem to somebody else when that problem is none of his business.
  We have heard Labour Members talk about our international obligations. I repeat that I believe that Her Majesty's Government should now tell the Security Council that the mandatory sanctions resolution should be dropped because sanctions have served whatever purpose they were designed to fulfil originally.
  One of my main objections to sanctions through the years has been that sanctions have hit black people far more than they have hit the white population of Rhodesia. I find it extraordinary that Labour Members, who purport to be the supporters and friends of the black Rhodesians, should be the people who wish to punish those black Rhodesians and who wish now to punish those who support the Bishop and his Government.
  Similarly, I regret very much that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should have taken the problem of Southern Rhodesia to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference at Lusaka. We should tell the Presidents of the five front-line States to look to themselves—"Physician, heal thyself". I shall mention only two of those States. Tanzania is at present stealing assets from other people. Tanzania is in chaos. Tanzania is like many of the other black African States established north of the Zambesi which have a principle of "one man, one vote"—once, after which a dictatorship is established.
  Would not President Kaunda, who is at present visiting this country, be better employed in trying to sort out his own problems in Zambia, rather than interfering in the business of a neighbouring State, and harbouring murdering guerillas who kill, slaughter and maim black and white Rhodesians alike?
  I have always thought that it was a remarkably generous gesture of Ian Smith, when he was Prime Minister of Rhodesia, not to close the maize trail but to continue to allow supplies to proceed through his country into Zambia, when terrorists were being sheltered and given

  713
  accommodation in that country by President Kaunda and his Government.
  I welcome the Bill because we have taken a historic step towards the dropping of sanctions. It has taken many Conservative Members a long time to get the message across, but at long last we have done so. It is with great delight that I shall support the Government tonight.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Tom McNally: Any new Member of the House—I have been a Member for only six months—wonders whether there should be an act of rebellion against his own party. I have always thought that one of the issues on which I might rebel would be where a Conservative Government had delivered a Rhodesia settlement which, for party political reasons, my own party opposed. Having heard the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) say that he will support the Government tonight, I say that I shall go into the Lobby with my party this evening with a will, energy and sense of purpose which convince me that the Government are on the wrong road and have made a disastrous decision.
  I should have liked the British Government to end these 15 years of disaster for the people of Southern Rhodesia on an honourable note. I should have liked a united House of Commons to give backing to Her Majesty's Government on a settlement. The Government have misjudged both the mood of the House and the negotiations by trying to bounce us and the negotiations.
  In the past few hours we have heard all the old arguments. McNally's first rule on Southern African politics is that if the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) is in favour, it must be wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has not contributed to the debate tonight, but I listened to him yesterday giving eager support to the Government. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members who have worked so hard to solve the problems of Southern and Central Africa must have been very worried by the eagerness of Conservative Members below the Gangway to leap in support of the Government. They were wrong and they are wrong.
  714
  They are wrong for two reasons. First, they are wrong to give way on sanctions. I referred earlier to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Those who scrutinise his speech will find that, like so many of his contributions to British politics, it is devastating in its destructive logic and totally absent of any contribution to the solution.
  Responsibility without power has been mentioned. In the first hours of UDI in 1965 the British Parliament said "We do not consent." Year after year successive Parliaments, have said, to themselves, to the British people and, more importantly, the African people "We will not consent to an illegal act."
  During that period sanctions have proved ineffective. They do not work in weeks or months as some had hoped. However, sanctions were a declaration of intent to keep faith with a moral commitment. They have been the one honourable thread through the period of UDI. It has been suggested that we should have used force in 1965. That is a debate for history. Throughout that period we maintained sanctions. We said "Until we can honourably grant independence we will maintain sanctions."
  The Government are abandoning the commitment of successive Administrations. It is a sad day. Conservative hon. Members who have taken a courageous stand against the backwoodsmen know that it is an abandonment and a piece of cheap party political manoeuvring
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Oh, really!
  Mr. McNally: That is true, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  Secondly, there is the issue of the timing of the election. Those who have been involved in the negotiations over the past four or five years know that there are manoeuvrings, deadlines and arguments. It is totally unrealistic to hope to bring an election machine into being within a two-month period, especially when it involves men who have spent a decade in imprisonment and almost half that time again in exile.
  I ask Conservative hon. Members who wish to contribute to a solution to use their influence with the Government Front Bench. We are not in the business of wrecking an agreement at Lancaster

  715
  House. But we do not wish to manoeuvre or appease certain elements on the Government Back Benches. We do not wish to hear that the Bishop suddenly needs to return home with a victory. I ask Conservative hon. Members to use their influence. We are so close to agreement. We must think of ways of putting the agreement into being so that it will work. If we try to rush to a two-month election the agreement will not work.
  I am in agreement with the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). The House demands from the Government an answer to the question that he posed about what he rightly described as option three. We do not want the Patriotic Front to have a veto, but running through the negotiations has been the fear that there is another veto available. It is the veto available to Mr. Smith and to the racists who have led Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, that sad country, into its present sorry state. The Government's decision to bring forward the Bill tonight has strengthened the hand of that group in the Muzorewa delegation to apply the the third veto.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing that we want an assurance from the Government that they will not use the Bill, when enacted, to settle without an agreement at Lancaster House. Without that agreement, they would be cheating the House and the British people. I believe deeply and passionately that they would be cheating history as well.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) has said that he would have wished the Government to end on an honourable note. I merely say to him "Have patience, they will". I have no doubt about that. They have made remarkable progress already in the talks at Lancaster House and they will continue to make progress.
  I remember the pessimism that existed in London when the talks began. There was a lack of hope in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, where I happened to be when the talks started. It is fantastic that we have now reached the stage at which a Bill has been presented. Against the inauspicious background that existed nine weeks ago, it is all the more important to congratulate my right hon. and noble Friend the
  716
  Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on what they have achieved.
  I regard the Bill as one more stepping stone on the road to Rhodesian independence. It prepares the ground for the next phase prior to independence. It provides the Government with more flexibility to cope with the developing situation. At the same time it seems, if I read the Bill correctly, that it reserves for the Government fully adequate power to cope with any development that may still arise, whether it be good or bad.
  The fears expressed by Labour Members and by the Opposition in the amendment that they have tabled are unfounded. To my mind, the Bill presupposes an agreement. If there is no agreement at the conference, and if by some mischance the conference should fold up, I cannot visualise the Government washing their hands of Rhodesia and immediately granting independence. If they were to do that, why have they gone through the negotiations at Lancaster House with such meticulousness over the past nine weeks? Furthermore, recognition of Zimbabwe against the background of a breakdown of talks will achieve nothing. In the end, the success of the Bill and of the negotiations will be judged not on the end of sanctions, not on recognition of the new independent State but on the stability and viability of that State.
  There are clearly two prerequisites. First, if not total agreement, there must certainly be the acquiescence of all the parties. Following from that, there must be an end to the war. After 14 years it is clear that it is a war that cannot be won or ended by force of arms, but every day that it continues it causes more loss of life. Let no one forget that, however many members of the white population may have suffered, the black people have suffered far worse.
  Every day that the war continues, a few more young white men from Rhodesia, who could do so much for the future of their country, slip away from it. Who can blame them? One year's national service may be all very well, but a continuing commitment of 180 days a year until the age of 38 makes it totally impossible for anyone to build a career. Too large a part of the country's resources go into the war instead of into

  717
  industry and agriculture. Daily the problem of rehousing an increasing number of refugees from tribal trust land grows, as I witnessed in Salisbury only in the middle of September.
  An end to the war is essential. Without that the future for the economy of Zimbabwe is bleak and the hope of a continuing multi-racial society will disappear. If the war ends, the economy can expand, confidence can return and the outward flow of white people can be reversed. There will be a real chance that Zimbabwe, with the vast resources that it possesses, will become the most prosperous State in Africa.
  Finally, while congratulating the Government on the progress so far made—and especially the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal—I hope that at no time will they think that, even after eight weeks, a speedy end to the talks is more important than the agreement or acquiescence of all parties. Fourteen years have passed since UDI, and a few more weeks of talks is a small price to pay on the road to an agreed settlement.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The official Opposition's reasoned amendment has two additional clauses. The first says that we cannot give a Second Reading without a commitment not to use the powers if there is no agreement at Lancaster House. The second says that there must also be a commitment to retain section 2 sanctions during the period before the return to legality. The Government have made it plain—and it is enclosed in clause 3 of the Bill—that they will keep section 2 sanctions during the period up to legality, so there is no dispute about that.
  The Opposition could vote for the Bill if there was a complete assurance about the first qualifying clause of the amendment—that the powers would not be used if there was no agreement at Lancaster House. That is all that separates the two sides of the House. Why cannot the Government give us that assurance? They came near to it in the statement made by Lord Carrington in another place, which was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). It was not quite a full assurance, but it was approaching it.
  718
  The Lord Privy Seal quibbled at even that. He suggested that those words related only to a situation where agreement had been reached. Therefore, we are entitled to our doubt.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has left the Chamber. I do not share his view that the Government are to be trusted about what they will do with the powers. I believe that we are being sold a pig in a poke. We are being asked to pass into law powers that will enable the Government to take Rhodesia to a position where an elected Government are recognised and given lawful authority by the British Government. It is true that there is no power in the Bill to give an independence constitution to that Government. It is also true that Her Majesty's Government can promulgate a constitution under the power conferred by section 1. That power is subject to laying the Order in Council before Parliament. That is all the Government need to do, so far as I am aware. The approval of Parliament is not needed for the laying of the Order in Council; the Government simply have to table it.
  Under section 2, the Government must go further. Any part of the proposed constitution which they wish to bring in before the date when independence can be conferred legally must be subject to an Order in Council. That has to be laid before Parliament and it has to be ratified by positive approval of both Houses of Parliament within 28 days. Therefore, the part that enables the Government to bring in sections of that constitution in the interim period is subject to positive approval by both Houses. The first part of the third clause confers the power that is needed to send the Governor into Southern Rhodesia to take over the reins of government and make whatever provision he wishes, under Order in Council, for and in connection with the government of Southern Rhodesia, for a period up to the appointed day. If there is no independence Bill, the appointed day could be infinity.
  During that period, the Governor can act in any way the Order in Council permits. The Order in Council does not have to be tabled before Parliament. Nor would it be subject to negative or positive resolution. All that is required is for it to be made by the Privy Council and the Governor is able to do as he wishes.

  719
  Once the Bill is passed, the Government can send the Governor into Southern Rhodesia. Once there, the Governor can arrange for elections to take place in such conditions that the Patriotic Front will not have a genuine right to express themselves fully, campaign and receive a free vote. Thus rigged, the vote can give Bishop Muzorewa a majority in such an election. Then the Government can say "We do not need an independence constitution; we have a Government and we can recognise that Government".
  Under international law, Southern Rhodesia is a colony. We are the imperial power and we are required by international law to pass the powers to that new Government in an independence constitution enshrined in an Act of Parliament in this place. However, if the Government at any time in the past 13 years had decided to recognise the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia, from that moment on the regime would have acquired the legality of approval in international law. I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends to recognise that if the Bill is passed tonight the Government will have the power to go for my third option, if they want to.
  I believe that that is why the Bill has been introduced. There is no other acceptable reason. The Bill could have been passed within hours of an agreement at Lancaster House. It is no good saying that that short period was too long to wait and that the matter had to be on the statute book. If a ceasefire were to be agreed at Lancaster House next Wednesday, no one can believe that by Wednesday midnight it would be operative in Rhodesia. The orders have to go down the line, if not through Muzorewa, through General Walls, to the security forces on his side, and through the ZANU headquarters and through the ZAPU headquarters to the people in the bush. The chain of communication in ZANU is particularly diffuse. It would take some days before a ceasefire was operative following an agreement. In those few days, we could pass this Bill. Why, therefore, are the Government bringing in this Bill, unless it is for the reason that I suspect?
  In an aristocratic, patrician, speech, the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), who has now walked out of
  720
  the Chamber, suggested that our fears simply belittled the Opposition. I want to inform him that we have reached this stage and the negotiations at Lancaster House because of the reality of power. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) talks about power and responsibility. This whole matter is about power. We have reached this stage only because power has been taken away increasingly from Smith and the whites by those who have been fighting for the last 10 years.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd rose—
  Mr. Lyon: No, I shall not give way. The reality of power is that the Patriotic Front and with it, originally, Bishop Muzorewa, who was also engaged in this operation, have brought us to Lancaster House.
  Mr. Lloyd rose—
  Mr. Lyon: I am not giving way.
  I have listened to the reports coming out of Lancaster House, via the BBC, conditioned by the Foreign Office briefing. Those reports have suggested that the Government believe that the reality of power is with Bishop Muzorewa, General Walls and the security forces and that a deal, therefore, has to be done that recognises that reality. If this is the Foreign Office's advice to the Government Front Bench, I can only say, from my limited experience of Rhodesia, that it is an unreal view of what is happening. Although the whites and Muzorewa have the fire power to make raids into Zambia or Mozambique, or to take over whatever part of Rhodesia they want, because they possess the helicopters, the planes and the bombs, the fact is that, for most of the time, when those forces cannot be deployed in a particular area of Rhodesia, the power is with the Patriotic Front. Ninety per cent. of the land surface of Rhodesia is under the control of the Patriotic Front, with the qualification that the security forces can take it back if they mass their power. From day to day, they do not have that power.
  The reality of power is that one has to deal not only with Muzorewa, but also with the Patriotic Front. Without that, it is no use pretending that one has a deal that the front-line Presidents will recognise or that the United Nations will

  721
  recognise. One will not be allowed in international affairs to get away with recognising the Muzorewa regime. Instead, the war will go on. Nothing will be acceptable to the Patriotic Front until it wins a bloody victory. But that is not what the Patriotic Front wants. If that is what the Patriotic Front wanted, it would not have been talking in Lancaster House for nine weeks.
  The Patriotic Front knows the reality of power, and knows what it can manage. It knows that it will win by the bullet. But it does not want that. It is prepared to win through the ballot box, which, it believes, is open to it, and to save lives in that way.
  I believe that the House should vote against the Bill in order to ensure that the Patriotic Front has the right to come to an agreement at Lancaster House and that it is not excluded by the tactics of the Government. Until that agreement comes about, this Bill is unnecessary; and that agreement is at present very unlikely indeed.
  So far, the Government have been telling the House that an agreement is very near, that they have got past the negotiations about the constitution and about the interim period, and now they have only to have the argument about the ceasefire. The truth of the matter is that the Patriotic Front maintains its difficulties about the constitution, and it only made an agreement to go on to discuss the next stage by qualifying that agreement by saying that it would not have to go back to the constitution if it could get an agreement about the interim proposals.
  That qualification was contained in a three-paragraph statement which the Patriotic Front went to the Foreign Secretary to discuss. Having discussed it, he accepted that it was sufficient and that the Patriotic Front would announce it at the following day's discussion in plenary session at Lancaster House. The Patriotic Front went away ready to come back to the discussions and to read out the three paragraphs. The following morning's newspapers contained one paragraph only, one paragraph that had been released by the Foreign Office briefing to the press, which suggested that the Patriotic Front had climbed down.
  722
  In that context the Patriotic Front will not be bullied or bamboozled into an agreement. It must be a genuine agreement. If the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary are to conduct the rest of the negotiations in that way, they will not get the agreement about the ceasefire, which is absolutely essential.
  I believe that the Bill has been introduced because the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary do not really intend to get that agreement. Because of that, we must vote against the Bill.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I say straight away how relieved I am that I do not rise to speak following the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) after the eight-hour speech that he threatened earlier today. He has won his point there, but in the speech that he has just made he has not won any points.
  Up to a very recent moment in the debate it seemed to be common ground between the two sides of the House that the attitude and the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to attain a solution were sincere. Everything that the hon. Member for York said—at one moment it seemed to be an outright speech on behalf of the Patriotic Front—seemed to belittle the Government's efforts and the good intentions and long-held political beliefs of many Conservative and Opposition Members that a settlement was possible.
  Anyone who listened to or who will read the hon. Member's speech and who does not, perhaps, know of his beliefs and all that he stands for, might be tempted to think that there was a little bit, at least, of hard feelings and sour grapes in what he said. The plain fact is that in six months in office the present Government have got further towards a solution than the previous Government did over five years of gravitating around Africa and the world talking to this leader and that leader, and so on.
  I totally disagree with the hon. Member when he says that an agreement is not near. Many people on either side of the fence, white or black, acknowledge that we are very near an agreement. If the Bill goes through, I believe that it will make that agreement much more likely, and by that I mean a three-party agreement and not a two-party agreement.

  723
  I have a great respect generally for the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally). However, he used phraseology such as "bouncing negotiations" and "cheap party-political manoeuvring". It has emerged in the debate that there are certain little local difficulties on the Conservative Benches over sanctions. However, surely this debate can rise a little above that when we are dealing with negotiations which are rapidly coming to fruition and which are the solution to a war. In that context, such phraseology is not worthy of the hon. Member or the debate.
  A settlement is near. I make only four points. First, I am very much in favour of the Bill because speed is necessary. We must be able to act immediately at the moment of that agreement. I do not want to go into a great thesis about the Patriotic Front, Bishop Muzorewa, Rhodesia or anything else, but the plain fact is that any agreement that is achieved, after all these difficulties, by its very nature will be vulnerable.
  Britain is negotiating with two parties. One of those parties, the Patriotic Front, is in reality two parties. We all know that and we know of the difficulties that there are between them. We all know that they have plans for when they get back to Rhodesia and that the domestic and political position of one of those parties—whatever may be agreed in London—is vulnerable within Rhodesia. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and many of his hon. Friends may talk about delaying the process of the Bill for two, three or four days, but judging by the display earlier today it could be even longer if a three-party agreement was not favoured by the Opposition. That period of time could cause much difficulty in Rhodesia.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) remarked that there were now grave difficulties because of intimidation. Figures given in the press show that there are about 15,000 guerrillas out of uniform, perhaps with weapons, who represent a great threat as they spread out into the villages. That number is said to be increasing day by day, as more and more guerrillas come into the country ready for a settlement. That is one of the reasons why the hon.
  724
  Member for York is wrong when he suggests that there will not be a settlement.
  The whole strategy of the Patriotic Front is very much dictated by the desire to achieve a settlement and then to exploit that settlement to gain victory. It is our duty to ensure that the elections are free and fair. It is also our duty to acknowledge some of the realities of life. To find a solution it is necessary for there to be strength of purpose. That is where the Government have excelled themselves. That is why they have got where they are. The Government must not weaken now.
  I dealt with sanctions when I referred to the hon. Member for Stockport, South. We are dropping only 15 per cent. of the sanctions. Until now, I have voted to retain sanctions. I hope I have proved that I have a certain credibility with Labour Members because it is nonsense to go on with sanctions next Thursday, or before then, when a settlement is about to be reached.
  It is our duty to keep a fair balance within those talks, bearing in mind the political circumstances within Rhodesia, an African country, whose politics will not be quite the same as those of Britain. If we were to impose sanctions now, it would have a disproportionate effect on Bishop Muzorewa. It would destroy him in the eyes of his people; and that is a reality of African politics that must be accepted. It is more important than any party differences about a sanctions Bill that will go out of the window anyway, even if it were to succeed. However, I am glad that it will not succeed.
  The international mood for settlement is better than ever. The hon. Member for York does not think there will be a understand the realpolitik of the situain his somewhat legalistic way, he should understand the real politik of the situation. The British Government have given a lead that was lacking previously. As a result, Britain has resumed its position as the principal in seeking to solve an issue for which it is responsible. I am glad that we are rid of the Anglo-American proposals. The Americans have been only too happy to assign the leadership to us and the EEC is following. Many people, including the black African countries, are relieved and are pleased with the Lusaka conference. Negotiations and consultations are going on all the

  725
  time. They are happy with our lead so far, and long may they remain so.
  Finally, the front-line Presidents desperately want peace. We must often differentiate between what Presidents—be they African or anything else—say in public and what they say in private. The people of Mozambique, from the President down, have very real fears that that country will become the Lebanon of Southern Africa. We know all about Zambia's problems and we do not need to repeat them. Tanzania is absolutely broke. President Nyerere's attitude has changed remarkably recently. Botswana is moderate and will follow the rest, and Angola has quite enough problems of its own already.
  I have tried to make the points as rapidly as I can. We must acknowledge the realpolitik of the situation without going into semantics of any sort, and we should wish this Government well in something which up to now they have handled far better than we had hoped or expected.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Frank Hooley: It is grotesque that the Government should bring a Bill to the House purporting to put into effect an agreement which has not yet been arrived at. We are in the middle—indeed, at a very delicate stage—of difficult negotiations, and for the Government to ask for a blank cheque of this kind is absolutely disgraceful. My right hon. and hon. Friends are right to vote against it.
  I share the view expressed by the then Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords last November that the powers under the 1965 Act are quite sufficient for the interim period. They are not sufficient for independence but they are enough for the interim period. That is also the view of my right hon. Friend, the former Foreign Secretary. Those powers are there but they are not being used. We know why they are not being used—because of the crack that exists in the Conservative Party over sanctions.
  I shall comment on three aspects of the problem. First, there is the issue of the constitution. It is defective, as was pointed out lucidly by Professor Clare Palley in The Guardian a few weeks ago. One could easily have a situation
  726
  in which there is total deadlock and where the African parties must get 64 per cent. of African seats to form an effective Government. That is a formidable target. If no single African party gets that, there is a danger that any form of coalition could be blocked by the white minority seats. Then there would be a total deadlock and no way forward.
  Secondly, there is the issue of the appointment of the Governor. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the Governor will need to be backed by some effective supervisory force. It is quite absurd to send a man from this country to govern Rhodesia in the present situation of private armies, martial law, widespread brutality, fighting and gang warfare, without giving him effective forces to stabilise the position.
  It is totally wrong that the Government should have ignored the proposition for a United Nations force, or at least a Commonwealth force, to exercise some restraint and bring some impartial pressure to bear on the various conflicting forces in Zimbabwe in order to move forward in the elections.
  I warn the Government that, if they have forgotten the fate of Lumumba, Mugabe and Nkomo have not. They will not go unarmed into a country where they can be assassinated or gunned down as Lumumba was gunned down in the Congo. Unless there is some sort of effective force on the ground, those men will not go back into that sort of trap and the Government might as well face that fact if they want a successful conclusion.
  Thirdly, on the issue of sanctions, it is absolutely essential for the maintenance of our standing in the world, for our relations with the United Nations and the Commonwealth, that sanctions should be fully maintained right up to the time when we can hand over to a lawful, elected Government with an independent constitution. If the Government play around with sanctions they will call into question our good faith with the very powers and the very authorities—the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the front-line States—upon whose power and support we shall rely to bring this matter to a successful conclusion.
  It is bizarre to suggest that we can bring a country from civil war to elected

  727
  parliamentary government in eight weeks. I have never heard of such a weird and impossible proposition. It is a preposterous suggestion and I do not know how the Government have the gall to put it forward. Apart from anything else, there is the setting up of proper facilities so that all the parties may campaign. A large proportion of the population must come in from the country areas to vote. Election machinery has to be established in a country which is still torn by civil war. The suggestion that all this can be done in eight weeks seriously calls in question the good faith of the negotiations at Lancaster House.
  We must remember that we are operating amid all the other forces which put pressure on Central Africa and on ourselves. We must keep the good will of the front-line Presidents or the thing will not work. We must keep faith with the Commonwealth and with the conditions set out by the Commonwealth leaders at Lusaka. We have got to get the agreement of the United Nations. We cannot dismiss the United Nations as a body which has no standing in these matters. If the United Nations fails to recognise the eventual outcome, our efforts will be null and void.
  Nobody has so far mentioned the shadow of South Africa. What understandings, agreements and promises, perhaps, have the Government with that country in relation to Southern Rhodesia? South Africa could destroy all that we purport to do unless she is clearly and definitely warned that the international community will not tolerate further interference from her of the kind experienced in the past 10 years.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in a most entertaining intervention in this debate, noted that the British Governor, on his arrival in Salisbury, would lay claim to the control of the Rhodesian security forces both in the police and in the Army. He must have omitted to notice, otherwise he would surely have alluded to it, that in the Government's paper of 2 November on "Rhodesia — The Pre-independence Arrangements" it is said that the Governor also lays claim to control the forces of the Patriotic Front. Paragraph 21 declares that the commanders on both
  728
  sides would be responsible to the Governor for the ceasefire. I thought that the right hon. Member might enjoy hearing that.
  I welcome the Government's decision not to renew the sanctions order and their commitment to lift all sanctions as soon as the Governor sets foot in Salisbury, which could be within a fortnight. The lifting of sanctions cannot come soon enough. With the possible exception of the selling of the Czechoslovaks into Nazi slavery under the Munich agreement, the maintenance of sanctions against Rhodesia, once that country came under attack from externally based terrorists armed, trained and masterminded by Moscow, was the most shameful act ever undertaken by a British Government.
  When one recalls the way in which countless thousands of Rhodesians fought for Britain in her hour of need, joining, as did Ian Smith, the Royal Air Force and the Long-Range Desert Group while the Rhodesian African Rifles, all of them black, fought with distinction in Burma it is heinous to see the shameful way in which Britain in recent years has repaid this debt of honour.
  This morning I returned from Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. We may think that we have a problem in Northern Ireland where there is a force of some 500 active gunmen. With an army of equivalent strength to the 15,000 British troops in Northern Ireland, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia has to face an assault not from 500 but from 15,000 terrorists who are armed with heavier equipment than that which is available to the terrorists in Northern Ireland.
  Fortunately, the Patriotic Front terrorists do not have the skill or motivation of the IRA. Nevertheless, the scale of their terror in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is 30 times that which confronts us in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the young men of Rhodesia whom I have seen in the field this week. They are the finest of their generation to be found anywhere in the world. They are an example of the British at their best, as we always are when we have our backs to the wall.
  I am full of admiration for the qualities and effectiveness of the black soldiers who comprise more than 80 per cent. of

  729
  the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian army. I salute their courage, skill and endurance.
  I have been privileged to know this land and its people for 17 years. During my latest visit I was struck forcibly by the fact that the people of Zimbabwe have never been more united than they are today. Before our eyes we see a strong and racially united Zimbabwe being forged in the crucible of war.
  I regret that the April elections were not recognised by the incoming Conservative Government. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of non-Marxist African States would have followed our lead. By failing to seize that opportunity, by insisting on unravelling the internal settlement and by requiring new elections, the Government have taken a dangerous gamble with the future and the lives of all the people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
  I do not intend to dwell on the past, for only the future is important. The Lancaster House talks, accepted by Bishop Muzorewa and his team, provide a path of hope. The nation's future will turn above all on the outcome of the election. The result is far from a foregone conclusion. I hesitate to give encouragement to the hopes of some Opposition Members, but there can be no question but that the Bishop's standing has been gravely damaged. Any Government who have to face the electoral music within nine months of a general election are not in the strongest of positions. I am not sure that my right hon. Friends would care gratuitously to submit to such a process.
  We have denied the Bishop recognition, the lifting of sanctions and the means to end the war. All these factors go far to undermine his position.
  The gravest aspect, however, is that the whole aim of the exercise in the Government's and Opposition's estimation is to achieve elections which are even more free and fair than the April elections. I believe that the hopes of both Front Benches will prove false. In April this year there were no more than 10,000 to 12,000 terrorists in Rhodesia; today there are 15,500. By the end of the year it is estimated that there will be 20,000. In addition, there are a further 30,000 ZIPRA and ZANLA terrorists in training in Zambia, Mozambique and Tanzania
  730
  who, in the context of a ceasefire will almost certainly return to Rhodesia. In the space of nine months between those two elections, we will have seen the escalation of the terrorist forces of the Patriotic Front from 10,000 to 50,000—a fivefold increase. If that is not a formidable body of "election agents", I do not know what is.
  There is a serious possibility that in those circumstances, with 100 times the number of terrorists in Zimbabwe as those who confront us in Northern Ireland, the Mugabe faction could achieve the largest share of the vote, though probably not a majority. This would in no way be a reflection of the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia but would merely be a reflection of the extreme pressure of intimidation from 50,000 armed terrorists who maim, murder and mutilate every day that this war goes on.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Nonsense.
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman should have the honesty to go and see for himself.
  A key factor in this process will be the timing of the elections and the control of security. The Opposition, including their Front Bench, wish to give the Patriotic Front a veto on the Lancaster House talks. Furthermore, they wish to renew the sanctions order to put more pressure on the forces of democracy inside Rhodesia. Finally, they demand more time. All those demands are directly in line with those of the Patriotic Front and the friends of Moscow.
  Why do the Opposition so totally support the demands of the Patriotic Front? The British Government owe it to all the peoples of Zimbabwe to ensure that their democratic wishes prevail—not the wishes of those outside who fire, fuel and meddle in this conflict.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. John Stokes: I shall be brief. I support the Bill. I shall mention some points that have not so far been brought out in the debate.
  I do not take the new constitution very seriously. It cannot, after all, bind Rhodesians in the future. Only Rhodesians of all races can make it work.

