Sitting of 17 March 1980

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

ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (ENTHRONEMENT)
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have been invited to attend the enthronement of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury on Tuesday 25 March. I therefore ask the indulgence of the House and for leave of absence to attend the ceremony.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (ENTHRONEMENT)

  CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1978–79
  Account ordered:
  Of the Contingencies Fund 1978–79 showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1979, and (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Lawson.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WALES

    P. Leiner and Son
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement concerning his investigations into the investment by the Welsh Development Agency in P. Leiner and Son.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): The Welsh Development Agency has made a detailed statement, a copy of which my hon. Friend has received. I have nothing to add to it.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend say whether his predecessor and his predecessor's Department were aware that at the time the WDA made its £2 million so-called investment in P. Leiner and Son more than a year ago that company owed the WDA substantially more than one-third of this sum? If not, why not?
    Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend will know that I am not advised exactly of the information available to my predecessor. But this investment was submitted to my predecessor for approval because of the option clause contained in it, and not for

    3
    the overall investment as such. I do not believe that at the time it was known that the scale of the loss was as great as later transpired.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Whatever the outcome of that investment, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the WDA is trying to prevent a number of private enterprise failures, there are bound to be some failures but there have been many successes, and the role of the WDA is to help firms in difficulty to try to preserve jobs as well as to play a part in the economy?
    Mr. Edwards: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the many successes in Wales. I have emphasised them in recent speeches. There is a lot that is going well for Wales, and it is right to emphasise it. Nevertheless, the questions being asked about this investment by the WDA are fully justified in view of the substantial loss that has been made.
    Sir Raymond Gower: In considering the future in the broadest sense, is it not possible that £2 million is too large a proportion of the resources available to the WDA to be devoted to one enterprise? Would it not be more desirable for the available resources to be spread more widely and among more concerns?
    Mr. Edwards: That is a view that I expressed to the WDA at my first meeting with it. That was a worrying feature of this investment. Under the policies now being pursued by the WDA and the guidelines and my requests for it to concentrate on small firms when considering investment, I do not think that such a position could arise again.

    Welsh Economy
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received about the impact of the current exchange rate of the £ sterling on the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have received no specific representations on this matter; but some exporting firms in Wales have certainly commented on the effects of a strong £ sterling on their overseas business.
    Mr. Knox: Does not the present unrealistically high exhange rate make it very difficult for the products of Welsh
    4
    manufacturing industry to be exported, and does it not mean that cheap foreign imports can compete unfairly in the domestic market with the products of Welsh industry? Has my right hon. Friend drawn the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this?
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is as aware of the benefits and disadvantages of the present level of the exchange rate as anyone. But it follows from what my hon. Friend said about cheap imports that the same applies to cheap raw materials for our manufacturing industries. There are benefits to be obtained as well as some disadvantages.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Whatever may be the damage caused by the current level of the exchange rate the real damage to the Welsh economy is created by the Government's monetary policy. Is it not now time to relax that policy, otherwise whole sections of Welsh industry will be decimated?
    Mr. Edwards: No. The real damage to the economy was caused by the overspending and excessive borrowing of the previous Government that this Government are having to put right. Today's interest rate is the direct result of the economic policies pursued by the previous Government and their Treasury team in which the right hon. Gentleman was a leading participant.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware, however, that there are factories that have closed primarily because of the effect of the exchange rate? I think of SCM in my own constituency. Is he aware of the devastating effect that the exchange rate is having on manufacturers of consumer goods, such as washing machines, and others? Surely, the loss in terms of export of these manufactures is far worse than the benefit of the raw materials which are imported more cheaply.
    Mr. Edwards: I have said that there are advantages and disadvantages. I do not question that some companies with large export businesses are finding their competitive position very difficult at present, even if they manage substantial improvements in productivity. As I have said, however, it is important that

    5
    we should have cheap imports for our manufacturing sector, and this has an effect on the inflation rate. These are matters which my right hon and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take fully into account in framing his Budget.
    Mr. Alan Williams: At a time, however, when Welsh industry is feeling the impact of interest rates and of the high rate of sterling, how does the Secretary of State justify the fact that 50 per cent. of those workers who previously were in areas which enjoyed full development area status or special development area status in Wales will lose that benefit, while in Scotland it is only 1 per cent. and in the North of England it is only 25 per cent? Let not the right hon. Gentleman tell us that the others have intermediate area status, because the Government have so reduced the incentives there that the status is meaningless.
    Mr. Edwards: Of course, 94 per cent. of the working population of Wales will continue to receive regional aid because they live in assisted areas. We are concentrating help where it is most needed. It is relevant to the points which are being put to me about high interest rates that we should reduce public expenditure in this as in other sectors.

    Road Traffic Signs
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether, in the interests of road safety, he will ensure that no more bilingual traffic signs are erected.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): No, Sir. The policy of successive Governments has been for bilingual traffic signs to be erected in Wales, and I intend fully to uphold it.
    Mr. Marlow: As an Englishman, Mr. Speaker, I ask this question with a great deal of humility and trepidation, but I have a Welsh wife and five half-Welsh children, and a Welsh rugby international father-in-law, and consequently, great admiration for the Welsh culture and language. I feel just sufficiently emboldened to ask the Minister whether he will agree with me that traffic signs are basically there to give direction to people from far-away places, and whether he considers that the signs, for example, on the M4 outside Newport, those great
    6
    cinemascope screens, in an area of Wales where a relatively small proportion of the population actually speak Welsh, achieve the purposes for which they are erected or whether in fact they lead to a certain amount of confusion and danger?
    Mr. Roberts: The signs on our roads in Wales are there for the benefit of visitors and of Welsh motorists as well, from whom I have had no complaints at all. There is no evidence to suggest that bilingual signs are a source of danger to road users. I remind the House that they have been in use perfectly successfully for many years.
    Dr. Roger Thomas: Does not the Minister agree, and will he not remind his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that, after many years of some dissension and disagreement, the Welsh people have at last accepted bilingual road signs and that we take it very much amiss that an outsider should be stirring things up in Wales?
    Mr. Roberts: I do not regard a motorist from England or my hon. Friend in any way as an outsider. Indeed, he and others are more than welcome to the Principality. It is not true to say that Welsh motorists and the Welsh people have completely accepted bilingual signs, but I think that we are getting used to them and using them effectively.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: When does the Welsh Office intend to respond to the representations from Gwynedd county council—and the same argument applies to Dyfed—as to the order of signs, and whether it is not confusing to have the county council signs with the Welsh version first, and the Welsh Office signs with the English version first in Gwynedd and Dyfed?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member knows that the matter of the precedence of Welsh on road signs, which has been proposed by Gwynedd, is a matter to which I have given consideration. I hope to make a report on the matter in the not-too-distant future.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Might it not help my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) if he could spend a holiday near Brieg, in central Switzerland, where within 30

    7
    miles one encounters signs in at least three languages?
    Mr. Roberts: I should be very happy for my hon. Friend to spend his holiday in Gwynedd and support our own tourist industry.

    Welsh Economy
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to stimulate the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Hudson Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to take to stimulate the economy of Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In addition to the general economic policies of the Government which are aimed at reducing public sector borrowing and containing inflation, I shall press ahead with the major road programme and shall support the work of the development and promotional agencies to which I have made available substantial additional resources for use in steel closure areas.
    Mr. Jones: With the Wales TUC forecasting an alarming 140,000 or more jobless for next year, however, does not the right hon. Gentleman have any new major job projects in mind for Wales? With regard to the North-East Wales economy, what credence should we give to the recent reports about 2,000 new jobs possibly being set up by British Aerospace, making wings for the European Airbus? Does he see the titanium smelter plant on Deeside coming on stream on time? Does he see the steel workers and textile workers coming out of a job getting employment prospects in those spheres?
    Mr. Edwards: The WDA is undertaking a major programme of site preparation and advance factory building. I think that it is agreed on all sides that this is one of the most effective inducements to new job creation in the Principality.
    I understand that planning permission has now been given for the titanium plant and that it is proceeding.
    On the aerospace question, I have seen the reports. I understand that the company is considering a number of possible options and that it has not taken any
    8
    decisions yet. But, in view of the importance of the matter, I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry expressing my interest in the matter and I have asked to be kept fully informed of all developments.
    Mr. Rowlands: In order to stimulate the Welsh economy, will not the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Secretary of State for Industry to restore the £36 million worth of regional development grants and selective assistance which he will be withdrawing from the Welsh economy as a result of rolling back the so-called map of regional development, thereby reducing the incentives to industrialists to come to Merthyr, Pontypridd, Swansea and other areas? This makes a nonsense of the right hon. Gentleman's claim that he has given us money—£48 million in South Wales or £15 million to Shotton and other places.
    Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like, and he is talking about a figure which would become effective only after the current downgradings are completed. We have already indicated that we are reviewing the areas affected by current closure proposals. If upgradings take place as a result of those reviews, clearly additional sums of money will be injected into the Welsh economy on top of the announcements that I have already made.
    Mr. Alec Jones: In his weekly lecture to the Saundersfoot Conservatives, the Secretary of State accuses the Opposition of painting a far too gloomy picture in Wales. Does he not realise that the gloom is of his own making? With 92,000 people already unemployed, with daily redundancies being announced in the private sector, with a threat hanging over our steel and coal industries, and with no sense of urgency on the part of the Secretary of State for dealing with the problems of North Wales, such as those in Dinorwic, I make an offer to the right hon. Gentleman. We shall gladly alter the tone of our speeches if he shows greater concern and takes positive action to prevent the gloom from becoming reality.
    Mr. Edwards: I have announced some very substantial measures. The talk about an industrial desert, which has been used by a number of the right hon.

    9
    Gentleman's colleagues and by the Wales TUC, is seriously damaging to the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Rowlands: Nonsense.
    Mr. Edwards: I know of specific companies which have indicated that their investment decisions have been affected by this talk, and I hope that those who use such language, including the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), will remember the damage that they are doing to the Welsh people.

    Welsh Development Agency
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have frequent discussions with him.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that there is intense dissatisfaction in Newport with the efforts of the Welsh Development Agency? Does he accept that the assistance offered to that town is a fleabite compared with that given to surrounding areas? Does he further accept that only 350 jobs will be provided, although it is expected that no fewer than 8,000 jobs will be lost? Essentially, that money is being provided to alleviate the loss of steel jobs. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the WDA is acquainted with those facts? Will he further suggest that some of that money is spent on land drainage in southeast Newport, where ideal sites are available?
    Mr. Edwards: The WDA is currently engaged in discussions with the local authority. The hon. Gentleman must be aware of a lack of immediately available sites of sufficient size in the Newport area. The WDA and the other bodies involved are therefore planning a major development, initially in the Llantarnan area, alongside Cwmbran. Discussions are continuing to see whether further sites can be brought forward in the Newport area. The hon. Gentleman will know that talks have continued between the Minister of Transport, the British Transport Docks Board and local authorities concerning the possibility of available land in the dock area. Every possible effort has been made to bring forward new sites in New-
    10
    port. However, such sites are not readily available for instant development.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: When my right hon. Friend next sees the chairman of the WDA, will he draw his attention to the genuine ground for public disquiet engendered by the circumstances surrounding the Agency's investment in P. Leiner and Son? Will he suggest that there should be a full public inquiry into the circumstances of that investment, in order to ensure that the facts are established and that blame is apportioned where necessary?
    Mr. Edwards: The new chairman of the WDA has no responsibility for the original investment. However, he is taking a close interest in the issue. He has seen all the papers and has discussed the matter with me. There is more than a possibility that the Public Accounts Committee will wish to look into the investment and that might be the right way of proceeding.
    Mr. Coleman: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear that there is no foundation to the stories circulating in South Wales that it is the Government's policy to permit a relaxation of regulations concerning factory building and planning arrangements on sites in South Wales that could be developed by the WDA?
    Mr. Edwards: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the possibility of enterprise zones. The Government have made it clear that they are considering proposals for limited areas to be treated in that way. Announcements will be made in due course.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Does the Secretary of State recall that during his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), he said that the Department and the WDA were considering bringing forward new sites and projects in Newport? How are those projects to be financed? We have heard a great deal about the £48 million that is to be spent on Port Talbot and Llanwern, and about the £15 million that is to be spent on Shotton. However, is it not true that the WDA's budget for the coming year will be only £58 million, and that that sum represents only £6 million more than the original budget? If that is true, how

    11
    on earth can those new schemes be in that area? Has my right hon. Friend re-brought forward?
    Mr. Edwards: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the problem is not one of finance. Immediate sites are not available. The WDA has made resources available in steel closure areas and will fully carry out a programme that it considers reasonable and practicable during the next two years.

    Unemployment (Caernarvon)
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales, what proposals he has to combat the anticipated severe increase in unemployment in the Caernarvon area.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am fully aware of the unemployment problems facing the Caernarvon area and I am planning to discuss the situation with Gwynedd county council.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State fully aware of the magnitude of that increase? Is he aware that 1,300 redundancies have been registered with the local employment office in Caernarvon in recent weeks and that that adds to the escalating unemployment rate? Does he accept that the CEGB has been run down in Dinorwig, that the Bernard Wardle factory has been closed and that several public works have come to an end? Is it not therefere ridiculous to downgrade the Arfon area from a special development area to an ordinary one, when the unemployment rate will probably exceed 20 per cent?
    Mr. Edwards: I am fully aware of the situation in Gywnedd. I therefore hope to discuss the matter with Gwynedd county council within the next month. We have said that if the unemployment situation changes, we shall review those areas affected. That applies to this part of Wales as to others. I am also pressing on with the A55 road programme. That is of great importance to the area.
    Three major projects will begin in the coming financial year; Bangor bypass, Colcon stage I and Hawarden bypass. In total those projects will cost £125 million. We are treating that programme as a matter of urgency.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: What contribution does the programme of arson against country cottages in North Wales make to the creation of employment opportunities
    12
    in that area? Has my right hon. Friend re-ceived from Plaid Cymru an unequivocal denunciation both of the acts and of the motives behind those acts?
    Mr. Edwards: I hope that all hon. Members will condemn actions that damage and destroy property, and that endanger life. I agree that such acts seriously damage the economy of the area. They weaken the tourist industry and they may prevent or deter new investment. I hope that all hon. Members and all political parties will vigorously condemn those acts. I hope that Plaid Cymru Members will join in that condemnation.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is not the Secretary of State aware of the statements that I have made during successive sittings of the Standing Committee on the Housing Bill? Will he not draw those statements to the attention of his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer)?
    Mr. Edwards: It might have been helpful if the hon. Gentleman had repeated his condemnation—if that is what it was—in unequivocal terms today. I have not read his remarks. However, if he condemned that arson, I welcome his statement.
    Mr. Best: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking such a close personal interest in the affairs of North-West Wales and its economy? Does he not agree that we should stimulate small firms in that area? Will he therefore consider whether the WDA's present scheme for giving loans at lower rates of interest in rural areas and in small towns should be extended to other parts of Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend is right. We attach great importance to encouraging small firms. We are taking several measures in order to meet that end. I have asked the WDA to concentrate its investment programme on the small firm sector. Loans at concessionary rates of interest are available to firms in rural areas. The agency has joined banks in launching a guarantee scheme. I hope that my hon. Friend will draw these various schemes and the services available from the agency to the attention of all interested and potentially interested customers.
    Mr. Abse: In order to mitigate any effect on outside investment that may

    13
    result from such arson, has the Secretary of State had discussions with the Home Secretary—as I understood he was to do—to ensure that no more irresponsible programmes stem from the BBC? Does he not agree that those programmes demonstrate that the BBC has colluded with arsonists and has presented unbalanced programmes which act as an incitement to arson?
    Mr. Edwards: I am in touch with my right hon. Friend. I expressed my views beforehand about holding the programme. I do not accept the case put forward by Sir Michael Swann in his letter to The Times justifying the programme. I believe that the programme gave a platform for the view of a small minority, which will encourage further such acts. The chief constable for North Wales has stated that it will make his task more difficult. I hope that the broadcasting authorities will consider carefully the consequences of their actions, when property and life are being put at risk.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Bestasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is now in a position to state in what way the additional £48 million will be spent in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Around £40 million will be allocated to the WDA and the rest to the Cwmbran new town development corporation. The money is for the provision of sites and advanced factories in the area affected by the planned reductions at Port Talbot and Lianwern.
    Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the emphasis that the Government are placing on the problems of Wales will be welcomed by all hon. Members? However, will he and the Minister continue to make speeches such as that at the weekend to ensure that potential foreign investors are aware of the benefits of Wales? Will he deprecate the statements made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, which serve only to damage future investment prospects in Wales? Will he school them to cease such pontifications?
    Mr. Edwards: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not only I who hold that view. It is shared by those responsible for the Development Cor-
    14
    poration and the Welsh Development Agency and others who have the job to encourage new industry to come to Wales. Such statements and the travesty of the truth presented by those who make them add to the problems of the Principality and make it more difficult to attract new jobs to Wales.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: As the Government are determined to further cut public expenditure and as private investment is falling, where will the growth in the Welsh economy come from over the next few years?
    Mr. Edwards: As a result of the reckless policies pursued by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues when they were in Government, we have excessive public expenditure and borrowing. As a result of our policies, there will be a gradual reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement, interest rates and inflation, and new investment will he given fresh confidence.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Will the Secretary of State accept that once again we have had the £48 million turned down? Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that the budget for the WDA for 1980–81 will be only £58 million, which is £6 million more than the orginal budget? Will he further confirm that the concentration will be in the steel areas, at the expense of other areas that have long been in need of such investment? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the poor areas of Wales are having to pay for the follies of this Government's steel policies?
    Mr. Edwards: If the right hon. Gentleman ponders a little further, I believe that he will agree that it is right to concentrate aid on the areas affected by steel closures and the present serious situation. He knows perfectly well that we publicly announced in this House a reduction in the WDA budget. Since then a new situation has developed, and I have found substantial additional funds to be concentrated on the infrastructure in those areas. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that additional expenditure and do something to encourage fresh development to come to Wales, instead of backing his colleagues in nonsensical talk about industrial deserts and painting a picture of gloom

    15
    and despondency, which can do us nothing but harm.

    Steel Industry Closures (Job Losses)
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the European Economic Community regarding the anticipated 50,000 loss of jobs in Wales as a result of the cutbacks at Llanwern and Port Talbot steel plants and consequent effects on the coal and other industries.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My right hon. and hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Minister of State, Department of Industry and their officials have discussed the BSC proposals fully with the Commission, and I and my staff are in close touch with these developments. I do not anticipate that the number of jobs lost at Port Talbot and Llanwern will be as high as the hon. Gentleman estimates.
    Mr. Evans: In view of the disastrous consequences on the Welsh economy of the closures, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I and my colleagues who met Commissioner Vredeling in Brussels were surprised that the Government had had very little contact with the EEC and that the Welsh Office had had no contact? Will the right hon. Gentleman listen to the EEC's comments about not immediately making closures but, if they have to be made, phasing them over a period? Will he accept that in two or three years' time we may find that we have less steel-making capacity in this country than we require? Will the right hon. Gentleman further accept that the EEC is talking about cutting 6 million tonnes, while BSC is cutting 6 million tonnes in this country alone?
    Mr. Edwards: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I saw Commissioner Vredeling in Brussels before Christmas, and my officials have been in touch with EEC officials since then. We are maintaining the closest possible contact with the EEC in these matters, and we shall continue to ensure that we obtain everything to which we are entitled from EEC funds.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that statements by Commissioner Vredeling that the United Kingdom has been slower than other
    16
    member States in taking up benefits available are untrue?
    Mr. Edwards: We have taken all the benefits to which we are entitled under existing schemes from the moment that it was possible to do so. As my hon. Friend knows, a completely new scheme has been proposed, which has not yet been approved by members of the EEC but which Commissioner Vredeling favours. We are now discussing the proposed scheme with the Commission to see whether it can be modified so that it is acceptable and can be used in addition to existing schemes. If it is modified in a suitable way, we shall certainly use it.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Newport is possibly the largest steel making area in the country, yet the Government's plans are all based on providing 350 jobs when job losses of 8,000 are anticipated in the town? The right hon. Gentleman appears to be complacent not only about the attitude of the EEC but also about that of the WDA, and what does he plan to do?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman does himself no credit when he suggests that the work force at Llanwern, first, comes only from within the town of Newport, and secondly, can only travel to sites within the town of Newport. He is well aware that the travel-to-work area is much larger than that. I hope that he is not suggesting that the admirable Llantarnan site, for example, is not entirely suitable and will not provide jobs for his constituents, as well as others.
    Mr. Alec Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the figure of 50,000 job losses given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) is somewhat high, what does he consider to be a reasonable estimate? When he met Commissioner Vredeling, did they discuss the consequences of steel closures? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that when we met Commissioner Vredeling a week ago he was far from satisfied with this Government's response to the steel industry closures and the effects on South Wales.
    Mr. Edwards: A number of things have yet to be decided, so I can not give an estimate of the total number of job losses. The National Coal Board has not yet

    17
    come forward with firm proposals. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was asking about the consequences of the cutbacks at Llanwern and Port Talbot, and I am not aware that any responsible body is suggesting that they would cause 50,000 job losses. I do not believe that even the right hon. Gentleman would suggest that. The Wales CBI came to see me last week and that was not its view.
    When I saw Commissioner Vredeling, the latest BSC proposals had not been put, and I clearly could not discuss them with him. Since then, my officials have been in touch with Commission officials. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, has had conversations with the Commission recently, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Colleges of Education
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the colleges of education in Wales.
    Mr. Michael Roberts: The public sector institutions are moving towards the revised target capacities announced by the previous Administration in 1977.
    Mr. Howells: In view of the high cost of living, will not the Minister agree that the student grants scheme should be made mandatory?
    Mr. Roberts: That it not my responsibility, but I shall pass the hon. Member's comments on to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Government will carry out a further review of the number and size of colleges in Wales?
    Mr. Roberts: Clearly every college in Wales must fight to some extent for its own survival. The right hon. Gentleman will know why—because of the falling rolls and the consequent drop in the demand for teachers. Also we must consider the increased standards of admission for entry into our colleges of education.
    18
    Severe difficulties are imposed on them because the universities are attracting so many more candidates from the schools. We are not conducting any review, and we are confident that all the colleges will meet their targets.

    Housing Finance
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local authorities in Wales regarding the Government's proposals for housing finance.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Nine authorities have made formal or informal representations about the recent housing allocations. Five authorities have also asked for clarification of points of detail.
    Sir A. Meyer: Does my hon. Friend consider that the reduced allocations will none the less permit virtually all authorities to carry out such housing programmes as are reasonably practicable, given the material resources available?
    Mr. Roberts: I can assure my hon. Friend that Rhuddlan, on account of which he has made representations to me, is getting more money in its allocation for next year that it is spending this year. If it runs into difficulties it may supplement its allocation by using the next proceeds of sale of council houses or land.
    Mr. Alan Williams: How on earth can the Government pretend that this is an adequate programme in relation to the available resources when in the construction industry we have enormous unemployment in Wales?
    Mr. Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman will know that a promise was given in November 1978 that for the coming year the authorities would get 80 per cent. allocated to them of their allocations for this year. We have abided by that promise.
    Mr. Best: Will my hon. Friend continue to encourage the housing associations in Wales, as being a good way for local authorities to provide housing places for those on housing waiting lists without any cost whatever to the ratepayers?
    Mr. Roberts: Certainly we have encouraged the housing associations. We

    19
    have allocated more than £28 million to the housing corporation which should enable the housing associations to maintain the programmes that are currently running.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Can the Minister explain why the housing investment programmes for England are available and have been placed in the Library, but those for Wales are still apparently subject to the Official Secrets Act?
    Mr. Roberts: The housing investment programmes have always been regarded as confidential, but certainly the housing allocations have been placed in the Library and they are public knowledge.
    Mr. Rowlands: How can the Minister claim that there has been an improvement in housing when he has cut 30 per cent. in real terms off Merthyr's housing programme for next year? After all, this is a community which is trying to deal with the problems of redevelopment of more than 100 years, as well as build new council homes and give mortgages to people. Is he not condemning many people to an eternity of waiting? Is he aware that there are thousands on the waiting lists in Merthyr as well as other areas in Wales?
    Mr. Roberts: Merthyr is getting in 1980–81 92 per cent. of its original allocation for 1979–80. Therefore, I think it is doing pretty well.
    On the question of housing waiting lists, the hon. Member knows from his experience of housing at the Welsh Office that there is no such thing as a standard housing waiting list. The waiting list is no real guide to housing requirements in Wales.

    Land Development (Flooding Danger)
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will advise planning authorities to consult the Welsh water authority before authorising development on land that could be subject to flooding.
    Mr. Michael Roberts: Planning authorities are well aware that they should consult water authorities on development proposals which have implications for land drainage. They are specifically required to do so if the development includes works on rivers and streams and
    20
    refuse tipping, among other things. We are nevertheless considering whether further guidance is needed.
    Mr. Hooson: Would it not be advisable to issue a circular formally urging planning authorities to make use of the expert advice of the Welsh water authority?
    Mr. Roberts: Advice is available to planning authorities, which emphasises the importance of consultations on development proposals which lie within the areas liable to flooding. I am considering with my colleagues whether a further circular would be justified in the light of recent events.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Will not the Minister agree that all the land under the jurisdiction of the Severn-Trent water authority should be handed back to the Welsh water authority?
    Mr. Cormack: Not all of it, some of it is in my constituency.
    Mr. Roberts: No.

    Welsh Development Agency (Financial Support Policy)
    Mr. Tom Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has given the Welsh Development Agency as regards withdrawing financial support from companies previously supported by it.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: None, Sir. It is a matter for the agency's commercial judgment to decide when to invest in a company and when to take action to protect its existing investments.
    Mr. Ellis: Will the Minister tell the House when, during the past four months, a company in which the agency had a majority shareholding, has had a receiver called in, following which an associated company, on the strength of its commercial prospects, has been able to attract substantial financial support from agencies outside the United Kingdom with a view to establishing a major manufacturing plant employing several hundreds of people in another country?
    Mr. Edwards: I think that that question would be properly directed to the Welsh Development Agency, but if the hon. Member tables a specific question I will see that he gets the information that he requires.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State clarify reports in Wales this morning that the WDA will not go ahead with 30 advance factories in Wales because it has not enough funds available? Will he confirm that he wrote to the Dyfed county council recently telling it that the whole programme of advance factories would be held back because of a lack of funds for this work?
    Mr. Edwards: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Member refers. There is a programme of small starter units going ahead under WDA control in his part of Wales. I confirm that that is not being held back. The remaining factory programme of the WDA is being concentrated in areas which have suffered from steel closures and the running down of the steel industry.
    Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend review the requirement of a 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. return on equity undertakings by the WDA, in order to stimulate further such investment in firms in Wales and thereby stimulate the economy?
    Mr. Edwards: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that the agency should look for a lower return than in the past. If so, I am not sure that I could go along with him. It ought to set its sights high, rather than low. To date, its overall return has not reached the target that has been set.

    Leasehold Reform
    Mr. Colemanasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the working of the leasehold system in Wales.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Leasehold reform has been the subject of six parliamentary questions and 84 letters.
    Mr. Coleman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the resentment among leaseholders in Wales who are finding themselves compelled by ground landlords to effect insurance on their homes? Will he seek an early opportunity to introduce legislation to make that practice of ground landlords illegal?
    Mr. Roberts: It is clearly in the interests of both the leaseholder and the freeholder that the property should be insured with a reputable insurance com-
    22
    pany. The most common form of conveyance of leases contains only a requirement to that effect. However, I understand that some landlords who own many leasehold properties require that cover be obtained from a particular company, possibly because that greatly facilitates the necessary checking by the landlord that cover is being continued by all his leaseholders. I shall discuss that aspect with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

    CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
    Mr. Canavanasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, when next he expects to attend a meeting of the Church Commissioners.
    Mr. William van Straubenzee(Second Church Estates Commissioner): Consistent with my duties in this House I hope to be present at the Commissioners' headquarters at least once this week.
    Mr. Canavan: As the Government were defeated last week in the other place, this seems to indicate that even the House of Lords including the Lords spiritual take a more enlightened view than this materialistic Tory Government. Will the hon. Member give us an assurance that the Church Commissioners will join the rest of the Church militant and demand that the Government abandon their proposal to deprive children of their legal right to free school transport?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I have patiently explained to the hon. Member before that the Church Commissioners as such have no responsibility for education. I am not able to assist him, though perhaps he will have observed, as he studies these matters so carefully, that not all the Church Commissioners voted in one way when this matter was discussed in another place.

    PUBLIC LIBRARIES
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many books were borrowed from public libraries during 1979.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): About 557 million books were borrowed from public libraries in

    23
    England in the year which ended on 31 March 1979.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Do not those substantial figures show what an important part the borrowing and reading of books from public libraries plays in the educational process as a whole? Is my hon. Friend prepared to say, in relation to economies that we on the Conservative side accept totally, that he would hope that not disproportionate economies are made by local authorities on public libraries when considering the economies that they necessarily have before them?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's opening remarks. Everyone acknowledges the important role that libraries play in all communities. However, expenditure on the library service cannot be exempt from the restraints to which public expenditure in general must be subjected in present circumstances. I hope that the libraries will continue as the focal point that they have become for many people in every community.
    Mr. Faulds: Do not the facts that opening hours of libraries are being cut and fewer books are being bought by local authorities because of the Government's insensate and destructive tendencies in public expenditure cuts do enormous damage to the long-established tradition of free borrowing in British libraries?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman states his case with a little too much excess. The matter is constantly under review by my Department, but the hon. Gentleman must not exaggerate too much. We acknowledge that libraries play an important part and the number of books lent over the past year show no signs of a recession over the next 12 months.
    Mr. Viggers: Having made the gesture of supporting the public lending right legislation, will the Government take the further step of showing that they have their feet firmly on the ground by filing the matter and letting it gather dust?
    Mr. Macfarlane: That is not an undertaking which can be granted this afternoon. My hon. Friend knows the precise state of that legislation and the pro-
    24
    gramme that has already passed the House.

    ARTS EXPENDITURE
    Mr. Canavanasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations the Government have received about the effect of public expenditure cuts on the arts.
    Mr. Macfarlane: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 5 November 1979.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister confirm that the Arts Council grant for next year will be £68 million, which is less in real terms than the grant for the current year? Is he aware that the cuts in the BBC budget have caused a proposal to scrap the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra? Will the hon. Gentleman urgently investigate that matter with a view to saving the orchestra, because its destruction would be seen as yet another act of cultural vandalism by the Government?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman's indignation is a little excessive and he is displaying some of his traditional gloom and despondency, which he does not owe to his constituents. The hon. Gentleman knows that the latter issue is a question for the BBC. On the other matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, he has waited since 5 November for his question. I suggest that he waits a little longer to hear my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Alan Clark: In the difficult task that my hon. Friend faces in allocating such expenditure as remains to him, will he feel able to look more critically at the Marxist cottage industries that claim tranches of his budget and more benevolently at various artistic activities, such as those of South-West Arts in my constituency, which are creative rather than destructive?
    Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend referred to my budget, but I must point out that it is a budget granted to the Arts Council and its allocation is a matter for the Council. Many hon. Members have written expressing deep concern about a number of recent matters that have appeared in the press and they are being looked at.

    THE ARTS (PRIVATE SPONSORSHIP)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the latest results of his appeal to private sponsors for help in financing the arts.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I am happy to say that there has been a continuing positive response by the business world to appeals for increased sponsorship of the arts.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is obvious that the arts will have to depend increasingly on private sponsorship since the Government will not give adequate funds to enable the arts to prosper by that means? In view of the enormous windfall profits of the oil companies and the banks, will he undertake to approach them to disburse some of their ill-gotten gains for the sake of the arts?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is not right. The Government have made clear that they intend to continue public support for the arts. I agree with him that for any increase we must look to the private sector. We have had considerable success there. The Association of Business Sponsorship for the Arts estimates that private support is running at up to £5 million a year. I accept the hon. Gentleman's interesting suggestion that the banks and the oil companies should be approached, not for their ill-gotten gains, but for their perfectly legitimate gains. I shall be happy to go along, with the support of the hon. Gentleman, and suggest that they might make an even bigger contribution to the arts.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend think that sponsorship from private companies will be able to overcome the problems caused to theatres by the 15 per cent. rate of VAT?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a different issue. I hope that the increase in private sponsorship will help not only the theatres, but the entire art world in a time of economic difficulty.
    Mr. Dalyell: Returning to the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra, why should the BBC be, to such an extent, the sole patron of music? Is there not a case for some help from the Government in that respect?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: How the BBC disposes of its funds and programmes is a matter entirely for the Corporation.

    ARTS EXPENDITURE
    Mrs. Renee Shortasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the level of Government spending on the arts.
    Mr. Cormackasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will make a statement about the level of Government spending on the arts.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The House will be glad to know that in the expenditure plans for 1980–81 which I shall be submitting for parliamentary approval, I intend to provide for a grant of £70 million to the Arts Council of Great Britain.
    Mrs. Short: I do not intend to be churlish to the right hon. Gentleman. I thank him for his reply. However, is he aware that the £9 million increase does not make up for the cut of £1¼ million in the arts grant that the Government made on taking office or for the 20 per cent. inflation rate from which the labour- intensive arts are suffering acutely? Is he also aware that, as his hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) pointed out, the increase nowhere near meets the doubling of VAT on the arts? What prospect can the right hon. Gentleman hold out for an improvement in the situation?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I would be the last person to accuse the hon. Lady of being churlish to myself, but she is perhaps being less than her usual generous self on these matters. The increase in the Arts Council grant amounts to £11.75 million and we hope that the inflation rate will not be 20 per cent. for this year. The £11.75 million represents an increase of 20 per cent. and I think that that is a fair deal for the arts. Of course, I should much rather see an even bigger grant, but I think that the hon. Lady will agree on reflection that, in the circumstances, the arts have not done too badly.
    Mr. Cormack: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer? However, will he bear in mind that it would be helpful next year if the Arts Council could know of the Government's intentions just a little earlier?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that that is a fair point. I thank my hon. Friend for his more than generous remarks, which make up for my disappointment with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), with her less than generous ones. During the year expenditure reviews have taken place. In fact, the announcement has been made earlier than the general announcement on public expenditure. The Arts Council receives an earlier informal notification. I hope that next year there will be different circumstances and that we shall be able to get these matters over earlier.
    Mr. Faulds: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should temper his euphoria and even show a little penitence. This grant does not meet the inflation rate and the likely inflation rate under this Government's policies. Perhaps he should recall—[Interruption.) I do not need any help from either side of the House on this.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am in the middle. Therefore, the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) meant "Will he".
    Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful for your assistance, Mr. Speaker. I was about to rephrase that, but the sight of the right hon. Gentleman so incenses me. Will he recall—if he wants to make comparisons—the very poor performance of his grant this year compared with the five years 1974–79 of the Labour Government when the increase was 250 per cent.?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman is not right. The increase in money terms was not 250 per cent. but 225 per cent.
    Mr. Faulds.Meet that.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: In real terms it was 63 per cent. That is very similar to the rates of increase achieved by the previous Government. We are in a different situation now. During a period of cutback in Government expenditure we can all be proud of this year's arts grant. As for penitence, no doubt I have
    28
    a great deal to be sorry for. like most people. When the lion. Gentleman makes an act of contrition for his sins, I shall happily join him.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
Mr. Kinnock: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the situation now existing as a result of the decision of the House of Lords on Thursday last to remove clauses 23 and 25 from the Education (No. 2) Bill, and the Government's failure to make a statement of their intentions following that important change in proposed legislation."
The matter is specific, as it relates to a Bill that is currently before Parliament. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was a matter of great contention when it was discussed in the House, with Members of all parties voting for the removal of the clauses. It is an important matter, because it affects the legal standing and financial position of all local education authorities, especially the 20 that have decided to impose substantial charges for the provision of transport for children living some distance from their schools.
Most important of all is that the matter is one of great urgency. The beginning of the new financial year is less than three weeks away. Local education authorities have made their policies on education spending and rate revenue on the basis of proposals contained in the Education (No. 2) Bill when it left this place. It is vital that we obtain from the Government an immediate statement on whether they intend to reinstate clauses 23 and 25 of the Bill in this place, or, if they do not intend to do that, whether they will make additional moneys available to local education authorities to permit them to maintain school transport services at the current level. If the Government take the former course, of reinstatement, they will, as was repeatedly said in this place and in another place last week, cause immense harm to rural communities by permitting local education authorities to charge up to £200 a year for the transport of children. They will make nonsense—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make the speech

29
that he would make if I granted the application.
Mr. Kinnock: I have no intention of making such a speech either in content or in length, Mr. Speaker. However, in support of the view that it is an urgent matter, as only three weeks remain until the beginning of the financial year it appears to be important to relate that fact so that you may give full consideration to the situation that will arise in the event of the Government seeking to restore the two clauses in defiance of the decision of the House of Lords on Thursday last.
It is a further fact that nonsense would be made of denominational choice if restoration took place. Some local education authorities would be forced to betray promises made in good faith to parents in communities that have cooperated with reorganisation and the closure of schools in years past, since 1944.
If the Government do not take the course of restoration—this is related directly to the question whether we are likely to get a statement following the vote in the House of Lords—and still refuse to provide additional finance for school transport, they will ensure, as the Secretary of State and the Association of County Councils have said, that local authorities will make further cuts in classroom provision, in capitation allowances and in book allowances. They will have to sack teachers unless that money is made available.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we need to debate these matters urgently. Any further delay from the Government will ensure that local education authorities enter the new financial year in financial and administrative bewilderment and legal confusion. That will harm significantly the interests of parents and children throughout the length and breadth of the country who are supposed to be represented by Conservative Members.
30
It is possible for the Government to reassure parents in rural communities. It is possible for the Government to safeguard children against the effect of further cuts. The House of Lords has made its decision. It did so by a majority of two to one last Thursday. As the elected representatives of the parents who will be affected, I hope that we shall have the right to do the same.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bedwelity (Mr. Kinnock) gave me notice before 12 o'clock noon today that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The situation now existing as a result of the decision of the House of Lords on Thursday last to remove clauses 23 and 25 from the Education (No. 2) Bill and the Government's failure to make a statement of their intentions following the important change in proposed legislation."
I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman and to the important matters that he raised. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the motions on statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Transport Boards (Adjustment of Payments) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Commitee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) Regulation 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Speaker: Before calling the Lord Privy Seal to move the motion and make his speech, I wish to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
Secondly, well over 50 right hon. and hon. Members have already indicated to me that they would like to participate in the debate. It will be quite impossible for that number to be called, but I appeal to those who are fortunate to bear in mind the large number of their colleagues who also wish to speak.
I have one final request. I ask right hon. and hon. Members, on such a day as this, when so many wish to speak, not to come to the Chair to seek to advance their claims. It makes it exceedingly difficult for whoever who is in the Chair when such pressures are applied.
Mr. Eric S. Heller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House, but as this is an occasion when there will be a free vote, although the Government themselves have put down a motion, I ask you especially to bear in mind that many points of view have been expressed in the various amendments tabled, and I ask whether you would reconsider your decision to call only one amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No "] There are precedents for this, as you, Mr. Speaker, well know.
As at least 29 hon. Members have signed the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and 46 have signed an amendment that I have tabled, may I express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will reconsider the matter and provide an opportunity for a separate vote on at least those amendments?
Mr. Speaker: The House knows that it has given me instructions on this very matter. I am able to call more than one amendment only when the House expressly instructs me or gives me permission so to do. There is no motion suggesting that, or giving me that authority. Therefore, I have been able to select one amendment only. I have no doubt that others whose amendments
32
appear on the Order Paper wish equally strongly that I had selected theirs, too.
Mr. J. W. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is related to today's business but is slightly different from the point of order just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). May I ask you for clarification of the motion, before it is moved, since it refers to Great Britain and not to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
There are many competitors in Northern Ireland, and it so happen that the boxing and equestrian competitors in Northern Ireland go to the Olympic Games under the flag of the Republic of Eire whereas the athletes in Northern Ireland go to the Olympics under the flag of Great Britain. Therefore, the issue of those living in Northern Ireland who wish to be competitors and go under the flag of the Republic of Eire or under the flag of Great Britain is not covered in the motion, which seems totally to ignore the position of Northern Ireland.
If we are to get this matter settled properly, for the avoidance of doubt both here and among everybody outside, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule whether the terms of the motion are in order, or, if they are not, will the Government make a statement about it?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seems to have lighted upon an interesting question, but it is one to which the Minister will have to reply. It is not for me, since it is not my motion.
3.43 pm
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and believes that Great Britain should not take part in the Olympic Games in Moscow.
The first part of the motion is, I think, uncontroversial, and I shall spend little time on it, but the issue of the Olympic Games is inevitably linked to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our position is that so long as the Soviet Union continues its aggression against the people of Afghanistan it would be completely inappropriate for Britain to take part in the Games.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman before he has got started, but I hope that he will think it desirable at this stage that he should clarify the point raised a few moments ago on a point of order and make clear whether the Government's disapproval extends to the competition of athletes from this part of the kingdom, or whether the motion should have referred to the United Kingdom.
Sir I. Gilmour: I am glad to clarify that point to the right hon. Gentleman. It does, of course, include the whole of the United Kingdom.
The Russians sent massive forces—
Mr. James Callaghan: If this is an error and the position of Northern Ireland has been left out by mistake, should not the right hon. Gentleman say so at once and apologise not only to the House but to the people of Northern Ireland?
Sir I. Gilmour: I do not think that the people of Northern Ireland would expect to be separated from this motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make a great thing of it, I shall willingly apologise to him, but it is not, I believe, a matter about which they would worry unduly. As I say, I believe that Northern Ireland is not separated in this matter—
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to clarify it, will you accept a manuscript amendment to put the matter right?
Mr. Speaker: If a request comes to me and a manuscript amendment is submitted, I shall, of course, accept it.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, then, give you notice that I shall at the appropriate time wish to move a manuscript amendment?
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the Lord Privy Seal to indicate which sports, if any, are covered by the whole of the island of Ireland and those which are covered only by the Six Counties of Northern Ireland?
Sir I. Gilmour: The Russians sent massive forces into a hitherto non-aligned country in order to prop up a short-lived system that had already lost the confidence of the people. Their attempts to explain the sequence of events leading up—
Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for giving way. With reference to the points of order made earlier, will he be kind enough to specify, in the terms of his motion, those sports to which he is referring and those to which he is not?
Sir I. Gilmour: When I come on to the sports, I shall, but at the moment we are on the subject of the invasion of Afghanistan. This is a serious motion, and I do not think that the House wants it to be messed up by fiddling about with particular sports.
The Russians' attempts to explain the sequence of events leading up to their intervention were contradictory and quite implausible. This was the first occasion since the war on which Soviet combat forces have been used outside the Warsaw Pact area. The Russian action has been widely condemned by the international community. It has cast a deep shadow over East-West relations. It has underlined the selective and self-interested nature of the Soviet attitude to detente and the underlying expansionist aims at Soviet imperialism.
Certain inescapable conclusions flow from this. The first is the need, now more than ever, for the West to maintain its military preparedness and to prevent the Russians from further tilting the military balance in their favour.
Secondly, we need to take measures which will convince the Soviet Union that it has misjudged the firmness of the Western response. We need to show the Soviet Union that its definition of detente is unacceptable—that detente is indivisible and that it cannot continue to enjoy the benefits of Western technology, credits and foodstuffs while flouting the other areas of detente. I shall come later to the measures that we have taken.
Thirdly, we must help our friends in the area to strengthen themselves so that they are better able to withstand this new threat.
Fourthly, we must keep as our goal the complete withdrawal of Soviet forces

35
from Afghanistan, which alone will allow that country to pursue a peaceful, nonaligned status and permit a return to a more normal relationship between East and West. That is why we have taken the lead in developing the proposals for a neutral and non-aligned Afghanistan, endorsed by the Foreign Ministers of the Nine on 19 February.
The Soviet regime continues to insist that "outside interference" should cease before it begins to withdraw. With 80,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan, it is quite clear where the outside intervention is coming from. It is clear also that, but for the Russian invasion, their present stooge would be unable to sustain himself in power.
Nevertheless, the Russians' reactions suggest that they do not want to close the door to further discussions We are therefore considering the next step in our initiative. Equally, we must be on our guard against any Soviet attempt to use the prospect of discussions as a means of gaining the faint-hearted acquiescence of third countries in a permanent Soviet presence in Afghanistan.
Yet the search for a political solution will be long and arduous. To succeed, we need to keep up and indeed increase the pressure on the Soviet Union. We must intensify the measures that we and our partners have, from the beginning of this year, been working together to apply.
This process of acting together is never simple. Differences in the Western response are an inevitable reflection of the openness of our societies. The views of all countries have been very well aired. As my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary said at Chatham House on 22 February,
"In our democracies policy cannot be dictated by some kind of supernational …politburo, and the discussion of policy neither can nor should be conducted wholly in secret."
That is, after all, why the House is debating the motion today
Nevertheless, a number of major steps have been taken already.
Mr. John Gorst rose—
Sir I. Gilmour: I shall not give way. The steps include the United States decision to cut back on sales of grain, backed
36
up by the decisions of the European Community, Australia and Canada not to make good the shortfall. The Government have consistently made clear to the Community that we oppose any further subsidised sales of agricultural products to the Soviet Union. The members of the European Community have agreed to refrain from giving the Soviet Union export credit at special rates. The United Kingdom has decided not to renew the Anglo-Soviet credit agreement which expired last month and which gave the Russians especially generous terms. The export of high technology goods which requires the prior approval of our partners in COCOM is suspended. Meanwhile, we are pursuing with our partners lasting arrangements for the tightening and widening of strategic controls on exports of technology to the Soviet Union.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Lord Privy Seal think that it is wise to stop export credits? I agree that that should be the case on weapons, but is it wise when applied to non-military goods? British engineers would be out of work as a result of such measures.
Will not these measures injure detente, on which our lives depend?
Sir I. Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman should know, I am talking about specially privileged terms for the Soviet Union which were granted five years ago. The hon. Gentleman should know also that those terms were far from being fully taken up. The inferences that he has drawn are not justified.
Bilateral Anglo-Soviet events which might give a public impression of business as usual after the aggression in Afghanistan have been cancelled or postponed. These have included various ministerial contacts, as well as, for example, visits to Britain by the Red Army Choir and to the Soviet Union by the English Chamber Orchestra. It is difficult to strike the right balance—to do more harm to the Soviet Union than we do to ourselves. It may be that we should be prepared to go further than we have already. But I believe that the measures that have been taken add up to an effective and measured response.
Mr. Gorst: I wanted to ask my right hon. Friend earlier whether he would make it clear that he associated condemnation of the events in Afghanistan with the condemnation of everyone in this

37
country of the way in which the Soviet Union treated its Soviet-Jewish dissidents, especially in removing them from Moscow for the purposes of the Games.
Sir I. Gilmour: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. I was hoping to deal with that point in some detail later in my speech.
Where we have refrained from certain other actions, that also has been for good reasons. For example, we still need to be able to convey our views to the Soviet Government. We cannot responsibly forsake efforts to preserve world peace and seek balanced arms control agreements which will enhance our security. We believe that we should continue to try to influence the Soviet Union towards more peaceful coexistence, for example, by seeking better implementation of the Helsinki Final Act. We should continue our attempts to help open up Soviet society.
I know that some hon. Members are worried about our continuing to trade with the Soviet Union, but we are not advocating the severance of all contacts in political, sporting, cultural or scientific fields, any more than we are advocating the severance of trade links where opportunities exist, especially for non-strategic capital goods.
However, if trade is to continue it must be profitable and not privileged. That is why we have not renewed the Anglo-Soviet credit agreement. As the House knows, the Government are opposed to subsidised exports of agricultural products, and we shall make further efforts to persuade our partners to join us.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Sir I. Gilmour: I shall give way in a moment.
We are also opposed to sales of high technology, and we shall be taking steps, together with our partners, further to limit those sales.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Several Hon. Member rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Lord Privy Seal indicate to whom he wishes to give way?
Sir I. Gilmour: I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. Terence Higgins: I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House on the question of export credits. Are not export credits still available to the Russians on interest rate terms that enable them to buy our exports at a lower rate of interest than that at which British industry itself can invest? If that is true, is not the distinction that he is seeking to make between strategic exports and others a very blurred one? It may well be that some of these exports will go to help the Russian war effort.
Sir I. Gilmour: As I have already said, we are not agreeable to any preferential treatment for the Russians. I have referred twice to COCOM, and I stress that there is no question of our agreeing to exports that will help the Russian war effort. That is fundamental to our position.
The amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends is, therefore, in accordance with Government policy. As I have said we have not renewed the Anglo-Soviet credit agreement, with its extremely favourable terms. We are strongly opposed to doing anything that might facilitate the Soviet war effort. We are aiming to tighten and broaden the COCOM rules. Finally, we are opposed to the subsidised sale of butter to the Soviet Union.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Sir I. Gilmour: These measures have been part—
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) must resume his seat.
Sir I. Gilmour: These measures have been part of a consistent, co-ordinated policy involving, on the one hand, the diplomatic efforts and initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, and, on the other, many private organisations and individuals.
As I have shown, these have already involved British people in many spheres of life. We are now asking that British

39
sportsmen should make their contribution also.
The Government accept that a considerable sacrifice is being asked of our sportsmen, since to forgo the Olympics would involve the loss of an irreplaceable opportunity.
Of course, we fully understand the dilemma in which many athletes may find themselves. As the House knows, the Government did not initially advise a boycott of the Moscow Games. Our first efforts were to try to get the Games moved from Moscow and relocated in another place. The athletes have made sacrifices and subjected themselves to a hard training discipline for many months or years in order to arrive at peak condition for the summer Games in Moscow. We understand and sympathise fully with their feelings. We all share the pride of those British athletes who, in the past, have been successful in Olympic Games.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Lord Privy Seal please indicate his preference?
Sir I. Gilmour: Preference is no problem. However, I was about to give way to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) since he has made several remarks from a sedentary position which I believe to be out of order.
Mr. Russell Kerr: I was merely wondering whether we must endure for much longer this hypocritical nonsense.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will give its reasoned attention to a serious matter.
Sir I. Gilmour: Our athletes, as responsible citizens, cannot but share the concern that we all feel at the brutal behaviour of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the wider issues which that raises. We have thought hard about the issue and about how we might help.
My honourable Friend the Minister of State is now in Geneva with a group from like-minded countries examining the possibilities of enabling sportsmen to compete against each other in conditions similar to those of the Olympics but without the moral conflict attached to attending the Moscow Games.
40
However, there are many practical difficulties in the way. Governments in the free world cannot organise sporting events. They can encourage and facilitate the holding of games, but the organisation rightly and properly is a matter for the sporting bodies themselves. The international sporting organisations have their own rules and procedures. They have the power largely to decide whether and under what conditions international sporting events take place. I hope that they will facilitate our efforts to mount alternative games.
Mr. Heffer rose—
Sir I. Gilmour: In this situation the Government have felt bound to give a lead and to point out the context in which individuals will have to take their own decisions. We fully understand hon. Members' anxiety about the liberty of the individual, but I do not accept that we have in any way harassed or bullied anybody, as has been suggested. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members would be wise to wait to hear the facts before they jeer. The scope of our decision is limited.
Mr. Heifer: Give way.
Sir I. Gilmour: I must carry on. We have decided, for instance, that it would be wrong to prevent athletes from going by such measures as the withdrawal of passports. On the other hand, certain decisions inevitably flow from the Government's decision to advise against going to Moscow.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, has made clear, we have advised the Sports Council that public money should not be made available to send attaché to Moscow. It would also be wrong for us as a Government to continue to provide and pay for an attaché in Moscow helping to organise British participation in the Moscow Olympics, so he is being withdrawn. However, the British Olympic Association is at liberty to do as other associations do and appoint its own attaché. Any British visitor to Moscow will continue to enjoy the full services of our consular officers in the normal way should they get into difficulties.
Mr. Heffer: I accept that Governments in the free world cannot organise the

41
Games, but why is a Foreign Office Minister in Geneva today, with representatives of three or four other countries, talking about such Games as an alternative to the Olympics? Is that not a contradiction in policy, and a wasted journey for the Minister?
Sir I. Gilmour: If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) had listened he would have heard me say that those representatives are not trying to organise a Games but are considering the difficulties and how they might help.
The Government's attitude to leave facilities for civil servants and members of the Armed Forces has been misrepresented and exaggerated.
Mr. Clement Freud rose—
Sir I. Gilmour: No official instructions have yet gone out, but we have decided that we cannot grant special paid leave to people working in the public service for a purpose that we believe is against our interests.
However, how individuals use their annual leave and whether they ask for unpaid leave are matters for the individual in a free society. The answer to any request for unpaid leave, will, in the usual way, depend on the needs of the service. Naturally, we hope that individuals will listen to our advice about British interests. In the last resort the decision in this country will rest where it belongs, with the individual.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I support the line that my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have taken, but I wish to ask one question. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem for athletes and sportsmen is that they have to take a once-for-all, irreversible decision? In those areas where the Government have control they seek an equivalence of sacrifice. I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend but I have yet to hear any evidence that the Government have given a lead in seeking an equivalence of sacrifice in other areas of our national life.
Sir I. Gilmour: I am sorry, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) obviously did not take in what I said earlier. Equivalent sacrifices are being asked of people in-
42
volved in other spheres. We accept that in a free society such as ours individuals must decide for themselves. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition believes in what we are doing.
Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
Sir L Gilmour: I have given way on many occasions, and I must move on.
There are considerable divisions and fluctuations of opinion in the athletic community. Mr. Derek Johnson, the secretary of the International Athletes' Club, for instance, recently wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to express, on behalf of a number of the club's members, the strength of their desire to take part in the summer Games in Moscow. However, on 11 January, in the Daily Mail he stated:
"Frankly, it does not matter what happens to the Olympic Games. They have become such a political thing that it is actually desirable that they should be cut down to size. The Olympics are an emotional attachment without intrinsic value. Their disappearance would be no great loss to society, or to athletics."
He continued:
"Like many athletes, I believe that Eastern Europe is up to its eyeballs in drugs. Yes, of course, drug-taking exists among Western athletes, but in Eastern Europe the federations are running an organised State drug programme for athletes."
Opinions are divided.
It has been suggested that our athletes should demonstrate disapproval of Soviet actions while participating in the sporting events. I cannot commend such a course. To attend is to become a guest and to accept the rules of the host—technically the International Olympic Committee but in Soviet propaganda terms the Soviet Union. Refusal to comply with the requirements of the organisers would not merely be seen as a discourtesy; it could be represented as a disruption or, in Soviet jargon, hooliganism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish. Nonsense".] Hon. Members are very eloquent, but the effect of such action on the Soviet television viewer would be different and much less certain in its results than the unmistakable and uncompromising act of absenting oneself.
We are convinced that the only effective course of action is, purely and simply, non-participation in the Games.

