Sitting of 23 May 1984

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

Gatwick Airport: Runway Capacity
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider themselves bound by the agreement entered into in 1978 between the British Airports Authority and West Sussex County Council to the effect that no second runway would be built at Gatwick Airport or whether it was made clear that such agreement did not bind the Government; and whether they will make a statement to clarify the position.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the present Government were not consulted about the agreement and are not parties to it. That being the case, the Government cannot be bound by its terms.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that is a very interesting reply. May I move on to an aspect which is related to the runway at Gatwick; namely, the northern taxiway. Does the Minister recall that on 27th April, at col. 258, he told the House that planning consent had been granted to the British Airports Authority to upgrade the northern taxiway at Gatwick in order to make it into an emergency runway? In view of that statement, would the noble Lord comment upon information that I have been given; namely, that this runway could not, even then, be used as an emergency runway and, furthermore, that any possible uses for the runway even after the upgrading, would be severely limited and would certainly prohibit most public transport aircraft from taking off?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that that would be the case. As the noble Baroness mentioned, the British Airports Authority have planning permission to construct an emergency runway out of the existing northern taxiway. Work on this is expected to commence shortly. However, I would emphasise that it is proposed that it should be only an emergency runway—in other words, available for use only when the main runway is not, for some reason, available.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that is not good enough. Would the Minister please look into the information which I have given to him? I have not manufactured it. Is he aware that I have been told that it would not be possible to use this runway as an emergency runway, even after the upgrading? Would
222
the Minister look into the points I have made and write to me about them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall happily write to the noble Baroness, if I need to do so, but I hope that I can satisfy her on this point. The case is that the northern taxiway, when it is upgraded, as I have said, will not be of the same length as the main runway. Therefore, it will not be able to take fully loaded, long-range transport aircraft. However, it will be available to ensure that the worst difficulties caused by the closure of the main runway—for example, that aircraft cannot leave Gatwick at all, or cannot land, even in an emergency—do not arise.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, we are getting several revelations this afternoon. Will the House allow me to ask the noble Lord one further question? Do I understand from his original reply that if the Government of the day should ever wish to lay down a second runway at Gatwick, or if the new owners, after privatisation of Gatwick airport, wish to lay down a second runway, they would be able to do so and would not be prohibited by the 1978 agreement?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the first part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question is hypothetical. As the Government have said on a number of occasions, they do not propose to build a second runway at Gatwick. As to the second part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question, the case is that the undertakings given by the British Airports Authority will be transferred to whoever in the future may turn out to be the owner of Gatwick airport.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that although an emergency runway is no doubt desirable, there are millions of people living under the glide path to Heathrow who would be delighted if a full second runway were to be built at Gatwick?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord believes that that might reduce the number of operations into Heathrow, but I have to tell him that the evidence which I have does not support that contention. The way in which the total number of movements at Heathrow is to be controlled will be in accordance with the planning consent that was given for the fourth terminal at Heathrow which, as the noble Lord may recall, imposes a total maximum limit upon the number of movements at Heathrow.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, apart from its length, when the second runway is upgraded will it attain the same engineering standards as the existing runway at Gatwick?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said earlier, it will not be so long as the main runway at Gatwick. Therefore it will not be available for use by the most heavily laden of the large aircraft; nor, I understand, will it have the kind of radio navigation aids which are normally available on the main runway. This means that it will not be possible to use the emergency runway in adverse weather conditions in the same way as the main runway can usually be used.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. That is not quite what I meant. I was referring to the engineering construction of the runway. I am asking whether it will be built to the same standards as the existing runway.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord may know, the physical standards of the runway are defined in terms of load classification number. When it is upgraded to be an emergency runway I believe that the maximum load classification number of the new taxiway will not be the same as the classification of the main runway at Gatwick, which again means that the most heavily laden aeroplanes will not be able to use it.