  731
  Unfortunately, the United Kingdom has not had a successful record in decolonising Africa. The constitutions that we have proposed have all been torn up and usually followed by one dictatorishp or another. A Westminster-type democracy does not suit the whole world and does not appear to be particularly suitable for Africa.
  All our ex-colonies in Africa, with the exception of Malawi, are in a poor state. The Zambians are nearly starving; Tanzania is nearly bankrupt; Uganda is in chaos and occupied by Tanzanian troops; even in Kenya, which is sometimes held out as a good example, two Opposition leaders have been murdered. Hon. Members on both sides must devoutly hope that Rhodesian will have a different and better future, especially with her large white population. Everything depends on the whites, especially the white farmers, remaining. The main difficulty in the Bill is whether the Patriotic Front will abide by the constitution, lay down its arms and submit to the ballot box. It is always difficult for terrorists to do that, as we saw in Ireland in 1921–22.
  Several speakers have mentioned the various body blows that Bishop Muzorewa has received in recent times. The second election alone appears to invalidate the first election, which was described as free and fair. The fact that he has to give up being in the Government and stand down before the election is also a blow to his prestige. Africans respect power and success.
  There will be great dangers for the Governor, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) brilliantly pointed out. But I believe that we have no alternative but to take the risk. We cannot let matters go on as they are. I only wish that we had sufficient armed forces to send at least one division and several squadrons of aircraft to assist the Governor.
  One matter which has not been touched upon is whether Russia and East Germany will continue to train, support and arm the Patriotic Front. Also, will the two factions of the Patriotic Front agree not to light each other?
  Our prime duty is not to forget who are our friends and who are our enemies.
  732
  The Muzorewa Government have been out friends. The Patriotic Front has not been particularly friendly—certainly not to the West—and its members are not friends among themselves.
  Despite these grave risks and difficulties, I support the Bill. The Government are absolutely right in what they have done.
  We must try to get the United States to support us. The American people do not know very much about Africa, just as they do not know very much about Ireland.
  Our EEC colleagues should not be too difficult. After all, they and Japan, as I saw when I was in Salisbury last year, were the chief sanctions breakers.
  Finally, there are the countries of the Third world. I do not think that we should worry too much about the Third world. The countries of the Third world are always hostile to us. So long as there is a large white population in Rhodesia, they will continue to be hostile.
  What matters is not the constitution, not even creating a democracy, nor vague liberal sentiments—there is a most successful multi-racial Government now in Salisbury, probably one of the best Governments in the whole of Africa—but Britain's interests and those of the West and the future of our own people in Rhodesia as well as the blacks. Given sound government and stable conditions, Rhodesia could become the happiest and most prosperous State in Africa. These are the stakes for which we are playing, and the Bill is the first throw.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. Edward Rowlands: For 14 years successive Governments and Parliaments have grappled with the problem of Rhodesia. Anyone who has been involved in the various attempts, negotiations and initiatives to resolve the Rhodesian problem—I have had the distinction, dubious perhaps, of being involved in at least two of the major initiatives in the last five or six years—will fervently hope and pray that the initiative launched at the Lancaster House conference will succeed.
  I must point out to the Lord Privy Seal that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said at the beginning of the debate, we passionately hope and pray that the Lancaster House conference will succeed. We

  733
  have done, and will continue to do, everything possible to co-operate in the successful achievement of an agreement by all parties to solve this problem. No one can say that we have not done that or endeavoured to do it.
  The result of 14 years of failure—this is the background against which the Bill should be looked at—has been the development of suspicion and distrust quickly triggered off by one party or another. What struck me over the last four of five years was the amount of time that one had to spend trying to remove the distrust and suspicion—many times unfounded—because of the 14 years of irritation and frustration at British Governments who failed to solve this problem.
  In one respect it is against this background that we challenge the wisdom of introducing the Bill in the manner chosen by the Government, for they are taking a gamble and a risk thereby. In our view, it is an unnecessary risk, for which, throughout the debate, we have not had an adequate explanation.
  It is not the actions or words of any of my right hon. and hon. Friends that are the cause of the worry. Anyone who has read this morning's press will know of the comments made by parties at the conference. Already the introduction of the Bill against this background has aroused worries and concerns about the motives and intentions behind the Government's actions.
  Those worries and concerns have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and many other hon. Members. What is worse, the Lord Privy Seal did not give one adequate reason, in his opening explanation, why we must deal with the Bill at this moment and in this way. For that reason, concern and suspicion have been aroused and perhaps wrong constructions placed on the motives of the Government by the Opposition. We have had to ask ourselves why the Government have decided to proceed in this peculiar and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said, rather grotesque way.
  The Government claim that there is urgency and that the whole future success of the conference depends on having these powers ready in advance so that they
  734
  can act on them the moment agreement is achieved. Another reason for the urgency, we assume, is that the Government feel that they need to put a Governor into Salisbury as rapidly as possible.
  Is it not possible to appoint a Governor and implement many of the transitional arrangements listed in the pre-independence arrangements document under existing legislation? Will the Minister go through the document and tell us which provisions require new legislation as opposed to those that could be introduced by order under existing legislation?
  I put that question because, when the Labour Government drew up the White Paper in 1977, much of what is in this document was discussed in the Foreign Office and we had strong legal advice to the effect that it was possible to introduce a host of transitional arrangements, including the appointment of a Governor, under existing legislation. Unless the lawyers have been changed, I cannot see why that cannot be done now. Large parts of the pre-independence arrangements that are proposed by the Government could be introduced under existing legislation.
  I understand that the electoral arrangements may require new legislation and new powers, but we can deal with that situation. As many of my hon. Friends have said, the House will give the speediest passage to a Bill, and give the Government powers, once agreement has been reached and a ceasefire arranged. This House will then approve, with rapidity and speed, all the powers necessary for the Government to act. So urgency cannot and should not be the fig-leaf or smokescreen behind which the Government conceal their intentions.
  The sad thing about the Government doing what they have done in the way they have done it is that the sense of co-operation that has existed in the House during the last few weeks over the Lancaster House conference has been broken. The Government have now brought forward legislation to give effect to a constitutional conference which has not yet reached agreement. The House will be expected to approve clauses of a Bill referring to a constitution and transitional arrangements that have not been properly put to the House. Apart from a hastily

  735
  cobbled White Paper that was handed out yesterday and a document put in a box in the Library, the House has not been consulted.
  These arrangements have not been agreed at the conference. The constitution is contingent upon an agreement and a ceasefire, and yet we are expected to pass legislation accepting the principles of the pre-independence paper and the draft constitution.
  Fundamental to our argument and to the first part of our reasoned amendment is our belief that the Government should not attempt to attain the Bill before obtaining the agreement of all the parties at Lancaster House. We are also seeking a commitment that the powers in the Bill to install a Governor, invoke the transitional arrangements, organise elections and put military and police advisors into Salisbury will not be exercised until the agreement of all the parties and a ceasefire have been achieved.
  There is a world of difference between giving the range of powers that the Government are seeking in the Bill once a ceasefire and agreement have been achieved, and doing so in advance of that achievement. Many hon. Members on both sides would take a very different view about the nature and scope of the powers and about the whole operation if there were no ceasefire and no agreement.
  The evasiveness of the Lord Privy Seal and his inability this afternoon and yesterday to give a categorical assurance that these powers will not be used unless a ceasefire and an agreement are secured cause us concern. In this respect we return to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar pressed upon the Lord Privy Seal, and on which we have had a totally unsatisfactory answer, concerning the Foreign Secretary's remarks in another place yesterday. I have watched the Foreign Office exercise its infinite capacity to interpret and reinterpret statements. But it would defy even the ingenuity of the Foreign Office to misinterpret or reinterpret the Foreign Secretary's statements yesterday. He said:
  "Sanctions will be taken off when the governor takes over in Salisbury, and he will take over when a ceasefire has been agreed. I would not say that all the shooting will have stopped, but not until the ceasefire is agreed will he take over."
  736
  He added:
  "it is essential that there should be a ceasefire, because if there are to be elections in which everybody takes part it is not possible to have them until there is a ceasefire. Consequently, a ceasefire is necessary. In the context that we are talking about, it will obviously be necessary for a ceasefire and for the governor to go as soon as it is arranged."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 1979; Vol. 402, c. 833–5.]
  That statement contains no preconditions. It is an absolute statement saying that the powers in the Bill to install a Governor and start the arrangements for elections cannot and will not take place until the ceasefire has been arranged. There is no other interpretation that even the Foreign Office could put on those remarks.
  We ask the Minister tonight only to confirm that that is Government policy. If we had used those phrases the Lord Privy Seal would have accused us of giving the Patriotic Front a veto.
  I turn now to the second part of our reasoned amendment, which concerns sanctions. We have heard a great deal tonight about the fact that the Government have not been willing to face up to a group of their own Back Benchers and reintroduce sanctions within the next week. If we work back from next Thursday the time scale of the Bill, we can then realise why we have been pushed and pressed. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) smiles because he thinks he has won—on points. He has not achieved a knock-out because he is still concerned about the other 80 per cent. of sanctions.
  The principle of sanctions is indivisible It does not matter whether we are talking of the 80 per cent. of sanctions applied under other legislation or the 20 per cent. covered under section 2 of the Southern Rhodesian Act 1965. The principle is that of maintaining sanctions until there has been a real and meaningful return to legality in Rhodesia. Until that time, those sanctions should not be lifted, whether they are under other legislation or under section 2 of the 1965 Act.
  The Government have given their reasons why they feel that they cannot introduce sanctions for a short period. They have said that it is not possible under the 1965 Act. But it is possible for them to introduce sanctions of the section

  737
  2 type under this Bill. All they need to do is to add the existing orders to clause 3(3) of the Bill. They can then introduce sanctions, with the power to terminate them as and when necessary. The Government have claimed that the original sanctions legislation was inflexible and that they had to be brought in for 12 months. That difficulty can now be obviated by the power they have under clause 3(3) of the Bill.
  The Government are behaving in a partial way, backing one side and not the other, whereas they ought to be maintaining the principle that Governments have maintained, despite the difficulties, over 14 years. No sanctions should be lifted until there has been a full return to legality. There should be a commitment to maintain and continue section 2 sanctions under the 1965 Act, along with the other 80 per cent. of sanctions applied under other legislation.
  It is for these reasons that we move our reasoned amendment. If that fails, we shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill tonight.
  9.47 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and I have been on opposite sides of the House on many an occasion when we have debated the problems of Rhodesia in the last two or three years. We may have had our differences of opinion in these debates, but I am quite sure that we have one thing in common, and that is a real desire, as the whole House has, to see an end to this terrible conflict and this terrible war.
  The debate has taken place against the sombre background of a war that we are desperately trying to bring to an end as rapidly as possible; my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) described graphically the terrible situation in Rhodesia. It has also taken place against the background of the conference at Lancaster House which, as my right hon Friend said earlier, has now lasted for nearly nine weeks. It is acknowledged in all parts of the House that a great deal of progress has been made at Lancaster House. A great deal of patience has been shown by all parties.
  738
  During this period we have been in constant touch and consultation with our partners in Western Europe, in the United States, and in the Commonwealth. We have been reflecting the views of this House and of those at Lancaster House, and in all these consultations there has been a widespread desire to see an early settlement and an end to the war. Only two weeks ago my right hon. and noble Friend asked me to undertake a tour which has been made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, namely, that of the front-line States, Nigeria and Liberia. There is throughout those countries an urgent desire to witness an end to the terrible conflict that is affecting them as well as the black people and white people of Rhodesia.
  When we reflect upon the problem, I believe that the majority of the House will agree that we have never been so close to a settlement. Credit for that goes to the unstinting work and patience of my right hon. and noble Friend and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in the Lancaster House discussions.
  We are discussing the Bill against a background of remarkable progress and the real hope of the Government that we shall reach an agreement with all the parties so that there may be peace and an end to the bloodshed. That is something to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred strongly.
  I refute the suggestion made by the hon. Members for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) and York (Mr. Lyon) that we are trying to bounce the conference. We and the other parties have patiently week after week continued the negotiations in a real desire to achieve an effective settlement.
  We discuss these matters against the background of the achievement that I have set out, against the background of the support that we have had from the Commonwealth arising from the Lusaka conference and a remarkable willingness, shared by all the parties at Lancaster House, to show a statesmanlike spirit of compromise. They have shown a spirit of compromise on the constitution. Agreement has been reached on the constitution subject to an agreement on the pre-independence arrangements and on

  739
  the ceasefire. That is a tribute to all the parties at Lancaster House.
  We hope now, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, that in the next few days we shall reach an agreement on the pre-independence arrangements that will enable us to move quickly to discussions on the ceasefire. We hope that that will come in the near future.
  The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said that the official Opposition had been encouraging and helpful during the past few weeks. I acknowledge that fact. The attitude of the Opposition has been helpful in the process of the discussions. But it is only right to ask some Labour Members to reflect rather more before they make such sweeping condemnations and criticisms of the Government's efforts and the purposes behind the Bill, which have been so carefully explained by my right hon. Friend.
  I turn to the important issues that have been raised, and especially to the criticisms that have been voiced by Labour Members. First, I deal with the question of timing and the reason for speed. I acknowledge that there is anxiety on both sides of the House about any decision by any Government to introduce a Bill and to ask for its speedy passage through the House. I hope that the new arrangements are to the convenience of the House.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said, we must be in a position to implement the settlement as swiftly as possible after we have reached a conclusion at Lancaster House, and that may be very soon. It was not sensible or possible to introduce the Bill earlier, as has been suggested in some quarters. We tabled our full proposals only last week, on 2 November. It was only right to give all the parties at Lancaster House some time to reflect before introducing the Bill. If we had introduced the Bill earlier, that would have been doing an injustice to all the parties at Lancaster House. We thought it only right that they should have a chance to reflect and react to the proposals that we produced last week.
  We are considering the Bill against the background of section 2 of the 1965 Act, and that is important; it would be foolish to deny that. Quite apart from the issue of renewal of sanctions, we are faced with
  740
  the need for wider powers to deal with the implementation of a settlement if it shortly occurs.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil asked about the 1965 Act, but that Act does not give the Government sufficient power to implement a settlement. That is why we need to introduce a Bill which is comprehensive and tidy and which will enable us to act swiftly to implement a settlement. The existing legislation gives us power to appoint a Governor, but without this Bill we do not have power to provide for a new constitution and bring in at an earlier stage certain parts of that constitution to enable the Governor to fulfil his objectives.
  Several hon. Members raised the question of section 2 and the lapsing of sanctions. My hon. Friends the Members for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) and for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) have strong reservations about our decision to maintain the bulk of the sanctions until we assume legality. We acknowledge and respect that attitude, but for reasons that have been given it is essential to maintain the bulk of the sanctions until the Governor arrives.
  It is important for the House to recognise that Bishop Muzorewa and his delegation have accepted our proposals for a constitution that provides for genuine majority rule. We hope that an agreement will be reached fairly soon, and we shall then be able to appoint a Governor. When he assumes office in Salisbury, we can resume the relationship of legality.
  Regarding the remaining minority of sanctions, the Bill gives us powers to re-impose sanctions under section 2. However, as my right hon. Friend said, it is hard to envisage circumstances in which that would be necessary. In any event, that is not applicable until after 15 November. I ask the House to judge the matter in the light of the decisions already made at Lancaster House and the remarkable progress that has been achieved. We believe that it would be absolutely wrong to continue with the limited range of sanctions in such circumstances.
  On the ceasefire, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar suggested that there was a discrepancy between the statements of my right hon. and noble Friend and my right hon. Friend on the conditions under which a Governor would be appointed. It is clear from the

  741
  previous remarks of my right hon. and noble Friend that his reference to the point at which a Governor would arrive in Salisbury was based on the assumption that agreement had been reached between all parties. That is what we hope will prevail and what we are seeking to achieve. Agreement to our proposals will enable that to take place soon. However, if, despite our efforts, we fail to reach agreement, the Government will, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has already said, have to consider how to proceed in that new set of circumstances.
  Mr. Shore: Has the hon. Gentleman cleared that statement with the Foreign Secretary? It amounts to a substantial retraction of the words used by the right hon. and noble Gentleman in another place yesterday.
  Mr. Luce: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the relevant extract from the House of Lords Hansard, he will find that my statement does not involve a substantial retraction. If I had not cleared that statement with my right hon. and noble Friend, I would be in deep trouble—I have indeed done so.
  Many points were raised in the debate. I would detain the House too long if I sought to answer every point. I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I do not go into too many details.
  Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement with the authority of the Foreign Secretary. I understand that there are circumstances in which, if it was impossible to reach agreement on the terms put forward by the British Government, the Government might proceed to implement the Bill and the constitution that arises under the Bill. I understand that that would take place with the consent of only one of the parties.
  Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate upon the circumstances in which the Governor would return and to what extent he would be supported by British troops? On the other hand, will he go without any support? I refer to the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins): one thing that we do not wish to get involved in is a miniature Vietnam. If a Governor is sent to Southern Rhodesia at a time when
  742
  there is no agreement between the parties and the war is continuing, where does Britain stand?
  Mr. Luce: The right hon. Gentleman assumes that the conference will not succeed in obtaining the agreement of all the parties. It is the highest priority of the Government—as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges—to obtain a settlement with the agreement of all the parties. That is why we have been working on the matter for nine weeks at Lancaster House. We hope that it does not fail. My statement about the failure to reach agreement conflicts in no way with what was said by my right hon. and noble Friend. We shall then have to consider the circumstances and decide what to do. It is madness to expect a Government to anticipate a hypothetical situation.
  Mr. James Callaghan: This is an important point and it is not hypothetical. The hon. Gentleman has told us that he hopes that within a few days there will be an agreement. If that agreement is not reached, he knows as well as I do that the proposals are being rooted around now that we should impose the constitution—[Interruption.] We are discussing a situation in which lives could be at stake.
  The hon. Gentleman is envisaging circumstances in which the constitution may be imposed. Will he give us an assurance that in no circumstances will the Governor or British troops to support him be introduced if no agreement is reached between the parties?
  Mr. Luce: It would not be right for the Government or for me to go beyond what I have already said. We want an agreement with all the parties. If it breaks down, we have a new and difficult situation. It would be for us to decide what was the right course to take.
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Luce: I do not know whether I am reflecting the desire of the House—
  Mr. Hughes rose—
  Miss Joan Lestor rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Luce: I have given way quite a lot. I thought I was reflecting the desire

  743
  of the House in trying to match the example of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil. I may have gone beyond the time that he took.
  The right hon. Members for Stepney and Poplar and for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) and the hon. Member for Stockport, South asked about the duration of our proposal for the pre-independence arrangements. I stress that we are anxious to strike a balance. We believe, naturally, with the great deal of mistrust that has built up in that country over many years, that we are dealing with a very fragile situation. Opposition Members have experience and knowledge of that situation. Because it is fragile, we believe that the longer implementation is left, the more difficult it will become. That is one of the most important reasons why we want the interim arrangements to be as rapid as possible.
  It is also clear that we must satisfy the essential criterion that all the parties who join this agreement should have an equal and fair chance to participate in the election. For that reason, we have proposed that the agreement should last for two months from the date of the implementation of the ceasefire. That proposal emanated after lengthy discussions at Lancaster House.
  I should like to comment on the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) about the role of the Commonwealth observers. The Government attach the greatest importance to the role that the Commonwealth observers will play. The observers were called for at the Commonwealth conference in Lusaka. Their role will be to observe the whole electoral process. It has been suggested in certain quarters that their role would apply only to polling day. We take the view that the observers should be there for the whole electoral process. It is for them to judge—although it is our ultimate responsibility—whether they feel
  that the elections have been held in fair and free conditions.
  I will seek to reply by letter to questions such as that relating to pensions, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), if that is acceptable.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) indulged in a familiar argument about responsibility without power into which I will avoid being dragged, although his reference to the fact that Members have both responsibility and power might not command the support or agreement of hon. Members in every part of the House.
  For the last 14 or 15 years, many Governments, Labour and Conservative, have been battling, trying hard to achieve a settlement. Many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have been grappling in their own way with this problem over the years. I believe that they, like all hon. Members and the Government, want a just settlement. This must be common ground. We all surely want peace and a settlement. My right hon. and noble Friend, my right hon. Friend and myself, have explained the reasons for the Bill. It enables us to act swiftly once the Lancaster House conference has been successfully concluded, as I am sure the whole House hopes will happen.
  The Bill provides the essential mechanism enabling the settlement to be implemented rapidly. I believe that there is a strong desire in the House, among the people of Rhodesia, the surrounding States, the Western world as a whole, and throughout Africa that there should be peace and a settlement as rapidly as possible.
  It is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House and invite it to support its Second Reading.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 311.

  Division No. 971

  AYES

  [10.10 pm

  Abse, Leo

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

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Adams, Allen

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Allaun, Frank

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Bradley, Tom

  Alton, David

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald

  Beith, A. J.

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Campbell, Ian

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  Pendry, Tom

  Canavan, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Penhaligon, David

  Cant, R. B.

  Homewood, William

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

  Carmichael, Nell

  Hooley, Frank

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Cartwright, John

  Horam, John

  Prescott, John

  Clark, David (South Shields)

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

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Huckfield, Les

  Race, Reg

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Radice, Giles

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Cowans, Harry

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Crowther, J. S.

  John, Brynmor

  Robertson, George

  Cryer, Bob

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Roper, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kerr, Russell

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

  Lambie, David

  Ryman, John

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

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sandelson, Neville

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamond, James

  Sever, John

  Dempsey, James

  Leadbitler, Ted

  Sheerman, Barry

  Dewar, Donald

  Leighton, Ronald

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

  Dixon, Donald

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Elton & Slough)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

  Dobson, Frank

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Dormand, Jack

  Litherland, Robert

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Douglas, Dick

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Silkln, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Silverman, Julius

  Dubs, Alfred

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Skinner, Dennis

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Snape, Peter

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  McCusker, H.

  Soley, Clive

  Dunnett, Jack

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Eadie, Alex

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Eastham, Ken

  McKelvey, William

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isies)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Stoddart, David

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McMahon, Andrew

  Strang, Gavin

  English, Michael

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

  Straw, Jack

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  McNally, Thomas

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Magee, Bryan

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Ewing, Harry

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

  Field, Frank

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

  Thomas, Dr Roger Carmarthen)

  Fitch, Alan

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Tilley, John

  Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

  Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

  Torney, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Maxton, John

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Ford, Ben

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Forrester, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Foster, Derek

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Foulkes, George

  Mikardo, Ian

  Watkins, David

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Weetch, Ken

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Miller, Dr M S. (East Kilbride)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Freud, Clement

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Weish, Michael

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Molyneaux, James

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Whitlock, William

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Golding, John

  Morton, Barry

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Newens, Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wright, Shella

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Palmer, Arthur

  Haynes, Frank

  Park, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Parker, John

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Parry, Robert

  Mr. James Tinn.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Arnold, Tom

  Banks, Robert

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Bell, Ronald

  Alison, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Ancram, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  746

  747

  Best, Keith

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gow, Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Greenway, Harry

  Monro, Hector

  Blackburn, John

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Blaker, Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moore, John

  Body, Richard

  Grist, Ian

  Morgan, Geraint

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Grylls, Michael

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

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

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mudd, David

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Murphy, Christopher

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hannam, John

  Myles, David

  Bright, Graham

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neale, Gerrard

  Brinton, Tim

  Hastings, Stephen

  Needham, Richard

  Brittan, Leon

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hawksley, Warren

  Neubert, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Newton, Tony

  Brotherton, Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Normanton, Tom

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Heddle, John

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Henderson, Barry

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hicks, Robert

  Osborn, John

  Buck, Antony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hill, James

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Burden, F. A.

  Hooson, Tom

  Parris, Matthew

  Butcher, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hunt David (Wirral)

  Pawsey, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Channon, Paul

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Pollock, Alexander

  Chapman, Sydney

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Porter, George

  Churchill, W. S.

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Cockeram, Eric

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Colvin, Michael

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Raison, Timothy

  Cope, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rathbone, Tim

  Corrie, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Knox, David

  Renton, Tim

  Critchley, Julian

  Lamont, Norman

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Lang, Ian

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Latham, Michael

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lawrence Ivan

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lawson, Nigel

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lee, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dover, Denshore

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rossi, Hugh

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutand)

  Rost, Peter

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Durant, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Loveridge, John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luce, Richard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Eggar, Timothy

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Elliott, Sir William

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Emery, Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacGregor, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Shersby, Michael

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Silvester, Fred

  Fell, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Sims, Roger

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  McQuarrle, Albert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Finsborg, Geoffrey

  Madel, David

  Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Major, John

  Speed, Keith

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Marland, Paul

  Speller, Tony

  Fookes, Misa Janet

  Marlow, Tony

  Spence, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Fox, Marcus

  Mather, Carol

  Sproat, Iain

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Squire, Robin

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fry, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stanley, John

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Steen, Anthony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stokes, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Goodhart, Phillip

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  748

  749

  Tebbit, Norman

  Waddington, David

  Wheeler, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wakeham, John

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Waldegrave, Hon. William

  Whitney, Raymond

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Thompson, Donald

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wall, Patrick

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Walters, Dennis

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Trippier, David

  Ward, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Trotter, Neville

  Warren, Kenneth

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Watson, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Viggers, Peter

  Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on second or third reading), That the Bill be now read a second time.
  The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 253.

  Division No. 981

  AYES

  [10.25 pm

  Adley, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Corrie, John

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Al, Richard

  Costain, A. P.

  Heddle, John

  Alison, Michael

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Henderson, Barry

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Critchley, Julian

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Ancram, Michael

  Crouch, David

  Hicks, Robert

  Arnold, Tom

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hill, James

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hooson, Tom

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Dover, Denshore

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Banks, Robert

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Durant, Tony

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Bell, Ronald

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Eggar, Timothy

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Best, Keith

  Elliott, Sir William

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Emery, Peter

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Blackburn, John

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elains

  Blaker, Peter

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Body, Richard

  Fell, Anthony

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Kimball, Marcus

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Knox, David

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lamont, Norman

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Forman, Nigel

  Lang, Ian

  Bright, Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Brinton, Tim

  Fox, Marcus

  Latham, Michael

  Brittan, Leon

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Lawrence Ivan

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Lee, John

  Brotherton, Michael

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutand)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Loveridge, John

  Buck, Antony

  Goodhart, Phillip

  Luce, Richard

  Budgen, Nick

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Burden, F. A.

  Gorst, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Gow, Ian

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Gray, Hamish

  MacGregor, John

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Greenway, Harry

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Grist, Ian

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Grylls, Michael

  Madel, David

  Channon, Paul

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Major, John

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Marland, Paul

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Marlow, Tony

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)

  Hannam, John

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Males, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mather, Carol

  Colvin, Michael

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Cope, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mawby, Ray

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Slradling Thomas, J.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Mollor, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Tebbit, Norman

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rathbone, Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Mills. Peter (West Devon)

  Renton, Tim

  Thompson, Donald

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moate, Roger

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Monro, Hector

  Rifklnd, Malcolm

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Trippier, David

  Moore, John

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Trotter, Neville

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Rossi, Hugh

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Rost, Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Waddington, David

  Murphy, Christopher

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wakeham, John

  Myles, David

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Waldegrave, Hon. William

  Neale, Gerrard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

  Needham, Richard

  Shaw, Gles (Pudsey)

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Neubert, Michael

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wall, Patrick

  Newton, Tony

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waller, Gary

  Normanton, Tom

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Walters, Dennis

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Shersby, Michael

  Ward, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Silvester, Fred

  Warren, Kenneth

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

  Sims, Roger

  Watson, John

  Osborn, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

  Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Speed, Keith

  Wheeler, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Speller, Tony

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Parris, Matthew

  Spence, John

  Whitney, Raymond

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Wilkinson, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Sproat, Iain

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Pawsey, James

  Squire, Robin

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wolfson, Mark

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Steen, Anthony

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Pollock, Alexander

  Stevens, Martin

  Porter, Georga

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stokes, John

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Coleman, Donald

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Adams, Allen

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Allaun, Frank

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ewing, Harry

  Alton, David

  Cowans, Harry

  Field, Frank

  Anderson, Donald

  Crowther, J. S.

  Fitch, Alan

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cryer, Bob

  Flannery, Martin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

  Ford, Ben

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Forrester, John

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Foster, Derek

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)

  Foulkes, George

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Belth, A. J.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

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

  Freud, Clement

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Deakins, Eric

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dempsey, James

  George, Bruce

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dewar, Donald

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Dixon, Donald

  Ginsburg, David

  Bradley, Tom

  Dobson, Frank

  Golding, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dormand, Jack

  Graham, Ted

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Douglas, Dick

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Buchan, Norman

  Dubs, Alfred

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Campbell, Ian

  Dunnett, Jack

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Canavan, Dennis

  Eadle, Alex

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cant, R. B.

  Eastham, Ken

  Haynes, Frank

  Carmichael, Neil

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cartwright, John

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Clark, David (South Shields)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  English, Michael

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ennals, Rt hon David

  Home Robertson, John

  752

  753

  Homewood, William

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

  Hooley, Frank

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon peter (Step and Pop)

  Horam, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Short, Mrs Renée

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

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Silkin. Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Huckfield, Les

  Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Silverman, Julius

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Molyneaux, James

  Snape, Peter

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Soley, Clive

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Spearing, Nigel

  John, Brynmor

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Stallard, A. W.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Newens, Stanley

  Stoddart, David

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stott, Roger

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Kerr, Russell

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Kinnock, Nell

  Owen. Rt Hon Dr David

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  Lambie, David

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Park, George

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

  Lamond, James

  Parker, John

  Thomas, Dr Roger Carmarthen)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Parry, Robert

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tilley, John

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Elton & Slough)

  Pendry, Tom

  Torney, Tom

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Penhaligon, David

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Litherland, Robert

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Wainwrighl, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Prescott, John

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dlckson

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Watkins, David

  McCartney, Hugh

  Race, Reg

  Weetch, Ken

  McCusker, H.