43
The British Olympic Association maintains that the attendance of British athletes in Moscow would no more signify their approval of Russian behaviour in Afghanistan than does the continued presence of the British ambassador there, and that politics should be kept separate from sport.
The arguments of the British Olympic Association are fallacious, because they ignore the Soviet attitude to the Olympic Games. The association seems to think that the Russian attitude to sport and politics is the same as its own, whereas, as I shall show, it is very different indeed. "The Handbook for Party Activists" in Russia, which was published in June last year, has this to say:
"The forces of reaction are trying to exploit the Olympic Movement and Games in the interests of the exploiting classes, for the goals of business and commerce, as propaganda for the bourgeois way of life, capitalist construction and its ideology, and for the distraction of youth from the political and class struggle."
The handbook goes on to say that the holding of the summer Games in Moscow is convincing proof of the general acknowledgement of the historical importance and correct foreign policy of the USSR and of the huge services of the Soviet Union to peace. The book refers to
"proof of the correctness of Russian foreign policy and of the huge services of the Soviet Union to peace."
Nobody reading that could for one moment believe that the Soviets think that sport should be kept separate from politics.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Sir I. Gilmour: Indeed, it is official Soviet doctrine that to say that sport lies outside politics—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) to recognise when the Minister is not giving way, so that we may have an orderly debate.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to ask, through you, that the Minister should indicate—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has said enough for me to realise that it is not a point of order.
Sir I. Gilmour: It is official Soviet doctrine that to say that sport lies outside politics is not a serious point of view. As we know, in a totalitarian State such as Russia, nothing is separated from politics. All activity is political. So to those who view the world in the abstract, and still maintain that sport and politics should be kept apart, I would say, "Maybe, but what you will find in Moscow is not your kind of sport".
There is no question but that for the Soviet Union, holding the Olympic Games is Moscow is of supreme importance. It sees the Games as a propaganda exercise from which it hopes to derive very great advantage.
Conversely, a decision by several Western countries to absent themselves from the Games will have a powerful impact upon the Soviet population at large. In Russia, sport generates intense public interest. Soviet athletes receive many privileges. They and their supporters among the Soviet public know that without full international participation the Moscow Olympic Games will he fatally flawed—and it will not be easy to hide that fact.
The Soviet people will realise that for Western countires to stay away from Moscow implies a response to a Soviet action of great gravity. Those doubts and uncertainties, which have already arisen in the minds of many about Soviet armed intervention in Afghanistan, whatever the pretext given for it, will be magnified and will call for a satisfactory answer.
All this explains why the British Olympic Association is wrong in seeing no difference between the presence of athletes in Moscow and the presence of the British ambassador. High as the prestige of the British Diplomatic Service is, and distinguished though our present ambassador is, his presence in Moscow cannot be said to confer a great propaganda victory upon the Soviet regime. But the presence of Western athletes at the Games would undoubtedly constitute a great propaganda victory for the Soviet Union. If our athletic bodies wish to give such a victory to the Soviet Union, so be it, but they should at least know what they are doing and they should reflect very carefully before they reach a final decision.
Mr. David Stoddart rose—
Sir I. Gilmour: I am sorry, but I am running late.
Mr. Brezhnev said that the decision to intervene in Afghanistan was a very difficult one to take. The decision to decline an invitation to participate in the Olympic Games is no less difficult, especially for a country with the sporting traditions and achievements of our own. But grave breaches of international order require serious responses, and there is no other Western response that would be so unequivocally clear to millions of ordinary people in the Soviet Union.
Another very important element in the present situation is the defence of human rights and the position of Soviet dissidents. [Interruption.] Some hon. Gentlemen may not think that the position of Soviet dissidents is important, but I assure them that it is. We cannot lightly brush aside the views of those who continue their steady and courageous insistence on the rights assured to them by law and by international agreements, notably the Helsinki Final Act.
Dr. Sakharov has said:
"While the USSR is waging military actions in Afghanistan, the holding of the Olympic Games in Moscow contradicts the Olympic Charter. This is obvious."
Alexander Ginsberg has said:
"You should boycott the Olympic Games. These games are not sport primarily, they are politics".
Bukovsky, Kuznetsov, Amalrik and others have all said the same thing.
The House will be aware that a wave of arrests of dissidents has recently taken place—50 persons at least in the last few months. Jewish emigration has fallen sharply since the end of last year. Harassment has been stepped up. We have recently seen the arbitrary banishment of Dr. Sakharov.
Part of this campaign can certainly be ascribed to official concern that nothing should be allowed to mar the resounding propaganda victory that the Soviet authorities had hoped to gain from the Olympic Games. The recent increase in the persecution of dissidents has been particularly marked in Moscow, where, of course, the majority of the Olympic events are scheduled to take place and where most of the foreign visitors are due to be concentrated this summer.
46
The perversion of the Olympic ideal that the new wave of repression represents would itself be a reason for not going to Moscow this summer. Decisions by Western nations not to participate in the Olympics will be a message to them that where Soviet action in international affairs is unacceptable, Western nations will not blandly condone it. On the other hand, a decision to attend in spite of Afghanistan will be a betrayal of all that they have so courageously fought to defend.
I should like finally to congratulate the Select Committee on foreign affairs on its impressive and timely report, which has been invaluable in informing our debate today. One question in its report—that of the site or sites for future Games—is a matter for the longer term, which will require careful study.
The Select Committee's recommendations are very much in accord with the Government's view, especially those in paragraph 3, which states that
"Until such time as those forces are withdrawn, the House should support all proper measures to make the Soviet leaders mindful of Britain's abhorrence of their aggression against Afghanistan, including in particular limitations on the supply of credit and high technology equipment, a reduction of cultural exchanges and the withdrawal from the Olympic Games in Moscow of all British Athletes."
The Opposition's amendment is very far from being a direct contradiction of the Government's position, and a good deal of it could be accepted by everybody in the House, but it is unfair in what it says about consultation. Similarly, while substantial common agreement with other countries is obviously desirable, if everybody waits for everybody else nothing will ever happen. In any case if the Opposition's amendment is defeated, I hope that that will not stop their supporters from then supporting the Government motion. I am sure that a good many Opposition Members are in agreement with what we are saying.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Sir I. Gilmour: We have made no secret of our views and we have had extensive contacts with other countries in the Western alliance. We have found that many countries in the free world face exactly the same problem—
Mr. McNamara rose—
Sir I. Gilmour: If the hon. Member tries to use the procedures of the House, namely, points of order, as a means of interrupting, I am unlikely to give way to him.
As I was saying, we have found that many countries in the free world face exactly the same problem as ourselves. In some countries, there is a close indentity of view between parliamentary and public opinion and the Government view. The United States is a conspicuous example. In some other countries, the Government position determines what sportsmen must do, but many Western countries face the same kind of problem, with the same conflicting currents, as exist in our own.
It is not surprising, therefore, that some Governments are cautious about expressing a view. But we believe that, at the end of the day, many prominent sporting countries will decide not to go to Moscow. I do not believe that in these circumstances, British athletes would wish to go to what would be discredited Games.
The Government have been accused—not only by the Opposition—of ignoring sporting problems and procedures. I hope that what I have said today will have shown that we have considered both the personal dilemma and disappointment of individual athletes and the very real difficulties of organising alternative games. In return, the Government are entitled to ask British athletes and their representatives, as well as this House, to consider the international consequences of their actions.
In view of the points of order made earlier, Mr. Speaker, I seek to leave to move the motion in an amended form, with the words "the United Kingdom" substituted for "Great Britain".
There are other people, in Afghanistan and in the Soviet Union, whose lives and whose freedom are at stake. The Government believe that non-participation in this summer's Games offers Western countries the single most effective way of bringing home to the Soviet regime and the Russian people our refusal to accept their occupation of Afghanistan. I therefore ask the House to support our motion tonight.
4.20 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move, to leave out from "Afghanistan" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"calls upon the Soviet Government to withdraw immediately in the interests of world peace and detente in Europe; believes that an effective response on the Olympics as in the economic, trading and political fields can only be achieved by securing substantial common agreement among the Governments and sporting authorities of Western Europe, the United States of America and elsewhere; regrets the Government's failure to consult properly with the sporting bodies in this country; and asserts the right of individual citizens at the end of the day to make their own decisions."
Given the large public interest in this year's Olympic Games, it is right that the House should debate the matter, and that the debate should be held at a proper time and be of sufficient length to enable a substantial number of right hon. and hon. Members to take part. However, whether it is wise or necessary to hold this debate this week is another matter, and one to which I shall return later.
We have listened to an unhappy and unconvincing speech by the Lord Privy Seal. I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member on either side of the House who came with serious doubts about what is the best course to take will find his decision made any easier by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Indeed, I am inclined to wonder just how closely No. 10 and the Foreign Office have kept in touch with each other during the past few weeks. In view of the Prime Minister's leading interest and initiative in the matter, it would have been far better if she had opened the debate herself.,
When we last debated East-West relations and Afghanistan, on 28 January, with so many issues of high policy left uncertain and unresolved at the end, I did not expect that the next occasion for a debate would be focused exclusively upon the issue of the Olympic Games. It shows an extraordinary—and to many people outside the House and outside Britain almost laughable—sense of proportion, apart from the fact that, in thrusting the issue forward ahead of other Western responses of an economic and trading kind, the Government have unnecessarily fed the suspicions and resentment of the community of sport that

49
it is being singled out and asked to make sacrifices that others have not yet been called upon to make.
Mr. Cormack rose—
Mr. Shore: I do not think that the Lord Privy Seal's references to the non-renewal of the export credit agreement and his total failure even to mention the continued export of buttter, grain and other items to the Soviet Union will help to convince—
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-BowmanMy right hon. Friend mentioned them.
Mr. Shore: I substitute the words "failure to reach agreement about doing something". I do not believe that that will help to convince sportsmen that they have not been put in a special position.
Most of my remarks will be related to the position that we state in the amendment. I accept that on this issue there is bound to be a wide divergence of opinion. The Order Paper certainly reflects it. Therefore, it is entirely right that there should be a free vote—I hope a genuinely free vote—on both sides of the House.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
Mr. Shore: I shall develop my speech in my own way. One always finds, in putting forward a case, that many interruptions early on merely anticipate what one has already decided to say and to deal with as the argument develops.
In spite of differences, there is no disagreement anywhere on the condemnation of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Nor should there be, for, whatever the Soviet motives may be, the Soviet Union's action has breached international law and flouted international opinion. The Soviet Union has extinguished the independence of a small neighbouring State, and it is engaged in a continuing armed struggle with large numbers of its people.
Reports from Afghanistan make clear that resistance is widespread and determined. It is almost certain that, unless there is a major change of Soviet policy, for which we must all hope, fighting will continue and intensify when the winter ends, with large loss of life and many punitive raids on Afghan villages for
50
months ahead. In short, when the Olympic Games commence in July, if they do, they will be accompanied not merely by the sounds of national anthems ringing through the stadium but by the sound of gunfire in the Hindu Kush and in the villages and plains of Afghanistan.
Therefore, all the amendments rightly reaffirm condemnation of Soviet action. With two exceptions, to which I shall turn shortly, they do not directly challenge the desirability of transferring the Olympics away from Moscow. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) calls for action on the Olympics to be accompanied by trade measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) points, with good reason, to the double standards of many Conservative right hon. and hon. Members who are now calling for boycott action. The amendment in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself calls for concerted action with our principal partners abroad.
There has always been a strong opinion in this country that international sport and international politics should be held apart. I suspect that that is the dominant opinion of sportsmen themselves, who are concerned above all with pitting their skills and strengths against those of competing sportsmen. They are hardly at all concerned with the political systems under which they and their competitors live, or with the external policies that their Governments pursue.
I understand that point of view, but I do not share it. More important, it is not the view of my party or of Commonwealth Governments, or indeed—although there are ambiguities—of the International Olympic Committee itself. All have insisted that South Africa, where racial discrimination is the dominant principle of the whole society, affecting the organisation of sport itself, should be excluded from the world of sport.
So the question of principle, of the linkage of sport with international and external policy, causes no difficulty for me or my party. The question is whether it is sensible to apply it to the Soviet Union in the context of Afghanistan, and whether sufficient common agreement—for to be effective it must be collective; otherwise, it is simply a unilateral gesture—can be effectively mobilised.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He knows that I always take his amendments seriously. I ask him one simple question. The amendment says that
"an effective response…can only be achieved"
in certain ways. That is understood, but what is the right hon. Gentleman's advice to the athletes now? In his view, are they to go or are they not?
Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. I have obviously thought about this, and I intend to deal with his question. However, I should like to do it in my own time.
My approach is this. Racism is not the only evil that we must combat in the world today. The invasion of one country by another is also a great crime, one that challenges the very principles of national independence, security and peace on which international order and the United Nations charter are both founded.
The 1936 Olympics were held—I believe wrongly—in Berlin. But if it had nbeen a year later, after the Anschluss with Austria, let alone the seizure of the Sudetenland in 1938, I do not believe that they would have been held in Berlin. The proposed Tokyo Olympics in 1940 were cancelled, not just because many European nations were already at war, but because Japan's continued assaults upon China were offensive to the majority of the international community.
To me, the attack on Afghanistan is equally offensive. The Soviet Union's motives may be complex, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has spelt out. Like him, I am not convinced that Afghanistan in itself is sufficient evidence of a will to global military domination. But it has involved the swallowing up of a neighbouring independent country and the suppression of its people.
Nor am I convinced that to switch the Olympic Games would adversely affect human rights and civil liberties in the Soviet Union or heighten tension between the great Powers. The Soviet Union has already, since the Afghanistan invasion, shown its approach to civil and human rights in as dramatic a way as it could find—namely, by stripping the most renowned of its human rights leaders, Academician Sakharov, of all his honours and by banishing him from Moscow where he and his
52
fellow protestors might otherwise be in touch with Western visitors to the Olympic Games.
Nor do I believe that there will be any significantly adverse effect on the existing tensions between the great Powers. The United States, in any event, has decided not to go. It is my strong view that, neither in the West nor in the Soviet Union, is there any intention of abandoning the major achievements of the past decade—arms limitation, arms balance, arms control—or to allow the resumption of the old cold war. This is a limited and specific action in the civil sphere; not the launching of an arms race or the reemergence of the kind of "pactomania" that we had in the 1950s.
I have real sympathy with those who protest against double standards in these matters. There are many examples. Only two weeks before the Soviet move against Afghanistan, the Order Paper contained a resolution on the British Lions' tour of South Africa, inviting the House to support
"the forthcoming British…Lions' tour of South Africa; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to do likewise."
Mr. Victor Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: No. We note that the Government have made only minimal and ritual noises about this tour. I doubt whether the voice of the unfortunate Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for sport was heard anything like as loud as the voice of a certain Mr. Denis Thatcher who saw no reason at all why the British Lions should not go.
Mr. Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: In a moment. That motion on the Order Paper on the British Lions was signed by no fewer than 72 Conservative Back Benchers. It will be interesting to see how they cast their votes in the Division Lobby tonight.
Mr. Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give way?
Mr. Shore: Yes.
Mr. Goodhew: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he really suggesting to the House today that there is any comparison between the

53
Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes".]
Wait for it. Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that there is no difference between the Government of South Africa today and the tyranny that rules in Moscow now? If the is saying that, his case is lost.
Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman's question makes my point. I condemn both. I do not think that he does.
My view is simple. We would be doing Russia a favour—a very singular favour—if we and others were to allow Moscow the great spectacle and triumph of hosting the 1980 Olympic Games. After Afghanistan, and unless there is a change in Russia's policy and occupation there, why should we?
It is reasonable to suppose that, if a sufficient number of countries decided not to attend, that, more clearly than anything else, would communicate to the Soviet people, as well as to their Government, the condemnation that the world has already expressed at the United Nations. On the other hand, for the world community to send its athletes to Moscow now would be interpreted by the Soviet people—and certainly interpreted for them—as international acceptance or approval of the Soviet Government and their policies. I find repugnant the image of British athletes at the opening and final ceremonies and, whenever a British success is scored, parading with our flag and anthem and paying their collective respects to the leaders of the Soviet Union.
I turn to the whole issue of practicality. When action on the Olympic Games was first mentioned in the House of Commons on 17 January, the Prime Minister said:
"We favour trying to move the venue from Moscow to elsewhere, if it is possible to do so. That cannot be done alone, and we believe we should try to do it by taking concerted action with our allies in making an approach to the International Olympic Committee, in whose lap the decision lies."—[Official Report, 17 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1864.]
Not alone, but concerted action and an approach to the International Olympic Committee.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: The same approach was pursued in the main statement on Afghani-
54
stan made by the Lord Privy Seal on 24 January, when he said:
"if the Games were to be cancelled entirely, it would be a bitter blow to the dedicated athletes in Britain and elsewhere who have trained so hard for so many years. That is why the British Government believe that the summer games should be moved. That will not be easy, but it should not be beyond the capacity of the 104 countries which condemned the Soviet Union in the United Nations."—[Official Report, 24 January 1950; Vol. 977, c. 659.]
I said at the time, and again in the debate on 28 January, that the key question was whether it was feasible in terms of organisation and whether the athletes themselves were prepared to co-operate. Those questions, as I said then and say again now, have not been answered.
Mr. Jessel: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the International Olympic Committee. Does he agree that any member of the International Olympic Committee who has a financial interest in the continuation of the Moscow Olympic Games should declare it? If, for example, Lord Killanin had an interest in a possible loss that he might make by the discontinuation of the Olympic Games, should we not know about it?
Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman may have information that I have not got. I think that people with interests have a bounden duty to make those interests public.
As late as 27 February, the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for sport, in his evidence to the Select Committee, was still talking of
"the possibility of holding an alternative games",
but insisting—and he did it twice over—that
"this would of course be very much subject to the international federations giving approval."
Up to this point, the Government's approach seems to me to have been reasonable.
Since then—precisely when I do not know—there has been an announced and major switch of policy. The House is being asked tonight, in the Government's motion, to declare itself against Britain taking part—or is it the United Kingdom?—in the Olympics without any regard to the conditions laid down on 17 January by the Prime Minister herself.

55
Those conditions matter. First and most obvious, if only a handful of the leading nations in sport stay away, the impact on the Moscow spectacle will be greatly reduced. So, too, will be the possibility of organising alternative high level events.
Secondly, there is a real danger of Western divisions being exploited to the advantage of Moscow and to our own embarrassment.
Thirdly, if neither the National Olympic Committee nor the other supporting authorities in Britain can be persuaded to agree, there is a real danger that our sportsmen will take part in substantial numbers, despite the views of the Government.
Knowing this, and knowing the Government's desire to deny Moscow the Olympic Games, one would have thought that the period from 17 January would have seen intense consultation with European and other allies to secure concerted action and, at the same time, intensive discussions with the various British sporting bodies. As far as I can judge, this just has not happened.
Mr. Heller: I really must ask my right hon. Friend what he is saying. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is he saying that, if all Western countries agreed, we ought to stay away? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Then that is totally contrary to a widely held view on the Opposition side of the House and, I would argue, in the mass of the Labour movement.
Mr. Shore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) for making plain what was otherwise obscure in his amendment. I understand that there are different views. I began by saying that. We have a free vote throughout the House tonight. I am giving my view, and I shall give it as truthfuly as I can.
We know that there was no consultation before the first statement by the Prime Minister on 17 January. I do not necessarily indict her for that. More importantly, we know that there was no consultation with the British Olympic Association beyond one informal meeting between the Minister with responsibility for sport and Sir Denis Follows on 24 January. Of course, some letters
56
have been sent; and we know that no agreement was reached at the political co-operation meeting of the Nine in Rome on 19 February when the matter was last raised.
The art of persuasion and of winning consent is not a strong point of the Prime Minister and her Cabinet, but if action in this area is to be effective, there has to be a winning of consent both abroad and at home. What has happened? Where are the alternative sites to which the Lord Privy Seal referred in his statement on 24 January when speaking about the Olympic Games?
What are the views of the different sporting bodies and federations in this country? What is the present state of play in trying to reach agreement with our principal allies and other countries? We have not yet been told, although it is crucial to any sensible vote or decision that the House may make tonight.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rather squalid hole-in-the-corner meeting today in Geneva, where two or three Western countries are trying to gang up without taking the views of the Third world into account, is the worst possible way of proceeding?
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has drawn attention to an important point. I do not know—nor do I think that anyone in the House knows—precisely what this meeting is about. All we heard was the extraordinary insistence by the Leader of the House last Thursday that this debate was crucial because of that meeting. We shall see what answer we get to that question later.
What I think has happened is that, following the initial rebuff by Sir Denis Follows, the Prime Minister lost her patience. In her frustration and anger, she decided to turn on the unfortunate athletes themselves. Last week we had what I suppose some would call a smack of firm government and others would call a taste of tyranny. No athlete employed by central Government is now to be given leave to attend the Olympic Games. The special attache in Moscow has been withdrawn.
Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misrepresent

57
the position. I did make this quite clear. He is reading a speech that was prepared in advance and has not taken account of what I said.
Mr. Shore: Am I to understand that leave is now to be given to those who wish to attend? Is that the correction that the right hon. Gentleman made, because that is precisely the point that I was making?
Sir I. Gilmour: I talked about paid leave and drew a distinction between that and unpaid leave. That would have been perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman had he listened to what I said.
Mr. Shore: I did my utmost to listen to what the right hon. Gentleman said. However, I am sure that he will agree that in a long speech with many interruptions, I might have missed one minor adjective.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The Lord Privy Seal said that unpaid leave might be applied for but that it was subject to the needs of the Civil Service whether the applicant would be allowed to go. Should any athlete decide to go to the Olympics would my right hon. Friend ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he can give a categorical assurance that the files of such people will not be marked "No further promotion", or "Dismissal"?
Mr. Shore: I hope that there will be no question of that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) for that further elucidation.
The statement was made to the Select Committee by the Minister of State on 20 February:
"We are not going to bulldoze athletes or sporting organisations",
has simply been discarded. First, it is counter-productive. If the Government were simply determined to stop athletes from going to the Games, as distinct from advising them not to attend, they knew that they would have to come to the House and ask for specific powers. Quasi-compulsion is repugnant in itself and reveals all too clearly a fundamental lack of understanding by the Prime Minister and the Government of the people that they have been elected to lead. As they do not appear to know it already, I will tell them now that the British people can
58
be persuaded but they always refuse to be bullied. How appropriate it is that the Secretary of State for the Environment, the most experienced bully in the Government, has been given the task of winding up this debate.
Mr. Cormack rose—
Mr. Shore: In conclusion, I believe that we have here in this Olympics issue all the makings of a total botch. What started as a reasonable and widely-shared objective has been turned by incompetence and mishandling into a source of serious division—
Mr. Cormack rose—
Mr. Shore:—which is likely to do damage to us all.
In putting forward this motion, the Government are treating the House with cynicism. There is no earthly reason why the House should be expressing a view today simply because a Foreign Office Minister is meeting a few other Ministers in Geneva. They have met before without the need for any such resolution of the House. It is not the Minister who needs a resolution of the House; it is the House that needs a full report and statement from the Minister in the light of his meetings this week and of the further discussions which even this Government must have with the sporting authorities of this country.
Mr. Cormack rose—
Mr. Shore: It is only then that the House will have the information necessary to express a considered and worthwhile view.
Mr. Cormack rose—
Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. It could not be more clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Cormack rose—
Mr. Shore: If the Government do not obtain substantial agreement—I do not say universal agreement—at home and abroad with our own sporting people and with the countries which are principally concerned, they will do great damage to this country's reputation. The will of the

59
Government and the House will be seen to have been flouted, and it will be a gift to Soviet propaganda.
In such circumstances I recommend not a British boycott but rather that we concentrate on how our athletes can avoid the more offensive ceremonies which are built into but are not crucial to the Games themselves. I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to vote for the Government's motion but to abstain and to support the reasoned and conditioned approach in our amendment.
4.49 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) spoilt at the end what began as a very constructive speech. He has avoided by a shabby device the decision which the House has to take tonight. He put the issue to the House very clearly at the outset. He condemned the invasion of Afghanistan, and then he said, quite properly, that one could condemn both the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and, quite logically, sport with South Africa. He said that one should not apply the double standard. But he himself applied the double standard at the conclusion of his speech. Certainly those on the Opposition Benches who have consistently condemned any sporting activities with South Africa must, on the basis of his speech, now condemn the holding of the Games in Moscow.
There are those of us who have to face the dilemma of this double standard. There are certainly those on the Conservative Benches who have argued for sporting activities with South Africa, including the Lions' tour, but I suggest that there is a distinction. No one has ever suggested that there should be no sporting activities at all with the Soviet Union. The condemnation in this case, arising out of the invasion of Afghanistan, is specifically directed to the holding of the Olympic Games in Moscow this year, and not to refusing to have any sporting activities with the Soviet Union.
However much we may regret the bringing of sport into politics—and many of us do; it might be very nice to divorce politics from sport altogether—I believe that we should boycott the Olympics in Moscow this year, because holding the Olympics in Moscow specifically honours the city of Moscow and the country in
60
which the Games are held. That is what I find wholly objectionable in the present circumstances.
I believe that Sir Denis Follows and his colleagues seem to have completely missed the point about the invasion of Afghanistan, which has established a military hold over a sovereign nonaligned country. As the Prime Minister has said, that is a completely new development in the history of post-war Soviet expansion. Is has been condemned in forthright terms not only by the Prime Minister but by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar this afternoon. It is an event that the free world ignores at its peril.
It is not just a question of singling out atheletes or making a gesture over the Olympics at their expense. In the admirable and measured speech in which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal put the case to the House, he indicated the measures which the Government are already taking. I certainly do not dissent from those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who think that further measures may be necessary. We certainly need to take measures to strengthen our defences and to preserve the security and the territorial integrity not only of our own country and Western Europe but of other free independent nations.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has great and serious experience in foreign affairs. Why does he think that the Russians went into Afghanistan in the first place?
Mr. Rippon: In defence of their own vital interests, as they saw them; certainly not to protect the poor people of Afghanistan or for any other bogus reason of that kind.
Whatever Sir Denis Follows and his associates may think, or may wish to think, to give the appearance of condoning a naked act of aggression of a most brutal kind would, I think, be contrary to our national interest and the interests of the free world.
When I and other members of the Hands Off Afghanistan Committee, of which I am one of the co-chairmen, met Sir Denis Follows and members of the British Olympic Association and the National Olympic Committee, it was quite

61
apparent that many of them simply could not understand—this may, indeed, be a failure of communication between the politicians and the athletes—that to the Soviet Union the Olympic Games are a major political event which will be deliberately used to boost Soviet prestige in the world. They simply could not understand the significance of the statement in the "Handbook for Party Activists" which was published in Moscow in June of last year. They said "You cannot expect us to be influenced by Soviet propaganda. What has that to do with us?"
But it seems to me that the House cannot ignore what the Soviet Union is now doing in regard to the Moscow Olympics. I have a slightly different translation from that of the Lord Privy Seal, but it comes to the same effect. It is the nub of our debate today. The Soviet Union is saying:
"The decision to offer the honoured right to hold the Olympic Games in the capital of the first Social State was convincing proof of the universal recognition of the historical importance and correctness of the course of our country's foreign policy, the vast contribution of the Soviet Union to the struggle for peace".
Do the British athletes really want to go and pay a tribute of that kind at this time to the Soviet Union?
Mr. Hooley rose—
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. L. R. Fletcher rose—
Mr. Rippon: There was one good lady who observed that, after the Soviet invason of Hungary in 1956, the Olympic Games were still held in Melbourne. She said that they gave us a good opportunity to meet and get to know Soviet athletes in a non-political atmosphere. Again, we must bear in mind that Australia was not responsible for the invasion of Hungary. Here again, no one is saying, as those who oppose sport with South Africa often say, that in no circumstances should we ever meet a South African on a rugby field or a cricket field. No one has said that one should never meet a Soviet athlete in any circumstances. Where we do not want to meet them this year is in Moscow to honour that city. Who can believe that if in 1956 the Olympics were to have been held in Moscow there would have been no objection?
62
In a letter to The Times of 21 January Sir William Hayter, who was our ambassador in Moscow at the time of the invasion of Hungary, tells how he had the duty of advising that it would not he right for the Sadler's Wells Ballet, as it then was, to go to Moscow. When he returned to London, he found that the dancers were very disappointed, even angry, but he said "Do you realise that if you had gone to Moscow at that point in time you would have been dancing on the grave of Hungary?", and then they agreed with him when he explained the position. As he commented in the letter,
"Let us hope that British athletes will have as much good sense, and as much patriotism, as British dancers."
Of course we can all understand—without being hypocritical about it—how disappointed the athletes will be, and how hard they have trained and so on. Their feelings are perfectly understandable, even though I believe that they are mistaken and thoughtless. The athletes are certainly entitled to guidance from the administrators, as Mr. Sebastian Coe said on radio this weekend. They are entitled to guidance from the administrators who have the responsibility for making the decision. But I hope that before they make that decision Sir Denis Follows and the rest of them will study an article which also appeared in The Times of 21 January which came from a Prague dissident group—and we know what has been happening there in recent weeks. That group wrote:
"We would be happy to live in a world where sports could be separated from politics. But we do not live in such a world…
In the Soviet concept the Olympic Games are above all a political matter as well as an opportunity of gaining hard currency."
I believe that the dissidents were right in drawing an analogy with the Berlin Games of 1936, to which the right hon. Gentleman properly referred. They said:
"The moral boost which Hitler Germany received by the organisation of the games drowned the warning voices for a long time to come…The Olympic flag at the Berlin stadium was an insult of thousands. The same flag at a Moscow stadium will be an insult of millions."
It is significant that at the first NATO meeting which considered the position it was the German ambassador who drew attention to the effect that those Games

63
had had on German morale. Do not let this House or British athletes give the same propaganda victory to the Soviet Union that, with hindsight, we now know we so mistakenly gave to Nazi Germany.
5 pm
Mr. L. R. Fletcher: I shall begin with a point that I had intended to put to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). Normally I agree with his opinions.
As a schoolboy I attended the 1936 Games. I did not see what happened on the day that Adolph Hitler was profoundly insulted by Jesse Owens, the great American runner. He left the stadium in high dudgeon. Jesse Owens did not go to Berlin to accept, advertise or glorify the racial doctrines that were being forced down the throats of the German people by their FÜhrer.
Most people have seen only the edited version of the film that was made by Leni Riefenstahl about those Olympic Games.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The Russians will edit their version of the Olympics.
Mr. Fletcher: I take that point, but it is irrelevant to my argument.
Leni Riefenstahl took two years to make that film. The reaction of the largely German audience to the victorious Jesse Owens was edited out. The FÜhrer was offended not because a black American had done so remarkably well, but because the entire audience were applauding him after three years of Nazi propaganda, and simulated FÜhrer worship, that had been organised and orchestrated by Dr. Josef Goebbels. The show had been staged specifically so that it could be filmed as a gigantic spectacle. However, many Germans gave a huge ovation to that black runner who, according to Hitler's racial theories, belonged to an inferior species.
There is another fact that is not generally known about 1936. Jesse Owens experienced some difficulty with the German starting blocks.
Mr. F. A. Burden rose—
Mr. Fletcher: His leading German opponent, who later became his best friend, assisted him with those starting
64
blocks. One does not necessarily give support to a regime if one takes part in a sporting activity that happens to take place in that regime's capital city.
Mr. Burden rose—
Mr. Fletcher: I shall not give way, as many right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
If our athletes participate in the Moscow Games and do as well as our young friend Cousins did in the winter Games at Lake Placid and elsewhere, we shall show the Russians and those who attend the Games that we are not an effete, bankrupt, useless collection of corrupt nations. We shall demonstrate that we, too, can produce athletes who can win gold medals.
Mr. Burden rose—
Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.
There is reason to believe that there are divisions in the Kremlin about Afghanistan. It would be odd if there were not. The Kremlin has more economic problems than this Government—and, by God, that is saying something. There is a conflict within the Kremlin that must have reached the Politburo. This subject has been dealt with by British television and is not a State secret. There are conflicting views about what can be done to increase the Soviet Union's resources, and about what to do with those resources, once gained.
The hardliners look back towards the past. Russia has had a terrible past. It has been invaded again and again. It was invaded by Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon Bonaparte and by Adolf Hitler. As a result of Hitler's invasion, 20 million people died. Ordinary Soviet citizens would not agree with the persecution of dissidents if they knew about it. If they came to the House, they would understand us and regard us as comrades. We should appeal to their sense of insecurity and fear of invasion. That fear has existed since the revolution and is being strengthened all the time. They feel that the rest of the world is hostile, and is waiting only for an opportunity to drive on Russia.
If we boycott the Games, would we not strengthen that feeling? We would weaken their desire to concentrate on

65
developing Siberia and those other vast underdeveloped tracts of the Soviet Union in the interests of their people and of their consumers. Can we give aid in this conflict; or must we strengthen those hardliners in the Kremlin who wish to build bigger and better submarines, bigger and better frigates and bigger and better nuclear weapons? A boycott would strengthen the hand of the hardliners. We can show that we do not approve of what has happened in Afghanistan in various other ways.
Hon. Members: How?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose—
Mr. Fletcher: There are ways of impressing the Soviet Union, and the Government know of them. By attending those sporting activities in Moscow, we are not supporting the suppression of dissidents or the suppression of those who signed Charter 77. We shall not be giving support to Soviet interference in Afghanistan. Similarly, Jesse Owens did not lend support to the racial theories of the national Socialist regime under Adolf Hitler.
I was at school abroad in 1936. I do not recall in this House or the English press any protest about a British presence at the 1936 Olympic Games. Some people have learnt very slowly and very late.
I stress that simply to go for a boycott, simply to have a reflex action of that kind, will strengthen the arms of those in the Soviet Union who feel instinctively that they will come at us again. To carry on as Sir Denis Follows recommends, to demonstrate that we can beat country after country in sporting activity, will perhaps strengthen the arms of those more concerned with peaceful development than military glory or display.
This course is wrong. I am not referring only to the course advocated by the Government. I do not like the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). It would be totally dishonest not to say so. It is not strong enough. Between now and 10 o'clock I have to do some thinking. [Interruption.] We do occasionally think, and we change our minds. In politics I have changed my mind more than any other hon. Member, as everyone knows.
66
Nevertheless, I am totally with our sportsmen. I am totally against a boycott. I hope that tonight the House will demonstrate that we will not make any attempt to stop our sportsmen doing what they have been assiduously training for over the past four years.
5.11 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate in support of the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
The Lord Privy Seal's speech was inadequate. He did not do the House justice in reading out a sterile Foreign Office brief. The people of the country expect the House to debate the problems of the Olympic Games in Moscow in a more open and full-hearted manner than the Foreign Office apparently wishes.
A number of people residing in my constituency in the North-West hope to participate in the Olympic Games. I am not sure exactly what they think about the regime in Moscow and the society that exists there. However, they are concerned that they should not be used by this Government as the sole political pawn in their determination to impress on the Soviet Union that we profoundly disagree with the invasion of an independent, non-aligned country, namely, Afghanistan.
If my party had proposed a total boycott of the Soviet Union, involving trade, commerce and cultural and political activities, I should have no difficulty in voting in support of that policy. However, the limited action that the Government have taken to register disapproval of Soviet tyranny in Afghanistan is totally inadequate.
I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will come into the debate battling for the British people and the free Western world as a whole. I ask him not to wave the Mace at us but to show the Soviet Union that we are prepared to do more than produce a few platitudes. We should be prepared to bring the Government of the Soviet Union to their senses and to persuade them to withdraw their 90,000 troops and armour from the independent country of Afghanistan.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The team for the Lions' tour of South Africa is to be announced today. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to condemn that tour and ask the Government to take rigorous action to stop it taking place?
Mr. Winterton: No. The internal affairs of South Africa are no threat to world peace. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is a direct threat.
Mr. Hughes: Double standards.
Mr. Winterton: No, not at all. I shall do my best to persuade the Government and people of South Africa to adapt their policies and phase out separate development. On the visits that I have made there, I have done that. I do not believe that the internal affairs and structure of South Africa are at this time a threat to world peace. I believe that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is a direct threat to world peace.
The Soviet Union has gone into a country that borders Pakistan, which at present is not stable. Afghanistan also borders Iran, and we know well the problems that exist there. The invasion of Afghanistan is a further step in Soviet expansion, which it has followed for many years. Whether one looks to Africa, South America or the Far East, we can see how the Soviet Union has sought to take over important, strategically located countries.
I am not practising double standards in being prepared to support the Lions' tour of South Africa. I seek to ensure the stability and peace of the world by trying to persuade the Soviet Union to adopt a less belligerent and expansionist policy and to get its troops and armour out of an independent country at an early date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) indicated that, if they do not go to the Olympic Games, our sportsmen will be making an enormous sacrifice. Many of them may never have another opportunity to compete in an Olympic Games. Sportsmen take four years, and in some sports eight, to prepare to compete.
I agree that to boycott the Olympic Games is the easiest way to impress the Soviet people at large. They will ask their Government why the spectacle that they have for so long looked forward to
68
is so undervalued that many countries and leading sportsmen do not participate.
Mr. James Kilfedder: If there is a restriction on the press in Russia, will our refusal to participate in the Games be made known to the people in Russia or will it merely be a waste?
Mr. Winterton: The Russians will be there in large numbers, and I am not sure that unfilled stadiums will go unnoticed. The Soviet Union and its State-controlled press will doubtless do their best to promote the Games as a fantastic propaganda exercise. If Sebastian Coe and other well-known sportsmen from countries such as America and West Germany do not attend questions will be asked.
I accept that, if we possibly can, we should ask our athletes not to go, but I am not prepared to condone such action in isolation from other measures that the Government can take. Why have we not set on one side the sporting agreement reached with the Russians by the last British Government? The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), as Minister with responsibility for sport in the last Government, played a major part in the signing of this agreement in Moscow, which was part of the Helsinki accord. Why has that not been set aside? Why have we not withdrawn the majority of our staff from our embassy in Moscow? Why do we allow multinational companies such as ICI to establish offices in Moscow? Why do we allow the EEC to supply cheap subsidised food to the Soviet Union? The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and I appeared on a radio programme on this matter yesterday. Why do we allow this sort of thing to take place so that the Soviet Union can spend more money on military hardware and aggressive materials?
Mr. Frank Allaun: It is singular that when America invaded Vietnam with half a million troops there were no protests at all from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). He never suggested ending trade with America, and therefore I suggest that he is guilty of double standards.
Mr. Winterton: Honestly, I should have thought that the hon. Member could have made a better intervention than that. The Americans went into Vietnam invited by

69
the legitimate Government of that country, and, unlike the Soviets, when they entered Afghanistan, the Americans did not execute the President within 24 hours. I hope that that reply to the hon. Gentleman's intervention puts the matter in perspective. All I can say is that if he looks at Vietnam since the Americans left he will see that the people of that sad country are hardly better off under a Marxist regime than they were under a more pro-Western Government.
I wonder why the Opposition have put down their amendment today. I should have thought that Georges Marchais was the only one of the European politicians who would see any good or any justification in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, no, the Shadow Minister for sport, the right hon. Member for Small Heath, now appears to be another star from the East who has taken up the Soviet message. That is unfortunate.
Mr. Denis Howell: That is absolutely disgraceful. Not only have I always opposed the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, but on every occasion when I was a Minister and I went to Russia I objected personally to the treatment of dissidents—both Jewish and trade unionists—and my record of opposing Communists in the world is far better than that of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). His accusation is that, in saying that in a free society it should be up to the sportsmen to make up their own minds, we are condoning Russian or any national aggression anywhere in the world, and that is not so.
Mr. Winterton: Then I am sorry that the right hon. Member is not prepared to support the responsible and authoritative line being taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, whose amendment has not been selected. If he captures Mr. Speaker's eye, I am sure that he will indicate that the line taken by many of us on this side of the House is acceptable to him.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was quite right when he said that if we take action against the Soviet Union and we want to make a real impression we must act as a united group of countries. Surely the invasion of Afghanistan, the exile and humiliation
70
of the Sakharovs, the imprisonment of Yuri Orlov, the continued persecution of dissident minorities and human rights groups and the whole panoply of Soviet tyranny should make an impact on the collective conscience of the Soviet Union as a whole and its people. Sadly, from what we have heard from a number of hon. Members below the Gangway, it does not seem to make any impact on the Labour Party.
Therefore, I believe that the Government must take far more action in the areas where they can take positive action if they expect our athletes to give up the opportunity of winning Olympic medals. Of course I believe that the peace and stability of the world are much more important than a few gold medals, but the Government must act and must not just use the sportsmen of this country as their sole political pawn in this procedure.
I am very depressed by the Government's limited action. Why have they not imposed a trade boycott? Why have we not used some form of veto within the EEC to stop the supply of food to the Soviet Union? The sportsmen of Britain look to us for a lead, but it must be an honest and principled lead. I look forward to the Government's reply, because at present I certainly cannot support their motion. I will not support the Opposition's amendment, but I must stress that I cannot support the Government's motion as it stands.
5.27 pm
Mr. Michael McGuire: I should like to think that if a Labour Government were in power we would be having a free vote on this most important question tonight. I know that some of my colleagues feel that we should not have had such a debate at this time and that it is a little premature. As I read letters in The Times and listen to public discussions, I become more convinced that many of our athletes are looking to us for some guidance. I have signed an amendment to the original motion which, we all agreed, was a bit mixed up, to say the least.
My point is simple: I believe that the Olympic Games are unique in the sporting calendar every four years. It would be quite wrong if this House did not express an opinion on this matter—in fact, it would be a dereliction of duty. Quite

71
simply, I am in favour of boycotting the Olympic Games, and I shall explain why.
So far in this debate hon. Members have raised the issue of the double standards technique. Members from one side accuse those from the other of having double standards. In this context, South Africa has been mentioned. I think that public opinion on this matter was right, but I also think that it was engineered by the Government of the day. Politicians mould, create and sustain public opinion to a large degree.
It was the politicians who said that it was quite abhorrent for British sportsmen, or sportsmen from any other countries, to go to South Africa. The record will show that the initiative in this case did not come from the sportsmen themselves. Obviously sportsmen enjoy contacts. Unlike the distinguished right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who represented this country in the Olympic Games, I was a rather poor athlete. I ran for a club team in St. Helens and I often had a job to finish my favourite distance—the mile. I would love to have been in serious contention for the Olympic Games and I would not have liked politicians to spoil my chances.
The sportsmen did not decide to boycott South Africa. The decision was fuelled, initiated and sustained by the House and others, and I believe that it was right. A group of Labour Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) and myself, met the four home rugby unions and told them why we thought that the British Lions rugby team should not go to South Africa. They have decided to go, just as the athletes will be free to decide to go to Moscow, as I believe they will—whatever we say—though we have a duty to try to influence them.
I believe that we were right to boycott South Africa and to continue to urge that it should be boycotted. I noticed that Sir Denis Follows believes that the boycott has achieved a great deal. I believe that South Africa is a relatively free country, in most respects, compared with the Soviet Union, and the boycott has had a considerable impact in breaking down barriers. We are not yets atisfied that South Africa is a free and open country, but I hope that that day will soon come.
72
All the amendments, with the exception of that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dal-yell) which "hopes" that the Russians will withdraw from Afghanistan—presumably when their strategic interests have been satisfied—condemn the invasion utterly and unequivocally. Russia will use the Olympic Games as a vehicle for propaganda. If our athletes attend, the Russians will be able to say that the West—and it is the West which matters—is not really bothered about the invasion of a defenceless country.
Suppose Yugoslavia had been invaded, which is not an unlikely possibility. Does anyone seriously believe that we would be suggesting that sport is so elevated above everything else that our athletes should be almost encouraged to go to Moscow for the Games? I do not think so. No one, except the most sycophantic to the Communist regime, would dare to say that the invasion of Yugoslavia did not matter. Why does Afghanistan not rate the same consideration?
When giving examples of national cowardice and Nelsonian blindness, we often refer to the infamy of a certain Prime Minister who said, speaking about another act of aggression, "It was a faraway country". I do not know much about Afghanistan. None of us would consider it to be a model of democracy, but it was an independent country which was brutally invaded and its people are still being subjugated. We can read of the massacres that the Soviets are carrying out in order to strengthen their hold on that country. It was a wicked crime.
With respect to my hon. Friends, I believe that mixing up the invasion of Afghanistan with apartheid in South Africa is the worst excess of sophistry. The sophists deluded themselves by their own false reasoning. Those who equate the Russian invasion with apartheid are deluding themselves.
Mr. Dalyell: I may have the opportunity to make my own speech, but my hon. Friend made a critical reference to my amendment. In reply, some of us might say that we believe that the Soviet Union wanted in the the first place, regardless of what happened later, to send troops into Afghanistan about as much as some of us in the House wanted to send troops into Ireland.
Mr. McGuire: I shall listen to my hon. Friend's speech with interest. I am sorry that he thought that I made a critical reference to his amendment. I said that I got the impression that all the amendments condemned the invasion unequivocally and that my hon. Friend, in using the word "hopes" and giving historical analogies, was tempering his amendment a little. I am not saying that he approves of the invasion. I shall listen to his speech with interest.
We should not confuse certain events that are taking place in the world. I condemn apartheid in South Africa and I support those who refuse to go there.
The Orrell rugby football club, in my constituency, has a player named John Carleton who has today been selected for the Lions' tour. An argument is raging because the Wigan metropolitan borough council has said, collectively, to John Carleton "We disagree with the policies of South Africa. If you want to go, we will not help you." That is a reasonable attitude for the council to take.
I have spent too much time on the analogy of South Africa. The Russians will make the Olympic Games a great propaganda exercise. There are those, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who believe that the British athletes should not take part in the ceremonies before and after the Games or have anything to do with the flag waving and so on that may seem to be a tribute to Brezhnev and his colleagues.
That is a naive attitude. The idea that the Russians will show on television anything that would be embarrassing to them is too daft to contemplate. It will all be carefully edited. I am not concerned whether they show anything or not. There is a principle at stake and it was upheld by the IOC in 1938. The Japanese had been awarded the 1940 Olympic Games, but the committee said in 1938 that the invasion of a defenceless country—Manchuria—could not be permitted and the IOC could not give its imprimatur to the Olympic Games taking place in Tokyo. One cannot separate that invasion from the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the IOC should demonstrate that in a more practical way. I disagree with its judgment so far.
74
I hope that the IOC will get the message before the Games take place and I believe that most people in this country would be affronted if, on a free vote, the House were to vote in favour of our athletes going to Moscow. We have a duty to say that we condemn it. The best way for the United Kingdom to do that, and the least injurious way that we can humiliate a country that deserves to be humiliated for invading a free nation and continuing to remain within it and to serve its own interests is to carry out a boycott. I intend to vote for a boycott.
5.40 pm
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire). My difference lies not with the motion but with the Government's attitude on the Afghanistan invasion. It is not enough to condemn. I believe that more is needed than that.
Two issues of great difficulty for me have been cleared up by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. He assured me that no backroom pressure is being put on individual athletes by the Government. That is a statement that I am prepared to believe. If such pressure were being applied, I should totally and utterly condemn it. The application by Governments of pressure on individuals to declare their view on a matter of conscience is totally unacceptable to the House. That is not merely government by exhortation but government by arm-twisting, to which the previous Labour Government subjected British industry. I hope that even further reassurance will be given by those on the Government Front Bench.
There is a much wider issue which I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will raise. I hope that he will be able to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair. The remarks of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on control of credits and on other pressures being put on the Soviet Government were not satisfactory. We seek further reassurance. The force of this issue should not fall on British athletes and athletic teams alone.
There is a great danger that not only is the West disunited but that we are talking about something called the neutralisation of Afghanistan. I hope that my right

75
hon. and hon. Friends who occupy the Government Front Bench will give due consideration to what that means. I do not know what it means. However, there is danger in that sort of talk. Not even the Neville Chamberlain Government said after the Nazis had destroyed Poland "We regard you Poles as neutralised". It is hardly a doctrine that will give encouragement to those who are fighting against Soviet attacks on Afghanistan. It is hardly a doctrine that will give succour to that great man Marshal Tito as he struggles for life. It is hardly a doctrine that shows determination, courage and will.
It is possible that by June or July, when we are still talking of neutralisation—a policy already mocked at by Brezhnev, a policy rejected by the Chinese Government and a policy that the American State Department can do little about but frown on—and when a wasteland has been made of Afghanistan, the Soviet Union will say "We are prepared for neutralisation". Let us really consider what these issues are about—this ritual dance about the Olympic Games, this diplomatic buffoonery. These are serious matters. If the House comes to a full realisation of them, I hope that we shall see from the Government and from the whole House a proper response to one of the most bestial acts in modern history.
5.46 pm
Mr. Eric S. Hafer: I cannot support the Government's motion or the Opposition's amendment. I feel that both of them avoid the serious issues with which we are faced. We can discuss this matter only if we consider the international scene, the tension that has been built up and the danger that can arise if that tension is heightened. We are not discussing merely whether our athletes go or do not go to Moscow. We could easily and quickly find ourselves heading towards a Third World War. It is that about which I am concerned.
We are not discussing the Olympic Games in isolation. The issue is much more serious than that. I regret that the amendment that appeared on the Order Paper in my name, which was supported by 46 hon. Members, was not selected so that we could vote for our clear position.
76
I make it clear to the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) that I am bitterly opposed to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. With all due respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), I declared publicly my view of the invasion before those on the Opposition Front Bench declared the Opposition's view. I made it clear that I was opposed to it. I am opposed to it now. It is wrong. No one can accuse me at any time of being soft towards the bureaucracy that runs the Soviet Union.
We may be in opposition to the political and social system that operates in the Soviet Union, but that is no justification for allowing ourselves to get into a position in which we could become victims of a Third World War. I repeat that no one will win a Third World War. The entire world will lose. The world will be destroyed if such a war breaks out. If nuclear weapons are used, that could be the end of us all. That has to be stressed.
The Lord Privy Seal rightly referred to the persecution of the great scientist Sakharov. He rightly said that Sakharov is against the Moscow Olympics. He believes it right for them to be boycotted. That is undoubtedly the view of a wide section of dissidents in the Soviet Union. Of course, we must listen to them. It is also true that there are others—some still living in the Soviet Union—who are dissidents but who take a different view. Their voice should be listened to as well.
I shall draw the attention of the House to an interview that took place with Roy Medvedev by Vittoria Zucconi in Corriere della Sera, Milan, on 4 February 1980. The interview took place in Moscow. The background is important. Zucconi states:
"An automobile, mounted on bricks, where its wheels should be is wintering in the open under a shell of snow, which protects it both from the cold and from thieves given to stealing windshield wipers and rear mirrors. At the entrance to the apartment"—
that is Medvedev's home—
"stands a shiny black sedan; two men sitting inside have left the motor running. The car bears a "Mok" licence plate, one of those. people whisper, assigned to the Ceki secret police."
The report goes on to make clear that they are outside the home of Roy

77
Medvedev, and that that is almost a permanent feature of his life.
In the interview, Medvedev is asked by Zucconi:
"Apropos of international crisis, Medvedev, what do you think of the Olympic boycott?"
This is Medvedev's reply:
"A mistake, a serious mistake, and I will tell you why. Again you Westerners, especially Americans, are tripped up by your social and political convictions. Here, political decisions in no way depend upon public opinion, upon any pressures—what pressures?—or the mood of the people. The grain embargo will not deprive our leaders of a single glass of milk, a roll or a beefsteak. If anyone, it will be the people who suffer from the scarcity of food."
Mrs. Jill Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heffer: Not just at the moment, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
I shall quote now from a letter from Roy Medvedev's brother, Zhores Medvedev, who, incidentally, was put inside a mental institution. The facts are all on record. Anyone can buy the books at any decent bookshop or bookstall here in Britain. Zhores Medvedev was put inside a mental institution by the Soviet Government.
I am speaking, therefore, of people who also know the situation, who also have a point of view. What does Zhores Medvedev say?—
"The Soviet propaganda will describe the British athletes as 'dissidents' who were rudely oppressed by the reactionary Government. The Soviet sportsmen will later send a letter of support for the struggling British athletes, who are struggling for freedom'."
That has to be taken into account, too. Are we helping those in the Soviet Union who want human and civil rights? This boycott will not assist them.
Mrs. Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. Hefter: I should like to continue, if the hon. Lady does not mind. I am always ready to give way, but on this occasion I shall try to complete most of my speech before I give way.
I say to the House also that it does not help if, in opposing what they do, we adopt methods similar to those adopted by the Russians themselves. I do not want that to be taken in any exaggerated
78
sense, of course, but when the British Government intervene and say that civil servants and members of the Armed Forces will not be given facilities, what are we to think? Incidentally, the Irish Government came in and said that they would help. What a humiliation for us when the Irish Government say that they will help the athletes out. I have never heard of anything so ridiculous in all my life.
If we adopt measures of that kind, and we fight the oppressor with the same sort of methods directed against our own people, we do not win any support in the country at large. That is why the poll in The Observer on Sunday showed clearly that the majority of people are opposed to the Government's attitude and believe that the athletes should go.
Mr. Raymond Whitney rose—
Mr. Heffer: I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I do not give way. I should like, for once, to make a speech without being interrupted. I always give way, and my speech always takes longer when I do. I have already taken longer than I intended.
I conclude in this way. In debates of this kind I get a little tired of the way in which some hon. Members on the Government Benches seem to develop double standards. Only a couple of weeks ago, this country decided to send an ambassador to Chile. The Government decided to ignore the report of the United Nations on what was happening in Chile. They said that that was perfectly all right, but almost at the same moment they said that the question was quite different in relation to our young athletes going to Moscow.
We ought not to have double standards. I know what I hope the House will do tonight. I say to my hon. Friends that the House should not necessarily vote for the official Opposition amendment, for this reason. It does not clarify where we stand. We ought to be absolutely clear about where we stand. Either we are for sending our athletes to Moscow or we are not. That is the question. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) when he says that they ought not to go. I have the greatest respect for his point of view. I do not agree with it, but I know where he stands.

79
I ask right hon. and hon. Members to stand up on this issue and declare themselves, not necessarily, therefore, voting with either Front Bench but, if we are forced to a vote, voting down the Government's motion, because I think that if carried it would be disastrous.
5.56 pm
Mr. Michael Brotherton: I support the motion, despite the extraordinary gyrations of last Thursday over the timing of the debate, which seemed designed to ensure that the House was to give a lead but that nobody outside the House should know what that lead was to be, and also despite the rather quaint wording of the motion before us today. Indeed, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who raised the matter on a point of order, showed that, like Morecambe, he has no need of Wise if he is to continue to make effective points in the House.
My support for the motion has been greatly helped this afternoon by the attitude of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), who moved the Opposition amendment. The right hon. Gentleman gave absolutely no lead to the House or to his own side on this matter. He equivocated at the start, he continued with his equivocation, and as he sat down he gave a great rallying call—"I do not know what I am going to say because I have not made up my mind, and it is not my intention to give the House any advice this afternoon".
I sympathise greatly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and my other right hon. and hon. Friends who have tabled an amendment to the Government's motion because I agree that the Government's attitude to the whole issue of the invasion of Afghanistan has hardly been as strong and firm as one would expect. But such things as credit terms, the export of technology and the export of subsidised EEC butter to the Soviet Union, though worthy subjects for action in themselves, will have no impact whatever on the people of Russia.
I was very disappointed when my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson), came back from Leipzig the other day protesting that, despite the
80
invasion of Afghanistan, it was our hope that we should continue to build on our trade relations with countries behind the Iron Curtain. It is difficult to accept that the Government are being thoroughly wholehearted in their condemnation of the invasion of Afghanistan when such statements are made by a Minister on his return from East Germany.
The reference to East Germany leads one to the great parallel of the Olympic Games of 1936. The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher)—who is not in his place at the moment—told us of being in Germany at the time of the 1936 Games. He pointed out that very few people, if any, in this country condemned our participation in those Games, yet today, with hindsight, we must agree that that was a mistake. There is no doubt whatever that Adolf Hitler used those Games as a great propaganda exercise to put across not to the people of the outside world, as the hon. Member for Ilkeston seemed to imply, but to his own people inside Germany the view that, because the Olympic Games were being held in Berlin, Germany was therefore accepted in the world community, and the evils of Nazism were not in fact evils at all because the whole of the rest of the sporting world, with all the publicity which even in those days the Olympic Games attracted, approved of Hitler's regime in Nazi Germany.
So it is, too, with the Russian people in 1980. I believe that the only effective way to get across to the people of Russia the message that we entirely disapprove of their invasion of Afghanistan is, basically, through the medium of the Olympic Games.
On Radio 4 this morning—if one can believe what one hears on the BBC nowadays—we heard of the great market in souvenirs which is already starting up in Russia, of the enormous interest which is being taken in the Olympic Games in the Soviet Union, and the fact that day after day the Soviet propaganda machine is putting out the message "These great international world-wide games are to be held in the Soviet Union this summer".
Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware that emblems such as the one that I have on my lapel of the Olympic Mishka bear have been made by forced labour in Soviet prison camps?
Mr. Brotherton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was aware of that. The Mishka bear, among other matters, was mentioned on the radio programme this morning.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal talked about the handbook for party workers that has been issued in the Soviet Union. In that handbook the party activists' attention has been drawn to the fact that allowing the Olympic Games to be held in Moscow in 1980 gives an international seal of approval, not only to the Soviet Government but specifically and obviously for the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
If Opposition hon. Members cannot understand—or do not wish to understand—that by sending our international athletes to compete in the Olympic Games we shall be giving comfort and succour to the Soviet Union and its Marxist masters, it is because they do not believe what is happening in the world today.
Vladimir Bukovsky said recently—happily he is now away from that sad country—that thf, Soviet propaganda machine could explain nearly everything. If the propaganda machine wishes people to know, it can explain why Russia will not receive butter from the EEC. There is no need for it to explain why technology agreements are no longer being made with Western countries. One matter that it will not be able to explain—after the vast propaganda build-up of the past four years—will be the absence of British, American and other nations' athletes. It will not be able to explain the empty stadiums, although tens of thousands of Russians may be watching. Even the Russian propaganda machine cannot keep the names of the great athletes of the world from its people. If they do not see the athletes, they are bound to askߞ
Mr. Rooker: Perhaps one other matter that the Russians will have difficulty in explaining is the tens of thousands of items of athletes' clothing that will not be used because the athletes will not be there, but which have been supplied by a British company, the chairman of which is the chairman of the Tory Party, namely, Lord Thorneycroft.
Mr. Brotherton: I regard that as a totally irrelevant remark. It has nothing to do with the principle of whether British athletes should take part in the Olympic Games in Moscow. If the British athletes of the free world do not go to Moscow, how will the Russian Government explain that to their people?
This is the only way in which the free world, together with the 130 nations of the United Nations—with a unanimity that they have virtually never shown before—can show their condemnation of the Russian aggression in Afghanistan.
It is for that reason that we must pass the Government motion and reject the Opposition amendment. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to give the House an assurance that in addition to telling British athletes that it is the view of the House and of the Government that they should not go—not that they must not go—to Moscow, the Government will announce further means to show the nation's disapproval of this fundamentally evil act—one of the most evil deeds perpetrated since 1945.
6.6 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: We have been told that the debate is crucial both to the Geneva talks and to this country. Frankly, I am concerned that, whether one votes for the motion or for the Opposition amendment, neither those participating in the Geneva talks nor people in this country will have any real idea of what we are voting on or what lead we shall be giving to the country.
If hon. Members vote in favour of the Government's motion, they will not be making it clear whether they want our athletes to go to Moscow. If they vote for the Opposition amendment, they will not be making it clear whether they reserve the right of the individual to do as he wishes.
Mr. Denis Howell: When I speak. I shall make it quite clear that in my view, given the present circumstances of the response of this Government and of the West to the invasion of Afghanistan, we have no right to select athletes for special treatment and to ask them to boycott the Games. I shall recommend them to go to Moscow, and invite the House to support that view.