Lord Morris: My Lords, bearing in mind my noble friend's original Answer, may I ask him whether, if the present Administration is not bound by an agreement entered into by the previous Administration, Conservative Governments are bound by a previous Conservative Government's agreements with members of the public?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that sounds to me to be a purely hypothetical question, but if my noble friend has any specific case in mind I will be happy to examine it.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, arising from the comments the Minister has just made, can he assure the House that a fully laden aircraft could in an emergency use this emergency landing place?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the emergency considerations were overiding and the view of the captain of the aircraft was such that only that runway was suitable to cope with the particular emergency that had arisen, then of course permission would be given for it to be used. Generally speaking, what would happen in such a circumstance would be that the arriving aircraft, for example, would divert to some other aerodrome.

Rural Areas: Applications for Designation
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why only 22 applications out of 130, for the designation of "Rural Areas" under the Housing Act 1980, have been accepted.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to date 21 areas in England have been designated as rural areas under Section 19 of the Housing Act 1980 as a result of applications from 129 authorities. These are in addition to the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, which are automatically covered. Section 19 was intended as a protection for those areas in which housing sold under the right to buy might subsequently be resold for use as second or holiday homes.
224
In considering applications for designation, my right honourable friend has had particular regard to rurality and to the incidence of second homes, although all factors advanced by applicant authorities have been carefully considered. Only a relatively small proportion of the authorities which applied were able to satisfy us that the incidence of second homes in their areas warranted designation.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I should like to ask the Government whether the famous safeguard extracted from the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in 1980 has not proved to be something of an illusion. So very few rural areas have been defined—less than one-quarter of those asked for. Are the Government really saying that there are no rural areas outside about six or seven counties in England—and none in Wales?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I am not saying that at all. In our consideration of this matter, we have taken the view—and this was explained in a Written Answer given by my honourable friend the then Minister for Housing on 12th February 1981—that the incidence of second homes is a relevant factor, having regard to the overall purpose of Section 19.
Your Lordships may recall that whereas the basic provisions of Section 19 were in the Bill when it was introduced in 1979, the pre-emption sub-clause was added to it because of concern expressed in the debates on the Bill on the second homes issue. In designating these areas, the Government, with scrupulous attention to detail, have followed the wishes of your Lordships and those of Members in another place who were active at the time on this issue. So far as Wales is concerned, eight areas have been designated from applications by 26 local authorities.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that since national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are designed to protect the open countryside, it follows that scarcely any housing is to be found in those places? Does he not agree that this cuts down the amount of housing available in rural areas?
Also, can the Minister be more specific on the definition of rural areas? I do not believe that it has been made clear by him today or, in the past, by his colleagues arguing for the Housing and Building Control Bill. If there is a criterion which the Government have and which we do not know, why has it not been published in the same way that criteria covering other subjects have been published, in Guidelines from time to time?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as a rough rule of thumb we looked at population density in deciding whether an area is rural or not. On making representations for the implications for rural areas of the right to buy proposals before the Bill was introduced the then National Council for Social Services used an illustrative figure of two persons per hectare or less to identify rural areas. My right honourable friend has used a similar approach in the decisions he has made.
As far as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are concerned, they are areas which are

225
not only rural but which have a high number of second homes. As I explained in answer to the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the Government take a two-pronged approach to deciding which areas should be designated under Section 19.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, did the noble Lord use in his original Answer the word "rurality"? If he did, will he tell us with what authority he used that word? And is he not ashamed of so doing?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am constantly ashamed, but I understand that this has become a technical term to describe rural areas. If I am wrong, then naturally I apologise to the noble Lord and to the House.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, has not the Secretary of State refused to designate as rural areas a great number of quite substantial areas which are in every sense rural in the common acceptance of that term? Will he consider in particular the area in North Yorkshire between the national park and the small coastal towns which has been refused designation? Can the noble Lord explain why?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when considering applications for designation Ministers must always exercise a judgment after considering all the evidence and information available. I am well aware of the case to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, refers; that of the hinterland of Scarborough. I can tell him that my honourable friend, the then Minister for Housing and Construction, carefully considered this application but concluded that on the information available at the time designation as a rural area was not appropriate. I would add that if circumstances have changed there is no reason why Scarborough should not re-apply for this designation.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, as one of the policies of the Government is, I am glad to say, to support agriculture in every way they can, does not the noble Lord agree that it would be wise to have some revision of designation since obviously it does not cover anything like the rural areas that we in the agricultural industry know very well?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government naturally keep their legislation and proposed legislation under constant review. I do not see any opportunity at the moment for introducing the sort of change that my noble friend suggests.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in the kind of revision that the noble Baroness has asked for, would the Government take into account the higher than average levels of house prices? Secondly, will they also bear in mind the difficulty of replacing council houses in villages once they have been sold for all sorts of good reasons?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, earlier I referred to "all relevant considerations" being taken into account. Should the considerations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, become relevant they will be taken into account.