  Radice, Giles

  Wellbeloved, James

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Welsh, Michael

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  McKelvey, William

  Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)

  Whitlock, William

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Robertson, George

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Maclennan, Robert

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  McMahon, Andrew

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  McNally, Thomas

  Roper, John

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  McWilliam, John

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Winnick, David

  Magee, Bryan

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shetlles'n)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Shella

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Ryman, John

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

  Sever, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Maxton, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. George Mo on and

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Mr. James Tinn.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]
  Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order this day.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA BILL

    SOUTHERN RHODESIA [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the grant of a constitution for Zimbabwe to come into effect on the attainment by Southern Rhodesia, under any Act hereafter passed for that purpose, of fully responsible status as a Republic under the name of Zimbabwe, and to make other
    754
    provision with respect to Southern Rhodesia, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of that Act.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA BILL
  Postponed proceedings resumed.
  Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order this day.
  [Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair.]

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA BILL
    Clause 1

      POWER TO PROVIDE CONSTITUTION FOR ZIMBABWE
      To report Progress; and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Fox.]
      Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard weatherill): In order to save the time of House, I propose to put together the five motions to approve the statutory instruments, items 3 to 7 on the Order Paper.
  Motion made, and Question put forth-with pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
    That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Quota and Other Reliefs) (Revocation) Order 1979, (S.I., 1979, No. 1142) a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.
    That the draft Social Security (Maximum Additional Component) Amendment Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.
    That the draft Social Security (Earnings-Related Addition to Widow's Allowance) (Special Provisions) Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.

    HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS
    That the Highlands and Islands Development Board Area Extension Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 October, be approved.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]
    Question agreed to.

  FISHERY PROTECTION VESSELS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
  10.41 pm
  Miss Janet Fookes: I come, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from a city where fishing is of very great importance—indeed, this is true of the South-West generally—and it is of the greatest importance to fishermen and to our fishing industry that we have good protection from offshore patrol vessels.
  I believe it is true to say that nearly a million tons of fish was caught in 1978 and that the value was around £250 million. That perhaps gives some background to the importance of what I wish to discuss tonight, and that is the provision of new offshore fishery protection vessels. There are three points in particular that I should like to raise and that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer.
  The first is the timing of decision on a new design for a fishery protection vessel to replace the Ton class, which is now rapidly ageing. A decision is long overdue and is becoming truly urgent. I hope that the Minister will be able tonight to give some indication of the time scale for a decision on putting boats out to sea.
  My second point concerns the general nature of the vessels which are to be brought into service. At the moment, there is a two-tier system in operation, with the small Ton class going out only to 12 miles and the larger, more modern, Island class going out to 200 miles. I urge upon the Minister the value of having vessels which can all go out as far as 200 miles. This seems to me to give far greater flexibility than having one group which can go out fairly far and another which cannot. I hope that this point will be taken into consideration.
  My third point concerns the general capability of the vessel. I recognise, of course, that if it is asked to go out to 200 miles, the vessel needs to be of considerable operational capability.
  The "Osprey" has been widely canvassed as a suitable replacement. I hope that my hon. Friend will set out his views. No doubt he will have seen or heard about the BBC documentary programme

  757
  featuring the "Osprey" that was broadcast on 17 October. The impression given by the programme was that the Royal Navy collectively was a set of stiff-necked fools who could not see a bargain when it was staring them in the face. I do not subscribe to that view, but the programme raised a number of questions that my hon. Friend should be asked to answer.
  I shall make several suggestions concerning what should be required of new offshore vessels. First, I believe that they should have a good speed to cope with modern trawlers and other fishing vessels that are extremely sophisticated and can move at speed. We would not send the police in three-wheeled invalid cars when the get-away vehicles are Jaguars. I suggest that the same must apply to patrol vessels.
  Patrol vessels have to have a boarding capacity to enable them to check foreign vessels to ascertain whether anything is wrong. It is of the utmost importance that the capacity should be well developed. That is a feature that should be borne well in mind.
  The vessels must be tough if they are to venture into the North Sea and the North-East Atlantic, where we all know that weather conditions can be appalling. There have been several tragedies in those areas in the past few weeks. The vessels must be able to withstand severe weather conditions. They need to be able to withstand the possibility of accidental collision. If they are to try to catch vessels that are not where they should be or are doing something wrong, there must be a greater risk of collision, accidental or deliberate.
  If the vessels are to be kept at sea for 10 days or longer, htey will need to be comfortable for the crews, who may be operating in difficult weather and other difficult conditions. I believe that the Royal Navy describes that capacity as seakindliness. That is an important feature. All of us who have suffered from being in small boats or in uncomfortable boats while at sea will know how much it matters. Even seasoned sailors need to live in a reasonable degree of comfort.
  The BBC television programme made much of the capacity of the "Osprey" to have a helicopter landing on its deck. We were shown a small helicopter landing
  758
  when weather conditions made the sea like a mill-pond. That was hardly a good illustration of the capacity of the "Osprey". I have lived by the sea for most of my life, and the times when it looks like a mill-pond are few in the course of a year.
  It is far more likely that if a helicopter is to land it will be in relatively poor conditions, if not downright appalling. I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that that capacity is of importance to fishery protection vessels. If he thinks that it is, I suggest that the "Osprey" is not the vessel to be able to deal with it.
  Those are all questions that I cannot answer myself, but they are of the greatest importance. I trust that my hon. Friend will answer them tonight and end the prolonged period of uncertainty about this matter.
  10.49 pm
  Mr. James Johnson: I welcome the debate tonight and should like to follow the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) with two points. First, the poacher has to be caught, and a vessel will be needed that can make 16 knots. Many of our trawlers can reach that speed.
  The hon. Lady mentioned the BBC programme concerning a new type of vessel, the "Osprey", which Denmark has picked up. The old jibe about England is that we invent something good but do not carry it through and someone else reaps the benefit of our technological knowledge. However, is the "Osprey" as good as all that? How does it stand up in tough weather? The hon. Lady mentioned force 8 or 10 gales, and our fishing vessels can catch fish in a force 8 gale in the Arctic.
  Speed and toughness are both important. The Minister will have had his experts check the data. I have listened to fishermen in my constituency discussing how good or how bad these vessels are.
  I emphasise that we need a decent fishery protection flotilla. We need many more boats and faster and tougher boats. The magic word today in fishing is "conservation". There is no point in conserving our stocks of fish for our men to catch from Cornwall or Ullapool and Mallaig in Scotland if other fishermen can come in with impunity, whether they

  759
  are the French from the EEC or Communist boats from Archangel or Murmansk. I do not care where they come from. They do not come from here. If we are discussing 200-mile limits, I say to the Minister that they can sneak in within a 12-mile limit, pick up the fish and get away.
  I welcome the hon. Lady's contribution and I shall listen with keen attention to the Minister's reply.
  10.52 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Keith Speed): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) for giving me the opportunity to speak about the Royal Navy's fishery protection task. I agree with her about its vital importance.
  I also welcome the opportunity to answer some of the critcisms that were levelled not just at the fishery protection vessels proposed by the Royal Navy but at the Royal Navy itself. I wish to correct some of the factual errors contained in the BBC's recent programme about the "Osprey" in its series "The Risk Business".
  Since the debate arises mainly from that programme, I must emphasise that the Royal Navy's attitude to "Osprey" relates solely to our assessment of her capability to undertake patrol operations in the offshore zone—that is, out to 200 miles. It was as an offshore patrol vessel that the BBC's programme considered her. That zone includes part of the North Sea and the Atlantic.
  For reasons on which I shall expand later, the Royal Navy finds "Osprey" to be completely unsuitable for the offshore patrol duties that would be asked of her. That view is shared by the Fishery Departments, whose policy dictates the way in which the fishery protection task is carried out. There is, therefore, no question at all of her being used for these operations.
  To put these remarks in context, I should like to say little about the task of fishery protection.
  Just as the Fishery Departments are responsible for determining fishery protection policy, so similarly the Department of Energy dictates the policy for the protection of offshore oil installations, a task also undertaken by the Royal
  760
  Navy fishery protection squadron. The job calls for long and arduous patrols at sea, and the North Sea, particularly in winter, boasts some of the most extreme weather and sea conditions in the world. It calls for tact and diplomacy in boarding and inspecting fishing vessels of those nations permitted to fish within our extended fishery limits and perhaps for even more tact and diplomacy in boarding those that should not be there. It calls for all the professionalism which is the tradition of the Senior Service that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and I know and respect.
  As my hon. Friend said, the fishery industry in the United Kingdom is important. In 1978, 957,000 tons of fish, including shellfish, were lander at a value of more than £250 million. In that year, there were some 16,000 full-time fishermen in the United Kingdom and probably three or four times their number in the related shore-based industry.
  The fishery protection squadron consists of two elements, the offshore division and the coastal division. The offshore division is the area from 12 to 200 miles on median lines around our coasts, except for the English Channel and the Irish Sea. This area is patrolled by a force of Royal Navy Island class vessels except for the area west of Scotland, which is patrolled by vessels of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, which are civilian manned. In the Royal Navy's area of patrol are a large and growing number of oil installations for the safety of which the Royal Navy is also responsible. Aerial surveillance of the offshore areas is provided by Royal Air Force Nimrod long-range maritime patrol aircraft, which fly for 180 hours a month. This is sufficient to cover the entire area once every 10 days. But, in practice, they overfly more frequently the area where fishing usually occurs.
  The coastal division consists of Ton class mine countermeasures vessels and HMS "Tenacity", a fast patrol boat. These ships patrol the 0 to 12 mile limit around our coasts and the whole of the English Channel and the Irish Sea. The coastal waters around Scotland are patrolled by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, which has its own inshore vessels. Royal Navy Sea Devons provide our aerial surveillance

  761
  facility for the coastal division. They are tasked to fly about 65 hours a month.
  These are the forces that we dedicate to fishery protection, but we can, and do, provide other resources such as additional RN ships and RN and RAF fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, as and when necessary. As my hon. Friend said, the Ton class vessels used to patrol the coastal zone are ageing warships and their primary role remains mine countermeasures. The new offshore patrol vessel will be procured to replace the ageing Tons. I should like to make clear that it will not replace the Island class vessels, as the BBC programme implied. The criticisms levelled at the Islands when they came into service, which the hon. Member for Attercliffe will probably recall, have proved unfounded. They perform their tasks well and we have no plans to replace them except in the normal course of events.
  As my hon. Friend properly said, it is purely to replace the Tons that we need a new vessel. We have already embarked upon a programme to replace them in their mine countermeasures role with vessels of the new design Hunt class. However, advancing technology has dictated an extremely sophisticated vessel to undertake this vital task, which will, of course, be expensive. Frankly, it would be to misemploy these highly sophisticated units to engage them on fishery protection tasks. Thus, the decision was taken to proceed with plans to procure a purpose-built vessel for fishery protection duties.
  In defining our requirement for the new vessel, we have kept in close touch with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whose responsibility it is to advise the other Fishery Departments on what ships and aircraft are most suitable for their tasks. Although no final decision has yet been taken—I appreciate the urgency, as my hon. Friend stated it—I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be preferable to procure a vessel that could operate throughout the 200-mile limit rather than be restricted to the coastal zone, as the Tons must be. This would provide a much more flexible system.
  We considered 18 different ship designs to meet our requirements. The hon. Member for Attercliffe will recall this because
  762
  much took place while he was holding my office. We were looking for a ship with the ability to stay out of port for protracted periods without any deterioration in the efficiency of the crew due to fatigue caused by the ship's motion, to which reference has been made tonight. The ships would need safe and efficient systems for launching and recovering the boat used by the boarding party. Helicopter facilities were highly desirable and the Royal Navy wanted sufficient space to give the vessel a useful role in wartime, such as minesweeping or minelaying, although, of course, this was not a consideration which concerned the Fishery Departments.
  It is here that I should like to return to the "Osprey" and answer some of my hon. Friend's questions. I have already said that we have not made a final decision about the new OPV—the offshore patrol vessel—but what is quite clear is that the "Osprey" would not meet our requirements for a vessel capable of operating throughout the 200-mile zone, as was suggested by the "Risk" programme. The design has been carefully evaluated in this context with a full assessment of all the documentary evidence supplied by her designers, together with evidence of first-hand experience gained by the team of Royal Navy, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food representatives who recently made two trips to sea in her.
  The first trip was in calm waters off Harwich, and it was there that a small helicopter landed on board to demonstrate the claim that helicopter operations could be undertaken at sea. The second was during a two-day patrol off Denmark when officials had the opportunity to see her operating in the patrol role.
  "Osprey" fell short of our requirements in the following way. First, as to her endurance, our requirement demands the capability of remaining at sea without refuelling for up to 21 days. Our information about "Osprey's" capacity and fuel consumption suggests that she is capable of remaining at sea unsupported for only about half that time. Secondly, "Osprey's" motion is very uncomfortable and tiring. In this context, the remark of the senior officer of the fishery protection squadron, Capain Hill-Norton, on the "Risk" programme, that she was

  763
  the most uncomfortable vessel that he had experienced, is most significant. Frankly, it is not acceptable to put at risk the efficiency of the crew during extended patrol operations.
  I might add that during that voyage the sea state never increased above 3 to 4—in other words, in layman's terms, there were no white horses.
  Mr. Stephen Ross:I have written to the hon. Gentleman about this matter. Does he agree that many of these statements are now being challenged by various people who think that there is a bias in the Admiralty against the "Osprey"?
  Mr. Speed: Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There may be challenge, but I am going on not just a subjective judgment but quite a detailed report by groups of people whose job it was to assess clearly what was happening when they had their two or three days on "Osprey". If I continue, I think that the hon. Gentleman will not be entirely displeased with what I end with.
  In all the roughest weathers, it is quite clear that in sea state 5, which is very rough, to mount boarding parties would be just impossible.
  My hon. Friend mentioned boat-handling arrangements. I have already mentioned the importance of streamlined boat handling and the boat-handling arrangements in fishery protection. The boat must be launched quickly and safely. The arrangements in "Osprey" were unsatisfactory and dangerous in anything but calm weather. The boat is launched and recovered through a hole in the stern. The crew have to wear hard helmets and lie in the bottom to avoid being hit by the iron transom under which the boat must pass.
  My hon. Friend mentioned helicopter operations. We expect helicopters to play an increasing role in offshore protection. This is obviously important. It is our view that, because of the excessive motion of the ship, the number of days per year on which even a small helicopter could be landed on "Osprey" in offshore waters would be very low—probably less than 10.
  764
  The speed of "Osprey" as built by the Danes, in its present role, is about 16 to 17 knots with a clean bottom. We are, frankly, looking for about 20 knots in the OPV that we shall procure.
  The final comment I make about "Osprey" is on her construction. She is built to a commercial design and we believe that the standards of watertight integrity adopted are insufficient for a ship engaged in activities with a high risk of collision. This fact was mentioned by several hon. Members.
  The Royal Navy requires its vessels to be subdivided into watertight compartments so that the vessel can be partially flooded without sinking. There is no such provision in "Osprey". This represents our opinion of "Osprey" as a potential offshore patrol vessel out to 200 miles.
  Perhaps I should say that I am not suggesting that none of the features, undesirable from the Royal Navy's point of view, should not in time be improved, nor that the vessel would not be suitable for other less onerous roles. Of course, she has good points. For example, she is extremely manoeuvrable, as was demonstrated on the "Risk" programme. For a ship of her size she certainly packs in a lot of equipment. But the balance of her advantages and disadvantages makes her unsuitable as an OPV out to 200 miles. The "Risk" programme frankly got that wrong. In other tasks "Osprey's" balance of advantages and disadvantages will shape up differently. In fact "Osprey" is one of three designs selected as potential replacements for the Ton class vessels which currently patrol the waters around Hong Kong. Conditions are very different there.
  None of the three vessels completely meets the Royal Navy's requirement, but for the small number of vessels involved it would not be a sensible use of our resources to design our own. So procurement will proceed on the basis of a design-and-build competition amongst United Kingdom shipyards. It will be up to "Osprey's" designers to arrange, with an appropriate shipyard, to tender on the basis of their design, if they wish to do so. The tender response will then be considered in competition with others.

  765
  Finally, I should say a word about our procurement procedures. We have been criticised for being a bureaucratic organisation, bound by the rule book and unwilling to consider anything new. Our history gives the lie to that. "Osprey's" designer said on television that he designed ships by "the seat of his pants" and rather implied that we should toss our rule books overboard and do likewise.
  Of necessity, in a large organisation like the Ministry of Defence, procedures sometimes appear rather cumbersome. The choice of a particular ship design to carry out a naval task is not the result of the whim of a person or group of persons within the Ministry. It is the culmination of a process which involves the most detailed and careful consideration of the task that we have to undertake, as well as all the options available to meet this requirement and the implications of adopting each solution in operational, financial, industrial and other terms.
  We first prepare a broad statement called a naval staff target which sets against the proposed task the range of possibilities worth pursuit. This provides the basis for a series of detailed studies which are designed to narrow down the various options open to us.
  The next stage of the process is the preparation of a naval staff requirement. This sets out in precise detail the requirement and the way in which we believe it should be met. It exists first in draft form and it lays down parameters for the desired operating characteristics of the new vessel such as its endurance and its seakeeping capabilities, which are very important. These parameters cannot be defined in isolation. They are very much bound together.
  We need to ensure that what is proposed is within the realms of what is possible, and there is an almost constant dialogue between designers, shipbuilders and financial experts to identify the construction possibilities. Both the naval staff target and naval staff requirement have generally to be approved by a committee which considers the project not just on behalf of the Royal Navy or the Navy Department but in relation to the defence needs of the country as a whole.
  766
  It is considered not just "in house" within the Ministry of Defence but right across the board.
  In the case of offshore protection, where the task is undertaken by the Royal Navy on behalf of the civil Departments, negotiations with the Fishery Departments run in parallel, with consultation at every stage. Only when these procedures have been followed and Ministers have approved the proposals is authority given to order the new ship.
  I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the House that we do not undertake lightly our duty to obtain for the taxpayer the best value for his money. And it is not a consequence of this that our designs are old-fashioned—indeed the reverse is true. Royal Navy ships and weapon systems have a well-founded reputation for continuously pushing at the frontiers of technology. There are many examples of this. One only has to travel abroad to speak to other navy staffs to realise that they appreciate that, if sometimes we do not.
  I hope that I have been able to present a fairly clear picture of the way in which the Royal Navy operates its fishery protection squadron, to underline its importance, and to explain why it is that we need the best possible ships for the task—and this does not necessarily mean the cheapest. I hope that I have shown that considerable care goes into preparing a naval staff requirement and that all the right authorities are consulted. I have tried to explain why ships which do not meet the agreed standards laid down in the naval staff requirement are rejected, and why the "Osprey" was rejected in particular.
  I hope that we shall be in a position before long to announce our decision about the choice of OPV. But the decision that we make will have implications for the next 25 years and will represent a not insignificant sum of public money. We must therefore continue to ensure that we develop the right solution in the light of all the available evidence, remembering always that it is the taxpayer who provides the money.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.

  USSR
  USSR
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  OFFICIAL CARS
  OFFICIAL CARS
  RURAL JOBS
  RURAL JOBS
  CBI
  CBI
  POOLE
  POOLE
  CHAIRMAN HUA GUOFENG
  CHAIRMAN HUA GUOFENG
  POLRUAN
  POLRUAN
  BRITISH BROADCASTING SERVICE
  BRITISH BROADCASTING SERVICE
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  NATO (Youth Project)
  NATO (Youth Project)
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate (Report)
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate (Report)
  Private Schools (Replacement Costs)
  Private Schools (Replacement Costs)
  Head Teachers
  Head Teachers
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT
  PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  "THE ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS" (EXPORT)
  "THE ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS" (EXPORT)
  LAND CERTIFICATES
  LAND CERTIFICATES
  LAND TITLES
  LAND TITLES
  CONVEYANCING
  CONVEYANCING
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prison Medical Service
  Prison Medical Service
  Remembrance Service
  Remembrance Service
  Divorce (Variation Applications)
  Divorce (Variation Applications)
  Mr. Mohammed Ahmed
  Mr. Mohammed Ahmed
  Purchasing Contracts
  Purchasing Contracts
  Arrestable Offences
  Arrestable Offences
  Government Contractors (Racial Equality Policy)
  Government Contractors (Racial Equality Policy)
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Secretary of State (Television Interview)
  Secretary of State (Television Interview)
  Immigration
  Immigration
INDUSTRY
  Wool Textile Industry
  Wool Textile Industry
  Meriden Co-operative
  Meriden Co-operative
  British Leyland (Business Plan)
  British Leyland (Business Plan)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  World Commodities Centre
  World Commodities Centre
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Trans-Siberian Railway
  Trans-Siberian Railway
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Nationalised Industries (Race Relations)
  Nationalised Industries (Race Relations)
  Family Expenditure Survey
  Family Expenditure Survey
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Trade Union Reform
  Trade Union Reform
  Employment Protection Act
  Employment Protection Act
  Textile Industry (Oldham and Kirklees)
  Textile Industry (Oldham and Kirklees)
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
DEFENCE
  Cadet Forces
  Cadet Forces
  Defence Ministers (Discussions)
  Defence Ministers (Discussions)
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  Widows (Pensions)
  Widows (Pensions)
ENERGY
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Employment
  Employment
  Departmental Personnel
  Departmental Personnel
  District Heating
  District Heating
  Coking Coal
  Coking Coal
  Anthracite
  Anthracite
  Oil-from-Coal Plants
  Oil-from-Coal Plants
  A810 and A809 Junction (Accidents)
  A810 and A809 Junction (Accidents)
SCOTLAND
  Health Boards (Staff Ratios)
  Health Boards (Staff Ratios)
  Cumbernauld Development Corporation
  Cumbernauld Development Corporation
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Mental Handicap Facilities (Gattonside)
  Mental Handicap Facilities (Gattonside)
  Schools (Pamphlet on Disruption)
  Schools (Pamphlet on Disruption)
  Crofter Housing
  Crofter Housing
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act
TRANSPORT
  Mr. B. E. J. Smith (Printing Business)
  Mr. B. E. J. Smith (Printing Business)
  Traffic Management (Plastic Cones)
  Traffic Management (Plastic Cones)
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Rail Sidings Grants (International Comparisons)
  Rail Sidings Grants (International Comparisons)
  Motorway and Trunk Road Schemes
  Motorway and Trunk Road Schemes
  Cross-Channel Link
  Cross-Channel Link
  Elderly Drivers (Medical Certificate Charges)
  Elderly Drivers (Medical Certificate Charges)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Exchange Controls
  Exchange Controls
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Life Assurance (Tax Relief)
  Life Assurance (Tax Relief)
  National Savings Bank, Glasgow
  National Savings Bank, Glasgow
  Pension Funds
  Pension Funds
  Departmental Staff (Powers of Entry)
  Departmental Staff (Powers of Entry)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Monetary Aggregates
  Monetary Aggregates
  Diesel Fuel (Duty)
  Diesel Fuel (Duty)
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Exchange Control Act 1947
  Exchange Control Act 1947
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Industrial Building Allowances
  Industrial Building Allowances
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community (Finance Ministers)
  European Community (Finance Ministers)
  Motor Vehicles (Taxation)
  Motor Vehicles (Taxation)
  Widows (Tax Relief)
  Widows (Tax Relief)
  Subcontractors (Exemption Certificates)
  Subcontractors (Exemption Certificates)
  Index-linked Bonds
  Index-linked Bonds
  Wage Settlements
  Wage Settlements
  Public Officials (Government Cars)
  Public Officials (Government Cars)
  Foreign Loans
  Foreign Loans
  "Investigation Work" (Pamphlet)
  "Investigation Work" (Pamphlet)
  Free Enterprise Zones
  Free Enterprise Zones
  Family Budget
  Family Budget
  Motor Cars (Depreciation Allowances)
  Motor Cars (Depreciation Allowances)
ENVIRONMENT
  Home Ownership (Finance)
  Home Ownership (Finance)
  Domestic Electrical Wiring Systems (Replacement)
  Domestic Electrical Wiring Systems (Replacement)
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Rating
  Rating
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
  Construction Industry (Codes)
  Construction Industry (Codes)
  Civil Engineering (Codes)
  Civil Engineering (Codes)
  Lambeth Council
  Lambeth Council
  Local Authorities (Publications)
  Local Authorities (Publications)
  Rent Arrears
  Rent Arrears
  Rent Collectors
  Rent Collectors
  Council Houses (Allocation)
  Council Houses (Allocation)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Rent Tribunals (Costs)
  Rent Tribunals (Costs)
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Oil Storage (Security)
  Oil Storage (Security)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Stop Polio Campaign
  Stop Polio Campaign
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Purchasing Contracts
  Purchasing Contracts
  Unification Church
  Unification Church
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Foreign Gaols (British Prisoners)
  Foreign Gaols (British Prisoners)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Ulster Polytechnic
  Ulster Polytechnic
  Taxation Powers
  Taxation Powers
  Road Accidents (Uninsured Motorists)
  Road Accidents (Uninsured Motorists)
  Republic of Ireland (Papal Visit)
  Republic of Ireland (Papal Visit)
  Commercial Property (Compensation Claims)
  Commercial Property (Compensation Claims)
  Bus Shelters
  Bus Shelters
WALES
  Welsh Development Agency (Dividend Capital)
  Welsh Development Agency (Dividend Capital)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
SOCIAL SERVICES
  St. Matthew's Psychiatric Hospital, Lichfield
  St. Matthew's Psychiatric Hospital, Lichfield
  Darryn Clarke
  Darryn Clarke
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  General Household Survey
  General Household Survey
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Walsall)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Walsall)
  1981 Census (Cost)
  1981 Census (Cost)
  Schoolchildren (Nutritional Levels)
  Schoolchildren (Nutritional Levels)
  Purchasing Contracts
  Purchasing Contracts
  Berkshire Area Health Authority
  Berkshire Area Health Authority
  Children Act 1975
  Children Act 1975
  Medical Schools
  Medical Schools
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  National Health Service Premises (Restriction on Use)
  National Health Service Premises (Restriction on Use)
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  Alcohol Sales
  Alcohol Sales
  Health and Personal Social Services
  Health and Personal Social Services
  Voluntary Work (Evaluation)
  Voluntary Work (Evaluation)
  Senile Dementia
  Senile Dementia
  Psychiatric Care
  Psychiatric Care
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Non-emergency Operations (Suffolk)
  Non-emergency Operations (Suffolk)
  Contraceptive Pills
  Contraceptive Pills
  Hospitals (Mixed Wards)
  Hospitals (Mixed Wards)
  Duchess of York Hospital, Manchester
  Duchess of York Hospital, Manchester
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Employment of Children Act 1973
  Employment of Children Act 1973
  Baby Milk (Overseas Sales)
  Baby Milk (Overseas Sales)
  Constant Medication
  Constant Medication
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Scunthorpe)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Scunthorpe)
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  European Community (Meetings)
  European Community (Meetings)

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

NIGERIA: OIL NATIONALISATION COMPENSATION
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 whether the Government of Nigeria has yet paid compensation to the British interests concerned for the oil properties nationalised without notice in August: and whether the total amount due has now been agreed.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, BP, the only company involved, are in touch with the Nigerian authorities, but detailed discussions between them in respect of compensation for BP's assets which were nationalised by the Federal Military Government have yet to take place; and no compensation has so far been paid.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. and declare what I am sorry to say is, unhappily, a minute interest in the company concerned. In view of the fact that possession of the property has passed, may I ask him why discussions on compensation are not even started after this interval of time?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the principal reason has been a change of Government in Nigeria.

SPECTACLE FRAME PRICES
3.3 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 further measures they plan to increase price competition in the manufacturing and marketing of spectacle frames.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, no measures are planned to increase price competition among manufacturers. On marketing, the Price Commission found that the General Optical Council's rules on publicity limited the information available to the consumer and created a situation in which competition could not be promoted. My right honourable friends are considering whether any further measures may be necessary.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the report in the Optician dated 21st September that the General Optical Council's disciplinary committee has found one of its members guilty of displaying the price of spectacle frames in his window, and that, as a result of agreeing to remove this notice he has not been struck off the register? Would not my noble friend think that this is a case where, in order to encourage price competition in an area where spectacle frames are now costing up to £30 and even more, a measure of this sort should not be permitted, and should be investigated by the Office of Fair Trading with some sense of urgency?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I fully understand my noble friend's anxiety on this subject. Some time ago the Price Commission investigated Dollond and Aitchison. The Commission made no recommendations about the company's prices, charges or margins, but included in the report to the previous Secretary of State a number of non-statutory observations, including one dealing with price display. The General Optical Council, however, declined to reconsider its present restrictions on publicity. I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading has had certain of the professional and commercial aspects of opticians' activities under review but has not completed his consideration of this question.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, would the Government consider making it a condition

983
of the NHS contract with opticians that there should be a display of frames and that they should be properly priced?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I know that this is a view which is strongly held by many people, and this is one of the matters which my right honourable friend is considering at this moment. I fully appreciate the point of the noble Lord's question.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would ask his right honourable friend to have a look at the present range of frames, which many of us feel could be considerably improved at really no extra cost?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord referring to NHS frames? I think there is work going on on this matter at the moment, and there is consultation between officials and industry with a view to increasing the range. Unfortunately it will mean quite substantial cost, and it is unlikely that any action will be taken just at the moment.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that hundreds of people are taking their prescriptions abroad when they go on holiday because the prices of frames are so much cheaper abroad? Indeed, on a holiday myself on the tiny island of Gozo, the one and only optician reported that he had 500 pairs previously ordered. The lenses were ordered from England and came from there, but the frames were one third and one half of the price of comparable frames here.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that informative statement.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that since this matter has been going on for some time it has now become a matter of urgency that some action should be taken?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I fully appreciate the noble Lord's point.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would my noble friend bear in mind in making his representations that there has been some support from all parts of the House on this matter? There is really no purpose in doing away with resale price maintenance when a self-appointed body can make it illegal to display the prices in the window. This does not make sense and it does not protect the consumer, and I hope some urgent action will be taken.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the views that my noble friend has expressed are, I know, widely shared, and in general the Government favour the encouragement of competition in preference to control, but they have not yet decided whether specific action can yet be taken.