83
The vital part of our amendment, which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has missed, is where we assert the right of sportsmen to decide for themselves. That is the most crucial consideration of all.
Mr. Freud: I was coming to that. It is the heart of the Opposition amendment, which I totally support, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I am in favour of a boycott. Unlike hon. Members who have said that they will shun bcth the motion and the amendment—I am not sure that it is relevant whether they shun it, vote for it, or vote against it—I shall support the amendment because my hon. Friends and I believe what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has said.
I deplore the way in which the Government wish to enforce sanctions. I was astonished—as many hon. Members were—by the suggestion of the Lord Privy Seal that he had considered revoking athletes' passports.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend considered revoking passports in the context of somebody asking him whether that should happen, to which he promptly said "No".
Mr. Freud: The House will be pleased to hear that explanation, as the remarks of the Lord Privy Seal did not come across in that way.
There is nothing new about Olympic disputes. In the fourth century BC, Demosthenes told Alexander the Great, in no uncertain terms, to go forth and multiply when there was a dispute between their countries. Afghanistan is a prima facie case of unprovoked aggression, which comes as no surprise to those who study Soviet politics. None of us expected sweetness and light. It is my contention that the monumental mistake was in awarding the Olympics to Moscow in the first place.
I believe that, in the Government's eyes, Afghanistan was the final straw. It is quite clear that consecutive and successive straws by the Russians have manifested little repentence on their part.
Mr. Dalyell: I wonder what changes have taken place in Afghanistan since Demosthenes.
Mr. Freud: I am glad that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked that question. The Government now ask our athletes to bear the brunt of our displeasure. The Lord Privy Seal raised the question of comparative sacrifice. I was singularly unimpressed by the comparison. The nation appears to be suffering hardly at all, yet he expects our athletes to suffer almost totally.
When the Secretary of State for the Environment replies, will he answer a pertinent question? The Lord Privy Seal said that the athletic attache in Moscow had been withdrawn but that other Embassy officials remained at the service of Britons. Is he encouraging British tourism in Moscow, while trying to ban athletes? That is an important question. If he is asking our athletes to make what is, to them, the supreme sacrifice, to say at the Dispatch Box that we are retaining officials at the Embassy in Moscow to look after tourists—who will go, presumably, to watch the athletics practised by other countries—is a totally wrong and very false way in which to consider the issue. Gladstone said that the principle of foreign policy is good government at home. For the Prime Minister the last few days at home have been rotten. Even the debate is wrong. It is on the wrong day, for the wrong length of time and based on the wrong motion.
Mr. Cormack: Is not the situation that we are debating today far worse than the Bulgarian atrocities on which Mr. Gladstone waxed so eloquent? The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has equivocated. Does he believe that the athletes should go, or not?
Mr. Freud: I believe that it is the duty of any country to examine the atrocities in the world and to take a stand. I believe that we are absolutely right in the stand that we are taking. I am saying that the sacrifices should not only be complete but fair and exercised with equity. The athletes accuse us, with justification, of continuing to trade when we are not permitting them to play.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was interrupted by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) who asked who will notice if

85
the British athletes do not compete. The people of Russia will notice. It will be impossible to edit missing Americans and Britons in Olympic heats into a television tape. The withdrawal of the British team will have an enormous effect on the Olympics as they are shown to the Russians. In every way the move will be worth the candle. It will humiliate the Russians.
The Olympic movement is dead in its present form. The old art of competing is a thing of the past. It has given way to the hell-bent desire to win in order to cash in. Amateurism is no more. We are on the verge of professionalism, and people know it. Sport has never been divorced from politics. The rights of the individual are not only important, they are crucial to our way of life. We must fight for them.
With few exceptions hon. Members cannot conceive the work and dedication of the athletes who depend on the few weeks this summer to show the skills for which they have worked for so long. We do not have the right to stop those who want to go from going. It is right for the House to insist on those rights by doing everything it can to dissuade.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) mentioned Mr. Chamberlain returning from Germany. The old Prime Minister spoke of
"a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing."
I remind the athletes that one year after that appalling remark we were at war. I hope that they bear that in mind when they decide whether to exercise their alienable right to go to the Olympics, or whether they listen to public opinion.
6.13 pm
Mr. Terence Higgins: It is profoundly important that the House and the Government should do everything possible to deter Russian aggression following the events in Afghanistan. That is particularly so because of the sensitive situation in Iran and Yugoslavia. Therefore, nothing I say should detract from my support of the Prime Minister's and the Government's objective of deterring Russian aggression.
It is tremendously important that we take effective action in order to bring that about. I believe that it would be counterproductive if the Government and the
86
House appealed to the athletes not to go to Moscow, and the athletes went any way. I do not doubt that if there were an effective boycott of the Games it would have a big impact on Russian opinion and Russian politics. At the same time, it must be recognised that the R ussions will exploit the Moscow Olympics for political purposes. In that sense politics and sport cannot be divorced.
It does not follow that we in a free country should go ahead and use sport for political purposes in order to damage the Russians. No one in the House takes the view that we should do the same as the Russians and prevent our citizens from leaving the country to go to the Olympics, or for any other purpose. We all rule that out. The essential point is that we must persuade the athletes not to go.
That being so, we must do everything that we can to set out the arguments involved in the events in Afghanistan. I do not believe that the events of the last few days have been helpful in persuading the athletes to boycott the Moscow Olympics. The announcement of the withdrawal of the liaison officer ahead of today's debate was not helpful. The suggestion that the matter was so important that we should debate it between 10 pm and I am was not helpful.
I understand the Government's view on civil servants, and others, but that has hardened attitudes. Once athletes say that they would rather give up their jobs than not go to Moscow, it is difficult to persuade them to change their minds. Yet, for the reasons that I have outlined, I believe that that is a matter of tremendous importance.
I shall explain what I believe we must do now. The athletes argue strongly that they are being asked to bear the brunt of the effort. They are not convinced that the Government are doing everything possible to back an overall policy of deterring Russian aggression. They are right. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, I do not believe that he made an adequate case that everything possible is being done. It is unlikely that we shall get the athletes to agree. The Government must announce more.
I tabled an amendment which has not been selected. It commands widespread

87
support on both sides of the House. I wish to speak about the terms of that amendment because if the Government accept them that will have a big impact on the athletes.
I call on the Government to stop new export credits on exports to the Soviet Union. Some restrictions on exports already exist for strategic materials. It is difficult to distinguish between what are and what are not strategic materials. A machine tool which can be used for peaceful purposes can also be used to make machine guns for the fight in Afghanistan. The Government are still subsidising exports to Russia.
My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said that the previous agreement made by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) has expired and that we have not renewed it. None the less, we are still prepared to offer subsidised export credits on goods which are exported to Russia and which can be used to further the war effort. Existing restraints are not sufficient.
We should like to see general agreement in the EEC on that issue. However, if that is not possible and if we want to persuade the athletes not to go, we should put a unilateral stop on new export credit subsidies. That would have a significant impact but we should not put a stop to existing contracts because that would be wrong.
My right hon. Friend will argue that my suggestion could have an effect on employment or industrial activity in Britain. That may be so, but I believe that the effect would be small. The athletes are entitled to say "If you are not prepared to go along with that, we are not prepared to give up going to the Games."
The other part of my amendment, to the effect that we should
"not facilitate trade with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or its allies which may help the Soviet war effort"
ought to be acceptable to the Government. The Government ought also to make a renewed effort to stop the export to Russia of the EEC butter mountain at subsidised prices. It is crucial that the Government should make efforts along these lines if they wish to persuade the athletes not to go to Moscow. I stress that point above all others.
88
I should like next to deal with the athletes' complaints about the Government's attitude to an alternative Olympics. I have grave doubts whether this is feasible. Indeed, the athletes view the proposals with great cynicism. When the Government first made the suggestion, we did not see a great outburst of enthusiasm from the United States or from this country. We did not find people saying "We know that it will cost about £300 million to organise an alternative Olympics—here is the cash on the table." I understand that none of the athletic bodies has said that it wants an alternative Olympics.
The whole point of the Olympic Games is what the late Iain Macleod used to call the pursuit of excellence. Athletes in the Olympic Games are seeking to show that they are the best, the second best or the third best in the world. Athletes are not really interested in a partial Olympics, whether it be in Moscow or elsewhere.
It is no use saying that the athletes have been splendid chaps, that they have trained for 10 years, given up a great deal of their time, and that we must provide some alternative, when that alternative is not a world-wide competition. That is completely to misunderstand the whole point of the Olympic Games and the objective of the athletes. The suggestion is not, therefore, one that immediately fires the enthusiasm of athletes. It is not regarded by them as a splendid alternative—still less if it is split up between different places. As is well known, there are grave security problems involved. We recall what happened at the Munich Olympics.
The real concern of athletes is to know what position the Government are adopting. They want to see an overall policy of which they are part. It is not just a question of the individual sacrifice, although we know that that is tremendous. There is also the very real damage that would be likely to be caused to British representation on international sporting bodies.
In relation to an alternative Olympics, we have to consider the question of British representation on the International Amateur Athletic Federation, which is responsible for organising bilateral and other international contests. It has to be

89
remembered that effectively we would be going against that body. The structure of athletics in this country is from the club to the national body and from the national body to the IAAF. The Government have not taken that aspect sufficiently into account.
I stress that I am not speaking simply on behalf of the athletes or the sporting bodies. I am talking about effective political action against the Russians. I am talking about the fact that we need to persuade people not to go to the Olympic Games. My amendment would help towards this objective. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I believe that it has very widespread support.
My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, in his opening remarks, said that my amendment is not inconsistent with the Government's policy. Fine. But if that is truly so, either the Government should provide an opportunity for the House to vote on my amendment or the Government should say that they accept the precise terms of it. It is not enough—for the reasons that I have already explained when talking about export credits—to fudge the issue and to say that the Government are already doing a great deal. It would be much better to include the terms of my amendment in the Government motion, so that the athletes could see it in black and white. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be able to express a commitment on the matter in precise terms, but after 12 years on Finance Bill Committees, I am fairly clear as to what is involved in an undertaking.
I believe that, if my right hon. Friend would accept the precise terms of my amendment, it would enable far more Members on each side of the House to support the Government motion. There would then be a much greater expression of opinion in favour of a boycott. We should also be able to have a real influence on opinion outside this House—and particularly on the sporting bodies which, at the end of the day, have to make a tremendously difficult decision.
It is very hard to assess the opinion within the sporting bodies and among athletes. My view is that if nothing further is announced today, then, despite what the Government have said, the athletes will still go to Moscow. Nothing would give greater comfort to the
90
Russians. If the Government are prepared to accept the terms of my amendment, there is still a chance, despite what has happened so far, of persuading athletes in a free country, of their own volition, in the light of the Government's overall policy, not to go to Moscow. That would be the most effective action that we could take on this issue.
6.26 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: I can claim to have taken a life-long interest in sport. Since 1973, I have been the chairman of the sports group of my party, although I do not profess to be speaking for anyone other than myself this evening.
I welcome the present interest of Members of Parliament in sport, for never in history has sport had so much attention paid to it and interest shown in it by politicians. I hope that this interest will continue, but I very much doubt that it will.
President Carter has been expressing his deep concern about events in Afghanistan, and taking out his concern on the athletes of his own country in terms of their participation in the Olympic Games. After what his country did to Vietnam, one might have expected his remarks to show just the slightest trace of embarrassment. In any case, the puritanical stand of the American President is blown sky-high by a little book that I have in my hand, "Inside the company: CIA Diary", by Philip Agee, a former servant of the CIA.
There are some classical references in this book on pages 541, 546, 548, 549, 550 and 551. The book shows how this officer of the CIA was employed by the United States embassy to spy on Olympic athletes with a view to recruiting them into various emigré revolutionary organisations. That is the context in which the American stand can be put at present, but I suppose that anything goes during an American presidential election year.
I do not propose to go over the pros and cons of the Russian intervention in Afghanistan. I am a fairly regular at-tender of the foreign affairs group of my party, presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). A week or so ago we were addressed by the acting Indian High Commissioner. No matter what doubts one

91
had in one's mind previously about Afghanistan, one could not have left that meeting without gaining the impression that it is not by any means a black and white issue; there are various shades of grey involved.
Whatever the merits of the issue, the cynical approach of the Government, and of the Prime Minister in particular, has been disgusting. We know the duplicity that she displayed over the British Lions' proposed tour of South Africa. Her own Parliamentary Private Secretary took in public an entirely different stand from that of her Minister with responsibility for sport. If the Government feel as strongly over the issue as they allegedly do, then, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said yesterday in an admirable newspaper article, they should introduce a suitable Bill to make adherence to their view compulsory.
The Government have tendered advice to our athletes. There is every indication that sporting bodies and individual athletes have overwhelmingly rejected it. If the rule of law and individual freedom mean anything, the matter should have rested there. Instead, all manner of petty tyranny has been used by the Government.
Mr. Stanley Cohen: Has my hon. Friend seen the reply that I received last week from the Minister with responsibility for sport? I shall quote only the final sentence:
"I have advised the Sports Council that there can be no post-Games grant for travel costs to and from Moscow."
The use of the word "persuasion" is totally contradictory to such a reply.
Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the very point that I am coming on to. There was at first a softer touch. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office engaged in posh lunches in the West End. When there was no response, other measures were activated, including financial sanctions and refusal of special leave for civil servants and members of the Armed Forces to take part in the Moscow Olympics. One must commend the attitude of the Civil Service trade unions for their admirable stand on the freedom of their members who wish to take part. Thirdly, there has been the
92
cock-eyed attempt to organise alternative Games.
I have been a member of many delegations to Ministers at the Treasury and to the Minister with responsibility for sport, calling for more money for sport. The response has invariably been negative. But now, presumably, if alternative Games can be arranged in Australia or any other country, money will be no object. That shows the hypocrisy of the whole business.
The Games are essentially the responsibility of the International Olympic Committee, as that leading sports body, the Central Council for Physical Recreation, has pointed out. The council, which represents all major sports in this country, greatly resents the present Government intrusion.
Yesterday we read in The Observer the headline
"Go to Moscow, poll tells British athletes".
The report underneath said that the opinion poll in question showed a 3 to 1 majority in favour of the athletes' going. Roughly the same proportion said that the International Olympic Committee was right to continue with the Moscow Olympics.
The Prime Minister is known as the Iron Lady. She has not gained that reputation for nothing. She is always most anxious to stoke up the fires of the cold war. The people of Britain are coming to realise that the Government under her direction are doing immense harm to the country. Do we not know it in South Wales, with the steel crisis and so on? There are also the high interest rates stifling all enterprises and mortgage rates which are a crippling burden on many young couples. In addition, inflation is once again raging at about 20 per cent. a year. That is why there was the 13 per cent. swing in the Southend by-election last Thursday.
My point is that the Olympics issue, which the Government are bringing to the forefront, is an old dodge, known throughout history: when there is something bordering on chaos on the domestic economy, divert attention overseas. The Olympics are the chosen weapon on this occasion. The athletes are simply pawns in the game. The Prime Minister thinks that in order to

93
meet her overall objectives sport is expendable.
It is worth reminding ourselves that Olympic rule 24 says that national committees must resist all pressure, of any kind whatsoever, whether of a political, religious or economic nature. We—at least, those of us who are members of the Opposition—should stand by that.
I commend the stand taken by Sir Denis Follows, who has stood up for sport and for what he believes in. He has been embarrassed, particularly because he knows that the decision about the go-ahead for the Moscow Olympics is essentially one for the International Olympic Committee.
The Games are the outward manifestation of a movement whose central idea is the meeting in peace and friendship of all the young people of the world. The Prime Minister may temporarily embarrass the Soviet Union by what she is trying to do, but the real loser will be the Olympic movement. If a free society means anything, it is athletes themselves who must decide whether to go to Moscow or to stay away. I strongly urge them to go. Long may the Olympic movement continue!
6.38 pm
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The young people who form our Olympic teams are looking to the House to give them wise counsel. Neither Front Bench has given them a great deal of help. For the Government, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal gave a clear answer: they should not go to Moscow. But his arguments were far from convincing. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, gave a series of eloquent and—in my view—convincing arguments. But his conclusion was simply a fudge. He was like an athlete who bursts away at the beginning, does well round the bends, but falls flat on his face when he comes to the straight.
What was the right hon. Gentleman's advice to the waiting athletes? He told them that they should abstain, not from Moscow—he does not know what to tell them about that—but from deciding. Whatever feelings we may have, the House should not today send forth an uncertain conclusion to our atheletes.
94
I had about four' years experience as a member of the smallest and most unimportant trade union in the House, the trade union of Ministers with responsibility for sport. One of them, as we see tonight, is not even allowed to speak on his own subject. It happened to me as well.
I followed the policy of encouraging British athletes to compete in games with the entire world, to go wherever they wished. I also encouraged to Britain, people who came from Left-wing and Right-wing countries irrespective of colour, religion or outlook. I did so because I believe that sport, above all, is a bridge. I did so too because I think it is folly to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, be it Chile, Cuba, South Africa or, indeed, the Soviet Union.
But Afghanistan is different. It is different because the invasion of Afghanistan was, above all, an international event. It was international because it involved the crossing by a foreign army of another country's frontier. It is international because Russian troops are now killing Afghans in their own country. It is international because it has been denounced by the United Nations, by the Muslim States and by the European Community. Therefore, it is against an international background—not the internal affairs of the Soviet Union, South Africa or anywhere else—that we have to judge the appropriate international response.
The United States has responded most strongly. President Carter has increased United States armaments. He has sent his carriers to the Indian Ocean, stopped the export of wheat and high technology and said "No" to athletes going to Moscow. Europe has responded less vigorously. I think that Europe should do more. But the House has to decide the adequacy and appropriateness of the British response.
Having spent a good deal of time with sportsmen, I do not find this an easy decision. Everyone in the House knows the commitment that a young man, his trainers, clubs and parents put into preparing for the Olympics. Everyone knows of the high hopes entertained by these young people. Everyone ought to recognise that, for them, it is once in a lifetime; it is a chance that never comes back. Therefore, for the athletes, this is a most heart-rending decision.

95
I judge the issue on three clear criteria. The first is: can athletes contract out of a national political issue because they are athletes? My answer is that they cannot, that they must not and that, if they do, they will regret it to the end of their lives. But, in answering that question in that way, I think that our athletes are entitled not to stand alone. If they are to be expected to make their protest by staying away from Moscow—giving up the chance of a lifetime—they certainly are entitled to look to the Government, and to the rest of the British nation, to make equivalent gestures in other directions.
I refer here to the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the admirable speech in which he drew attention to it. His amendment is exactly right. I appreciate some of the niceties that the Government have to face, particularly on export credits to the Soviet Union. I declare an interest. I am a director of a company which sends engineering goods to the Soviet Union with the benefit of ECGD credit. I recognise that there would be employment implications if we were now to stop any new credits to the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, in the light of Afghanistan and, above all else, because of the need to prevent Soviet leaders from miscalculating the reactions of the West, I believe that this is a price that we must pay. My right hon. Friend's amendment ought plainly to be accepted by the Government.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is to reply, is not present. I ask him to accept the amendment not merely in spirit, but without any ifs or buts. I say plainly to my right hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest admiration, that if the Government fudge this issue, as the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar fudged it today, they cannot expect either the athletes or Members of the House to give them the support that I for one sincerely wish to give.
My second criterion in judging this matter is: can there be an alternative Olympics? In the circumstances, perhaps not. But I would mention one personal experience. This year a special Olympics was organised in the United States. From 18 nations just over 4,000 mentally handi-
96
capped athletes met at Brockport, New York, before a crowd of 40,000. With colleagues, I was able to take a team of 35 young British mentally-handicapped athletes who had to be trained, prepared and run off. We did it without a penny of Government money by the commitment and dedication of the athletes, the clubs and the voluntary organisations concerned.
I am not convinced that it is possible in present circumstances to organise an alternative Olympics, and I am not even sure that it would be wise. But where there is a will, there is a way. We should abandon all thought of there being some alternative, somewhere, and this should be better than nothing.
My third and final question, in the turmoil in which young athletes, training and worrying, find themselves, is: who should make the decision? In a free country such as ours, they must decide for themselves. I do not think that anyone in this place would wish the Government or the Opposition to decide that moral question for each of them. None the less, I believe that they should make that decision with the advice, and perhaps the consent, of the House of Commons.
Mr. Hooley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Griffiths: No. I should like to finish my speech. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
When Sir Denis Follows came before the Select Committee, of which I am a member, he was asked some direct questions. In particular, he was asked whether, if the British Parliament came to the conclusion that the athletes ought not to go, he would accept that advice. He fairly said that he would consider it. He went on to imply that it would make a difference to the athletes if the House made its position quite clear. But he also said—I think perhaps unwisely—that in these matters he and the British Olympics Association had rather more experience than we do. I like Sir Denis Follows. Indeed, I think that I may have appointed him to the Sports Council. He can sometimes be pompous, occasionally unctuous, but he is a man of enormous sincerity. But his sincerity has been misplaced insofar as

97
he judges that he knows better than the House on the wider issue of how Britain should respond to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
I conclude by saying that the House should now give a lead. The lead should be to say to our young athletes "We understand the tragedy of your losing this opportunity. We recognise that we are asking you to make a unique sacrifice, because you alone can make a unique impact on the Soviet people. We ask you to go with us along that road, but we give the undertaking that the Government will ensure that you are not alone in your sacrifice. They will ensure that all other parts of the British community which have some contribution to offer will also be expected to make it."
The Government should say that in terms by accepting the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing.
6.49 pm
Mr. James Wellbeloved: In his excellent speech, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said that there was still a chance that our athletes could be persuaded by common sense, by their belief in fair play and by the clear advice of the House not to go to the Moscow Olympics. There is a slim chance. That is why it was vitally important to have this debate and that it should take place on the basis of a free vote. I am certain that when the Division Bells ring at 10 o'clock tonight, Opposition Members will go in a number of directions. I declare with the same forthrightness as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) where I shall go. I shall not go into the Lobby to support the Government but into a Lobby to call for a boycott of the Moscow Olympics. I shall say why I shall take that action and why I hope that a significant number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be with me.
There has been worldwide condemnation of the Soviet invasion, occupation and suppression of Afghanistan. That has been voiced not merely by politicians in this country and the United States of America, but also in the United Nations and by the non-aligned countries. Almost every international assembly has issued its condemnation. Yet three months after
98
the invasion Soviet troops are still in Afghanistan and people there are still being murdered. It would be a disgrace if that Soviet action and suppression was condoned by the international sporting community by athletes going to the Moscow Olympics.
When I began in a campaign at the beginning of the year, it was our intention to mobilise public opinion and to try to galvanise the Government into taking a lead not for a boycott at that stage but for a move of the Olympic Games from Moscow. That did not happen. The Government did not take the lead which I and many others thought that they should have taken at the beginning of this year. Now it is too late to move the Olympics from Moscow this year so I conclude firmly that there should be a boycott of the Games.
I also have an amendment on the Order Paper signed by a number of my hon. Friendsߞ
Mr. Freudroseߞ
Mr. Wellbeloved: I should like to continue for a little longer. I shall perhaps give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) later.
My amendment, while joining in the general condemnation of the invasion of Afghanistan, goes on to note
"the widespread expulsion of dissidents from the Moscow area in advance of the Olympic Games."
We believe that an effective boycott of the Moscow Games by the Olympic movement would bring home to the Russian people both the strength of worldwide feeling against their Government's denial of fundamental human rights to Soviet dissidents, Soviet Jews and other religious minorities and the international condemnation of their Government's brutal and cynical invasion of Afghanistan.
It is because I believe that a boycott would be effective in bringing home, probably for the first time in my lifetime, the condemnation by world opinion of the actions of the Soviet Government not only for having invaded Afghanistan but also many other deeds that they have perpetrated that this issue is important.
I believe that it was the hon. Member for Isle of Ely who said that, however the Soviets might try to edit things out

99
of Soviet broadcasting, television and news services, they could not "edit in" athletes from the free nations if they were not there. So, for the first time, young men and women, middle-aged men and women, and perhaps old men and women in the Soviet Union will have the seed sown in their minds, the reality brought home to them, that the actions of their Government have been condemned and are held in contempt by the sporting fraternity of the world. That is why British athletes should consider carefully their actions and the advice that they will receive from the House.
I do not like to keep praying in aid the right hon. Member for Worthing. I know that if one is involved in a little dispute with one's colleagues, it is embarrassing continually to pray in aid the name of a member of the opposing party. However, I have to do so because the right hon. Gentleman was critical of the Government's handling of this matter. The Government's handling of this issue has been inept. Today we had yet another manifestation of that ineptitude when the Government's motion had to be amended by the Lord Privy Seal.
I could go over the leaking to the press of the attempt to bully people in the Civil Service and the Armed Forces. We know that that has now been retracted, but the damage has been done. The temperature in the sporting world has been raised, and the athletes are saying "If that is the attitude of the Government, they can get stuffed. We will not respond." I hope that more sane and reasonable opinion will now prevail and that sportsmen will now overlook the ineptitudes of the Government and judge the issue on its merits and in the light of its implicatons for world peace.
We all know that a young athlete who has been training from perhaps three, four, or five years of age to win a medal in the international Olympics must find it devastating to be confronted, after all that sweat, toil and training, with the prospect of not being able to participate and perhaps win that medal. All hopes and aspirations are now in jeopardy because many years ago the International Olympic Committee chose Moscow as the site for the Games.
I hope that the Minister with responsibility for sport and his Opposition coun-
100
terpart will, during the weeks and months ahead, look closely at the IOC. It is not a very democratic body. I do not want to be sidetracked into saying too much about it, but it is a self-perpetuating body and there is no semblance of democracy in it. The two representatives on that committee who voice the views of the United Kingdom are two old chaps from the House of Lords—hereditary Lords. I hope that those responsible for sport will see whether more democracy can be brought into the IOC.
I turn to the British Olympic Association. I will not follow the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) by making any comment on the character of Sir Denis Follows. I have met him on a number of occasions since I have been involved in this issue, and I believe that he is a perfectly straightforward and rational fellow. All I hope is that he will follow to their finality the logic of his decisions. He told me that he believed that we had to accept the decision of the BOA about sport in South Africa and that politics were therefore already involved in sport. But politics were involved before Sir Denis accepted that fact. Therefore, if the South African issue involved politics—and rightly so—nobody can argue about politics being involved in the Olympics issue. They have been involved in the Olympics issue since time immemorial.
Reference has been made to our national pride being involved when the natonal anthem is played. The tremendous effort put in by the United States of America the Soviet Union and many other countries which have virtually full-time athletes was also mentioned. Nationalism is involved and so is politics.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will oppose the boycott and talk about British athletes going to Moscow and demonstrating in the Olympic arena by not participating in the opening ceremonies. That would be very much fifth best or fourth best to a boycott, but it would be better than nothing. The only thing that I would say to him is that he ought to take seriously the views of the Soviet official in charge of the Olympics, a man called Mr. Popov, who has made it quite clear that no such demonstrations

101
will be allowed in the Soviet Union. Perhaps we may even have some deportations of British athletes from the Olympics in Moscow if they dare to take the advice which I think my right hon. Friend will be giving them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer), as usual, made a perfectly straightforward and deeply sincere and emotional speech. But he articulated the fears of many hon. Members—that this business about the invasion of Afghanistan and the reaction to it could contain the seeds of a third world war. There cannot be any Member who does not share those fears of the horror, disaster and catastrophe that would befall mankind if that were to be the result.
Where I differ from my hon. Friend is that I believe that by taking action and demonstrating to the Soviet Government and bringing home to the Soviet people the enormity of what has happened we do not increase the chance of war; we decrease it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher), also in a most moving speech, referred to the fact that as a young man he attended, as a member of the audience, the Berlin Olympics of 1936. The young men and women from the non-Nazi world who attended those Olympics did not have much impact on Nazi Germany, and within three years they were marching off to war, giving their blood, limbs and lives because they had condoned the Nazi tyranny by going to Berlin, and condoned it with the assent of many people in this country, and perhaps one or two now who are the successors of those who condoned the Nazi tyranny.
I have read quite recently in a national newspaper a letter from a man called Edwin Roth, a very distinguished international journalist, who described what really happened at the 1936 Olympic Games. He said that after Albert Speer, Hitler's fellow Cabinet Minister, was released from gaol, he interviewed him, and Speer said that when Hitler knew that the world was coming to Berlin he stamped up and down the room saying "They all come! They all come! This is a great day for Nazi Germany. We are being recognised by the world."
That is what we shall do if our athletes go to Moscow—recognise and condone the invasion and the occupation of Af-
102
ghanistan, the suppression of the dissidents and the treatment of the Soviet Jews.
That distinguished journalist also went on to say that he attended a ceremony at the Dachau concentration camp after the Second World War, where a young German went to the rostrum and made a contribution. This is what that young German said not so long ago:
"When the Olympic Games were held in Berlin in 1936, the world refused to hear the cries of those who were tortured here and in other camps of horror. Whose cries do we refuse to hear today?"
That is the question that the athletes of this country must answer. Whose cries will they refuse to hear if they accept the invitation and attend the Moscow Olympics?
7.4 pm
Sir Frederic Bennett: There was so much to admire in what was said by the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) that I do not wish to spend time going through it. However, there was one point on which I know he will accept my agreement, because we have been in touch about it for some time. That is that neither of us, when we go into the Lobby tonight, will be in support of the Government or the Prime Minister, because the hon. Member and I, and some others, were pleading, begging and working to try to prevent the Olympic Games from being held in Moscow long before the invasion of Afghanistan. It is only that which has excited present public opinion.
I have no hesitation in saying that I believe that the fixing of the Olympic Games in Moscow was a fundamental mistake from the start. Mr. Bukovsky's name has been called in aid several times today. It is Mr. Bukovsky, Mr. Solzhenitsyn and others who have been saying, in regard to the treatment of dissidents and the whole atmosphere of tyranny in the Soviet Union, that it was not a fit place in which to hold the Games. These distingushed people, the best and most entitled to know what conditions are in their country, were saying this long before the invasion of Afghanistan took place.
I make no apology for saying again that it was a mistake. We now have an opportunity, at least partially, to put it right, with the full support of those best entitled to know what will further the

103
cause of Soviet imperialism. As was so eloquently said, the cause of Nazism was furthered in 1936 by a similar mistake. Tonight we must help to prevent such a thing from taking place again.
It has been said that we here ought to be guided by public opinion polls, notably the one that was published in The Observer, which showed, I am told, a majority of 3:1 against the policy of seeking to prevent the athletic teams from going to Moscow. I am always very amused when I hear these public opinion polls quoted as being something which ought to guide our deliberations as Members of Parliament because they are quoted only when they happen to agree with our own views. There have been many occasions in the past when those who, for instance—and I am not among them—favour the return of capital punishment have been pointing to public opinion polls and saying "Surely we ought to be guided by the fact that this week, last week, and so on, public opinion polls everywhere showed that the people of this country favour the return of capital punishment." What has been the response of the intellectuals in this House? They have all said "Ah, but we in this House should form our own impressions. We are here to lead, not to be guided by these polls." It is only now, when a poll happens to suit someone's opinion, that suddenly we are told that we Members of Parliament should be subordinate to the polls, instead of taking a lead.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is temporarily absent from the Chamber. I agree with him completely that the Government ought to have introduced stronger measures in economic and other fields than they have done, and they ought still to do so. I shall differ from my right hon. Friend in that I shall not make my support conditional, in voting the way I intend voting tonight, simply because I do not think that up to now the Government have taken strong enough measures.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give an example of the stronger measures that he thinks ought to be taken?
Sir F. Bennett: Certainly. Without going into great detail—and I shall not yield to the temptation to read them out—in the field of export credits, of which
104
mention has been made, further measures could take some considerable strength, and there is a list of measures that the Government have already taken. But the point is, simply, that while I support all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and those Opposition Members who have spoken in a similar fashion, in saying that we ought to take stronger measures, in fields other than sport, to show our disapproval, I do not think that our support in the Lobby tonight should be made conditional on that. Simply to say that the fact that we did not get something quite right before is an excuse for not doing something right tonight is not the way to form a conclusive argument.
Another point is the fatuous statement that politics should not be allowed to invade sport. Several Opposition Members and several Conservative Members have said what a nonsense all this is. Leaving apart the South African issue—I have no wish to detain the House by going through that yet again—in 1920, the International Olympic Committee banned Germany from joining in the Games in Antwerp that year, not because she was being aggressive but because, under another Government, she had engaged in a war, albeit one that had ended two years earlier. That was done by the same committee that has said that politics should not be allowed to interfere in sport.
In 1948 Japan and Germany were banned from coming to Wembley on the ground that they had taken part in a recent war, despite the fact that the war had ended three years earlier. However the Olympic Committee said that as those countries had been contaminated by aggression in the past, they should not be allowed to attend the Games.
In 1938, the Olympic Committee met. It said that the venue should be moved from Tokyo to Helsinki, because Japan had invaded China in that year. That decision was reached without the clamour that has been raised by Sir Denis Follows. The Olympic Committee contradicts history when it says from its lofty sphere that politics should not be allowed to interfere in sport. I am surprised that it has perpetrated such drivel.
It has been said that by holding the Games in Moscow, a window will be opened there. It has been said that ordinary people will be able to mix with

105
other young people in the Olympic village and that everyone will get on happily. It is said that we shall see the full benefit that can be derived from holding the Games in Moscow. However, how many of those young people who went to Berlin lived long enough to take part in another Olympic Games? Nevertheless, we hear the same arguments today as we heard in 1936. It was said that Nazi Germany was one thing, but that a meeting of sportsmen, young people, spectators and observers was another. It is said that these Games will have a beneficial effect. In the light of events since 1936. I cannot understand how such arguments can be used.
We have been asked to accept the Prime Minister's advice. I am usually willing to do so. However, tonight the Prime Minister's opinion would not make any difference to my decision. President Carter has not persuaded me either. Incidentally the British Olympic Committee and others are in danger of making fools of themselves. Although President Carter has been known to change his mind, we can be certain that no American team will go to Moscow. Germany will therefore boycott the Games. If anyone wishes to make a wager with me in the Lobby afterwards, I shall take up that wager in roubles or any other currency that is offered. For it was the West German ambassador to NATO who was the first person to moot the idea of boycotting the Olympic Games.
However, if I myself had needed any persuasion, I would have been persuaded by Mr. Sakharov. Many tears have been shed, many gestures of sympathy and expressions of horror about that unfortunate and brave man have been made in the House and in the press of the free world. However, I sometimes feel that they were only crocodile tears. I have been greatly influenced by the last words that he sent out of Russia through his wife, in that last brave act. His words contained a solemn plea to the free world namely, that it should not participate in the Olympic Games.
7.14 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Government have strenuously argued that this debate should take place before a meeting that will be held later this week to discuss an alternative to the Olympics.
106
However, it is deeply regretted that the Government did not adopt the same attitude towards the installation of cruise missiles. They made no effort to arrange a debate before reaching a decision to install 160 of those missiles. Perhaps the principle of consulting Parliament before making a decision has been adopted as a matter of political expediency. Perhaps it is a new Government principle. However, we know that it has been adopted merely as a result of political expediency. The Government have clutched at athletes as they would clutch at a straw. They wish to make a political gesture about Afghanistan.
The Government have made a tactical blunder today. They chose the wrong time for the debate; that had to be altered. They chose the wrong motion; that had to be altered. The motion is still not correct. I understand that a manuscript amendment has been tabled altering "Great Britain" to "the United Kingdom". The motion does not cover citizens of Northern Ireland competing in boxing and equestrian events, as they would be covered by the Irish flag and would use Irish facilities. The motion is therefore inaccurate. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us and tell us the terms of the motion.
The Government were so concerned about the need for detail that they did not realise that the motion had been incorrectly worded. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) had to inform the Government of their mistake by means of a point of order. The debate has been a mess from beginning to end. It is typical that the Government have been so ill informed.
It has been repeatedly confirmed that the facilities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department are still available and that trade is continuing with Russia. The Russian ambassador has not been withdrawn. The Government have chosen a course of mean and petty discrimination against athletes. They have not been victimised. It is merely unfortunate that they cannot take time off from work. Many people will not be able to attend the Games unless they are prepared to sacrifice their jobs. Some athletes are prepared to do that. However, the Government have raised an

107
enormous barrier. The Government say that they have not adopted such petty means of victimisation. That flies in the face of truth.
Some Conservatives have done rather well out of the Olympic Games. Those athletes who listen to this debate and who read the reports can be forgiven for thinking that the Government's decision betrays a certain amount of hypocrisy. Perhaps some athletes read an article in The Sunday Times that appeared yesterday under the heading "Good Lord! ! !". It said:
"Behold Lord Thorneycroft, chairman of the Conservative Party and of Trust Houses Forte, one of whose subsidiaries Lillywhites-Cantabrian, a manufacturer of athletics equipment, is sole supplier to the Moscow Olympics. The bulk of the track and field hardware is already in the Soviet capital, and the subsidiary company in Thorneycroft's empire has already pocketed three-quarters of the £150,000 asking price from the Russians."
The Lord Privy Seal has called on athletes to make sacrifices. However, the chairman of the Conservative Party has not made any great sacrifice. Will he pay that £100,000 back, or will he quietly pocket it and join the Lord Privy Seal in asking only athletes to make sacrifices? Are only athletes to be asked to make gestures on behalf of this bankrupt Government?
Motions have been tabled condemning Russian aggression. Opposition Members have consistently condemned aggression. They are people who, for example, condemned American aggression in Vietnam.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made it plain from his remarks that he thought that the Americans had not gone far enough in Vietnam. They had not exterminated enough people, used enough defoliants or enough chemical weapons.
Mr. Churchill: Not true.
Mr. Cryer: That was the impression that I gained. Throughout the Vietnamese hostilities the Tory Party gave lickspittle support to the Americans. To the deep regret of myself and many of my hon. Friends, there were some in the Labour Party who supported that view.
Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. The American aggression in Viet-
108
nam was greater than the Russian aggression in Afghanistan, which we hope will not escalate. We condemn aggression in Vietnam and Afghanistan. We do not have double standards. We do not support aggression when convenient and condemn it when that is a useful political weapon to divert attention from difficulties at home.
Where was the voice of condemnation when Allende was deposed in Chile with CIA support? Where was that concern for the freedom of the individual and condemnation of aggression? The CIA was supported. The Conservative Party supports aggression when it suits its book.
Mr. Hooley: My hon. Friend does not have to go back as far as Vietnam. A member of NATO at present has its armies deployed in the territory of a small non-aligned country. The Turkish army is still in Cyprus, and there is no suggestion of economic or diplomatic sanctions against Turkey.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. When asked about Turkey, the Lord Privy Seal said that there were two points of view.
The Government's motion of total condemnation and a boycott is based on double standards. It cannot be supported. Athletes are being asked to take action when the Government are not prepared to do so. Our athletes are entitled to feel that it is a hypocritical motion and that those who support it have double standards.
Some hon. Members on both sides believe that if we do not stand up to the Russians their aggression will develop and we shall move towards a Third World War. Unfortunately, my motion has not been chosen, but it deals with future guarantees of neutrality for Afghanistan. It is conceivable that the Russian claims of CIA intervention through Afghanistan and Pakistan are accurate. I do not know. If they are credible, the neutralisation of Afghanistan would eradicate the Russian fear, which would be preferable to increasing confrontation.
As the Leader of the Opposition says, if we do not live with Russia, we shall die with Russia. Both sides are armed to the teeth, and the storage and deployment

109
of weapons is increasing. Both conveniently blame the other. In varying degrees both are involved in acts of aggression and both believe that they need more weapons to protect themselves. Sooner or later one of those weapons may go off.
How will we react? Will it be treated as a false alarm and a Third World War may be avoided, or will we deploy technological might to begin an Armageddon that will produce a radioactive cinder heap in this country and possibly throughout the world? We are going in that direction if we increase confrontation.
I urge our athletes not to boycott the Olympic Games, which build bridges, as an hon. Gentleman said. We have to carry on relations with Russia, whether people like it or not. The Government encourage trade with Russia. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) asked the Lord Privy Seal about jobs in his constituency. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that jobs would not be lost through boycotting trade with Russia. The Government are maintaining the ambassador and most of the embassy staff in Moscow, apart from the one person who was to assist with the games. The Government recognise that we must maintain our contacts.
Our athletes should follow that example, and maintain and follow up their contacts by attending the Games. They should ignore the hypocritical motion which the Government have tabled for short-term petty political advantage.
7.26 pm
Mrs. Jill Knight: Many letters have been written to the newspapers recently about the boycott of the Olympic Games. One such letter was a model of simplicity and clarity. It asked whether, if one had arranged to play bridge on Wednesday with an acquaintance who had spent the previous weekend overpowering and murdering a neighbour's family, one would still do so. That is essentially the same problem that faces us over the Games. If the answer is "No", we should reflect how much more important, far-reaching and significant is the decision that our athletes have to take.
Many hon. Members and far more people outside are amazed that the venue was ever chosen. Over many months many of us have consistently tried to
110
have it altered. Once Moscow was chosen, it was inevitable that the pressure on athletes of any free country would be enormous.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates no sudden Russian conversion to repression. The Russian nation has repressed and treated people cruelly for many years.
I am surprised that our athletes have not noticed the pressure applied to Soviet athletes. The other day I heard the heartbreaking story of a young Russian athlete forced to take steroids to improve her performance, as so many are. She flatly refused because of the side effects. So much pressure was put on her that she was very frightened and subsequently escaped. The alarming thing was that then the pressure and tyranny were moved to her family. Her mother was taken away and pressure was brought to bear on her sister. It amazes me that if there is any solidarity among athletes this country's athletes should not be influenced and should even contemplate attending the Olympic Games.
In the Soviet Union, if one hangs a protest banner from one's window, one is liable to be sent to a prison camp. If one attempts to monitor whether the Helsinki Final Agreement is being carried out, one is liable to be sent to Siberia for a long time. If one reads a Bible, or if one is a Jew, that is all it needs to bring the full weight of the Soviet Union bearing down upon one.
How much of this is known to the people of the Soviet Union? Certainly it is extremely difficult for any of them to take a clear decision—or any decsion—because of the heavy censorship that is constantly applied to all their newspapers.
Boycotting the Olympic Games is one clear and immediate way of getting the message across to the people of the USSR that their oppressive and cruel Government is the pariah of the free world. This is the only chance that we shall have for many years, and that is the point that Sir Denis Follows has failed to understand.
I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that there should not only be an Olympic boycott but that there are many other things that we should do. But it is perfectly clear that if we withdraw the ambassador that would not get the message across to the Soviet people. The

111
same is true of a trade embargo. It is a question of using the opportunity that is before us now. We shall not have such an opportunity again to make clear to the Soviet Union the opinion of the world.
The tour by the Moscow Military Ensemble has been postponed, but what impact will that make in Russia? None at all. The British-Soviet meetings on environmental protection, medicine and public health have been cancelled—and I should think so, too. But in themselves they do not make a peep of difference to the people of the Soviet Union. However, if the teams withdraw, as they are doing increasingly, from these great Games, that fact cannot be hidden from the Soviet people. This is our one chance to make clear the way in which we feel.
If whole teams boycotted the Olympic Games, this would be a golden opportunity to show the Sovets how the world regards their behaviour. Who knows where that might lead? It is highly significant. As many of my colleagues wish to speak in this debate, I shall yield to them.
7.35 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Bank of America, the Bank of Scotland, the Chase Manhattan Bank, Credit Lyonnais, Lloyds Bank, the National Westminster Bank and the Midland Bank, plus 25 other Western banks all have offices open in Moscow doing business at present. In these circumstances, how can anyone, like hon. Members opposite, talk about "equality of sacrifice"?
I have a specific question to put to the Government Front Bench. On 21 February, the Prime Minister quoted a letter that she had written to Sir Denis Follows. The second sentence of that letter read:
"Nevertheless, as you will have seen from my statement in the House of Commons on 14 February, the Government has decided that its advice to British athletes must be not to go to the Games in Moscow next summer.'"—[Official Report, 21 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 274.]
I ask why the Prime Minister of this country did not see fit before making that statement to Parliament—rightly or wrongly—at least to talk to the British Olympic Association. It is more than simply a matter of manners. I would be
112
the last to take issue with anyone on the question of manners because there are much more important issues at stake. Could this be answered in the Minister's reply tonight?
My amendment shows that some of us—albeit a small minority—dispute the premise on which this debate takes place. We dispute the premise that the regrettable invasion of Afghanistan can be seen simply in terms that are wholly black. We argue that this is a complex issue and that there are various shades of grey.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) has talked about "bestial acts". I do not doubt that bestial things are being done every day, but I must point out that bestial acts were committed in Afghanistan long before any soldier of the Red Army entered that country—[An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) says "Rubbish".
Mr. David Ennals: No, I did not.
Mr. Dalyell: I am glad that my right hon. Friend denies it. I need all the support that I can get. The fact is that, in the four months before the Red Army went into Afghanistan, 58,000 people had their throats cut.
Mr. Churchill: By whom?
Mr. Dalyell: By Afghan factions fighting one another. This is a very complicated situation.
I have asked time and again—and this has never been answered completely—why the Russians went into Afghanistan in the first place. Why? Why? The Lord Privy Seal today said that Mr. Brezhnev referred to it as "a difficult decision". Probably it was a difficult decision. But the issue is why should the Russians have embarked on such a course in the first place? Various explanations have been given. It has been suggested that they have their eyes on the Iranian oilfields, but that does not hold much water. Afghanistan is 200 miles from the Iranian oilfields but Azerbaijan, where the Russians have been for centuries, is only 100 miles from the Iranian oilfields.
We are told by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and others

113
that this is the beginning of the Russians' global aggression. If this is all about global aggression, our athletes have no business going to Moscow. But it is difficult to imagine that the mountains of Afghanistan should be the place for starting global aggression. If we are talking about global aggression, surely it is relevant to say that the men in the Kremlin are very concerned about the Kakorham highway which links China and Pakistan and the Chinese pouring materials into Pakistan. I do not make much of this, but it is fair to point out that the Russian Government have been extremely concerned for more than two decades about the Chinese. They may be neurotic about them, but anything that leads the Russians to suppose that there is a serious Chinese threat and that people in Afghanistan may have been supplied from China puts a somewhat different complexion on the Soviet actions.
I refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher). If we are considering the global aspect, there is one group which might be very pleased to see the West withdraw from the Olympic Games. That is the view of Professor John Erickson, the Russian expert, who will give evidence to the foreign affairs Select Committee. In his view, there is the faction within the Soviet hierarchy, led by Mr. Andropov, the head of the KGB, who will be absolutely delighted if Western athletes and tourists do not go to Moscow. In the argument about global aggression, we have to be careful, because in the Soviet Union Government, as in every Government, there are factions. All factions were united in not wanting a Soviet supplicant State in chaos on their borders.
If we are to take definite decisions, we must look carefully, and certainly at much greater length than one can in a single speech, at what is involved. Consider, for example, the actions of the GRU, the military intelligence in the Soviet Union. It may be that the GRU greatly exaggerated the threat and that it did not act rationally, but it seems that there were intelligence sources in the Soviet Union that persuaded the Russian Government that an irredentist Moslem insurrection in Afghanistan would make it difficult for the Soviets to hold 2,700 kilometres of frontier on that difficult terrain.
114
If the Foreign Office Minister who is on the Government Front Bench doubts the general drift of my argument, let the Foreign Office look at the incredible story of General Pastuchkin, the KGB general who was sent to Afghanistan last year and who committed suicide on his return to Moscow. It is a fairly good guess that he committed suicide because the KGB had failed inside Afghanistan. So the Red Army had to sort out the chaos.
We are not concerned with the morality of the KGB becoming involved, except to note that the Russians have been deeply involved in Afghanistan for more than half a century. The kings of Afghanistan were the first people in the world to recognise the Soviet revolution. It has been a close relationship and it cannot he seriously argued that it has been an exploitative relationship. Afghanistan's natural gas and other raw materials have been sold to the Soviet Union at world prices and the Soviet Union has poured a great deal of money into Afghanistan.
Mr. Robern Maclennan: I find my hon. Friend's speculation about the motivation of the Soviet Union historically interesting but somewhat dangerous. The relativism of his approach to aggression seems to be a mirror of the sort of arguments that were used by the friends of the Nazi regime in the 1930s to justify the invasion of the Sudetenland, the Danzig corridor and the reoccupation of territories that were held to be German in origin.
Since the conclusion of the war. we have tried to live in the world by rules of international law which are enshrined in the United Nations charter. Whatever may be the motives of countries that decide to send troops across the borders of others, they are clearly in breach of the charter and we have an obligation to recognise that such a breach constitutes a threat to global peace aind security, however well conceived may be the motivation of the Government concerned.
Mr. Dalyell: That is a point of view, but faced on the borders of the Soviet Union with an irredentist fundamentalist Moslem revival and ayatollahs' State, it was not straightforward aggression.
Mr. Churchill: That is what they said about the Sudetenland.
Mr. Dalyell: That it not so, though the Sudetenland analogy is relevant to the extent that there are on both sides of the border people of the same tribeߞ10 million Uzbeks in Soviet Uzbekistan, out of 14 million, and 5 million Uzbeks in Afghanistan, and the same may be said of the Turkomans, the Khizkirs, and the Tadjiks.
That is the problem faced by the Soviet State. I do not dismiss the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), because I am not an apologist for the Soviet Union, but there is a great problem here. My hon. Friend used the analogy of the Sudetenland. I shall use another uncomfortable analogy.
Eleven years ago, much against the wishes of some of us who pleaded with our own Ministers not to do it, the British Army was sent to Northern Ireland. I agree that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that Afghanistan is not part of the Soviet Union, but people can get sucked into situations that they had no wish to get involved in at the start. That is different from global aggression or casting a covetous eye on the oil fields. It is a considerable problem, internally, perhaps, as well as externally, for the Soviet State.
We know from our experience in Northern Ireland the problems that can arise once troops have been sent to a country. Doubtless Mr. Brezhnev intended that the Soviet troops should be in Afghanistan only temporarily, just as the British Government intended that troops should be in Northern Ireland temporarily, and just as the Americans said in Vietnam. Great States can be drawn into circumstances that they did not want to get involved in. It is one thing to put troops in—quite another to pull them out, when there is a civil war situation. Look at Northern Ireland again.
The Russians may be trapped by their own presence. They may think that they have to stay, perhaps to prevent a civil war which may never have materialised had they not intervened in the first place. It is easy for hon. Members to laugh, but I wonder how many of those who are laughing their heads off would be so amused if they had the prospect of a militant Islamic State on their borders.
116
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoke about all the dreadful things that had been done in the Soviet Union; but dreadful things have also been done under the rule of ayatollahs and Muslim fundamentalist States are not a great deal more pleasant places to live in than is the Soviet Union.
Part of the argument is that the Soviet Union felt, rightly or wrongly, that it had to insulate itself from the effects of contagious difficulties on its borders caused by an Islamic revival. If hon. Members can laugh so much at that argument, how come the Government of India, the greatest democracy in Asia, have consistently refused to endorse any wholesale condemnation of the Russian action? The reason is that they see that the situation is extremely complex and that there are complex issues involving not only Afghanistan but Pakistan.
We would do well to look at the details of the situation before jumping to any conclusions about what to tell our athletes. Some of us wonder about the reactions of the West. Did it not suit President Carter's image to blow up a situation that the Russians never thought would be blown up, just at the time of the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries and caucus politics? I shall not say too much about the Germans, except that they also have an election coming up.
Let us consider the actions of our own Prime Minister. I do not often launch personal attacks, but if the right hon. Lady had been serious about all this, why did she not consult the British Olympic Association first? Why did it all come out, apparently spontaneously, in the House without previous thought? I suspect that there is an explanation, namely, that people in politics like to live up to their own images and justify a position that they have taken in the past. Is not Afghanistan, as portrayed by the popular press, a marvellous way in which the Iron Lady can say "How right I was all along about the Russians?" I view with the greatest cynicism the actions of the Government. I say to the athletes, like some of my hon. Friends, get away from this humbug and go to Moscow.
7.51 pm
Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will not expect me to take up his arguments nor his apologies for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The hon. Gentleman succeeded in persuading singularly few Members even on his own side in that respect.
The Soviet invasion has been brazen and overt. It has been condemned by 104 members of the United Nations as a flagrant breach of the United Nations charter, yet the hon. Member for West Lothian seeks to excuse it. He tells us that it is a temporary measure, that Mr. Brezhnev was hesitant about going ahead with it and must be unhappy about it, and that no doubt he will wish to withdraw at the earliest possible moment. What evidence does he have for these absurd speculations?
Why does not the hon. Gentleman consider the plight of the peoples of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and all the other peoples oppressed and occupied by the Soviet Union, who 35 years after the end of the Second World War, still remain under the Soviet tank track? Instead, the hon. Gentleman chooses to apologise for these new invasions, these new conquests. I do not believe that he will have much support for his policies inside or outside the House.
We see in the invasion of Afghanistan a new dimension to Soviet imperialism. It is one that threatens every Third world country and ultimately ourselves in Europe. What is to be our response? The United Nations has made clear its response—namely, its overwhelming condemnation. Is the House to make its voice any less clearly heard? Is it to condemn any less rigorously the outrage that has been perpetrated against the peoples of Afghanistan?
We have the opportunity to make our position clear tonight. The Soviets are inviting the world to participate in a propaganda spectacular at the Moscow Olympics. There can be no illusion about the extent to which they regard it as a political orgy in glorification of Soviet foreign and domestic policy. I find it difficult to believe that British athletes would knowingly wish to condone and pay tribute in this way to the oppressors of the peoples of Afghanistan.
118
There are those who mention the phrase used by a former Prime Minister on returning from Munich—namely, that the Czechoslovaks were a far-away people of whom we knew little. I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are considering abstaining whether their reaction would be the same today if, instead of Afghanistan, it had been Finland that had been invaded, or NATO Norway. Would we still be sending athletes to Moscow? Would Sir Denis Follows and the Marquess of Exeter still be speeding our sporting heroes up the line to pay tribute to the enslavers of Europeans? Or is it because these people are not European—that they are only a Third world people—that invading them does not rate so highly in the opprobrium of hon. Members?
The Government are urging the boycott to register our protest at the internal policies of the Soviet Union as well as its external policies. Internal oppression has been evident for many years but it has intensified in recent months. In the past three months more than 50 members of the Soviet human rights movement have been arrested in Moscow directly, so they believe, in relation to the forthcoming holding of the Olympics. They have been arrested and many have been sent into internal exile. Others are still being interrogated. Those who go in their quest to win devalued gold in Moscow will be paying tribute to the guardians of the world's greatest concentration camp.
The totalitarian and racist policies of the Soviet Union disqualify it, even under the International Olympic Committee's own rules, from being the venue for the Olympic Games. I wonder how many Jews who have expressed their wish to leave the Soviet Union are being permitted to take part in the Olympic Games. How many Soviet citizens who have expressed their concern for the implementation of the Helsinki accord are being invited to represent their country at the Moscow Olympics?
The leader of the human rights movement in the Soviet Union, Dr. Sakharov, has been sent into internal exile and he and his family are being persecuted. This weekend Anatoly Shcharansky finished three years of his prison sentence, only to be despatched to 10 years in forced labour camps. Ida Nudel is in the middle

119
of her four-year sentence, and even though there is grave concern for her health she is being denied proper medical attention by the Soviet authorities. What was her crime? It was to display a poster in her window demanding the right to be allowed to leave the Soviet Union.
But it is also right that we examine the part of the British Government in all this. British athletes have complained that they are being unfairly singled out by the Government and pushed into the firing line. I believe that they are right in their complaint. What steps have Her Majesty's Government taken, or what steps do they propose to take diplomatically, or in the fields of technology or trade, which are proper areas for Government concern?
I am not suggesting the imposition of economic sanctions against the Soviet Union, though I know that successive British Governments have led the pack in imposing sanctions against Rhodesia over the past 14 years. I am not aware that Rhodesia ever invaded any other country as the Soviet Union is now doing. I am not calling for the Government to impose comparable economic sanctions, but I find it strange that we are continuing to provide subsidised interest rates enabling the Soviets to buy equipment from the United Kingdom, on interest terms that are half those available to British industrialists and British business men who are trying to provide jobs in their own country. When is that to stop?
The most absurd outrage of all is that we continue to send subsidised EEC butter to the Soviet Union. An estimated 80,000 tonnes is likely to go this year in spite of what has happened, and, of course, it will be the British taxpayer, as overwhelmingly the largest contributor to the CAP budget, who will be required to foot the bill for that outrage.
We have heard of the policy of having to choose guns or butter. The European Community has made nonsense of that; the Soviet Union buys the guns—we give them the butter. I should certainly wish to add my support to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in the amendment which he has sought to draw to the attention of the House tonight.
120
I should welcome elucidation of another aspect of British Government policy. We all agree, I believe, that the British Government have no right to forbid or prevent a citizen of this country leaving our shores for whatever purpose he or she may wish to leave. I am glad that that should be the case, since that is in the nature of the society in which we live. Our Government, therefore, have to confine themselves to persuasion rather than coercion.
I believe that the Government are entitled, indeed have a duty, to give a lead to the country and to make clear where they stand. Moreover, they have the right to decide whether public funds should or should not be made available for a given purpose. Nevertheless, I must express the profoundest concern about the way the Government appear to be planning to behave in their role as an employer in this case, in respect of civil servants and members of the Armed Forces.
In my view, the Government are entitled to say that they will not give people special paid leave, but I do not believe that they are entitled to say "We will deny you special leave." In my judgment, the Government are duty bound to respect what would in this country be regarded as the tenets of good business practice. I draw an analogy here with a major employer in my own constituency. I cannot conceive of Sir Arnold Weinstock of GEC saying to an employee who qualified for Moscow "As I, Weinstock, am against the Moscow Olympics, I will deny you two weeks' extra leave."
I greatly hope, therefore, that in replying to the debate the Minister will make clear that there is to be no coercion. I firmly believe that to be the Government's position, but I should welcome elucidation of it.
To our athletes who may still be thinking of going to Moscow, I say only "You are free to go if you must, but go in the knowledge that you are betraying your fellow men in their hour of need in Afghanistan and within the Soviet Union by going to play games with the murderers of the Afghan patriots and by paying honour to the gaolers of Shcharansky, of Sakharov, of Ida Nudel and of countless hundreds of thousands of others."

121
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), and especially the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) in a moving speech, have called upon right hon. and hon. Members to stand up and be counted. I believe that we owe it to ourselves and to those who are facing this persecution to do not less. Let this not be a fudged issue tonight. I appeal to those hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who believe in and uphold the tenets of democracy to leave the "No" Lobby free tonight for those who do not choose to condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for those who do believe that British athletes should go to pay tribute to the Soviets. Let us by our votes tonight demonstrate our support for, and solidarity with, the oppressed and suffering in Afghanistan, in Eastern Europe and within the Soviet Union. Let us not break faith with them.
8.5 pm
Mr. David Ennals: As he would expect, I disagreed with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), but I found myself agreeing with his criticism of the Government in their threat that they will deny special leave to the Armed Forces and to civil servants. I regard that as repugnant.
I should have been happy to support the Government's motion if it had stopped at condemning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I should have taken that line, as, I believe, all right hon. and hon. Members would. I should have liked to follow the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), but I do not wish to do so. I condemn the invasion. In my view, no justification can be found for it. Arguments can be found, but there can be no justification for aggression. The United Nations voted overwhelmingly—by 108 votes—in condemnation of the Soviet invasion, much as it did when Britain invaded Suez and as it did from time to time with reference to American activities in Vietnam. I condemn all three. But that is not what I want to talk about tonight.
The reason why I oppose the Government's motion is that I believe it to be thoroughly unrealistic. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) was right when he called it a
122
ritual dance. I think that it is totally lacking in clarity.
Let us look for a moment at the terms and intention of the motion. The Olympic Games will take place in Moscow. I wish that that decision had never been taken. I wish that the Games were to be held in some other part of the world. But we were not consulted about that, and I do not think that we protested at the time. The Games will take place in Moscow, and no weight can be attached to the thought that some alternative can be cooked up by the Minister of State and other colleagues now in Geneva. The athletes will not accept it.
We are, therefore, making ourselves look silly in the eyes of the world by trying to pretend that we can mount some alternative Olympics anywhere else in the world. There is no indication whatever that the Olympic committee will change its mind. Moreover, I believe that very few countries will actually take the action which would be necessary. Let us remember that if one is to stop being represented one has to take draconian measures. One has to take away people's passports.
Admittedly, one can make one's appeal, but I have little doubt that only those who are prepared to take the sort of draconian action which non-free countries take can ensure that they will not have teams at the Olympic Games. I do not believe that there will be many of those, and I am perfectly sure that that will not apply to our country. Indeed, we have an assurance from the Government Front Bench that that will not be done.
What is proposed is that the Government should use their best endeavours to persuade the United Kingdom athletes not to go. In most cases, even if the House were unanimously to decide that today, it would not succeed because most of the athletes have decided that they will go to the Olympic Games. They will not be persuaded to the contrary by politicians of any colour, on a free vote or otherwise, because for them the Olympic Games happen every four years, they are a unique occasion in the athletics world and, wherever they are held, the athletes want to go.
I assure the hon. Member for Stretford that our athletes will not be going to

123
Moscow to pay their allegiance to Mr. Brezhnev or to the Soviet system. They are going as athletes to compete with athletes from other parts of the world. Many of the finest, at least in Britain, have been training for years for this event, and they have indicated their intention to disregard the Government's pleas. Moreover, the British public—certainly, if one follows the poll in The Observer—appear to agree with them in that view.
Therefore, what we may see if the Government proceed on their present course is a weakened team in Moscow from a number of free world countries. There will, of course, be some British people there. Perhaps some of our best will not go, but there will be a team, and for Britain and any other countries which go down this route there will be fewer golds, fewer silvers and fewer bronzes. Fewer of our athletes will have the honour of hearing the national anthem played because of their achievements. In fact, there will be more Russian medals, and the Russians will take the credit. It will be a heyday for the Russians if our athletes are prevented from competing in Moscow.
As for the effect that a boycott will have on Soviet public opinion, I cannot believe that anyone in the House who knows the Soviet Union and its control of the Soviet press will believe that this demonstration will have any effect. As the House knows, the Soviet Government have a total control over their radio and television systems. They will not explain that the true reason for the weak teams from Britain, the United States or any other country is the Soviet action in Afghanistan. They will say "Look how great are the Soviet athletes." They will take credit for that. We will be playing into the hands of the Soviet Union if we take the proposed measures.
If I thought for one moment that it would be possible to alter the venue, or that no British teams would participate, I should support the motion. However, I know that there is no chance of that happening.
I shall be brief, as many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. From the beginning, the Government have bungled their handling of the position in an almost
124
inconceivable manner and in a way which will do great damage to the cause both of Britain and of our athletes. Whatever motion the House may pass, there will be a British team competing in Moscow. If they want to, the Russians will be able to say that they are dissidents who refuse to accept the policies of the British Government. That will put the athletes into an extremely difficult position and will give the Russians a marvellous opportunity for Soviet propaganda.
The way in which the Government have handled the matter is an example of bungling, of which we have seen example after example over the past few weeks. There has been instant policy making by the Prime Minister, on her feet, which her Front and Back Benches have had to support in debates such as this. It does no good to this country, and I greatly regret it.
I should be happy to debate Afghanistan and Soviet aggression. I have many views that I should like to share with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, to whom I did not say "Rubbish". However, we are discussing by what means, if any, we can prevent a British team competing at Moscow. There is no way of bringing that about other than by using methods that are not used in a free country.
8.14 pm
Mr. Jim Spicer: I had hoped to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). He represents a view that I hold dear to my heart.
Many hon. Members referred to the fact that the Games were being held in Moscow, and asked "Why Moscow?" The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said that that was not the concern of the British Government when the International Olympic Committee decided to hold the Games in Moscow. I think that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will paint a different picture. A decision was taken on 23 October 1974 that the Games would be held in Moscow. I give all credit to those in the country and in the House, who, even then, said that it was a wrong decision. It was taken at a time when detente was in the air, and we thought that times were changing and that the

125
Russians were changing their spots. However, since that decision, we have seen that that has not happened.
As the years progressed, and in political and military spheres event followed event—the Russian interventions in Angola and Ethiopia, the genocide in Eritrea, and the attack on Somalia—the numbers grew of people asking why the Games should be held in the Soviet Union, and demanding to know why more thought had not been given to finding a possible alternative site. I hope that that question will be answered.
Mr. James Lamond: rose—
Mr. Spicer: I shall not give way, since many other hon. Members wish to speak.
I turn to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Much has been said in foreign affairs debates over the past two weeks about an invitation being extended by the Afghanistan Government to Russian troops to move into their country. It is a pretty poor way to show acceptance of hospitality when, the day after the troops move in, they take the President of Afghanistan and his family, including his children, line them up against a wall and shoot them down. It may be in the tradition of Afghanistan and the Soviet Union to do that, but it does not suit our book.
The invasion of Afghanistan alone is reason enough for saying that we should not support the Games in Moscow. If I had been in the House on Friday, I would have supported the motion of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford. In line with all that has happened in the political and military sphere over the past six or seven years, we have seen increasing internal repression in Russia itself.
Time after time hon. Members on both sides of the House have put forward the names of those people condemned for crimes that they have not committed and sent to concentration camps and even to mental institutions. The catalogue of those crimes grows week by week. We know that as we move into the immediate pre-Olympic Games period more and more repression will be exercised against all minority groups and nationalities, against all who believe in free thought, against all
126
Christians and against all Jews. That is undeniable. That is why I wish to couple, in this motion, the invasion of Afghanistan with the increased repression within the Soviet Union.
I quote one small incident in Russia which serves to illustrate my point. The main names of those concerned are well known. I quote from The Observer of 6 January 1980:
"Vladimir Shelkov, an octogenarian Russian religious dissenter, is in a Siberian jail serving five years' strict corrective labour—at his age as good as a death sentence."
Mr. Shelkov is 84 years old. It is unthinkable that we should have any contact with people who behave in that manner to a man of that age, whatever his crime. His crime happens to be that he is a Seventh Day Adventist. I am not well versed in that religion, but I know that the Russian Government's behaviour is disgraceful and that we all deplore it.
As I stand here, I may not appear to be a good example of someone who has taken part in a national sporting activity. However, I had the great honour to be a member of the first national modern pentathlon team after the war. It is a gruelling and tough individual sport, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will agree. He had the honour of taking part in the Olympic Games, whereas I only worked towards it, came fifth in the field and, therefore, missed the opportunity to compete. I understand, as does my right hon. Friend, that it is a tough decision for the athletes to make. But it is a decision that I should take willingly, because I cannot conceive that, if athletes in Britain really understand the sort of society that exists in Russia, they would compete in the Games and become involved in a propaganda exercise on this scale.
That is the great merit of today's debate. By the time that it has ended, some 30 hon. Members will have spoken, and we shall have made clear our views and our universal condemnation. From that point on, it is for the individual member of the British team to make up his own mind.
My final point concerns the role of the International Olympic Committee. Reference has been made to the members of that committee. Whatever happens to the

127
Olympic Games this time, there must be an examination of the composition of that committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said that people who serve on that committee should declare their interests in the Olympic Games other than that of organising them. My knowledge of the members of the committee leads me to conclude that they have become a superannuated, pampered elite, divorced from reality and mainly concerned with preserving an empire which visibly is crumbling around them. I leave that thought, with others, about my belief that athletes should not participate in the Olympic Games at Moscow.
8.20 pm
Mr. James Lamond: The first few words of the motion state:
"That this House condemns the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan".
There is much slipshod thinking and many hon. Members do not make many inquiries before they make statements. Several hon. Members have said that everybody in the Opposition condemns that invasion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said that, and yet at least two hon. Members who took part in the East-West debate made it clear—as I do tonight—that we do not condemn the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Nobody should say that everybody condemns it.
It is typical of the slipshod thinking and activities of the Government that, in their search for brevity—and motions should be as brief and clear as possible—they have sacrificed clarity. We have seen the extraordinary spectacle of the Lord Privy Seal asking to move a manuscript amendment to a 24-word motion that had been carefully prepared. The words "Great Britain" were used in the motion when "United Kingdom" was meant. That might seem to be a small issue to some, but it is of great importance to others. One would have thought that whoever drafted the motion would have been aware of that.
There are several mistakes. The motion refers to the "Soviet invasion". That means nothing. We might as well say "united invasion" or "great invasion". The motion means "Soviet Union invasion". The motion also refers to taking
128
part in the Olympic Games in Moscow. The Games are to take place in centres other than Moscow. The Olympic Games are being held in several centres. Does the motion affect only those athletes who are to take part in events at Moscow? The person who drafted the motion knew so little about the issue that he did not know that the Games are to be held in several centres. Why mention "in Moscow"? The decision to use those words reveals either gross incompetence or lack of knowledge about the Olympic Games. That is typical of the present Government.
Many people believe that we have a Government of great determination. I believe that we have a Government who prefer to act at second hand. At Question Time Ministers say that they are not responsible for cuts in the Health Service, but that the area health authorities are responsible. Ministers say that the authorities are given the money and that they must decide where to make the cuts. The same is said about cuts in education and local government services. The Government say that they are not responsible for charges made for school transport. They say that the choice is for the local authorities. Time and again the Government dodge such questions by washing their hands of them.
The same is true of the Olympic controversy. The Government could have taken many actions. To my surprise, I agreed with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who made a strong speech in which he outlined the actions that he would like the Government to take. A determined, resolute Government who really wanted to show the Soviet Union that they condemn its actions in Afghanistan would not leave athletes to represent them. They would impose economic and diplomatic sanctions on the Soviet Union. The least that they should have done was to withdraw their ambassador, but there is no mention of that.
Perhaps the lack of determination on the economic front is because the Government realise that that would not have much effect on the Soviet Union. Exports from Western countries to the Soviet Union represent less than 1½ per cent. of the gross national product. There is not much chance to do much damage on that front. Even that 1½ per cent. falls lightly on the United States. The United States

129
proposes to stop grain exports to the Soviet Union. Such exports can be begun again quickly. However, we export machinery and technology to the Soviet Union. Once that market is lost, it will not be easy to get it back. Perhaps that is the answer to the rhetorical questions posed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield.
The Government prefer to make a song and dance about athletes going to the Olympic Games and to put the responsibility and guilt on their shoulders. If the athletes do not do what the Government want them to do, they will be made to feel that they are supporting the Soviet Government. Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing could be further from the minds of the young athletes. The Government want to do something about the situation. They cannot do anything themselves, so they look for scapegoates who can be blamed. It is said that Moscow should never have been chosen as the venue for the Games.
The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) asked why hon. Members suddenly objected after everything that has happened in the Soviet Union. Perhaps he should have addressed that question to the Prime Minister. She agreed to act as one of the sponsors for the fund to send British athletes to the Olympic Games. Her name is still on that list and she recently made a donation to the fund. Perhaps he should have asked her why, despite all that he claims has been done to dissidents in the Soviet Union, she was still quite happy to associate her name with the British team to be sent to the Olympics. What has happened recently to change her mind? Obviously it is Afghanistan. If she is so determined to be a firm Prime Minister, let us see some action from her, but let her not once again carry out government at second hand by placing the responsibility on the shoulders of young athletes.
8.29 pm
Mr. Vivian Bendall: I believe that we are debating this issue at great length today because in so doing we are debating democracy—the freedom of the individual and freedom of speech. Those are the rights for which the Western world—and particularly this country—has always stood and in which it has always believed.
130
Some of us have been accused of raising only very recently the question whether Britain should be represented at the Moscow Olympics, but there are those who for many years now have been working incessantly against the Moscow Olympics. I have been involved with Soviet Jewry for a considerable number of years. I have been perturbed for a very long time at what has been happening within the Soviet Union—long before the matter of Afghanistan arose.
Only recently, some of the people who were accused at the Leningrad trials were pleading for further help. We learnt that one of them had cut off his finger as a means of trying to get medical treatment for a kidney disease.
The reasons why I have been against the Moscow Olympics have already been described by other hon. Members, who spoke of the flouting of the Helsinki agreements in respect of human rights. What has happened in Afghanistan is typical of what has been going on for a very long time.
If a large number of athletes were to stay away from the Olympic Games, it would inevitably be brought home to the Russian people. Whatever the television or the radio or the media generally may say, athletes cannot be produced out of a hat. If the athletes stay away in large numbers, there will be a point at which the Russians will be unable to hide what has been going on for a very long time.
Aggression has been a problem since the last war. Many countries have been accused of committing acts of aggression. There is no doubt that since 1945 Communism has been advancing throughout the world.
I would not disagree with the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) about the grain sales to Russia from the United States of America. America, as the largest and strongest of the Powers in the Western world, should have held back on its grain sales to the Soviet Union.
Mr. Ron Brown: I have the impression that if the Afghanistan matter did not exist the Government would have had to invent it. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister is using Afghanistan to divert attention from the record unemployment and rampant inflation in this country. That is obvious to

131
some of us on the Labour Benches. I do not condone Soviet military activity in Afghanistan—far from it—but let it be made perfectly clear that what the Russians have done—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.
Mr. Bendall: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought for a moment that we were debating Afghanistan.
I believe that President Carter should have been much stronger in his handling of the situation earlier. I am very concerned about the way in which America has reacted in many ways throughout the world over the past few years. It is sad for the Western world that we lack leadership at present. We need courageous leadership, leadership that tells the Russians "You can go so far and no further." The Western world faces an advance that will result, if it is not halted, in exactly the same problems as led to the Second World War.
Athletes must make up their own minds whether to go to Moscow. They should search their moral consciences, as I have searched mine, to see whether staying away will help the position of some of those who are suffering. We have heard that many people have been rounded up, in advance of the Olympic Games, because the Russian authorities do not want them talking to the Western media. Those people will probably go into internment camps, never to come out. As a member of the United Kingdom Parliament, I cannot subscribe to that sort of treatment, that disregard of human rights.
8.37 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: I have argued unashamedly over the years that sport and politics cannot be divorced. What bothers me about the whole debate over the Olympics in Moscow is the hypocrisy of a number of Conservative Members who have for years refused to lift a finger to help those in Southern Africa who have been denied every possible freedom. When we have argued the case for sanctions and breaking off sporting and cultural links, that case has been denied.
I absolve the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). He at least
132
stood with us when we debated sanctions on Rhodesia, but the whole Conservative Front Bench, and virtually every Conservative Back Bencher, refused to lift a finger. They abstained or, like the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell), voted against sanctions.
It is the hypocrisy that sickens me Could there be anything more hypocritical than the action of the President of the United States? At one stage he seemed to argue that the winter Olympics at Lake Placid should not go ahead if the Russians came, or tried to discourage the Russians from coming. But the moment the American ice hockey team beat the Russians, he could not stop himself from swarming all over the players, saying that it had been a wonderful thing—because he was involved in a domestic election.
Today the British Lions rugby team to tour South Africa was announced. Where are the Conservative Members who are saying that the Government should take every action to stop the tour? The Minister with responsibility for sport made some attempt to discuss the matter with the rugby authorities, but it was a very low-key affair. The hon. Gentleman will have no chance to put his point of view tonight. I believe that his heart and the Government's heart were never in the issue of trying to stop the Lions from going.
It is not only over what is happening in other parts of the world that hypocrisy exists. For four or five months I have been trying to get someone in the Government to take a stand in favour of a British sports woman who felt strongly about an issue. There is an argument that when they feel that an international issue offends the public conscience sports men and women have a right to make up their own minds and to speak out against going to events abroad. That argument has been conceded entirely.
I am speaking about a paraplegic sports woman, Mrs. Maggie Jones, who was upset by the way in which the chairman of the ruling body of her sport had been pumping out pro-South African propaganda at every opportunity. As a result, as a free citizen representing her country in the European paraplegic games at Stoke Mandeville last November, she found out the facts about the health services for the black population in South Africa and distributed some leaflets.