Tree Planting: Grants
2.52 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total cost of grants paid for the planting of broad-leaved trees during the past five years.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, the best estimate of the amount paid out in grants by the Forestry Commission and the two countryside commissions in the five years to 31st March 1984 specifically for the planting of broad-leaved trees is £8.8 million.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for that response. Can he say how much was spent by the Forestry Commission and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and other Government funded bodies on research into grey squirrel control for the same period? Can he also say whether he considers, in view of the probability that a great many of these trees that have been planted will be eaten by grey squirrels within the next nine or 10 years, that it would be a good idea if the Government were to alter their priorities and did not pay grants until there was some successful method of controlling grey squirrels?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Countess on this matter but regrettably it is not possible to exterminate the grey squirrel, which has successfully established itself in this country following widespread introductions at the end of the last century. Money for research is made available by the Natural Environment Research Council through its grants and studentships to universities. The Forestry Commission, the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and the Nature Conservancy Council also undertake research on grey squirrel control, methods, damaging behaviour by grey squirrels, and the interaction between grey and red squirrels. Unfortunately, I do not have a note of the total amount which the noble Countess asked for and perhaps I could write to her with that information in due course.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is it not true that, notwithstanding the sums mentioned by the noble Lord as having been provided by the Forestry Commission and the two countryside commissions, the demand for funds from the farming community and the requests for advice as to how to set about maintaining existing broad-leaved woodlands greatly exceeds the supply in both respects? Is this not welcome evidence of the concern of the farming community to regenerate their broad-leaved woodlands and maintain those that exist, and also evidence of the need to step up the supply in both respects?
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, my Lords, there is no doubt that under the Forestry Commission's forestry grants scheme higher grants are available for the planting of broad-leaved trees on suitable sites; the

227
rates varying according to the size of the wood. There are four differential grants ranging from £850 per hectare for woodland between one-quarter and one hectare, to £450 per hectare for woodlands of 10 hectares and over.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what he means by "the interaction between grey and red squirrels"?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, my best information would be that the relationship between them is remote, but the ultimate results are similar.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that of the 2 million hectares of our forest land in this country a mere 660,000 hectares remain as broad-leaved? Does he recall that in 1980 the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, in a report on forestry, stated that the decline should be halted and that no further reduction should be allowed? Can the noble Lord say what action the Government are taking, other than making available grants for broad-leaved planting? In particular, what action are the Government taking to improve the policy of the Forestry Commission in regard to planting broad-leaved areas that have been felled?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, perhaps I can tell the noble Baroness that over the past five years the Forestry Commission and the private sector, taken together, have planted on average some 1,700 hectares of broad-leaved trees per annum. This figure covers both new planting and re-stocking. In addition, a large number of broad-leaved trees are being planted for amenity. The Forestry Commission's recently published Census of Woodlands and Trees in Britain shows that, while changes have taken place in some parts of the country and that the mix of species has altered, the total area of broad-leaved woodland has increased slightly since 1947, when the last full survey was carried out.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what proportion of the grants paid out have been paid in respect of the planting of balsam poplar?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, it is not possible to give a precise figure for the rates of grant paid by the Forestry Commission for planting under the older grants schemes. The reason is that there was no difference between the grants available for broad-leaves and for conifers. The amounts were not kept separate, and therefore I cannot make an apportionment in that respect.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how much of the amount of grant paid was for Scotland?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Marquess without notice of that question. I shall certainly get the information for him and write to him.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, can my noble friend give the relevant figures on hardwood planting grants for the last financial year—the original Question of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, covered five years—by the Forestry Commission, the countryside commissions and the local authorities? Can my noble friend say what proportion this figure represents of all planting grants during the year in question? Can he further say when the response of the Forestry Commission to the recommendations of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology in relation to hardwoods policy will be available?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, to take first the third point raised by my noble friend, the answer is "very soon". As regards the first two questions dealing with the last financial year, these are very detailed and since the information available to me at the moment is for the five-year period I am afraid I cannot help my noble friend. but will let him have the information in due course. The estimated amount of grant aid provided by the countryside commissions for broad-leaved planting is more than three times that provided by the Forestry Commission: the countryside commissions' being £6,700,000 and the Forestry Commission's £2,100,000. I shall let my noble friend have the detailed information he requests.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what happened to the successful experiments of controlling grey squirrels by the use of Warfarin baits?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend's knowledge is superior to mine on this occasion. I shall have to make inquiries and let him know the answer to his question.