INSULATION GRANTS: LOFT ACCESSIBILITY
3.8 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: 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, since a number of the 5 million dwellings without loft insulation have no practical means of access to a loft, they will authorise grants up to the same £50 maximum for other approved means of insulation of such dwellings
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: No, my Lords, the most cost-effective use of our limited resources is to secure the insulation of lofts and hot water tanks, wherever this is practicable.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, but is not this rather cold comfort for the people who live in these houses? If a householder is prepared to pay very much more out of his own resources towards, for instance, double glazing in the living room, provided he can have a £50 grant to start him off, is that not £50 very well spent?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point and it is a point I shall bring to my right honourable friend's attention. Basically,

985
as the noble Lord and the House are aware, heat is lost through the ceiling, and I quite agree that there is quite a large element of draughts. But it is the cost-effectiveness which is the important point. There are some 2 million houses, such as the noble Lord described, without loft accessibility. There are still 3 million which have accessibility for lofts which have not yet been insulated.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, are the Government aware that very often when a householder spends a lot of money on putting in insulation in order to conserve energy, the rating authorities then come along and increase the rateable value? May I ask the noble Lord whether he will try to do something about this? In the Department of Energy there was great concern, but we were not able to do anything with his department. Can he try to have more success than I had?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord in his last sentence answered the question. I shall certainly advise my right honourable friends and they will note what he said, but I expect the same answer will come back.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, even with the incentive of the £50 grant, is it not taking an inordinately long time, as shown by the figure given by the Minister—of 3 million houses remaining uninsulated—for this work to be carried out? Would the Minister consider making it mandatory on local authorities to install roof insulation and giving them the power to recover the capital expenditure in the form of a small increase in rents which would allow those capital charges to be met?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it was only a week ago today that the Government started a new scheme allowing people in public authority housing to have this right to insulate their lofts. As from that date, a week ago today, we have started a large advertising campaign, especially in areas in the Midlands where previously the take-up of the grant was not as great as we would have wished, and we are strongly advising all local authorities to give every access possible. Furthermore, for older and poorer people the new rules will allow people to get
986
the £50 grant without having to show a paid receipt. I think this will be a help in the take-up.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, if the argument being relied on is that not all the grants available are being taken up for loft insulation, may I ask the noble Lord if this is not an argument in favour of widening the scheme slightly so as to enable other people to have other forms of approved insulation grant-aided?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is not back on his original Question. He is pushing at an open door if he wants to know what our wishes are; we would wish everyone to live in as perfect a house as possible, but what we are trying to do with our limited resources is to make sure that they get the best use possible of those limited resources.
Lord GLENAMARA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to say whether the new rules change a very silly part of the old rules whereby a householder who had done a very small part of the insulation himself was ineligible for grant? Surely it was a ridiculous state of affairs that people who helped themselves could get no grant?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it has always been said that individual cases do not necessarily make good law. One feels sad at these cases, but the rules have always been there and they must apply before one can get something.

ARAB BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL
3.13 p.m.
Lord JANNER: 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 steps they have taken to combat the Arab boycott of Israel.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have consistently and clearly stated their opposition to the boycott and have expressed the wish that

987
firms should take their attitude into account when deciding whether or how far to comply with boycott requirements. Both our posts overseas and the Department of Trade are willing to give all the help and advice they can to exporters who encounter problems. Your Lordships may have seen my Written Answer of 5th November to a Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which related to the authentication of certificates of negative origin.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for what he said, may I ask if he would not agree that we are really succumbing to blackmail—which I call "blackmail"—against a people, the Israeli people, with whom a favourable balance of trade has continued for many years? Are we not treating that customer, an old customer, shamefully? Will the noble Lord please study what the Dutch Government have done in regard to these certificates? Will he be good enough to explain to those who approach him with a view to succumbing to that form of "blackmoil" that the United States have passed anti-boycott laws, yet trade with the Arab countries concerned has increased vastly in spite of it? Why cannot we do the same?
Lord TREFGARNE: I cannot answer for the United States, my Lords. We have to judge this matter from our own British interests and we judge our interests presently anyway, that we should continue with the procedures that we have been following for the last year or so, with the minor change I announced the other day. As for the Dutch position to which the noble Lord referred, it is true that a number of resolutions have passed through the Dutch Parliament recently, but these have not yet been brought into law by the Dutch Government.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, will the Minister accept that in many quarters his Written Answer is regarded as purely cosmetic? When will the Government take the decision to end the discriminatory operation of validating these negative certificates of origin?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we will do that when we judge it in our interest to do so.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, would the Government confirm and agree that recent indications in certain Arab quarters of a desire to help to induce a more rational attitude in Iran towards the West gives some hope that the Government, in concert with others, possibly in the European Community, might now approach the Arab community with a request that they should revise their policy of boycott against Israel?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we would certainly be ready to discuss this question in the European forum should it be raised, but we know of no desire that it should be.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, does that mean that the United Kingdom representation in Europe would not raise it themselves but wait for somebody else to raise it? Surely this is a very worthwhile initiative that our own Government should take in Brussels?
Lord TREFGARNE: We have no plans to raise it at present, my Lords.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, remembers telling the House that the British Government—that is, the last Government—would never want to be seen ahead of the pack? If that is so, is it not time this Government changed that policy and got ahead of the pack in the European Community?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can go no further than I did before when I said that we will do that only when we judge it to be in our interests.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the Select Committee, which was drawn from all parts of the House and of which Lord Caccia was a member, there was unanimity in rejecting the evidence of the Foreign Office, given that the authentication was merely of the signature and did not imply any approval of the boycott document? Is he aware that we felt very strongly in that committee that the Government should get out of the boycott process in which they are now involved and will continue to be involved until they cease this authentication process?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the authentication process, as the noble Lord and the members of that committee will know, is only the authentication of the signature to the document; it has no relation to the content or accuracy of the document itself. We have recently taken steps, as I announecd the other day, to make that doubly clear to those who use this service.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, as in the case earlier in regard to Nigeria, are we not here concerned with what is a British interest because open trade with. Israel is as much a British interest as it is an Israeli interest? Is this not just another instance of the weak-kneed attitude of the Foreign Office in defending the interests of this country whenever they are challenged by any crackpot regimes throughout the world?
Lord TREFGARNE: Certainly not, my Lords. British interest in terms of trade with the Arab countries is just as important as trade with Israel.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I put a last question to the noble Lord? Will he be good enough to study the position with regard to the American situation? Is he aware that none of the fears that were expressed when the anti-boycott legislation was under consideration have been justified and that, instead, trade has increased very considerably? Is he further aware that at the present time most of the Arab world is not included in the boycott and that we have nothing to fear from blackmail any more?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as I said earlier, I cannot answer for the Government of the United States. We have to judge our interests as we find them, and the American Government must do likewise.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will clarify one point? Is he in fact saying that the Government will support the Arab boycott of Israel if it is in the financial interest of this country to do so?
Lord TREFGARNE: No, my Lords. The Government oppose all boycotts which lack international sanction and authority. We deplore the limitations
990
which the Arab boycott imposes on the commercial freedom of our firms and the extraneous political considerations it introduces into the conduct of our economic and commercial relations with Israel and the Arab States.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, is the Minister aware that eight months ago from the place where he is now sitting I gave exactly the same answers as he has given? There is at least one thing on which we are agreed.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am interested to hear that, and it confirms my view that our predecessors were just as anxious as we are to maintain British interests.

FURSKINS BILL [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit the export of skins of certain animals. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Paget of Northampton.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Acts 1963 to 1971 in relation to the number of races on which betting may take place on dog racecourses on any day and in relation to the number of special betting days. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Newall.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
Read 2a
SCOTTISH EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
Read 3a, with the amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]
Read, 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

GAMING (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
Lord BIRKETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Birkett.)
Lord WIGG: My Lords, this Bill touches upon a very narrow point inasmuch as it implements recommendation No. 219 of the Royal Commission on Gambling, and what it does is to remove from Parliament powers to decide the amount of money that could be won at the game of linked bingo, and in future, if the Bill receives the Royal Assent, that power would be vested in the Home Secretary, who can make an order by regulation. I supported the Bill on Second Reading, and I do not dissent from it now; but of course it has an added importance in view of the debate in another place on the 29th of last month, from which it seems that the report of the Royal Commission on Gambling is to go the way of all the other reports of Royal Commissions since the end of the war. In other words, it is going to be swept under the carpet. The little bits that peep out are those that are inescapable—they just cannot be hidden. This one is of some importance because linked bingo is tied up with a game which both the Royal Commission and the Home Secretary regard as a neighbourly occupation; so it is, in just the same way as racing taking place at Cartmel or Plumpton
992
is also racing. But racing at those two small and very agreeable courses is not the same thing as racing at Epsom, York, or Ascot. It is in some way rather different, and it has to be treated on a different basis.
What has happened is this. The figure of £1,000 mentioned in the gaming Act of 1968 has lost all contact with reality. It is perfectly true that the majority of those who play bingo—housey! housey! in my days in the Army—do it on a neighbourly basis. But it is kept alive, in just the same way as Ascot, Epsom and York races are kept alive, because it is a great event; and those who go to smaller meetings pay some attention. Therefore linked bingo—the possibility of going along one night in the week and winning an astronomical sum—is an inducement or encouragement to people to maintain an interest in what I should regard as a somewhat boring pursuit if pursued every night of the week for ever and ever. But the amount that can be won must have a marked effect upon the interest that is maintained in that game. Both the present Administration and the previous Administration paid lip service to it in as much as there was an interdepartmental report on gambling—a report of the Home Office, may I say. They shied away from the recommendations because there was a recommendation to put a limit on football pools. Once you put a limit on football pools, the interest in that subject would quickly wane, with a marked loss to the Revenue. So that one, too, was shelved.
The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead replied—and I do not in any way condemn this; it is a difficult subject; he was new in office, and I was cautious—and he accepted in toto the recommendation of the Royal Commission. That is to say, they recommended that in future the matter should be dealt with by regulation, being taken away from the Act. But they went a little further. What they said was that the new figure should take account only of the future rate of inflation, and should not take into account past inflation. Again, I do not dissent from that. I was heartened by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in his reply said that the Gaming Board would be consulted. May I say that the reason for my joy on that was that I have every confidence in the Gaming Board and no

993
confidence at all in the Home Office advisers. So the fact that the Gaming Board was going to be consulted cheered me up no end. But when the Secretary of State replied the other night he did not say the same thing. He said that he recommended the recommendation of the Royal Commission which of course, as I say, limits the increase to be given to the board of £1,000 for future inflation. But he went on to say that not all the inflationary tendencies would be taken into account. In other words, whereas Lord Belstead, when he was replying, said he stood foursquare on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the Home Secretary used the word "all"—and the use of the word "all" means it must be part of it—and hinted that the new figure is going to be in excess. I tell your Lordships, Lord Belstead and the Home Office that what they have decided has created a sense of grievance in the associations concerned with the playing of bingo, because all the other activities which are similar in character have had an increase which has taken into full account the inflationary increases. I presume that in fact the £1,000 would be several thousand pounds if that factor was taken into account.
My Lords, what one wants to do is to try to find a way round this with the least possible friction. I would not ask Lord Belstead, when he replies today, to make a definitive statement; that would be quite unfair. What I would ask him to do is to go away, see what the Home Secretary said and what he himself said, talk the matter over with the Gaming Board and then see what needs to be done. In other words, I do not in any way detract from the conclusion that the Home Secretary should make up his mind in consultation with the Gaming Board, but I think it would be quite wrong here to just say "£1,000". May I say that the Royal Commission, when they were deciding, used the word "present". When does "present" mean? Does it mean when they came to that conclusion, before the Royal Commission's report was printed, or does it mean the 12th July last year, when the Royal Commission's report was published?
Anyway, I do not want to stress this point, because I do not want to detain your Lordships too long on this subject;
994
but it has an importance because there is no subject which your Lordships consider in any Parliamentary Session which makes a greater impact on the lives of ordinary people than does this subject. Your Lordships may feel that that should not he so, and perhaps it should not. But there is an estimate given by the research unit of the Home Office itself which shows that 80 per cent. of the adult population of this country gambled during the course of the year, and the figure given by the Home Secretary in another place ran into many thousand million pounds. So what is done in this respect is of paramount importance. It is also of paramount importance, may l say, to the Revenue, for this reason. It is very hard that the Labour Party never shouts from the mountain tops about the things it achieves, but, in this field, when it came into office in 1964 there was a total revenue from gambling of £33 million, whereas now it is touching the £400 million mark, which is a very considerable sum of money indeed.
The Royal Commission's terms of reference required that they should pay attention to the need to help British sport as a whole, and they were asked subsequently to present an interim report, which they did. They came up with what was virtually a coconut. They said, "National lottery". On this particular point, the Home Secretary has said, "No decision on this". Of course he does not take a decision on it, because politically this is very awkward indeed. I say that because if you have a national lottery you are going to cut very heavily into the activities of the pools, and, of course, not only is that very important from the Revenue's point of view, it also has its repercussions through the ballot box. So, as with the interdepartmental report, it is severely left alone. But one of the things that astonishes me more than anything else is the way in which the Home Secretary brushes on one side not only what the Royal Commision has to say but what the Home Office's own research unit says in the course of a preface to a document, which your Lordships can obtain from the Vote Office, entitled Gambling—A review of the literature.It is interesting that this research unit was operating before the Royal Commission, yet the Royal Commission was never told of its existence; and only at a later date did they see the report in draft.

995
What we find in this preface is the statement that information about this subject—which, as I say, touches the majority of adults in this country, produces a vast revenue and can be open to the greatest abuses—is very poor indeed. In the case of the Royal Commission, in Recommendation 4.5 they said:
"The conclusion is inescapable, both from the work of this Royal Commission and from that of the Home Office, that there is a serious shortage of reliable and accessible information about gambling in the United Kingdom".
They went on, in Recommendation 25.7, to say:
"We found an almost total absence of information about the financial state of the industry and its component parts".
In Recommendation I they said:
"The Government should establish a gambling research unit to monitor and study the incidence, sociology and psychology of gambling";
and Recommendation 2 of the Royal Commission was that the unit should be funded by the Home Office.
I do not complain that the Home Office turned that recommendation down. Although they have a responsibility to this House and to the country, the fact is that they turned it down. Well and good. I have no complaint that they turned down the setting up of a research unit into the sociology and psychology of gambling: but I do think it should be brought to your Lordships' attention, or to somebody's attention—perhaps a future Gibbon, when he comes to write The Decline and Fall of Great Britain—that, in relation to this subject, even the merest attempts to understand the facts of the situation are thrust on one side, and they are left, I would suggest, to fester, as they have festered in the past, to produce a very grave social evil.
This is not the only point. Again, I do not want to detain your Lordships too long, but this is the only opportunity one will have to deal with this matter because, judging by past experience, apart from (I must keep in order) a not very useful debate in another place, that will be the end of it; and, as far as I am concerned, I certainly do not want to take part in any debate in which no attempt is made to understand the basic facts.
My Lords, let me deal with one particular point, again of some importance.
996
The Home Secretary, in the course of his speech, referred to what he regarded as a recommendation of the Royal Commission on what he described as "avoidance". He referred to avoidance on a massive scale of the impact of the levy; and reference is made to the Royal Commission's recommendation in this respect. There could not be a greater confusion, because the Home Secretary then goes on to say that he would be prepared to introduce a Government measure if he could be assured there would be no opposition; but in the absence of that, he would welcome and would give support to a Private Member's Bill to deal with this subject.
But the trouble which has arisen—and I want to invite your Lordships' attention, particularly the attention of members of the Labour Party, to how it has come about—has arisen from totally different circumstances. If the Home Secretary says, "I am in fact going to adhere first to Lord Birkett's Bill" and says what he understands is going to happen in another place, then, if we are going to get another Private Member's Bill, or even a Government measure, we ought to know how that has come about. It has come about because the Levy Board has run out of money, and it has run out of money because of this avoidance clause, which in fact has nothing to do with it at all. The avoidance, which was dealt with by the Royal Commission in some detail, arises where a group of companies can be restructured just before 1st April in such a way as to avoid what are regarded as their lawful liabilities.
The real difficulty arises because the Levy Board, with the approval of the Home Office, has loaned £2,700,000, free of interest, to the Duke of Richmond to rebuild Goodwood at a time when we are very hard up. Again, racing is conducted in such a way that a yearling can be sold for £650,000. An average of more than £30,000 could be obtained for each horse. Astronomical sums of money are to be made because of lax administration. The result is that advantage is taken of that and the money is not available simply because the Levy Board, in order to deal, itself and without consultation with the Home Office, with the difficulties thrown up by restructuring, chose to do so by making the levy payable

997
not on the previous year's turnover, as has happened ever since the legislation was introduced, but on the current year's turnover. Therefore, as they can make only one assessment, they are without the means of collecting the money until the end of the year. So they spend in advance money that they have not got and run into difficulties. The Home Office, without regard at all to the consequences, propose to sponsor it, or to give it their blessing.
I am not saying that these matters should not be dealt with; but I am saying that, before dealing with them, we need to take into account the effect of the Government's lack of interest in the problems thrown up by the Royal Commission as a whole. Unless they do that, the most serious results are going to follow for British sport as a whole. One of the purposes of the Royal Commission—and they requested an interim report—was that British sport should benefit; but, as a result of local government cuts last week and of the fact that the Home Secretary has tended to ignore it or has indicated that there is no opportunity for legislation, British sport, as we know it, as it is carried on on the village green through voluntary organisations, is going virtually to come to an end. Some £50 million is going to be taken off it through local government cuts and any prospect of help from central Government is just not a starter. I am talking of all that range of sporting activities for which our nation in the past has been famous. It is said that there are 64 of them. The Home Secretary last week touched only on three; he touched on those three only very ineffectively. The result is going to be that the voluntary spirit, the voluntary efforts, are going to come to nothing.
I could weary your Lordships by giving more examples. I well understand that these are boring matters for those who do not want to listen. But so long a I am in this place I intend to take the opportunities to speak on them. It will be the only opportunity of expressing my views on the way this problem is going to be handled. So far as I am concerned, I do not want my opinions to be foisted upon anyone—even to the point of boring. But there is one difference between me and the
998
Government. I do my homework before and not after. That is the claim I make and it is one that I can substantiate.
I have been right on previous occasions. I came along on my own, opposed the Private Member's Bill and said that it ought to be a Government measure. We have had the piddling 1976 Act. The only reward that I get for that and will get on this occasion is to be able to say "I told you so". I am telling your Lordships again now that British sport through voluntary efforts, be it racing, football, greyhound racing, is all going to suffer—and needlessly, not through lack of cash but through lack of interest; and because people will not do their homework or, when somebody else does it, they will not listen. They get bored. I am sorry that I bored your Lordships but I do not apologise.
3.47 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, perhaps I may say a word from this Bench. The noble Lord did not bore me at all, but he has mystified me slightly. On Monday in this House I was asked a Question by the noble Lord and, as I understood it, he was seeking an assurance that gaming and the Gaming Board were in no way related to horse racing. Here we are, having enjoyed some 20 minutes of the noble Lord in which he has been at pains to show that on a Gaming Bill it is appropriate to talk about betting and the Levy Board. However, I leave that on one side.
The noble Lord made one specific point so far as this Bill is concerned. He suggested that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in making a speech in another place on 29th October had contradicted words that I had ventured to put to your Lordships on the Second Reading of Lord Birkett's Bill. I should like to assure your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that on 29th October my right honourable friend in no way intended to modify in any way what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill. The references to my right honourable friend's words are to be found (I think I am right) in cols. 853 and 854 of the House of Commons Official Report on 29th October.

999
May I add only that I had not intended to intervene on this Bill because on Second Reading the Government made it plain that they supported Lord Birkett's Bill, that they would have liked themselves to have legislated on the subject. but that in this Session there was no legislative time for a major Bill on gaming. Therefore, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett for introducing the Bill which has its Third Reading today.
Lord BIRKETT: My Lords, I am immensely flattered that this tiny Bill should have supported such an authoritative and—dare I say?—wide-ranging speech from the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and such a crisp and courteous reply from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. For one wild moment I wondered whether my next task should be to withdraw my Motion for Papers, but I recalled myself and instead will humbly beg your Lordships to agree to the Motion that this Bill be now read a third time.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BILL OF RIGHTS BILL [H.L.]
3.49 p.m.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In recent years there has been a groundswell of opinion in favour of some form of Bill of Rights. I think that there are a number of reasons. There is growing unease as to whether we enjoy adequate protection against encroachments on individual liberties. Then there is a belief that our Parliamentary system is not entirely satisfactory. For example, Governments may, and often do, come into power not representing a majority of the electors. They may nevertheless claim to have a mandate and introduce legislation to which perhaps the majority of the electors are opposed. There are no special safeguards, apart from public opinion, against measures affecting what some would regard as their basic liberties.
Turning to international obligations, it is true that the United Kingdom has signed and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Yet to some this seems remote
1000
and the procedures are undoubtedly slow. Also there is one other relevant consideration: whereas on the whole I think Britain has a good record on human rights—I think we have reason to be thankful—nevertheless, there is damaging publicity which often follows when cases are taken to the Human Rights Court and Britain is in the dock. It may be unfair: certainly it is at times exasperating and harmful. If we look around the world, scarecely a week passes when we do not hear of some breach of human rights which we deplore. I think we are justified in joining in protests against these breaches when they occur. Nevertheless, critics of Britain do not miss an opportunity of using reports of cases at the Human Rights Court to discredit Britain and to minimise the effects of the protests that we may wish to make against what occurs in other parts of the world. That is the background.
This Bill, the object of which is to incorporate the provisions of the European Convention into our domestic law, will not solve all these problems. It is a step, but I think an important step. In view of the ground already covered, I do not think one should attempt to go over all the matters; we have had a number of debates on the subject and valuable information from the Select Committee, and the evidence taken by the Select Committee. Therefore, I will not attempt to start from the beginning of the story.
It is fair to add that when the convention was drawn up and signed it was not foreseen quite how many occasions there would be when complaints arose which resulted in a case being taken to the Human Rights Court. I do not think it was expected that there would be gaps—even if a few—in our law which had to be filed. I think it is now recognised that the number of complaints is considerable and that the queue is growing. I also think that it is fair to add, because there has been some misunderstanding on this, that rights already enjoyed would not be diminished by a Bill of this nature. They might be enlarged. The convention could not be interpreted as limiting the rights which we enjoy.
In introducing the Second Reading, may I say a few words about the history of this matter. I have introduced a Bill on these lines on three occasions. The first time

1001
I secured a Second Reading but time did not permit of its proceeding further. On the second occasion, we had a most valuable and interesting debate. The noble and learned Lord who is now the Lord Chancellor will remember this very well because it was then that he moved an amendment to the effect that the Second Reading should be granted on condition that the subject was taken to a Select Committee instead of proceeding on the Floor of the House. I fully agreed with that proposal. I thought that it was a good idea because it widened the whole range of examination and enabled us to take evidence, which we did. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, as your Lordships know, was appointed chairman. I should like to pay my tribute to the conscientious chairmanship which the committee enjoyed during the fairly lengthy discussions of that Select Committee.
The conclusions were briefly two-fold: one was that if there was to be a Bill of Rights, it should be along the lines of the Bill that I put forward, with some amendment. Secondly, as to whether there should be a Bill of Rights at all, the Select Committee was divided. The majority was a narrow majority of one, but it was in favour of proceeding with the Bill. However, quite properly, the Committee reported to the House and there was a debate on this report of the Select Committee. That was on 27th November last year. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, presented the report and I moved an amendment the effect of which was that the Bill should proceed with some appropriate amendment. The amendment which I moved was carried by 56 votes to 30.
After that, as your Lordships know, there was a General Election and a new Government came into office. I felt that some reasonable time must be allowed to lapse for the Government to consider their position. However, in July I introduced a new Bill and this is the Bill which is now before your Lordships. I am therefore in the unusual position of moving the Second Reading of this Bill for the third time. Whether this can he put down to fate or obstinacy it is a little difficult to say; perhaps it is a combination of the two. As to the time factor and the very full discussion by the Select Committee, I have no regrets. I think
1002
it was very useful that this lengthy examination should take place. The Bill itself is short. I think that there is merit in brevity. I think it is easier to add than to subtract but I recognise that some additional wording might be justified.
Looking at the Bill, may I make these few comments. As your Lordships will see from the Long Title, the object is to render the provisions of the European Convention enforceable in the courts of the United Kingdom. May I point out—and this is already well known to your Lordships—that we are bound by a treaty by the ratification of this convention but ratification of a treaty does not mean that an individual has a right of action in the courts here. That requires an Act of Parliament. That is why it is necessary to be discussing an Act of Parliament.
The first clause provides—and I am summarising—that the convention together with such protocols as shall have been ratified by the Government of the United Kingdom, shall be enforceable by action in the courts of the United Kingdom. In the Bill which was attached to the Select Committee report, which was the Bill before the Committee at that time, certain words were, in the context of that Bill, appropriate. They were:
"Without any reservations".
In the new context of this clause, as slightly altered, those words are not appropriate; at any rate, they might give rise to misunderstanding. At the Committee stage I suggest that the words
"without any reservations"
should be omitted and replaced with the words
"subject to any reservations thereto".
I apologise for entering into details of drafting, but I say this here and now in case anyone has misunderstood the wording of this Clause 1.
The second clause deals with the conflict between existing law and the convention and protocols that we ratified, and it provides that the convention and protocols, which we have already agreed to accept by treaty, shall be treated as prevailing if there is a conflict. But under the third clause, which deals primarily with legislation after the passing of this Act, the Bill reads as follows:

1003
"In case of conflict … any … enactment passed after the passing of this Act shall be deemed to be subject to the provisions of the said Convention and Protocols and shall be so construed unless such subsequent enactment provides otherwise or does not admit of any construction compatible with the provisions of this Act".
I will, if I may, come back to that in a few moments.
In the first clause there is one major difference between this Bill and the previous Bill. In the former Bill, the whole of the convention was set out in a schedule. The reason for this was primarily for the convenience of the House, so that anyone who wished could refer to wording of the convention. The question was discussed by the Select Committee as to whether the whole of the convention should be included, namely, all parts of the convention, including those aspects of it which dealt with procedure such as appeals to the Human Rights Court, although of course not parts not ratified or subject to reservations.
The Select Committee, after discussing this, were inclined to favour including the whole of the convention and protocols, with the exceptions I have mentioned. If that be so, then I think there is a case for presenting the Bill in this form without setting out the convention and protocols in full in a schedule. It certainly simplifies the Bill, but I am open to advice on the matter and also to the decision of the House.
To summarise, in any event the important part to which incorporation is intended to apply is that concerning "rights and freedoms" defined in Section 1 of Schedule 1 of the convention, together with Articles 1 to 3 of Protocol No. 1, subject to the reservation made to Article No. 2 of that first protocol, which relates to education. I am sorry if, without reference to all the articles and protocols this perhaps sounds a little puzzling. I think on reading it, it will appear clear.
I turn briefly now to derogation, which the Select Committee mentioned. Article 15 provides that—
"in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, any high contracting party may take measures derogating from its obligations under the Convention".
The article goes on to explain what is implied by "derogation". If, as is
1004
proposed, Article 15 is to be treated as if it were enforceable as part of our law—in other words, incorporated—it does not seem necessary to refer to derogation specifically in the Bill.
I now come to the words "enforceable by action"—against whom? It is the high contracting parties who, by the convention, undertook to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms referred to: in our case that means the United Kingdom. A claim would therefore lie against the United Kingdom Government. As to the nature of the action. I doubt myself whether any special new remedy would be required. Occasions might arise where the interpretation of the law might rest upon the wording of the Convention. Cases might arise where some complainant might wish to bring forward a specific point, in which case I think he would probably be advised to take out the appropriate writ or ask for a declaration, or perhaps apply for an injunction. In Scotland that would be an interdict. I think these measures would suffice.
So far as a declaration is concerned, I do not think the advantage of this is always fully appreciated. I think it might prove to be very effective. If there were a breach of a provision of the European Convention and some high court declared that was so, I think any Government would hesitate to defy it. In the last resort, of course, if the Government did defy it there might be a case to take to the Human Rights Court. As to Clause 2, there are one or two minor points which can be left to the Committee stage, but the principle is important: namely, that in a case of existing law we must assume that the terms of the convention would prevail.
The main argument in the Committee and outside the House has been over Clause 3. The reason for the original wording which I drafted was to lessen the chance of inadvertent breaches of the articles of the convention in future legislation, but I have to admit that the original clause, as the Select committee pointed out, raised a question as to whether it amounted to an attempt by one Parliament to bind future Parliaments. The Select Committee felt that they were bound to keep within the existing constitution and therefore could not, even if they wished, introduce entrenched clauses.