133
Mrs. Jones was immediately summoned to the director's office and suspended for the rest of her life from taking part in paraplegic sports activities under the aegis of the British Paraplegic Sports Society. Since that is virtually the governing body for European paraplegic sports as well, it means that, for exercising her conscience, she has been banned for ever from taking part in such activities.
Mr. Hooky: And the Minister with responsibility for sport will not lift a finger to help her.
Mr. Hughes: And the Minister will not raise a finger to help her.
I raised this matter with the Prime Minister. I pointed out that if this had been a Russian paraplegic sportswoman who had made a complaint about the way that she was treated for making some political comment in Russia and she had been banned, all hell would have been let loose in the press in this country.
When I tried to interest the press, I was told "We must wait and see what the Prime Minister's reply is before we can discuss it." There are double standards and hypocrisy running through the whole debate, and everyone in the House knows it.
The Prime Minister, in her latest letter to me, said:
"Let me say straight away that I do sympathise with the difficulties Mrs. Jones now finds herself in. But there is really little more I can add to the reply sent to you by Hector Monro on 2 November. The British Paraplegic Sports Society is an independent charity and the Government has no powers to intervene in its internal affairs."
Here comes the crunch in relation to this debate:
"Governing bodies of sport must be free to make their own rules and regulations and they would rightly resent any interference by Government in the running of their organisations."
The right hon. Lady goes on to say that I should write again to the British Paraplegic Sports Society. It has already written to me twice saying that it regards the correspondence as closed.
There are two points here. First—my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) and I disagree from time to time on this matter—I believe that we should defend the rights of dissidents wherever they are. I think that my hon. Friend believes that, too, but thinks that
134
perhaps I go too far. I do not quarrel with him for differing from me. The point is that if we in this House and country are to stand for freedom, our criticisms of what happens in the Soviet Union are diminished and reduced if we are unwilling to stand up and speak for our own sportsmen and women who exercise their consciences.
We find the Government trying to persuade the sporting bodies not only to go ahead with taking part in the Olympic Games, but to go further—I confess that I have some sympathy with this—and say to athletes "You will not get paid leave"—initially, it was said that they would not get leave at all—"to go to the Olympics. If you seek unpaid leave, it is up to your section boss, or whoever it is, to decide on the needs of the service."
Many of us know how the Government work. A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse. We know what will happen. They will be refused. None the less, if they decide to exercise their conscience and go to Moscow, and if they are protected from losing their jobs by their trade unions, we know what will happen. A little note will be put in the files "No further promotion". That is likely to happen, and Conservative Members know that is precisely what will happen. Those athletes who exercise their consciences and decide to go anyway know that, if they do not lose their jobs, their files will be marked in that way and they will not get any further promotion.
The Government have a duty to declare themselves on issues. I do not object to the Government taking a view on this matter. I admit that I shall have to be careful in future when I write to the different local authorities about the British Lions rugby players. I shall have to say "If they want to go, let them go on unpaid leave" instead of suggesting that they refuse to let them go at all. We must all recognise that if we stand for freedom and say that it is right for the Olympic athletes to decide whether to go to Moscow in the exercise of their consciences, that must apply to everyone.
If what the Government are doing is adopting the axiom of Barry Goldwater, a one-time presidential candidate in the United States, they are saying that

135
extremism in the cause of freedom is no vice. They are prepared to single out athletes as one body of opinion—they are not saying this to business men or anyone else—that they will use the coercion of the State on the individual. That is precisely what the Government condemn the Russians and others for doing. The Government must realise the road on which they are travelling. They are travelling a road that will lead us to the kind of State that none of us wants.
I have faced up to this issue very carefully. I have considered where I stand. I am prepared to support the amendment of my own Front Bench. We have faced this issue. I am at least prepared to concede that, if politics and sport are linked, that must be done across the board and people must then make up their own minds where they stand. I hope that from now on we shall not hear from the Government Benches the parody that sport and politics do not mix.
I regard the behaviour of South Africa as much worse than anything that happens in the Soviet Union. The racialism practised in that country should exercise all our consciences. If nothing else, I hope that some of those who have now changed their view on the relationship between politics and sport as a result of this debate will give myself and others on the Opposition Benches support when we tackle the South African issue.
8.46 pm
Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I think that the House knows where the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) stands on these matters. He will not be surprised to discover that I see things rather differently.
I am grateful for having been called because it gives me an opportunity to refer briefly to the work of the Select Committee which produced a report—of which some hon. Members may have availed themselves—in very short time. The report was largely factual and the two sides of the Committee did not disagree about that part. However, we differed when we came to consider the Committee's recommendations. As Chairman, I regret that these divisions are necessary in Select Committees, but, as we now investigate policies rather than
136
mere administration, politics will keep breaking in.
I also regret that to obtain the report in time for the debate the Committee had to change its timetable, to the great inconvenience of some hon. Members whom I thank for their forbearance. However, the change of programme would not have been enough to meet our deadline to report by last Thursday unless the Clerks, the advisers and the printers had not worked like Trojans. It was necessary for them to work all Wednesday night to produce the report, and I pay tribute to their dedication and expertise.
The Committee was not in total disagreement. Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken today, we agreed that the invasion of Afghanistan was a deplorable event that should be condemned. We also agreed that it was inevitable that the Soviets would make political capital out of the Olympic Games. What we did not agree about was whether a boycott was an effective political challenge or comment by the United Kingdom.
Some would urge that even a complete boycott would not make the Russians evacuate Afghanistan. I would argue that neither would anything else except a successful military armed intervention. But a boycott of the Games is surely one way of bringing home to the Russian people that their Government have miscalculated. The Russians say that attendance at the Olympic Games is a commendation of the correctness of their foreign policy. Surely it follows that non-attendance would be a condemnation of their policies.
Attendance at the Games would also be a tremendous discouragement to those brave people who fight so courageously for civil rights in Russia. They would surely feel, as did the Jews in 1936, that their Government had hoodwinked the world and that they could no longer rely upon moral support from the West.
But it is said—it has just been said—that it is obvious that the boycott will not be complete. Some British athletes will attend, and the split between the United Kingdom and the United States and other Western allies will be exploited by Russia in a way that is damaging to the West. I concede that there is some force in that argument—but I do not think that there

137
is enough to dissuade the Government from their advice not to condone the invasion.
There is, after all, some danger that we shall make the personal dilemma of the athletes loom so large that we entirely forget what the fracas is all about. It is about the unprincipled invasion of a nonaligned neutral State, implying a total disregard of international morality, which is full of danger for the future. For Her Majesty's Government or this House to behave as if nothing untoward had happened may—it certainly would, in my opinion—allow the Soviets to believe that further adventures would receive an equally supine reply.
It may be that if there is a next time, if it were to be in some place thought more vital by the West, there would be retaliation from which we should all reap the consequences. We must not allow there to be any doubt, as there was, arguably, doubt in 1914 and 1939, about where this country should stand. If we tempt anyone to make a gamble that we shall not react, that is a gamble which we may all lose.
Therefore, I conclude that the Government are right to press their view, even if 100 per cent. compliance by the athletes is not forthcoming. In a democracy, that is quite inevitable, and it is right that there should be differing views. So even if some athletes go, as some surely will, let no other country be left in any doubt that the British Government's policy is and will remain to oppose aggression and to defend our vital interests.
The athletes have several times said—and it has been said today—that they alone are being required to make sacrifices. No one should doubt that it is a very great sacrifice for them, after all their training and dedication and their expectations. My right hon. Friend pointed out actions which the Government have been able to take so far—the credit restrictions, the cultural embargoes, the strategic and high technology goods restrictions, and the whole gamut of diplomatic pressure which is being exerted. It may well be—some of my hon. Friends have said so today—that more could be done in this regard. Perhaps we shall hear about that in the reply tonight.
But the athletes are not entirely alone. Even if they were alone, it does not follow
138
that right should be done only if others do it, too. Athletes cannot, any more than anyone else, live a life apart from the world and its problems. They know—and their representatives have honestly said so before the Select Committee—that in Moscow their presence will be used to encourage those who have been guilty of international crime and to dishearten those who are doing what they can to dissuade the Soviet Union from a dangerous and criminal policy. It is surely naive to pretend that participation does not involve our athletes in political consequences merely because on their side—and on their side only—our athletes do not want political consequences. Their presence in Moscow is a political act, whether or not they like it.
Criticism has been made that the Foreign Office acted far too precipitately and before consulting the sports bodies. Personally, I take the view that it is right that Her Majesty's Government should not have hesitated to make their position clear. After all, in this matter the Government cannot order; they can only seek to persuade. It would not be persuasive if the Government were to give the impression of not being clear in their own mind. Sir Denis Follows has told us that he knows as well as, if not better than, the Government and the House. Any consultation with Sir Denis Follows is probably not worth waiting for.
The issue is clear. Does the invasion of a neutral country matter? If it does, no one should go to the Soviet Union waving a British flag to salute those who did the invading.
8.55 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), for the tribute that he paid to the Clerk and to the staff of the Committee. It would be discourteous and wrong if I did not pay tribute to him. He pushed everyone along in order to complete the report that is now before us. However, there my tribute ends. On half-a-dozen occasions, he used his casting vote. The Committee was generally divided in its attitude towards the Government's policy. That is important to note because the Lord Privy Seal called the Select Committee to his aid when he spoke.

139
It is important also to realise the thinness of the Government's case. I have been told that West Germany and France did not attend the meeting today in Geneva at which a little clique of countries met to discuss the Olympic Games. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
We have not discussed the Western response to Russian aggression. That must be discussed if there is to be a positive, effective and co-ordinated Western approach to this problem. President Carter originally hinted that there should be no boycott of the Olympic Games. However, if we are to believe what we have heard of his conversation with Chancellor Schmidt, he changed his mind overnight. In addition, the Prime Minister began to shoot from the hip. She made a policy statement that had not been given any thought. She just gave a spontaneous answer to a question in the House, and so we have the debate today.
We are told that Russian aggression will affect the Gulf and the whole of our Western economic life. If policies are to be made in such a manner, the Western world will be endangered. We do not need anyone shooting from the hip. We need a carefully thought out and measured response. We must determine the response that we shall receive if Britain does not go to the Olympic Games. Will that help the West? We may feel good at the expense of the athletes. We have nothing to lose. Most of us are middle aged. We are past running 100 yards in 10 seconds dead. Perhaps if we were to run 100 yards in 10 seconds we would be dead.
We are asking athletes to make sacrifices that we will not make. We may be sacrificing people in the name of a gesture that will do no good. Will that gesture affect Russian policy? Will the Russians respond with alarm? Will they decide that as Britain is not coming to the Olympics, they should get out of Afghanistan? Will Russia think that the people of Vladivostok will be upset if they do not see British athletes on television? Will such questions form part of normal table talk in the messes of Kabul and Kandahar? If we think that that is so, we shall make fools of ourselves.
We are demonstrating that the West is divided. We do not all hold the same attitude towards what the Russians have
140
done. We would not be debating the matter but for the fact that primary elections are now being held in the United States. We are talking about the chances of President Carter beating Mr. Kennedy for the Democratic nomination. That is what it is about. Had there been no presidential election, the response would not have been the same.
If 1980 had not been an Olympic year, what would the Government have done to demonstrate their anger? Had there been no Olympic Games, what would the sanction have been? There would not have been a damn thing to do and the Government would not have done a damn thing. That is the hypocrisy of this situation.
9 pm
Mr. Denis Howell: The debate has reflected great credit on the House because of the passionate statements made and the beliefs held on all sides. We have justified the decision to have a full day's debate.
The House has spent considerable time today asking sport to listen to what it has to say. I hope that hon. Members will not mind me using my 30 minutes to tell the House what sport has to say. That aspect has been lacking so far.
The debate has greatly flattered sport. Never in the history of this Chamber have we had a debate concentrating on sport and telling us that sport alone can solve the ills of this world and confront the abominable aggression of the Soviet Union. That is the tenor of much that we have heard today. For some it is a new-found conviction that sport cannot be divorced from politics. Others of us have known that for a long time. However, I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) that that is a light year away from saying that sport will be used as a political weapon and that the Olympic Games will be the only effective method to confront the Soviet Union over Afghanistan. That is the first point that my sports friends would want me to tell the House.
Secondly, there is a great deal of evil in the world. If country after country decides that the only way to confront that evil is to destroy the good contained in the Olympic Games and international sport, that is a prescription for the end of international sport as we know it. It will be the Olympic Games first, the

141
Commonwealth Games next, because of South Africa and rugby, and then it will be ordinary international matches. I have no doubt that next season it will be Liverpool or whichever team is to play in the European Cup. That is the logic. We welcome Conservative Ministers to sport for the first time in their parliamentary careers, and I tell them that these are the questions that sport is asking. How can we differentiate between one international match in Russia and another? We do not have an answer.
I have another pertinent question to pose to the Secretary of State for the Environment. After August, when the Olympics are over, how do we protest at the next Russian act of aggression? If the right hon. Gentleman has no sportsmen upon whom to urge a boycott, what will he do?
The tragedy of this debate, as has been recognised in some speeches, is that the matter has divided the West as well as sport. It has dominated the front pages of our newspapers for the past three months, overshadowing the question of Russian aggression in Afghanistan.. For three months—and we are doing it again tonight—we have been debating whether the Olympic Games should survive. Instead, we should debate how effectively we can economically, politically or by some other means deal with the Afghanistan question. That is why I have some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Worthing who has drawn attention to the selective discrimination which sportsmen believe they have to face.
From the moment that the United States President decided on his policy—quickly supported by our Prime Minister—there have been no consultations whatever with sporting organisations and right up to this day the British Olympic Association has never been asked by the Government to discuss this matter. That is not the way to treat the free institutions in this country.
Let us look at the calendar of misery and shame that the Government have put before us. First, they told us that the sports bodies could not have Government facilities and that they were withdrawing the diplomatic attaché who would have looked after housing and medical arrangements in Moscow. Then they caused us to be humiliated by the
142
Government of the Irish Republic offering to give us diplomatic representations if we wished to have them. Then we had the question of the Armed Forces personnel and members of the Civil Service. If a Service man, a police officer or a teacher is selected to go to Moscow and seeks leave without pay to compete, is there any question of that appliaction being denied to that sportsman?
What have we had this weekend? An injunction from the Ministry of Defence to Service men and their wives who have held functions to raise money for the Olympic team, telling them not to hand over the money to the British Olympic Association. Has there ever been anything quite so shameful as that? Is that theft or fraud or both? Are the papers to be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions? After all, if any hon. Member stood in Parliament Square with a collecting box and then refused to hand over the proceeds we all know what would happen. That is not the Minister's money. It belongs to those Service men and their wives who raised it at the specific functions. We want an immediate renouncement of that dictatorial and illegal authority.
It is no surprise to learn today that only last week Jim Fox, our gold medallist, because he is an Army man, was prevented from appearing on television to discuss this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right too."] Hon. Members may say that that is quite right, but if we rejoice in the fact that that man won a gold medal and claimed credit for this country, how can we act so meanly and miserably now?
At the end of this debate it is well to contrast the actions to which the British Olympic Association has been subjected with the treatment given to the British Lions rugby team and its tour of South Africa. The Government have told the British Lions team that it should not tour South Africa, but that team has not had a letter from the Prime Minister, or been browbeaten at Question Time in this House or been accorded the privilege of a full day's debate in this House. Sportsmen believe that the Government have double standards which should have no part at all in a democratic assembly.
When the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office told the Select

143
Committee that the Government had no intention of bulldozing athletes or sporting organisations, he may have been right then. But the Government have gone deeper and deeper into the mire as it has been become quite clear that their advice has not been accepted.
I turn to the political takeover of sport that we are witnessing. It is extraordinary that in our first major debate on sport for many years, the Minister responsible for sport has been relegated to the substitute's bench. He is not even allowed to speak for himself. The debate was opened by a Foreign Office Minister and will be wound up by the Secretary of State for the Environment. That is not all. The Government have instigated a meeting with other Governments in Geneva today to organise an alternative Olympic Games and the Minister responsible for sport is not even there. Another Foreign Office Minister is attending that meeting. Sportsmen will see that as an attempt to achieve the total political domination of sport.
The Government's attempts in Geneva will fail miserably because, if they had consulted any sports authority in this country, they would have discovered that Olympic Games and international sports events can be held only if they are sanctioned by the IOC or the appropriate international governing body. I have here a list of 18 international governing bodies of sport that have authorised me to say that they have no intention of authorising such a jamboree as an alternative to recognised fixtures. The meeting in Geneva is a ludicrous charade.
Let me point out to the Government, and to the United States Government, that the Council of Europe Sports Ministers' committee has 23 members who solemnly discussed the Olympic Games only a year or so ago and decided to assert in a resolution the importance of the independence and integrity of the Olympic movement.
There was a proposal at UNESCO supported by the Afro-Asian group that UNESCO should become responsible for the Olympic Games. The move to defend and maintain the independence of sport was led by me and every meeting was attended by representatives of the State Department who asserted the same principle on behalf of the United States Government.
144
Another reason why the Government's action in Geneva will not succeed is that 104 countries have already accepted the IOC invitation to take part in the Moscow Olympics. That is 16 more than the number of countries which took part in the previous Olympics at Montreal. Of course it will be a tremendous blow if the United States and other Western countries do not take part, but we must note that the Government have failed to carry a majority of fellow Governments with them.
Mr. Whitney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Islamic Conference countries have also said that they will not be at Moscow?
Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that all those countries are democracies?
Mr. Howell: I have the figures and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) is not correct. Those countries are divided. Many have said that they will go and others say that they will not.
I want to consider some of the other contradictions that sportsmen find in the attitude of the Government. Sportsmen cannot understand what President Carter was doing allowing the Russians to go to Lake Placid only a short while ago. Nor can they understand why, at the very moment the President was saying that certain countries should not be at the Olympics, he was sending a United States boxing team to fight in Moscow. I am sure that the whole House will want to express its regret and sympathy with the American people following the terrible tragedy that befell the boxing team last week.
The United States decathlon team was walking round the stadium at Leningrad only a fortnight ago. How can the international sport that is going on in Russia be squared with the President's suggestion that the United States and other countries should not participate in the Moscow Olympics?
I turn to one of the principal assertions of Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers. It is an assertion which is central to their case—namely, that by participating at Moscow we shall endorse the Russian Government's policies. The proposition has only to be stated for its absurdity to be apparent. When Scotland

145
was competing in Argentina in the World Cup, was it condoning the policies of the Argentinian military dictatorship? It certainly was not. I ask an even more relevant question. When the Pakistan cricket team comes to the United Kingdom to play cricket, is it condoning the immigration policies of Her Majesty's Government? Even more to the point, when England goes to play cricket in Pakistan, is it supporting the policies of General Zia? Ministers and Conservative Members are advancing an argument that is an absurdity.
There has been reference during the debate to the British Lions. I have always said that the British Lions should be advised—this was my advice—not to go to South Africa. I asserted the right of the Government to tell the British Olympic Association that athletes should not go to Moscow. I have done that in three articles. However, we have never said that we should move directly from that stance to say that athletes should be prevented from going and should be prevented from taking their own decision.
We have also heard the Berlin argument advanced. It was wonderfully exploded by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher). My hon. Friend observed that it was the International Olympic Committee that insisted that Hitler took down the swastikas around the stadium. That was a victory for sport.
Mr. Jim Spicer rose—
Mr. Howell: It was Jesse Owens, who won four gold medals, who struck a memorable blow during those Games. That is the event that lives in everyone's memory. That was a victory for sport and a blow against Aryan supremacy.
Mr. Jim Spicer rose—
Mr. Burden rose—
Mr. Howell: The Prime Minister has gone out of her way to embrace this theory. She has said that if the Games are held at Moscow they will be reminiscent of the Berlin Games of 1936. That is the view of many Conservatives. If that is so, it has been so from the moment the Games were awarded to Moscow. If it is thought that the Russians are to use the Games for propaganda purposes, surely it was always known that that would be their purpose. Why was it
146
that the Prime Minister made the first donation of £10 to the British Olympic Association Moscow appeal?
Mr. Jim Spicer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howell: Why is it that the Prime Minister is still to this day patron of the British Olympic appeal? That is what sportsmen mean by double standards, and it is one of the reasons why they will ignore much of what we have heard from the Government Benches today—
Mr. Jim Spicer rose—
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I put one question to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he say that Afghanistan makes no difference?
Mr. Howell: That is not the case that the Prime Minister has been making. She has been saying that the Russians would make propaganda from day one.
I come now to the attitude which sportsmen take on trade and associated questions. Many sportsmen feel resentment—I think that this is a view which unites many of us across the Floor—that they have been selected as the principal instrument to confront the Soviet Union. They ask why they should be expected to make sacrifices when no other section of society is doing so.
Only last week the Minister for Trade announced that a £50 million contract had been signed with Guest Keen and Nettlefold at the Leipzig Fair and, when asked about this very question, he said:
"We have always made clear, as Mrs. Thatcher did in the House last week … that we are still prepared to trade on a mutually beneficial basis with the Soviet Union … Trade is still available; we wish to see it done."
Sportsmen regard that as a double standard. They cannot understand why they are asked to make their sacrifices after eight years or more of training while trade goes on.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I said in my broadcast, and in the House the week before, that we were in favour of mutually beneficial trade. What is mutually beneficial to this country about taking part in a gigantic propaganda exercise extolling the virtues of Communism, which is what

147
the Russians want to make the Olympic Games into?
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is asserting that the only interests which are mutually beneficial to this country are economic interests. That is a Marxist view. I believe that the interests of sport and the interests of free expression of opinion and free expression of standards of excellence are equally as important as trade.
Now that the Minister has come to the Front Bench—I am glad to see him—I shall ask the question which I have been requested to put to him and others by a lot of sportsmen. I have the authority of Mr. Richard Meade, our distinguished horseman, to ask this question: why should he be told that he ought not to jump the course in Moscow when it is all right for Sir Arnold Weinstock to build more power stations to build up the might of the Soviet economy?
That is the dilemma in which people find themselves. How can we tell Steve Ovett, Sebastian Coe and others that they ought not to be taking part in sport in Moscow at the same time as the Minister is delighted that we have a new contract to build a chemical plant financed by Morgan Grenfell, Barclays and other banks? That is totally to discount the interests of sportsmen and sportswomen. It is a first-class case of double standards being applied to the detriment of sportsmen in this country.
We all know that we have a £400 million trade deficit with the Soviet Union. We import about £800 million worth and we export only £400 million worth. There is that tremendous gap, and, as the right hon. Member for Worthing discovered from the answer to a question which he put about two months ago at the start of this controversy, Ministers are quite clear that export credit guarantees will continue for a long time to come.
Mr. Burden: Opposition Members have described how the Germans applauded Jesse Owens. The same Germans probably applauded people from other countries. That did not stop them marching into those countries three years later and putting people in concentration camps—even those whom they had applauded.
Mr. Howell: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has been waiting a long time to make that intervention. I do not disagree with him. The question is what amount of propaganda will be made? Some scorn has been poured upon my suggestion that athletes could not go to the Olympic Games and take part in sport alone. We would all wish to see that happen. The Government are saying not only that we should not take part in the sport, but that the Games should not be broadcast, and they are putting pressure on the BBC and the ITV companies, which I regard as disgraceful. If this attempt at censorship cccurred in any other part of the media, there would be uproar.
Sir Ian Gilmour: That is not happening.
Mr. Howell: I am glad to accept the assurance of the Lord Privy Seal that it is not happening. Why was the idea put forward in the first place? [Interruption.] My hon. Friends want to hear more of what the Lord Privy Seal has to say. Obviously, he has a greater following than I have.
Sir I. Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman talked of consultation. Did he consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about his speech this evening?
Mr. Howell: I consulted my right hon. Friend about my speech this evening and, indeed, consulted him about the whole issue during the past week. When there is an enormous moral dilemma, in addition to a military and political dilemma such as the invasion of Afghanistan, the whole nation will not be united in its response. That applies to both sides of the House, to sport, and throughout the country.
I am glad to say that the Labour Party does not intend to have the farce of a free vote accompanied by a three-line Whip to dragoon its troops into the "No" Lobby. We all know what will happen to the 120 Government Members if they actively exercise the free vote in a way that the Government will not approve.
In our amendment we attach tremendous importance to the fact that, at the end of the day, it is for the sportsmen to make the decision. Most will decide to

149
go to Moscow, though some will decide not to go. Whatever decision they make they are to be respected for it. Our amendment asserts the right to decide on behalf of sportsmen and citizens.
What should the British sportsmen do, faced with a contradiction of Government policy, overwhelmed by the unprecedented attention from politicians, and astonished by such diversity of advice? They should accept the advice of Polonius:
"Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice".
British athletes should think for themselves, speak for themselves, and not allow themselves to be browbeaten or brainwashed from any quarter.
In the face of all this double talk, discriminatory treatment, lack of effective action on trade, petty pressures put on teachers and civil servants, and with Olympic funds now involved, the athletes have every right to go to Moscow and to represent their country with the greatest possible distinction. Our amendment asserts that right for all our citizens and for the whole of British sport. I commend it to the House.
9.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine)rose—
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a good debate. The Secretary of State cannot have upset anybody yet. I suggest that the House continues the debate.
Mr. Heseltine: Hon. Members are united in their condemnation of the Soviet action in Afghanistan. That has been the common ground in a range of speeches which have excelled in their sincerity of approach and in their breadth of views. The House is debating the coincidence of the Russian aggression in Afghanistan with the proposal that the same aggressive country should host the Olympic Games in its capital city.
Any major event that attracted world support would have posed many of the type of problems about which we have heard today. However, the particular qualities of the Olympic ideal draw the sharpest contrast between the two events. All over the world Governments are having to reach a decision about the role of
150
their athletes in an event which, we agree, is of immense prestige to the host country. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) expressed the anxiety in perhaps the most emotive language that we have heard today when he asked if we should encourage our athletes to be present at the ceremonies that will take place to the sound of gunfire in Afghanistan. But those who listened to the right hon. Gentleman found a contrast between his contribution and that of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). Deep and profound issues have stretched people's loyalties to the utmost. The issues involve immensely wide international implications.
I shall devote the latter part of my speech to the specific issues that surround the use of the Olympic Games as a political weapon. Undoubtedly, that is the central issue. First, I shall deal with the various important points that have arisen because the athletes understandably feel that they are being asked to shoulder a burden which is quite disproportionate to that being asked of the rest of the community. Many right hon. and hon. Members from both sides have referred to that.
In order to bring together the threads of the argument, I shall refer to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). The central purpose of that amendment is to focus the attention of the House on that issue. The amendment calls for three actions. We have vigorously opposed the subsidised sales of agricultural products to Russia. Sales of subsidised wheat, barley and bulk butter, which are the EEC's principal exports to the Soviet Union, have been suspended. I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that we shall make renewed efforts to prevent further shipments of agricultural surpluses to the Soviet Union, although he realises that those arrangements are common with our partners, who have a voice in this matter. But I believe that that is the first assurance he wants in compliance with his amendment. The Commission recently decided to consider again tenders for the subsidised sale of intervention butter. We are totally opposed to this proposition and will continue to oppose any sales involving subsidy.

151
The second point of my right hon. Friend's amendment concerns the transfer of sensitive technology to the Eastern bloc. This is already monitored on an international basis through a coordinating committee which, as hon. Members know, is called COCOM. We are now considering with our allies how we can tighten the rules applying to exports to the Soviet Union. Until that consideration has been undertaken, the United Kingdom will not submit to COCOM any proposals for exports to the Soviet Union. I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel that that meets the second point in his amendment. [Interruption.] It has arisen precisely in the context of Afghanistan. The amendment calls for an end to subsidised new export credit. The ongoing credit under contracts is not subject to anything that I have to say.
The Lord Privy Seal has already announced that there will be no renewal of preferential subsidies for Russia. I cannot help my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing by offering to interfere with interest rate arrangements that are generally available for our exporters across the world, although I have made absolutely clear that there will be no preferential rates of interest for those trading with the Soviet Union.
Perhaps I may explain to my right hon. Friend and to the House why I do not feel able to go further on the third point of his amendment. If we were to change unilaterally the basis of the subsidy rates, the only benefit that I can see would be to our competitors overseas, who would be in a position—which doubtless some of them would exploit—to take export orders which otherwise would flow to British factories.
Mr. Ennals rose—
Mr. Heseltine: I want to finish this point because there are other points attendant upon it that the House will want to bear in mind. As I was saying, the risk is that, if we unilaterally changed our subsidy rates, the beneficiary would be any country which decided to take work which otherwise would flow to our factories.
However, the House is concerned with the impact that such a unilateral declara-
152
tion on our part might have upon the Soviet Union. It is the Government's view that it would have no impact at all, for two reasons. The first is that the Soviet Union would replace the orders that it was not able to buy from us with similar orders from other countries. The second is that the people of the Soviet Union would never be allowed to know of such a unilateral decision on the part of the British people.
Mr. Ennals rose—
Mr. Heseltine: I hope very much that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing—and my colleagues who feel very deeply about the points that he has made—will accept that the Government have gone as far as is wise and reasonable to meet the important points raised in the amendment.
Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. May I put these points to him? As he well knows, the COCOM arrangements would not stop the export of goods—for example, heavy vehicles—which could be used in the Russian war effort. He has not, therefore, fully met that point.
My right hon. Friend is asking for a unilateral British boycott of the Olympic Games. We do not know to what extent that would be followed generally. It would therefore seem not inappropriate to the athletes, whom we have to persuade, if the Government were to say "We are not prepared to go on subsidising exports from this country which can be used to increase Russia's military might and further Russian adventurism of a kind that we all deplore."
My right hon. Friend has asked the House to give an expression of view for the Government to take into account. Therefore, will the Government be prepared to let the House vote on the amendment, in the precise terms in which I have tabled it, to see whether it is acceptable?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend will be fully aware that it is not for me to decide which amendments are chosen and are therefore the subject of a Division. But I believe that, in the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendment, I have done what I can to reassure the House about the important points. I am prepared to look

153
at the COCOM rules with a view to discussing them with our colleagues. If I believed, and colleagues who would be responsible for carrying out the detailed investigation believed, that there was a way through the COCOM procedures that might enhance the Soviet military presence, that would certainly be a subject of concern to us.
We are not asking that Britain make a unilateral decision to boycott the Olympic games. We are not asking that Britain act alone in the world. The world is already taking decisions. In country after country—[Interruption.] These are important matters, and it is important that I try to explain them from the Government's point of view. It is clear that there is a wide range of opinions in the House in all parties, and it is only right that I should try to put the argument as clearly as I can.
Mr. Ennals rose—
Mr. Heseltine: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear with me when I try to make progress in answering what has been a lengthy debate. There are many points that I have to make.
Many countries are making clear where they stand about attendance at the Olympic Games, so it is not a unilateral decision. Indeed, it would be arguable that if it were a totally unilateral decision there would be little point in pursuing the debate. But that is certainly not the position.
Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman is on an extremely important point. He claims that it is no part of our policy to pursue a unilateral approach to the Olympic Games, but I think that it would be relevant to the whole debate if he were to inform the House how far we have got in agreement with other countries, because the terms of the motion are exclusively in a unilateral sense. They are about Britain, not about the partnership, harmony or broad agreement that we might have with other countries.
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman and the House will be broadly as familiar with the position as I am. Following President Carter's initiative, many countries have made their position clear. Others are still considering their position.
The right hon. Gentleman advised his
154
colleagues that they should not reach a firm decision about Britain's position. That misses the point. World opinion is being formuated. If we wish to influence it, in the light of the decisions that the Government believe to be right, it is important that the Government should make their view clear and that we should seek the support of the House for that view.
I turn to the issues of the Olympic Games themselves. We in this House realise the limited role of most forms of action open to Western democracies facing events such as Afghanistan. But we cannot escape the scale and the timing of this year's Olympics in the context of Afghanistan. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) made this central point. It is the coincidence of events and the contrast of their purpose that makes it essential, in the Government's view, to take the stand that we have taken.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar was very fair when he outlined his view. I thought at that time that it was his party's view, but very rapidly, as a result of interventions from the Opposition Benches, it turned out not to be his party's view at all.
The fact of the matter is that the Olympic Games have been subject to intervention for political reasons over a considerable period of time. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) forcefully made the point that the Olympic Games which were to be held in Japan in 1940 were moved following the invasion of Manchuria. There was tragic political intervention in the Munich Games, and the Montreal Games were boycotted for political reasons.
The Labour Party has never hesitated to argue that there should be political in-involvement in sporting issues—for example, over the South African situation which led to the Gleneagles agreement. Every time a political judgment of that sort is made, it is the athletes who are expected to bear the front line strain. No one is more aware than my right hon. Friends in Government that we are asking the athletes, in this unique contrast of the Olympic Games and Afghanistan, to play a role which only they can play in the circumstances. They alone are involved in a particular event, the significance of which makes it a weapon out of

155
all accord with anything else that is on offer to the Western world. But that means that they will have to shoulder a degree of responsibility and undergo a degree of personal disappointment which we have to understand and which the Government did understand in reaching their decision.
Mr. Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
Mr. Heseltine: No. I ask the House to remember that we in this country do not have so politically charged an atmosphere surrounding the decisions of every citizen and organisation as exists in the Soviet Union. It is because of that that the propaganda of the Olympic Games has to be seen in the context of Afghanistan. From the point of view of the rulers of the Soviet Union, to be able in the same calendar year to send 80,000 soldiers into Afghanistan against the obvious wishes of the people of that country and then, within a matter of months, to stage a massive propaganda exercise, which they will present to their people and to the world as condoning their activity, is something that we dare not allow them to achieve.
If the House wants reinforcement for that view, for those right hon. and hon. Members who were not present for the opening speech, I need only quote the words of Mr. Novikov, the chairman of the organising committee of the 1980 Olympics, in Pravda on 7 January 1979. This is the essence of the argument. He said:
"For the first time, the Games will be held in the capital of a Socialist State where the noble ideals of the Olympics are fully supported. Peace, equality, fraternity, international co-operation, these concepts are inseparable from the life of Soviet society and are grounded in the constitution of the USSR. Thus, holding the Games in Moscow opens a qualitative new stage in the Olympic movement."
The House cannot ignore that that is the view of those who are staging the Games.
Mr. Michael English rose—
Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. Heseltine: I want now to deal with the important point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), followed by
156
the right hon. Member for Small Heath, about Government pressure on their own employees. Given the Government's view that we can do no other than advise against participation in the Games, we have had to consider what to say to Government employees who wish to take part if the Games are held in Moscow. Nobody can be unaware of the Government's policy in this matter, but applications for special leave without pay, and for annual leave, will not be refused except on operational grounds.
Mr. James Callaghan: What operational grounds?
Mr. Heseltine: The Leader of the Opposition asks "What operational grounds?" It will have to be an extreme contingency involving military personnel or something of that nature.
Mr. Callaghan: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is an extension of the attitude on unpaid leave that was taken last week—in other words, that the Government are now making it a little easier?
Mr. Heseltine: I can help the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, that is not an extension of what the Government said last week. There may be a legitimate confusion in the distinction between paid and unpaid leave. I must make it clear that applications for special leave with pay are unlikely to be accepted. It would not be possible for the Government to advance the views that they do and then pay their employees for going to Moscow to take part in the Olympic Games.
Mr. Denis Howell rose—
Mr. Heseltine: I want to make one thing absolutely clear: those who feel that they should go will suffer no adverse or permanent career damage.
Mr. Howell rose—
Mr. Heseltine: Similarly—
Mr. Howell: Whilst the right hon. Gentleman is giving what I am sure is a most welcome assurance to most Service men and civil servants, will he also state categorically that the funds voluntarily collected by Service men and their wives to support the BOA will be passed to that organisation without any further let or hindrance?
Mr. Heseltine: Those funds will certainly be made available to that organisation, but not as part of the cost of going to the Moscow Olympics. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Mr. Howell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears clear that the Minister does not wish to give way a second time.
Mr. Howell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need for us to end the debate in this way. Whoever is called to speak has the Floor and has the right to decide when to give way.
Mr. Howell rose—
Mr. Heseltine: I should like—[Interruption.] There are other assurances that the House will want to receive. The Government will not take steps to interfere with citizens who decide to travel to Russia for the Olympics. Those citizens will have heard the arguments, and it will be for them to make their own individual judgments in the light of those arguments.
The question of the broadcasting authorities has been raised. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that the decision on whether to cover the Games rests, by charter and statute, with the BBC and the IBA. We shall not interfere with the decisions that they take. [Interruption.] To listen to the noises coming from Opposition Members, one would think that they wanted the Government to interfere. We have made it absolutely clear that we shall not interefere with the rights of the broadcasting authorities to decide what they should broadcast, and we shall not interfere with the individual citizen's right to travel if he wants to do so. But we shall certainly do our best to say why people should reach a judgment not to support the Olympics in Moscow.
Mr. English: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heseltine: Again, the hon. Member for Ince made the point that it was one of the responsibilities of this House to recognise that the decisions that we make and the policies that we follow have a message for those people who either live in the Soviet Union or who are under the domination of the Soviet
158
Union. It is again a coincidence of events, which will not have escaped the attention of the House, that with the coming of the Olympics in Moscow, there has been an intensification of the pressures to which the citizens of that country are subjected. It is not only a question of the banishment of Sakharov, for example. There has been the clampdown on Jewish emigration, and the removal of students from Moscow. All of this reflects the internal tensions inside the Soviet society.
It was the hon. Member for Ince who said that, unless we took the sort of decision that the Government are inviting the House to support tonight, the impact on all those living in those circumstances will simply be that we do not care about the problems that are created for them.
Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heseltine: I cannot accept that there has been no consultation with sporting interests. There have been problems because certain of the sporting representatives have been widely travelling abroad during the time of the consultations. But my right hon. and hon. Friends have been in continual discussion with leading representatives of the sporting organisations. [Interruption.] One cannot arm-twist unless one is in contact. The right hon. Member for Small Heath should understand that the realities are that there have been very detailed discussions, albeit there is still disagreement about various matters that have still to be discussed.
The dilemma which the House faces is, perhaps, consequent upon the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar. He argued that there was a case for political involvement in sport. He roundly condemned the invasion of Afghanistan, and he pointed out the enormous propaganda triumph for the Soviets that the Olympic Games would be. But then he asked his party to abstain. Quite honestly, I believe that it is the Government's duty—
Mr. Shore rose—
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman invited his party to abstain.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: He did not.
Mr. Heseltine: It is the Government's duty to give a lead not only to this House—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but there is not enough time. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Give way."]
Mr. Shore: I cannot accept that. No, I advised the House to vote for the amendment in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. It is only consequential upon it, if that is defeated, that I gave the further advice about the main motion before the House.
Mr. Heseltine: But the right hon. Gentleman knows that in the amendment tabled by his right hon. and hon. Friends and himself there is no recommendation as to what should happen about the Olympics in Moscow. An abstention, effectively, is no vote of any consequence at all.
There have been many arguments from both sides of the House in support of a
boycott of the Olympics in Moscow. But perhaps I may quote in support of one of the arguments a letter which appeared in The Times on 23 January this year. It was written by a man who is a Press Gallery reporter for foreign newspapers in the House of Commons. He reported his experience, having dealt with foreign affairs over many years, of having interviewed Albert Speer. It was a tape recorded interview. Speer's memory of Hitler's recollection of the Berlin Games was recorded in this way:
"Hitler said again and again 'They all came; they all came'."
It would be tragic if history repeated itself so soon.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 305.

Division No. 229]

AYES

[10.00 pm

Abse, Leo

Eadie, Alex

Leighton, Ronald

Alton, David

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

English, Michael

Litherland, Robert

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Ashton, Joe

Ewing, Harry

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Fitch, Alan

McCartney, Hugh

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

McElhone, Frank

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Ford, Ben

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Forrester, John

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Foulkes, George

McNamara, Kevin

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

McWilliam, John

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Freud, Clement

Marks, Kenneth

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

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

Buchan, Norman

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Gourlay, Harry

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Canavan, Dennis

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Maxton, John

Carmichael, Neil

Grant, John (Islington C)

Meacher, Michael

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Cartwright, John

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Mikardo, Ian

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Coleman, Donald

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Contan, Bernard

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Cook, Robin F.

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Morton, George

Cowans, Harry

Home Robertson, John

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

Homewood, William

Newens, Stanley

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Hooley, Frank

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Crowther, J. S.

Horam, John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Cryer, Bob

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

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Howells, Geraint

Palmer, Arthur

Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

Huckfield, Les

Park, George

Davidson, Arthur

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Parker, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Parry, Robert

Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

Janner, Hon Greville

Pavitt, Laurie

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

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Pendry, Tom

Deakins, Eric

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Penhaligon, David

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Dewar, Donald

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

Prescott, John

Dixon, Donald

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Dobson, Frank

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Race, Reg

Dormand, Jack

Kerr, Russell

Radice, Giles

Douglas, Dick

Kilfedder, James A.

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Richardson, Jo

Dubs, Alfred

Lamble, David

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Lamborn, Harry

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Leadbitter, Ted

Rooker, J. W.

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Stott, Roger

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radclifle)

Rowlands,Ted

Strang, Gavin

Whitehead, Phillip

Ryman, John

Straw, Jack

Whitlock, William

Sandelson, Neville

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Wllley, Rt Hon Frederick

Sever, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Sheerman, Barry

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

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

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

Winnick, David

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Woodall, Alec

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Woolmer, Kenneth

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Tilley, John

Wright, Sheila

Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

Tinn, James

Young, David (Bolton East)

Spearing, Nigel

Variey, Rt Hon Eric G.

Spriggs, Leslie

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

(TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Stallard, A. W.

Weetch, Ken

Mr. Ted Graham and

Stoddart. David

Welsh, Michael

Mr. John Evans.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Dover, Denshore

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Alexander, Richard

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Alison, Michael

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Jessel, Toby

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Durant, Tony

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Ancram, Michael

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Arnold, Tom

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Asplnwall, Jack

Eggar, Timothy

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Elliott, Sir William

Keilett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Atkinson, David (B'moulh, East)

Emery, Peter

Kershaw, Anthony

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Eyre, Reginald

Kimball, Marcus

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

King, Rt Hon Tom

Banks, Robert

Fairgrieve, Russell

Knight, Mrs Jill

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Knox, David

Beith, A. J.

Farr, John

Lamont, Norman

Bell, Sir Ronald

Fell, Anthony

Lang, Ian

Bendall, Vivian

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Latham, Michael

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Lawrence, Ivan

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lawson, Nigel

Best, Keith

Fookes, Miss Janet

Le Marchant, Spencer

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forman, Nigel

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Diggs-Davison, John

Fox, Marcus

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Blackburn, John

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Blaker, Peter

Fry, Peter

Loveridge, John

Body, Richard

Galbralth, Hon T. G. D.

Luce, Richard

Bonsor. Sir Nicholas

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Lyell, Nicholas

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

McCrindle, Robert

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mactarlane, Neil

Bowden, Andrew

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

MacGregor, John

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Glyn, Dr Alan

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Bralne, Sir Bernard

Goodhart, Philip

McNair-WiIson, Michael (Newbury)

Bright, Graham

Goodhew, Victor

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Brlnton, Tim

Goodlad, Alastalr

McQuarrie, Albert

Brittan, Leon

Gorst, John

Madel, David

Brooke, Hon Peter

Gow Ian

Major, John

Brotherton, Michael

Gower, Sir Raymond

Marland, Paul

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Marlow, Tony

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gray, Hamlsh

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Bryan. Sir Paul

Grieve, Percy

Marten, Nell (Banbury)

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Allck

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

Mates, Michael

Buck, Antony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Bulmer, Esmond

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Mawby, Ray

Burden, F. A.

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Butcher, John

Grist, Ian

M xwell-Hyslop, Robin

Butler, Hon Adam

Grylls, Michael

Mayhew, Patrick

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mellor, David

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

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

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Hannam, John

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Haselhurst, Alan

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Chainon, Paul

Hastings, Stephen

Miscampbell, Norman

Chapman, Sydney

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Churchill, W. S.

Hawkins, Paul

Moate, Roger

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Hawksley, Warren

Monro, Hector

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Hayhoe, Barney

Montgomery, Fergus

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Heddle, John

Moore, John

Clegg, Sir Walter

Henderson, Barry

Morgan, Geraint

Colvin, Michael

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Cope,John

Hill, James

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Corrle, John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Mudd, David

Costaln, A.P.

Hooson, Tom

Murphy, Christopher

Crltchley, Julian

Hordern, Peter

Myles, David

Crouch, David

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Neale, Gerrard

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Needham, Richard

Dorrell, Stephen

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Nelson, Anthony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Neubert, Michael

Newton, Tony

Rost, Peter

Thornton, Malcolm

Normanion, Tom

Royle, Sir Anthony

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Nott, Rt Hon John

Salnsbury, Hon Timothy

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Onslow, Cranley

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Trlppler, David

Oppenhelm, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Trotter, Neville

Osborn, John

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

van Slraubenzee, W. R.

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Shelton, William (Strealham)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Viggers, Peter

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)

Waddington, David

Paisley, Rev Ian

Shersby, Michael

Wainwrlght, Richard (Colne Valley)

Parkinson, Cecil

Silvester, Fred

Wakeham, John

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Waldegrave, Hon William

Patten, John (Oxford)

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

Pawsey, James

Speed, Keith

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Perclval, Sir Ian

Speller, Tony

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Pink, R. Bonner

Spence, John

Wall, Patrick

Pollock, Alexander

Splcer, Jim (West Dorset)

Waller, Garry

Porter, George

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Walters, Dennis

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Sproat, Iain

Ward, John

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Squire, Robin

Warren, Kenneth

Prior, Rt Hon James

Stainton, Keith

Watson, John

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Ralson, Timothy

Stanley, John

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

Rathbone, Tim

Steen, Anthony

Wheeler, John

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Stevens, Martin

Whitelaw, Rt Hon Willi-m

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Stewart, Ian (Hltchln)

Whitney, Raymond

Renton, Tim

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Wickenden, Keith

Rhodes, James, Robert

Stokes, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wilkinson, John

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Tapsell, Peler

Williams, Deiwyn (Montgomery)

Ridsdale, Julllan

Tebbit, Norman

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Temple-Morris, Peter

Younger, Rt Hon George

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Thompson, Donald

Mr. Anthony Berry and

Robinson, Peter (Belfast Easi)

Thome, Neil (llford South)

Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 147.

Division No. 2301

AYES

[10.14 pm

Adley, Robert

Brotherton, Michael

Elliott, Sir William

Altken, Jonathan

Brown, Michael (Brlgg & Sc'thorpe)

Emery, Peter

Alexander, Richard

Browne, John (Winchester)

Eyre, Reginald

Alison, Michael

Bryan, Sir Paul

Falrbairn, Nicholas

Alton, David

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Fairgrieve, Russell

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Buck, Antony

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Ancram, Michael

Bulmer, Esmond

Farr, John

Arnold, Tom

Burden, F. A.

Fell, Anthony

Aspinwail, Jack

Butcher, John

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Butler, Hon Adam

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Banks, Robert

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Forman, Nigel

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Beith, A. J.

Channon, Paul

Fox, Marcus

Bell, Sir Ronald

Chapman, Sydney

Frasef, Peter (South Angus)

Bendall, Vivian

Churchill, W. S.

Freud, Clement

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Fry, Peter

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Galbralth, Hon T. G. D.

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gardiner, George (Relgate)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Best, Keith

Colvln, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bevan David Gilroy

Cope, John

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cormack, Patrick

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Biggs-Davlson, John

Corrle, John

Glnsburg, David

Blackburn, John

Costaln, A.P.

Gryn, Dr Alan

Blaker, Peter

Crltchley. Julian

Goodhart, Philip

Body, Richard

Crouch, David

Goodhew, Victor

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Goodlad, Alastair

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Gorst, John

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Dorrell, Stephen

Gow, Ian

Bowden, Andrew

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Gower, Sir Raymond

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Dover, Denshore

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Bralne, Sir Bernard

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Gray, Hamlsh

Bright, Graham

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Greenway, Harry

Brlnton, Tim

Durant, Tony

Grieve, Percy

Brlttan, Leon

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

Brocktebanlt Fowler, Christopher

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Eggar, Timothy

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Grist, Ian

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Gryils, Michael

axweli-Hynlop, Robin

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mayhew, Patrick

Shersby, Michael

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

Meilor, David

Silvester, Fred

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Hannam, John

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Reddltch)

Speed, Keith

Haselhurst, Alan

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Speller, Tony

Hasting, Stephen

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Spence, John

Havers, Rl Hon Sir Michael

Miscampbell, Norman

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Hawkins, Paul

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Hayhoe, Barney

Moate, Roger

Sproat, Iain

Heddle, John

Monro, Hector

Squire, Robin

Henderson, Barry

Montgomery, Fergus

Stainton, Keith

Keseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Moore, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hill, James

Morgan, Geraint

Stanley, John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Steen, Anthony

Hooson, Tom

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Stevens, Martin

Hordern, Pelef

Morrison, Hon Peter City of Chester)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchln)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mudd, David

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Murphy, Christopher

Stokes, John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Myles, David

Stradling Thomas, J.

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Neale, Gerrard

Tapsell, Peter

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Needham, Richard

Tebbit, Norman

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Nelson, Anthony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Jesse, Toby

Neubert, Michael

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Newton, Tony

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Normanton, Tom

Thompson, Donald

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Nott, Rt Hon John

Thorne, Nell (llford South)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Onslow, Cranley

Thornton, Malcolm

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Kershaw, Anthony

Osbom, John

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Kimball, Marcus

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Trippler, David

King, Rt Hon Tom

Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

Trotter, Neville

Knight, Mrs Jill

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Knox, David

Paisley, Rev Ian

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Lamonl, Norman

Parkinson, Cecil

Vlggers, Peter

Lang, Ian

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Waddington, David

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Patten, John (Oxford)

Walnwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Latham, Michael

Pawsey, James

Wakeham, John

Lawrence, Ivan

Percival, Sir Ian

Waldegrave, Hon William

Lawson, Nigel

Pink, R. Bonner

Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

Le Marcnant, Spencer

Pollock, Alexander

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wall, Patrick

Lester, jim (Beeston)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Waller, Garry

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Walters, Dennis

Loveridge, John

Ralson, Timothy

Ward, John

Luce, Richard

Rathbone, Tim

Warren, Kenneth

Lyell, Nicholas

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Watson, John

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Rees-Davles, W. R.

Weetch, Ken

McCrindle, Robert

Ronton, Tim

Wellbeloved, James

Macfarlane, Neil

Rhodes James, Robert

Wells, John (Maidstone)

MacGregor, John

Rhys Wiliiams, Sir Brandon

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

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Wheeler, John

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Rldsdale, Jullian

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

McNair-Wllson, Michael (Newbury)

Rifklnd, Malcolm

Whltelaw, Rt Hon William

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Rlppon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Whitney, Raymond

McQuarrie, Albert

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Wlckenden, Keith

Madel, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Wiggin, Jerry

Major, John

Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

Wilkinson, John

Marland, Paul

Rost, Peter

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Marlow, Tony

Royle, Sir Anthony

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Younger, Rt Hon George

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Mates, Michael

Sandelson, Neville

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Mr. Carol Mather and

Mawby, Ray

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Mr. Anthony Berry.

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Dalyell, Tarn

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Canavan, Dennis

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

Ashton, Joe

Carmichael, Neil

Deakins, Eric

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

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Dewar, Donald

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Cohen, Stanley

Dixon, Donald

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Coleman, Donald

Dobson, Frank

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Eadle, Alex

Bidwetl, Sydney

Conlan, Bernard

Eastham, Ken

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Cook, Robin F.

English, Michael

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cowans, Harry

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Toosing)

Evans, John (Newton)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Ewlng, Harry

Buchan, Norman

Crowther, J. S.

Flannery, Martin

Callaghan. Jim (Middleton & P)

Cryer, Bob

Fletcher, L. R. (llkeston)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McKelvey, William

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Foulkes, George

McNally, Thomas

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

McNamara, Kevin

Ryman, John

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

McWilliam, John

Sever, John

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Marks, Kenneth

Sheerman, Barry

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

Short, Mrs Renee

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Haynes, Frank

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Silverman, Julius

Heffer, Eric S.

Maynard, Miss Joan

Soley, Clive

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Meacher, Michael

Spearing, Nigel

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Melllsh, Rt Hon Robert

Stallard, A. W.

Home Robertson, John

Mikardo, Ian

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

Homewood, William

Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbrida)

Stoddart, David

Hooley, Frank

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)

Straw, Jack

Horam, John

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Howells, Geraint

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Hucklield, Les

Morton, George

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Newens, Stanley

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Tilley, John

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

O'Neill, Martin

Tinn, James

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

Parker, John

Watkins, David

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Parry, Robert

Welsh, Michael

Kerr, Russell

Pavitt, Laurie

Wigley, Dafydd

Kllfedder, James A.

Pendry, Tom

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Penhaligon, David

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Lambie, David

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Winnick, David

Lamborn, Harry

Prescoit, John

Woodall, Alec

Lamond, James

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Woolmer, Kenneth

Leadbitter, Ted

Race, Reg

Wright, Sheila

Lelghton, Ronald

Richardson, Jo

Young, David (Bolton East)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Litherland, Robert

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Mr John Maxton and

McCartney, Hugh

Rooker, J. W.

Mr Allan Roberts

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House condemns the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and believes that the United Kingdom should not take part in the Olympic Games in Moscow.