Lord Polwarth: My Lords, if there is such a thing in your Lordships' House as a backwoodsman, does the noble Lord agree that this is a very suitable subject for their discussion?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. As one of that species myself, I take the point.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether the Government are having any success in developing a species of elm resistant to the elm bark beetle?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friends credit me with very much more knowledge than is at my fingertips. I shall certainly make the necessary inquiries and write to my noble friend.

Namibia: Detainees
3.1 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they have taken on the nullification by the South

229
African Government of the court action to free 37 SWAPO detainees held in a Namibian internment camp.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the Government have consistently made clear to the South African authorities our concern for human rights in Namibia. We welcome the announcement that 54 of the detainees held at Mariental camp are to be released. We look forward to the early release of the remainder.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask her two quite separate questions? First, can she elucidate for the House exactly what action the South African Minister of Defence took in the court case, which was, I believe, brought in the Supreme Court in Windhoek by a number of churches in order to get the release of the detainees, who they held were being detained illegally? Secondly, does she agree that this country has a special responsibility towards detainees in Namibia in view of the fact that it was Her Majesty's Government of the time which passed over the mandate of what was then South-West Africa to the Government of South Africa?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, on 27th April the South African Minister of Justice nullified an application brought by 23 persons, including three bishops, for an inquiry into their detention, and Minister Coetzee declared that that would not be in the national interest. On the second point, about detainees, the South African Government are well aware of our concern on human rights. We have recently made specific representations about the Cassinga detainees.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is something inconsistent about asking Her Majesty's Government to make representations to the Government of South Africa and doing one's best to prevent the Prime Minister of South Africa coming to this country to receive those representations?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beloff makes a good point. But I am sure that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will make clear our concern to see early progress towards an internationally recognised settlement of this area on the basis of Security Council Resolution No. 435.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the continued detention of those unhappy people is in contravention of the Geneva Convention and of the ruling in 1970 by the International Court of Justice? Further, is it true that there is evidence of brutality and torture in the treatment of those people? In view of the fact that it seems that Mr. Botha is to come to this country, will the Prime Minister take advantage of the opportunity, whether or not it is justified, to bring those serious matters to his notice?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the last point in the noble Lord's supplementary question, I cannot of
230
course give a commitment on specific issues that will be raised. As I have already indicated to my noble friend Lord Beloff, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will make clear our concern to see early progress on Namibia. On the noble Lord's other point, as I have indicated, the South African Government are well aware of our concern about the prisoners captured at Cassinga. We raised the problem with them on 15th May. In the third part of his supplementary question the noble Lord referred to reported violations of human rights. I do not know whether he is making a reference to the BBC2 programme, "Third Eye", but we are of course concerned by all reports of human rights violations, wherever they occur. As to that particular programme, we cannot take a view on all the claims made.