1005
The new wording takes this into account. Under this Bill, Parliament is not asked to make provisions which future Parliaments could not revise. I think we must accept that so long as we keep to our existing constitution. On the other hand, the Bill assumes that Parliament would not wish to flout a convention which it has ratified as a treaty.
My Lords, I foresee some representations on the last few words of this Clause 3, which are as follows:
"or does not admit of any construction compatible with the provisions of this Act".
That is a subject which is very topical at the moment. I am thinking of certain recent cases which have been drawn to my attention on this subject of fulfilling treaties and interpretation. My attention has been drawn to the case of Macarthys Ltd. v Smith of 1979, on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, had some important comments to make and which has been reported. There is another case of Worrington v Lloyds Bank Ltd. of this year which, so far as I can ascertain, has not been reported. I certainly do not intend to embark on a discussion of these cases. I mention them because it is contended that the observations that were made in those cases support the practicability of Clause 3 of my Bill. However, so far as the last phrase is concerned, which reads
"… or does not admit of any construction compatible with the provisions of this Act",
I would not wish to fight or die in the last ditch in an attempt to retain those words. I have had no opportunity of discussing this point with others who support the Bill, and I can only give my personal opinion, but I myself would not press them if it were felt desirable to remove them. Again I think that it is appropriate for Committee.
It is never easy to outline a Bill, clause by clause, without boring the House and I have tried not to do so. But I would conclude with a few general observations. I accept that there are some political implications in observing the provisions of the convention. That flows from ratifying the convention, rather than from attempting to incorporate it. I could give a few examples of cases which have political implications, though I think it wiser to take hypothetical cases. There are two actual cases at the moment
1006
relating to the closed shop which are before the Commission, possibly with a view to going to the Human Rights Court, but I do not think it would be proper for me to discuss cases which are already before the Commission.
But as a hypothetical example, I can see that if there were—I am not saying that there is—a case of a closed shop with no clause at all for conscientious objections, and as a result some individual was unable to obtain employment, it might be difficult to reconcile that with Article 11. Or to take one other hypothetical case, if, perhaps somewhat unexpectedly, the present Government took a U-turn and decided to renationalise parts of industry without compensation, a question might arise as to whether—it could be a serious point—that could be reconciled with Article 1 of the first protocol. But I think that most cases would arise because some individual felt that he was suffering from some hardship or injustice, which was contrary to one or some of the articles of the European Convention, and he wanted the matter to be put right and wished to bring it in a British court. To help him do so is one of the objects of the Bill.
I can sum up by saying that the underlying objects of the Bill are twofold. One is to assist individuals in the manner that I have suggested, and the second is, at the same time, to strengthen the concept of adherence to internationally agreed principles relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Wade.)
4.15 p.m.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I am sure that the House will wish me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wade, first, on his devotion to human rights, which I think we all share, but, secondly, on his persistence in his campaign in respect of incorporating the Convention into our law. I have forgotten whether it was the Bellman in The Hunting of the Shark who said, "What I say three times is true". It may well be that the noble Lord has reached that state of mind by now. But, alas! such is the many-sidedness of truth, that it may well be that

1007
on this occasion, again, there will be differences of opinion; and looking at the list of speakers it seems very likely that that will be so.
Most of us whose names appear on the list of speakers have been around this course earlier, if that is an appropriate metaphor to use—no, my Lords, not in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I am quite safe and he is not here; regretfully, no doubt. But as I was saying when I interrupted myself, we have been around this course before, and I do not intend to take too much of your Lordships' time today. It may well be that, unfortunately, I shall not he able to be here till the end of the debate. If so, I apologise in advance.
On the occasion when previously I spoke from a different position in the House, I regret that it was in opposition to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Wade. It is the case that men of goodwill differ in their views on this difficult matter, as indeed the splendid report by the Select Committee, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, so clearly indicated. I think that the argument is pretty evenly balanced, but I am still inclined to favour the view of the minority of five against six in the Select Committee's report, supporting the reasons which are set out in paragraph 33 of the report for rejecting what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, proposes. As I see it, what is really at issue between us is more a question of machinery than of objective; more a question of means than of ends.
But the fact of primary importance in considering the operation of the Convention is the basic fundamental decision of the Labour Government, which has been continued by subsequent Administrations, to allow our citizens the right to petition to the Commission of Human Rights and to the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. The existence of the convention, in itself, is of course a major step in international law and international relations, which was taken after the last war with the object of guarding Europe against any recrudescence of Nazism. It was a similar motivation which led to the earlier Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
1008
The great difference between the two declarations of principle is, of course, that the European Convention provided means of enforcement of the terms of the convention by giving the individual citizen, as well as State Governments themselves, the right of petition and the remedy that ought, in the normal course of events, to follow a decision of the Court, to which one would expect governments to give effect, either by administrative means, which is usually the method of dealing with it, or if necessary by legislation. But this development of the right of petition is of major importance in the history of human rights, because of the unique development that it created in international law by providing the individual citizen, in any country ratifying it, with the possibility of bringing a complaint against his own government in a foreign court, before an international body in international proceedings—a major change, a major development.
It was once said—I think these are the words of Professor Lauterpacht—that the individual citizen used to be the object of compassion; now he is the subject of rights. The British citizen is given by the convention and the act of giving a right of petition this new standing as an individual and this new strength to assert his rights. That exists now. Incorporation of the law would make no difference, I submit, to that, except that it would enable our courts to give effect to the principles of the convention. I shall say a word or two about that.
I had the great pleasure last week, on the invitation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to represent our judiciary at Strasbourg in the celebrations of the 25th anniversary of the setting up of the Commission of Human Rights and the Court itself. One heard of the impressive record of case work that has evolved there. I think it is appropriate that I should pay tribute to the outstanding contribution of British lawyers. Of course it is very much a team and an international job, but the work of Sir Humphrey Waldock as president of the Court was outstanding. Additionally, a distinguished lawyer, James Fawcett, is the president of the Commission of Human Rights.
I was very interested to learn that Mr. Fawcett, the chairman of the Commission,

1009
himself sees grave difficulties in writing the convention into our law. He made an interesting contribution in a BBC broadcast discussion of the matter on 28th October, in which the noble and learned Lord and I each took part. By way of illustration of the difficulties which arise he mentioned some of the applications which have come to the Commission on the question whether the machinery of the Commission and the European Court is really appropriate to deal with some of the questions that arise, or whether or not it would be preferable that they should be dealt with domestically by way of parliamentary action—by legislation.
Mr. Fawcett cited compulsory sex education in schools—whether that was against one of the fundamental principles—the closed shop, abortion law. There was a reference to the Danish sex education case, where the question that the court was asked to deliberate upon was whether the State was interfering with parental rights when it imposed sex education in schools. Seven of the learned judges said yes, seven said no—again, no doubt, another illustration of the many sidedness of truth. The crucial question which he asked was whether these matters are really to be left to the courts to say what is right and what is wrong. In my view, the nature of those broad issues of public policy ought to be dealt with by legislative means.
As noble Lords well know, the convention is set out in terms of statements of general principles of public policy in very wide areas: the right to life, the right to privacy, freedom of schooling, freedom of education, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, the question of forms of punishment—all major issues of public policy which, I venture to submit and certainly think, are issues appropriate to be dealt with by Parliament and not by the judiciary.
Of course it is the case that the judiciary in our country, through their creation of the common law—judiciary law as, I think, Bentham described it—have played a vital role in the progressively changing shape of our law to keep pace with the changing needs of the community and of society: by, for instance, extending the concept of natural justice. However, under the common law they have developed legal principles slowly and empirically from case to case. If the convention were
1010
incorporated, they would start with statutory principles of the widest generality—I have indicated what sort of ground would be covered—and they would have a free hand to decide how those principles operated in the cases that came before them.
The Convention would acquire a domestic internal significance which might well result in developments quite different from the jurisprudence of Strasbourg itself. The result of incorporation, as I think the report of the Select Committee put it, would graft on to our law an Act of Parliament in form and content totally at variance with any existing legislation and at variance with future laws that need to come forward. I heard with interest the speech of the Chief Justice of Australia, Chief Justice Barwick, on this matter in his address to the Benson Club earlier this year, when he said:
"It is worth saying that the legislature, notwithstanding its burden of party politics, is better fitted to ascertain and express the common will, the common consent of the realm—to use the language of the great charters—than is the judiciary, which does not have at its command the information required to decide upon a new rule or the acceptability of an existing rule in times of change. As well, these days the legislature is served by law reforming commissions"—
—as we are admirably served here—
"able to present the various facets of the problem of what the law should be".
In dealing with that point I should add that Parliament has certainly not been slow during my time in Parliament to legislate in new areas where fresh social problems have arisen—for instance, on race relations, sex discrimination and matters of that kind.
One of the broad issues which we discussed previously was the view that was expressed by learned Lords of Appeal. I am glad to see present the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who is as doughty in his fight on this cause as is the noble Lord, Lord Wade. But some of his colleagues in the Appellate Committee did not share his view on the matter. They expressed concern that the broad terms of the Convention setting out rights absolute in terms but subject to elaborate derogations would result in a variety of interpretations which would introduce a substantial element of uncertainty into our law. When the, alas! late Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest debated this matter he said:

1011
"To enact this Bill would involve and introduce a parade of uncertainties".—[Official Report, 29/11/78; col. 1376.]
It was characteristic language of a dear, lamented noble friend.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, expressed his anxieties in his customary vigorous language in our debate on the Select Committee's report, when he said at col. 1366:
"If this Bill becomes law in its present form, it will be open to every fanatic, every crackpot, to challenge any law they disagree with and which they think—indeed can verily suggest—detracts little or anything at all from the absolute right conferred by the first sentence in each article".
He deplored, as did others, the effect of the impact of incorporation and the decision-making which would fall upon the judges if the convention became part of our law. He said (col. 1367):
"The administration of justice in our country depends upon the respect which all people of all political views feel for the judges, and in my opinion that respect depends very much upon keeping judges out of politics. To pass this Bill of Rights cannot but have the tendency to bring judges more and more into politics. That seems to me to be a sufficient disadvantage, and so far as I am concerned, when it is put into the balance, it tips it down upon the side of not passing a Bill in the form of that which is proposed".
I am bound to say I greatly fear that this uncertainty and the broadness of the terms may well result in a great increase of litigation in our courts if these provisions became part of our law.
My Lords, I promised that I would not take up too much of your Lordships' time on this occasion as you have been very forbearing with me before, but I should just like to say this: The convention exists as a great international instrument. We have ratified it, and we have given our citizens powers under it, and I do not think there is any reason to believe that Parliament and Government in this country are likely to act in ignorance of our treaty commitments. I cannot now recollect whether it is a breach of the Official Secrets Acts to mention the existence of the Legislation Committee, but I venture the risk of doing so on this occasion, enjoying of course the protection of the privileges of this House to a Member; but certainly my recollection is—and I have little doubt that it will be happening again under the eagle eye of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, it may be, is a member of the Legislation Committee—who knows?
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): Who knows?
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, it may be that the committee under this Administration also will be watchful to see that any proposals that come forward that are in derogation or contrary to the provisions of the European Convention, do not go through the watchful eyes of the Legislation Committee, and I can recollect many occasions when that happened in my experience.
Therefore the conclusion that I have come to is this, that I am afraid I cannot myself give my support to the Bill. I am certainly not dogmatic in the views that I have sought to express about it. I do not expect that my noble friend who will be winding up the debate will be inviting your Lordships to divide upon the matter, and I have little doubt that in the fullness of time we shall have further opportunity of finding out whether what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has said for the third time really is true.
4.35 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and to congratulate him on bringing this Bill before the House. In this matter he does indeed show a truly biblical importunity. I hope that in due course his prayers to your Lordships will be answered in a favourable way. I will certainly assist him in trying to bring about that result.
For the last 10 years or so I have found myself in growing concern about the need for constitutional reform in this country and it is in that context that I wish to support the noble Lord's Bill. Reference has been made to the very fine balance of opinion about the value of a Bill of Rights that was shown on our Select Committee, and I must admit that there was a fine balance of opinion in my own mind. I answer it in favour of the Bill; but I have to say to the noble Lord that although I genuinely wish to support the Bill, I cannot hold out very high hopes that, on its own, it will supply what I think is necessary to allay the concern which I and a growing number of your Lordships, and certainly many other people outside this House, probably

1013
feel about the workings of our constitution at the moment.
May I say with respect to the noble and learned Lord who lately sat upon the Woolsack that I am afraid that his speech tipped me rather more in favour of the Bill than before, for one reason: he expressed at one time that he was doubtful about the appropriateness of asking learned judges in this or any other country to decide about the pros and cons of the merits of great general issues. As he said, truth is many-sided: seven learned judges may think one way and another seven may think the opposite way. The noble and learned Lord said that he preferred Parliament; but I am bound to say that having been a Member of Parliament for nearly 30 years—26 of them in another place—I cannot really have much faith in Parliament as we know it today dealing properly with these general issues. It might be different with Parliament in a reconstituted form. It seems to me altogether too arbitrary and too "chancy" as to whether it does get down to these subjects. I have no doubt that it can get down to them but, to put it mildly, there seems to be no guarantee that it will do so.
Those who object to a Bill of Rights on those grounds perhaps do not do enough justice to the feeling of many citizens of the importance of being certain of being able to have a libertarian grievance made subject to an impartial review. The outcome of that review itself may not be clear: seven judges may decide one way and seven the other, so the outcome may not be clear. Truth is not always one-sided and clear, but nevertheless there is satisfaction, there is relief in knowing that at least a grievance can be subject to a review and is not subject to the "chanciness" of whether Parliament will, in one's own lifetime, get round to it.
So while on balance I support this Bill, I do not wish to argue my support on the basis of the pros and cons of its legal efficacy but more to put it in the general context of my concern for constitutional reform. My real cause for concern, which has grown very strongly indeed, is that our democratic institutions in this country as they are now functioning have really ceased to provide the effective checks and balances which I believe
1014
are essential for the safeguarding of democratic freedom in this or indeed in any other country. The power of a majority in the House of Commons has now in fact become absolute. That might be all right, my Lords, if the majority in the House of Commons were a representative majority, but of course under our present electoral system, it is not. An overall party majority can be, and usually is, obtained by a party which has won the votes only of a minority of the electorate.
That too may not have mattered too much in the past in this country, when the major contesting parties shared a great deal of common ground about the nature of our society which they wished to see and the nature of its economy. Rightly or wrongly, in my view, unfortunately, political beliefs have polarised enormously during my active political lifetime, and now one has the position that a party commanding an absolute majority in the House of Commons, however small, can enact fundamental changes which may often also be irreversible changes; and no one can stop them from doing so, even though those changes may be desired by only a minority even of the party in power and definitely feared and opposed by a majority of the electorate as a whole. This seems to me the basic position of which we have to take notice. It is, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor described, I think for the first time, in those vivid words, the state of an elective dictatorship. I do not believe that is a situation which we should be content to see continue.
If one takes that view, there really are only four effective ways of protecting ourselves against the danger of this elective dictatorship. First there is electoral reform of the House of Commons itself, some form of proportional representation. Secondly, there is reform of your Lordships' House so that it may acquire natural authority—which may be even more important than increasing its formal powers—and once again become an effective check and balance on our constitution.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, is he saying that we are now enjoying the privilege of an elective dictatorship?
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I will deal with that in a moment if the noble and learned Lord wishes, but perhaps I may pursue this point for a moment. The third way is the one which is before us today, the enactment of a Bill of Rights. And the fourth, I suppose, is the adoption, as in some other countries, of a written constitution. What I want to submit is that we need at the very least one of these measures, and in my view preferably not less than two of them.
My personal first choice is a form of proportional representation for another place. I think that is the most effective, most fundamental, and in the long run the indispensable single reform which would put this matter right. I have bewailed, in Parliament and out, the fact that the last Labour Government when they first attained office did have an absolute majority in another place, did enact fundamental changes, some of which were very close to being irreversible, in spite of the fact that they had won their absolute majority with the votes of only 28 per cent. of the electorate or 38 per cent. of those who voted. Of course, I take the point that that is not the only case. The present Government, which I am proud to support, even with its much larger majority in the House of Commons still has the vote of less than 50 per cent. of those who voted.
It is some time since I did this research, but I believe I am right in saying that it is as long ago as 1900 that a party standing on its own actually came to office in this country with an overall majority of those who voted in the general election which returned it to power. That, strangely enough, was the Conservative victory in 1900. Although there was a much smaller parliamentary majority in the so-called Liberal landslide of 1906, nevertheless the Conservative victory of 1900 was I believe the last occasion on which a Government in this country came to office on the strength of the votes of the majority of those who voted in the election. Indeed, it has never happened since we have had universal suffrage.
I really do not believe that this is a satisfactory state of affairs, as long as the other place has this absolute power. As I say, my first choice would be to change things in another place. My second choice would be reform of your Lordships'
1016
House. My third choice is the one before us today; namely, a Bill of Rights. But for this to be effective it seems to me to be necessary to couple it with the fourth option, namely, a written constitution. I must say that of all the four choices this is the one I like the least. I do not say I oppose it, but I approach it with certain qualms and uncertainty. It is certainly the most foreign to the very long established British tradition.
Lord WADE: My Lords, in order that noble Lords may be quite clear in their minds, the noble Lord is referring to the fourth option, namely, a written constitution, which is a very controversial matter?
Lord CARR of HADLEY: Yes, my Lords, that is the fourth, and I hope I have made clear to your Lordships that I have considerable reservations about that. But what we are considering today is the third, namely, the Bill of Rights, and I do support it, I repeat, but I think it is the least effective of all those four. Although standing on its own it is better than nothing—and that is why I wish to see the noble Lord, Lord Wade, successful—I cannot believe that its efficacy will be sufficient to meet all that is needed to allay my own growing concern, which I suspect is shared by many people inside and outside Parliament. So in conclusion, I wish to appeal to my noble and learned friend——
Lord FOOT: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes perhaps he would allow me to ask a question. He has drawn attention to the three ways in which he thinks that the evil of an elective dictatorship could be avoided. Would he agree that, so far as this Bill of Rights is concerned, it does not provide any safeguard against an elected majority in the other place carrying through a measure which intrudes upon the rights of the subject, because of course it is provided under Clause 3 of this Bill that if there is a conflict between subsequent legislation and the provisions of the convention then, unless they can be reconciled, the subsequent legislation must prevail?
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I do agree, and this, of course, is one of the reasons why, although I welcome this Bill, I am bound to say that it is the least of all the measures that I think necessary.

1017
So may I conclude by appealing to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. We have noticed that one noble and learned Lord moved from a position on my left to a position opposite me while maintaining the position he held the last time this Bill was debated. I remember with pleasure and vividness how, when he was on the Opposition Front Bench, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor came out in support of this Bill; and I hope that we might hear the same from him tonight. May I just say this to the noble and learned Lord. I certainly realise, as I am sure all noble Lords realise, that he is in a position of greater constraint than he was when this matter last came before the House. But I am sure all your Lordships know that, whatever constraints he may be under at any particular time, he is a doughty and effective fighter for the cause of dealing with this problem of an elective dictatorship in this country. I do hope that, whatever the Cabinet of which he is a member may have decided about the view they must take about this Bill, he will assure us that he will use his maximum strength within that Cabinet to convince them of the importance which your Lordships attach to the need for constitutional reform in one form or another.
We may each have our preferences, and I would not wish to be dogmatic or to die in the last ditch for any one of them. What I would really feel let down by would be if this Government which I support went through its term of office without addressing itself to the need for constitutional reform in some fundamental way. They may not opt, and I fear they will not opt, for my own first choice, but I hope they will do something. Otherwise they will not be being true to the basic precepts and principles of the party to which I belong, and of which they are the representative Government; namely, that the maintenance of our institutions should be the first objective of the Tory Party. It seems to me that our party is a constitutional party, and when I look at our institutions today I feel that in the last decade or so I have seen them decaying in front of my eyes from lack of proper maintenance. So I beg my noble and learned friend to use all his influence to ensure that, even if it is not my preferred form of maintenance, some effective form of maintenance and
1018
modernisation is brought to bear on the building of our constitution.
4.50 p.m.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, first I should like to say that I personally, in welcoming what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has done for us for the third time, must assure my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley that I do not believe that the passing of this Bill will do anything to change the constitution in the way in which the noble Lord has suggested he thinks it needs changing.
It is important that we should be clear in our minds about what it is that is before us. I remind your Lordships that the Select Committee consisted of people drawn from all parts of the House, including two Independents who disagreed with each other. The first witness was the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. It was he who first started my conversion to the position in which I now stand in support of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wade.
I entered that committee feeling that I distrusted profoundly Bills of Rights and I did not think that this would help—it would merely throw a spanner in the works of the legal system and give a great deal more money to lawyers, which I did not mind. We heard evidence on both sides, from not only those who supported the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, but from those who opposed it. As the evidence accumulated I found myself becoming convinced of one thing and one thing only—namely, that on balance, having signed and ratified the convention; having therefore since 1950 committed ourselves as a country regardless of party in that respect; and having gone further (as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, reminded us) and allowed the subject to go and complain against his own country in the Strasbourg Court, we did not do what we should have done, which was at the same time to make this a part of the law of the United Kingdom.
I do not want to weary the House with the reasons for that, which were clearly set out in the Select Committee's report and which are probably familiar to all noble Lords. The "Golder" road to Samarkand—it took Mr. Golder five years to reach Strasbourg and to get his

1019
decision—is not in my opinion a crucial point. Moreover, to be quite honest, it is not to help the Golders of this world that I am particularly concerned in supporting this Bill. However, I think that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, told us about his celebration of the 25th birthday of the Strasbourg Commission and Court, which culminated in this picture of the court dividing seven for, and seven against, confirms my feeling that, noble and distinguished though the Strasbourg Court I am sure is, and particularly distinguished in view of the contributions of Waldock, Fawcett and others from this country, I do not regard that as a suitable court of first instance for the citizen in this country who knows his convention and thinks that he has been aggrieved.
From the nature of the pattern, the Strasbourg Court is designed as a court of appeal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and others on the committee who disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, were at pains to point out the different technique, which did not require appeal to our own courts, for the convention to have its perfect way. Frankly, it was at that point that I became convinced that they were wrong and that nothing can get away from the fact that, if the Bill receives not only a Second Reading—as I hope very much it will this afternoon—but a Third Reading, and is passed in due course by this House (whatever may happen in another place) what will really matter is that then the courts of this country can start absorbing the content of that convention and making the best of it, the common law and statute law of this country. That is the process which I believe will he encouraged if their Lordships in our own courts, and the other parts of the judiciary, are told that that is something that they must do.
I do not think that we are being honest to our own citizens so long as we deprive them of the help of our own courts in deciding what, if anything, is the relevance of this international convention to the common law and statute law of this country. It is partly as an educational experiment that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is valuable.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, mentioned that the Legislation
1020
Committee and members of the Cabinet are advised—as of course we know they are—by their able civil servants, how far any particular part of a Bill may contravene the convention. Of course, Ministers know and so do the particular top civil servants know, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has always known. But do not let us kid ourselves. That is not true of Whitehall as a whole. I speak with shame as one who was head or so-called permanent head—acting or otherwise—of live departments at various times who had never heard of this convention or had read it until he became a member of your Lordships' Select Committee. I do not say that that is characteristic because many of my colleagues are much better behaved than that. However, it is simply not true that the people of this country know anything about this convention—that it was signed in 1950; that it was ratified; and that they have a right to go to the Court and Commission at Strasbourg.
I believe that if one of those terrible questionnaires were sent out and a great deal of money paid to the expert pollsters to tell us how many people know about this, and their answers to questions which I could set them about the convention, I am convinced that the result would be deplorably depressing to those of us who think that this is a statement of human rights which the people of this country share with most of Europe; which they share with large parts of the British Commonwealth; and which they should share—and please God! one day will share—with people behind the Iron Curtain. That, in its international aspect, is something that I find particularly attractive in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wade. Here, of course, we are only dealing with what, to my mind, is the narrow point of whether we should allow, or indeed insist, that the courts of this country should be involved as they will be if the Bill is passed.
However, there is a wider aspect. Human rights is a cause which I believe should be on the agenda of every civilised country in the 1980s. It will take time. But here is a place where we overstep the bounds of nation statehood and think first, as this convention does, of those in Europe who have signed it, and also of the citizens of the world. It is not simply a statement that the citizens of this country

1021
have human rights, which no Government of whatever party should infringe except in the protection of rights of other individuals. It is not a bare defence of individual freedom. It is a defence of the rights of each individual not only to have the rights but to surrender those rights when that is necessary for the rights of his fellow-citizens in this country, in Europe and in the world. That is what particularly appeals to me and I think to the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, who opened his speech by saying that it is not the mere passing of this Bill that is at stake, but that it is part of a movement and that we must start at home.
I believe that we have waited far too long. Your Lordships have done a service—and no one more than the noble Lord, Lord Wade—in insisting that we go on and on talking about this. Even if we reached agreement here, it would not meet my point about the need for civil servants and local government officers to be informed of the attitude which, by international treaty, they are committed to adopt with every client with whom they deal.
5.2 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, we have had a long series of debates on this subject, plus a report from a Select Committee composed of Members of this House. One might well be pardoned if one takes the view that there is nothing more to be said on this subject—at least in this House—although it is fair to say that the other place has been, if not notably silent, at any rate very quiet on the subject, which perhaps in itself is of significance. On previous occasions I have ventured to point out—and I repeat it now—that, notwithstanding some of the emotive if not emotional arguments that one sometimes hears put forward, there appears to be no demand by the public for this Bill at all. On the last occasion when we debated this I mentioned the complete lack of interest of the national Press in the subject matter of our Select Committee report when it was published, and the fact that only one member of the Press turned up at an arranged Press meeting—that one member being a gentleman who is known for his passionate interest in this subject.
Recently I was interested to hear a BBC programme in the "You, the Jury" series. After a careful presentation of
1022
arguments by both sides, with the calling of eminent witnesses who were cross-examined during the proceedings, a vote was taken of those present, and about 70 per cent. of those present were against the existence of a written constitution with a Bill of Rights. Therefore, the idea of there being a sense of need on the part of the public has not manifested itself at all. Nor, as my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones pointed out, is there any great principle at stake here because we are all in favour of human rights. The only difference is whether it is an appropriate procedural step to take to incorporate the terms of the convention into our law.
It seems to me that many of the people who favour this step rely on what may be regarded as a rather emotional viewpoint, stirred up by their passion for human rights, which we who oppose it equally share. On the other hand, there are those who support this Bill but in a very lukewarm spirit. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, is not now in his seat, but in his speech the noble Lord appeared to have very lukewarm enthusiasm for the Bill and thought that there were many other better ways in which we could achieve the result; but as an ultimate pis aller, so to speak, he was prepared to support the Bill.
However, when one looks at the arguments against the Bill and the disadvantages which it would occasion, one would have thought that any careful scrutiny of them would show that they are a very great force indeed. I shall not reiterate arguments that have been dealt with at great length in previous debates. But it is necessary to say shortly that those arguments fall under two headings. One is the immense uncertainty that it would occasion to our legal system. Here one has only to look at the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has already read to us, which provides in substance that where there is a conflict the provisions of the convention and its protocols will prevail. What does that mean? It means that the whole of our existing law is subject to these provisions. Therefore, it is open to argument, and it possibly may be held in many cases that in such a conflict the previous law is overruled.
Therefore, a huge area of uncertainty will be created. Anyone who doubts

1023
that should read—if he has not already done so—the detailed exposé of this matter put before the Select Committee by Sir Henry Fisher, a former and eminent High Court judge who is now the President of Wolfson College, Oxford. At pages 213 to 215 of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee he gave a full account of all the areas of uncertainty which would be created by a Bill of this kind. It was detailed evidence which, to my knowledge, has never been controverted.
My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones referred to the observations in our previous debate of the late and most lamented Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest when he expressed his vigorous opposition to a Bill in this form and indicated the absurdity of enacting into our law such general propositions as, for instance, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, everyone has the right to life, and so forth; statutory law should be as clear and certain as possible, and this would produce—as my noble and learned friend has quoted—a parade of uncertainties and would, indeed, create endless opportunities for litigation.
I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, dismiss the argument that Parliament is the appropriate place to judge public policy of importance, rather than the judges. He seemed to think that the argument in favour of Parliament was disposed of by pointing out the imperfections of Parliament and the extent to which it does not reflect a precise mathematical representation of the electorate. Surely, in a democratic system the reason why Parliament is to be preferred as the source of public policy as against judges is that Parliament is democratically elected and is accountable to the electorate. Judges, however eminent and however distinguished, are appointed by the Government—though of course they are completely independent; nobody disputes that. Very properly, they are not elected. They should not be elected. Nothing would be worse in my opinion than a judiciary who are elected. That is not the nature of the judiciary. But they are appointed and, having been appointed, they are not accountable, and therefore they are not a
1024
democratic source of political policy. It is for that reason that Parliament is to be preferred as a source of public policy, and the judges are inherently an unsuitable forum for this kind of decision.
This leads one to the second fundamental objection to the incorporation of this sort of convention into our law—that it will fundamentally change the role of the judiciary and the tradition of the common law. I know that no less a distinguished judge than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has argued strongly in favour of extending the judicial role in this way, and has spoken in his evidence to the select committee of freshening up the principles of the common law. Indeed, in the last debate which took place in this House he rather dismissed my opposition to a Bill of this nature as merely an example of complacency. I do not feel that I can justly be accused of complacency on this issue. On the whole my interest, as I think he will be the first to admit, in law reform has been manifest for many years. But I believe—and I hope that this is not complacent—that we should be slow to tamper with institutions, which have served us well for a long period, for somewhat illusory benefits.
In this connection I would venture to refer to the recent address—and my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones also referred to it—of Sir Garfield Barwick, the Chief Justice of Australia; one of the most distinguished judges in the whole Commonwealth, as is universally agreed. He delivered a recent address in London on the subject of judiciary law, and he pointed out firmly the dangers of putting our judiciary in the role of law makers. He saw an antipathy, as he put it, between the spirit of the common law and a declaration of rights. He particularly referred—and this is a matter of considerable interest—to "a tendency in some quarters to look longingly across the Atlantic to the greater freedom of the United States judiciary". He then went on to point out that, in a community with a lively parliamentary responsiveness, judicial activism of this sort is really unnecessary and indeed indesirable.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, does not the noble Lord see a certain paradox in Sir Garfield Barwick's remark, seeing that he has spent his entire