CHANNEL TUNNEL
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
Mr. Eric Ogdenrose—
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman wait a moment until the Chamber is quieter? I shall time the debate from the moment when I call him.
10.26 pm
Mr. Eric Ogden: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House in this short Adjournment debate the subject of British and European investment in the Channel tunnel link. You will know, Mr. Speaker—perhaps none better—that an Adjournment debate is usually a matter between one Member and one Minister. With your permission, I wish tonight to share my part of the debate with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells), who, with me, is joint chairman of the all-party group for the Channel tunnel, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who has special constituency interests in British Rail and considerable knowledge of transport matters, and who is standing in also for our hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), the secretary of the all-party Channel tunnel group, who has to be in Birmingham at this time.
I see other faces in the Chamber—the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) and others who have from time to time taken part in the whole debate on this issue, so I hope that this can be a mini-debate, leaving ample time for the Minister to reply.
The Parliamentary Secretary has in his time voted for both the main principles of a cross-Channel tunnel on a White Paper and for the Second Reading of a Bill to bring the Channel tunnel towards construction. Through the Parliamentary Secretary we hope to encourage the Minister of Transport and the Government to move the Channel tunnel project one stage further towards reality.
170
The present Minister of Transport has in the past voted both as Minister and as Back Bencher, as did his predecessor, to support the principle and the practice in this matter on the Second Reading of a Bill and on White Papers. The right hon. Gentleman has some power in his hands now to implement his past votes.
From 1964 British Governments of both parties have been committed in principle, and in varying degrees in practice, to a fixed-link Channel tunnel. We have had studies and opportunities enough. We made a good start some years ago with the actual construction of the tunnels. Then political fainthearts, mostly of my party I am sorry to say, let the project be abandoned—temporarily abandoned, not forgotten.
The project was viable then. In my view and that of many right hon. and hon. Members and people outside, the project is even more viable, more advantageous and more necessary now. To put it in simple terms, to authorise the construction of the British Rail shuttle service Channel tunnel would create employment in the British engineering and construction companies now, would use British steel and British technology, would improve British national transport facilities and would improve British freight competitiveness to and from Europe and, equally, to and from other parts of the world. We would conserve energy, we would improve the environment of the South-East, we would reduce the need for massive public expenditure at new airports such as Stansted, and extensions at Heathrow and Gatwick, we would have a profitable part of the British Rail network—even more profitable than the main line Inter-City services—and the financial benefits from that could, and should, benefit other users of British Rail services.
The British Rail proposal for a single main tunnel, plus a service tunnel, is a practical and modest proposal, which recognises the needs and the limitations of today. It allows for the addition of a second main tunnel, if and when necessary, to meet the needs of the future.
The project is not an addition to the resources of the South-East at the expense of other regions. The rail passenger services, London to Paris and London to

171
Brussels, would certainly be in direct competition with the air services, airports and air transport in the South-East, but less so with the Midlands, the North-East or Scottish 4iloiraiiiransport.
The freight services available through a Channel tunnel would be available to every part of the United Kingdom that has a railway station. For me and for my friends on Merseyside, the entrance to the Channel tunnel—as I have said many times in the House—would be at Liverpool Lime Street station or at the Royal Seaforth docks. For other parts of the country, such as South Wales, the North-East and Scotland, the entrance to the Channel tunnel would be at the nearest convenient railway station or freight yard. That would be the great advantage of the service. There is nothing new in that.
However, over the past months a new dimension has become prominent. There is the possibility—or, if we believe recent newspaper reports, the probability—of some financial support, some financial guarantee and some real investment by the EEC as part of its European commitment to the European transport infrastructure.
The House should be grateful to The Guardian, The Sunday Times, and The Observer, which provided information of real value, research and interest, which has not been available from the Government. Sometimes one learns more from the Sunday newspapers than from any Government or any party at any time. We should put on record our appreciation of the information that the newspapers provide. There are reports from usually reliable sources that the Minister will make a statement on 19 March. I am grateful that he has taken time to attend the debate. Perhaps he has come in case his Parliamentary Secretary is tempted to pre-empt him on what he is likely to say on 19 March. We shall try to tempt him, but he is unlikely to succumb to that temptation.
The purpose of the debate is to encourage the Ministers to hold their own in their Departments, to encourage them to give permission, to show that there is all-party support in the House and outside—greater possibly than at any time over the past 200 vears—and to ask the Par-
172
liamentary Secretary to give us as much information as he can.
The Prime Minister claimed recently that all she needs to know to make a good decision is, first, all the necessary information and, secondly, all the options that are available to her. Given those criteria she claimed that she could make the right decisions. I would not argue with every decision that she has made. Presumably the Government have all the necessary information. They know the options available to them. We hope that the debate will encourage them to make the right decision, which is to give, both in principle and in practice, their support to the British Rail shuttle service Channel tunnel.
10.34 pm
Mr. A. P. Costain: I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) for raising this matter. The new proposals are more welcome than the previous ones for Shepway. The Kent county council recently passed a resolution to approve the new proposals, as did the Shepway council. I hope that the Caimcross report will be available before the Minister makes a statement so that we shall have ample opportunity to study it.
10.35 pm
Mr. John Wells: It is essential that Back Benchers do all that they can to foster French good will. I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), the chairman of the Franco-British parliamentary group, is present. It is essential that we look after the French so that they do not say "perfide Albion" as they did after the last fiasco.
Mr. Alan Clark: The French always look after themselves.
Mr. Wells: Those of us whose constituents take the mid-Kent railway line are now much happier about the new proposals than we were about the old ones. The improved high-speed track will give a better service to our commuters and the planned "flights" of trains will help our commuters.
The proposed costing of £650 million at 1978 prices spread over seven years means that each of the two nations will spend on the Channel tunnel only 6 per cent.

173
of its normal expenditure on transport infrastructure. That is a modest figure. I hope that the Select Committee on Transport will conduct an inquiry so that we do not need a plethora of outside inquiries. The new Select Committee should be seen to be doing what such Committees should do.
10.36 pm
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) for initiating the debate. I declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Railwaymen. I have a lifelong interest in the project. Many hon. Members agree that the proposed scheme does not constitute the type of threat to our seafaring services or to the environment of the South-East which the grandiose scheme of the days of Anthony Crosland entailed. That is apart from the fourfold extra cost involved in that scheme.
The present scheme intends to relieve those parts of the South-East which are heavily affected by the great increase in juggernaut traffic. Such traffic has increased by about 25 times in the last decade. The proposed rail Channel tunnel will take a share of that traffic and relieve congestion in the small towns and villages.
It will also be a dynamic boost for British Rail. It is exactly the type of investment that British Rail needs. It will provide a guaranteed return on capital—about 13 per cent. a year. It will also increase the small proportion of international freight which is carried by British Rail. At present international traffic represents about 2 per cent. of all rail freight in Britain, compared with 28 per cent. in France and 48 per cent. in Belgium.
The single bore tunnel is a modest and useful project, costing about £650 million at 1978 prices. We may look forward to that project being financed substantially by the Community and by the British and European money markets. At a time when the Government, rightly, are saying that we should get back some of our Community contribution, this is exactly the type of project to which we should draw the Community's attention. There should be expansion in the new sphere of transport infrastructure.
174
I see that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) is dissenting. But we all know that he believes that if the Channel tunnel is built, General Ludendorff will march out of it. That view is not shared by the House in general. We hope to hear that the Government are looking sympathetically at the scheme, that they have evaluated the studies and that they will make an early announcement.
10.40 pm
Mr. Percy Grieve: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) on his initiative. Most of my hon. Friends know that I have supported the Channel tunnel project ever since I came into the House of Commons. I believe that it will be a vital and important link between the transport systems of this country and of Europe and that it will be—and would have been, had it been implemented before—a viable investment.
I welcome it particularly on this occasion because, as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) suggested, it is one of the ways in which the, at present, unfair distribution of the Community budget can be righted. This will be a commendable expenditure of Community funds, as I understand it. Having returned from a committee meeting in Paris only late this evening, I am able to state that the French press yesterday and today has been very strong in its welcome of the proposal.
10.41 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I realise that many hon. Members wished to take part in the debate—including my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), with a dissentient voice. But perhaps it would be helpful if I now responded to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden).
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising the subject and setting the stage for a statement of the Government's policy that my right hon. Friend will be giving at Question Time on Wednesday of this week. I should like first to deal with some of the press speculation, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and then to deal with his other points and those raised by other hon. Members.

175
There are several misconceptions which seem to abound concerning the background to the present Channel tunnel proposals. At the moment, contrary to many reports, there is no immediately available pool of European Community money waiting to be called up to pay for either a tunnel or a bridge. Matters have not yet advanced that far. Some of us—the overwhelming majority in the Chamber at the moment, according to my impression—would wish that they had, but unfortunately that is not the case. Nor, for the immediate future at least, is there any possibility of the flow of funds into a fixed Channel crossing of some kind that would help to meet our budgetary problem within the Community. We need to look, for a solution to that problem, to more immediate steps than the building of a fixed link, with all the complexities that that involves.
The Government believe that there is a very clear-cut distinction between the immediate short-term problem of the European budget and this country's contribution to it on the one hand, and the longer-term problem of infrastructure aid from the Community, on the other hand.
Concerning the short-term problem, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and many other members of the Government are bending their minds to trying to find its solution. The Government are determined, with their European Community partners, to find a solution. One of the solutions that has been mooted is the possibility of some immediate spending in the United Kingdom of Community funds. We are interested in the possibility of transport infrastructure for the spending of those funds. Indeed, transport projects can be put forward and are being put forward to the European Community which seem to us to be of Community importance.
What we are looking for is spending in the United Kingdom in the near future to redress the present imbalance in our net budgetary contribution. It would, for many of us, be a happy coincidence if in achieving that we could at the same time provide for the building of a Channel crossing. But we must be realistic about the timing of the Channel tunnel and about the scale of Community assistance that is likely to flow into any Channel tunnel link.
176
With the best will in the world, any link would require a great deal of preparation, and its building would take even longer. The British Rail-SNCF scheme, about which my right hon. Friend is to answer questions on Wednesday, is the most advanced in preparation. But a good deal more planning and design work would be necessary before its proposers were ready to begin work on the ground.
Furthermore, there must be wide consultation with interested parties. There would be agreements to be negotiated with the French, and possibly others, and there would be legislation to pass through Parliament. It would be optimistic—however enthusiastic one is about the prospects of a Channel link—to suppose that all this could be completed and that expenditure on construction could begin to flow in any significant amounts in less than three years. Thereafter, the estimated building time of such a link is about seven years. Therefore, in our view the short-term budgetary problem is quite separate.
We must also look even wider for solutions to our budgetary problems than a single project, even of the scale of the Channel tunnel. Annual expenditure by the United Kingdom on the BRB-SNCF tunnel would be unlikely at the peak to exceed £100 million in any one year, which, unhappily, represents only a small proportion of the gap in our net budgetary contribution that we are seeking to close.
That is not to say that, in the long term, transport infrastructure may not provide a suitable destination for European Community funds. We are certainly looking for such destinations in other projects in the short term, but a Channel link is not immediately involved in that problem.
In case it is thought that our view differs from that of the Commission or others on this question, I quote from a report in The Times of 13 March, in which there was a report of what Mr. Burke, the Commissioner for Transport, had said about the extent of possible EEC financial aid for the tunnel, which he has been speculating about to a considerable extent. The report said:
"The extent of EEC financial support would be for the Community to decide; there were several possibilities in the form of loans or

177
grants. They should be seen as a longer rather than a short-term response to Britain's budgetary difficulties with the EEC, and would not preclude short-term help for other transport problems."
So we do not see a difference between us.
It is when one turns to the long term that one must look at the possibilities of aid for a fixed Channel link or other forms of transport infrastructure in this country. Mr. Burke said that it was for the Community to decide on the nature of that help. We have no definite proposals at the moment, but obviously we are anxious to look for progress and we are looking at ways in which the Community is moving towards a decision.
May I strike a warning note before I start on the subject of transport infrastructure in the Community in the long term? We must not make the mistake of being parochial or nationalist in our approach. It would be unrealistic for us to suppose that the Commission's very constructive proposals for infrastructure aid are designed solely for the peculiar advantage of the United Kingdom or of one particular project. The Commission has rightly considered the interests of the Community as a whole, and it is trying to look for a Community scheme.
We have responded favourably to the suggestion of aid from the transport infrastructure. But we need to know precisely what the details will be. The Government's position will therefore be to help progressing discussions on transport infrastructure funds from the EEC, but we wish to know very important details about the likely scale of any contribution—certainly about the criteria upon which they would be applied. Clearly, the Government would have to be satisfied both about the scale of any fund and the criteria before we could accept. For example, we would prefer to see ports and airports included as possible projects for aid under any transport: infrastructure funds, because in our geographical position vis-à-vis the Community the ports and airports are an important part of our links with the remainder of the Community.
Mr. Alan Clark: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. His courtesy in doing so is some compensa-
178
tion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the fact that I did not catch your eye.
All the talk about funds and help from the Community is very helpful, as far as it goes, but what has my hon. Friend to tell the enthusiasts for the tunnel who say "There is no problem about funds, because it will all come from private sources"? Have we yet decided exactly how it will be funded? It is either one or the other.
Mr. Clarke: The way in which the project might be funded will be considered by my right hon. Friend when he answers questions on Wednesday. I am dealing with the prospect of EEC funds for it. They are plainly more than a gleam in some people's eyes. Certainly, they are more than a gleam in Commissioner Burke's eye, and the idea is backed up vociferously by hon. Members, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve).
But we have to look at the exact nature of what is proposed, and we are awaiting more details about what an infrastructure fund will comprise.
We are looking for progress, and the British Government's role is to try to act constructively to encourage some progress. Therefore, we are looking at what the Commission is doing to further the matter. The Commission is taking several lines of action simultaneously. A regulation was agreed by the Council of Ministers in 1978 setting up an advisory committee on transport infrastructure to co-ordinate plans and programmes and examine projects proposed by members for inclusion in the Community aid programme.
More immediately, the Commission has now put before the European Transport Council for its next meeting a draft regulation on Community financial help to transport infrastructure projects. If agreement is reached on this, it would make available funds to help forward schemes important to the Community. I should explain at this point that the Commission's view, as we understand it, is that Community support would, in most cases at least, be in the form of loans or guarantees of loans. Grants might also be available in suitable cases, but they are unlikely to exceed 20 to 25 per cent. of the costs of the schemes concerned.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would that be done through the European Investment Bank?
Mr. Clarke: That is a possibility that we would certainly explore. I am dealing with the Commission's proposal, and at the moment that is a draft financial regulation. But I hope that the EIB is not sitting out and watching this without considering what its role could be if we can reach agreement on suitable criteria for schemes.
Meanwhile, on this financial regulation, which is an essential prerequisite to progress, the House will be glad to know that the Transport Ministers have called for more rapid progress towards a decision upon it, and the matter will undoubtedly be canvassed at its next meeting.
Further, the Commission has put in hand, through the medium of consultants, investigations into ways in which the benefit to the Community of various transport projects might be assessed. That has led to the Coopers and Lybrand report to the Commission, to which Commissioner Burke drew attention during his visit to London last week.
Again, the Commission has sought to explain in more broad terms its attitude to infrastructure support and to carry European opinion with it in what it is proposing. It was for that reason that it recently published its green paper giving the background to its proposed policy for transport infrastructure and developing some imaginative ideas for the future. We have invited various representative bodies of those interested to send us their views on the green paper so that we can take them into account for the purposes of future discussions, including discussion at the colloquy on the green paper to be held by the Commission in May or June this year. We see all this as a useful background and an important way of stimulating debate. The green paper can then be translated, after discussion, into possible action and detail.
Another matter has also been put in hand. When the Transport Council last considered the draft regulation on transport infrastructure, it invited the Commission to provide it with a report on so-called transport bottlenecks throughout the Community. I believe that the Commission aims to produce this very shortly.
180
Information for the report was gathered from all member States. The United Kingdom's contribution included a statement pressing the Commission to take full account of the need for a substantial part of the Community's transport to cross the sea to gain access to important markets and materials. Our position is obvious to anyone who consults a map. We pressed on the Commission the importance of these cross-sea links, and those included ports and airports. The significance of that for the Channel tunnel will not be lost upon the House.
That is the work which the Commission is doing—most of it very recent—to try to forward its green paper and the necessary financial regulation and to arouse interest in the various member States about the possibility of a new fund which will create transport infrastructure support for member countries.
That is the background against which we have to make our decision on the Channel tunnel and against which my right hon. Friend will be making his decisions on further progress which he will announce in two days' time. At the moment, the most immediate cross-Channel link project that we have before us is the British Rail-SNCF report. I am sure that will not be the only contending scheme to be put forward, but it is certainly one at which we are looking and which will be borne in mind in the statement that is to be made.
I hope that the debate has at least helped the House to see how much is happening at present, not only about a cross-Channel link which is of interest to us all, but also about the prospects for European Community support for a broader United Kingdom transport infrastructure. It would no doubt be some help to our immediate budgetary problems if some short-term spending could be found in this country. In the longer term, I hope that I have indicated that we are looking at this matter sympathetically but without commitment until we know the exact nature of the scheme and the essential criteria upon which it must rest.
As regards the Community aspect, hope that the House will accept that we are not yet at the point of decision. We do not have all the information that we need on the exact quantity, style and availability of Community funds. We have had extremely encouraging press

181
reports, but we do not have in our hands any finalised proposals. My right hon. Friend will go to the next meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers no doubt anxious to discover how much further the Commission has taken the matter and also anxious to discuss with his European colleagues how progress can be made to the advantage of the Community as a whole.
Meanwhile, the shorter-term budget problem is in the hands of the impending European Council, where my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be renewing her negotiations against the background of the great deal of work that has been done on the possibilities for short-term spending in this country which will assist us with our budget.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I see all these discussions
182
as a potentially long stride forward towards a common transport policy in the European Community. Certainly longer strides seem to be contemplated by some than any that have been taken by the Community so far. The Treaty of Rome formally commits the Community to the idea of a common transport policy. We are interested in that policy coming to fruition as long as it is on terms that are acceptable to—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  BOOKSHOPS (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE)
  BOOKSHOPS (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE)
  MUSEUMS (RETENTION POLICY)
  MUSEUMS (RETENTION POLICY)
  ORCHESTRAS
  ORCHESTRAS
  WALES
  WALES
TRANSPORT
  British Railways
  British Railways
  Road Maintenance
  Road Maintenance
  Quangos
  Quangos
  London Rail Advisory Committee
  London Rail Advisory Committee
  Road Construction Units
  Road Construction Units
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Educational Disadvantage
  Educational Disadvantage

  Microelectronics
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the £9 million he has announced is to be provided for a programme on education in microelectronics at school will be spent on teacher training, curriculum development and other aspects.

  Mr. Macfarlane
  Priority will be given to curriculum development, the development of material for teacher training courses and arrangements to make more and better software available; but other projects designed to increase the understanding and use of microelectronics will also be considered. The apportionment of the available resources between these fields of activity cannot be determined at this stage.

  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what in-service and training courses are currently available for teachers on education in microelectronics at school; and what further developments are already planned.

  Dr. Boyson
  Many initial and in-service training courses for teachers at universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher education now deal with aspects of microelectronics. This applies particularly to science courses and, increasingly, to courses in mathematics, craft, design and technology and business studies. A number of in-service courses are being provided in the programme of national short courses organised by Her Majesty's Inspectors and in the programmes arranged regionally with support from my Department; more are planned. The development of material for teacher training courses will be a priority objective in the microelectronics development programme for schools and colleges announced by my hon. Friend on 4 March.
  7
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to monitor the use by local education authorities of the funds allocated for education in microelectronics in schools.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when tronics development programme, whether projects are undertaken by LEAs or other organisations.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Traffic Wardens
  Traffic Wardens
  Police Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences
  Police Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences
  TUC Mass Meeting (Police Operations)
  TUC Mass Meeting (Police Operations)
  Road Traffic Law
  Road Traffic Law
  Special Patrol Group
  Special Patrol Group
  Operation Countryman
  Operation Countryman
  Criminal Law Revision Committee (Report)
  Criminal Law Revision Committee (Report)
  Private Property (Occupation)
  Private Property (Occupation)
  Parish Council Elections (Voting)
  Parish Council Elections (Voting)
  Glue Sniffing
  Glue Sniffing
  Students (Demonstration)
  Students (Demonstration)
  Broadcasting (Terrorist Organisations)
  Broadcasting (Terrorist Organisations)
  Drugs (Advisory Council)
  Drugs (Advisory Council)
  Holloway Prison (Remanded Prisoners)
  Holloway Prison (Remanded Prisoners)
  Commission for Racial Equality (Cost)
  Commission for Racial Equality (Cost)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Convention)
  Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Convention)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Development Assistance
  Development Assistance
CIVIL SERVICE
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Official Report (General Index)
  Official Report (General Index)
  Supplementary Benefits and Family Income Supplements (Publication)
  Supplementary Benefits and Family Income Supplements (Publication)
EMPLOYMENT
  European Community (Consumer Prices)
  European Community (Consumer Prices)
  Rubber Tyre Industry
  Rubber Tyre Industry
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Skilled Workers
  Skilled Workers
  "The Careers Service 1974 to 1979"
  "The Careers Service 1974 to 1979"
  Special Temporary Employment Programme (Wales)
  Special Temporary Employment Programme (Wales)
  Unemployment and Unfilled Vacancies
  Unemployment and Unfilled Vacancies
  Retail Trades (Wages Councils)
  Retail Trades (Wages Councils)
  Careers Service
  Careers Service
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Advisory Committee on Asbestos
  Advisory Committee on Asbestos
  Agricultural Engineering (Nomenclature)
  Agricultural Engineering (Nomenclature)
  Careers Officers
  Careers Officers
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Health and Safety Executive (Chemical Safety)
  Health and Safety Executive (Chemical Safety)
  Private Manufacturing Industry
  Private Manufacturing Industry
  Family Income and Expenditure
  Family Income and Expenditure
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  European Community (Redundancy Schemes)
  European Community (Redundancy Schemes)
  Assisted Areas (Inmos)
  Assisted Areas (Inmos)
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
ENERGY
  Sir Derek Rayner (Inquiry)
  Sir Derek Rayner (Inquiry)
  Power Station Ordering Programme
  Power Station Ordering Programme
  Liquid Nuclear Waste
  Liquid Nuclear Waste
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia (Travel Restrictions)
  Rhodesia (Travel Restrictions)
  Hong Kong (Immigration)
  Hong Kong (Immigration)
  Biological Weapons
  Biological Weapons
  Rhodesia (United African National Council)
  Rhodesia (United African National Council)
  Esperanto
  Esperanto
  Iran
  Iran
  NORTH SEA OIL AND GAS INSTALLATIONS
  NORTH SEA OIL AND GAS INSTALLATIONS
  HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
  HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
  SENIOR CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS
  SENIOR CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES (NUCLEAR POWER RESPONSIBILITIES)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES (NUCLEAR POWER RESPONSIBILITIES)
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEGAL SERVICES
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEGAL SERVICES
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Money Supply M3
  Money Supply M3
  Board of Referees
  Board of Referees
  Value Added Tax Tribunals
  Value Added Tax Tribunals
  Travel-to-work Costs
  Travel-to-work Costs
  Tobacco and Alcohol (Tax Yield)
  Tobacco and Alcohol (Tax Yield)
  National Savings Bank Investment Account
  National Savings Bank Investment Account
  National Debt Commissioners
  National Debt Commissioners
  Nationalised Industries (Assistance)
  Nationalised Industries (Assistance)
  Private Industries (Assistance)
  Private Industries (Assistance)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Earned and Unearned Income
  Earned and Unearned Income
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Inland Revenue Staff
  Inland Revenue Staff
  Widows (Earnings)
  Widows (Earnings)
  Monetary Control
  Monetary Control
  Imported Goods and Services
  Imported Goods and Services
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Specialist Staff
  Specialist Staff
  Health Authorities (Budgets)
  Health Authorities (Budgets)
  Buildings (Investment)
  Buildings (Investment)
  Health Improvement Programmes
  Health Improvement Programmes
  Health (Regional and Social Disparities)
  Health (Regional and Social Disparities)
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Capital Investment Programme
  Capital Investment Programme
  Health Authority Personnel (Secondment)
  Health Authority Personnel (Secondment)
  Family Planning Association
  Family Planning Association
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Payments to Strikers (International Comparisons)
  Payments to Strikers (International Comparisons)
  District Health Authorities (Medical Representation)
  District Health Authorities (Medical Representation)
  House Furnishing (Assistance)
  House Furnishing (Assistance)
  Medicines (Review Committee)
  Medicines (Review Committee)
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Drugs and Medicines
  Drugs and Medicines
  Health Care Exports
  Health Care Exports
  National Insurance Contribution Records
  National Insurance Contribution Records
  Glue Sniffing
  Glue Sniffing
  United Kingdom (Population)
  United Kingdom (Population)
  "Industrial Injuries Compensation"
  "Industrial Injuries Compensation"
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Disabled Persons (Co-option to Committees)
  Disabled Persons (Co-option to Committees)
  Fazakerley and Walton Hospitals
  Fazakerley and Walton Hospitals
INDUSTRY
  Assistance to Industry
  Assistance to Industry
  Steel Industry (Industrial Dispute)
  Steel Industry (Industrial Dispute)
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  British Shipbuilders (Engineers and Fabricators Yard, Burntisland)
  British Shipbuilders (Engineers and Fabricators Yard, Burntisland)
  Albright and Wilson Limited
  Albright and Wilson Limited
  Telematics Equipment
  Telematics Equipment
  European Community (Motor Car Prices)
  European Community (Motor Car Prices)
  Engineering Profession (Committee of Inquiry)
  Engineering Profession (Committee of Inquiry)
  Quangos
  Quangos
  Furniture Development Council
  Furniture Development Council
  Passenger Vehicles
  Passenger Vehicles
  Sir Derek Rayner (Inquiry)
  Sir Derek Rayner (Inquiry)
  Alfred Herbert and Herbert Ltd.
  Alfred Herbert and Herbert Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce
  European Community (Accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal)
  European Community (Accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal)
  Vosper Ltd.
  Vosper Ltd.
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 (Compensation)
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 (Compensation)
  European Community (Wool Textile and Clothing Industries)
  European Community (Wool Textile and Clothing Industries)
  European Community (Industrial Restructuring and Conversion)
  European Community (Industrial Restructuring and Conversion)
  Motor Car Production
  Motor Car Production
  Apparel Assembly Techniques
  Apparel Assembly Techniques
  Footwear Production
  Footwear Production
  Televisions, Refrigerators and Typewriters
  Televisions, Refrigerators and Typewriters
  Tractors
  Tractors
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Executive (Cottage Improvement)
  Housing Executive (Cottage Improvement)
  American Investment
  American Investment
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Castlereagh Police Station (Detention)
  Castlereagh Police Station (Detention)
  Building Costs (Grants)
  Building Costs (Grants)
DEFENCE
  Private Michael Jeffries
  Private Michael Jeffries
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Job Dispersal
  Job Dispersal
  Defence Expenditure (NATO)
  Defence Expenditure (NATO)
  Aeronautical Research Council
  Aeronautical Research Council
  Electronics Research Council
  Electronics Research Council
  Rosyth Dockyard (Radiation Levels)
  Rosyth Dockyard (Radiation Levels)
  Royal Air Force Aircraft (Crash)
  Royal Air Force Aircraft (Crash)
  National Radiological Protection Board (Powers)
  National Radiological Protection Board (Powers)
  Sensitive Information (Security)
  Sensitive Information (Security)
  Military Defence (Expenditure)
  Military Defence (Expenditure)
  Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston
  Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing
  Housing
  Ministry of Defence Establishments (Maintenance Work)
  Ministry of Defence Establishments (Maintenance Work)
  Union Place Resource Centre, Lambeth
  Union Place Resource Centre, Lambeth
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Lawn Tennis (Committee)
  Lawn Tennis (Committee)
  Privately-rented Residential Accommodation
  Privately-rented Residential Accommodation
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Private Residential Property (Short-term Letting)
  Private Residential Property (Short-term Letting)
  Experimental Plant (Atomic Energy Authority, Harwell)
  Experimental Plant (Atomic Energy Authority, Harwell)
  Vitrification
  Vitrification
  Ceremonial Flagstaffs
  Ceremonial Flagstaffs
  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (Glass-making Plant)
  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (Glass-making Plant)
  Radioactive Waste (Containers)
  Radioactive Waste (Containers)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Environmental Pollution
  Environmental Pollution
  Radioactive Waste (Management and Storage)
  Radioactive Waste (Management and Storage)
  Docklands Urban Development Corporation (Prince of Wales Park)
  Docklands Urban Development Corporation (Prince of Wales Park)
SCOTLAND
  Prosthetic Technicians
  Prosthetic Technicians
  Public Bodies
  Public Bodies
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Disabled Persons (co-option to Committees)
  Disabled Persons (co-option to Committees)
TRADE
  Glass (Imports)
  Glass (Imports)
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Films
  Films
  Glue Sniffing
  Glue Sniffing
  Asset-stripping
  Asset-stripping
  Man-made Fibres
  Man-made Fibres
  Takeovers
  Takeovers
  London-Peking (Scheduled Air Services)
  London-Peking (Scheduled Air Services)
  Paper Supplies (Imports)
  Paper Supplies (Imports)
  Sales Incentives
  Sales Incentives
  Boats and Marine Engines (European Community Import Duty)
  Boats and Marine Engines (European Community Import Duty)
WALES
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Council for the Principality
  Council for the Principality
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Iron and Steel Trades Confederation
  Iron and Steel Trades Confederation
  Pregnant Women (Diagnostic Techniques)
  Pregnant Women (Diagnostic Techniques)
  Health District Employees (Isle of Anglesey)
  Health District Employees (Isle of Anglesey)
  Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings
  Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Closures and Redundancies (European Community Benefits)
  Closures and Redundancies (European Community Benefits)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Private Residential Property (Short-term Lettings)
  Private Residential Property (Short-term Lettings)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Local Authority Committees (Disabled Persons)
  Local Authority Committees (Disabled Persons)
  Radioactive Wastes
  Radioactive Wastes
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  General Practitioner Prescribing
  General Practitioner Prescribing
  Magnox Reactors (Decommissioning)
  Magnox Reactors (Decommissioning)

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

NAMIBIA: UN/SOUTH AFRICAN DISCUSSIONS
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 conclusions were reached at the renewed discussions at Cape Town between representatives of the United Nations and of the South African Government regarding the future of Namibia.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): My Lords, officials of the United Nations Secretariat held four days of useful and wide-ranging discussions with South Africa. The United Nations team then went to
2
Botswana, Angola, Zambia and Tanzania for further consultations. Dr. Waldheim will report the conclusions of these talks to the Security Council in due course.
Lord BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords, but is it not the case that very little progress was made? In view of the fact that the United Nations Security Council as long ago as August 1969 called on South Africa to withdraw immediately from Namibia, is it not now time that strong pressure were exerted upon South Africa to meet the proposals of the United Nations Mission?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I understand that some progress was made, but, as the noble Lord knows, Her Majesty's Government were not directly involved in the consultations, which were confidential, and I think that we had better wait to hear what Dr. Waldheim has to say.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, before I put a supplementary question to the Foreign Secretary, may I say how delighted we are to welcome back home the noble Lord, Load Soames, who is looking so well—unaccountably well—after a very trying, yet very successful time spent in the service of this country in Zimbabwe. May I also say how much we appreciate the way in which

3
he has responded to, and encouraged, the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, who by word and deed has given a very good example to everybody in Africa as to how to proceed in the future?
That leads me to the point that I wanted to put to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who has been such a tower of strength to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, in his difficult task. Would the noble Lord agree that what the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe has done by word and deed, since he was appointed by the Queen's Governor-General, should serve as an encouragement to the South Arican Republic to be considerably more forth- coming about co-operating in the emergence of Namibia to an independence similar to that of Rhodesia? Would the noble Lord also agree that, similarly, the new Zimbabwe, in co-operation with this country and others, could exercise a beneficial influence on the leadership of the Namibian people, including SWAPO, so that a movement to peaceful, orderly independence in that country, similar to that which the noble Lord has promoted in Zimbabwe, could take place in South-West Africa?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that it must be rather easier to be Governor of Rhodesia than to be Leader of your Lordships' House. My noble friend has not had to deal with the unilateral declaration of independence which your Lordships declared last week. With regard to the supplementary question that the noble Lord has asked me, I think that one must recognise that events in Rhodesia need a little time to be assimilated in South Africa, and I believe that it would be as well if both countries in Africa, and in the United Nations, showed a little patience about events in Namibia.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, may welcome back the Foreign Secretary from his latest, effective journey to the Middle East. In view of the fact that Russian-sponsored SWAPO is regarded by the United Nations as the true representative of the people of South-West Africa, is it not confusing, or perhaps even regrettable, that we continue to have a representative on the Committee of Five appointed by the United Nations, which appears contemporaneously to put us into direct
4
conflict with the South African Republic, which of course could not accept SWAPO as it is considered to he Russian-dominated?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not recognise SWAPO's claim to he the sole representative of the Namibian people; that is for the people of Namibia to decide—and no one else. The Contact Group of Five has, in my judgment, as well as in the judgment of the previous Administration and that of this Administration, proved a very useful way in which to seek and attain peace in Namibia.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I myself returned with the United Nations officials on the same plane on Friday of last week, and that there is very deep despondency in Central Africa over the prospects in Namibia, for two reasons: first, that there appears to have been a strengthening of resistance within Namibia by the Turnhalle alliance since the Rhodesian elections, in the fear that elections in Namibia might follcw the same course; and, secondly, that the Western nations appear still to be encouraging the export of minerals from Namibia despite its being in contravention of the United Nations resolution on this matter? While I am on my feet, may I belatedly congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his success in Rhodesia? I was not able to do so previously because I was otherwise engaged.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. No, I was not aware of what the noble Lord has said; nor do I agree with it.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question: Is not the situation in Namibia very dangerous, as was the situation in Zimbabwe before the successful meeting at Lancaster House and the elections in Rhodesia? Is not the recalcitrant feeling of South Africa and white economic interest in Namibia itself due to the fact that there is fear that in an election SWAPO would win, just as Mr. Mugabe has won in Zimbabwe; and, in view of the fact that we have 7,500 monitoring troops there—many more than there were in Zimbabwe—

5
can we look forward to an election which will be carried out freely and fairly?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is very necessary that there should be a settlement in Namibia, and we have gone some way along the way towards finding one. What I was saying to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and also in answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is that I think the events in Rhodesia of the last few weeks have made it necessary for the time being, at any rate, to exercise a little patience.

THE PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION
2.45 p.m.
Lord SH1NWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, may I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord the Leader of the House and comment on his remarkable statesmanship (which we would of course expect from him) during his sojourn in Rhodesia? It is only fair to say, however, that during his absence the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has proved a very efficient substitute.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received any representations from the Israeli Government, the Israeli Embassy in the United Kingdom or from the British Board of Deputies about the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's recent declaration on the objectives of the PLO, and whether they will make a Statement.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I know that my noble friend, who has to go to the dentists, would, were he in the position at the moment of being the active Leader of the House, forgive the noble Lord for being outside the Rules of Order, and thank him warmly.
My Lords, the Israeli Government have made known to us their views on self-determination for the Palestinians and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Representatives of Anglo-Jewish organisations will be calling on me shortly. There has
6
been no change in our attitude to the Palestine Liberation Organisation. We continue to believe that the PLO is an important factor, and will have to be involved at some stage in the peace process. At the same time we urge them to accept Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, while thanking the Foreign Secretary for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that one of the primary objectives of the PLO is to continue the war against the State of Israel, and that indeed they have repeatedly declared their intention of driving the State of Israel out of that area altogether? What comment would he make about that? Furthermore, has he in mind the possibility that, if there is too much encouragement of the PLO, it might revive the conflict in the Middle East; and that, if it does, the conflict might be more serious and more devasting than anything we have witnessed before?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that any progress in Middle East peace efforts is possible without an acceptance and a recognition by the Palestinians, and therefore by the PLO as well, of the State of Israel as a State. That is absolutely essential. Equally, I do not think it is possible to get peace in the Middle East without some recognition on the part of Israel of the rights of the Palestinians.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I very briefly but very strongly endorse what the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary has said? It is necessary to get everybody in the Middle East into peaceful, orderly discussion. At the same time, it is the policy of this country, whichever Government are in power, to sustain and secure a free, independent Israel.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to realise that, from the point of view of anyone who has any interest at all in the sovereignty of Israel, the PLO is one of the biggest dangers which not only Israel but the Middle East and we ourselves have to face? Is he aware that as recently as February 9th (I think it was) a categorical statement was made by Arafat in a Venezuelan newspaper that he is determined to

7
destroy Israel whatever happens and no matter how long it takes? Surely, the statements which are being made day by day in respect of the PLO are encouraging the PLO in this kind of action, even though expressions are used to say that we will wait until they recognise Israel? Surely, the line of action which is being taken by us and, with our guidance, by the EEC, is, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, encouraging the PLO to make the kind of statement which, as I said before, only last February declared categorically that it will not rest until Israel is destroyed by violence? Surely one cannot expect Israel to accept a situation like that.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not believe—and I repeat this—that peace is possible in the Middle East until such time as the Palestinians and the PLO recognise the State of Israel; nor do I believe it is possible until the Israelis recognise the rights of the Palestinians. simply do not believe that one can ignore the PLO in this question. I would only say about the speeches to which the noble Lord referred that, if one looks objectively at what has been said on both sides about this issue in the Middle East, one sees that there have been some incautious remarks on both sides.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is the Foreign Secretary aware that I have never at any time condemned the PLO because of its existence? I recognise that it is a fact of life. On the other hand, I object to its primary objective. I am not at all satisfied that either the Foreign Secretary in his recent declaration about the Middle East or the attitude of some members of the EEC, arc being satisfactory in the sense of recognising, definitely and emphatically and without any qualifications, the right of the State of Israel to exist in that area and not to be constantly under threat. Could I obtain from the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary an explicit statement that, so far as he and Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they will not agree to any change in the situation as long as it appears to impinge upon the sovereignty of the State of Israel?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the intention of the PLO is the destruction of the State of Israel, I condemn that, also.
8
I think that I have made abundantly plain the position of Her Majesty's Government, which is an even-handed one as between one and the other in the hope that, if there is good sense on both sides, a settlement is possible.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary whether he sees a difference between the PLO and the Palestinian problem? Will he say—Yes or No—whether he regards the PLO as a terrorist organisation?
Lord CARRINGTON: No, my Lords, I do not think that the PLO, as such, is a terrorist organisation. There are some elements of the PLO which in the past have been associated with the terrorists; but it would be a great mistake to assume that it is possible to get a settlement in the area without taking into account the PLO.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Foreign Secretary a supplementary question following on the recent one? Is he not aware that when I was in the United Nations a couple of years ago I heard Yasser Arafat, when asked on New York television after his spectacular debut in the General Assembly, whether he wanted to destroy the State of Israel, say,"This is the first step "? Has he retracted that remark? He was definitely asked,"Are you out to destroy the State of Israel?"He said,"Yes, this is the first step ". Has he retracted?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am not aware of that. If that is the object of the PLO, then I comdemn it.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Foreign Secretary be embarrassed if I said that I wholeheartedly endorse the policy which he is following?—that of holding a balance between Israel on the one hand and the PLO on the other. Both must exist. Will he bear in mind when he is under constant pressure from Israel, and from Israel's supporters, that there would have been no Israel but for the valour of British troops who fought on the plains of Mesopotamia and in Palestine and who broke the power of the Ottoman Empire; and at the time of the second battle of Gaza, there were not six Jewish settlements in Palestine? Is he further aware of the fact that this country has enfeebled itself, its influence has been

9
reduced, its economic power all but destroyed, whereas at one time our sovereignty extended over large sections of the Middle East and British interests were well-regarded not only in the Middle East but on a world-wide basis? Is the Foreign Secretary not aware that that change has come about because of successive British Governments (including a Labour Government under Mr. Wilson) succumbing to the constant pressure of Israel's supporters in this country regardless of the interests of Great Britain?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government are keeping a balanced view on this subject. Certainly, what I have sought to say this afternoon is that I believe that both sides, with good will and with good sense, could settle this. I do not pretend that this will be easy, but it seems to me that if the Palestinians will recognise the State of Israel and if Israelis will recognise that the Palestinians have rights, too, then there is, in that equation, the possibility of a settlement.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is the Foreign Secretary aware that the assumption of executive ruling powers by the PLO might well lead to a repetition of the regime of the Ayatolah Khomeini in Iran; and is not one Ayatolah Khomeini quite enough to be going on with?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, we seem to be crossing a few bridges before we come to them.

COMPETITION BILL
2.57 p.m.
Read 3a, with the amendments.
Clause 3 [Preliminary investigation by Director of possible anti-competitive practice]:
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 43, at end insert ("; but nothing in this subsection shall prevent the Director from proceeding with a subsequent investigation, notwithstanding that it relates wholly or partly to the same matters.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been noticed—admittedly rather late in the
10
day; and for that I apologise—that the provision of Clause 3(5) which enables the Secretary of State to veto a preliminary investigation by the Director General could he open to an unintended interpretation. It is the intention that the Secretary of State should be able to cancel a particular investigation but not that his veto should prevent all subsequent investigation of the same matters, however far into the future. Circumstances change and Governments have been known to change their minds. We therefore would not want a veto to prevent all future investigation. Unfortunately, on one reading of Clause 3(5), it would have this effect. This interpretation would be strengthened by contrast with Clause 7(2) where such an interpretation is explicitly ruled out where references to the MMCs are concerned. Therefore, we think it necessary to remove the ambiguity by making a similar explicit provision in Clause 3(5). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [References of public bodies and certain other persons to the Commission]:
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 15, line 38, leave out from first (" reference ") to (" is ") in line 40 and insert (" including any question whether, in relation to a matter falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above, the person ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once more on behalf of my noble friend, this is a technical amendment which is intended to improve the drafting of Clause 11(1). As drafted, the clause permits the Secretary of State to require the commission to consider the public interest in relation to the subject of the reference generally—that is, in relation to the efficiency and costs the service provided and the possible abuse of a monopoly situation in the supply of goods or services by the person concerned. We have come to the conclusion that, in certain circumstances, this could impose too heavy a burden on the commission in the light of the timetable which they are required to meet under Clause 11(9). This amendment therefore provides that consideration of the public interest, may, if the Secretary of State so wishes, be confined to the specific questions which will be put to the commission in the terms of reference

11
rather than to the general issues of efficiency and costs, et cetera. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Order following report under section 11]:
3.4 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 18, line 32, leave out (" which ") and insert (" whom ").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 3 and, at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 4. These are both minor technical amendments made necessary by amendments made by the Government on Report in connection with the references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of bus undertakings specified in Clause 11(3)(b) of the Bill. Amendment No. 3 merely corrects an error in grammar in Clause 12(4) by substituting"whom"for"which"in line 32. Amendment No. 4 reflects in the Long Title the effect of Amendment No. 15 made on Report, which substituted"person"for"body corporate"in Clause 11(3)(b), thus bringing partnerships and sole traders within the scope of investigation under that part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am slightly confused by the noble Lord because Amendment No. 4 is in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others, and is not in his name.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 21, line 42, at end insert—
(" () Before carrying out an investigation under section 3 above into any course of conduct being pursued by a person falling within section 11(3)(d) above the Director shall give notice as required by section 3(2)(a) above also to the relevant Minister and on making any competition reference arising from that investigation or varying such a reference under section 6(6) above the Director shall send a copy of the reference or, as the case may be, the variation to the relevant Minister.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am
12
grateful to my noble friend for speaking to this amendment and referring to it as a drafting amendment. That precisely sums up what I feel about it, too. As has been explained to your Lordships at length at both Committee and Report stages of this Bill, the relevant Minister—at the moment the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—has extensive powers under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 to make investigations into agricultural marketing boards.
Without wishing to repeat what has already been said, and as the Government have at no stage indicated their disapproval of this Act, it seems logical that the relevant Minister should at least be told by the Director of Fair Trading that he is about to investigate an alleged malpractice. The relevant Minister could be looking into the situation himself under the powers conferred upon him by the 1958 Act. The amendment therefore is one which seeks only to enable the existing legislation to work in closer harmony with this Bill. It reinforces the consultation procedure at an early stage to avoid duplication, increased bureaucracy and interdepartmental antagonism. On an agricultural matter, it must make sense for the relevant Minister to be advised of what is in the minds of those who have powers overlapping his specialist field. I beg to move.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 4, and the other two amendments which follow it, is to give the relevant Minister, as my noble friend has explained, equal status with the Secretary of State in relation to various functions in the Bill. The first amendment, as my noble friend said, requires the Director General to give notice of investigations and references into anti-competitive practice by an agricultural marketing hoard to the relevant Minister as well as the Secretary of State. There is no provision in the Bill for that at present, although it would be normal administrative practice for all concerned.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that we can discuss these three amendments at the same time because they all address similar points. Perhaps my noble friend disagrees?
The Earl of CAITHNESS: No, my Lords
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, without the consent of the House, I do not think that my noble friend is entitled to speak to the three amendments together. I thought that I heard a note of dissent from those sitting behind him.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lord, my noble and learned friend is right and I shall therefore confine my remarks to the first amendment. I shall in due course ask your Lordships to resist the second and third amendments in the name of my noble friend. As for this amendment, it is not positively objectionable on its own; it would save the Secretary of State for Trade and his officials from having to inform the relevant agricultural Minister and his officials of the fact that the Director General has initiated an investigation. It would place this task directly upon the Director General. The Government are satisfied that Clause 15 would work adequately as it stands; but, if my noble friend feels that it is the task of Parliament to define who should see every piece of paper, then the Government would have no particular objection if my noble friend decided to press his amendment.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, is my noble friend accepting this amendment?
Lord TREFGARNE: No, my Lords.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Then, my Lords, I am afraid you will have to be bored by me again. The purpose of the amendment is consumer-orientated. As the Bill stands, complaint could be made by the Director General of Fair Trading to the Secretary of State about an agricultural marketing board's uncompetitive action. Having submitted the complaint, the Secretary of State can, in his wisdom, decide to take no action and the matter will end. The effect of our amendment would be that the Director General of Fair Trading would have to consult the Minister of Agriculture as as well as the Secretary of State, which would mean that the Minister of Agriculture could advise the Secretary of State on the best method to adopt, perhaps, as we have suggested to the House before, through the Agricultural Marketing Act. Moreover, the Minister of
14
Agriculture is much more experienced in investigating——
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor very rightly said that I should speak only to the first amendment in the name of my noble friend, which I did; but my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is now speaking to the others. That is what it sounds like.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I am sorry and I will take the advice of the House on this. I am speaking to this amendment. I will speak to the other two in a moment, altogether as your Lordships wish. The Minister of Agriculture has more experience in investigating complaints and that is why we wish him to be consulted. He has more experience through the workings of the 1958 Act. As the Bill stands, the Minister of Agriculture could be totally unaware of a complaint made about the agricultural marketing boards, which are his concern. He should realise it if there is a complaint going about. I have some more to say about what has happened in this Bill but I shall leave that to the next amendment. I hope my noble friend will accept this amendment.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I am extremely disappointed with the response that the Minister has given to noble Lords who have raised the matter and with the response of the Government generally. It is an extremely important point. If the noble Lord informs the House that the Minister of Agriculture will be aware of what takes place, I would tend to be rather less discontent than I am now. The thought that the agricultural marketing boards are going to be subjected to this procedure without the immediate and direct knowledge of the Minister of Agriculture seems very unreasonable indeed. If we are going to get co-operation in the agricultural industry, and if the country is going to get the co-operation of the agricultural industry—and that seems very important indeed—the Government must be more reasonable. After all, if the agricultural marketing boards are responsible to anyone, they are responsible to the

15
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and not to any other Minister.
It does appear that it is tempting providence and also insulting to the agricultural industry and to the Minister concerned to disregard him. I may be mistaken: it may well be that the noble Lord who replies will be able to inform the House that the Minister of Agriculture will be informed, and informed forthwith. But if he is unable to tell the House that, then I am bound to say that this is a very important matter which the House must think about very carefully. Otherwise, the agricultural marketing boards, upon which we all depend for the efficient organisation of the commodities for which they are responsible, will not be doing their job as effectively as they should. I hope that the noble Lord can give a rather more satisfactory answer than he has given hitherto.
Baroness SEEAR: If I understood him aright, the Minister said rather contemptuously that it was being suggested in this amendment that there was being written into the Act where every bit of paper was to go. I would say: surely this is not a question of where every bit of paper is to go, but where this particular very important piece of paper should go. After all, some of the most important legislation that goes through this House could be described as"bits of paper ".
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I think that we ought to look at this from a rather broader position than just from the point of view of the Milk Marketing Board. It seems to me that there are a great many other public bodies covered by Clause 11(3) of the Bill to which the same arguments could very well apply. I find it difficult to see why the Milk Marketing Board should particularly seek the custody and safe treatment of their own Minister when, for instance, other public boards that are in competition with other sources—as, for instance, the railways who arc in competition with other forms of transport—have not sought to have their Minister covered in this respect.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: The answer, my Lords, to the noble Lord is that they are not the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Yes, my Lords, indeed; but there are other sponsoring ministeries who deal with other people, and it seems to me that what is being lost sight of—and this is the important point—is that the Milk Marketing Board are in competition with other traders and it seems unreasonable, under the heading"competition in a Competition Bill. that one particular group of traders, to wit, the Milk Marketing Board, should have any preferential treatment—if it is preferential treatment—in being able to involve their own sponsoring Ministry. You can say that it is not preferential treatment: in which case what is the point of the amendment? Therefore, my Lords, I wonder whether this amendment and the following ones are really necessary.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I should very much like to support the noble Lord who has just spoken in what he has said. It seems to me that this Bill involves principles which should apply to the whole economy. I think it is quite unnecessary to write into the Bill what may be a matter of courtesy, having regard to the administrative arrangements in Whitehall, that any particular Minister need be informed as regards the implications of this all-embracing Bill. I am reminded in this connection of something which I heard at a very high official meeting during the reconstruction period after the war. It was said by Lord Keynes. In regard to agriculture, he appealed to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and said:"All Ministries of Agriculture are a little bit of a racket, aren't they?"
3.14 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I had not intended to deploy my full arguments on this amendment, but the attitude of my noble friends clearly requires me to say a little more. The Bill, as far as anti-competitive practices are concerned, enables the Director General to do certain things and the Secretary of State to do certain other things. We have said before that wherever it is appropriate the Secretary of State will consult the appropriate sponsor department. This applies as much to agricultural questions as to those involving industry, commerce and local authorities.
As far as the powers in Clauses 11 and 12 are concerned, the Secretary of State

17
has certain power to make references and to act following upon references. In addition, sponsor Ministers also have certain powers to act on a report of the commission. The only exception that is made to these general provisions has been for agricultural marketing boards which, in the opinion of the Government, merit a degree of special treatment in view of the agricultural marketing legislation itself. That is why Clause 15 of the Bill makes a number of special provisions to allow the order-making powers of the Agricultural Marketing Act to be used following a report on a board which is subject to that Act. This is because the Agricultural Marketing Act already contains provisions which allow order-making powers to be used in certain circumstances. Equally, because of the existing agricultural marketing legislation, Clause 15 has been extended to provide for consultation between the Secretary of State and the relevant agriculture Minister before the Secretary of State exercises his powers. In addition, in relation to undertakings under Clause 9, again because of the agricultural marketing legislation, there is special provision for the Secretary of State and the relevant agriculture Minister to act jointly.
I would remind your Lordships that in addition to these provisions in the Bill we have repeatedly made it clear that the normal process of consultation between Ministers and between departments will take place for agricultural marketing boards, as for every other section of industry or commerce. I hope that, with this further explanation, my noble friend will not press his amendment.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, I think the point was nicely put by my noble friend on the Front Bench. He said that the 1958 Act had similar powers to the powers under this Bill. It is for this reason that at this very early stage, and in order to save any duplication and bureaucracy, the Minister of Agriculture, who can quite easily initiate investigations under the 1958 Act, is told of the wish of the Director General of Fair Trading, and to put the responsibility on to the Director General of Fair Trading rather than the Secretary of State seems to me to be eminently logical in this context. Therefore, I cannot fail to disagree with my noble
18
friend and those who spoke against the amendment. I think this is something which the House ought to consider again, because I believe it to be both logical and in the best interests of the Bill.
3.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place and I declare that the Contents have it.
3.22 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of A LDERLEY Lord STANLEY of A LDERLEY moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 21, line 42, at end insert—
(" ( ) In relation to every investigation under section 3 above into any course of conduct being pursued by a person falling within section 11(3)(d) above, every competition reference which specifies such a person as the person whose activities are to be investigated by the Commission and every variation of such a reference under section 6(6) above the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by section 3(5) or, as the case may be, section 7(2) or (3) above shall be exercisable also by the relevant Minister who in the exercise of those powers shall observe the requirements of sections 3(6) and 7(5) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Caithness who is in the Lobby, perhaps I should start on this amendment. The main reason for supporting this amendment is the same reason as the Government gave when they considered it necessary to add subsection (3) to Clause 15—a point just made by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. Again, like the last amendment, this one will avoid unnecessary bureaucracy between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and will enable an investigation to be held under the Agricultural Marketing Act, if that Act is thought to he a better vehicle for investigation.
I am not going to be robbed of my little story again this time, and I am afraid that I must relate to the House what has happened to this Bill since it started in another place, because it makes quite interesting reading. I am still convinced that, as a result. the. Government have

19
not appreciated the role and the particular position of the agricultural marketing boards under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958. My noble friend Lord Mottistone has not done so. That is an Act which a Conservative Government proposed and it has stood the test of time since 1958.
Perhaps I may enlighten your Lordships, and say that when this Bill first appeared in another place no order-making powers were included in it. It might have been better, certainly from my point of view, though perhaps rather less than honest, if that had not been noticed. However, it was noticed and, having been noticed, the Government tabled amendments to have order-making powers made under the Fair Trading Act 1973.
The next chapter in the story came when it was pointed out that such order-making powers could be better made under the Agricultural Marketing Act and, in fairness, the Government graciously accepted such an amendment. However, the effect of the amendment was that the Minister of Agriculture had powers to make orders, but the Secretary of State had to seek undertakings. I am glad to say, once again, that the Government accepted that such a situation was, in my language, plain crazy and in the Report stage in another place they again amended the Bill to have a power to seek undertakings jointly shared between the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture.
I hope that I have shown your Lordships the moral of my story. I would call it a bureaucratic fairy tale. Unfortunately, it is a true comedy of errors which, in fairness, the Government have appreciated and rectified as they spotted the problem. I therefore hope that your Lordships will support this amendment and Amendment No. 6—or this one if I must speak to it alone, although what I am saying applies to both—in order to make sense and to cut bureaucratic and time-wasting clerical time. I am encouraged that the story that I have related shows the Government, by their attitude to the last amendment, to be flexible enough to accept amendments and alterations to improve legislation. I hope that a similar spirit will continue throughout. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: My Lords, I support all the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and I say again that I am extremely disappointed at the Government. Their obstinacy is even greater than I thought it was. This is a reasonable case. What we are saying is that it is wrong for the agricultural marketing boards to be subjected to two procedures. They are already subject to the procedures of the 1958 Act. This Bill would make them subject to an additional procedure.
From everything that the noble Lord the Minister has said, it appears that there is no great anxiety that the Minister of Agriculture should be brought into this; or should, at least, be brought into it as little as possible. The attitude of the Government throughout has been that there is something out of place in the operations of the agricultural marketing boards.
When the point was made in Committee when we last debated this matter, I asked whether there was any evidence to support the conclusion that the agricultural marketing boards should be subjected to these additional procedures. The Minister, in his reply, said that there was no evidence, but he asked me whether there was evidence to the contrary. This introduces a very alien doctrine to this House—the European doctrine that the defendant is guilty before he is proved innocent—and it is on that basis that the Minister is now making his case.
I am bound to refer to the short speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. I was surprised at it, because I have always had great respect for him and for his fairness in argument. But at the very end of the short debate, he quoted some words and said that the Ministry of Agriculture was, in fact, a little bit of a racket. That was the case of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. He diminishes considerably in my eyes if that is the way he seeks to prove the case. I am not aware that the Ministry of Agriculture is a little hit of a racket, nor, I hope, is any Member of this House on either side; nor are the agricultural marketing boards a little bit of a racket.
This country owes a great debt of gratitude to the agricultural marketing boards and, not least, to the Milk Marketing

21
Board. A good deal of rubbish has been spoken about the Milk Marketing Board being a monopoly of some kind or other. The fact is that of all the boards, organisations, companies or firms in this country, it is the only one, to my knowledge, that has kept the level of prices down to a reasonable figure, contrary to every other commodity that I am aware of. I repeat what I said earlier, that the debt of this country arid of Parliament to the agricultural marketing bards is very substantial indeed. Therefore, I strongly advise the House that it should not subject the agricultural marketing boards to this additional machinery. It is unnecessary, there is no case for it, and the Government have not made a case. They have not produced one tittle of evidence to support their argument. If the House is honest it will vote against the Government on this amendment.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I deeply regret that I have lowered myself in respect of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I do not intend to say anything in my defence, save to point out that some of the deepest problems with which the world economy and the European economy are now confronted flow from the extravagant petting given to agriculture. I speak, and I am proud to do so, as the son of a farmer.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to point out that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, is being grossly unfair. By implication, he has condemned British agriculture because of the faults of European agriculture. The fact is that, compared with European agriculture, British agriculture, of which he is representative as the son of a farmer, has performed magnificently in the last 25 years. Indeed, from the point of view of production, productivity and efficiency, it has performed superbly compared with any other British industry. I must take the noble Lord to task in the unfair advantage he has taken in what he knows to be an illogical argument.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. I am surprised that the agricultural boards should be challenged as they have been. I go back, in theory, to the days of Dr. Addison.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, what is the noble Lord debating?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, not to worry. I know that his father was once a Socialist Member of this House, but that is another matter. I am making the point that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn has made a reasonable and sensible case
The Milk Marketing Boards of this country are the admiration of farmers throughout the world, including Europe. Therefore, let there not be any challenge in a bitter sense. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who normally is so objective, should have spoken as he did. Agriculture owes so much to the marketing structure, and I hope that it will always be strengthened.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, perhaps we may come back to the general picture rather than to the pure farming picture. The main point relates to fairness to all. We are in the competition business. As the Milk Marketing Board is a trader, it competes with other traders. We are asking for the same system for all. I shall not redeploy my other argument. All I shall say is that I am sad that the Government shot my fox on the last occasion—and at the end of the hunting season, too.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is to give the relevant Minister the right to veto an investigation on his own initiative and, by implication, regardless of the views of the Secretary of State for Trade. The doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility renders this amendment not only unnecessary, but thoroughly objectionable. This point emerges strongly from this amendment. We have one Government —not a Government for agriculture, a Government for industry and a Government for the consumers. The implication of the amendment is to enable one Minister to exercise a power of veto where another Minister would not be prepared to exercise that power.
Therefore. I very much hope that my noble friend will say that he does not wish to cast doubt on the principle of ministerial responsibility, which I am sure lie both understands and accepts. If he does not do so, the only arguments in

23
favour of this amendment relate to administrative convenience. I assure your Lordships that from that point of view the Government are satisfied that Clause 15. as it stands, fulfils this purpose.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, because I appreciate that there is collective responsibility. On the other hand, I do not think it is the job of the Secretary of State for Trade to he totally au fait with the agricultural global package.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, may I ask the House to allow me to ask my noble friend whether the Minister of Agriculture is wholly au fait, as my noble friend puts it, with the principles of competition and fair trading?
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I think with the help of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade, yes; and I am sure that he is in his own right, too. I think that in this case the Minister of Agriculture should be given the right to say: No. this is the wrong Act under which to make any investigation or reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The right Act is the 1958 Act because it is more comprehensive and covers the extra points with which I wish to deal. If that power is not given to the Minister of Agriculture, there could be great duplication of work, and perhaps the wrong type of investigation when the time comes.
However, as the Government were so kind on our first amendment, perhaps we can he equally kind to them on this one in the hope that they will be kind to us on our third one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.36 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDER LEY Lord STANLEY of ALDER LEY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 21, line 42, at end insert—
(" ( ) The Secretary of State shall not make a reference to the Commission under section 11(1) above of any question relating to a person falling within section 11(3)(d) above nor vary such a reference under section 11(6) above except acting jointly with the relevant Minister.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that we got rather out of schedule because of the trick played by the Government in not nominating tellers on the previous amendment that came up for Division. However, it seems that we are now three-all and doing rather better than the team which I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and I supported on Saturday. The main purpose of this amendment is to cut out unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy between Government departments. The simplest solution would have been to remove boards from Clause 11, but the Government, for reasons unknown, would not accept such a solution. I am afraid that this amendment is a compromise.
The effect of the amendment would be that before an agricultural marketing board was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, it would be necessary for both the Secretary of State for Trade and the Minister of Agriculture to take such action jointly. This would mean no unnecessary duplication of research by either the Department of Trade or the Ministry of Agriculture. It would make possible an early decision on whether the agricultural marketing boards should be investigated under the Bill or under the Agricultural Marketing Act. Therefore, it would involve only one Ministry instead of two departments doing their own thing, completely oblivious of what the other was doing. There is exactly similar wording on joint action in the Fair Trading Act. Far be it from me to try to improve on the wording of a Conservative Act of Parliament.
Finally, I wish to adopt the point made in a leader in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, a newspaper which my family does not normally allow me to read. It made the point that the great problem facing the Government was to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy. Here is a start, albeit a small one, that might save some time and money—or is it just the private sector and industry which have to contract and not central Government?
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in the reasonable case he has made. I do not think I have ever been in a position of losing such a good case as in

25
respect of this matter. The case for the agricultural marketing boards and against the Government's action under the Bill is overwhelming. It is a great tragedy that the Government have seen fit to persist in their obduracy up to this very last point in this legislation. I feel that on this amendment I stand in the last ditch, to coin an agricultural phrase. Here I propose to stand without retreating any further, but I hope that the Government will see reason. If the Government do not concede this point, it will mean that the agricultural marketing boards will be subject to the 1958 Act and its machinery, which was set up by a Conservative Government in 1958. It is their machinery that we are by implication criticising by introducing this provision. A reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, on top of that, would be highly unsatisfactory and something which should be resisted at all costs.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as one who had something to do with agriculture in Scotland at the time the marketing boards were being set up, may I say a word about this. Nobody impugns the good intentions of marketing boards; they are given, by and large, responsibilities and they carry them out very well. But people become accustomed to certain types of organisation and certain practices and they go on with them after they have ceased to have the effect that they were designed to have. In other words, they have become outdated. This can more often be perceived from outside the organisation than from within it. It is for this reason that it is a good thing that the Secretary of State should have the power to have these practices investigated at a given point. It may not always be right, for example, to fine people for growing more potatoes than they are allowed. That is a very restrictive practice and it is one which it might be quite proper at a certain stage for the Government to look into.
I do not in the slightest mind this amendment, provided that it means only that the agriculture Minister should be aware of what is happening. if he disagrees, obviously the matter will go to the Cabinet and the Cabinet will decide. Then the agriculture Minister, if he loses in the Cabinet, jolly well has to agree, and that will be done jointly. If it works
26
like this—fine. But if, as my noble friend said, it means that the agriculture Minister is going to have a veto, then I would not agree with it at all. At that stage I will leave it to my noble friend to explain.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I have already deployed broadly the same argument for the last two amendments and will now proceed further along the same line in connection with this amendment. If noble Lords think that this Government or their predecessor would not follow the principle of collective ministerial responsibility in respect of agricultural marketing boards, I must ask them to consider the implications of these doubts. If collective ministerial responsibility does not operate as it should, then the Government would have to revise wholesale the legislation which they administer to ensure that every Minister who has a legitimate and direct interest in a particular problem is entitled to be consulted or to act separately or jointly with the Minister who has the prime responsibility.
Let me give an example. The agricultural marketing legislation contains provisions for the protection of consumers, but it makes no provision for the Minister with general responsibility for consumer affairs to be consulted, let alone to exercise independent powers in relation to marketing boards. I do not hear the noble Lords moving the amendment clamouring for the Agricultural Marketing Act to be amended to allow this. Indeed, I must make it clear that I do not think it should be, because I believe in collective ministerial responsibility and co-operation. I am satisfied that where the interests of other Ministers are directly affected, this system will operate to ensure that their views are sought and that a decision acceptable to the Government as a whole is arrived at. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend why it was that in the Fair Trading Act the words"joint action"were inserted and not just the word"consultation "? If the reasons that he has just given to us apply now, surely they applied then. If a matter is raised under the Fair Trading Act, joint

27
action has to he taken. I can foresee that there will be arguments as to whether it should come under that Act—joint action where the Minister of Agriculture puts his name to the same bit of paper—or under this one where it is only the Secretary of State. Perhaps my noble friend could answer that question.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think I did answer my noble friend—I am speaking, I hope, with the leave of the House—when I spoke to an earlier amendment. The circumstances are not quite the same. Probably I had better rest my case on that. The circumstances are indeed different because the point at which the consultation takes place under the Agricultural Marketing Act is different.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put a final question to him which I think will assist the House in coming to a conclusion? If the 1958 Act is as unsatisfactory as he now seems to imply that it is, why has it taken 22 years for the noble Lord and his Government to decide to introduce these new additional measures?
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I intervene only briefly, because I have said it before. What we want is equal treatment for all. Why should there by anything special for the farmers? The 1958 Act is 22 years old. Maybe it is a bit old. That seems to me to he the answer.
Lord CLEDWYN of PEN RHOS: My Lords, with respect, the answer to that is that the other companies——
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, we are getting a little bit out of order. There is a very firm rule that no noble Lord may speak more than once at any stage other than at the Committee stage unless he is asking a question of my noble friend before he sits down.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his assistance. Before he sits down, will the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, agree that the other companies, boards and
28
organisations to which he refers are not subject to the provisions of the 1958 Act?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, would like me to answer that point—why we have not done it for 22 years—the answer is that this Bill is to promote competition and to regulate anti-competitive practices which are found to be against the public interest. I could ask the noble Lord why his Government did not bring it in.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, as I moved the amendment, I think I am in order to finish it. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn pointed out that outside organisations should look at our affairs, if one calls the agricultural marketing boards my affairs. May I ask him to look very carefully at what the committees of investigation or at what the consumers' associations on those boards do. When he has a chance to do so, perhaps he will look at them. They are very powerful bodies; certainly they arc not puppets. Therefore, I think that we are getting outside organisations to look at our affairs.
The other point I want to make is that we are not asking that the Minister of Agriculture should have a veto. I accept entirely that, at the end of the day, if there are comings and goings, it will be a Cabinet responsibility or a ministerial responsibility. What I am trying to do by moving this amendment is to stop all the palaver beforehand. Obviously when something comes up for investigation or for any action to be taken it does not go straight to the Minister; it goes to somebody much further on. If they know that, at the end of the day, this is there, the whole process will be simplified. I am afraid that on this occasion I cannot accept the Government's answer. I shall have to follow my little parable and try to"convert the try"which my noble friend started earlier on. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 77.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Amherst, E.