Lord Brockway: My Lord, will the noble Baroness agree that it is an extraordinary situation, when practically the whole world and the Security Council of the United Nations regard South African occupation of Namibia as illegal, that it should have continued for so many years, even to the point of interference with the courts? In view of the failure of the talks in Zambia last week, will the Government again raise that issue in the Security Council with a view to ending that impossible situation?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we remain in close touch with all parties in order to try to achieve a settlement. We shall make our views plain to Mr. Botha when he comes. We believe that the main hope of progress is in regional negotiations and in the dialogue that is continuing between the United States and Angola.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the first Answer she gave to my noble friend Lord Hatch is very welcome indeed? It gives us all heart to think that our Government are taking their responsibilities in this matter very seriously. Is she further aware that, as we are a member of the contact group, and as Great Britain is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the endeavours to cut out the vile brutality that goes on in this part of South-West Africa will never cease? When Mr. Botha comes here, will the Prime Minister tell him plainly and bluntly, as Winston Churchill probably would have done, that everything that his Government seem to do is reminiscent of the behaviour of the Nazis, who tried to crush this island?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government have made it plain that they do not support the policy of apartheid. We do believe that it will be useful to have talks with Mr. Botha with a view to making progress on issues of the kind that have been discussed in your Lordships' House today.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm, as is implied in her answers, that the detainees in the Mariental camp came from the raid on Cassinga, and therefore they were taken from a foreign country, as Cassinga is in Angola and not in Namibia? Can she tell the House whether a specific protest has been made by Her Majesty's Government, or representations, about the interference of the

231
Minister of Defence in South Africa with the actions of the courts?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have made it clear on more than one occasion in answering questions that we have made our concern about this matter clear to the South African Government.

Business
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a brief word about the timing of the two short debates this afternoon standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Paget of Northampton and Lord Hatch of Lusby. It is normal in the case of short debates to suggest a maximum length of time for speeches. The principle which is adopted is that the mover should be entitled to approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply no later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. On that basis, I should be grateful if speakers in both the debates would limit their speeches to a maximum of 11 minutes—and I would stress the word "maximum". I would point out that if any noble Lord should speak at greater length, he will do so at the expense of later speakers in that debate.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, in that regard may I say that I approached the office to ask how much time I had, and I was told that I had 20 minutes. I have prepared my speech with some care, based on 20 minutes, and I must apologise in advance that I may be speaking for that time.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, for saying that. Perhaps if he would speed up his speech he would say in 15 minutes what he was going to say in 20 minutes.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Henderson of Brompton and the Lord Cameron of Balhousie set down for 13th June and the Lord Jenkins of Putney and the Baroness Lockwood set down for 20th June shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix H to the Companion to the Standing Orders shall apply to each debate.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Zimbabwe: Judicial Procedure
3.10 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton Lord Paget of Northampton rose to call attention to the state of judicial procedure in Zimbabwe, and in
232
particular to the imprisonment of Bishop Muzorewa and to the need for Her Majesty's Government to make representations for his release; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, four years ago we brought peace and freedom to the new country that was Rhodesia. Perhaps it is time to look at how we did it. Your Lordships will remember that at Lancaster House, the elected Prime Minister, Bishop Muzorewa, was persuaded to stand down and Her Majesty's Government assumed direct rule and promised fair and free elections. That was a promise that Her Majesty's Government was in no position to fulfil. Zimbabwe was not a united nation. First there were the Bushmen; then the Hottentots. In the early middle ages the Shona came. The Matabele had been there only just over a century. They were a Zulu regiment that escaped from Chaka's Army. The Shona were no match for them. In order to acquire his status the Matabele warrior had to wet his spear. The method of wetting his spear was to set light to a Shona hut and spear the people who ran out of it. The result was that the Shona gave up sleeping in their huts and slept in the bush.
That went on for over a generation, until the white man came: the Europeans and the Rhodes. They made peace. The Shonas could once again sleep in their houses. As in Cyprus, one had two mutually hostile nations. In Cyprus one has the Greeks and Turks; in Rhodesia one had the Shona and the Matabele. Peace was possible only as long as the British were there. Certainly nobody can deny the huge success that the British made of this territory. It came to be called the Jewel of Africa. It was Africa's model of civilisation.