1025
legal life under one of the most rigid written constitutions at present existent in the world?
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his intervention, but with great respect I cannot see that because Sir Garfield may have operated under a statutory constitution—which incidentally is entirely different from the American type of Bill of Rights constitution—that in any way disqualifies him from expressing views on the subject of judicial activism, with which he is as familiar, I would venture to think, as any other common law judge.
What is often not realised is that in the United States itself, which is of course the prototype of this type of Bill of Rights constitution, there is at present a very deep disquiet felt at the way in which the judicial role is developing on legislative lines. May I quote one learned writer who wrote recently:
"All too many federal judges have been induced to view themselves as holding roving commissions as problem solvers".
Another learned writer said:
"There is unease at judicial authority striking down laws enacted by democratically elected legislatures. Where, after all, is the accountability of life tenured judges?"
This is precisely the point that I was making in regard to Lord Carr of Hadley's preference for judges as against Parliament in the making of public policy.
Indeed, in the United States at the present day, there is a substantial critical literature on this subject expressing in great detail doubts as to whether the judges, whatever judicial skills they naturally possess, nevertheless possess the right skilled training and expertise to give competent decisions on broad matters of policy. Indeed, one wonders why there is this enthusiasm for American style constitutions at the present day in certain quarters in this country. In many ways it is very arguable that the American constitution is at present proving to be far less workable than our own both in a political and a legal sense, but to develop this would take me too far afield.
I should, in conclusion, like to comment briefly on the view that the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, expressed when he linked this Bill of Rights argument with
1026
the question of a dictatorship—a parliamentary dictatorship—and suggested that however inadequate, this might have some possible means of control. But he was the first to admit that this was likely to be pretty ineffective, as indeed emerged from Lord Foot's very effective intervention towards the end of his speech.
The fact of the matter is, as a learned writer in a recent issue of the Modern Law Review pointed out, that the law cannot be a substitute for politics. The political decisions must be taken by politicians. In a society like ours that means by people who are removable. There is in the background of all this argument—perhaps it has not become very clear in your Lordships' debates, though the argument has sometimes been pursued more vigorously outside this House—a certain feeling that in this way, through the intervention of the judiciary, it might be possible to restrain certain kinds of Left Wing, or socialist legislation. That seems to me a perilous course and a perilous argument. If what we fear is political tyranny, then we must seek to control that by political means. To try to bring the judiciary into this sort of contest can only have one effect, and that is to destroy the standing of the judiciary in the eyes of the people as a whole.
It is for that reason among others that I remain unrepentant in the belief that the European Convention is best left not as a court of first instance as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, would wish to see it, but as an international long-stop, where it is of some value, though perhaps of minimal value, and that if we go further and seek to import it into the fabric of our law, that will prove a grave error and one which might inflict lasting and irreparable harm on the working of our whole legal system.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to Sir Henry Fisher's valuable evidence to the Select Committee, and he is perfectly right that Sir Henry Fisher was dead against the Bill. However, would he agree with Sir Henry Fisher in the evidence he submitted to us that in fact a plaintiff, if this Bill were passed and the convention became part of United Kingdom law, could not be worse off and could be better off than as things are today?
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, of course there may be marginal cases where an individual is concerned where that individual may derive some benefit from the Bill, but that entirely overlooks the crucial point that it is the broad effects of the Bill on our legal system which will be a much greater detriment as against those comparatively small marginal advantages which will be to the benefit of the individual. The noble Lord may not accept my argument but I hope he appreciates that it is the nature of the view put forward by those like Sir Henry Fisher who oppose the structure of the Bill.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall what Sir Henry Fisher said—namely, that however bad the law is the judges must support it? I think anyone who says that is not living in the world today.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention, but if I attempted to answer it we might get into a very broad field and one which might bring our present Master of the Rolls speeding to these Benches to intervene. I will therefore refrain from attempting a detailed reply.
5.23 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for hearing only the last part of his speech. Believe it or not, my train from Kent was four hours late. It got stuck on the hill coming up from Rochester, with a freight train in front. I suggested to the driver that we should try to give it a push but he replied that such a course was irregular. However, in the end we did give it a push and, very slowly, we got it going. My Lords, I shall be brief because I am surrounded by eminent lawyers and I am no lawyer. However, I wish to make it clear at the outset that I support the Bill and hope that the old adage "Third time lucky" proves to be the case for the noble Lord, Lord Wade. After watching events over the years I feel that the individual in this country has been losing his individual freedom. We have had innumerable statutory instruments, enabling legislation and an avalanche of regulations; in many respects the individual is having his freedom taken from him. At one time
1028
Britain was in the forefront of freedom for the individual, and I have always believed that freedom of the individual was the most important freedom, perhaps even more important than freedom of the State.
Indeed, one can say that an Englishman's home is no longer his castle. I read somewhere of the great number, in fact thousands, of officials who have the right to enter anybody's home. And when one goes outside one's home there are all the various Government bodies, commissions and boards such as the Forestry Commission and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, with compulsory powers; I agree that they use those powers carefully, but nevertheless they have them and that is another reason why a Bill of Rights is essential. As my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley said, this is especially so as we have no written constitution. An unwritten constitution has served us well in the past, but times have changed and—who knows?—we might have a lot of wild men in power.
Several noble Lords: Might have?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: We may already have had a few, my Lords. In any event, it could be dangerous without a written constitution. I was reading a report on SLADE, the artists and writers union; perhaps other noble Lords have read it. The report had some strong criticism for some of SLADE'S members. Referring to recruiting people into the union it said:
"without any regard whatsoever to the interests or welfare of the respective recruits".
I have with me a newspaper cutting on the SLADE report in connection with a man named Marriner who runs an art studio in London. Apparently he is all for having unions but believes membership should be optional, and I quote from the cutting:
"One evening two men arrived at my works and asked if they could see my staff. The staff declined an invitation to drinks with the two men, who turned out to be SLADE officials. A few weeks later Mr. Marriner was accosted by one of the two men, who said he wanted to organise the staff into SLADE. Despite objections from the staff, the SLADE official"—
apparently the national organiser, Mr. Martin—
"said, ' Unless everybody joins within 14 days we will close you down. We will block everything you produce'."

1029
Everybody in the studio joined after that, except for one man, and he had to leave. Do we not require a Bill of Rights? It is an appalling situation. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said that, after all, we have ratified the convention, and all that, and that any man who feels himself aggrieved in this country can appeal to the Strasbourg Court. Well, of course, that is quite true. But, my Lords, it is a very expensive process, and I doubt very much that many people realise that they can do that. I also feel that, if there are a lot of people from this country who consider that they have been unjustly treated and they go and appeal at Strasbourg, that will not do our prestige much good. There was a case involving three railway workers. I think that British Rail dismissed 56, or, it may have been, 54 men for not joining the appropriate railway union, and three of them appealed to the Strasbourg Court, at great expense. I understand that their appeal has been upheld, and presumably they are due quite a lot of compensation from British Rail. That is the only example I know of. It was presumably very expensive for them; I suppose they were backed financially.
But how much better it would be if we enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into our own law. I cannot understand the objections against doing that; they do not seem logical to me. I can understand the behind-the-scenes fear of so doing. I do not want to introduce any party feeling into this—though I cannot avoid a little—but obviously it could be rather unpleasant for the unions. But I am not going to dwell on that. I will not speak any longer because I have said quite enough, and I am surrounded by many eminent lawyers who are far more able than I am to deal with this matter. But I should like to say again how heartily I support the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in his Bill, and I hope it has success.
5.33 p.m.
Lord SCARMAN: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on his persistence in the noble cause of human rights inside and outside this House. Like the noble Viscount who preceded me, I hope that third time will be lucky, and whatever may happen to the Bill in another place, I earnestly beseech this House to
1030
give it a Second Reading, to study it in Committee, and let it go on its way to another place. It is sad in a way that this modest little Bill—to which I shall be returning from the constitutional flights on which some noble Lords have taken us—should excite such interest in constitutional and political questions. Those who have supported the Bill have done so on broad constitutional grounds with which the Bill is only remotely linked. Those who have opposed it have in some ways queered my pitch, talking of judicial activists, judges entering politics. I began to wonder whether, as a professional judge who has already earned his pension, I could conceivably rise and address your Lordships on this Bill. I decided that I could because my pension is already safe.
Let us look at the Bill—only three clauses of it. I commend the two principles to be found in the Bill. The first principle is that the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms should be incorporated into our law and should be enforceable in the ordinary courts of the country. The second principle is that if Parliament wills—and this is a matter for Parliament, not for judges—that this Bill of Rights should become part of its statute law, then so long as it is part of the statute law of the Kingdom, it shall enjoy pre-eminence over other statutes. That does not mean that it will be entrenched and Parliament cannot amend or repeal it. It merely means that, so long as it is on the statute book, it shall enjoy pre-eminence.
Surely in a civilised society such as ours we should be not only prepared, but eager, to ensure that a statute, whose duty it was to protect our human rights and fundamental freedoms, should have preeminence. It is really no good paying the slightest attention to the siren, sweet voices of some noble and learned Lords whom we have heard this afternoon, and say that this will create uncertainty; it is completely inimical to the legal traditions of our country. Not at all! Magna Carta has always enjoyed, and still enjoys, the sort of pre-eminence that this Bill suggests the European Convention should have. We have a Bill of Rights almost 300 years old. Since it was enacted it has always enjoyed, and will continue to enjoy, so long as it remains on the statute book, pre-eminence over other statutes, and indeed over the common law.
Lord Lloyd of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord permit me to put one question to him on this point?
Lord SCARMAN: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will please allow me for the moment to develop my theme. I wanted to point out that the preeminence of the 1689 Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement is such that our parliamentary Sovereignty and the independence of the judges both depend upon it. The European Communities Act of 1972, as long as it remains on our statute book, will enjoy the sort of pre-eminence that I am discussing.
I cannot believe that we would be prepared not to give a Bill of Rights the sort of pre-eminence proposed in Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill, if we were prepared, as I suggest we should be prepared, to incorporate it into our law and to make it enforceable. The argument against incorporating it into our law can take many forms. One form that is commonly taken is this. It is quite unnecessary to introduce the European Convention or a Bill of Rights into our law because our law already secures to us the various rights and freedoms which are set out in the convention. Well, the European Court of Human Rights does not think so. We have already had from the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, a reference to the Golder case. There was the recent Sunday Times case dealing with the freedom of speech.
There are question marks in the minds of most lawyers over the right of privacy in our law; and one could enumerate other vital human rights and fundamental freedoms protected by the European Convention which are certainly doubtfully protected, and, one would think, not wholly protected, by English law. So there is a case for saying that this convention is necessary because we are failing in our duty—and it is a duty imposed upon us internationally by Article 1 of the convention—to secure to persons within our jurisdiction the rights and freedoms set out in the convention.
Then, surely, my Lords, there is a great advantage in having these rights and freedoms, which we recognise it is the duty of our State to secure to our citizens,
1032
enforceable in the ordinary courts of our country. It is really absurd, I would suggest, to say that the enforcing of those rights by our judges under a statute enacted by Parliament—because that is what this Bill will be if it is passed—would be bringing the judges face to face with political, non-justiciable issues. European judges at Strasbourg have been handling these matters perfectly well for a very long time. There are our colleagues, fellow members of the Council of Europe, who have signed and ratified the European Convention, who have incorporated it into their law and who, so far as I know, are having no difficulties with their judges and no difficulties with the substance of their law. In fact, to use for a moment one of the European languages recognised by the European Convention, I know of no judge in any State which has ratified the convention who has been led to behave, because of the convention, au-dessus de sa gare—not one. I would suggest to your Lordships that these fears can be set upon one side.
Now, let us look just for a moment at some of the objections which have been developed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and others in the course of the debate this afternoon. I would summarise them (I hope not incorrectly) as threefold: first, that there would be the risk of a flood of litigation from crackpots and others; secondly, that the judges would be led into politics and would become powerful in areas where they should exercise no power; and, thirdly, the uncertainty of the law. Of course, there would be more litigation. The litigation would be, not all the time, that of crackpots and fanatics—there are plenty of those litigating in the Strand at the moment. It would be litigation arising from minority groups, from individuals and others who have no political clout, who have grievances and who would then be able to turn to our courts seeking judicial redress. If litigation in this country is swollen by the addition to litigants of immigrants, convicted prisoners and other minorities and individuals without political clout because they have grievances which they think constitute infringements of their human rights or fundamental freedoms and they want them adjudicated upon by judges, why ever not? What is there to fear in that? Is there not very much to welcome in it?

1033
My Lords, this alarm about floods of litigation might be said to be no more than a respectable facade for suppressing that type of litigation. Why should those people without any political clout have to go to Strasbourg to get justice? And, if judges in Strasbourg can give them justice, what is the sense of the argument that if an English judge, administering and interpreting an Act of Parliament—because that is what he would be doing—should dare to give him justice, that English judge is going beyond forensic bounds and is moving into the area of politics? I beg to suggest to your Lordships that that objection is nonsense.
Now, let us look at the next objection—that of the overpowerful judge. As long as a judge is applying either the common law or a statute enacted by Parliament, and is called upon, when applying the statute law, to interpret it, he is performing a judicial function. He will be doing no more than that if called upon. as Strasbourg judges are regularly called upon, to interpret a statutory Bill of Rights. It is said by the lawyers; Oh!, but this convention is in too broad terms. This convention is declaring matters which should be the subject of Parliamentary redress, not judicial redress". Of course, as long as the convention remains on the periphery of our law, poking its nose in occasionally when some bold judge in the Court of Appeal or elsewhere thinks it valuable to take a look at it, as long as it remains in that no-man's land on the frontiers of our law, then it is somewhat political to start looking at it: but, if we bring it respectably and legitimately into the law by a statute enacted by Parliament, what is there then in the principles so introduced which is so dangerous that a judge cannot read them, understand them, interpret them and apply them?
Finally, there is the uncertainty argument—the uncertainty of the law. We have heard a lot about that, but let me tell your Lordships what I heard on Radio 4 the other night. It was a programme entitled "Talking Law", and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, who unfortunately is not here this evening—he has deserted the Floor of the House for the stage of Lincoln's Inn, where I am told he is giving a performance—was asked whether he advocated the introduction and incorporation of the
1034
European Convention into our law. "No", he said; "I like it where it is. When I want to use it, I can". My Lords, that is uncertainty. Either my noble and learned friend sitting judicially should be required by law, where it is relevant, to pay attention to the European Convention, or he should not. At the moment I have every sympathy with my noble and learned friend and, indeed, with other judges in handling the European Convention.
When I sat, as I was privileged to do for a number of years, with the Master of the Rolls in the Court of Appeal, from time to time, particularly in immigrant cases, we referred to the European Convention, because we were concerned to keep our administration of the immigration laws in line with the convention. But it was a tentative business and, of course, anything that we did could not in the slightest degree affect or guide the development of the human rights jurisprudence that is developing in respect of this convention at Strasbourg and elsewhere. That is a great loss to Europe as well as to this country.
It is really hopeless to talk about uncertainty when the European Convention in its present limbo is creating uncertainty in our law. There is another little opening of uncertainty in regard to the convention. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which administers, as we all know, the Common Market law, has declared that when a question of human rights comes before it in the course of its jurisdiction it will apply the European Convention. I need not tell your Lordships—I have said it before—that, of course, the Luxembourg Court is the only constitutional court that we have. It is a constitutional court by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972 and its decisions are such that in the area of Common Market law we have to follow it. So there we are. In this little area of law covered by the Common Market the convention must be followed.
But when one is dealing with minority groups, when one is dealing with individuals, who cannot get their grievances handled in Parliament, we deny the convention to them. But when the commercial men are fighting their cases in the Common Market law, the Luxembourg Court which we must follow is applying

1035
the convention. This limbo should not be allowed to continue. We can end it by taking our courage in our hands and incorporating the convention and making it enforceable at law.
My Lords, I have spoken for too long but I wish to end with a reference to Northern Ireland. There was a very moving debate in this House last week—and I was privileged to listen to it—on the condition of Northern Ireland; the need for a political or constitutional initiative, the need for stability in administration and local government and the need to breed in the minority population of Northern Ireland a sense of confidence in British law and British administration. It is no accident that perhaps the best document produced in this country on the European Convention and the Bill of Rights was presented to Parliament in 1977 by the Northern Irish Standing Commission on Human Rights. It was a unanimous report that Northern Ireland required a Bill of Rights. A majority wanted it as part and parcel of a United Kingdom Bill of Rights, taking the European Convention as the Bill of Rights. One dissentient said, "Let us have it whether those people on the other side of the water have it or not". And that in a community where Her Majesty's Government have considered it necessary from time to time to file notice of derogation under the European Convention in Strasbourg. I suggest that that is food for thought.
Of course, the law is no panacea for social, political and economic troubles; but it can help. And if there are remedies available according to a law which is universally understood, acknowledged and upheld according to principles which people can see, understand and accept and which they know the courts are going to accept, then, within those limits, the law will help. And it is within those limits that the European Convention will play a very important part. If this becomes law, the European Convention will be a guide to legislators, to administrators and to judges that Parliament requires these principles to be observed in all aspects of our public life when the State, whether administratively, judicially or legislatively, is dealing with the subject. It is for that reason that I most fervently support this Bill, and it is for that reason
1036
that I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for introducing it for a third time.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, it is a privilege for me to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and, as on the last occasion that we debated this Bill of Rights, his speech gave me great pleasure. As a matter of fact, I should like to tear up the speech that I have here except that part of it where I say that I support the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and I would read out—declaim, in fact—the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. I should like to do that because it was he who really showed what the whole business in individual petitions (when it was introduced in the United Nations when I was there) really mean to the whole of the world; and the importance of it, of which very few people in this country have the least understanding.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, once again initiates a debate on a Bill of Rights. I hope that it will not become a hardy annual We have had three. Perhaps we will get somewhere with this one. I remain somewhat conservative (with a small "c") in my approach towards a Bill of Rights, as I think is already known. I am not a lawyer and I do not feel competent enough to go further than to plead for the incorporation of the European Convention into our domstic law. That seems to me to go a long way, since there is no threat to the sovereignty of Parliament. My views have been influenced by my experience during the years when I was the United Kingdom delegate in the European Rights Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations. It was there that I learned that human rights were the increasing concern of the international judiciary as well as the national Governments. The main point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffc-Maud, which struck me so forcefully, was that the law, and not war, was the solution to human rights violations.
Reading once again the report of the Select Committee on a Bill of Rights, and turning to the chapters reflecting the judgments of those who were against a Bill of Rights, I could only construe them, from my own point of view, as being for such a Bill. I will give a few of these: one, the interpretation of race relations;

1037
two, freedom of speech; three, education; four, punishment, et cetera. Great play had been made about the dangers of incorporating the European Convention into our domestic law because this would flood our domestic law with uncertainty. But I believe that uncertainty is the prelude to change, and surely there are areas where improvement is desirable. So I remain unrepentant and I believe that to incorporate the articles of the European Convention into our domestic law is not beyond the ingenuity of our legal profession. Surely this must be true, as the present situation in the United Kingdom is in accord with the original philosophy of the European Convention. Of course, there might be conflicts but surely these can be put right when the United Kingdom law at this time happens to fall short of the standards of the European Convention.
As I am not a lawyer, as I said before, I am unable to think of the law as an immaculate conception. Surely, it must constantly regenerate itself in tune with the political changes of our time—and the changes come thick and fast today. I believe that the time has come when Parliament should exercise its power by legally incorporating the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights into our law. Parliament now has a duty to incorporate the European Convention—for instance the provisions under Article 13—to have effective remedies for any violations of human rights in this country. If European judges can have effective remedies for such violations, why cannot English judges too have the same power to give effect to these rights? Why can German, Dutch and Italian judges exercise these rights? Today English judges must take the long, slow trip to Strasbourg. It seems to me that the European Convention is not only good for our own judges, it is also good for our civil servants, for our Members of Parliament, for all our people in fact. We agree with the moral and legal values set up by the European Convention, surely this should now have the blessing of our courts. They appear very simple rights, but they are often abused. I will give a few examples, such as the right to marry and have a family and the guaranteed right not to be discriminated against. We have all heard about the Conservative Government's new law to deprive a group of United Kingdom women of the right
1038
of genuine marriage with foreign men. This is but one instance of a violation of these guarantees. Let us think of telephone tapping, violating the right of privacy in Article 8. There are no legal safeguards against the misuse of the power of the police to tap telephones. The case of Mr. Malone, lost in the English court, has now gone to Strasbourg. There is the interference with the right of prisoners to communicate with the outside world following a Home Office standing order—that is, without being passed by Parliament—so that, if this is allowed, there is no legal redress. These are but a very few things that incorporation of the convention would allow to be dealt with in our own courts.
May I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for reassurance that individuals will be able to go to Strasbourg for individual petitions, and that this will be renewed up to 1981? I would add one final sentence in favour of incorporation of the European Convention into our domestic law. This can only benefit our own laws; it does not take anything away and so can only strengthen and widen our law. It is a unique right that we are acquiring with an international Bill of Rights.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
6.5 p.m.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, with the leave of the House and for the convenience of the House, I should like to make a Statement on the business for next week. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for interrupting his debate and also to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who is to speak next.
Yesterday I said in my Statement on the proposed arrangements for the Southern Rhodesia Bill that it was expected that the Bill would reach this House in time to be taken through all its stages on Monday. I have now to tell the House that the Bill will still be being considered in another place on Monday. The Official Opposition have, however, given an undertaking that it will reach this House when it sits, to be taken through all its stages on

1039
Tuesday, with a view to the Bill receiving Royal Assent on Wednesday. Consequently, this House will not sit on Monday and the Motions for approval of statutory instruments which are on the Order Paper for Tuesday will be postponed until Thursday. I regret the inconvenience which may be caused to the House by this change but I hope that the House will recognise both the business complexities involved and the unusual importance at an international level of the Bill.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the House will wish to thank the noble Lord for making that business Statement. We of course understand that the other place should have as much time as possible to deal with a Bill so important as this one. This means that your Lordships' House will have only one day for discussion, but we on this side will use our best endeavours to achieve completion of all stages of the Bill that day.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for making that Statement. We said from these Benches yesterday that we would be happy to consider the Bill, and consider it very carefully in one d ay on Monday. We see no reason why we should not do so in one day on Tuesday. We realise that a change of business causes a great deal of inconvenience for noble Lords, but we feel sure the House will wish to co-operate as far as possible in clearing the ground for a possible settlement in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords from the Opposition and the Liberal Party for what they have said and for the understanding that they have shown in these difficult circumstances.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, while welcoming the Statement of the Leader of the House, which indicates a much more seemly attitude on the part of the Government towards this very important Bill—and particularly during the visit of President Kaunda—may I ask one simple and indeed simplistic question? A number of us have put
1040
Starred Questions down for Monday. What now happens to those?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I regret this. I would not have thought that it was advisable for the House to meet just for Starred Questions. I can only apologise for the difficulties involved for noble Lords who have put down Questions. A possible answer, given these difficulties, is for the Questions to be withdrawn and put down for another day, or they may be left and they will receive Written Answers, whichever noble Lords prefer.

BILL OF RIGHTS BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
6.9 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am glad that so many of your Lordships have come to hear about the Bill of Rights, and I welcome the interest which this House continues to take in this important subject. May we now return from Rhodesia to Strasbourg. I returned from Strasbourg, leaving at 4 o'clock this morning, in order to take part in this debate, so I hope your Lordships will excuse some of the incoherence of my remarks. I should like to sympathise very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. I, too, came with various proposed speeches, all of which I have now abandoned because the deeper principles, which those of us on the Committee who agreed that this Bill should be incorporated into domestic British law share, have all been dealt with, in particular in two remarkable speeches by the noble Lord. Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman.
I should therefore like to make a few comments merely in the margin—a few "scribbles at the top of the chapter"—but before embarking on my own small commentary on the passage of this Bill I should like to thank all my colleagues on the Select Committee for having contributed to my further education in these matters. Your Lordships' House has a special role in the constitutional development of this country and I think this Select Committee can be an example of how this House, in its present form, can contribute to the solution of the constitutional

1041
difficulties which my noble friend Lord Carr discussed in his most important speech. Like every other participant in this debate, I must thank most of all the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for his persistence in bringing this matter to your Lordships' attention. I hope he will not need to persist for too much longer.
I was alarmed—I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord has gone—by the nature of the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, as well as by some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, not because they sit on the opposite side of the House, since the difference between their views and mine is not essentially of a Party political nature; but it seems to me that the arguments they advanced and the arguments we heard advanced throughout the proceedings of the Committee are really, if closely analysed, arguments against ever having signed the convention in the first place, or arguments against continuing to be a signatory to it, having signed it.
These arguments are based on a deep and introverted view of the nature of law and Parliament. They are arguments which reject any relevance of an internationally binding convention of any sort, if taken ad absurdum, because the arguments they were putting forward are of a sort which lead one, taken to their fullest conclusion, to be opposed to the idea of having binding conventions of this sort. That, my Lords, is the starting point of my own education. I will not go through all the rest of the stages in your Lordships' House tonight. We sat for a long time in the Select Committee and, like many other members, I began as a doubter. It was this, as it seemed to me, slightly emotional attitude of some of the opponents towards incorporation that started to raise questions in my mind which led in the end to my being one of the majority of eight in favour of incorporation.
I wish to leave the legal arguments to others, not out of cowardice but because there are others who will deal with them better. I should like to return to the nub of the argument of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Elwyn-Jones. He was arguing for a very rigid demarcation line and for a very firm and stern barrier between the judiciary and Parliament. I agree that
1042
that line must be firm and must be stern. I also agree, to use his words, that:
"Parliament is the place for the discussion of broad issues of public policy".
Of course it is, and of course it must remain so; but all elected bodies tend towards the tyranny of the temporary majority. I have just joined a new elected body without traditions. I am a member of a temporary majority of the Centre Right in the European Parliament. It is very annoying in committee when independent members of the libertarian Left lie on the floor or cut off all the microphones. It is extremely infuriating when those of us who wish to work are prevented from so doing because somebody else tables 5,000 amendments to a particular report. But concern about getting on with the job must not turn into tyranny of the temporary majority—and Parliaments can turn tyrannical. I would ask your Lordships to look at what happened during the French Revolution and to remember the lessons of Cromwell. So I think there are deeper considerations than a purely reverential attitude towards the role of Parliament in these matters. We must remember that Parliament itself can be an instrument of tyranny if it is not restrained, and this is the place of the European Convention in helping towards the restraint of the tyranny of the temporary majority.
Some noble and learned Lords— not in this debate but in other debates on previous incarnations of this Bill—have cast aspersions on the mental agility and deductiveability of the British judiciary. Other Members of this House—not I— have said they would be incapable of ever applying this Convention. I doubt this myself. I do not know, but I suspect that most judges are capable of judging on a wide variety of evidence. I am also concerned, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, at the emotional tone in which this sort of comment is made. There is a place for emotion in these discussions because noble Lords are talking about what each of us believes in deeply and how it can he protected. Of course there is a place for proper emotion, because we feel deeply about these matters; but we cannot let feelings allow us to cut off the possibility of adaption. The emotional tone of some of these comments about the incapability of judges to adapt themselves to

1043
interpreting the European Convention, as if they were tender, ignorant and innocent people who must somehow be protected from pollution by these dangerous and libertarian ideas, is something that I find reprehensible.
I think the British people, of all different races and parts, especially Wales—I see the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and his views are well known—have a genius for taking things from abroad, adapting them and developing them into something specifically British: look at architecture, music, Christianity or the Monarchy. All those ideas are not ours alone but we have developed them into something which is specially ours. Are judges somehow so foolish and so wayward as not to be able to adapt the European Convention in such a way that they can make use of it here to protect those categories of people mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman?
I conclude by saying that there are three major anxieties which preoccupy me about the downward path of this country. One is constitutional decay. I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley and I implore my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to use his influence to make sure that this Government help to prop up the British constitution and develop it and advance it wherever they can.
I am concerned also about the decline in the respect for the law generally. The incorporation of this Bill into our own domestic law would be a minor and modest step in showing that we would obey our international obligations and make the law more accessible to the individual. But especially as a European Parliamentarian, I am concerned about our increasing tendency towards narrow introversion and the kind of backward-lookingness which is restrictive and not proud of tradition. Of course, anybody who forgets his past cannot build a secure future and that applies to any country. But if we allow the perspectives to become so narrow that we look at the rest of the world through nothing but a telescope made in Britain, then we are in danger. Some of the concern, some of the opposition and some of the anxieties about this Bill are of that narrow introverted nature, and it is that kind of narrow introverted view of our future that led to
1044
our staying out of the Community for far too long, and has led to our not ratifying this international obligation in domestic law for too long.
I conclude—I said that earlier, but I mean it this time—with a plea to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, to whose difficulties I do not wish to add. Conservatives on the Select Committee, I suspect—there was not a Whip—all went in doubtful. They all voted for incorporation in the end. I think this illustrates that it is now becoming an essential part of the obligation of those who are concerned about the modern interpretation of the principles and roots of the Conservative Party, that constitutional issues, once relegated to the textbook, the federalist and the lecturer, are now becoming part of day-to-day politics and of active concern to those who wish the country to continue and to continue united.
Of course, this is not a special prerogative of this Party or this House, but I believe that this Government now have a special duty to use the veneration for continuity and tradition, of which the Conservative Party is an embodiment as well as an exponent, to make sure that the British constitution works and works for everyone. This little Bill, which must, I hope, proceed through your Lordships' House quickly, is a minor part in that rather larger task. I hope that the Bill receives a Second Reading and a speedy Committee, Report and Third Reading in your Lordships' House before going to another place.
6.23 p.m.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, I, too, want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for his persistence in pursuing this issue and for tabling this Bill. It is a long saga. I just want to remind your Lordships that, when the Kilbrandon Commission was considering constitutional issues in Northern Ireland, a special document was prepared by the Government of the day which said:
"Many of the subjects likely to be dealt with in a Bill of Rights are subjects which it is proposed should be devolved to Scotland and Wales (and might also be within the competence of some future Northern Ireland legislature)"
In January, 1957, the committee of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner recommended that,
"consideration should be given to the enactment of a Bill of Rights".