Glasgow, E.

Peart, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Balogh, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Banks, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Barrington, V.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Birk,B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Boothby, L.

Henderson, L.

Sharpies, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Henley, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stamp, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Byers, L.

Janner, L.

[Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Kennet, L.

Stedman, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stone, L.

[Teller.]

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strauss, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crook, L.

Listowel, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

De Freyne, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wigoder, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Effingham, E.

McFadzean, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mancroft, L.

Allerton, L.

Energlyn, L.

Margadale, L.

Alport, L.

Exeter, M.

Merrivale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Morris, L.

Auckland, L.

Fulton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Avon, E.

Gainford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Galloway, E.

Newall, L.

Barnby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Norfolk, D.

Bellwin, L.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redmayne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Renton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hailsham of Staint Marylebone,

Robbins, L.

Caccia, L.

L. (L. Chancellor.)

Roberthall, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Halsbury, E.

St. Davids, V.

Carrington, L. (A Principal

Han worth, V.

St. Just, L.

Secretary of Stale.)

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Clvvyd, L.

Ilchester, E.

Smith, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Spens, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Lloyd, L.

Trenchard, V.

Davidson, V.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

de Clifford, L.

Loudoun, C.

Vickers, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

Lyell, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amend-merit disagreed to accordingly.
3.58 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 22, line 8, leave out (" in ") and insert (" for ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon an earlier amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Suspension of declarations under Section 1(3) of Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 pending revision of agreements]:
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 28, line 7, after (" after ") insert (" which ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this minor technical amendment is to amend Clause 11(4)(b) of the Bill so that the relevant department described there

31
is the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Exemption of copyright agreements from Restrictive Trade Practices Acts]:
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 31, line 18, after (" subsists ") insert (" or will subsist ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is, I hope, uncontentious. It renders Clause 26(4) of the Bill as drafted grammatically correct and ensures that the clause has the meaning that it was intended to have. The amendment does not affect the intended operation of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 31, line 27. after ("subsists ") insert ("or will subsist ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 together.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord is one out.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I have got my numbering out of order. I apologise for this disorganisation, which is due to the printing difficulties we suffered this morning with regard to the Marshalled List. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are clearly consequential on Amendment No. 9. They are technical amendments. It is intended that Clause 30 of the Bill should confer exemption from the restrictive practices legislation on all agreements relating solely to copyright whether such agreements relate to existing works or works yet to be be produced. I am advised that there is some doubt whether paragraph (2) of paragraph 5A actually achieves this object. The amendment is designed to remove that uncertainty. I beg to move.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, these three amendments are
32
uncontentious, and I am glad that the noble Lord has removed any ambiguity that may surround them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 31, line 45, after (" subsists ") insert (` or will subsist ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Short-title, interpretation, repeals, commencement and extent]:
4.2 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 32, line 35, after (" provides ") insert (— and subject to section 23 of this Act ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 33 is the interpretation clause and it operates by reference to the interpretation sections of two earlier Acts. It says, among other things, that if you want to know the meaning of the"supply of services ", you are to look at Section 137 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. But what it omits to say is that that definition of"supply of services"has already been amended by Clause 23 of this Bill.
The purpose of this amendment is to insert a signpost to warn the reader that this is so. When I moved a similar amendment on Report I was told that the amendment was not strictly necessary, and I agree with that in the sense that without it the clause is not defective. But this Bill, like many Acts of Parliament, is full of useful signposts. Take, for instance, subsection (6) of Clause 12, which refers to four different sections of an earlier Act, and after each reference it gives in brackets an explanation of what each section referred to is about. The draftsman could have said:"I am not going to clutter my subsection with a lot of descriptive matter about sections of earlier Acts; people can look that up for themselves ". But Parliament says:"Let the Statutes be readily intelligible and let signposts be inserted where they are useful to the reader ". This signpost, warning people about this definition having been amended by an earlier clause of the Bill, is in my submission a useful signpost, bearing in mind that people do not read Acts of Parliament from begin-

33
ning to end; they dart about among the sections, and it is very easy to fail to remember what an earlier section said when you are reading the interpretation section at the end. The Government did not see fit to accept one single Opposition amendment, either in Committee or on Report, and there were a great many of them. This is their last chance. I beg to move.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, once again I want to assure the noble Lord that the Government sympathise with his aim of improving the clarity and intelligibility of legislation. We recognise that the amendment is intended to help the layman, and even perhaps the practising lawyer, to avoid pitfalls in the interpretation of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will accept that we are not just being obstinate if we see difficulties in his proposal. As he said, his amendment is a slight variant on the earlier version that he put forward at an earlier stage. I am afraid the change is not for the better. The new wording of the amendment implies that Clause 23 of the Bill qualifies the application of Section 137 of the Fair Trading Act. This is misleading, since Clause 23 in fact makes a textual amendment to that section which applies without qualification. The noble Lord's original wording was actually better.
I turn to the main point at issue. Our problem is that we must be concerned
not only with the immediate effect of the amendment on the intelligibility of a particular provision, but also with its effect on the interpretation of the Bill as a whole. Ultimately, what matters is the interpretation of the Bill when enacted by the courts. The courts will not read our debates; they will read the Act itself. If they find that the Act gives a different treatment to points which might be expected to receive identical treatment, they may well read a quite unintended significance into the distinction.
In this case there is a general rule in the Interpretation Act 1978 that any reference to an earlier enactment is to be taken to be a reference to that enactment as amended by subsequent legislation, including the legislation in which the reference itself appears. This general rule applies unless there is some indication of a contrary intention. As the noble Lord said, the Interpretation Act does not
34
prevent the use of cross references of the kind contained in his amendment. It merely makes them unnecessary. But we have to consider the implication of a departure from the general rule. If in this one provision we explicitly point out that we are referring to an enactment in its amended form, this might be taken by the courts as an indication that in other cases, where we make no such explicit cross references, we intend to refer to the enactment in its unamended form. I cannot say whether it is likely that a court would take this interpretation, but we cannot be sure that they would not; we do not think it worth taking this risk. I regret, therefore, that I must advise the House against accepting the amendment, or perhaps the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for having taken a great deal of trouble over this. I shall have great pleasure in studying in Hansard what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In the Title:
4.9 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 13:
Line 5, leave out (" bodies corporate ") and insert (" persons ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 3, which I inadvertently moved as Amendment No. 4. In the Long Title it reflects the effect of Amendment No. 15 made on Report, which substituted"persons for"body corporate"in Clause 11(3)(b), thus bringing partnerships and sole traders within the scope of investigations under that part of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.10 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. May I just make one observation. I do not wish to go again into the detailed provisions of the Bill. With regard to the Price Commission, there is one point which should be placed on record: the Government are aware that some disquiet

35
has been expressed about the continuing confidentiality of records still in the hands of the Price Commission. When the Commission is abolished all its remaining files will become the property of the Secretary of State. They will not be available for public inspection until 30 years have elapsed, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Acts. During that period it is not the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade to allow the material to be made available to the public or to the Office of Fair Trading; nor is it his department's intention to requisition any of these files for its own use or to let other departments requisition them. If, exceptionally, these arrangements need to be modified, the CBI will be consulted beforehand. I trust that that explanation will set at rest any fears which have been raised on this subject. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord BARN BY: My Lords, the Bill will doubtless receive the agreement of the House. I should like to raise a matter with the Minister and if he cannot answer today perhaps he will be good enough to write to me. I should like to know at what stage in the previous progress of the Bill the following point, which I am informed is not now included in the Bill, was raised. I am referring to a matter which affects every shareholder in every public company that publicly reports its figures. It is within the knowledge of all of your Lordships that there is not infrequently reference in percentage figures to the performance of the year reported on by comparison with the previous year. Often those percentages are in low figures. It is obvious that, in times of high inflation and the debasement of the currency, such low figures mislead the shareholders. Indeed, there are many shareholders who are relatively ignorant of the arrangements with regard to public company accounting, in spite of the fact that there must have been many references in the course of the Bill to revision of accountancy practice. If a shareholder sees a 4 per cent. or a 6 per cent. increase in a period of 18 per cent. inflation, and a debasement of the currency to that degree, it is obvious that what appears to be an
36
improvement is, in fact, a deterioration of the conditions of the company. I claim that that is misleading to all shareholders. I am perplexed about the point at which that matter was raised and rejected in the course of the Bill.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I have a sad duty to perform because I have to scatter a handful of earth on the coffin of price control. The Bill not only abolishes the Price Commission, but effectively removes from the Secretary of State and the Government any responsibility for price control. Only under extreme conditions can the Secretary of State give directions for a price increase to be investigated.
The relevant clause, Clause 13, is so tightly drawn that the possibility of the Secretary of State giving a direction is remote. Like a group of political Pontius Pilates the Government wash their hands of responsibility, although by their own financial policies they have helped almost to double inflation in 10 months.
It is particularly to be regretted that, although during the passage of the Bill we have had soothing bromides from Ministers, no specific reference is made in the Bill to the right of consumers or approved consumer organisations to make representations on prices or anti-competitive practices to the Secretary of State or the Director General of Fair Trading.
Great faith in the virtue of competition is displayed by the Government in this Bill. Competition, I agree, can reduce prices in a situation of reasonable supply. Competition, on the other hand, increases prices in a situation of short supply. Therefore, there is not a complete answer. The growth of supermarkets and hypermarkets is already creating difficulty and will spell doom to the small trader facing, as he does, high interest rates and increased rates and rents. I see little help or hope for the small trader ill the Bill.
Today inflation is near 20 per cent. and prices are still rising. Many wage settlements are near or above 20 per cent., are still rising and may get higher. Due to high interest rates bank profits are enormous and unemployment is rising. Sooner or later the Government must have an incomes, prices and profits policy—not to do so will provoke economic disaster.

37
This little Bill, which I accept is commendable in parts, will do nothing to ease the serious situation facing Britain today.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am sure that all those companies who were investigated by the Price Commission will be very pleased to have heard what my noble friend had to say about the very rigorous security that will be applied to the records of the Price Commission. I note also, and with pleasure, that any reason for changing that arrangement will be relayed to the CBI at the appropriate stage.
Perhaps my noble friends will allow me to talk to my noble friend on the Front Bench because I wish to ask him a question. I noticed that when my noble friend told us who would not be allowed to see the records of the Price Commisson he mentioned the Director General of Fair Trading—and that, of course, we welcome —but he did not mention the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Will the records of the Price Commission be kept from them? If my noble friend does not know at this stage, perhaps he could write to me and we shall get the matter on to the record somehow, perhaps through a Question. This is quite an important point. We would prefer—and I make this point seriously and authoritatively—that the Civil Service should not see the records of the Price Commission, though I think that that is probably asking a little too much under the existing legislation. However, they are records which deserve to be buried as swiftly as possible.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend Lord Mottistone that the records of the Price Commission will be equally as unavailable to the MMC as they will be to the Director General of Fair Trading, except, of course, in accordance with the provisions which I mentioned. I hope that your Lordships will now agree that the Bill should pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

DIN NERS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it was agreed through the usual channels that, as the House will probably not sit unduly late tonight, dinners should not be
38
available. In accordance with the usual practice I did not make a statement about that negative decision. But it has been represented to me since that there has been a certain amount of confusion among your Lordships as to what services will be provided tonight. So I thought that I would just make it clear that there will be no dinners available in the dining room, although, of course, the grill room will be operating.

NATIONAL HERITAGE BILL
4.19 p.m.
Bill read 3a;with the amendments.
Clause 1 [Establishment of National Heritage Memorial Fund]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out (" hereinafter referred to as the"Heritage Fund"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. There are two separate loose ends to tie up as a result of the amendment moved to Clause 1(1) on Report. The first concerns the way in which we refer to the fund in the Bill. As regards that matter I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 1; and Amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 7 to 15 and 17 and 18 by my noble friend Lord Reigate. The second matter concerns the corporate name of the trustees. As regards that matter, I should like to speak to my Amendments Nos. 4 and 16 and Amendment No. 3 tabled by my noble friend Lord Reigate. I apologise to your Lordships for bringing up these points at this stage, but we are dealing with a very complicated piece of drafting which was tabled as a starred amendment, which our legal advisers had little opportunity to study before the debate; and one of the purposes of Third Reading is to get this sort of matter put right.
The statement, which is embodied in Clause 1(1) as amended, which says that the fund is referred to in the Bill as the"Heritage Fund ", is incorrect. My noble friend Lord Reigate seeks to cure this blemish by adding the word"Heritage"before"fund"wherever the word"fund"appears. The alternative is to dispense,

39
as we suggest in our amendment, with the words"hereinafter referred to as the Heritage Fund ". We think our amendment is the more elegant and economical. We lose the benefit of having a shorter name for the fund on the face of the statute, but I should stress, however, that the Bill provides only that this shorter name is for use in the Bill itself.
I am not sure how much of a loss that would be. There are other examples of bodies in the arts world whose formal names are shortened in common parlance. For instance, the Arts Council of Great Britain, as it is described in its charter, is always known in ordinary discourse as the Arts Council; and the Hall of the Arts and Science is always known as the Royal Albert Hall, or even the Albert Hall. Do we really need to legislate for ordinary discourse?
There is a further small problem if we follow my noble friend's amendments. If we leave in the statement that my Amendment No. 1 seeks to delete, then, in the next subsection, we have a reference to the fund which is in strictness a reference to the name of the trustees. I will come back to this point later, but it leaves an ambiguity in the Bill which it would be desirable to get rid of.
If we wanted to go into this seriously, it would be possible to tackle the matter by means of more drastic redrafting, but I do not think we should attempt that at Third Reading. So far as this point is concerned, it is largely a matter of taste whether our Amendment No. 1 is preferred to my noble friend Lord Reigate's Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 7 to 15, 17 and 18, though his amendments would leave us with this minor logical blemish in the first few lines of the statute.
My Amendments Nos. 4 and 16 and my noble friend's Amendment No. 3 raise a different matter. We are here dealing not with the name of the fund, but with the corporate name of the trustees; the name by which they are to be known. The Bill says quite firmly that the fund is to be known as the National Heritage Memorial Fund, and I put it to your Lordships that it would be decidedly odd to provide that the body corporate of the trustees was to be known by a name different from that by which the Bill provides for the fund itself to be known.
To summarise the position, as regards the name of the trustees, I strongly advise your Lordships to accept Amendments Nos. 4 and 16 standing in my name, and I hope my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment No. 3. As regards the other references to the fund in the Bill, in the light of what I have said, my noble friend may wish to withdraw his other Amendments, Nos. 2 and 5, and 7 to 15, 17 and 18, but if not, as I have said, this is a matter of taste and I am content to abide by the wishes of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, my noble friend has been kind enough to give me some elucidation of what he was about to say. The issue seems to be a fairly simple one. I thought that on the Report stage the amendment which I put forward met the sentiments of all sides of the House and provided the fund with what might be termed a convenient, short, corporate name under which it could act and have its being. Afterwards, it was pointed out to me that I had made a technical error in not referring to it as the"Heritage Fund"throughout the Bill, and all my amendments are consequential on the fact that it is clearer to refer to it as the"Heritage Fund ".
My noble friend leaves me in a dilemma, because as I understand it, it would now be illegal for the fund to use the name"Heritage Fund ". Unless it is, in some form, given legal authority by this Bill, it would become simply a nickname. This is what I was initially advised, which is one of the reasons that I have included the reference:"… hereinafter referred to as the"Heritage Fund "
It is a little unfortunate—and I am not sure whose fault it is—that we must have these rather petty arguments on drafting points at this late stage in the Bill. I should like my noble friend to satisfy me as to whether, in fact, the body can usefully operate as the"Heritage Fund ". I raised the rather flippant reference to the telephone operator having to answer the telephone every time it rings with,"National Heritage Memorial Fund ". I am sure that that could be overcome without anything ensuing, but in legal documents and in the publications the fund might have—for instance, its annual report—would it be in order to refer to it as the,"Heritage Fund "? Can my

41
noble friend answer that? I should have thought not. Therefore, I think that this becomes rather important.
However, I am in some difficulty. This is all having to be done in rather a hurry, which I deplore. I should like to have the opinion of the House as a whole as to whether what I might call the"Reigate system"is or is not better than the"Mowbray system ", or should I say correctly the"Mowbray, Segrave and Stourton system "?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I also find myself in a dilemma here. Being eminently reasonable, I find that I like parts of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and parts of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate. There have been occasions when I have been very ready to criticise the drafting of officials. We had the Report stage of this Bill last Monday and Tuesday, and at the end of that stage it was not altogether clear quite what had been accepted or what was happening. The feeling or the House at that time was that first and foremost Members wanted what is in the Bill—what it is a memorial for and about.
My feeling was that it should be the"National Heritage Fund ", because that would involve a smaller change than changing it to the"Heritage Fund ", but I do not feel very strongly about that. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, that it would be possible to use this as a working title. It would be rather heavy going, for instance, if writing paper were headed the"National Heritage Memorial Fund ". 1 wonder whether there is a way in which we can get round this. I take the point about," hereinafter referred to as the Heritage Fund '"and the question of the vesting in trustees—that is a problem. But on page 9 of the Bill I am quite happy for it to be spelt out as it is, that:
" Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the transfer to the Trustees ".
I should hate this Bill to be held up any further. Indeed, perhaps one way of tackling this problem could be for a manuscript amendment to be tabled immediately. If the drafting which the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has attempted to amend is incorrect—and it seems to me that there is some substance in that—
42
and if we go along with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and call it the"National Heritage Memorial Fund ", would it be possible to insert in the correct place in the Bill:
"…hereinafter known as the Heritage Fund or the National Heritage Fund "?
If it is possible to do that, I have a feeling from what was said last time that it would probably suit us all because the genesis of it is included. We have the spelt-out title where it should be so far as the trustees and the fund are concerned. All we lack is the legal or statutory permission to be able to use a shorter working title for the operation of the fund. I think there that either the"Heritage Fund"or"National Heritage Fund"makes rather more sense once it gets under way and starts working than this rather long title. Whether that is a possibility, I do not know.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, in this difficult semantic problem I feel some considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray. It seems to me that as regards legal documents and letter headings The National Heritage Memorial Fund"is a suitable title. I cannot believe that in ordinary speech it will be referred to as other than the"Heritage Fund ". But that does not seem to me to matter very much. The important thing is the legal status and the letter headings. As regards the letter headings, on the whole I think that it is rather more important and conveys exactly what your Lordships have wished to be the spirit of the Bill throughout.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has really made the point that I should like to make. The fund is not able to act under its shorter name in legal parlance. It is only a name to refer to it by in the Bill. In fact, it would be a nickname, as my noble friend Lord Reigate said. I do not think there is any matter of great import in this. It is a matter of elegance and neatness. I should like to leave it like that. I should like your Lordships to prefer my Amendment No. 1 to my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 7 to 15, 17 and 18.
On a more important note, I take grave issue over my Amendments Nos. 4 and 16

43
to my noble friend's Amendment No. 3. But as regards the first set, I hope your Lordships will take Lord Robbins' advice and my advice, and that my noble friend might see fit in the circumstances not to move his amendments. It is not a matter of grave import. It is just a matter of how we phrase it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.32 p.m.
Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, after (" the") insert (" Heritage ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend will note that I did not even say"object ", or anything else, on the last amendment, so it will be obvious that I am going to withdraw this amendment. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, says. I just think that it is a pity that we have had to do all this in such a hurry. If the draftsmen had been locked up together for a little while they could have produced something that would have satisfied everybody. But there it is, we have reached this stage, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert (" Memorial ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this has been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Payments in to the Fund]:
4.35 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 13, leave out (" Ministers ") and insert (" Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (in this Act referred to as"the Ministers ") ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment to the amendment moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, to provide for appointment of the trustees by the
44
Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister instead of by the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We still need this clarification as to who the Ministers are who are referred to in this Bill, and this is the appropriate point to insert it. I beg to move.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I find that this is totally illogical and unnecessary. My noble friend will have noticed that Clause 18 says who the Ministers are. It says:
"the Ministers ' means the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ".
I see no reason to put it in at an earlier stage. My noble friend said that this was consequential on my amendment stating that the trustees should be appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister. It is nothing of the sort. I fully realise that throughout the text of the Bill"the Ministers"are there, but I satisfied myself that who the Ministers were was stated clearly in Clause 18. Therefore, I see no reason whatsoever for this amendment.
My noble friend may be aware that Clause 18 is what is sometimes known as an interpretation clause. There are plenty of occasions when, for example, the Treasury is referred to, and to find the reason why"the Treasury"means the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the Chancellor of the Exchequer (your Lordships will see why I got a little obsessed with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster), you have to go back, to, I think, 1880. I think it is unnecessary.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, I must"come clean"to your Lordships. After my noble friend Lord Reigate had carried his amendments giving the responsibility for the appointment of the trustees to the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister, I rose and mentioned that I thought that a consequential amendment might be needed on the lines now proposed, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Reigate that this amendment does not seem to be necessary atfer all. it brings us to the strange position which, so far as I know, is unprecedented, that we shall have in this fairly short Bill two identical definitions of the expression"the Ministers ", as my noble friend Lord Reigate has pointed out. It is unnecessary and it is tauto-

45
logical to have such a situation. Therefore, perhaps my noble friend Lord Mowbray would reconsider whether his amendment really is necessary.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the last speakers over this. I can see how the problem has arisen, because in this case the Minister for the Arts is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. This is explained in Clause 18, but by spelling out earlier in the Bill the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, it seems to me that one is building that into a statute. I think that this is rather strange. This is nothing to do with the present incumbent of that office personally, but there is no reason for us to believe that this situation going on in perpetuity, or that it will always be the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. One day there may be a Secretary of State for the Arts, or it may be decided to rearrange the whole order of Ministers who have responsibility for the Arts and the heritage.
I am a little worried about building it in there at that point when this is not something just for this Parliament; it is something to go on the statute book. I see people in the future looking at this and wondering what it is all about. While they can turn to Cause 18, I should have thought that here it should still be"Ministers "; then one turns to Clause 18 to see what the present position is. I am not convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has said to US.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, if there are two definitions in different parts of the Bill it may be unnecessary but does it do any harm so long as they are identical, which they are?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cottesloe's last question has me wondering. My noble friend Lord Reigate's amendment to provide:hat the trustees are appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister had the effect of deleting from Clause 1(2) the words explaining that the Ministers in the Bill were the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The amendment reinstates this clarification at the earliest possible moment. It is important to indicate who the Ministers
46
are; it is no good having"Ministers"in the Bill without the point being clarified and it is not good practice to rely entirely on an interpretation clause. This is a matter of drafting style and the parliamentary draftsmen have advised us specifically that the Bill should be drafted in this way.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, having regard to the existing Ministerial hierarchy and the relationships of the persons concerned, I am inclined to agree with what has been urged by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, but I would ask the noble Lord, in his other capacity of being mixed up from time to time with the usual channels, whether, in the event of responsibility for the arts departing from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whoever he may be at the time, an alteration could be made in the legal position nullifying this reference in the Bill?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I do not think there is any intention of nullifying the interests of my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Duchy or the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Lord ROBBINS: That was not my intention, my Lords. My intention was simply to ask whether, if responsibility for the arts ceased to adhere to the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, an amending Bill could be rushed through in order that the rest of the measure should not be illegally orientated.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should have said that there is no statutory title"Minister of the Crown with Responsibility for the Arts ". This is merely a factual description of the Ministers who from time to time have that responsibility.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, unless I have missed it, it seems that nowhere does the Bill say that the Secretary of State referred to is the Secretary of State for the Environment; it simply refers to the Secretary of State, and there are lots of them. Then, in Clause 18, it defines the duties of
" the Chancellor in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown with responsibility for the Arts "

47
but, nevertheless, it says that"Minister"means"Secretary of State ". Should it not at some point refer to the Secretary of State for the Environment, if we are going to spell it out?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am certain that if one looks at the Bill in its entirety the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are spelt out in full, and I am not worried on that point.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not want to press the noble Lord unnecessarily, but if, as he says, it is spelt out—and I am sorry to be stupid about it—may I ask him to bring to my attention where it is spelt out? I am informed by some of my noble friends that they, too, are unable to find it. I cannot find any reference to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, a note has just come to my hand saying that it is standard practice not to refer specifically to particular Secretaries of State but to refer to"Secretary of State"at large. That may explain the point the noble Baroness is worrying about.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, the Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say"Content "; to the contrary,"Not Content ".
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Not-Content.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the"Not Contents"have it.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, could the Question be put again?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, your Lordships have decided that you are Not-Content as regards Amendment No. 6.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I am sorry, my Lords; I should have said"Content ".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, from my knowledge of the procedure of
48
the House it is not possible to go back on a decision of the House once it has been taken.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Perhaps the Question could be put again.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I say, my Lords, my experience of your Lordships' House is that it is not possible to go back on a decision, once taken.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, this is a matter which, I think, is dependent on the wish of the House and I ask the House for its indulgence. It was a very complicated set of amendments to which we were speaking and they were very confused. I would ask the indulgence of noble Lords to allow the Question on the amendment to be put again. Unless anybody specifically objects, I suggest that the Deputy Speaker puts the Question again.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I take that to be the the wish of the House, my Lords, I will do that.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Go ahead, put it again.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If no member of your Lordships' House objects, I will put the Question again.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 15 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Transfer of Ministerial functions]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 9, line 2, leave out (" Heritage ") and insert (" National Heritage Memorial ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment; I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
4.48 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

49
I think few here will disagree with me when I say that this was a good Bill even when it was first introduced. Since then, of course, it has received thorough consideration in another place and a number of major improvements have been made, not least in the extension of the indemnity proposals in Part III. I would like once again to acknowledge the role played by my honourable friend Mr. Hector Monro in steering this Bill through another place.
Today we near the end of our own consideration of this draft legislation. Your Lordships have also been extremely thorough in your deliberations and, though the Government have not been able to accept all the amendments tabled, I believe you, too, have secured significant improvements. As a result, we now have a Bill which has been tuned very finely to the views of those who are closely concerned with the preservation of our heritage. I must also express the Government's gratitude to your Lordships for your co-operation in helping the Government keep to their rather tight deadline on this Bill. I, too, had to forego my dinner hour on Monday and Tuesday last week, so I am well aware of the sacrifice in which we have all been involved. In particular, I thank the two Front Bench Opposition peers, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to whose work the Bill owes so much.
I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate and stress a number of points which I regard as important and to expand slightly on others which we did not have an appropriate opportunity to discuss fully. First, the new fund, the Heritage Fund, will have enormous advantages over its predecessor, the National Land Fund. Perhaps chief among these will be its independence of government, an independence which has been increased by your Lordships' House through the removal of the clause which required the trustees to obtain Treasury approval for loans. And, of course, unlike Government departments which have responsibility for separate parts of the heritage, the trustees will be dealing with the heritage as a whole. Furthermore, the Government have always been concerned to give the trustees the widest possible
50
powers to preserve the heritage, which are consistent with adequate parliamentary control over expenditure. It has always been our intention that the trustees should be able to help, wherever and however they wish, without recourse to long debates over whether they have power to do so. I think we have now succeeded in giving the trustees wide powers in this way.
Having said that, my Lords, I think it is worth stressing again that the Heritage Fund will primarily be a source of assistance to the very wide range of bodies, listed in Clause 3(6), who are concerned with the preservation of the heritage. It will be for these bodies to approach the trustees when they have an item in mind which they wish to acquire, and, for the most part, the trustees will wish to provide only a proportion of the cost of acquisition and preservation. So, it will still be necessary for the acquiring body to shoulder some of the cost, either through its own funds, or by public appeal.
Above all, I think we must recognise that the Fund is a"safety net"to prevent the loss of the most important parts of our heritage. The Government are satisfied that it will have sufficient resources at its disposal to fulfil this role. But it cannot provide, and was not designed to provide, for the vast range of items—land, houses, paintings, manuscripts, and other works of art—which individuals will regard as part of the heritage. Only those items which can be considered outstanding—and it will be left to the trustees themselves to define that term—will be given assistance. This is not to say, of course, that the Government underestimate the importance of the contribution that the new Fund will make to the preservation of the heritage, and we hope that as it becomes established and attracts private funds, this contribution will steadily increase.
I should like now to say a few words about Part II of the Bill, which deals with acceptance in lieu. We believe that the amendments tabled by the Government on the question of keeping items in their historic locations where appropriate arc a major step forward. It does not mean, of course, that all items accepted in satisfaction of tax will automatically be loaned back to their former owners for display in historic houses. That was never

51
the intention. But what those amendments have secured, is the clarification of existing legislation. It is now crystal clear, both that items may be considered pre-eminent because of a significant association with a particular historic setting, and that, in appropriate cases, such items should be left in those settings.
Few who have experienced the lack of atmosphere in a country house, bereft of its family heirlooms and furniture, would deny the logic of this policy. As perhaps the first fruits of this new and enlightened attitude I would draw your Lordships' attention to the decision announced by the Treasury to accept, in lieu of tax, some portraits at Arundel. These, whilst becoming the property of the National Portrait Gallery, are to be loaned back for display at Arundel. Since these are portraits of my ancestors and ancestors of my noble cousin the Duke of Norfolk, the decision gives me personally very much pleasure.
Since no opportunity presented itself in Committee or on Report, perhaps I might take this chance to reply briefly to those noble Lords who, on Second Reading, questioned whether reimbursement of the Inland Revenue for property accepted in lieu of tax could properly be regarded as public expenditure. The answer, my Lords, is yes. When a work of art, or other heritage property, is accepted in lieu, the Government are denying themselves the opportunity of deciding to spend in a different way the money which would otherwise have been collected in tax. In effect, they are deciding to spend that money on acquiring pre-eminent properties, in just the same way as I should be doing if one of your Lordships owed me £10 and offered me his watch instead of the cash. The effect on the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement would be the same, whether the Government spent a million pounds, or decided to forego tax revenue of a million pounds.
Resources devoted to acceptance in lieu should be subject to the same controls as apply to other forms of Government spending. The present arrangements, and those which will apply after the provision of Clause 8 comes into effect, ensure that this is done in conformity with the general principles of parliamentary and Government accounting and expenditure control. I accept that this procedure is not a simple
52
matter to grasp, but I am not persuaded that a system of notional credits, as my noble friend Lord Vaizey suggested, would be any simpler.
Lastly, I should like to reassure the House once again about Clause 14. As I have explained, this clause is designed to provide flexibility for the future by enabling the Government to transfer responsibility to the trustees of the Heritage Fund without recourse to primary legislation. The Government recognise that there is divided opinion among heritage interests as to whether such a transfer would be a good thing. I can assure your Lordships, and all those concerned with preserving the heritage, that the Government are committed to retaining acceptance in lieu in its present form, save for the need to transfer responsibility to the arts departments. However, if after, say, two years, we find that the revised system is not working satisfactorily, we will have the option of bringing in the trustees. But we would do so only after we had had the fullest consultations with both the historic houses and arts interests.
I believe that one of the most gratifying things about this Bill has been the all-party support it has received; it shows how deeply concerned we as a country are about the preservation of the heritage. This Bill, when enacted, will, I think prove to be the most important piece of legislation in the heritage field since the Second World War, and will form a strong framework on which this, and future Governments, will wish to build. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
4.57 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is a happy day for the heritage field and for those of us who feel very strongly about it. I find it impossible for my mind not to go back several years to the events at the time of Mentmore, and as we know it was then that there started this whole chapter which has culminated in the Bill receiving its Third Reading and being passed here today; and I hope that it will remain as it is when it goes back to the Commons. If we take our minds back to those years we can recall all the turmoil about Mentmore and the National Land

53
Fund, which had to be explained time and time again. Not only did I have to explain it to the House and to heritage bodies outside; it had to be explained to me again and again, rather like a puzzle. I referred to it as a series of Chinese puzzles; it simply was not working at all. Had this new body been in existence at that time—I do not know what descision or recommendation it would have made about Mentmore—we would have had an independent body making a recommendation to the Government, or indeed if funds had permitted, perhaps deciding to buy the property. This body is a tremendous step forward, and the noble Lord was absolutely right when he said—indeed, it was an understatement—that it has enormous advantages over its predecessors.
I was especially delighted by some of the amendments made in your Lordships' Chamber; in particular the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, regarding the trustees' ability to give loans. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that the redefinition of preeminent objects is a tremendous step forward. We now have written into statute the more recent procedures which will mean that if an object is pre-eminent it will be subject to a wider interpretation than previously. There is now also the possibility in certain cases of the object remaining in the place where it belongs, and above all, its pre-eminence can depend on its situation, which is extremely important.
I very much hope that Clause 14 will be activated as soon as possible. I think it is a great pity that these functions should not be transferred to the trustees, but I am fairly optimistic about that, and I believe that once the fund begins working and becomes settled down, a number of the worries and anxieties which are probably felt at the moment will disappear, and it will be found that it is better all round to give the trustees more independence, and indeed more responsibility.
I think that its sojourn in this House has been of great benefit to the Bill's health, as has been proved. Although it is based very largely (and I feel very warmly about it, as does my noble friend Lord Donaldson, who unfortunately is unable to be here today) on the White Paper for which I and my department were mainly responsible at the time, I must congratulate the
54
Government on getting it into Bill form as quickly as they have and in expediting this legislation. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, for his unfailing courtesy throughout the Bill's proceedings. I think there have been some complications and technicalities about it which have been difficult to sort out. We have probably all got our ideas, even now, of what we should like the Title to be, and how we would like it to be incorporated, but I think we shall have to learn to live with that for the time being, because it is very much more important that this Bill should be on the statute book by 1st April, so that the fund can get to work.
Finally, I think we have to realise and accept that, even with the residue of the National Land Fund topped up by around £5 million a year going into this new fund, this is not going to be a tremendous fortune with which to guard and save our heritage. We shall need, as soon as it is possible, to top this up as much as we possibly can. I join completely in the hope that it will attract more private money. I think the loans part will enable money to be stretched very much further; but I do not think that the fact that this Bill sets up the fund means that anybody should let go of their interests or reduce their pressures for the heritage, because this is something which will need a great deal of care and many more increased resources as time goes on. I only hope that the next time we see this Bill will be at Royal Assent.
5.3 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, your Lordships will forgive me if I elect to say a very few words at this stage of the Bill. It has in my view been greatly improved during its journey through this House. It is an admirable Bill. To me, the nub of the Bill is, and always has been, in the independence of the trustees. This, really, in a way, was the mistake of Hugh Dalton, when he first initiated the Land Fund. If there had been trustees then, what happened in 1956 would never have occurred; what has happened since then would not have occurred; and we should have seen this fund a flourishing and established part of the law of the land. I must admit that when I first introduced the National Land Fund Bill, as it was then called, I was deeply moved by the trauma that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was suffering on the subject of Mentmore, and

55
the difficulties she was in. I thought then, and I still think, that it is impossible for Ministers of the Crown, who are beset by all the current problems of the nation, to be able to take an independent judgment on issues of this sort; and that is what I had in mind.
I think this is an excellent Bill, and I hope (perhaps I might express a word of caution which my noble friend might pass on) that when it goes to another place the other place will be reminded that the genesis of this Bill was here; that then came the Select Committee and the other proceedings; that our opinion on these issues is really of great importance; and that what happens in this House should be given much and real attention.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, as the president of a mining museum, which is one of the first full-scale experiments of its kind in Europe, I should like to say thank you to the Government, and to this House, particularly, for the meticulous care they have taken to try to build this up. The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and myself were in the other place during the period of office of Hugh Dalton as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and during the introduction of the Land Fund, and if today he happens to be looking over the ramparts of heaven, or maybe somewhere else, I am sure he will be pleased with the congratulations which have been expressed to him and with the sense of independence which has been introduced into this.
Before I sit down, my Lords, our mining museum shows systems of mining from stall and pillar methods right up to modern machinery, and among the 30,000 people who have already gone down in the last nine months there have been people from other parts of Europe, and even the USSR (I do not know whether we are going to put a block on them going down the mines), who have been down. I hope that, ultimtely, an intelligent use of the Heritage Fund may mean that a mining museum can approach it occasionally. Finally, I should like to say thank you to the noble Lord who has guided the Bill through your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1980
5.6 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February 1980, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved. The purpose of this order is to continue in operation for a further period of 12 months the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, which will lapse, unless renewed, on 25th March.
I should first like to say something about the need for the Act. During 1979 terrorist action led to the loss of public figures, which saddened us all. One consequence was that the Irish National Liberation Army was proscribed throughout the United Kingdom, in Great Britain by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary exercising his powers under this legislation. These losses illustrate more clearly than any statistics the nature of the terrorist. He does not scruple to bomb and shoot the unwary and the unarmed, and does not care if his victims are children or bystanders, or friends and colleagues whom we have known and admired.
These tragedies were not the only examples of terrorist activity by the Provisional IRA or the Irish National Liberation Army. There were letter bombs in Birmingham in June which injured four people, and it is only through good luck and the vigilance of postal workers and those to whom they were addressed that the recipients of the letter bombs posted just before Christmas escaped serious injury. Ten days ago the Irish National Liberation Army admitted its responsibility for the placing of two bombs outside an Army barracks at Netheravon in Wiltshire; and, again, it was only by good fortune that no-one was killed. As it was, two servicemen were injured in the fire which resulted. The brunt of the terrorists' attacks is still of course borne by the security forces in Northern Ireland. Eighteen soldiers were murdered at Warrenpoint on the same day as Lord Mountbatten died. By its very

57
scale, that outrage underlines the continuing need for temporary provisions to strengthen the law to prevent acts of terrorism.
I have mentioned these matters because it is the Government's duty, it is Parliament's duty, to protect our citizens against the attacks of terrorists, and this is where I believe that the Prevention of Terrorism legislation, which I am today asking the House to renew for a further year, plays an important part. First of all, there is, as your Lordships know, the power of arrest and detention under the Act. The police can detain a person for up to 48 hours on their own authority, and for a further five days if my right honourable friend agrees. This exceptional power, which has no equivalent in the powers available to the police to deal with crime generally, is necessary because of the nature of the problem with which we are faced.
This period of seven days gives the police time to question the arrested person, to test his or her story, to check fingerprints against those on record from the scenes of terrorist crimes, to discover if there arc any traces of explosives, and to establish identity and record. As a result of this extended period of detention, it may be possible for the police to charge the person concerned. In the past 12 months (between 1st March, 1979 and 29th February this year) 51 people have been charged following detention under the Act. A person who is not charged following detention may be excluded if the Home Secretary is satisfied that the person has been involved in terrorism or is trying to enter the country for the purpose of becoming so involved.
Finally, my Lords, may I turn to report on the use which has been made of the Act during the past year. One of the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in his review of the operation of the Act, was that statistics about its use should be published on a regular basis. Thus, quarterly bulletins are now produced by the Home Office Statistical Department and I think all those concerned about the Act have found these statistics to he of value. In that period (1st March, 1979, to 29th February, 1980), 724 people were arrested and detained under the Act. One hundred and seventy applications for extensions
58
of detention were approved and, of these, the vast majority were either excluded or charged. Only one application was refused. My right honourable friend made 54 exclusion orders and refused four applications from the police for exclusion. The Act provides that a person against whom an exclusion order is made may make representations against that order, and that such representations must be referred to an independent adviser appointed under the Act.
In the period in question, 14 made representations against exclusion orders, and these representations were considered by the two advisers who at the present time are my noble friend Lord Alport and Mr. John Newey, Q.C. The Home Secretary is most grateful to both advisers for the very valuable work that they do, and has decided to appoint a third adviser under the Act. The burden of work for advisers has increased during the last year and my right honourable friend has therefore asked the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, if he, too, will take on the responsibility of advising my right honourable friend on some of these cases. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that Lord Underhill has agreed to do this. Incidentally, five of those who made representations against their exclusion orders had their orders revoked.
A further recommendation which was made by Lord Shackleton was that there should be a review of exclusion orders. On 18th June last year in another place, my right honourable friend announced that those who indicated a willingness to have their exclusion orders reviewed would have them reviewed three years after their making. Up to 29th February, 83 people were eligible to have their orders reviewed, of whom 23 had indicated a willingness to have them so reviewed. Of these, 12 have been reviewed and, as a result, one order has been revoked. The balance, some 11 cases, are still under consideration. The decision to revoke an order is not an easy one to make; my right honouable friend needs to be satisfied that the person has ended his involvement in terrorist activities and that it would be safe to allow him free access to this country.
My right honourable friend also considered whether to accept Lord Shackle-ton's recommendation that Section 11

59
of the Act which makes it an offence to withhold information about terrorism, should be dropped. Thirteen charges have been brought under the section since it was introduced in 1976, and the police believe that it is still of considerable use to them. My right honourable friend has therefore decided that Section 11 should be retained. This means that no changes are proposed in the substance of the Act.
However, my right honourable friend has approved a procedural change which will come into effect on 25th March. At present, the Prevention of Terrorism (Places of Detention) Direction 1976 provides that, prior to removal, a person subject to an exclusion order may be detained in police custody for a maximum of seven days from the time of his arrest. The new direction provides that an excluded person who consents to his removal can be held for a further 24 hours in police custody if arrangements are being made for his removal within that time. This does not affect the total time that a person can be detained; it simply deals with the place in which he is held and will avoid people having to be sent to prison while arrangements for their removal are being made. In recent weeks, we have had the attacks on servicemen in Germany, accompanied by IRA boasts that they will repeat this kind of attack wherever and whenever they can. The time for dispensing with this Act has not yet come, and I ask the House to agree to renew the Act for another year.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 19th February 1980, be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
5.17 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, this order, like the similar one that I happen to have moved from the position of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, last year, and the Act upon which it is based are distasteful and, indeed, obnoxious measures. They are objectionable because they infringe our civil liberties, but they are also repugnant because of the acts of those who have compelled us to resort to legislation of this kind—cowardly acts of terrorism in which innocent people have been brutally and callously murdered or maimed, fami-
60
lies have suffered and property has been destroyed. What we have to do in considering this order is try to form a judgment on whether it is better somewhat to curtail civil liberties and human rights by passing it or to risk still further outrages, loss of life, tragedy for bereaved families, injuries and damage by refusing to pass it.
We last debated a similar order on Thursday, 22nd March last year, the very day on which our Ambassador to the Netherlands, Sir Richard Sykes, was shot dead in The Hague. Little did we know that before the following week was out a murder would have taken place here in the Palace of Westminster, the monstrous murder of Mr Airey Neave on Friday, 30th March. Nor did we know that before the summer was out, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, also has reminded us, the horror of the 27th August would have taken place with the murder of Earl Mountbatten of Burma, members of his family and their young friend whilst on holiday in Ireland and, indeed, the other murders to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred of 18 soldiers at Warren Point in Northern Ireland. And, of course, there have been other tragic happenings over the past year.
My Lords, if we felt unable last March to remove from the armoury of our forces of law and order the powers in this Act which help prevent terrorism becoming worse, it is hard to see how we can possibly deprive them of these powers this March.
I have no hesitation in urging your Lordships to accept this Motion. Even so, it is right that the Minister, Lord Belstead, and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place, should come to Parliament to justify the renewal of these powers. They are, indeed, harsh. I should like to thank the noble Lord for his thorough and comprehensive review of the working of the Act over the past year.
In his report the noble Lord has reminded us that on 3rd July 1979 the Irish National Liberation Army was added to the list of proscribed organisations under powers in Part I of the Act. I have no doubt that that decision was right. The benefits of proscription are always hard to evaluate precisely; but, quite apart from other considerations, in view of the activities (claimed or otherwise) of that particular body over the past

61
year, many people would have found it odious not to have made it illegal. It has claimed responsibility, as we know, for a number of murders, including admission of guilt of shootings and bombing attacks in Northern Ireland in which members of the security forces were killed; and indeed the happening here in Westminster.
Proscription is useful in a variety of ways. Not only does it impose a legal bar on recruitment, on seeking publicity and on raising funds, but it should also help—and it is not without importance to stress this point, too—to make it perfectly plain to people outside the United Kingdom what we think of those organisations and of those associated with them: the revulsion and abhorrence with which people here regard them. That is important both because of the way these bodies have become active abroad in terrorism, as the noble Lord has mentioned, and to help to counter fund-raising activities abroad. The increased efforts in the United States to counter fund raising activities there are certainly encouraging.
When we debated the order last March, we also discussed the immensely valuable report of my noble friend Lord Shackleton on his inquiry into the workings of the Acts. My right honourable friend the then Home Secretary, Mr. Rees, and I announced the Government's decisions on the recommendations of my noble friend, and we were able to accept all but two of his recommendations. One of those we felt unable to accept; the other we said that we wanted to look into further. The one which we found ourselves unable to accept was the suggestion that Section 11 of the Act should be dropped. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has explained, this is the one which makes it an offence to withhold information about terrorism. Noble Lords will no doubt recall that this was a section which was introduced as an amendment to the Bill in 1976 in another place as a result of being moved by one of my honourable friends; and, although the then Government did not at first think it was necessary, they were persuaded by the arguments that it was.
Last year we felt that it should be retained, that more time was needed to see how effective it really was, but we said that if the Act was renewed we would look at it again within the following year. I am
62
pleased that the present Government took upon themselves the commitment that we had taken on to re-examine this section. The Minister has assured us that that re-examination has taken place, and he has given us the considerations why the Government have felt that it should remain in the Act. I have little doubt that we would have come to the same conclusion on this matter, for the time being at least.
I might just mention this point here. In our debate last year, in reply to a suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I said that if your Lordships passed last year's order, the then Government might consider reintroducing the Act as a Bill this year. I am wondering whether the present Government gave any thought to that point. I should emphasise in fairness that we gave no absolute commitment but we said that we might consider the matter.
To return to Lord Shackleton's recommendations, apart from the Section 11 proposal, the only other suggestion that he made which has not been implemented is his recommendation that financial assistance should he considered for relatives and friends of excluded persons for the purpose of making visits. He particularly emphasised that exclusion could cause inconvenience and suffering to relatives. I had to admit to having doubts about providing financial help, and felt that it would not be possible to contemplate it for friends of excluded persons. However, we did recognise that the family of an excluded person could suffer hardship; but while help for visits might not be appropriate—partly because of the risk that by providing help for that purpose we might be in danger of encouraging members of the family to act as couriers—we did nevertheless feel that it might be of greater practical value to offer the family some financial help towards their removal costs. They could then join the excluded person in his new home, especially where he was the breadwinner. We announced that we were looking into this to see whether it was feasible.
The present Government also decided to examine this, as we know. I was pleased to see that they decided to do that. Eventually, they rejected the idea. We have, however, not been given any

63
detailed explanation of the Government's reasons for turning down this proposal, only the very brief statements which have been made by Lord Belstead's right honourable friend in another place in a Written Answer on 3rd December last year, and again during a debate in another place on this order, saying that he had come to the conclusion that such a scheme could not be justified.
As I have already indicated, we had doubts ourselves about the idea and gave no undertaking to introduce a scheme, but were examining it to see what might be done. It would be helpful to know a little more about the thinking behind the Government's conclusion that it could not be justified. Perhaps I could add that I hope it will not be said that the only reason was simply on economic grounds, because that alone I do not think would meet this particular context. The powers in this Act—and, notably, the powers to exclude a citizen from part of his own country—are acknowledged on all sides to be extremely severe. It was in this context that my noble friend's recommendation had to be seen.
Before leaving my noble friend Lord Shackleton's report, there are two other matters I should like to mention: first, his recommendation that a system should be introduced to review all individual exclusion order cases to see whether any should be revoked once it was safe to do so. That was a recommendation which we accepted, and my right honourable friend and I announced the details of this in another place and here. I think I am right in saying that those details are in fact completely in line with the scheme which the present Government have themselves decided upon and announced. I was very pleased to see that they had decided to honour that commitment which we had entered into. I also welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said about advisers and the new appointment that he has just announced.
The only other matter that I should like to raise on my noble friend Lord Shackleton's report concerns the three recommendations aimed at improving the circumstances in which detained people are held in police custody. He noted that police cells were not designed to keep people for seven days, and suggest-
64
ed that to relieve the obvious discomfort this caused special attention to be given to diet, exercise and comfort itself. He also said that there should be greater uniformity of practice in notifying detained people of their rights, and he suggested keeping the fullest possible records of interviews with people detained so as to help protect the police against allegations that questioning was in any way unfair, and indeed to reassure the person detained that if he were to make a complaint all the information would be available.
As a result of those recommendations, which we accepted, my right honourable friend decided to issue guidance to chief officers. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether any indication is available so far as to how this is working out in practice. The Minister has told your Lordships about the new directive which, if this order is passed, is proposed to come into effect on 25th March, providing that an excluded person may be detained in police custody for an extra 24 hours if arrangements are being made for his removal within that time. This is instead of his having to be removed to prison once the present maximum of seven days' detention in police custody has expired. I wonder whether the Minister will say how extensive this problem actually is. I know, from experience that it can be a great rush. It seems a little surprising that up to an extra 24 hours could make all the difference and I am wondering whether this is an extensive problem.
As we have seen, the violent, brutal, terrorist activities this Act is designed to help to prevent have continued over the past year, with the savage examples we all know about. Perhaps we should note, too, that one of the most disturbing features has been the incidence of attacks on victims on the continent of Europe, particularly in Western Germany. Paradoxically, this may be in part a measure of the success of the use of powers under the Act in making it more difficult for the terrorists to get into this country and to get at the intended victims or targets in this country. I am sure we can be assured that there continues to be the closest co-operation between the authorities in all the countries concerned.
However, the powers in this Act alone could never prevent terrorism here; nor

65
was it ever claimed that they could. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Shackle-ton pointed out in what has come to be regarded as the definitive view of the Act, it is not really possible to measure its effect precisely. As he said, much of its intended effect lies in the deterrent value of its provisions. What I believe is undoubtedly the case is that it has been, and is, a valuable part of the range of powers to counter this threat to life and property. I have no doubt that we have a duty to ensure that the police are provided with the powers necessary to protect civilised society. When one considers the difficulties and dangers the police and our other services face in tackling the threat from uncivilised and inhuman beings who terrorise innocent people, the remarkable thing is that the terrorists have not inflicted much greater harm than they have.
This time last year we were about to embark upon a General Election campaign. Few people, I suspect, thought after the killing of Airey Neave that we would go through that campaign without a whole series of tragedies. I believe it was a great achievement that the campaign passed off so peacefully; and that was due in a large measure to the vigilance of our forces of law and order. I am sure we all join in paying tribute to their courage, not only at that period but at other times. I include in that the Police Service throughout the United Kingdom, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Fire Service and other services, the bomb disposal officers and the rest of the security forces. I should like to feel that we could do without this Act, but to help preserve our most precious and basic civil liberties and human rights, the right to live and to live in freedom without fear, I am in absolutely no doubt that for the time being it is essential.
5.33 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, may I also pay tribute to the heroism and skill of the Army and the police, both in this country and in Northern Ireland, in combating terrorist outrages. I should like in particular to praise the skill of the police in being able to clear up so many of the offences and in arresting so many of those responsible; for nothing could be easier or more cowardly than to leave an explosive device which is going to kill or
66
maim scores of innocent people at a time when the person who has left it there may be hundreds of miles away, and the clearing up of offences on the scale it has been done is a great tribute to the way in which the police have been able to carry out their investigations.
I am also in no doubt that the police have been very much assisted in their successful activities by the terms of this Act. Although there is no question but that some provisions of the Act must offend against our concepts of civil liberties, it would be entirely irresponsible to seek to oppose the renewal of the Act for a further period. Whether all the parts of the Act are of equal use, I am not entirely sure. The power to proscribe, I suspect, is to some extent window-dressing. I doubt very much whether it serves any practical purpose other than to placate public opinion, to some extent.
The power of exclusion, I have no doubt, has proved of very great value. That clearly must be an administrative act: it cannot be a judicial process, and I have no doubt that the Home Secretary, aided by advisers, has done his best to operate that in as fair and wise a way as possible. The power of detention, which has been exercised, we are told, on at least 51 occasions, or which at least has led to the arrest and charging of 51 people in the last 12 months, again I have no doubt at all is entirely justified in present circumstances. Like many of my colleagues at the Bar, I have been involved in various cases in which it has been perfectly clear that people have been charged entirely as a result of the operation of these provisions as to detention.
I am not entirely convinced about the remaining provision, about which there has been some discussion; that is, the provision in Section 11 which makes it an offence to fail to give information about terrorism to the proper authorities. It has always seemed to me just a little unrealistic to expect people, particularly in the circumstances which prevail in Northern Ireland, to find that a duty which is very easy to perform. I know the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, told us today there had been 13 charges brought under that section since 1976. That is the same figure as was given by the Secretary of State last week during a debate in the other place. What the Secretary of State added

67
on that occasion was that 12 of those 13 charges had taken place in one month—January 1979. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, could inform me whether those 12 arose in one case, where the case was and what range of penalties was in due course imposed. It might help us to determine to what extent Section 11 of the principal Act is in fact a deterrent section.
I should like to make two observations about the role of the media in relation to terrorism, because that matter has arisen in the course of the last 12 months. I should like first to suggest to your Lordships that the Press and the television companies are entirely within their rights. in investigating fully the phenomenon of terrorism and in analysing the motives of the terrorists, their background and why it is they have come to take up the sort of activities they now espouse. It may be that that from time to time involves interviewing terrorists. I would hope, although I would regard it as not in any way improper in itself, that the media would recognise that, in the first place, they must in no circumstances give any assistance to a terrorist in the course of carrying out those investigations. Secondly, I feel they should be particularly careful, in the course of any programme they present, not to glorify the activities of terrorists, or make them appear to be heroes. I do not believe that this is a matter for Government intervention. I think it is perhaps a matter in which one could appeal to the media to exercise their sense of responsibility. Indeed, we have seen in the last 24 hours in relation to events in Sardinia how, if they wish to exercise such a sense of responsibility, they can do so most effectively.
The other observation I wanted to make about the media concerns a small point, but I find it particularly niggling. After each outrage—each worse than the previous one—it is the custom for some terrorist organisation to notify the media that it is their activities which have caused the damage. For some reason, the phrase is always used that a particular body has"claimed responsibility "—which seems to me to give an air of pride and respectability to the activity. What the organisation is in fact doing is admitting its guilt, and I personally wish that phrase were used rather more often than the
68
somewhat offensive one, as I see it, that is used on so many occasions.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, reminded your Lordships that this time last year I suggested that perhaps the time was coming when, instead of renewing this Act en bloc each year, we should take a long, cool look at it by way of a new Bill which could be gone through line by line in both Houses in the ordinary way. The case for that has, perhaps, been rather strengthened in the last 12 months. We have now had the report by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, we have had the Bennett Report, we have the experience of operating the principal Act for some four years, we have seen the extension of terrorist activities to Western Europe and we have rather more experience of the links, internationally, between various terrorist organisations.
I hope that the Government might consider next year, which will be the fifth anniversary of this Act, that the proper course to pursue would be not to invite us either to take it or leave it, which is really the choice that your Lordships have on this occasion, but to produce a new Bill which will take account of the developments of the last five years, and will enable us to make sure that we are putting the fullest possible effective powers at the disposal of the police and the Army in dealing with terrorism; and, at the same time, also ensure that we are not encroaching upon civil liberties any more than is necessary. I need hardly say that, of course, we on these Benches do not oppose the continuance of this order this year.
5.42 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this order, but the Official Report of the debate in another place on 4th March on the renewal of the Act, which I read over the weekend, made me think again. I have never been in the slightest doubt that the 1976 Act and the annual renewal orders, which have naturally ensued, are a regrettable necessity, in view of the almost genocidal ferocity of the terrorist organisations against which the Act is aimed, with their bombing attacks upon civilians in bus stations, in restaurants and in public houses, and with their cowardly assassinations, or attempted assassinations, of