Then unhappily there came the wind of change irresponsibly fanned by both the United Nations and the United States, blown up without any realisation of the real situation in so many lands where it was blowing. For 12 years the people of Rhodesia resisted that storm but eventually they had to give way to the wind. After 12 years, in spite of the efforts of the guerrillas, free and fair elections were held in Rhodesia (as it then was). I was there and I saw them.
I am afraid they are probably the last free and fair elections Zimbabwe is ever likely to see. At that point Britain changed the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, became Foreign Secretary. He persuaded Bishop Muzorewa, the democratically elected Prime Minister, to come here and agree to new elections under British management. The bishop was warned. He was warned by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, by Mr. Julian Amery, and by myself that he was walking into a trap. But he said, "Her Majesty's Government have promised me free elections with full election facilities in all parts of the country and they have assured me that I shall win this election as I did the last one". At any event, that is what Bishop Muzorewa believed had been said to him by Her Majesty's Government.
But Robert Mugabe had different ideas. His party ZANU was organised and armed. Nobody else was allowed to electioneer in Shona country. All the muscle was his and so was a great part of the votes. Of course we knew what was happening but it was too late. We just had to pretend that Mugabe had been

233
freely and fairly elected. After all, we had achieved our primary object: we had got out of Rhodesia and the United Nations were pleased with us.
Mr. Mugabe is an educated man but he has been dedicated to one single and over-riding objective: one party with one leader. I think he has clearly studied Mein Kampf because nobody could by coincidence have followed it as accurately as he has. He posed as a legalist, the lover of the constitution, just as Hitler did. At one point in his career Hitler was known in jibe by some of his followers who felt they could run faster than their leader, as "legality Hitler". The same position was assumed by Robert Mugabe. He also posed as the father figure, a traditionalist respecting the army, the tribes, and the chiefs. But he only did this until he was strong enough to do without the law and without the traditional authorities. I am afraid this has come and passed.
But the trick worked. Her Majesty's Government organised lavish aid. They urged the whites to trust Mugabe. They urged the whites to invest, to stay and work the farms, the factories and the mines. They urged civil and military public servants to stay in the service. They were assured that their pensions would be all right. Mugabe also played his part. He created an atmosphere in which the more naive of our people talked of a new Kenyatta. But the act only went on until Mugabe felt strong enough to do without the law and without rivals.
As with Hitler, the press was the first target. ZANU founded a mass media trust, which acquired all the papers and appointed all the editors. then came the turn of the armed forces. The first victims were the Matabele generals. A group of them were arrested on the 10th March 1982. What happened to Lieutenant General Look Out Mosuto and others? They were held for a year without a trial. They were then acquitted. They were promptly re-arrested. They are still detained. Many others are also detained. Dr. Ushewokunze, the Home Affairs Minister, believes in detention. I have the names of at least 20 distinguished men who have been acquitted, re-detained and the court orders ignored. The constitution is ignored and insulted. Remember, my Lords, it was our constitution; we were a party to it. Mugabe is now strong enough to ignore the law and is doing so.
I now turn to the airmen and will refer to them in a little more detail because we have a very special responsibility to them. They were our servants—servants of the noble Lord, who was Governor then—whom we advised to continue to keep the air force going under a new government. What happened to them? There was sabotage. Aeroplanes were burnt. Who did it? Probably the CIO. They were the only people who would seem to have had a motive. They were certainly looking for a pretext to get the white commanding officers. There is no evidence against anyone else. But whether the CIO did the sabotage job themselves or merely used the work of someone else as a pretext, they certainly never had any kind of reason for believing that air force officers, let alone the six they picked up more or less at random, had any responsibility. Why on earth should air force officers conspire to set alight their own aeroplanes? It is fantastically improbable. I do not think today that any fair-minded person can have any doubt at all that the
234
arrest of the air force officers was a plant from the start, designed by the CIO to discredit white command.