1045
Then, still with a Northern Ireland flavour, in June, 1975, my right honourable friend Merlyn Rees said in another place,
"A Bill of Rights or legislation covering the human rights law, will be part of the next constitutional legislation for Northern Ireland".
Twelve months later, my right honourable friend informed the other place,
"The Government acknowledge the consensus in the Report"—
that is, the Constitutional Convention—
"that there should be further legislation on human rights. It will consider how best to make appropriate statutory provision in the light of the detailed study currently being undertaken by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland".
I had the good fortune to be chairman of that Commission and we produced a document which finally recommended a Bill of Rights for the whole of the United Kingdom. We could not see how there could he a Bill of Rights for part of the United Kingdom; that is, Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish TUC came out very strongly in their evidence in favour of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The British TUC has recently gone on record as supporting a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. I can only say that a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland would not stop violence and I am quite unrepentant, having looked at this issue most carefully over a long period, in believing that a Bill of Rights for the whole of the United Kingdom is now necessary, because modern conditions and the march of events point to the need for such a Bill.
For example, we contrast with other countries in not having fundamental rights guaranteed. This is more important than ever, given our accession to the European Economic Community and the proposed accession of the Community to the European Convention on Human Rights. Your Lordships' Sub-Committee on Law now has before it the document from the EEC and it will he interesting to see its conclusions. It would be better to make a conscious decision about a Bill of Rights, rather than wait for the European Court in Luxembourg to start making decisions about what ought to happen in our domestic law.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said, there have to be adequate constitutional
1046
powers to prevent the abuse of power by Government or Parliament. There is no modern and coherent system of administrative law enabling citizens to obtain prompt, speedy and adequate legal redress for the misuse of administrative powers by public authorities. The number of cases going to Strasbourg is growing, and it would be an advantage, in terms of access to our own courts and a saving in cost to members of the public, if we had the European Convention incorporated into our laws. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, made the point that we ought to reduce the cost to individuals of endeavouring to obtain redress.
We must look to the future. A Bill of Rights would face up to the problems which we can only vaguely foresee. We live in a very complex industrial society and the scope and impact of new technology on employment, education and economy is quite fantastic. But these changes and advantages will somehow have to be controlled, and it would be helpful if, under Article 8 of the European Convention—which reads,
" Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence"—
persons concerned about privacy could raise in a court the implications of the technological change, if they so wished.
The point here is that in a stable society existing legal institutions can "apply the law", but we are experiencing rapid technological changes and it is vital, when change is the order of the day, that there is a meaningful way of gaining an answer as to what should or should not happen, and how the change should proceed or should be controlled. Whatever the imperfections of the European Convention, at the very least it is a valuable and worthwhile starting point. Improvements to it could be introduced, but in conjunction with our partners in Europe. The articulation of rights in the European Convention—Article 60 mentions this—in a Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom would not detract from the existing rights provided under the statute or the common law of England. Article 60 reads:
"Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which may he ensured under the laws of any High Contracting Party or under any other agreement to which it is a Party".

1047
Many of the people who argue against the incorporation of the convention into our laws seem to omit consideration of that issue.
We are aware that over the years there have been many measures to try to protect the civil liberties of citizens and to ensure that the convention is understood only as 'a minimum standard. The alleged difficulties for a judiciary are over-emphasised. It is entirely possible for the judges to adapt their practices and interpretations to read existing law in terms of the European Convention, and some already feel that as an international obligation they must already do so. This has been emphasised in the penetrating speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. May I say how persuasive was the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and how delighted I was to learn today that the noble and learned Lord will be delivering the Lord Mac-dermott Lecture at Queen's University, Belfast, next April and that he will also be undertaking a task for the Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland, since he is to address a symposium on a Rill of Rights.
There is an anxiety as to whether the entire convention and protocols should be incorporated, or only the substantive provisions. The argument in favour of the former is to avoid confusion by tinkering with the convention as drafted. The argument in favour of the latter is not to clutter up a Bill of Rights statute with procedural material which would additionally dilute the effect of a clear statement of guaranteed rights. There should be a positive statement of the rights guaranteed under law. There is an educative effect and value of a positive statement of rights. It would be useful if there were a schedule setting out the substantive provisions of the statute. Whether this should be Articles 1 to 14 or Articles I to 18 is not really crucial. However, it should be set out somewhere for all to see the basic and fundamental rights which must and will be guaranteed by law.
Some people say that it is impossible, under Motions of parliamentary sovereignty, to entrench any statute so that the provisions are superior to other statutory
1048
provisions, while other people say that a Bill of Rights must be entrenched and have superior validity. I am convinced that as a matter of politics the point is not very strong. If you announced a guaranteed list of rights, then it would be an extremely courageous Government which ever tried to detract from them. In other words, a Bill of Rights would be clung on to by the public.
Stating Articles Ito 14 and the protocols would be useful. In addition, however, it is essential that Article 60 should be respected, whether by incorporation in the Bill or otherwise. The whole point of Article 60 is to make it plain that the convention only guarantees some basic rights and is not exhaustive and does not cut down under the other rights and privileges allowed under the domestic law of any of the high contracting parties. It would be wise in any Bill of Rights statutes made in the United Kingdom to understand that other rights are not disparaged or denied in any way.
The important element before your Lordships' House is to have support in favour of the principle of Lord Wade's Bill. There will be detailed amendments in committee and I have indicated some of those which might possibly materialise. Our discussions are a continuing source of parliamentary education about the values of a democratic society. Like my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, I hope that the discussions will very soon be brought to a successful and fruitful conclusion.
6.36 p.m.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence at this stage of the debate, but having totted up the number of speakers who have spoken in favour of the Bill it is perhaps time for a voice to be heard briefly expressing a rather different view. May I begin by saying that for reasons of which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is aware I was unable to be present for the first part of his speech, and to my regret I missed the comments which I understand he was kind enough to make about the Select Committee. This was indeed a fascinating and, as I found it, educative experience.
One of the things I learned on the Select Committee was that the United Kingdom is the only signatory of the

1049
European Convention which has neither incorporated the convention into its domestic law nor evolved a charter of fundamental rights as part of a written constitution. I am bound to go on and say that I have never seen this as being conclusive on the question whether we should now legislate. However, when we last discussed these issues there was some doubt about whether a recent and rather complicated judgment of the Strasbourg Court—in the case, as I recall, of Klass and Others—has some bearing on whether there was an obligation upon a signatory to embody the convention into its domestic law.
I am not sure whether those doubts have been resolved. However, on the assumption that this judgment of the Court does not put a firm obligation on us, I am bound to say that notwithstanding the eloquent arguments we have heard today—notably from the Cross-Benches—I remain unrepentant in keeping to the conclusion I reached on the Select Committee. And may I say to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. that I reached in an unemotional way the conclusion that the case for incorporating the convention into our domestic law has not been made out.
Like other speakers, I do not want to go over ground that we have already trodden several times. However, I should like to say that one of the considerations which appeals to me is the question of uncertainty. I am afraid that the explanation today of my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman has not removed all my doubts. The problem, as I see it, is this: the effect of Clause 2 of the Bill would be that principles of wide generality, as set out in the convention, would override our existing legislation which is drafted in a very different way. The problem of assessing the precise effect of the general on the particular, and therefore of knowing exactly what the law was in important areas, would introduce real doubt and uncertainly—doubt and uncertainty which could be removed only slowly, either by fresh legislation or by decisions over the years by judges on the accident of the cases which happened to come before them.
I cannot see any analogy here with the functioning of the justices of the United States Supreme Court, for a variety of reasons, obviously including the fact that
1050
there is a written constitution in the USA; nor do I think there is a very good analogy with the function which our judges have always had under the common law. But these are issues which we have discussed several times before, and having stated my own view I do not propose to pursue them any further this evening.
However, the second of the two points I want to make relates to the form of the Bill, if we are to have a Bill at all. If we are, as I think everyone has agreed, the incorporation of the convention with all its defects and absence of areas which it covers, is clearly the right course. I also welcome the new version of Clause 3, for the reasons which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wade, explained earlier today. There is, however, one small problem under that clause which has made me wonder a little and that is the position in relation to consolidation Acts, which appear before this House in a steady stream, passed after the Bill of Rights came into force. These Acts would simply repeat the existing law in a more convenient form and without any changes of substance, but the actual date of enactment would be such that it seems to me that they would then be caught by Clause 3 rather than by Clause 2. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Wade, commented upon this problem when he opened this debate hut, if not, he may like to consider commenting upon it when he comes to wind up.
Lord SCARMAN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is absolutely right. A consolidation Bill enacted after the enactment of a Bill of Rights would be caught by Clause 3.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It is nice to have a judicial ruling so promptly. There are a number of other points, most of them discussed by the Select Committee, which make me wonder whether this short Bill, if it is to go ahead, does go quite far enough. If I may mention them briefly, it seems to me that they are rather more than being cosmetic amendments suitable to be raised only at the Committee stage. The first point is that the Select Committee thought that the convention ought to be set out in full in the Bill, and although I

1051
did not hear the explanation given by the noble Lord for his decision not to include the convention in this latest version, I am bound to say that I think it is rather a pity that it is not included. If these provisions are to be of such concern, not only to the courts and to Parliament but to society as a whole, it seems to me that they ought to be readily available on the statute book. Incidentally, I cannot help thinking that if an amendment were tabled at Committee stage to add the convention and all the protocols it would probably be one of the longest amendments ever moved in the history of Parliament—but no matter.
I am also somewhat uneasy about the provisions of Clause I in relation to the protocols which the United Kingdom has not accepted. I am not at all sure that the clause would bite if we withdrew our reservations at some future date. I think there should be a specific power in the Bill to make Orders-in-Council to deal with such eventualities, and perhaps also to deal with future amendments of the convention itself—and we all know that the convention is very much in need of amendment. I think one ought to be able to do this without having to legislate afresh each time. I think there should be a specific power in the Bill for the Government to be able to make a declaration of derogation in time of war or emergency. It is somewhat unrealistic to leave it to the judges to come to a leisurely decision under Article 15 after hearing argument on whether we are in such a state of grave emergency that we ought to derogate from our acceptance of the convention. Perhaps more important, I am inclined to think that the Bill ought to make some provision for remedies and I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman had some sympathy with this view when he met the Select Committee, although I know too that this would take us into pretty deep water.
References to the closed shop remind me that one point for consideration is whether the Bill ought to provide specifically that its provisions can be invoked against non-governmental organisations and private parties: and I think, too, that there is something in the conclusion which the Select Committee came to, that the Bill itself should make provision
1052
requiring the courts to have regard to the jurisprudence at Strasbourg, although certainly not making it binding upon them. That is quite a formidable list of points on which this short Bill is silent and if some of them were adopted at later stages the Bill could end up by looking quite different from the document we have been considering today.
One final comment before I sit down, my Lords. Reading again the previous reports and debates on this topic, and without in the slightest wishing to minimise its importance, it still seems to me that there is some risk of attaching too much importance to whether or not we have a Bill of Rights. A society which is contemptuous of the values embodied in legislation of this kind, as we know only too well, looking round the world, is not made virtuous by changing the law. It seems to me that more important are a country's political climate and its traditions and whether there are enough responsible persons and a responsible Press—and perhaps I may end by quoting, I hope accurately, something which is not usually quoted in full—
"to exercise the eternal vigilance which is the condition upon which God hath given liberty to man".
6.49 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, l wonder whether it would be permitted for me, although I have not put my name down on the list of speakers, just to intervene for a few moments: and I promise your Lordships that I shall occupy your time for no longer than that. I had the privilege, with others who have spoken in the debate this afternoon, of being on the Select Committee and, unhappily, I differed from my noble friend Lord Wade upon this issue. On the last occasion when we discussed this matter in this House I did not have the opportunity to make any contribution and I should like briefly to indicate one reason at any rate why I found myself in the position of differing from him.
It is never agreeable to me to find myself differing from my noble friends, and in particular from the noble Lord. Lord Wade, but I fortify myself with the thought that there is no difference between us about the immense importance of this general issue of constitutional reform in

1053
this country, and the arguments for and against the setting up of a Bill of Rights. There is no disagreement about that. And similarly there is no disagreement between us about the importance which we attach to the freedom of the individual and to civil rights.
Having said that, I do not want to do anything more this evening—because so much has been said, and very happily said, on both sides of the House upon this issue—than deal with one single issue; that is the issue to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, paid particular attention, and which has been perhaps the most important point of controversy during the course of this debate. It is the question as to whether incorporation of the European Convention into the domestic law of this country would in fact involve and include and import into our whole legal system an unacceptable degree of uncertainty.
If I may say so to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman—and indeed I address anything to him with the greatest possible hesitation because my admiration for the noble and learned Lord over the years has never fallen short of idolatry; it is highly idolatrous, and therefore I hesitate to make any comment upon what he has had to say—I do not think that he has given due justice to the anxieties which not only I and others but many of his judicial colleagues have expressed about the uncertainty which this incorporation might introduce. It is not, I would suggest, a mere theoretical objection to introducing theoretical uncertainty into our legal system. It is much more specific; it is the fear that we will introduce uncertainty as to what are the human rights in this country.
This is the cause of my anxiety, and what I should like to do is to seek to illustrate the reason why I take that view by reference to one particular civil right which is one of the subject matters of the European Convention. It is a commonplace, of course, certainly for lawyers, that in this country the way in which we have defined individual rights in the past has not been by engaging in generalised solemn pronouncements about the virtues of freedom of expression and freedom of speech and the like. The way we have gone about it, for better or for worse, under our constitution, is that we have sought to establish remedies available to the individual if his
1054
civil rights are in fact infringed. The way we have defined civil rights in this country is not by engaging in wide pronouncements but rather by providing remedies, so that if somebody's rights are infringed he has a remedy and he has a court to which he can go to obtain that remedy. The great virtue of that, I suggest, is that it means that the citizen can be reasonably certain of, and can reasonably ascertain, what his rights are. The danger that we see in the import of the convention into our law is that it will introduce, and indeed gratuitously introduce, a new element of uncertainty.
May I explain to your Lordships very briefly how I suggest that that arises. Let me take one element in the business of human rights, the law of defamation, the question of freedom of expression. As your Lordships will all know, over the years in this country, through the common law and partly through statutes, we have developed a law on defamation which is at the same time sophisticated and complicated. It involves a lot of rather esoteric concepts such as the concept of absolute privilege, the concept of qualified privilege, the concept of fair comment, and the effect of malice upon the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege and the like. Over the years we have built up this system of law which defines precisely, or as precisely perhaps as one can do in human affairs, what are the limits upon the right of one man to write or say about another. That is the system which we have at the moment.
Supposing, however, that you incorporate the European Convention into our system of law. You will be incorporating among many other things Article 10, which is the one that begins by saying that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. When one turns to the second paragraph of that article one finds these words—I may say in passing that I am going to leave out words which are relevant to matters other than defamation:
"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation and rights of others".
Now, my Lords, what happens when we incorporate that in our law and we provide, as this Bill does under Clause 2, that:

1055
"In case of conflict between any enactment prior to the passing of this Act and the provisions of the said Convention and Protocols, shall prevail"?
I should like to ask this question: Whenever anybody brings an action for defamation, libel or slander it will be open, will it not, to either party to question whether our domestic law as it has developed up till now has in fact been superseded by the Convention on Human Rights? That point would inevitably arise. It will not be a matter of crackpots bringing the matter up; it will be a matter raised on every occasion. The judge and the court will have to ask themselves whether the law as it existed before the passage of this Bill has in fact been superseded. Then the court or the judge will have to go on to ask whether the law as we have it today is "necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation and rights of others".
My Lords, why should a court, or why should a judge, be invited and required to engage upon a speculation of that kind? It opens the door, of course, to caprice and arbitrariness. One of the most evil features of so-called justice under so many of the totalitarian regimes of this world is that judges decide cases having regard to the interests of the State. Is every judge who sits upon a libel case, or indeed upon an issue which involves privacy or an issue which involves official secrets, always to ask himself, "Is the law that I am administering something which is necessary in a democratic State?" I suggest that that is a judgment that no judge or court ought to be called upon to make and a judgment that should be made by the representatives of the people—by Parliament. It is for Parliament to make that decision.
That is all that I wish to say. Unfortunately I still believe that this measure, as presented before us today, is one that will not be advantageous. However, I should have liked to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, had he been present, that I entirely agree that, if we once start upon a major constitutional reform, then it may well be—as has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, so often on previous occasions—that the case for a written constitution and a Bill of Rights, is made out.
1056
I am sorry for having intervened for longer than I intended. I apologise for standing between your Lordships and the remaining speakers, especially the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor.
7.1 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, one matter upon which I think we all agree tonight is that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is to be congratulated on his determination. I am sure that we all admire the way in which he has urged the House consistently and repeatedly to adopt a measure of the kind now again proposed and he does so, as he did in the Select Committee, in such an engaging way.
I was sorry not to be able to be present when your Lordships last debated this subject on 29th November 1978 in the debate on the Report of the Select Committee on a Bill of Rights. I happened to have been attending the last session of the United Nations General Assembly, helping to deal with human rights matters, among others, as a member of the United Kingdom delegation and, if I may say so, trying to emulate the high standard which had been set there over many years by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. I should like to add how much I enjoyed her speech tonight.
However, I have read the report of the debate of last November and, as a member of the Select Committee, perhaps I could add my warm tribute—belatedly, but this is the first opportunity that I have had—to the outstanding and genial chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the excellent service we all received from our clerk, Mr. Valiance White, and our specialist adviser Mr. Rippengal. Perhaps also it is not inappropriate to add that we all valued all of the evidence that we received, not least from the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland, chaired by my noble friend Lord Plant, who also made a valuable contribution in his speech tonight.
There is another matter which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and on which I hope that we are all agreed—namely, that none of us, whether we are in favour of the Bill or against it, has a monopoly of enthusiasm

1057
for promoting human rights and no one on the one side will say of anyone on the other side that he is wanting when it comes to furthering those aims. Indeed, it might be worth recalling a significant paragraph in the Select Committee's report, where it states in paragraph 6 at page 20:
"The Committee feel it is of great importance to emphasise that, although some of the members favour incorporation of the Convention into United Kingdom law and some oppose it, there was unanimity of view on the need to protect and advance human rights and unanimous recognition that both sides were wholly committed to the promotion of human rights".
I emphasise that, because, although it is most unlikely to happen here in your Lordships' House, it might be all too easy for some people outside to claim that those of us who do not support the Bill, do not care enough about human rights. I am also sure that, when the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in his interesting speech tonight referred to my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and rather suggested that perhaps they were casting cold water upon the whole idea of the convention, he was not charging them with anything of the kind. Indeed, as he knows, my noble friend, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, was a member of the committee and we all shared with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, a passionate feeling in favour of human rights and so too with my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. Indeed, as regards my noble and learned friend, I cannot think of anyone who has shown a more enthusiastic, long-standing and passionate support throughout his life for the cause of human rights. Having said that, I share the enthusiasm for human rights which was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell.
As our debates in your Lordship's House have revealed, there are differing views within all the main parties, in your Lordships' House and indeed on the Cross-Benches as well. Therefore, I certainly cannot speak for everyone on my side of the House, let alone anywhere else. I was among those members of the Select Committee who voted against incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into our law. I should like to mention two or three of the main reasons for taking that view. Although some of
1058
those have been referred to in our debates in your Lordships' House in the past, I am encouraged to take this course by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, because it' after some 30 years of the convention he can say that there are very many people—indeed an overwhelmingly majority—who do not know anything about that convention, I venture to fear that there may well be a similar number of people who still have not taken in the arguments against, or indeed it may well be for, the Bill of Rights of the noble Lord, Lord Wade. and the arguments about the incorporation of this convention. Of course, this is, in fact, the first opportunity that I have had to give my own view to your Lordships' House.
One of the most fundamental objections to incorporation is that it would—as the committee's report observed in stating the arguments against incorporation of the convention—graft on to the existing law an Act of Parliament in a form totally at variance with any existing legislation, and in a way which would be incompatible with such legislation. Among those who have referred to this problem is my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones.
It has long been accepted in our constitution that Parliament legislates in a specific form and that the role of the courts is to interpret that legislation. If we took the course proposed and incorporated the convention, we would be opening up a wide variety of legislative policies in a very general way and handing them over to the judiciary for detailed development—not just interpretation, but detailed development—on such subjects as race relations; freedom of speech; freedom of the Press; privacy; education; forms of punishment and so on. Yet, those are all matters which, under our constitution, have been the province of the legislature.
I share the view of those who say that, under a Bill of Rights, it would not be the case that the role of the courts would be no more than the type of role they have always had at common law. For at common law the development of legal principles has been a slow process—and that is something which has been referred to in the course of our debate tonight—evolving, as has been emphasised, from case to case. But, under the Bill, they would start off with a set of broad

1059
principles and would then have a free hand to decide how to apply those principles to the individual cases coming before them.
In your Lordships debate last November the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, whose wise council and geniality we miss very deeply on so many matters in your Lordships' House, put the matter in the following way at column 1373 of the Official Report:
"Before we put a measure on the statute book must we not he quite certain that there is a need and that a need has been proved to legislate in the proposed terms? Very often legislation comes about as a result of some strong demands, often vigorously expressed. We have not, I think, experienced such processes. However, my opposition to the suggested legislation does not rest on my view that no substantial advantage has been shown to result from the passing of the Bill, but rather on my view that there would be positive and serious disadvantages.
"The legislation would be in a form quite different from the accepted style of legislation in this country. It would always be possible to change our scheme of things; it would always be possible to legislate and to lay down some precept or good intention and then to say, ' Now we leave it to the judges to work it out '. I should be wholly opposed to any such system. In my view, it would be quite undesirable for Parliament partly to legislate and then to hand over the matter to the judges and require them to legislate as to the remainder. I am quite sure that Her Majesty's judges will do whatever they are asked to do by Parliament. But I am also sure that they would not ask to have powers put upon them to make decisions which really are decisions as to the content of legislation".
So the noble and learned Lord endorsed that major argument against incorporation.
As was pointed out in the committee's report, Parliament has repeatedly demonstrated that it is ready to move into new areas of law-making, where the need has been shown to meet fresh social problems. It is far better for Parliament to enact detailed legislation, as it has, on such matters as sex discrimination and race relations, than to leave it to the unelected judges, who are not there in any representative capacity, to develop policies and work out how they should be applied. Indeed, as we all know, a legislative role is given to some of Her Majesty's judges here in this very House, where part of their very function is to play a full and immensely valuable part in the statute law-making process. However, in my submission it is here that they are meant to fill this particular role, not elsewhere.
1060
Another matter of great concern which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords who opposed the Bill tonight—including the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead and the noble Lord, Lord Foot—is the uncertainty in the law which we foresee arising. Surely we would all agree that, so far as possible, the law should be clear and certain. After all, that is one of our principal roles as legislators. But if the European Convention were made part of our domestic law—a convention which is couched in broad terms proclaiming wide generalisations open to a variety of interpretations—it would introduce a vast area of uncertainty into our law. I agree with those who draw the conclusion that it would become much more difficult for individual people as well as companies and other bodies to get confident advice about their rights and obligations, their powers and their liabilities. As the Select Committee's report put it when noting this objection:
"The uncertainty thus brought into our law would itself afford opportunity for exploiting endless challenges in the courts or before any tribunal to the validity of the existing laws. No one would know where he stood until each question had been tested afresh, and the least that can be said is that there is the prospect of a very great extension of litigation in the courts".
To put it in less elegant language, it would indeed he lucrative for lawyers; a soft option for soliticors; indeed a bonanza for the Bar. Therefore, not for the first time in your Lordships' House I find myself, as a lawyer, advocating policies against more income and work for my profession. It is fair to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his fascinating survey conceded that there would, indeed, be more litigation arising.
It is also noteworthy that the Law Society came out strongly against the Bill in its evidence to the Select Committee and in a note by its Law Reform Committee published after the Select Committee's report. Among the Law Society's strongest objections to incorporating the Convention, it mentioned the problem of the uncertainties that it said would arise in our law. Of course, other arguments against the Bill have also been raised; some are noted in the report and some have been mentioned tonight by noble Lords.
I return to the main fundamental objections of those of us who oppose the

1061
Bill and the questions that those objections raise. This is not to venture into the nevertheless interesting constitutional implications that arise out of a survey of this whole matter, which, for example, have been mentioned tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. However, the questions that do arise are, for example: Who should be responsible for reforming and developing our laws? Whose responsibility is it to legislate? In whom should power reside? Whose task should it be to intervene in new areas of law reform and who should formulate and introduce new, detailed measures? Should it be Parliament, with its representative democratic elements, or should it be the non-elected judges?
I believe that part at least of this argument is about power, where power resides and should reside in our democracy and under our constitution. I am sorry to differ on this point from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, whose evidence on this to the Select Committee we all very much enjoyed. We are considering here matters of the highest constitutional significance.
When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—for, if I may say so with respect, whose views on legal matters I have the highest regard and, therefore, it pains me to differ from him on a matter of this kind—spoke in the debate in your Lordships' House last November he raised a number of objections to opposition to the Bill. I was not there, in fact, to hear them, but in part the noble and learned Lord said that those who were against the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, were saying that our own judges are too stupid or too biased to do what we have deliberately put into the hands of the judges abroad as justiciable. As I say, I was not present to hear the noble and learned Lord make his speech and I, therefore, do not know what was the expression on his face when he delivered those words or whether, partly at any rate, he delivered them with tongue in check. But I should like to assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that that is certainly no part of my argument and I believe it to be no part of the argument of those who are opposed to this Bill.
Our judges are able people, perfectly capable of doing whatever Parliament asks them to do, as Lord Morris said last year.
1062
But in my submission it is a question of what Parliament should empower them to do, not a question of what they are capable of doing. The judges are powerful, and rightly so. Their power derives from the statutory authority that Parliament gives, from the common law and, on a more personal basis, from their own qualifications and intellectual qualities. It is true that the power they possess through the common law is considerable. To develop the law through interpretation and the gradual process of reform has, indeed, brought immense benefits over the centuries. This power has come down to them over the centuries.
In my submission, it is one thing to draw benefits from those gradual developments, which have taken place over the centuries, but it is quite another suddenly to give that gradual common law process of interpretation and development a significant, if not vast, new role and purpose—in fact, one might almost say a new statutory basis for the common law itself. It is a change quite unlike any change it has undergone before. Those who are against this Bill are certainly not saying, "Don't let us reform the law". On the contrary, we are saying, "Let us continue to urge Parliament to bring in the necessary reforms".
In my submission the objections are not least that the uncertainties people would face in seeking legal advice would be too high a price to pay for the flexibility claimed by supporters of the Bill, and answer the claim that the individual citizen could not on any footing be worse off with a Bill of Rights. I am afraid that I cannot support this Bill, but I would just add that in view of the importance of the subject matter that it raises, neither I nor my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones would feel able to urge your Lordships to resist a Second Reading of this measure.
7.21 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I deliberately did not come into this Chamber with a prepared speech. I hope that my judgment in not doing so will be justified in the event, but one is always running a risk when one takes this course. Clearly I have a delicate task to perform. On the one hand I have to declare the attitude of the Government,

1063
as I understand it to be, as a member of that Government without disloyalty in any way to my colleagues. Secondly, I do so in the knowledge that I have gone on record, I should think not less than a dozen times, in favour of Lord Wade's Bill in one of its variant forms. I have spoken in favour of it in this Chamber at least three times. I gave evidence to the Select Committee once under the chairmanship of Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and I also gave evidence to the Northern Irish one under the chairmanship of Lord Plant. If anybody thinks that I am going to unsay a word of what I said on those various occasions when I was free to speak without constraint, I can only say he has misjudged me seriously. I am not going to unsay a word of it.
I must say first of all on behalf of the Government that this Bill is one in which there shall be at every stage, so far as I can judge, a free vote. That is to say, I am free to vote for it and I should if there was a Division—I rather gather that there will not be—and so is every other member of the Government, free to vote against it if that is what they feel. It is a genuinely free vote. Secondly, I must say—and I hope that this will not be too disappointing to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, because I gave him fair warning that he was likely to get at any rate this douche of cold water—that having made what inquiries I could about the state of business below the corridor, I cannot see the smallest chance of an icicle in June of the thing getting on to the statute book this Session. Especially as although there are no party politics in this in one sense, my belief is that the Liberal Party, in spite of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. is 99.9 per cent. in favour, the Conservative Party I would think is about 70 per cent. in favour, and the Labour Party is probably about 70 per cent. against. The opportunities for the consumption of parliamentary time during this Session that this would present are, I think, an insuperable obstacle against the chances of its seeing the Royal Assent this Session.
The third thing that I say, and I say it as a member of the Government, is that if noble Lords refer to the Conservative Party Manifesto at the last general election, they will see that we proposed constitutional talks. I was going to write to my colleagues in the Government and to
1064
either the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, or the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, whichever they prefer, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Wade. to try to find out what are the prospects of party talks on this subject of incorporation. We are ready to hold them. I am personally anxious to hold them, but I do not want to swim in treacle for about six months and then find that we get nowhere. So I want a candid answer—not now, but in answer to a letter which I shall try to compose—to the question of exactly where the constitutional talks that we said we were ready to have would get if we were to invite people to them, and of the form in which anyone thinks that useful talks can be held. I should like to see something like this on the statute book, and I know very well that I am not going to get it on the statute book simply on the basis of a main Government programme Bill opposed by the Labour Party. It is not realistic and it is no good pretending that I think it is.
That brings me to the actual merits, or demerits according to which way you look at it, of the Bill itself, and of the arguments which have been deployed. When I was appointed Lord Chancellor this time my noble friend Lord Boyle of Handsworth—I hope he will not mind me, without leave, quoting his verdict of me—said that I had got an extraordinarily long experience. Indeed, I am the only surviving member of Mr. Churchill's coalition during the war who is still in active operation. So I have a very long experience. He said that I had a longer experience than anybody except Mr. Churchill himself.
I am left, I must tell the House, with a growing sense of despair and exasperation at the appalling conservatism of the legal profession of which I am a proud member. It is no coincidence at all that those who have opposed this Bill—whether it is the noble Lord, Lord Foot, or the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elywn-Jones, or the Law Society, or all the rest of them—have all been professional lawyers, and they have all said, "Well, it will give a legal bonanza. There is so much uncertainty. It is a new pattern of legislation, and we really cannot face learning a lot of new law".