69
unarmed servicemen and servicewomen, of policemen and policewomen and of police reservists. Nothing that was said in the Commons debate has made me change my mind about the general desirability—indeed, the necessity—of renewing this Act.
However, it was just a little disquieting to read of the surprisingly high proportion of individuals who were detained under the Act and then released, without any charge being preferred against them. The honourable Member for Belfast, West, Mr. Fitt, gave a figure of 91 per cent. No doubt some of these were only technically innocent—the case against them was not proven, as the Scots would put it. But, by the nature of things, there must have been others who were wholly innocent in every respect.
Could not the latter be offered some kind of financial compensation, for the wages or salaries forgone as a result of their detention, as was suggested by the honourable Member for Southampton, Itchen, Mr. Mitchell? Mr. Mitchell, it should be noted, was one of the Labour Members present who, in all other respects, were strongly in favour of the continuance of the Act for a further year.
Again, the Liberal spokesman on Northern Ireland, Mr. Ross, the honourable Member for the Isle of Wight, drew attention to the fact that, under the provisions of the Act, somebody could be detained for up to seven days without access to a solicitor, and occasionally was, in fact, so detained incommunicado. We have recently in this House had plenty of controversy—justifiable controversy—about the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which permit people to be detained without access to a solicitor for only six hours. How much more unease one feels at the possibility of someone being detained for six days or more, without access to a solicitor.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when he comes to reply, could give some reassurance upon those two points, because I believe that if some action were taken here it would take some of the sting out of the Act, in so far as it affects innocent individuals, while in no way weakening its effectiveness against genuine terrorists.
5.45 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I propose to speak only briefly in this debate this evening. I thought it right to do so, as I was the Minister responsible for the passage of the original Bill through this House in 1974. It seemed to me even more desirable to speak, given the fact that, in the debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just referred in another place on 4th March, a number of Members of my own party chose to speak against the renewal order which was introduced by the Home Secretary.
As many Members of the House will recall, the original Bill was introduced only days after the IRA's attacks on public houses in Birmingham in November, 1974. It goes without saying that in no conceivable sense could those public houses be described as military targets. When the bombings took place, they were filled with ordinary working men and women. The IRA's motive was clear and unambiguous—to create a sense of terror in this country, to cause panic among the British people and to undermine their resolve to stand firm in Northern Ireland.
Of course, that campaign failed. I do not believe that these tactics ever stood the slightest chance of proving to be successful. The IRA miscalculated, in exactly the same way as the Baader Meinhof terrorists miscalculated in West Germany. Stable democracies do not collapse, do not capitulate to the demands of dedicated fanatics, simply because of a wave of terrorist attacks.
But the price of resistance can, of course, be an exceptionally heavy one. Many scores of innocent men and women can be slaughtered, as indeed they have been in this country and in Germany; and, of course, by the Red Brigade in Italy. Although we are debating today an order which relates solely to our problems in Northern Ireland, we must recognise that this issue of terrorism is one which affects many states in the industrialised West. In the European Community, to take the obvious example, only Denmark and Luxembourg can be said to have escaped altogether the effects of terrorist action.
We live in an age in which minorities of extremists, whose views are unacceptable to their fellow citizens, withdraw from

71
political activity and resort to the bullet and the bomb in an attempt to compel democratic governments to bow to their will. Their record of success so far has been extremely limited, but that does not seem, as yet, to have in any way diminished the violence of their attacks. I am afraid that we have to accept the certainty that for the rest of this decade, and possibly even longer, we will be subject to attacks of this character. In such a situation, we have to ask ourselves: How should we react?
Today I should like to discuss only two elements of our response, the one which is dealt with in the order before us, the legislative; and the second, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—the responsibility of the media. The legislative response in this country to the challenge of the IRA has, of course, been the Prevention of Terrorism Acts of 1974 and 1976. The present Act, as the noble Lord the Parliamentary Under-Secretary reminded us today, confers special and unusual powers upon the police. In particular, as he pointed out, it gives the Secretary of State power to exclude a person from Great Britain and to return him either to the Republic of Ireland or to Northern Ireland, if he is satisfied that the person concerned has been, or may be, involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. Secondly, they also gave the police power to detain a suspected person for a period of up to 48 hours and, with the consent of a Minister of the Crown, for a further five days.
Given the character of these powers, it seems to me altogether right that Parliament should be invited to consider every 12 months whether they should be prolonged. Of course, the power to exclude a person from Great Britain confers an enormous power on the executive. Two hundred and twenty of these orders have been made, and some, I am sure, have led to considerable hardship to some of those concerned. But, having accepted that, it is also our duty to consider what would be the consequences if the Home Secretary and the police did not have these powers. I must tell the House, on the basis of the four years during which I saw these powers exercised when I was a Home Office Minister, that without these powers many men and women now walking the streets
72
of this country would have been dead. This legislation, I believe, played a crucially important part in defeating terrorist attacks on our cities.
In the majority of the exclusion cases which I examined as a Minister, there was little or no doubt that the person concerned was a terrorist, but the evidence fell rather short of that which would be required to ensure a conviction in a court of law. If the Home Secretary in such cases was satisfied on the basis of the evidence put before him that the case was made out for exclusion, then the person concerned was removed from this country. But if, of course, the critics now have their way—and there are critics, though not in this House but outside it—Ministers would lose this power. The consequences would, I believe, be very serious indeed. I can think of nothing more likely to encourage a new and prolonged IRA assault upon our cities. For the terrorists would return, knowing—this confirms a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—that one of the most damaging in the armoury of weapons in the hands of the police had been removed. Even with these powers, there is always the risk of a new burst of IRA activity in this country; without them, the likelihood of attacks would increase appreciably. Therefore, I believe that the House should accept this continuation order.
I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in acknowledging our debt to our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Alport. He has served as one of the Home Secretary's advisers on exclusion order cases since the introduction of this legislation nearly six years ago. Having read a number of his reports, I know with what degree of devotion he has addressed himself to this responsibility. I think that it is only fitting on an occasion such as this to pay tribute to his work, which goes unsung and unhonoured but which, nevertheless, is of great importance to the safety of the State.
I wish now to turn to the second matter I wish to discuss, a matter which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and that is the responsibilities of the media. In doing so, I suppose I should declare an interest in that I began my career as a journalist and I am now a non-executive director of an independent television company. It has often

73
been argued that at a time of serious public concern about terrorism the media should accept some form of censorship; that a free Press is all very well in normal circumstances, but that in the special situation created by terrorist attacks, a totally different approach is required. I do not agree with this view. Nothing, in my opinion, would give terrorists a greater sense of satisfaction than to compel a democracy to suspend the right of the Press—and television—to report freely.
In this country I believe that it would be virtually unthinkable that we should adopt any such approach. The same is true, I am sure, of most of our friends in Western Europe. But having said that, I think that it is also important that the Press, and television in particular, accept that they too have obligations. They have to recognise that terrorists are common criminals. We must sweep away all this nonsense of so-called"officers"in the IRA, and so-called"courts"used by other terrorist groups to justify murder. These people, I repeat, are ordinary criminals. They are not in some mysterious way analogous to some form of political party, with certain rights under the BBC Charter or the Independent Broadcasting Act.
There have been a number of occasions on which spokesmen of some of these groups have been allowed to address a mass audience on television. The excuse of the broadcaster concerned is generally the same; it is all being done to"inform"the electorate. I am afraid I must say, as one who has spent a great deal of his career as a journalist, that I do not believe that is in any sense a satisfactory defence. Terrorist groups crave attention and status. That is true of the IRA, and it is also true of the criminals who burn down holiday homes in Wales. I believe that, unless television organisations behave with a proper sense of responsibility, they can do a great deal to boost the morale of these organisations. There is, in my view, no case in a political democracy for treating these people other than as criminals; no case for conferring some form of political status upon them; no case for treating them as other than they are—as men and women of violence, determined to punish a free society for refusing to surrender to their blackmailing demands.
74
In this country there is at the moment a lull in the terrorist attacks. Yet, quite apart from the heavy toll in Northern Ireland itself, as my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham has reminded us this evening, our Ambassador to the Netherlands was murdered by the IRA less than a year ago, so was Mr. Airey Neave, so was Lord Mountbatten and members of his family, and more recently, there have been the foul attacks made on British servicemen in Germany. At any stage as I have indicated, we face the risk that there may be a renewal of IRA attacks activity in Great Britain. I think that it is essential to give the Government these powers again.
5.58 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not think it can be said too often that the order before us is an exceptional measure, and it is right that it should not be renewed without critical scrutiny. It has certainly been given that scrutiny by noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham said it is a repugnant measure in many ways in a free country, but it deals with acts which are repugnant to a free society. I thank the noble Lord for reaching the same conclusion as the Government and indeed all your Lordships have reached, which is that, however reluctantly we do so, this legislation should be renewed for a further year. Let us remember that in a free society we lay upon ourselves the responsibility to have to come back to Parliament to review and renew this legislation from year to year.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked me whether compensation could be paid to persons who are detained under the Act. He also expressed the hope that access to legal advice could be extended to those who are detained. There is no provision for the payment of compensation to persons detained for questioning by the police. When one bears in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, reminded us of; namely, the cruel nature of terrorism and the threat that terrorism intends to the very existence of our free society, then I think it would be wrong for persons detained under this legislation to be treated more favourably than persons detained under other powers.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I referred soley to innocent persons—that is to say, to the 91 per cent. who arc detained and not charged and who are detained for a considerable period of time, unlike those ordinarily detained at a police station for lesser crimes.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, people ordinarily detained at a police station can also in the end be found to be innocent of any charge brought against them. The point I am making to the noble Lord is that compensation cannot be paid in those cases.
So far as legal advice is concerned, it might be helpful if I remind your Lordships that a person arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act has exactly the same rights as any other person arrested under other powers. But the general question of access to solicitors is being examined by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, and I am sure that the House would wish to wait to see what the Royal Commission has got to say on that and on other subjects.
The noble Lord also expressed unease—which indeed I have heard before—that the majority of people arrested and detained under the Act are released without charge and without being excluded. I think it is as well to remember that the purpose of the Act is to prevent acts of terrorism. I would suggest that rather than look at the test of effectiveness as being how many people following arrest and detention are charged, one should look at the figures of terrorist incidents, deaths and injuries in Great Britain, before and after the coming into force of the Act. This legislation was brought in when Mr. Roy Jenkins was the Home Secretary and when the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was his Minster of State.
If I may say so, the noble Lord had every right in his speech to say that, without these powers, many people who are alive today would otherwise he dead. In the two years of terrorist activity prior to the coming into force of the 1974 Act, 44 people died and 758 were injured in 203 incidents. In the five years since that Act was passed, 14 people have died and 414 have been injured in 136 incidents. Those figures, though tragic, are some encouragement that the work of the police, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder,
76
and other noble Lords drew attention, is having its effect. But the police antiterrorist work needs the powers which the House is being asked to renew today.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, asked me several questions of which he very kindly gave me notice. The first one which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, also questioned the Government about, related to Section 11. The noble Lord was good enough to say that after looking closely at it, he felt the Opposition would have reached the same conclusion as the Government had done; namely, that Section 11 should continue to stand. All I would add is that, as I said in my speech, the police have said to my right honourable friend that they found the section to be of real value in reminding potential witnesses, who may be on the periphery of a terrorist conspiracy, of their duty to tell what they know about terrorist activity. Perhaps it is worth recalling that as a result of police investigations into the Provisional IRA bombing incidents in December 1978, 11 people were charged with offences under Section 11. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked me about these cases. There are, in fact, 12 cases now under Section 11, initiated in January 1979. Those cases are still before the courts. The charges indeed arose in connection with the bombings which took place the previous December, but as the cases are sub judice perhaps the noble Lord will understand that I feel I ought to say no more.
Both noble Lords also asked me about the reintroduction next year of the Act as a Bill. Of course, this legislation was last fully debated as a Bill in 1976 when it was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The suggestion which noble Lords have made on this will certainly be very carefully considered before the legislation comes before Parliament again in a year's time.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, also asked about the provision of financial assistance to the families of excluded persons and asked if l would give reasons as to why my right honourable friend had said that such a scheme could not be justified. The Home Secretary has considered this matter carefully and he reached his conclusions, I think it is fair to say, for three reasons. The first is that the family of an excluded person are

77
eligible for social security benefits if they stay in the United Kingdom. Secondly, of course, an excluded person can send money to his family here. Thirdly, I really do feel bound to say that there are higher priorities for new Government expenditure than the provision of assistance to those families who, as I say, can draw public assistance in the same way as other people living in this country.
The noble Lord also asked me some more detailed questions about the improvement in circumstances of people who are detained in custody. Of course, it is a fact that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, recommended that more thought should be given to improvements in the diet, exercise and comfort of detained persons. He also recommended that the fullest possible records should be kept of interviews with people detained under the Act and that there should be greater uniformity of practice in the way in which people are informed of their rights when taken into custody. Advice on each of these three points was given to chief officers of police in June of last year. Their attention was drawn to the benefits of a varied and adequate diet, the provision of exercise facilities and the cleaning of cells. Officers were advised to take full notes during interviews with detained persons and to write up a full record immediately after-wards. They were also advised to inform detained persons of their rights as soon as they arrive at the police station, and Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary have been asked to bear all these points in mind in making their inspections.
Finally the noble Lord asked me about the extent of the problem to which the making of the direction, to which I referred at the end of my speech, has been addressed. It is not, as we understand it, an extensive problem, but the odd case from time to time occurs, has been brought to our attention and has led us to make this change. As I sought to explain, the change does not in any way extend the length of time that a man or a woman can he kept in detention. It simply means that for the last 24 hours, instead of having to go to prison if they are then going to be excluded and removed from the United Kingdom, they can be kept in police custody; and I am advised that in many cases an extra 24 hours is very often sufficient for this purpose.
78
If your Lordships will forgive me for not doing so, I will not add anything to the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made about broadcasting, except to say that I think their words were well chosen. I am sure that I speak for all your Lordships, having listened to the speeches, when I say that I wish we could dispense altogether with this legislation, but as I indicated earlier the Government do not believe that the time has come. While acts of terrorism continue to take place in this country, we must give the police the support they need to catch the perpetrators or, better still, to detect them before they have a chance to act. I ask your Lordships to join me therefore in approving this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRITISH AEROSPACE BILL
6.10 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DERWENT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Vesting of property, etc. of British Aerospace in a company nominated by the Secretary of State]:
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, leave out from"1948"to end of line 2 on page 2 and insert—
(" Provided that—

(a) on the appointed day the company in question shall be a company limited by shares which are wholly owned by the Crown; and

(b) the memorandum of the company shall state that the objects of the company are to promote and secure the promotion by its wholly owned subsidiaries of—

(i) the efficient and economical design, development, production, sale, repair and maintenance of civil and military aircraft, of guided weapons and of space vehicles; and

79

(ii) research into matters relating thereto;

(c) a majority of the directors shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: We now commence on the Committee stage of this Bill and I might say, in prefacing my remarks on my initial amendments, that one of the problems about this Bill is that there is very little detail in it and many of the amendments which I have tabled are an attempt to try to get in more detail. The second subsection of Clause 1 as it is at present worded provides for the transfer of the assets in British Aerospace to any company formed and registered under the Companies Act 1948, but on the appointed day the company in question must be a company limited by shares which are wholly owned by the Crown. This is the so-called private company into which the assets of British Aerospace will be transferred and not the eventual public company in which the public as a whole will be invited to buy shares.
As this clause stands, the assets can be transferred to any company, and one would have thought that the company to which the assets of British Aerospace should be transferred should surely be a company with the specific objectives in its memorandum and articles of association needed by British Aerospace. This amendment attempts to describe in short detail the sort of objectives which would be included in the memorandum of the private company. One has the feeling from the memorandum and articles of association of British Aerospace Limited, prepared by a leading firm of solicitors, and which has been placed in the Library, that in fact the company concerned already exists, and of course at the present time the shares in the company are held by two civil servants who have subscribed to its articles of association on behalf of the Secretary of State. If that is so, one is tempted to ask why in fact the assets of British Aerospace could not immediately be transferred to British Aerospace Limited, of whose memorandum and articles of association we know in part from the documents which have been placed in the Library.
This amendment is in three parts. The first part merely repeats what is already in the clause. The second proviso arises in part from the concern of the
80
workforce of British Aerospace. They are concerned that the Bill, which makes much reference to what will happen to British Aerospace in financial terms concerning the transfer of capital property and so on, makes no real statement about what the new company will do in the areas that concern them most. For example, they are anxious that when the new company is established it shall address itself to the efficient and economical design, development, production, sale, repair and maintenance of civil and military aircraft, and shall not seek to reorganise itself in such a way that the company can cease to be responsible for some of these activities, with consequent problems for the workforce as a whole and consequent problems for industrial relations within the industry. Reference in the memorandum is also made to research. Many millions of pounds will be needed each year to keep the company in the forefront of research and development.
The third proviso reflects our views that the company should remain a company in which the Government should have a major say about its activities and should direct its progress. Indeed, I should say that on Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, gave an undertaking that the initial directors of the private company would all be appointed by the Government, but that the Government would not appoint the subsequent directors of the company, other than two non-executive directors. What I think we need to be assured of is that a majority of the directors in the long term will be working in the interests of the nation and not in the interests of any particular group of shareholders in the company which may happen to put them there.
I should remind your Lordships that this is to be a public company on which our own national defence will rest very heavily, and it is one in which we shall need to be assured that it is working in the national interest. This I know the Government accept. Therefore it would seem that this amendment would be in the interests of the company and of the nation. I beg to move.
Lord TREFGARNE: As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, explained, this amendment falls into three parts and raises three important matters.

81
Therefore, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I explain the Government position in each of these three matters.
First, the amendment refers to the company being, on the appointed day, a company limited by shares which are wholly owned by the Crown. This is very similar to a provision, which the amendment seeks to replace, already included in Clause 1(2) of the Bill. The company nominated for the purpose of vesting will indeed be a company limited by shares, formed and registered under the Companies Act 1948 and on the appointed day all the shares in the company will be owned by the Crown. Furthermore, as the noble Lord pointed out, the company already exists. It was formed on 31st December 1979 and its name is British Aerospace Limited. It is at present a private limited company, having a share capital of £7, all of which is owned by the Crown. The memorandum and articles of association of the company are, as noble Lords will be aware, available for inspection in the Library of this House. The company is merely a shell, awaiting the appointed day on which the whole of British Aerospace's undertaking will vest in it. The noble Lord asked why they could not be vested in it right away. The answer is of course that the Bill with which we are now dealing has first to get through Parliament.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: If I may interpose for a minute, my proposal was why in fact the Bill could not say that the assets should be transferred to British Aerospace, not that they should be transferred straight away
Lord TREFGARNE: I apologise to the noble Lord. I misunderstood what he said and I will come in a moment to the point that I now know he raised. At vesting day it will be turned from a private to a public company, new articles will be adopted, its capital structure will be altered to accommodate whatever capital structure is thought appropriate for the successor company, and the board members of British Aerospace will he elected as its directors.
Second, the amendment mentions the memorandum of the company. The objects set out in the amendment reflect the duties which are imposed on British
82
Aerospace, the statutory corporation, by Section 1(1) of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. But these are duties. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the memorandum of association of a company does not impose duties upon the company. It is a permissive document which sets out what a company may do, not necessarily what it must do. In tabling this part of the amendment, I imagine that the noble Lord was seeking an assurance that the successor company will continue to do all those things which British Aerospace now does. What I can say is that on the appointed day the whole of the undertaking of the corporation will vest in the successor company and the company will be able to perform all those actions which the corporation and its predecessors formerly performed.
The memorandum of the company, whose objects clause will remain unchanged, will permit this. It has been drawn up in full consultation with the board of British Aerospace and is based upon the memoranda of the pre-nationalisation companies. Indeed, the new memorandum will permit the company to do other things too, so that it is actually more widely drawn than the duties of the corporation. To limit the company, as the duties set out in the amendment would, would be to restrict its ability to respond to the stimulus and challenge of the private sector as we believe it should.
Thirdly, the amendment refers to the majority of the directors of the company being appointed by the Secretary of State. As the sole shareholder in the first instance the Government will appoint the first directors of the company. However, thereafter, with the exception of the two Government directors which the Secretary of State will have power to appoint, it will be for the company as a whole, acting in general meeting, to decide who should be directors. To this end the articles of association of the fully-fledged company will require the directors to offer themselves for re-election, in rotation, as is the normal practice with any company. Once the company ceases to be wholly Government-owned the Government will not exercise control over it, nor intervene in its commercial decisions. It will not be a creature of Government. It will be a private sector company, free of Government interference and able to act without

83
restraints on its commercial judgment. It would therefore be quite inappropriate for the directors to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
Lord GRANVILLE of EYE: Before the noble Lord leaves the point on directors, may I ask him this: If British Aerospace is going to be designing, researching, manufacturing military aircraft which may be on the secret list, surely those directors themselves would have to be subject to the Official Secrets Act?
Lord TREFGARNE: I think anybody who deals with public information is subject to the Official Secrets Act. Perhaps I can look into that point, and if I am wrong I will let the noble Lord know.
As I said, the company will be a private sector company free of Government interference and able to act without restraints upon its commercial judgment. It would therefore be quite inappropriate for the directors to be appointed by the Secretary of State. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the principles behind this amendment are contrary to the Government's approach and would serve only to hamper the successor company. I hope this explanation will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, not to press his amendment.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has put the case for the Government very clearly, but he has suggested that the purpose of the amendment is to impose restrictions and to create a sort of straitjacket in which the company is to operate. On the contrary, the purpose of this amendment is really to ensure that the company will operate in a way which is clearly defined by national interests. This is not an unimportant matter in an industry like the aerospace industry. As the noble Lord knows perfectly well, having been associated with the industry, the industry has played an extremely important part in the whole post-war development in this country. In fact if one looks at this industry and compares it with certain other industries one is really amazed at the success that the industry has had. And it has had this success because even when it was under private enterprise the industry was still under a considerable amount of govern-
84
mental control; it has been important all the time that the needs of this country should be borne in mind.
The purpose of the amendment is not to defeat the purpose of the Bill—which is to bring private capital into the aerospace industry—but rather to try and make sure that when this is done the company which is produced will be able to do its work as efficiently as the present board has done, as the noble Lord himself has agreed, and as efficiently as very often previously the private industry did. It is important to emphasise that there is a national purpose behind the whole of our aerospace industry, and unless there is a way of ensuring this I think there is a danger that the aerospace industry could be fragmented and turned in a way
that failed to satisfy national requirements.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: IF I may support my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that he assumed that a purpose of this amendment was to ensure that British Aerospace would continue to do all it now does. He turned it round and said it was a restrictive amendment. In fact we never got from him an assurance that British Aerospace would continue to do all it now does.
Lord TREFGARNE: The amendment may well seek to avoid imposing a straitjacket upon British Aerospace, but I am afraid the fact is that that is what it does, and that is what we think is wrong. Of course, British Aerospace is going to remain in the aerospace business. If it were not, we should not be troubling your Lordships with this legislation. I think I should rest my case on the assertion which I competently advance to your Lordships that the provisions of the memorandum and articles, which the noble Lord wishes to circumscribe by his amendment, are really best left to the shareholders of the new company, as indeed was the case before British Aerospace came into public ownership, and that is the situation we now seek to restore. It is indeed the situation with every other major and minor company in British industry and has served us well and will, I believe, continue to do so.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I shall not press this amendment to a

85
Division, but the point of concern here is that, for example, British Aerospace might decide to sub-contract repair work or something like that, and not carry out certain work itself. This is an element of concern among the workforce. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Initial Government Shareholding in the successor company]:
6.29 p.m.
Earl AMHERST Earl AMHERST moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert (" The successor company shall have the right to issue shares not held by the Secretary of State to employees of the Company on such terms as the Board may direct.").
The noble Earl said: At the Second Reading of this debate the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, made it perfectly clear that the Government were sympathetic to the idea that employees should have an opportunity of owning shares in the company which employs them. He said it was hoped that an announcement would soon be made which would explain various ways in which this could be done. He also said that provision for this would be included in the memorandum and articles of association of the new company.
We on these Benches have long advocated that, as part of the programme for industrial democracy, workpeople should have an opportunity of acquiring such shares, which would not only give them a continuing stake in the business of the company but also allow them to participate in such dividends as may accrue from their shareholdings. We do not think that such a provision should rely only on this being included in the memorandum and articles of association which can be altered at any time by the board and which—as the noble Lord said if I did not misunderstand him—lists the things which can be done but not the things that must be done. Therefore, we think that this is of such importance that it should be covered and clearly stipulated in the Bill. With that objective in view, I beg to move.
Baroness SEEAR: I wish strongly to support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Amherst. At present it is surely most important that the opportunities for employee share ownership should be spread as widely as possible throughout the country to give people a greater stake and a greater understanding of how industry operates and so that they can share in profits where there are profits and dividends where there are dividends, and not rely entirely on their pay packet. This seems to me a first-class opportunity for the Government to take a lead to show that they really believe—as I understand they do—that the principle of employee share-ownership is one to which they give support. They will do that in the most practical way if they write into the Bill the right of the board to issue shares in this form.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I think that the noble Lord has tabled this amendment in a probing spirit because we do see eye-to-eye on this matter. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained the procedure for the issue of shares on flotation adumbrated in Clause 3 and how the arrangements will relate to employees and to the successor company.
Of course, the precise arrangements for employees will depend upon the scheme which the Government decide to adopt to permit them to acquire shares in the company. No decisions have yet been taken on this important matter but, as
noble Lords are aware, it is the Government's declared intention that such arrangements should be made. One scheme the Government are considering would involve two stages: an allocation of free shares to all employees who satisfied a given service qualification, and an opportunity to purchase further shares which would be matched with an equal number of free ones. This second part of the scheme would be comparable to the arrangements adopted in the recent BP issue. All three categories of shares—those allocated completely free, those bought and the matching free allocation—would have to be vested in a trust established in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act 1978. This would confer tax reliefs, provided the shares are not sold for a number of years.
In the first instance, all the shares in the successor company will be allotted to the

87
Secretary of State as Clause 3(1) so provides. He will then renounce a proportion of those shares and it is these shares which will be offered for sale to the public. Anyone will be able to apply for shares, but preferential arrangements will be made for employees. Shares will then be allocated to the people whose applications are successful. In due course the company will—as it is bound to do by Clause 3—issue the shares to its various subscribers whose names will be entered on the company's share register. In short then, the Bill provides that the company will issue shares as directed by the Secretary of State and, as I have explained, this will involve some of the shares being issued to the Secretary of State and the rest to those who acquire them as a result of the flotation—including employees.
Of course, what I have said applies only to the initial flotation because on that occasion, all the shares in the company will be at the disposal of the Government. British Aerospace intend to establish continuing arrangements to enable employees to acquire shares and I hope they will be able to build on the arrangements adopted for the flotation—for example, by establishing a profit-sharing scheme under the provisions of the 1978 Finance Act. But I must stress that these arrangements will be for the company to determine in consultation with its employees—it is really not for the Government to dictate what should happen in the future. Similarly, when the company ceases to be wholly-owned by the Crown it will be free to determine for itself what shares to issue and on what terms. I hope that the noble Lord will find my explanation helpful. I have made it clear that the Government will indeed make arrangements that permit employees to acquire shares on flotation.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: The noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, has put the Government's case on this matter. I must confess that I find it a little like asking for a bowl of water so that their hands can be washed and a towel so that they can be dried, so that they may be able to say that their intentions are good. But they do not take any steps themselves; they leave it to the company that is formed.
88
One of the points about the Bill which disturbs me is the way in which we are asked to sign a blank cheque. There is absolutely nothing put down in the Bill which specifies what is to be done. I should have thought that this was a reasonable amendment, trying to do something which could be of great value in the future to the company which is set up, and to the aerospace industry.
I have received a memorandum from the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers who play an important part in this industry. It is a carefully reasoned memorandum which discusses the Bill—it does not like the Bill—and argues against it in clear and reasonable terms. It shows a great interest in the industry. In other words, one is dealing with a group of workers who feel themselves committed to this industry—a group of workers who are not casual"cowboys"who come in one day and do a bit of contracting work and move out the next day. They are not people like that at all: they are people committed to the future of the aerospace industry.
Surely it would be worth while for the Government to pay a little attention to the suggestion put forward in the amendment that it should be written into the Bill—and not left to what may happen in the future—that the employees in this industry (people who have given, many of them five, 10, 15 or more years to the industry) should have the first opportunity, as the industry is now to have private capital put into it, of having some shares in this industry. I ask the Government to look at the matter again and not to turn it down so abruptly.
Baroness SEEAR: I must say that I was very unhappy about the reply by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen. When an industry is being denationalised in this way, it is no ordinary company which is being established. The Government have the right to lay down certain conditions which are appropriate for a company of this type in an industry of this kind. If the Government believe in the principle of employee share-ownership, this is surely an opportunity to make it plain that, in this particular case, such a scheme is to be introduced. If that is so, it should surely figure in the Bill. I cannot understand why the Minister says that it

89
will not, in fact, be written into the Bill. After all, all that is asked in this amendment is that the company has the right to issue such shares. We might well have gone further and have asked that the company has an obligation to issue such shares. It is a very mild amendment as it stands and if the Government cannot concede this, one cannot believe that their interest in employee share-ownership is very profound.
Lord WIGODER: Will the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, consider looking again at this part of the Bill in order to see whether it is possible to write into the Bill some encouragement to the Company to issue shares to its employees?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I am afraid that I cannot look at this again because I am absolutely certain that we are doing exactly what we should do. We are making arrangements for all employees to have shares on the flotation, and it is entirely up to the company at any time—maybe annually—to make shares available to employees on terms satisfactory to them. I should have thought that there was little more that we could do. Directors will be appointed to the company and it will be entirely up to them to make suitable arrangements. Everybody knows that we are absolutely in favour of schemes for employee participation. I would not wish to tie the hands of the directors in any way—either the hands of those directors or the hands of the directors of ICI or any other public company.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Is my noble friend aware that what he has just said is exactly what this amendment says? He has just said that he agrees with it. If we are all of one mind on this, why cannot it be written into the Bill? I intervene on this particular point only on, if you like, party political grounds. The grounds are these. It has been wrongly said that the party which at present forms the Government is not interested in doing this sort of thing. I know that to be untrue. I know that what my noble friend has said is the general outlook of the people who want to make a success of the private enterprise system. We get all sorts of distortions, and one
90
is that we drag our feet and are not really interested in doing this sort of thing.
I was waiting to hear my noble friend say that there were some technical or good strong reasons why it would weaken the Bill or that if it was written into the Bill it would be against what they have already said, but he did not say that. Therefore, as a good party man, I ask him to reconsider it in order that the true face of a Conservative Government can be written into one of the statutes. I do not see why, if we are in agreement, it cannot be written into the Bill, which will set the whole process on its way and make it possible in any case.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: This underlines the whole problem of the Bill. We shall come to many amendments with which the Government will agree in principle and say that they are a good idea but that they cannot write the particular points into the Bill because they are matters for the articles of association. That is the problem. This is a very important national industry, and it is one of our national industries which is being passed into private ownership. There are a good many suggestions, with which the Government agree, which we think should be adopted by the new public corporation when it comes into being.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I have no doubt at all that sensible arrangements such as this will be adopted by the sensible directors on this company. But the Government have no intention of tying the hands of the directors in this or any other matter which is not absolutely vital.
Earl AMHERST: I am not happy with the explanation that has been given by the noble Lord or the fact that he thinks that this company should be treated the same as an ordinary commercial company. It is not the same; it is a special company. In that case, I must ask the opinion of the Committee.
6.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Chitnis, L.

Jeger, B.

Wade, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wigoder, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McNair, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Exeter, M.

Mottistone, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Allerton, L.

Gainford, L.

Moyne, L.

Amory, V.

Galloway, E.

Newall, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gisborough, L.

Norfolk, D.

Armstrong, L.

Glasgow, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Atholl, D.

Glenkinglas, L.

Onslow, E.

Avon, E.

Gowrie, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylcbone,

Redmayne, L.

Bellwin, L.

L. (L. Chancellor.)

Reigate, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hives, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Davids, V.

Caithness, E.

Killearn, L.

St. Germans, E.

Carrington, L. (A Principal

Long, V.

St. Just, L.

Secretary of State.)

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Lyell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Sharpies, B.

Davidson, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

de Clifford, L.

Margadale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Vivian, L.

Digby, L.

Minto, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wise, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Morris, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.52 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert (" provided that no such disposal shall be effective unless authorised by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament ".).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the question of Parliamentary control. As I have already said, this Bill is very inadequate. On the one hand, the Government believe that British Aerospace should remain under British control, and on the other hand they want to sell off as much of British Aerospace as they can at the best price they can get. The result is that we have the merest skeleton of a Bill before us today without a great deal of the detail which is to be decided later when the memorandum and articles of association of the public company are finally decided upon and drawn up.
This Amendment seeks to put some semblance of parliamentary control into the Bill. Parliament should be asked each time the Secretary of State seeks to dispose of shares allotted to him. This will not of course be a daily occasion. We know that initially the Secretary of State intends to dispose of about half of the company. We also know that at some later date he intends to dispose of a further 25 per cent. of the company. What we do not know is what set of circumstances will lead him to make that further disposition. In the Second Reading debate, I asked whether in fact this would come about because the company had been particularly successful, and he thought that that was the time to dispose of them, or for some other reason.
We do not know in what sort of circumstances it will happen that the Secretary of State wishes to dispose of shares in the company, but it seems only right, in view of the great importance of the company, that the Secretary of State should come to Parliament and seek approval when he

93
wishes to dispose of any further block of shares in the company. I beg to move.
Lord TREFGARNE: The purpose, and indeed the effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said of this amendment, is to prevent the Secretary of State from disposing of any shares—and I emphasise"any shares even one—allotted to him as a consequence of vesting unless the disposal has been authorised by an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. The effect of the Amendment is that the disposal of one share would, as I understand it, need affirmative resolution from both Houses of Parliament.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: The noble Lord is quite right in his supposition, but of course the Secretary of State will not be disposing of just one share.
Lord TREFGARNE: I am glad for confirmation of that. I knew it to be the case. The noble Lord's intervention did not take us much further forward. The fact that the Government intend to sell shares is, however, well known: indeed it is the very essence of the Bill. I think your Lordships will therefore agree that there really is no need for any further Parliamentary procedure simply to approve the fact of a disposal.
It has been suggested that parliamentary approval is needed because the Government have not yet decided what proportion of shares they propose to sell. This was not suggested by the noble Lord just now; but it has been suggested and will no doubt be so in a moment. I think that this places an undue significance on the precise size of the Government's holding. We have announced our intention to sell about half the shares. We have stressed repeatedly that we shall not exercise detailed control over the company, and will not intervene in its commercial decisions, whatever shareholding we retain. In these circumstances, the precise size of the shareholding to be offered for sale is not a significant decision from the policy point of view: it will be influenced by a number of factors, including financial advice nearer the time and the number of shares that are taken up by employees. A decision to sell a particular number of shares will not involve any new policy departure and will not have any significant effect on the future of the company.
94
Looking further ahead, the position in principle remains the same. The Government have made clear that they will retain a shareholding of more than 25 per cent. in order to be able to protect the article of association dealing with foreign control. Subject to that minimum, the Government may in the future wish to sell further shares if this is financially desirable and if it is in the interests of the company as a whole. Such sales would not change the nature of the Government's relationship with the company in any way. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: am not satisfied with the noble Lord's answer, but it is not my intention to press this particular amendment to a Division. There are other amendments later which deal with the question of the size of the shareholding, some of which I may feel inclined to press to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw this particular amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Government investment in shares and securities of the successor company]:
7 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 en bloc:
page 5, line 30, leave out (" or ").
page 5, line 31, at end insert ("; or
(d) make loans to the successor company for such period not exceeding twelve months and otherwise on such terms as may he agreed between the Secretary of State and that company.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments propose to allow the Secretary of State to make short-term loans to the new company. It is in the nature of the British Aerospace business that short-term finance may be required especially during the early days of the successor company's operations to tide the company over a difficult period while it arranges its borrowing facilities from more conventional sources. Such a situation could arise through no

95
fault of the company if, for example, there was an unexpected call on bank guarantees furnished by the company in support of its export business, or if that coincided with a time of lending restraint imposed on the clearing banks.
Normal commercial terms would have to apply to any such short-term borrowing, but it would seem right that such a facility for the Government to make loans in such circumstances should be provided for in the Bill. It is certainly not unusual for such a major shareholder—and the noble Lord, when speaking to an earlier amendment, agreed that in all circumstances the Government would remain a shareholder as to 25 per cent. in the company—to provide funds in such a situation, and the successor company should be in no worse a position than a conventional company. But without the specific statutory power, it appears that the Government could not make short-term finance available in these special circumstances.
Lord TREFGARNE: Before coming to the specific point put by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, I should like to explain briefly the purpose of the powers in Clause 5. The clause empowers the Secretary of State, with Treasury consent, to make certain subsequent investment in the successor company. I stress the word"certain"for not all types of investment are permitted under this provision. In broad terms, the Government, under this statute, will be able to advance finance when the purpose in so doing is to acquire, either directly or indirectly, equity in the successor company. This limitation is explained quite simply by the purpose behind the clause. It is that the Government should have the means of maintaining a particular proportionate shareholding in the company—for example, a holding of over 25 per cent.—in order to protect the foreign control article. It is not the purpose that the Government should be in a special position relative to the company as a general provider of funds. That would be quite contrary to our repeated concern that it should be recognised that the Government will not stand behind the successor company in the way they stand behind a nationalised industry. The company will and must stand by its own
96
efforts, without special treatment from Government.
I think noble Lords will understand why we believe it would be quite inappropriate for the Government to provide short-term loans to the company when we have said that we expect it to meet its requirements from commercial sources. It would put British Aerospace Limited in a privileged position, whereas the essence of our policy is that it should be in the same position and be subject to the same pressures as any private sector company. Nor would it be comparable with other private sector companies with a large shareholder: institutions which own shares in a company do not expect to act as that company's banker; no more should the Government. Indeed, not even British Aerospace as a nationalised industry receives short-term funds from the Government; it obtains all its overdraft facilities from the market. I hope the noble Lord will not press the amendments.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I do not intend to press the amendments to a Division. The proposal was not that the company should be in a privileged position, but that the normal sort of commercial relationship which might exist between a company and a major shareholder should appertain in this case. However, in view of what the noble Lord said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
7.5 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 44, at end insert—
(" Provided that at the time of disposal to the public by the Secretary of State with Treasury consent of any shares, there shall be reserved for employees of the Company with three years continuous service with British Aerospace at the time of the passing of this Act such proportion of the issue as may be determined by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Treasury and the Board of the Company.").
The noble Lord said: I had two purposes in drafting this amendment. The first has already been fulfilled and I need spend no time on it; that is, the matter of how the shares to employees will be issued. I need only remind the Committee, which has been reminded once already, of some

97
words used by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, when he said:
" I should emphasise that no decisions have been taken. The scheme I have outlined is only one of the possibilities that we are considering.".
I thought I might as well try to put forward a little more than the generalisation which the Minister quite naturally indulged in. However, the second purpose of the amendment is much more serious. It is a matter entirely relevant to the Bill and one which, I hope, will be welcomed by the Opposition, and to which they will reply. I assure noble Lords that I raise this matter in no party spirit. My question is simply this: Where do the Opposition stand in relation to employer shares? It is a simple question which deserves a simple reply.
All the three main parties believe in worker participation and, therefore, I ask: Does the Labour Party believe in worker participation entirely or does it stop short at investment in the company in which they are working, British Aerospace? The Government, and the Bill itself, are thinking about employee shares, but before the Bill becomes an Act, all those people affected should know clearly and definitely where they stand in relation to workers' investment and the Opposition position. Hitherto, the policy of the opposition has been nationalisation without compensation.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: The noble Lord made a very odd remark,"nationalisation without compensation ". Full and fair compensation has always been paid by any Labour Government since Labour Governments have been in existence.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: Let us pursue that for a moment. If it is not nationalisation without compensation, then noble Lords opposite accept workers' investment in the companies with which the Bill is dealing, and accordingly they must he ready to counter the recommendations made by their party at various party conferences, and I shall come to that shortly. If they reject worker participation, they should say so honestly now. My search for an answer to the question I asked about where they stand on this matter included searching the columns of the House of Commons Hansard debates of what was said by Mr. Silkin and Mr.
98
Smith, and I could find no denial of the policy of nationalisation without compensation except this comment by Mr. Smith:
" We have a working party on this particular problem ".
What is the working party for? Is it to see how shares can be nationalised without compensation? I do not know. Let me explain why I put this matter to the Committee, and to the noble Lord who is speaking for the Opposition. I look to the last Labour Party Conference and to the words of Mr. Clive Jenkins, speaking from the platform, on this issue——
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I think that he would be speaking from the rostrum, not from the platform.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: I am sorry, did the noble Lord say——
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I must apologise, but Mr. Clive Jenkins is not a member of the National Executive Committee, and he would have been speaking from the rostrum, not from the platform.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: I am sorry that I did not differentiate between the rostrum and the platform. However, Mr. Clive Jenkins had the whole of the conference with him; a report that I have says that the conference was fully behind him; no vote was taken on the issue. These are his words:
" This is a serious warning to all of you. When we take power, your fingers and your wallets will have been burned …
He said that that was a warning to insurance companies, pension funds, and investors in the City. I am sorry to say this, but I want to hear that the extremists are repudiated by the Labour Front Bench here. I am sure that it would he a great comfort to all of us, if we can have that repudiation from the noble Lord who is to speak for the Opposition.
Let us assume that a man has £500 and he invests it in shares. He also has the issue of free shares. Is he quite safe in his investment upon renationalisation if, and when, the Labour Party come to power? If his share has increased in value, partly through his own efforts in

99
making a success of the enterprise to which he has devoted his working life, will he be considered a wicked capitalist, taking an unearned increment—or will he be allowed to take any profit accruing to him from the increase in his investment?
These are serious questions—and I have tried to put them in a reasonable way—which should be answered before the Bill passes. Can we have a clear Yes or No on workers' investment in principle? Do noble Lords approve of trade union members taking a financial interest in their enterprise, or do they stand with the extremists, as expressed in the positive voice of the whole of the Labour Party Conference, as I have quoted, under the leadership of the speech of Mr. Clive Jenkins?
It is no good our trying to pass over this question. It is no good our party, the party opposite, or anyone trying to pass over this question without facing the possible issue which the extremists in the Labour Party are advocating. That is why I welcome the opportunity to hear from the noble Lord who is to speak for the Opposition that they are all for worker participation, including the financial aspects and that they do not agree with extremists of their own party. I beg to move.
7.14 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has been trying to trail his coat and at the same time twist tails, and undoubtedly he hopes that he will elicit some absolutely revealing remarks which he can quote on some other occasion. The noble Lord speaks with persuasion and interest. He tries to tell us that because a particular speaker at a Labour Party Conference—who was not speaking officially for the Labour Party—made statements which were well received by perhaps a number, an unspecified number, of delegates, he is therefore able to use these as an absolute argument as to what is Labour Party policy. But Labour Party policy has been stated again and again; and not only has it been stated but it has been practised when nationalisation of industries has taken place. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that on no single occasion has there been confiscation; on every occasion there has been compensation.
100
Of course, everyone argues as to whether or not they have been compensated adequately. I remember when the coal mines were nationalised; I suppose it was in 1947. I had moved to Newcastle. I lived there and I knew quite a number of people in the coal industry. I became associated with that industry indirectly, and there was of course much argument as to whether or not the owners of the coal mines received the right compensation. Yet so far as I could see, most of the coalmine owners did rather better out of nationalisation than they would have done had the mines not been nationalised. I believe that this kind of thing has happened more than once, where people with a virtually bankrupt industry, or a bankrupt section of an industry, have been able to obtain more money than they would have done had they continued in business themselves.
It has never been the policy of the Labour Party to take over anything without compensation. That has never taken place. So I find it a little surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, should raise this matter under the pretence that he is moving an amendment. It seems to me that he is using your Lordships' Chamber in order to trail his coat gently across it——
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: May I interrupt the noble Lord. As I said, I considered it my duty to raise this great question. I tried to do so not at all in a political spirit, but in a spirit of asking for facts.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: Of course I do not at all reply in a political spirit. The fact that I happened to mention the Labour Party is irrelevant. I am not quite certain whether this situation is like Alice Through the Looking Glass or Alice in Wonderland. It seems to me that the noble Lord is asking a question which is not merely rhetorical, but is a question which has no sense at all, because it bears no relation to anything that has happened in the past, not so far as one can see, to anything that is likely to happen in the future.
Of course, it is quite impossible to say what would happen if there were a revolution in this country. I cannot predict what would happen under such conditions,

101
but we are speaking about policies put before the country, and there is not a vestige of evidence, nor any reason, to suppose that the Labour Party would confiscate without compensation. There is no reason at all to suppose such a thing, In fact, I, who probably stand rather further to the Left in the Labour Party than the noble Lord would like to see anyone stand, might at times wish that the Labour Party would go rather farther; but it has always been the policy of the Labour Party—and I think a sensible policy—to say that you do not use indiscriminate confiscation if you want to get money; you raise the money by taxation. Consequently, if you are buying something you pay the fair price for it; but you raise the money by taxation or in any other suitable way and not by confiscation. I think that this is bringing before your Lordships the strangest form of fish for which, even under the conditions of Common Market tyranny, our fishermen have to fish; that is, this very odd red herring.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My noble friend did not succeed in getting what he was after. He was after a reply from the Front Bench opposite which could give some sort of——
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I am waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to spell out his attitude to this amendment before I reply.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Then I amend what I said by saying that so far he has not succeeded in getting what he wanted, which is a reply from the Front Bench opposite, which makes it so much more official. I must say that the only two amendments which interested me personally were No. 2, on which I went into the same Lobby as the noble Lord, and this amendment if No. 2 was not accepted. I wish No. 2 had been accepted, and I wish it had been accepted very much on the grounds that my noble friend has put forward in his argument. After a rather long experience of having to meet the Labour Party in political battle, I was rather delighted but surprised to find that they had put down an amendment which seemed to encourage employees having a share ownership in their works. They have never done that in the past; their record has never shown that;
102
and I was delighted that they had put this amendment down on the Marshalled List. That is why I argued not long ago that we ought to let it succeed, in order to pinpoint where the Opposition stood on these matters, in order to preserve freedom; because if it is that you have employee shareholding (and particularly if, as my noble friend said, they are active members of the trade union movement), it adds an extra safeguard or assurance that there will be compensation if they ever consider it worthwhile nationalising it again.
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, said that there is not a vestige of evidence that anything of the sort that my noble friend suggested is likely to happen. He knows that that is not according to facts. He knows that there is not a vestige, but a great deal of evidence at party conferences and in speeches from authoritative sources in the Labour Party which shows that it is a real danger from an influential part of a party which could well have the power of government again. It is very much there. It was very interesting that when the noble Lord was giving the disclaimer he spoke only of the past. He said that never in the past had they ever contemplated wanting to do this, and therefore why should we say it now? But he knows, as I do, that it is not the same Labour Party at this time as it was in the past. He knows that there is a real division; he knows that there is a real battle as to which half is to have the power. The evidence is more than a vestige, in my book, if one takes into account the powers that they will possibly get.
Then the noble Lord gave himself a certain cover, so that he could still remain in the party if what he said would not happen did happen. He said:"Of course, I cannot guarantee that there will not be a revolution ". What he meant by that, obviously, was that if the one half of their party do get their way and do carry out what they have said they will by way of taking without compensation, that will be a revolution.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: No.
Lord HA RMAR-NICHOLLS: If it is that it is only a revolution which will bring about what he said has not happened in the past, and if one half of his party say

103
that that is what they would bring about and that half is that may well have the power, then what he is saying is that half of the party that he supports could well be revolutionaries. I think that that is a thing which we ought to keep very much in mind.
My noble friend has done a great job in putting down this amendment in order to allow him to make the speech that he has made. I am only sorry that the same sort of tactics did not impress my noble friends, for whom I have such a great respect, because it would be a good thing to have on the record that at any rate the supporters of the Labour Party in your Lordships' House believe in share ownership for employees. They have never done that in the past; and I should like to have it on record, in a written form, that we do. We do in fact, but I should like it in a written form.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend. I do not know whether he is thinking of pressing his amendment to a Division if it comes to it, but I rather doubt that that is what he has in mind, because his amendment is not as good for achieving what he wanted as the amendment which was put forward by the noble Lords on the opposite Benches. But that does not alter the fact that, the way things are moving at the minute, the noble Lords are not likely to have the power if it is that the party they now support ever has the power of government. I congratulate my noble friend, and I hope that we can get a reinforcement of the denial as to what the Left Wing of their party say that they want to do from the Front Bench as well as from the second Bench.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: Since the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is waiting for a reply from this Front Bench, I will reply, but very shortly. In point of fact, the question which my noble friend asked has really been directed at the Opposition Front Bench, and not at the Government Front Bench. I would only say that his suggestion of three years' qualification service will of course be considered with the other matters; but so far as I am concerned I think the possibility of renationalisation without compensation by any democratic Government in this country is not possible. So I just do not believe it can be.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that what I am seeking clarification of is the Government's attitude to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of lnehrye.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: Our attitude to the amendment is that we will certainly consider the idea of the three years' qualification, as I told my noble friend.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I thank the noble Lord. I was interested to know what the Government thought about this particular amendment, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will withdraw it on the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne. Let me be quite frank with your Lordships. When I looked through the amendments to be moved today, I thought I could well lend my support to this particular amendment; and I did not actually see that in fact the debate on this particular amendment would revolve around the question of whether or not a Labour Government would pay full or fair compensation. I think that from a worker-shareholder's point of view the much greater problem facing him is whether in fact the shares in the company which he buys today by the normal operation of market forces will in fact be more valuable in five years' time or less valuable; and he will have to make that particular assessment for himself.
But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that in fact the danger the employee faces from a future Labour Government taking back full control of British Aerospace without compensation is one which is not there. He need have no worry about that particular situation; and if he looks at, in a sense the "Gospel" —that which we in your Lordships' House always regard as containing what we should do about legislation passed up here from the Commons; that is, the party manifesto of whichever party it may be, for we in your Lordships' House accept that we will not block something set out in a Party Manifesto—he will not find in any Party Manifesto which has been published by the Labour Party over the past many decades any suggestion anywhere that there will not be other than full and fair compensation paid for any form of nationalisation.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for that very firm assurance which I think not only some noble Lords in this House but probably the whole country, and certainly the employees in the factories, have been waiting to receive. They have received it now. I make no apology for having raised the issue. It is very relevant to the question of employee shares which we have been debating this afternoon. I have only to thank the noble Lord for the assurance which I sought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exercise of Secretary of State's functions under sections 3 and 5 through nominees]:
7.30 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 27, at end insert—
" (3) The names and the extent of their holding of every person appointed under subsection (1) of this section shall be published in the London Gazette, together with details of any resignations, and the same shall be notified to the successor companies within seven days ".
Page 6, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(" (4) The Secretary of State, in fixing a target investment limit from time to time by order made by statutory instrument, shall not at any time fix that limit at less than 51 per cent. of the voting rights.".)
The noble Lord said: Clause 6 provides for the exercise of the Secretary of State's functions under Clauses 3 and 5 of the Bill and empowers the Secretary of State to appoint nominees to act for him in these matters. This amendment is asking that, in an era of so-called open Government, the names of those nominees who are to act for the Secretary of State shall be published. I can see no objection to there being public knowledge of those who are to act for the Secretary of State in these matters. I beg to move.
Lord TREFGARNE: I do not believe that the appointment of nominees, or the size of their shareholding, are things which should appropriately be published in the London Gazette. The power to appoint nominees is necessary in the first place because a company must have more than
106
one member in order to comply with the provisions of the Companies Acts. Shares will therefore need to be held by at least one person other than the Secretary of State in the period between the appointed day and the flotation. In practice, we intend to use the power to appoint the Treasury Solicitor to hold shares in the company as the Secretary of State's nominee. That is one point out of the way. This will have purely presentational significance, to show that the shareholding responsibility within Government is distinct from the sponsoring responsibility. In these circumstances, it may also be convenient for the Treasury Solicitor to buy and sell shares on the Secretary of State's behalf. But the clause provides that nominees are to act as directed by the Secretary of State, subject to the consent of the Treasury. This ensures that any nominee's behaviour will be determined by the Government. A nominee will have no powers of decision as to the acquisition of shares and securities or how they should be held or dealt with. Who acts as nominee is immaterial; he or she will have no power to act other than as directed. The nominee is a mere cypher.
The Government will be ready to inform Parliament of the size of the Government's holding of shares, securities and rights in the successor company from time to time. But we do not believe that any purpose would be served by publishing the names of the nominees in the London Gazette.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation in this matter. This is not an amendment which I intend to press to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Target investment limit for Government shareholding under Sections 3 and 5]:
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 42, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(" (4) The Secretary of State, in fixing a target investment limit from time to time by order made by statutory instrument, shall not at any time fix that limit at less than 51 per cent. of the voting rights.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to an important amendment, No. 9, which deals with subsection (4) of Clause 7. This is the subsection which currently empowers the Secretary of State by order to fix a target investment limit which has to be lower than the target investment limit previously in force. My amendment seeks to insert (instead of the present subsection (4)) a new subsection (4) which fixes the minimum target investment limit at 51 per cent. of the voting rights of the company. The corporation's business is vital to the national interest in terms of its contribution to exports, profitability, employment and, of course, the defence of the Realm. Its effective control should remain vested in the Government. This in no way need derogate from the independence of the management of the corporation—which is one of the Government's objectives in placing the Bill before Parliament.
A majority shareholding in the company would be regarded by overseas customers and partners, especially governments, as a clear expression of the continuing interest and support for the corporation's business and management. Third-party concern will be increased if Clause 7(4) is not amended because, as it stands, it appears to recognise a continuing diminution in the Government support for British Aerospace. But confidence in the industry is essential. The mere fact that the Bill has been introduced is causing unrest and uncertainty among people in the industry. I understand that there was to have been a lobbying of Parliament today by those involved in the industry. I understand also that the Secretary of State has gone round the country telling the workers that they need not worry too much. But the mere fact that he has had to do this indicates a need for people to be reassured. The passing of this amendment would give people that assurance.
As we have already said, today the House is being asked to authorise an extraordinary process. The Government have set up a £100 company whose capital (as we have already noted) is held by two civil servants on behalf of the Secretary of State. The memorandum and articles of association have been placed in the Library and only later will we learn what are to be the memorandum and articles of association to which British Aerospace will eventually be transferred. It is because of
108
my concern to see that certain items are written into the articles of association that this amendment is here. The noble Lord's colleagues (if that is the right word) have given assurances that the ratchet mechanism as prescribed in this clause will operate in such a way that at no time will the size of the Government shareholding in the company be reduced below 25 per cent. But that figure is not in the clause at all at the present time.
As the clause stands—without the assurances—the Government holding could be reduced to nil. But we have the assurance and therefore at a later stage I could well ask that those assurances be written into this clause of the Bill. However, our strongly-held view is that, in view of the importance of British Aerospace, it is crucial for the functioning of British Aerospace—particularly in its relationship with foreign Governments and the many Commonwealth Governments who have negotiations with British Aerospace for the purchase of defence equipment—that they should know that the Government are solidly behind British Aerospace and that it is a company which is within the control of the British Government.
I do not see that it need affect in any way the performance of the company if 49 per cent. of the company is owned by the public at large and 51 per cent. owned by the State. If we agree this particular amendment, many other problems which arise—some of which we are going to talk about later; for example, the question of foreign control—will disappear. Therefore, I would press very strongly that we make this substitution and place in the clause the figure of 51 per cent.
Earl AMHERST: I should like to support this amendment very strongly. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said. My special reference is to security. Assuming the control of the board is by a simple majority, 51 per cent. is a protection against any possibility of foreign infiltration. If it is not a simple majority, then we will have to be told what it is. If it is a simple majority, then if we get 51 per cent. of the voting rights we can control the position so that the company is not infiltrated by foreign interests.
7.41 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: This amendment would prevent the operation of the downward ratchet mechanism provided for in Clause 7(4). I recognise that it is also intended to probe the Government's intentions as to the size of their shareholding. When the successor company ceases to be wholly owned by the Government, a target investment limit will have to be set at the level of the proportionate shareholding of the Government at that time. The purpose of the limit is to set a target level for the Government's proportionate shareholding in the successor company which, although it need not be maintained, must not be exceeded. We want to be able to retain a given proportionate shareholding if we wish to do so, and in particular we must be able to retain a holding of over 25 per cent. in order to protect the foreign control article; but we want it to be clear that the Government's shareholding will not increase above a given level. Subsequent orders setting new limits may be made from time to time provided that each new order sets an investment limit lower than the one it replaces. An order setting a limit can only be revoked by another order setting a lower limit, and this means that some limit must always be in force.
This is wholly consistent with the Government's intention that they should stand back from the successor company. The Government do not intend to intervene in the commercial decision making of the company and do not intend to control it. That is the Government's policy and it is to make it clear that there will be no retrenchment from its initial position—that the company is firmly committed to the private sector—that the Government have provided in the Bill that the Secretary of State's proportionate shareholding cannot be increased above the level immediately after flotation. The Secretary of State can of course reduce his shareholding, and it is right that he should be able to do so. It also follows that the Government should be able to set lower target limits if it wishes, and this power is provided in susbsection (4).
If the amendment were made the effect of the clause would be fundamentally different. The target limit could never be less than 51 per cent., though I should emphasise that it does not follow that the
110
Government's shareholding could not fall below that level: the limit is a maximum only. More important, however, the clause would let the Government set higher target limits and so enable it to increase its proportionate shareholding above the initial level. It would also permit an existing order setting a target limit to be revoked without the need to replace it by an order fixing a new limit. The amendment would therefore make the position of the successor company unclear, by leaving open the prospect that the Government might substantially increase their shareholding in the future. This is wholly contrary to our policy towards the company, and would make shares in the company a less attractive proposition to investors. I hope the Committee will therefore appreciate why we will ask it to disagree with the amendment.
The Government have decided initially to retain about half the shares in the successor company. However, as we have repeatedly stressed, the precise proportion is of no significance because the Government have made it quite clear that we do not intend to exercise control over the company. I must make it clear that the Government do not rule out the possibility of selling more shares in the future. However, I expect that at the time of the flotation the Government will announce that they will not sell any further shares in the company for a specified period.
It would clearly be wrong for the Government to look too far ahead when circumstances may change and make one level of shareholding more desirable than another. The Government will not therefore set a minimum level for their shareholding. But I can repeat the assurance that has been given here and in the other place that the Government will maintain a proportionate shareholding of over 25 per cent. of the voting shares so as, in particular, to be able to prevent any undesirable amendment to the article of association dealing with foreign control. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, this amendment drives to the very heart of this Bill. I do not think that it would be going too far to say that it seeks to negate the whole purpose of the Bill. if hope for that reason at least your Lordships will reject it.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has twice stated that it is the intention of the Government not to allow their holding to drop below 25 per cent. Such a statement, as I pointed out on Second Reading, is a statement which bears no permanent force at all. The mere fact that the Minister states in Parliament that it is the intention of the Government to do something does not commit that Government, and certainly does not commit any other Government. Therefore, if the noble Lord is not prepared to write such a figure into the Bill, then his statement is worthless.
Lord TREFGARNE: I do not think that is fair. I have given a clear undertaking on this matter. The same undertaking was given by my honourable friend Mr. Butler in the other place. The undertaking certainly binds this Government.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: When the noble Lord says"this Government ", he is saying that the present Ministers who make such a statement have a certain honourable obligation in the matter. He does not mean—and he knows he cannot mean—that the Government, which may or may not be in office during the next few years, will be bound by such a statement. This has happened in the past. One knows perfectly well of occasions when definite statements have been made by Ministers. There was one made some years ago on immigration. That
promise was later broken; but nothing could be done about it because one cannot enforce a Minister's statement in a court of law. A court of law deliberately ignores statements made by Ministers. It is therefore important to realise that when a Minister makes a statement such as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in all honour has made, it only binds him, and it does not bind the Government at all. Consequently, it is quite unreasonable for the Government to expect the Committee to accept a Ministerial statement as being the same as a commitment in the Bill. If it were, he would presumably put it in the Bill.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said that this is an amendment of principle. Despite the various minor points he put about this amendment, and some of the side effects that it might have, I will seek to divide the Committee on this amendment on the point of principle that the Government should retain a 51 per cent. holding in the company. I believe that it would be in the national interest that a holding of that size should be retained in the company.
7.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hooson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jeger, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Seear, B.