1065
The other thing which has exasperated me in a long life has been the appalling inertia of this political machine, of which we are all part, in anything which is in the nature of structural change. It has been with a growing sense of despair that I have seen the gradual grinding to a halt of what I believe to be the effective working parts of our constitution. I have said that in opposition and I should be less than true to myself if I did not say it now individually as a member of the Government.
To listen, for instance, to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, or to listen, for instance, to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, about the role of the judiciary—and I am coining back to that again and again in the few remarks I want to make—one really would think that one would not have realised to the full that by signing this convention we have handed over to foreign judges the very role which they say we cannot hand over to our own. That is what I meant. I did not have my tongue in my cheek when I said those words. It annoyed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, when he was sitting there more than I can say because he thought I was insulting him. But the fact is that I really meant that if you sign a convention in these terms the time to object, to put this sort of argument forward, was when we were handing over these very problems to foreign judges.
When the noble Lord, Lord Foot, says, "What about the law of defamation?" he is making a perfectly valid point. It raises difficult questions. But it will raise them sooner or later in Strasbourg, because the foreign judges will have to sort it all out then and say whether our law of defamation is compatible with the European Convention, just as they had the other day to sort out the question whether our law of contempt was against the European Convention.
This is where I take up what was said in an extremely eloquent speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman: by denying our judges a right to play a part in this debate they are adding to the uncertainty, they are compounding the uncertainty, because the court in Strasbourg—and I have just visited it myself, just as Lord Elwyn-Jones did at my invitation; I thought it right that on rather different
1066
occasions we should go there—is far from perfect. It would do a great deal to that Court if there was a jurisprudence in this country fitting the law of defamation—fitting the various bits of the common law and statute law which we have inherited from our forefathers—into the European Convention, as we are bound to do.
If we listened only to the speeches against the Bill today, I think we should be surprised to recall that in every case (not in some or the majority but in every case) when we have given independence to a former colony we have not only given to the judges of that colony the right to decide the very subjects in the very way in which we are told we should be doing—I quote from memory, "lasting and irreparable harm", as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, put it, to our own constitution if we gave it to our own judges—not only have we given those very powers to the judges of every colony to whom we have given independence since 1945, but we have actually entrenched it in a written constitution so that they cannot be repealed.
It is in this context that I feel like Alice Through the Looking Glass listening to my legal friends deriding the possibility that we might incorporate these things into our law when we have solemnly, and as a great benefit, conferred on them and given in every independent colony just that role to the judges. I say to Lord Elwyn-Jones, to whom I always defer with very great respect and love: I wholly disagree with him, and I disagree with the lawyers, when they say, "The judges have one role, Parliament has another, and one is better than the other and one must stand above the other". No one doubts that Parliament is sovereign—that is what this Bill is about—but if you ask whether judge-made law is better than or inferior to parliamentary law, I would answer that they ought to work, as they have worked for 350 years at least, in concert with one another, the one supplementing the other; each has its virtue and each has its disadvantage.
Sometimes when I read the judgments of, say, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I only wish that before he formed such radical conclusions he had the kind of evidence from numerous parties that is possessed by a Select Committee or Royal Commission. Sometimes in reading the

1067
particularity of the parliamentary draftsmen, whose esoteric art is accepted almost without question in both Houses of Parliament, I wish that they had sometimes tried to sit in judgment in a case in which their own work was being scrutinised after the event and see how many gaps they had left in it.
That brings me back to the argument on the Bill and to what Lord Scarman said. If you sat, as I have been sitting now for the best part of 10 years on and off, on the Appellate Committee of this House, you would notice that nine cases out of 10 are concerned solely with the question of what on earth Parliament meant by certain unintelligible words. delivered a judgment in this House this very morning in which this question, fortunately with the concurrence of four colleagues, was debated, but it is not always that such debates arrive at unanimity. Oh dear no! In a judgment which we are going to deliver, I hope some time in the next two weeks, there is a long history of litigation about the same words going back to 1963 in which the House of Lords divided 2–2 on one occasion, with the casting vote cast on a different point—so that the case actually had an end result—and certainly two of them had got it wrong.
We are being told—and the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, says with great pride that this is an entirely new pattern of legislation which we are imposing on our poor judges—to try to apply general principles to a concrete set of facts. I beg him to believe that I regard that as a virtue. I really believe there would be less uncertainty if the rules of construction—and I am talking now only about the Bill of Rights but about the whole pattern of appellate litigation in this country—which the courts after centuries have found themselves constrained to apply to statute under our present system—could be properly tidied up.
I believe it is only because the subject is so obscure and so little understood by anybody outside the profession that the thing is not a crying scandal. The thing is a shambles. I could give dozens of examples where different courts, differently composed, have been applying different sets of rules. Do you look at the mischief of the Act or how far are you bound by the actual literal grammatical interpretation?
1068
Sometimes you will find one judge apparently applying a different set of rules in one case from what he has done in another. And if you go to the magistrates' courts and the county courts of this Realm and see what is actually going on—if you try to read one of the text books like Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statututes—you will realise that there is growing uncertainty. Do you look at blue books? Can you consider the report of a commission? Nobody really knows the answer; some judges do one and some judges do the other. And I noticed a very remarkable judgment of the Master of the Rolls reported in this week's All England Reports in which he said, and I quote almost verbatim,
"We cannot look at Hansard to see what these words mean, but you can",
and he gave the reference as House of Commons Hansard, column so-and-so and such-and-such a date, and added for good measure,
"It was carried by a very small majority".
I should like to see the interpretation of statutes put on a more solid basis. It is a very difficult and thorny subject, but the Law Commission made a report in 1969 which I think deserves rather careful consideration. I know that there are great difficulties and I am not going to commit either the Government or myself to it, but all that this little Bill is—and I accept Lord Seaman's description of it as a modest little Bill—is a rule for the interpretation of statutes. If a certain section of the Law Commission's Report in 1969 had been accepted, it would be totally unnecessary, because that Section said, almost in the words of Lord Wade's Bill—although it did not refer specifically to the European Convention—that, in construing statutes, the courts ought to pay attention to the international obligations which Her Majesty's Government had undertaken and ratified.
At the end of the day I cannot give the smallest hope that the Bill will become law—not this Session anyway. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wade, to weigh very carefully what I might call the series of committee points made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I do not want to rule or pontificate upon them, but I thought that most of them had some substance, and if ever we do incorporate the European Convention into our municipal law we shall have to pay very

1069
great attention to the kind of questions which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, was raising. They cannot just quietly be brushed aside. The parliamentary draftsmen, the Departments of State, will have to come to some conclusion upon them.
It is for the noble Lord, Lord Wade, to make up his mind in the end what he wants to do with the Bill. I shall vote for it on Second Reading—except that I do not think that a vote will be taken—and I shall give it as fair a wind as I can. But there must come a point—I do not know when it will be—when the noble Lord, Lord Wade, must ask himself whether he wants to go through the entire process of Committee, Report, Third Reading, and "the Bill do now pass", and so send it down to the House of Commons where it will undoubtedly founder if it goes down this Session, or whether he would prefer to adopt the other line of country adopted by, for instance, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in connection with his Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill.
I do not want in the least to unsay a word that I said in favour of the Bill. Everything that I would have liked to say at greater length was said better by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, or by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, or by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, with whom I agreed in tato, except that I did not agree with what he said about proportional representation. Having said that, I hope that I have told the House what the Government's attitude is, without any loss of personal integrity.
7.43 p.m.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I should like very sincerely to thank all those who have taken part. It has been a very important debate, and the subject matter has been as distinguished as those who have taken part. I have made copious notes with the intention of making appropriate comments on each speech, but there comes a time when one has to assess what it is wise to do. I feel that the House will forgive me if I do not make those appropriate remarks and utter words of thanks in regard to the speeches that have been made. I am awfully tempted to start thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, for his first point, with which the noble and
1070
learned Lord the Lord Chancellor disagrees. I am most tempted to encourage the noble Lord, Lord Carr; but I will not do that.
I must make some observations in reply to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the end of the debate. Of course I am aware of the situation; of course I have to consider very carefully what is the proper thing to do. After hearing the speeches of, just for example, the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, I could not possibly not attempt to get the Bill through the House of Lords. It is not only because of the Members of this House. I do not want to be presumptuous, but a number of bodies are anxious to know what we decide. They want to know what kind of Bill we have produced. After all, we have been discussing this for several years. We have had a Select Committee; we have sat for over a year. If those of us who agree with the Bill cannot get through a Committee stage and produce a Bill, I am afraid that it will not—I hope I am not disrespectful—help the prestige of this House. There are points to be raised on Committee, and I would agree that some of these points require amendment.
I think the only difference I detected among supporters of the Bill is the question of whether the whole of the convention should be incorporated, or only those parts that set out the rights and liberties. That I see as a fine point of argument, and I hope that it would not take up a lot of time. I would do my utmost to ensure that the Committee stage was carried through as expeditiously as possible. I do not think that it should involve an inordinate amount of time for the reason that the main difference is whether there should be a Bill or not. Quite clearly those who say "not" are going to flood us with amendments. I think that the points will be serious ones on the question of whether the Bill is worded in the most appropriate way so that we can get it through this House.
As to what happens after that, I am not in a position to say. My jurisdiction does not extend to another place. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given some indication that the

1071
prospects are not exceedingly bright in this Session. But it is certainly my duty to do my best—I have an obligation to my colleagues who are supporting me—to try to get the Bill, in the best form possible, through this House, and I hope that we shall succeed.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS UP-RATING (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1979
7.47 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before your Lordships' House on 23rd October, be approved. I think that it may be for the convenience of the House if we take at the same time the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) (No. 2) Regulations 1979, the draft Social Security (Earnings-Related Addition to Widows' Allowance (Special Provisions) Regulations 1979, and the draft Social Security (Maximum Additional Component) Amendment Regulations 1979. These three Instruments were also laid before the House on 23rd October.
The purpose of the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (Amendment) Order 1979, is to maintain at £45 the earnings limit for the dependent wives of certain pensioners. Your Lordships may recall that the Pensioners Payments and Social Security Act 1979 removed from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the duty of reviewing and, where appropriate, increasing the amount of this earnings limit. As my right honourable friend said in another place on 14th June, it has become common ground between the parties that different considerations apply to the earnings limit for these wives and those which apply to the earnings limit for retirement pensioners. It has become apparent that, as a test of dependency, the wives' earnings limit is already too high. Currently, the joint rate of basic
1072
pension for a man and his dependent wife is £31.20, and it goes up to £37.30 later this month. A wife earning £45 a week after deduction of work expenses is thus already supporting her husband, rather than the other way round, and some dependency benefit is still payable at present if the wife earns £58 a week. Power was taken, through the Pensioners Payments and Social Security Act, to hold back on up-rating the earnings limit for those wives until it reaches a more realistic level.
With the Bill on its way to Royal Assent, the main up-rating order, which was laid on 4th July, made no provision for increasing the wives' earnings limit. What was not made clear at that time—indeed, it was overlooked in presenting the order—was that what the up-rating order did was to leave the options entirely open by repealing the 1978 order, which had fixed the wives' earnings limit at £45. From that point we could have moved forward to £52 had the Bill not received Royal Assent, or back to £45 when, as of course happened, it did receive Royal Assent. This Amendment order therefore concludes the matter by retaining the £45 earnings limit from the old 1978 order, so that the limit which applies at the moment will continue to apply. In accordance with the provisions of Section 124 of the Social Security Act 1975, a copy of a report by the Government Actuary was laid with the draft order.
I turn now to the family income supplements (known as "FIS") regulations. Here, I am in the unusual position of having to ask your Lordships to agree a further increase in FIS before another, already approved by Parliament, has taken effect. What we are proposing is an extra £1 a week for FIS families to help them pay their fuel bills this winter. Most families on FIS will get the extra £1 by the £2 increase in the FIS prescribed amounts. This is because the amount of FIS a family gets is half the difference between their income and the FIS prescribed amount, which depends on the number of children in the family. The increase in the prescribed amounts will not benefit families who would already be getting maximum FIS payments, and, for them, the regulations therefore provide an additional £1 in the FIS maximum payments. Raising the prescribed amounts has the effect of bringing some more

1073
families into FIS who would not be entitled to it under the rates earlier agreed by your Lordships. Families who benefit from this windfall will in most cases get less than £1 FIS a week in total. They will, however, gain from the FIS passport—the automatic entitlement to other means-tested benefits, such as relief from NHS charges, which FIS brings with it.
When the Government's intention to propose the FIS increases was announced on 22nd October, they were explained as part of a package with measures to be taken by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Householders on supplementary benefit with a child under 5 will all be given the 95p a week standard rate of heating addition if they are not getting it already. Wider coverage of the FIS families is appropriate because, unlike supplementary benefit, the FIS scheme makes no other special provision for extra help with fuel bills. Your Lordships may like to be reminded that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will also be paying the 95p heating addition to supplementary pensioner householders who are over 75, or who have a dependant who is over 75, if they are not already getting it. Looked at as a whole, the package is a mark of the Government's determination to help poorer families and maintain work incentives. The extra £1 a week will benefit around 85,000 families on FIS, and will cost about £5 million in the year up to November, 1980. The extra £1 represents a permanent improvement in the value of FIS: it will not be withdrawn at the end of winter, or have its value whittled down in future up-ratings. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is an improvement which it is well worth making.
My Lords, I turn now to the draft Social Security (Earnings-Related Addition to Widow's Allowance) (Special Provisions) Regulations 1979, the purpose of which is to correct an anomaly in relation to widow's allowance for certain women widowed on or after 6th January 1980. If a widow's husband had reckon-able earnings as an employed person in the relevant past period, she may also be able to receive an earnings-related addition on top of her widow's allowance. Under the existing statutory provisions, this addition is calculated by reference to
1074
contributions paid in the relevant period by her husband, which will have been related to his earnings. However, since April 1978 employed people over pension age have not been liable for contributions. An unforeseen effect of this change is that where the husband is over pension age, but not retired, and dies after 5th January 1980, it will no longer be possible to calculate an earnings-related addition for his widow in the normal way by reference to his contributions. From 6th January the relevant year for the calculation of earnings-related addition will he that which started in April 1978.
The draft regulations rectify the position by providing that in these cases the earnings-related addition shall be calculated by reference, not to the husband's contributions but to his actual relevant earnings. These regulations have been submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, whose report, recommending that they should be made, was laid with the regulations. I feel sure that noble Lords will agree that, in future, this small group of widows should be able to receive their benefit which widows in a similar position have been able to receive up to now. I commend these draft regulations to your Lordships.
Finally, I turn to the Social Security (Maximum Additional Component) Amendment Regulations. These regulations correct a defect in the principal regulations—the Social Security (Maximum Additional Component) Regulations 1978. If left uncorrected, this would result in certain widows and widowers who deferred their retirement beyond the end of the current tax year becoming entitled to more benefit than was intended. A person cannot receive more than one retirement pension, but Section 9 of the Pensions Act enables a surviving spouse, in appropriate cases, to receive a higher retirement pension (both basic and earnings-related additional component) by combining the pensions on the contributions of himself and his spouse.
The provisions relating to basic pension cause no problems; the maximum combined pension is the standard flat-rate pension for a single person. In relation to the additional component, Section 9

1075
of the Pensions Act, together with the principal regulations, provides that a surviving spouse can receive the additional component on his or her own contributions plus additional component on the late spouse's contributions, but only up to a prescribed maximum. It was intended that the prescribed maximum should be what one person could have earned had he paid maximum contributions in all the tax years relevant to the calculation of his additional component. The defect relates to the time when that maximum is to be calculated.
As they stand, the principal regulations would enable a surviving spouse who defers his or her retirement beyond pensionable age to achieve a maximum additional component appropriate to a date up to five years after pensionable age (or the date of death)—several pounds a week more than was intended. These amending regulations correct that defect. Regulation 2(b) of the principal regulations, which provided for the up-rating of maximum additional components, has been deleted as unnecessary. The up-rating provisions of the Pensions Act already provide for this. I am confident that your Lordships will accept the four instruments now before the House and I beg to move the first of them.
Moved, That the draft order, laid before the House on 23rd October, be approved.—(Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
8 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, for moving these regulations and the order and particularly for being so brief and clear at this hour. I do not imagine that there will be any problem over your Lordships approving these regulations but, because of the hour, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and I did not meet beforehand to arrange some kind of division of labour. I am proposing to deal with only one of them and I have a feeling that he will deal with the rest.
We must face the fact that we cannot look a gift horse in the mouth. Bearing in mind that the Government's tax cuts
1076
gave the richest 7 per cent. of the people 34 per cent. of the tax cuts and the poorest 10 per cent. of the community only 2 per cent., we should feel grateful for these further crumbs from the Government.
As I understand the position, about 85,000 people who are in receipt of family income supplement will benefit to the extent of £1 a week or less to help them with their heating bills at a cost of about £4½million in a year. As I understand it, the Government are providing something like £162 million in new money. My first question is this. Is the balance to be used to defray the cost of paying the 95 pence heating addition to supplementary benefit households who are over 75 years of age and to those who have a dependant over 75 and to those with a child under the age of five? In other words, where is the balance going? I gather that it will only be paid if they are not already getting a heating allowance.
I find this rather difficult to understand. Surely, all persons receiving supplementary benefit because of the low rate of benefit will be eligible for one of the existing three heating allowances and the 95 pence is not likely to apply in very many cases. If I am right in thinking that, I would ask the noble Lord how many, if any, will be eligible for the 95 pence heating addition and what is the total number who will benefit from the Government's present scheme? I imagine that the total number will be about 400,000 people. If that is so, I would remind the noble Lord that the previous Government's scheme resulted in about 4 million people benefiting, and that nothing like that number will benefit under the present Government's scheme.
The Government in the other place claimed that the scheme was designed to help those most in need. The noble Lord will know that within the last few days the Government have released figures showing that there are something like 200,000 families living below the supplementary benefit level and, on this showing, the Government will be helping only about 85,000 of these. I want to ask: what about the remainder? The Labour Government's schemes were, I concede, a little cumbersome; but the Government did then spend something like £38 million in 1979 in helping poor families with their fuel bills.

1077
The last point that I want to make is this. I know that the Government have said in another place that the whole purpose of this was to try to restrict it to cover the really needy people who wanted help with their heating bills. This is why they put in the above-75s. But are the Government really doing this? Are they really helping the most vulnerable? As the noble Lord will know, quite recently a very serious survey was done about hypothermia. It shows that over half of those who are vulnerable and at risk so far as hypothermia goes are under the age of 75. While I feel that the scheme is really not meeting the needs of a very large number of people, I accept that it is going to meet the needs of a fair number. I am sorry that it has not been possible for the Government to do something tangible and to spread it over a much larger number of people who are obviously just as much in need.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, for his very clear explanation of these regulations and the order. I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and I had had a meeting before this short debate we might not have found it so easy to agree, because I wanted to say a word about the one that he picked on: the Family Income Supplements (Computation) (No 2) Regulations. Perhaps I can say a brief word about the others before I do so. The Social Security Benefits Up-rating (Amendment) Order is necessary to bring about the situation which we thought had been brought about by the previous order; and we debated the issue at that time. That order, I am sure, is acceptable to the House. It is clear too that the second order is required because a widow's late husband, over 65 and not retired at the time of death, would have no earnings factor because no contributions were payable after 65 and it would not be possible to calculate an earnings-related addition in relation to contributions. As a result, actual earnings are to be used. Again, I am sure that that is a very non-controversial proposal.
As far as The Social Security (Maximum Additional Component) Amendment Regulations are concerned, I imagine that many Members of the House will have come across the rhyme in the days of their youth:
1078
"Brothers and sisters have I none, But this man's father is my father's son".
They would then have spent many frustrating minutes trying to work out who is talking about whom. I had a similar experience when I first approached this order. I spent some time with a wet towel around my head trying to sort out everything that had happened on all the events of this remarkable day when the person specified in line 5 reaches pensionable age, retires and dies and that person's spouse, if he or she also retires on that day, becomes, but for the double entitlement rule, entitled to two pensions. A very full day indeed for all concerned. I came to the conclusion in the long run that it does do what the noble Lord says that it does.
But I am left with another small question. Ought not Paragraph 2(a) to begin "he or she"? And in 2(b), ought it not to read "he or she had had an earnings factor"? I ask this because "he or she" is used with reference to the surviving spouse at line 12. If the surviving spouse can be male or female, it follows that the deceased spouse can be male or female, as well. I do not think that the support of the House for that particular regulation will depend on the noble Lord's answer to that question.
I should like to say a word about the Family Income Supplements (Computation) (No. 2) Regulations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I welcome the £1 a week increase which these regulations provide for all those on family incomes supplement. It is, as the noble Lord explained, only one-half of the Government's plan to help the poorest with their fuel costs and it must be judged in that context. The other half is the provision of the 95p heating addition to be paid automatically to those families with children under 5 and to people over 75. The two together replace the electricity discount scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, that scheme was cumbersome. It was not ideal and was restricted to one fuel; but it helped 3 million people at a cost of £38 million, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell explained. Therefore, there has been a substantial cut in financial help with fuel bills, from £38 million to £16½ million and a substantial cut in the number of

1079
people helped from 3 million to 345,000. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, pointed out, many now eligible for supplementary benefit heating addition automatically under this new provision are already getting it, since more than half of the supplementary benefit beneficiaries are already receiving a heating addition.
However, those who are helped are helped on average more substantially, approximately £50 per year per head on average as opposed to £7·50p. In this respect, those on family income supplement are particularly helped. Under the old scheme, if one had an electricity bill of £40 and was receiving supplementary benefit at the lowest rate of heating addition, one received £54·20p per annum. If one received family income supplement, one only received £10. That will now be increased to £52 for most people on family income supplement, and that undoubtedly is good.
But what about the person on rent or rate rebate who received £5 before and now gets nothing? Those who were included before and are now left out must total about 2½ million, and they include pensioners on rent and rate rebates (because they are not on supplementary benefit) and pensioners aged between 65 and 75 who will not get any automatic payment, although of course they will be able to claim. But they are a group very vulnerable to hypothermia as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said. There are families with children over five on supplementary benefit. They may claim heating addition but they will not get it automatically as the people now on family income supplement in similar circumstances will. I am concerned that the range of beneficiaries is not wide enough. I am concerned that the cut in the amount of money available from £38 million to £16½ million should be so drastic. It is a cut of 56 per cent.
If the Government had tackled the problem through the benefit system but with a wider range of beneficiaries on similar lines as they have suggested but on a wider range, and with more money available—on the scale provided last year—then there would be less criticism of their proposals than there is. Though
1080
I say they should use the benefit system, I have a reservation about the use of family income supplement because of its effect on the poverty trap being means-tested benefit, and because of the take-up which is 75 per cent.
Under the tax credit scheme, which we on these Benches would like to see established, it would be possible to have either a fuel credit for a limited range of beneficiaries but wider than the Government now propose, or an element of fuel costs included in the personal credits, which would be paid to everyone. This would be to provide, in one way or another, a fuel benefit rather like child benefit; and like child benefit it would not be means-tested and since the object of a tax credit scheme is to get away from means tests and lift the great number of people off supplementary benefit who are on it at the moment, that would be an important point. Like the child benefit, it would help the poorest most.
8.15 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said. There has been some criticism but, on the whole, acceptance of the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, asked me who really gets this benefit, apart from the 85,000 families on FIS. He is quite right: the cost for those 85,000 families is about £5 million a year. We estimate that about 110,000 pensioners will receive it, also at a cost of about £5 million, and 150,000 beneficiaries with young children will benefit. That will cost about £6½ million. That is how the balance is made up.
So far as the criticism of the FIS scheme is concerned, it does take the place of the previous Government's electricity discount scheme, which as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, did run into a fair amount of criticism. Five pounds was given to a lot of people who in point of fact did not deserve to have it—children living at home over a certain age who did not have any fuel bills to pay, and so on. I think that everybody realises that that scheme, although costly, was spread very thinly and did not altogether go to the most needy people. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, the average receipt

1081
was about £7.50p. We have a different scheme which is to give about £50 to the most needy people. There are always lots of needy people, and, unfortunately, in these days, we cannot give all we should like to give to all the people who would like to have it, and who perhaps really do need it.
There is another criticism of that other scheme, and that is that it cost £4 million to administer. Our scheme, which, admittedly, only comes to £16 million or £17 million as opposed to £38 million, will only cost £400,000. That I think is undoubtedly in its favour.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked perhaps a slightly jocular question about "he or she". There is probably a good deal in what the noble Lord has said. "Person" seems quite a reasonable word. It applies to "he or she", and I think that the draftsman probably found it difficult to think of a better word than "person". It may well be that "he or she" would have been better. I doubt if the noble Lord will wish——
Lord BANKS: My Lords, very briefly, it was not that I was objecting to the word "person", but the text just said "he" in the two places to which I referred. I felt it should say "he or she" because it was, as I understand it, referring to a man or a woman. Further down in the order that distinction is made.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, there is certainly substance in that, but I doubt if the noble Lord would wish to have it changed. My Lords, I think I have answered most of the questions that I have been asked.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS (COMPUTATION) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 1979
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd October be approved.—(Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY (EARNINGS-RELATED ADDITION TO WIDOW'S ALLOWANCE) (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS 1979
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd October be approved.—Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY (MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL COMPONENT) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 1979
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd October he approved.—(Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  EEC COMPETITION POLICY: DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY
  EEC COMPETITION POLICY: DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY
  EEC REGULATION 17/62: INTERPRETATION OF "CONSULTATION"
  EEC REGULATION 17/62: INTERPRETATION OF "CONSULTATION"
  EEC REGULATION 17/62: REPRESENTATIVES
  EEC REGULATION 17/62: REPRESENTATIVES
  EEC: INVESTIGATIONS UNDER REGULATION No. 17
  EEC: INVESTIGATIONS UNDER REGULATION No. 17
  BRITISH AIRWAYS: CAPITAL
  BRITISH AIRWAYS: CAPITAL
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA BILL: ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA BILL: ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL
  INVESTMENT PROTECTION AGREEMENTS
  INVESTMENT PROTECTION AGREEMENTS
  SCOTLAND: PROPOSED CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGISLATION
  SCOTLAND: PROPOSED CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGISLATION
  IMMIGRATION: ENTRY CLEARANCE REFUSAL APPEALS
  IMMIGRATION: ENTRY CLEARANCE REFUSAL APPEALS
  LATIN AMERICAN REFUGEE APPLICATIONS
  LATIN AMERICAN REFUGEE APPLICATIONS
  PORTON DOWN AIR MOVEMENT STUDIES
  PORTON DOWN AIR MOVEMENT STUDIES