Chitnis, L.

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

Stone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Underhill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wade, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McNair, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Ferrers, E.

Allerton, L.

Caithness, E.

Galloway, E.

Amory, V.

Carrington, L. (A Principal Secretary of Slate.

Gisborough, L.

Ampthill, L.

Glasgow, E.

Armstrong, L.

Craigavon, V.

Gowrie, E.

Avon, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hacking, L.

Bellwin, L.

Davidson, V.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

de Clifford, L.

Hives, L.

Bessborough, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Killearn, L.

Mottistone, L.

St. Just, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Moyne, L.

Selkirk, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Norfolk, D.

Sharpies, B.

Lyell, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

McFadzean, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Trenchard,V.

Margadale, L.

Reigate, L.

Vivian, L.

Minto, E.

Renton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Wise, L.

Morris, L.

St. Germans, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.58 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 21, at end insert (" Where the Secretary of State proposes to exercise any power to dispose of shares in the successor company either directly or through nominees he shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and subject to the need to prevent more than 15 per cent. of the shares in the successor company being owned directly or indirectly by any person not resident in the United Kingdom, take steps to ensure that he obtains an adequate price for them.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the problem which could arise if the Secretary of State at any time finds himself, or finds the Government shareholding, exceeding the target investment limit. This could happen if, for example, the Government found themselves, directly or through the National Enterprise Board, being forced to rescue another company or to reorganise industries or to reorganise a group of companies which themselves have a shareholding in British Aerospace. The clause, as it stands, requires the Secretary of State to dispose of any surplus shares"as soon … as … reasonably practicable"thereafter. What does that mean? How soon in fact does the Secretary of State have to act upon that?
It could well be a very inopportune time if the Secretary of State had to dispose of those shares straight away. He might, because of the situation appertaining at the time, obtain a quite inadequate price for those shares. Surely it would be wise to introduce an element of flexibility here, subject, of course, to the overriding needs of the corporation. The amendment seeks to add to the clause an element of flexibility which would ensure that the Secretary of State would not necessarily have to act immediately on the sale of his surplus shares. I beg to move.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain an adequate price for any shares in the successor company that he disposes of directly or through nominees. Although the amendment is intended to be inserted in Clause 7, the duty which it imposes would have effect in any of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might dispose of shares.
There are broadly two categories of case in which the Secretary of State might do this. The first is where, as a result of exercising his rights to subscribe for shares in a rights issue or to convert securities into shares, the Government shareholding inadvertently exceeded the target investment limit. The Secretary of State would then be required to dispose of the excess shares by Clause 7(6). Secondly, the Government might decide, as a matter of policy, to reduce their shareholding. Having taken the decision to dispose of shares, the Secretary of State would take account of a wide range of factors in deciding the exact form and timing of the disposal.
So far as foreign ownership is concerned, the directors of the company will have to ensure, in accordance with the articles of association, that not more than 15 per cent. of the voting shares are foreign held, so there will be no need for the Secretary of State to take special precautions. The directors will not register any transfer of a share if they do not receive a declaration as to whether the transferee is or is not a foreigner; and they will be required not to register one if it appears to them that, if the transfer were to be registered, the 15 per cent. limit would be breached. If, notwithstanding these safeguards, the 15 per cent. limit were exceeded the directors would disfranchise the excess foreign shares held and sell them.
It will, of course, be the Government's intention, in the arranging of any dis-

115
posal of their shares, to obtain the best possible price consistent with fulfilling the obligation to ensure that the target investment limit is observed. It is for this reason that Clause 7(6) includes the words"as soon … as … reasonably practicable ". It obliges the Secretary of State to sell the shares, but it enables him to defer their sale for a short period in order to obtain their true market value unaffected by the dealings in the rights which will no doubt have occurred. The timing will obviously depend upon the particular situation.
As I have said, it will be the Government's intention to obtain"the best possible price ". All that the amendment would require is"an adequate price "; it would therefore be less demanding in practice than what we intend. In any case, what is"an adequate price "? The best price reasonably obtainable is a question of judgment in the particular circumstances which arise, but"an adequate price"brings in so many imponderables that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the amendment.
I think that your Lordships need have no fear. Nothing in the clause would oblige the Government to dispose of shares in such a rush that they did not achieve their true value. But it is certainly not our intention that the whole purpose of the clause, the limiting of Government involvement in the company, should be frustrated. Hence I consider that subsection (6) is adequate as it stands, and I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, but I wonder whether I could press him a little further. In making his explanation, he said that under the clause the Secretary of State would have"a short period"in which to dispose of his surplus holding. I wonder whether he could state what he means by"a short period "?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I find it rather difficult to answer that question. As an ex-stockbroker, I know how extremely difficult it is when somebody rings up and says:"I should like to sell so many shares. I leave it to you
116
when to do it ". If you decide that you might get a better price tomorrow and say:"I will wait until tomorrow ", you are always wrong, and it is always an extremely difficult decision to take. All I would say is that"a short period"might be one account or two accounts, but I doubt whether it would be more than that.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I understand he is saying that by"a short period"he means that the Secretary of State would have to dispose of the shares within a month of becoming——
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I would think so.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE——aware that he held an excessive number of shares. I also thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this subsection, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Dissolution of British Aerospace and transitional provisions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.6 p.m.
Lord RENTON: This is the only really complicated clause in the Bill. Therefore I feel justified, even at this late hour, in asking a Government spokesman whether he would be so good as to resolve any doubts that one might have, partly about its effect, but also because I should be interested to know about the timing of the various stages which arise under this clause and under the appointed day provision in Clause 14. We find in Clause 10(1) that certain provisions of the Act of 1977,
" shall cease to have effect on the appointed day in relation to British Aerospace ".
Pausing there for a moment about the words"cease to have effect ", sometimes those words are used without justification when it is intended to repeal the clauses to which reference is made in that way. But

117
on this occasion it seems to me that those words are quite properly used, because those provisions of the Act of 1977 will, as we see towards the end of subsection (1), be needed in their application to British Shipbuilders, who, as I understand it, will not be affected by this Bill and, therefore, they will continue to require the provisions of the principal Act.
If we read on to Clause 10(2), we find that British Aerospace is to continue in existence after the appointed day, and that certain other provisions of the Act of 1977 are to,
" continue to have effect in relation to its constitution and proceedings, until it is dissolved in accordance with subsection (9) ".
In subsection (9) we find that the Secretary of State,
" may, by order made by statutory instrument … dissolve British Aerospace on a day specified ".
The day specified will obviously come later than the appointed day. In other words, the appointed day will be the day on which the Bill comes into force and, thereafter, the successor company will be formed. But the day specified is to be the day on which British Aerospace will be dissolved, and between those two days, we find at the end of Clause 10(2), there is to be"the transitional period "—a kind of twilight period for British Aerospace.
My first question is whether my interpretation of those complicated provisions is correct. If it is not correct, it means that the provisions of the Bill may be found perplexing by others as well, but I hope that my interpretaton is correct. My second question is: What sort of interval will there be between the appointed day for the coming into force of the Bill and the day specified for the dissolution of British Aerospace? Is it to he weeks, or months, or years? It would be helpful to be told the answer.
I have one further question—and I shall quite understand if my noble friend is unable to answer without notice this evening, but it is important for us to have the answer from a drafting point of view. One finds that in Schedule 3 various powers and provisions of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 are to he repealed. We find in Clause 10(1) that other provisions are to cease to have effect in relation to British Aerospace but will continue in force in relation to British Shipbuilders. We then find in Clause 10(2),
118
that certain provisions shall apply temporarily to British Aerospace, but after that it would seem to me that they become spent. One does not like to have spent provisions cluttering up the statute book if by vigilance we can ensure that they are removed when no longer needed. Therefore, my third question—I appreciate that it may be difficult to answer on the spur of the moment, but perhaps it could be considered between now and Report—is as follows: are there any provisions in the 1977 Act which are not repealed by Scheule 3, but which may become spent as a result of Clause 10? If so, I suggest that we should make provision in the Bill for those provisions to be repealed if they are no longer needed.
Lord TREFGARNE: My noble friend Lord Renton has raised a complex and difficult matter, and I shall do my best to answer as fully as I can. However, I am afraid that I certainly cannot answer without consideration the last point he put to me about the residual spent provisions of the 1977 Act.
The scenario he described relating to the appointed day as referred to originally in Clause 1 and defined in Clause 14, followed by the day after the transitional period when British Aerospace has finally shaken off this mortal coil, was correct. However, I am afraid that I cannot tell him how long the transitional period will be, because the length of that period will depend on how long it takes to wind down the proceedings and activities of British Aerospace. A number of difficult and technical negotiations have to take place, and I am afraid that at this stage it is not possible to predict what that period will be. As for the last point mentioned by my noble friend, I shall take some advice and write to him.
Lord RENTON: I am much obliged to my noble friend.
Clause 10 agreed to.
8.16 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 11:
>After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
" Memorandum of Association and Articles
of Association (No. 1) of British Aerospace Limited
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall stipulate as a condition prior to its nomination under this Act that the successor company shall have as its initial memorandum and articles of association those set out in Schedules (Memorandum of Association of British Aerospace Limited) and (Articles of Association of British Aerospace (No. 1)) to this Act.
(2) No amendment to or addition to the Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association of the successor company as set out in Schedules (Memorandum of Association of British Aerospace Limited) and (Articles of Association of British Aerospace Limited (No. 1)) to this Act shall be made without the prior consent of the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, and no such instrument shall be of effect until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.".
The noble Lord said: We now come to a series of four amendments concerning the memorandum and articles of association of the successor company. The Government, as we have previously recalled, are setting up the £100 company to receive British Aerospace and the public corporation will emerge only later. We do not have the memorandum and articles of association of the public company. We have only the straightforward memorandum and articles of association for the private company as provided in the Companies Act 1948, as amended.
There will undoubtedly be elements in common between the two memoranda, but there is no safeguard at present as to what the articles in the one or the other will be. We should have a legislative guarantee as to what will be in the articles of association. This amendment attempts to enshrine the articles of association in the legislation, although I would be the first to admit that this is not entirely satisfactory because even if we enshrine these in legislation, we do not know what will be the exact form of the articles in the ultimate public company.
The Government have already placed in the Library Article 40 concerning foreign control, and one assumes that that article will be included in the articles of the ultimate public company and not in the articles of the initial private company. One wonders whether what is included in Article 40 could in some way be enshrined in the law.
The subsequent amendments deal with other aspects of the ultimate articles which we should like to see enshrined; I shall deal with them when we come to them. If we cannot have the articles enshrined
120
in the Bill, the only answer would seem to be to add clauses to the Bill stipulating the matters that we should like to see enshrined in the articles. Since it is unsatisfactory that we cannot know what the ultimate articles will contain, I feel that the only way round this is to add new clauses to the Bill to ensure that within the ultimate articles these matters are satisfactorily dealt with. As it is, the Committee is being asked to sign a blank cheque and this amendment seeks to put the situation right.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I hope it will be helpful if I seek to describe the process by which the vesting of the business in the successor company will occur. The Bill provides that the successor company must have been formed and registered under the Companies Act 1948; that on the appointed day it must be limited by shares; and that on the appointed day all those shares must be owned by or on behalf of the Crown.
The Secretary of State has formed and registered, under the Companies Act 1948, a private limited company, called British Aerospace Limited. The Secretary of State can do this, quite independent of the Bill, in exactly the way that any individual can form and register a company. The sole function of that company is to stand available as the vessel in which the business of BAe will lodge. It has no purpose or function other than to prepare itself for the vesting on the appointed day. The shares in the company are held by the Secretary of State's nominees, in practice two officials in the Department of Industry; the directors of the company are similarly departmental officials. The issued share capital is purely nominal. The articles of association are in essence those of Table A to Schedule 1 of the Companies Act, with some very small amendments designed to ensure that the company can operate on the very limited basis I have described. These articles are available in the Library of the House, and it is these that are included in the second Schedule associated with this new clause.
This company will be nominated as the successor company for the appointed day, and will be placed in a fit state for the Nesting in it of the undertaking of British Aerospace. This will involve holding, on or shortly before the appointed day,

121
an extraordinary general meeting of the company at which a number of decisions will be taken. First, the authorised share capital of the company will be increased from the purely nominal capital of the"shell company"to a capital appropriate to a company running the British Aerospace industry. Secondly, the company will adopt new articles of association—again, those appropriate for a listed company. The basis of the articles will be those in Table A of the Companies Act 1948, brought up to date in various ways. The articles will also contain the special provisions which I described on Second Reading, for a limit on foreign ownership to a maximum of 15 per cent; and for the appointment of two Government directors. There will be an application for the private limited company to be re-registered as a public limited company. Last, the directors of the new company will be elected from the board members of British Aerospace, and the two departmental officials on the board of the"shell company"will resign. The transformation will be complete: a public limited company, with all British Aerospace's property, rights, liabilities and obligations; with a strong and independent board; with new articles of association; and with an appropriate capital structure will stand ready for a flotation. In response to a direction to be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 3 of the Bill, the company will issue shares in the company to Government nominees.
The essential feature of the memorandum of the public limited company in which shares will be offered to the public—the objects clause—will be that of the company formed at the end of last year. That is the part of the memorandum which sets out the activities the company is permitted to pursue. These are helpfully duplicated in the first schedule associated with this new clause. We expect that they will form the objects clause of the company in which shares will be offered for sale. The memorandum, drawn up in close consultation with British Aerospace allows British Aerospace Limited to do those things which the constituent companies of the statutory corporation were allowed to do. We have put British Aerospace Limited in the same position as that of BAC, Hawker Siddeley and Scottish Aviation. The objects clause in the memorandum of British Aerospace Limited can most easily
122
be regarded as that of BAC, amended as necessary to embrace special features of the other two companies, or of recent developments within the statutory corporation. The definition of what British Aerospace Limited will be allowed to do is therefore available to the House.
I have deliberately repeated in some detail the process that will be adopted to enable noble Lords to understand the background against which the new clause must be considered. The effect of subsection (1) would be to require the successor company to have the memorandum and articles of the present"shell company ". I have explained that the objects clause set out in the memorandum of the"shell company"will indeed be the objects clause of the"real company ". But in all other respects, the memorandum and articles of association are quite inappropriate for and incompatible with the requirements of a public limited and listed company, conducting a business with a turnover in excess of a billion, and assets approaching half that. If the new clause and schedules were accepted therefore the sole effect would be to ensure that, on the appointed day, the company's constitution would require immediate change. They would also prevent the change from private to public limited company occurring before the appointed day.
Subsection (2) would require changes in the memorandum and articles to be approved by Parliament. I appreciate the wish of noble Lords to know more about the memorandum and articles. I have explained that the memorandum will be almost identical to that of the shell company, and the articles will be largely standard; and we outlined on Second Reading the special provisions on foreign control and Government directors. The articles are now being finalised and I can undertake that both they and the memorandum will be laid in the House before Report. However, I do not believe it would be appropriate for amendments to them to be subject to Parliamentary approval. This is not a requirement for Cable and Wireless—wholly owned by Government; nor for Rolls-Royce 1971—again about to be wholly owned by Government direct; nor for British Leyland—almost entirely owned by the NEB. We wish British Aerospace Limited to operate like any other private

123
sector company, subject to exactly the same constraints as any other public limited company. Shareholders in British Aerospace must have the same rights as shareholders in other companies, including the right—if the necessary three-quarters majority is forthcoming—to change the company's memorandum and articles. To intrude a Parliamentary procedure into this would run quite counter to our policy, and produce a strange half-breed, subject in part to Parliament and in part to its members.
I must apologise for a rather long explanation, but I hope thereafter the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord MORRIS: I must support my noble friend on this particular point. I believe this amendment to be entirely mischievous. It would be quite improper that anybody other than the promoters of a company should define the terms of the memorandum and articles of association. In this instance, the promoters of this new public company are the Government of the day, acting by analogy as the trustees for putative future shareholders. For anybody other than the promoters to design the memorandum and articles of association of that company surely must not be proper in the normal course of events. As my noble friend so rightly said, there is no precedent in modern days for this. I think that this point of view is certainly worthy of support.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, for his full explanation. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has slightly misinterpreted the point of my amendment. I certainly have no desire to help to draw up the memorandum and articles of association of British Aerospace Limited. Indeed, it gave me comfort from the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, to learn that in fact the articles of the public company are almost drawn up and that they will be available for noble Lords to see in the Library before we reach the Report stage. That is a small step forward. I hinted at a number of remarks which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, when I moved the amendment: that the articles, as tabled, were placed in the Library by the Government at the end of last year.
124
I feel that by tabling this amendment your Lordships had the opportunity of seeing what was proposed to be included in the articles. However, it in no way lessens my feeling of dissatisfaction at the fact that your Lordships' House has very little say and that Parliament as a whole has very little say about what in fact will be included in the articles. Therefore we go on to the subsequent amendments which ask that specific items be included in the articles, and I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.31 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
" Nationality of directors of successor company
" The Secretary of State shall stipulate as a condition prior to its nomination under this Act that the successor company shall have included in its initial articles and memorandum the necessary provisions to ensure that all directors should be British citizens and resident in the United Kingdom.".
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the nationality of the directors of the successor company. We shall shortly be coming to my amendment on the foreign investment limit. The Government have admitted their concern regarding foreign control and the need to restrict the amount of foreign investment in the company. As we have said many times before in this debate, British Aerospace is a British company with substantial British defence interests, and bearing that in mind surely it is not too much to ask that the directors of the company should all be British. I beg to move.
Lord TREFGARNE: We entirely agree that all directors of the company should be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Provisions to this effect will be included in the articles of association of the successor company which, as my noble friend said just now, will be available to the House in draft before the Report stage. The Government would be prepared to vote their shareholding if it was necessary to prevent any amendment to these provisions.
However, there are two points on which we do not agree with the noble Lord. First, we do not think it right to require

125
directors to be resident in the United Kingdom. This is because British Aerospace has important overseas activities which might require directors to live abroad, at least temporarily. For example, the Walton Division has a director resident in Saudi Arabia and that might equally apply to a director of the company. Secondly, we do not believe that it is appropriate for provisions of this sort to be included in the Bill. It is important that the successor company should be seen to be a normal private sector company governed by its memorandum and articles like any other company. This principle would be infringed if certain provisions of the articles were to be incorporated in the Bill. In the light of this explanation, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: In his reply, the noble Lord indicated that a reason why he disliked this particular amendment was that it included the words,"and resident in the United Kingdom ", although he said that it was certainly the view of the Government that all the directors should be British citizens. In view of that, I might be well advised to table an amended amendment at Report stage. However, I have noted what the noble Lord has said—that he feels that this is not something which should be written into the Bill. Our strong view is that items like this should be written into the Bill. However, in view of his particular remarks about the defectiveness of this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
"Consultative Machinery
The Secretary of State shall stipulate as a condition prior to its nomination under this Act that the successor company shall have included in its initial articles and memorandum the necessary provisions to ensure that—
(1) Except'so far as it is satisfied that adequate machinery exists for achieving the purposes of this section, it shall be the duty of the successor company to consult any relevant trade union with a view to the conclusion between the successor company and any
126
such trade union of such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for the purposes specified in subsection (2) below.
(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1) above are:—

(a) the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the successor company and its wholly owned subsidiaries.

(b) the resolution of trade disputes, within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.

(c) the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting efficiency, in any respect, in the carrying out of their activities by the successor company and its wholly owned subsidiaries.

(d) the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to the parties to the agreement.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the successor company or any subsidiary from taking part, together with other employers or organisations of employers in the establishment and maintenance of machinery for any of the purposes set out in subsection (2) above ".
The noble Lord said: This amendment was to have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, but unfortunately he is unable to be present today. This clause attempts to establish that the sort of workable industrial relations machinery which the new company might have should be enshrined in the Bill. During its two years of existence, British Aerospace has built up a very effective system of consultative machinery which seems to be working satisfactorily at the present time. To have a clause such as this in the Bill would reassure the present workforce of British Aerospace and I hope that the Government will be able to see their way to include a clause like this in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord TREFGARNE: The duty which this clause seeks to impose upon the successor company through its articles of association is a standard one imposed upon public corporations. It is one by which British Aerospace is bound by virtue of Section 6 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. I understand why the noble Lord has moved this amendment, but I believe that when I have described its effect he will see that it is a limited provision which will achieve little or nothing. Provisions in the articles imposed by the clause would require the successor company to consult relevant

127
trade unions (which are not defined, incidentally) as to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for settling terms and conditions of employment, resolving trade disputes, promoting and encouraging measures affecting efficiency and discussing other matters of mutual interest to the parties concerned. It appears that the words"relevant trade unions"are intended to denote those recognised by the successor company for collective bargaining purposes. But the new clause would require consultation only where the successor company was not satisfied that adequate machinery already existed. There would therefore be no compulsion to start from scratch and the successor company would have complete discretion to decide whether or not adequate machinery already existed.
Under its own statutory duty, British Aerospace has for the most part continued to operate the procedures that existed in the companies before nationalisation. Since the corporation has evidently been satisfied with these arrangements there have been no moves towards, for example, major rationalisation of negotiating machinery. The effect of the duty, therefore, can be said to have been very limited indeed.
We believe it is essential that British Aerospace Limited should behave and be treated as a normal private sector company. Therefore, it will have the same responsibilities in relation to consultation and other industrial relations matters as any private sector company. The Government are very much in favour of genuine participation and consultation in industry, and I have no doubt that the successor company will wish to continue and to build on the arrangements that exist in British Aerospace. But to impose upon it a duty in this area by statute and particularly one normally imposed upon public corporations, as this clause would do, would be wholly inappropriate. For that reason and because, as I have explained, the clause would achieve very little, I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: The reply which the noble Lord has given is not unexpected and, in view of the late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.39 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES Lord WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No.14:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
"Corporate Plan
(" The Secretary of State shall stipulate as a condition prior to its nomination under this Act that the successor company shall have included in its initial articles and memorandum the necessary provisions to ensure that it shall be the duty of the successor company, after consulting with any relevant trade union, to formulate in each year a corporate plan relating to the conduct of the operations of the successor company and its subsidiaries and dealing with the following matters, namely:—

(a) capital investment

(b) research and development

(c) employment of persons

(d) forecasts of income and expenditure on profit and loss account and of payments and receipts of the successor company and its wholly owned subsidiaries

(e) such other matters as the successor company considers appropriate, and

(f) such other matters as the Secretary of State may for the purposes of this section specify in writing to the successor company.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment proposes the introduction of a clause requiring a corporate plan every year from the company. The purpose of a corporate plan is to obtain from the company an estimate of its capital requirements, as stated here; its research and development work; the employment of persons; forecasts of income and expenditure on profit and loss account; such other matters as the successor company considers appropriate and such other matters as the Secretary of State may, for the purposes of the section, specify in writing to the successor company.
The aerospace industry is one of the largest and most successful industries in the country. It has a very considerable sale of aircraft and components abroad, and it is an industry which is in the very forefront of technological development. If ever there was a case when one could talk about white hot technology, this is it. The aerospace industry has been a focus of white hot technology, and very successful too, and has done a great deal for this country. But what is abundantly clear with an industry of this type, engaged in the very forefront of technology, is that unless large sums of money are spent upon research and development the future is bleak.
This particular industry, of which I think we must all in this country be proud has produced notable achievements, but let us notice that those achievements have only been won at a very high price. If one goes back to the time when we had introduced the first jet airliner, the Comet, we had great trouble with the Comet. Several Comets blew up in the air. Why? Because there were certain weaknesses in the structure which were not known in advance. It was not until a very elaborate testing procedure was introduced, which was the tank that was brought in at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, that they were able to find out why these Comets has been destroyed in the air. This was fundamental research of an extremely important type, and very expensive.
People talk about the high price of Concorde. I remember several years back, ten years or so, going to the Royal Aircraft Establishment and to Filton in order to see what was happening in the development and building of Concorde. What became abundantly clear was the great amount of money that has to be spent upon basic research work—not research work just to build one aeroplane, but research work in order to find out whether supersonic flight could be used for carrying passengers. It was the solution of these immensely difficult problems which cost the very large sum of money which amounted to the fantastic price of Concorde. You may say Concorde is not a financial success, but we do not yet know whether the money spent on the development of Concorde will not in the future reap considerable rewards. We cannot say. But what we can be sure of is that all development of aircraft, all these aerospace developments that we talk about, will only be achieved if there are large sums of money available for research and development.
When the research and development is required for military aircraft the problem is not so grave, because there are plenty of resources made available, from the Defence Ministry and in other ways, in order to develop military aircraft. But when it comes to civil aircraft then these resources have to be devoted by the company concerned. One of the difficulties is to he sure that the money is available. Your Lordships will recollect that some years ago there was the problem with regard
130
to Rolls-Royce, not because Rolls-Royce were doing something badly but because in order to build their new engines they had to commit so much in the way of research and development; they were unable to find the resources, and the Government had to step in and help.
What we are suggesting in this amendment is that a corporate plan should be published every year which states all this, makes it clear what the company requires in order to do the job, which, whether it is a national company or a private company, will remain the job it has got to do; that is, to develop new means of conquering aerospace. This is why we believe that it is vital that a corporate plan should be published every year, in order that we should know exactly what the company is aiming at and know what sort of resources may have to be made available. I beg to move.
Lord MORRIS: I believe this to be another mischievous amendment. It clearly shows that the noble Lord has lost temporarily the idea of what the functions of a memorandum of association and articles of association are. The memorandum is there solely to state the name, the registered office and the broad strategy of the company. The articles of association are the rules which state the way in which the company is being operated. It is not the function of any company to entrench in articles of association any corporate plan, or even to say that the directors of a company should do so year-in, year-out. This must be considered on the exigencies of even the day-to-day decisions of the directors, and it is certainly not the function of the articles of association to be used in this way.
Lord TREFGARNE: As the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, said, this new clause would provide that the articles of association of the successor company should include a provision requiring the company to formulate a corporate plan after consulting its trade unions. It would, therefore, in effect impose upon the successor company a duty comparable to the one to which British Aerospace is subject as a nationalised industry under Section 7 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. This approach is fundamentally opposed to the Government's policy, which is to vest British

131
Aerospace's business in a company like any other, subject only to commercial disciplines and free of Government interference. Indeed, the noble Lords who put down this clause have perhaps tacitly recognised that it is incompatible with the basic philosophy underlying the Bill, for although the new clause is based upon Section 7 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, it does not include any requirement, as that Act does, to act upon lines settled by the Secretary of State.
Of course, British Aerospace Limited will, like any other major company, plan its corporate strategy, and it could hardly produce a corporate plan which did not deal with the items specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the new clause. Equally, I have no doubt that the successor company will wish to build on the arrangements which already exist within British Aerospace for consultation with the trade unions. But these will be matters for the company itself. No private sector company is subject to special statutory requirements or ministerial directions in these areas. They are governed by their articles of association which are subject to amendment by a three-quarters majority of their shareholders. We believe it would be quite wrong for British Aerospace Limited to be different and to be subject to duties which, while enshrined in the articles of association, were put there because of a statutory requirement, and, if noble Lords opposite had their way, could only be amended by a decision of Parliament. I hope your Lordships will not accept this amendment.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I am sorry that the noble Lord is not prepared to accept the amendment. I realise, of course, that if the Government consider that this is at variance with the purpose of the Bill, then the noble Lord has the ability to carry that point of view. I am sorry about that because I think that the Government may regret that they do not have such a clause in the Bill. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.51 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
Foreign Investment Limit
. (1) The Secretary of State shall by order made by statutory instrument fix a limit for investment by non-United Kingdom residents (the foreign investment limit) in the successor company.
(2) Any issue or transfer of shares which would cause the foreign investment limit to be exceeded shall be void and any moneys paid pursuant to such issue or transfer shall be recoverable as an ordinary debt.
(3) The foreign investment limit shall be expressed as a proportion of the voting rights exercisable at general meetings.
(4) The powers under paragraph (1) above shall not be esercised so as to fix the limit above 15 per cent.
(5) In this section"investment"means the legal ownership or ownership through nominees.".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is self-evident. It seeks to protect the corporation against a major foreign stake or influence in the company. The Government have accepted the principle of this amendment and, indeed, have placed draft articles in the Library showing how it is proposed to deal with the problem of foreign shareholding. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, cannot in fact use the argument, which he put forward as regards some of the previous amendments, that British Aerospace should operate on all fours with other public companies, because here the Government have accepted that it will not operate on all fours with other public companies in that it will have in its articles of association Article 40 which deals with the problem of foreign shareholding. Therefore, this amendment should be looked at by the noble Lord in a different way from the way he looked at other amendments which have been tabled.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who spoke to the two earlier amendments, will also realise that this amendment is different from those earlier amendments in that the Government have agreed that in fact the question of foreign ownership must be protected in the articles. In view of that, I hope that the Government will give very serious consideration to including a new clause, like this, in the Bill.
I have not had much success with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, this evening, but I should hope that he might find some merit in including this clause in the Bill. I certainly believe that it would be much more satisfactory from Parliament's point

133
of view if this limitation on foreign ownership was clearly stated in the Bill.
Our misgivings in this matter stem from two concerns. First, we know that the Government are anxious to raise money by selling off national assets—a course of action with which we, as the noble Lord knows, do not agree. But, there must indeed be a temptation to sell off assets to the highest bidder. British Aerospace is a successful undertaking and its knowledge and expertise could be much in demand by a foreign bidder who could well be prepared to pay a premium for a stake.
Secondly, we know how the De Beers Corporation recently, unbeknown to the most inquisitive and investigative journalists, was able to gain a measure of control of Consolidated Goldfields. That makes one concerned that every effort should be made to ensure that the Government's wish, that this company remains under United Kingdom control, is one which is made absolute. Therefore, I think that it would be advisable if we could enshrine within the Bill a clause stating a maximum or ceiling limit for foreign ownership. The Government should give very serious consideration to that matter. I beg to move.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: We have consistently made clear that the Government are determined that British Aerospace Limited should not fall into foreign hands. In that matter, we are absolutely in accord with noble Lords opposite. That was made clear by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his initial statement in the other place on 23rd July and on Second Reading on 20th November; it was frequently reiterated during the debates on the Bill in the other place, and we reaffirmed it on Second Reading here. I again formally set on record our determination to prevent the company, that will be so important to our defence, from falling into foreign control. It is a determination which I know the Opposition shares. What divides us is merely the means of achieving a common end.
The means we wish to adopt rely on three mechanisms. First, a provision in the articles of association of the new company restricting foreign ownership to not more than 15 per cent. of the voting rights in the company; in substance this
134
is what is proposed in the new clause, though the article is immensely more complicated. Secondly, we have made clear that we shall retain a shareholding of over 25 per cent. and we shall not hesitate to use the voting rights attached to the Government's shares either to stop any attempt to remove or weaken this article, or to oppose the election of directors representing foreign interests. Thirdly, we should be prepared if necessary to use Part II of the Industry Act 1975 to stop a change of control of this key British manufacturing enterprise. We believe that these triple mechanisms provide a full and effective means of enabling us to stop foreign control.
Of these three mechanisms, the most important is the restriction in the company's articles of association. In January, a copy of the first draft article was lodged in the Library: a second draft, incorporating one or two suggestions made by the Opposition in the other place, was placed in the Library on 6th February. It has been drafted with great care to ensure that the objective of this new clause—that no more than 15 per cent. of the shares should be foreign-held—is achieved.
We believe that a relatively simple legislative provision of the sort envisaged in the new clause would be ineffective on its own because there would be no guarantee that all the detailed provisions concerning enforcement, the definition of ownership through nominees, and so on, would be included in the articles.
I recognise that the noble Lord has made some attempt to deal with these points in his new clause, but the draft article (whose purpose is the same) runs to several pages. On the other hand, I believe that it would be wrong to include the full article in the Bill. This would run counter to the principle that the company will be like any other private sector company, free from Government interference and governed by articles of association determined by its shareholders. If the article was laid down by the Bill it would presumably be subject to amendment by Parliament, either by statutory instrument or by new primary legislation. This would be a stark case of the rights of shareholders being subject to specific parliamentary (and indirectly Government) control over the company of the sort we are most anxious to avoid. So

135
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the arrangements we propose to prevent foreign control really are effective, and that he will withdraw the new clause.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation and I shall read his detailed reply with interest in Hansard tomorrow. Let me say straight away that my advisers have looked at the new Article 40 placed in the Library. I am advised that it is a very satisfactory attempt at trying to ensure that, in fact, foreign ownership does not creep up above 15 per cent.
Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord that that is a complicated article and competently defines the nature of a foreign company. However, I am not altogether convinced that, in fact, this is as far as we should go. Whether it might be appropriate to have some form of mechanism in the Bill, as we have for the total Government shareholding, as regards the foreign ownership aspect of shareholding is something I should want to consider. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, but could well return to it at the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
"Complaints about charges of successor company
—(1) If at any time a complaint is made to the Secretary of State by any body appearing to be representative of persons engaged in the aerospace industry as to the prices charged by the successor company for its goods, the Secretary of State may make directions to the company with regard to the charges made or the subject of the complaint.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under this section with regard to any such charges as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section unless it appears to him that the charges in question are excessive, having regard to the full cost of absorbing the source or sources in respect of which they are made.
(3) It appears to the Secretary of State that a body making a complaint under subsection (1) of this section has a reasonable case to make in support of the complaint, he shall refer the complaint for investigation to a person appearing to him to have suitable qualifications for that responsibility, and shall consider the report of
136
that person before giving a direction upon the complaint under this section.
(4) The procedure on any complaint under this section (including any referral of the complaint for investigation) shall be such as the Secretary of State may determine ''.
The noble Lord said: The Committee stage has perhaps gone a trifle longer than some of us anticipated at one point earlier in the afternoon. Therefore, I shall move this particular clause very quickly indeed. This clause is to provide for investigation of the charges of the successor company so that what it charges can be monitored in the same way as other corporations are monitored. I beg to move.
Lord TREFGARNE: I shall do my best to reply as quickly as the noble Lord has moved the amendment. To be perfectly honest, when I read this amendment I thought that it probably qualified for the silly-amendment-of-the-week prize, and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me when I have quickly said a few words.
The Government have made it clear that the successor company should be like any other company. That means that it should be subject to all the general laws of the land and should have no special privileges. But it also means that it should not be subject to controls or interference to which the generality of companies are not subject. No mechanisms for controlling the prices of an individual company such as those proposed in this clause exist in legislation of general application, and so the successor company would be treated differently from other companies. I think that I have said enough this evening to indicate that that procedure is not acceptable to us, and I hope that the noble Lord will now accept our point of view on that matter and not press his amendment.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I thank the noble Lord for his reply and do not intend to press this particular amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.4 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 17:

137
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
"Government Funding
.—(1) For the purpose of promoting the design, development or production of civil aircraft, the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury may at any time after the appointed date make payments in accordance with this section to the successor company or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries.
(2) No payments may be made under this section unless—

(a) the Secretary of State is of opinion that it is in the national interest that payments on the scale and in the way proposed should be made; and

(b) it appears to the Secretary of State that, if the payments are not made, it would be inconsistent with the objects of the company imposed by or under section 1(2)(b) of this Act for the company or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries to undertake the design, development or production in question.

(3) Payments under this section may be made on any terms and conditions, and, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, by way of fees or by any description of investment or lending or by the making of grants.
(4) There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under this section and any sums received by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the terms and conditions on which payments are made under this section shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.".
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that I cannot be quite so speedy about Amendment No. 17. This amendment deals with the question of Government funding. The sort of money which the Corporation will require to launch new projects over the next five years will be formidable and it is difficult to see it coming from private sources. The Airbus entry fee—and we shall not see the pay off of that for some seven or 10 years—was at least £250 million. The 146 project required a commitment of £250 million. The new company could well face research and development costs of between £500 million and £1,000 million over the next five years. I do not see how the company will be able to obtain that sort of money without a Treasury guarantee.
The Government have an overriding desire to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, so unless there is some special provision for help, it is difficult to see how we can again have civil aviation aircraft projects in this country. One cannot see sufficient money for research and development under the Industry Act,
138
the Civil Aviation Act 1949 or the Science and Technology Act 1965 being made available. Unless we have a commitment from the Government, we could well be seeing the beginning of the end of British Aerospace. When it is pressed for cuts, inevitably the first cuts will come in its research and development work.
The money needed for this is high-risk money. Private investors in this country do not have a good record of putting up massive amounts of capital for research and development in high-risk projects. One can only look at the situation in the British Aerospace industry prior to nationalisation to understand that that is what did not happen. Indeed, had it not been for nationalisation, the Hawker Siddeley 146 project would not be with us today. It is only because the Government were prepared to back this project that we have it here now. I beg to move this amendment.
Lord TREFGARNE: I do not disagree with the principle that powers of the sort included in this new clause should be available to the Government. However, they will be available in any case, since we shall be able to provide assistance under Section 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 to encourage measures for the designing, development and production of civil aircraft. The new clause would, therefore, add nothing to the powers of the Government, since the successor company will be
eligible for assistance under the 1949 Act on the same basis as any other company. In this respect it will differ from British Aerospace which was debarred from receiving Civil Aviation Act money by Section 46 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. Section 45 was included in the 1977 Act as a substitute for the Civil Aviation Act power, to enable British Aerospace to receive direct funding for civil aircraft projects in certain circumstances. We now intend, in effect, to return to the position which existed before nationalisation. British Aerospace Limited will be in exactly the same position as any other company in respect of eligibility for assistance under the 1949 Act. There is, therefore, no need for a special provision in the Bill.
I must, however, sound a word of warning. British Aerospace has not received any launch aid. With one exception—the

139
£50 million provided in connection with British Aerospace's membership of Airbus Industrie—it has received finance related to civil projects only as part of its overall financing requirements in the form of public dividend capital or loans from the National Loans Fund. The policy has been that the Corporation should make its own decisions on investments in future civil projects on fully commercial grounds, and that financing should normally be on commercial terms. This will continue to be the position with British Aerospace Limited, hut it will be reinforced by the fact that the company will have to raise the funds for its investment programme from commercial markets. I would not wish to rule out the possibility that in future there may be reasons of national interest for wishing to consider the provision of launch support. But this is a matter which would need to he looked at on its merits at the time. It would not be profitable to speculate now upon the possible circumstances. However, British Aerospace Limited will he treated on exactly the same basis as any other private sector company.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: May I thank the noble Lord for his reply. which I shall study with interest in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I announced that consideration of Commons amendments on the Companies Bill will not now he taken tomorrow. It will instead be taken on Thursday, 27th March. This is due to difficulties with the printing which delayed the publication of the amendments.

ROAD PLANNING: SECOND STAGE AUDITING
9.10 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will set up effective machinery for auditing the second stage of the road planning process, expressed in cost benefit analyses and traffic models for individual schemes. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this appears on the face of it to be a singles match, although there was a moment when I thought that even my opponent might not be appearing on the court in time to pick up his racquet. Let me serve notice that I think it is none the less an important Question. I have given notice to the noble Lord the Minister of the various points that I was going to put to him, not only because I would wish to extend to him the courtesy that he has always extended to me and to others in your Lordships' House, but also because I think it is important that on this particular Question there should be no misunderstanding about the questions being asked or the replies being given.
Although the singles match this evening may merely result in one single slow rally of two shots, nevertheless Iserve notice to the noble Lord and to the Government that should the replies be unsatisfactory this is a matter which in fact must be pursued well beyond that. On the other hand, I have every hope that the replies will prove satisfactory. The Question is about the second stage of the road planning process. The motorway and trunk road construction programme in this country is planned in two stages. The first is what may be called the basic methodology of national trunk road assessment, and it incorporates methods of national traffic predictions. This is now subject to some sort of independent scrutiny, that of the successor to the Leitch Committee, the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment—SACTRA. I see that our singles match is even more singles, for the noble Lord appears to be lacking any seconds in the wing.
The second stage is the application of that methodology which, combined with other factors involved in the mathematical traffic model and the cost benefit analysis, constitutes a financial, economic, and

141
environmental case for a proposed section of road. I do not have to remind your Lordships that these days, as always, but I think particularly these days, the construction of new sections of road really does need extreme defence, because it is extremely expensive. This is the form in which road proposals come before local public inquiries, and it has been subject to no independent audit or scrutiny whatsoever. This is not through any ill will on the part of the Government or anyone else, but, as I shall goon to point out it is because basically it is a difficult thing to do and there has not been the realisation of the need to do it. I hope tonight to point out the need.
It is difficult to do so because there are only two means whereby such audit and scrutiny can be undertaken: either objectors are rich and skilled enough to employ the necessary expertise, as was the case with the Winchester Joint Action Group in 1976–77; or a statutory or quasi-Government body decides to object and calls on public funds in order to do so, and there is an interesting precedent in that that has been done in the past by bodies other than the Government. In those particular cases the precedents were Haringey Council in the case of the Archway proposals, and the Countryside Commission in the case of the A30 Dartmoor National Park proposals at Okehampton.
Without exception, when the individual models and cost benefit analyses have been subjected to scrutiny, they have been found to be subject to major error and inadequacy, and where that has been done in sufficient depth, they have been found to be characterised by such extent of error that the schemes and orders have had to be either withdrawn or substantially amended, and I will give just some of the evidence to hand. In the Hayle by-pass proposals there was revealed a loss of £650,000 on a discounted construction cost of £4.9 million, as a result of which the orders were amended. As a result of documents being prepared for the district auditor, it was discovered that the Cumnor Hill dual by-pass scheme had been constructed on an error of 40 per cent. in traffic assignment. Haringey Council's objections at Archway resulted in the orders being withdrawn and the inspector saying:
" From the evidence given, it is clear that there have been changes of sufficient magnitude that
142
would justify the recomputation of the predictions … I am sure that Government would not wish to go ahead with such an expensive scheme unless it is sure that its future traffic usage will justify it.".
There the inspector talked of change, but, although there was probably change, there was also error. The orders were withdrawn.
Last October it was discovered that Hampshire County Council's proposal for the Easton Lane linkroad could not even sustain an inquiry, so dubious had been the assignment and modelling process. The inquiry was adjourned until 1980. Major errors were discovered at the Swanley M25 inquiry in both the traffic model—Mr. George Dobry Q.C., the inspector appointed, said,"The differences are staggering "—and in the geological survey work. The money ran out before adqeuate testing could be done.
At the Okehampton A30 inquiry, counsel for the Countryside Commission so undermined the department's model and cost benefit analysis that he invited the inspector to ignore the entire financial and economic evidence, it being without a shred of value. At the Uxbridge M25 inquiry, counsel for a very wealthy objector gained the department's agreement after a mere month's work that a short stretch of an alternative route would give a saving of £5.8 million, a finding totally different of course from that which was being put forward.
Those are merely samples, and I return to the statement that universally they have been found subject to serious error. In order to get a scrutiny of cost benefit analysis, it is important to show that all the rules have been complied with; to establish that all the assumptions for the production of a model are correct; to ensure that no tinkering has taken place, for whatever good motives; to check whether the cost benefit analysis has been fed the right input; to check whether correct use has been made of its output; to check for validation and calibration the exercises on traffic assignment; and check the engineering and geological work. I do not need to tell your Lordships that such a task is immensely complicated and expensive.
No one is casting stones at the Government or at the various bodies concerned for ill-will or for in any way trying to do

143
something which may eventually prove to be wrong. What we are talking about is the difficulty of all these matters and the importance that the difficulties should be understood and explained. For instance, the Leitch Report said—and it was a very valuable step forward in this field, as all your Lordships know:
" Complicated mathematical models are sometimes necessary, but they can only be of value if they are used with discretion by people who understand them ".
The report went on to say:
" There were certainly several ways in which cost benefit analysis results can be influenced by someone who understands how it works, and the staff at Departmental Headquarters see it as a major part of their work to prevent this happening. Of 80 schemes they have examined in recent months at least 60 have had some major corrections made."
That is an error rate of 75 per cent. undetected until that particular stage of the examination.
Elsewhere the report reveals that, out of 3,282 staff employed on the Trunk Road Programme, only eight are classified as economists, statisticians, et cetera. More relevantly, these eight are out-numbered by 2,231 professional and technical staff—for example, engineers and highway planners—which gives a ratio of 278 to one.
Furthermore, from page 6 of the report we learn that these few economists and statisticians are concerned at any one time with supervision of no less than 300 road schemes costing in excess of £1·5 million each. It is virtually impossible to accept that there can be adequate scrutiny by such limited personnel, and indeed all the facts and instances that we have, show that there is not—and no blame to them.
The validity of major road proposals depends very much on what is called traffic assignment. Dr. Outram, the department's principal expert on traffic assignment, admitted at the Swanley inquiry that:
" our knowledge does not enable us to determine the best assignment method in an urban area ".
Work so far done is admitted to be unsatisfactory. Major disagreement exists within the department regarding general traffic assignment. Should it be based on time alone—the amount of time that it takes vehicles to go in one direction or the other—or should it be based on the generalised cost, should it be measured in
144
money? The mind of the department has been changed between 1976 and 1978. One road construction unit uses both methods at different times; some use one method; others use the other. Yet the differences can be startling. Evidence at the Swanley inquiry revealed that the traffic flow at Wrotham doubled when time only was used, as against generalised cost. A measure of the imprecision and uncertainties of the traffic assignment process is a report last year when the AA announced findings under the headline:
" Motorists desert motorways in their thousands ".
That headline must have struck such dismay into the hearts of those who had built those motorways for the motorist.
External scrutiny by Parliament, the Exchequer, and the Audit Department fails for want of time and resources. Internal scrutiny fails for the quite obvious reasons that we all know: that in any organisation for which one works internal harmony is important, and it is not enhanced by civil servants questioning their colleagues' spending plans. I do not want that to be misunderstood in any way. I am not casting any criticism at all on the civil servants concerned. I am merely telling your Lordships what you all know—and it is just one of the universal laws of any particular organisation, whether it be a company, a Civil Service department, or whatever. One always knows that in order to test things to their utmost, one must have outside validation, outside criticism, outside testing.
The Secretary of State and the Department are basically and ultimately on the side of the angels. Command No 7132, Policy for Roads, said:
" the aim must be to demonstrate that decisions are being taken on the best possible evidence, which should be available to all who have an interest in it.".
Command No. 7133, Review of Highway Inquiry Procedure, said:
"…technical matters must not be immune from rigorous examination by an independent body. The Leitch Committee has already made recommendations on these subjects. The new Standing Advisory Committee, to be chaired by Sir George Leitch which is being set up by the Secretary of State for Transport, will have a continuing responsibility to monitor developments in methods of technical assessment ".
The general principle that is concerned will, again, be accepted, I have little doubt, by everyone in your Lordships' House.

145
It is to do with natural justice. If I may quote Professor Wade in his book on Administrative Law, page 223, he said:
" The right to know the opposing case. One important requirement of natural justice is that the objector should have the opportunity to know and meet the case against him ".
If a case is presented in such a form that it cannot be understood, then no objector can have much prospect of meeting it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, appeared to have this in mind in the case of Sloan v. General Medical Company in 1970, when, having dealt with the practice in America, he said:
"…even in our legal system the party concerned must be timely informed of the substance of the case he has to meet, which must be reasonably clearly formulated ".
The Leitch Committee appeared to be saying the same thing when they said:
" The first criterion is that the assessment should be generally comprehensible to the public and should command their respect ".
I can have very little doubt that your Lordships would go along with that. Comprehension may be difficult because one is dealing with very difficult facts and figures and with mathematical models, but respect can surely be absolutely demanded; and respect can be earned, I think, only by there being knowledge that not only the people who are party to the decision and not only the advocates of objectors understand the evidence, but that the other side does, too.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the ultimate responsibility is that of the Minister. In the House of Lords' ruling in Bushell, their judgment stated the constitutional principle that policy is the Minister's, that it is executed in his name by the civil servants in his department and that for his decisions, based upon their collective expertise, he is responsible only to Parliament. I am not seeking to challenge that, though it would be an interesting subject for a philosophical debate, but the fact remains that public accountability for the immense sums expended on roads—the GLC alone seeks to spend £1,100 million over the next 15 years—is non-existent. In an age when the Government are subjecting other fields of our national life to the and scrutiny of financial and economic appraisal—and I may say, my Lords, that, though I may quarrel with the way in which they are doing it, I in no way
146
quarrel with the need for it to be done—the need for adequate accountability in road expenditure has never been greater, and, really, nothing is being done about this important second stage.
A leader in the Sunday Times on February 10th, commenting on the Lords' Bushell judgment, said:
"…the necessary expertise is very unlikely to be on call in Parliament ".
We now have a specialist committee on transport. It may be that they will be able to call on greater resources, and it may be that that is the way forward. It certainly would not be for me, or for this House, to comment on the rights and duties of a committee of the other place.
I hope that I have said enough to your Lordships tonight to show that there is an immense gap in making the judgments as to the expenditure of an enormous amount of money in doing things which may affect our townscapes and countryside very strongly and seriously for the future as far as we can see it; and a gap in the process of justice whereby people whose houses, livelihoods, farms and gardens are disturbed by changes cannot yet have confidence that justice has been done. I hope that I have said enough to show that there should not be any difference between the two sides of the House or any of the people involved in this matter. It is merely a question of finding the machinery. That is what I am asking the Government tonight and that is why I beg leave to ask this Unstarred Question.
9.31 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for asking this Unstarred Question on which so much interest has been aroused over the past few years in the country—interest which has been aroused by anxiety by individuals and by bodies looking after people who they think are not able to look after themselves. There is a problem. We in Government are most anxious that our trunk road proposals and the assumptions and forecasts underlying them are open to full and proper scrutiny. But the arrangements for scrutiny have to be relevant and practicable.
In considering the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont,

147
there are two points to be borne in mind: uncertainty, and the way the various elements of scrutiny mesh together. New trunk roads are intended to serve the nation's needs for many years ahead. Taking into account the lengthy design period which precedes their construction, they need to be considered against forecasts of traffic for some 20 to 30 years into the future. These forecasts, by their very nature, must be subject to a considerable degree of uncertainty.
The uncertainties stem from two principal sources. First, the factors influencing the growth of traffic are many and varied and themselves difficult to forecast with accuracy. The growth of national income and the level of oil prices are subject to substantial short-term fluctuations; population trends are notoriously difficult to predict in the long term. Secondly, people are individuals. How they will react to changes in economic circumstances, on the one hand, or to the provision of a specific new road on the other, can only be estimated in total in the light of experience. Our techniques for doing so have been improved over the years, as understanding of the factors influencing traffic growth and the effect of new roads has increased. The Government believe that the techniques now being used are the best currently available, but I agree that it would be foolish to claim that no further improvement is possible in the light of continuing research.
However, my Lords, despite all the uncertainties involved in traffic forecasting and the assessment of the costs and benefits of new road schemes, decisions have to be taken about the level of resources to be allocated to the trunk road programme, the respective priorities of individual schemes within the programme and the standard to which new roads should be built.
These decisions must take account of the uncertanties involved—and this is why the forecasts produced by the Department of Transport are expressed as a range of likely possibilities. In applying this range to individual schemes for design and assessment purposes. the department takes account of the likely consequences if traffic grows at the most unfavourable end of the range so that, for example, the highest forecasts are generally used for
148
assessing the adverse environmental effects of a scheme, while the lowest may be used in the basic calculation of the net economic benefits. But, where the appropriate solution differs depending on whether the high of low forecasts turn out most nearly right, the"cost of being wrong"becomes an important criterion. For example, how would the"lost"cost to building an extra lane, if the lower growth happened, compare with the cost of delays to traffic, disruption and physical improvement later if the high forecast turned out right?
But given all these uncertainties, the proof of the pudding must remain in the eating. How well have the forecasts stood up in"before and after"comparisons? The record varies. For many of the early motorways traffic was clearly underestimated—as those who have suffered on the M5 in Worcestershire or the M1 in Hertfordshire are well aware. For some other schemes, the actual flows are well below the forecasts. The sort of range involved is illustrated in Chapter 16 of the Leitch Report: there is no consistent"bias ", but arrangements now in hand for more regular"before and alter assessments should help ensure that no unintentional bias does develop. But I repeat that I do not accept that forecasts are deliberately or in general misleading.
I now turn to the vaious types of scrutiny to which the traffic forecasts and economic assessments are subject. Underlying all of them are certain basic assumptions and policies: about the future growth of the economy; about the availability of energy and the priorities for its use; about the needs of industry and how they can be met; about whether or not we should direct traffic to use rail rather than road, and so on. The only forum which can properly debate such policies and whether it is sensible to plan on such assumptions is Parliament. The fact that we rarely do so is not the fault of Ministers—of any party. Annual reports and White Papers have provided occasions, rarely taken up. My right honourable friend therefore greatly welcomes the appointment of the new Select Committee in the other House, and its intention to consider the road programme when my right honourable friend's Roads White Paper is available. Perhaps we also might find time then to debate the subject, though I appreciate that we will be hard-pressed

149
during the summer. It is now something like two years since we had a full-blown debate on transport in this House.
The present Government wholly accept the view expressed in the Report of the Review of Highway Inquiry Procedure that:
" local inquiries are unsuitable for examining technical issues, such as methods of trunk road assessment, which have a national impact. But technical matters must not be immune from rigorous examination by an independent body ".
This has been precisely the role of the Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, which was set up in 1976, under the chairmanship of Sir George Leitch, to review the department's methods of forecasting traffic and appraising trunk road schemes.
The Committee reported in October 1977 and made several useful suggestions for the improvement of traffic forecasting methods, most of which have now been implemented. On cost benefit analysis, the Committee had this to say:
" In general we believe that COBA "—
that is the department's methods of cost benefit analysis—
" has been competently designed and feel that it has been implemented for the user with considerable skill …"
and later on, in considering the sensitivity of the cost benefit analysis technique to different inputs:
"… these are problems to be faced by any evaluation process and we feel that, subject to COBA's basic assumptions being reasonably closely observed, it uses the available information in a constructive and productive manner ".
The Committee's successor, the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, continues to monitor the department's assessment methods. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has already announced his intention to publish their reports on the framework for appraisal and on the regional highway traffic forecasting project, which is aimed at improving forecasting on individual schemes. The Committee is currently considering with the department possible ways of improving the national traffic forecasts.
Lastly, and more directly relevant, comes the scrutiny of the forecasts and cost benefit analyses of individual schemes. For this, the main forum is the public inquiry, though of course the department's headquarters will have already monitored
150
the work of the design team before that stage is reached.
The noble Lord has suggested that the Government should set up machinery for auditing such traffic forecasts and cost benefit analyses. It has been suggested in the past that this would help people in understanding the way in which the department carried out these operations and to test the reliability of the department's figures. The Government accept that it may often be difficult for members of the public to satisfy themselves that the traffic forecasts and economic analyses for individual road schemes are soundly based. As I have said, these techniques have become progressively more sophisticated over the years and, therefore, unfortunately, less easily comprehensible to the layman. I do not think however, than an independent audit would assist people in understanding the way in which these forecasts and analyses are carried out. The"auditors"would themselves have to be experts in the fields of traffic forecasting and economic analysis, and I doubt whether their conclusions would be more readily comprehensible to the layman. The Department of Transport itself—
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, may I intervene to ask whether that is the end of that part of the noble Lord's analysis?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Not quite, no, my Lords.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, in that case, would the noble Lord give way when he has finished that part?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has got me in some slight difficulty. Let me go hack for a moment. The Department of Transport itself publishes a wide variety of documents explaining, in simple terms, how the methods and techniques work and is always ready, at public inquiries and elsewhere, to explain any points which may be a source of difficulty. This explanation is best left to the originators of road schemes and does not require the setting up of an elaborate auditing mechanism. Moreover, it is difficult to see what an"audit"on the lines suggested by the noble Lord could

151
achieve. In view of the unavoidable uncertainties attached to the assumptions and methods used by the department, the auditors would not be in a position to say whether or not the department's figures were right or wrong—only time will reveal this. They could only say whether or not they agreed with the figures and their view would, of course, be subject to the same reservations and uncertainties as the forecasts themselves.
What is important is that the department explains—as they do—the basis on which they have prepared forecasts and analyses and why, in their view, the traffic forecasts and economic analysis presented in evidence to the inquiry are appropriate to the scheme in its local setting, and represent a reasonable basis on which decisions can be taken. It is open to the department's critics to question this view in cross-examination of the department's witnesses, and to adduce such evidence of their own as they think fit in support of their view. In this way, the department's traffic models and economic analysis are frequently subjected to an exhaustive examination at public inquiries. It is then for the inspector to form his own view on these matters, after consideration of all the evidence placed before him, and to advise the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Transport accordingly.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but this really will not do. We are not talking about forecasts being wrong; anyone can be wrong in his forecast. We are talking about a situation where, every single time that a forecast has been challenged by independent people with the proper resources and working with forecasting material, the department's forecasts have been shown to be wrong and have been accepted as wrong by the inspector. This has happened not once or twice out of 10 times, but on every single occasion. In those circumstances, the public has a right to say that there should be a second opinion.
I entirely take the point of the noble Lord—I shall not go on with my intervention, but I must make this one quick
152
point—and, in fact, I said in my speech that not all the public will understand it. But they will understand that a separate independent body has made an examination, and will accept that it has found either differently or the same as the department.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am not certain why the noble Lord got up to say that. I do not think it is totally fair, in regard to what I have been saying. If he listens to and digests what I have been saying, I think he will better appreciate what we are trying to do. The Leitch Report is something which the noble Lord cannot just push under the carpet. He may want to push it under the carpet—
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I do not, my Lords, I accept it.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Good. I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord is willing to accept the Leitch Report. There has been comment made, and I should like to quote from the Leitch Report, which stated:
" We have received some comment that COBA can be manipulated to give the desired result ".
This is getting at the gist of what the noble Lord said and at what people of his ilk—if I may use that term—are worried about, as regards over-building of roads through the countryside. The report went on:
" There are certainly several ways in which the COBA results can be influenced by someone who understands how it works, and the staff at department headquarters see it as a major part of their work to prevent this happening. Of 80 schemes they have examined in recent months, at least 60 have had some major corrections made. They feel that their considerable experience of scheme scrutiny enables them to identify serious cases of bias. We recommend that this scrutiny should continue ".
That is what Leitch says.
This illustrates the way in which all schemes are scrutinised by staff at department headquarters who are independent of the design scheme. The high percentage of cases in which errors have been detected and corrected is indicative of the thoroughness of double checking. I wish only to add that the errors detected at headquarters were of various types, and by no means all of them tended to overestimate the benefits of the schemes concerned.
It has been suggested in the past that only rich objectors who employ consultants

153
or statutory bodies can effectively scrutinise the forecasts and economic assessements. That is not our experience. Detailed and sometimes—though not always — constructive comments on the assumptions and methods used, especially in relation to local circumstances, are made at many inquiries. Certainly such complex matters call for a degree of numeracy, but not genius, while many objections on the grounds of the impact of the precise proposals can be fully considered without examination of these issues.
There are three main types of scrutiny; namely, that by Parliament of the policy and underlying planning assumptions; that by the standing advisory committee of assessment methods; that by objectors at the public inquiry of the local application of those methods. An"audit"of the latter could do no more than provide a second opinion on the methods used, and this the objectors are free to do in the course of the inquiry.
The overriding consideration is that setting up additional machinery to consider these matters would not cast further light on them, but would undoubtedly result in further delay in the provision of urgently needed new roads and give rise to a whole series of practical problems. It is worth remembering that traffic forecasts and economic analyses are not the only factors, or even necessarily the most important ones, to be taken into consideration in deciding whether new roads are needed. New trunk roads are built to solve the pressing problems which face us today. The costs to industry, and the general public, of deficiencies in the trunk road network can be seen today in traffic delays, high accident rates and the problems of the many towns and villages which have not yet been by-passed. Some of these costs can be quantified; others cannot. The Leitch Committee has warned against the dangers of attributing too much importance to the former, at the expense of the latter.
Traffic forecasts and economic analyses are useful aids to decision-taking, especially on the standard to which we should build to provide for the future, where something has to be built to meet present needs. But they cannot provide a formula for deciding whether or not particular roads should be built. This will remain a matter for judgment by Ministers in the light of all the available evidence.

  SUNDAY SHOP CLOSING HOURS
  SUNDAY SHOP CLOSING HOURS
  IMMIGRATION SERVICE AND THE COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY
  IMMIGRATION SERVICE AND THE COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY
  THE TRANSKEI AND UK IMMIGRATION CONTROL
  THE TRANSKEI AND UK IMMIGRATION CONTROL
  REGIONAL SECURE UNITS: PATIENT PLACES
  REGIONAL SECURE UNITS: PATIENT PLACES
  UK REGISTERED MILK PRODUCERS
  UK REGISTERED MILK PRODUCERS
  KUALA LUMPUR ARMAMENTS EXHIBITION
  KUALA LUMPUR ARMAMENTS EXHIBITION