The officers were held in solitary confinement and entrusted to torturers. The torturers were highly professional, probably Korean-trained. The latest electrical equipment was available—attachments to the penis and anus. It gave a tremendous and agonising kick. How bad it was may be gauged from the fact that the kick was so severe that the spasm broke Lieutenant Barrington-Lloyd's leg. That was the kind of torture to which they were submitted. Psychologically it was worse: solitary confinement, darkness, starved, kept awake, out of touch with time, disorientated, threatened, woken, and served only with confessions said to have been given by others of their number.
At the end of a month, the torturers had six confessions from six brave men who had nothing to confess. One cannot have any doubt that it was a highly professional job that they had done. I have no doubt that they were pleased with it. But although they were very professional torturers, they were not good interrogators. A confession is no good in court unless it can be corroborated. You have to produce from those confessions the detail that you can corroborate and which only a guilty man can have known. When it came to the trial, nothing of that sort was available. Not one single piece of corroboration of any part of any one of those confessions was produced—not one scintilla.
Indeed, it was at the trial that the plot went wrong. This was the very last thing that the plotters had expected. The judge was a Mugabe appointment, a Shona. The judge, to their enormous surprise and shock, went honest on them. That is what wrecked the plot. He was a very brave man. He needed to be. He threw out all this worthless evidence. If ever a man earned the honour of his profession and deserves to be recognised for it, it was that judge.
At that point, my Lords, the plotters, surprised and shocked, lost their head. The Minister of Justice promptly announced that the Criminal Justice and Procedure Act would be amended to compel judges to accept confessions obtained under torture. Can the Foreign Office tell us how far that legislative proposal has got? Is that ultimate disgrace passing on to the legislature that we created within the constitution that was made? What has happened to this?
Next, the accused were all re-arrested. It was something that the Minister for Home Affairs was quite in the habit of doing. But this time the bodies were too hot to hold. World opinion forced their release.My God!, what those men must have suffered, not only in pure physical and scientific agony but in the awful humiliation of those weeks. They came out skeletons, stones lighter than when they were arrested.
The next step in Mugabe's campaign was the creation of his own personal SS. The Shona fifth and sixth brigades became the presidential bodyguard responsible only to the presidential office. The fifth were trained by Koreans. Money was not stinted. After Jordan and Israel, Mr. Mugabe's country has had the highest per capita expenditure on armaments of any country in the world. However, these were not armaments to protect her from external threat. Mugabe explained their purpose when he addressed

235
the passing-out parade of his presidential guard and said:
"The rate at which we become a socialist one-party state will depend on the amount of persuasion you give".
This brings me to the most serious charge—Mugabe's adventure into racial war or, as the Catholic bishops called it, genocide. This began just over a year ago in North Matabeleland. Some farmers—white farmers—had been murdered. Tourists had been kidnapped. Arms caches were found on farms belonging to ZAPU, the rival Nkomo Matabele party. Action had to be taken. One recognises that it was called for, but the action of sending the fifth brigade was really appalling. An Austrian priest who had been in his country during the whole of the Nazi occupation and who had suffered under the Gestapo said that, compared to the fifth brigade, the Gestapo were gentlemen.
I give an example of the sort of incident that occurred, vouched for by a missionary. A patrol of the fifth brigade rounded a corner. Two little boys aged six or seven ran away. A soldier promptly shot them. People wept. The commander shouted out, "No, leave them for the dogs". This is the kind of thing that you are up against. They caught very few dissidents. The dissidents knew the country, and there was an open border. They simply moved into Botswana. Whether the civilians who were murdered number hundreds or thousands is a moot point.
What happened in North Matabeleland was nothing compared to what was to happen in the south. There, the president's guard moved in on 3rd February. They declared a curfew over 4,000 square miles. That area was drought stricken. Only white farmers were allowed to move in and out of the area. The search was on for dissidents. Mugabe said of dissidents:
"Dissidents are not only armed men; they include civilians".
In this Matabele area they seem to have included anybody who spoke Matabele. Drought had emptied the country of supplies; all shops were closed; no food could be brought in. The real purpose was expressed at a public meeting by the brigade major of the Fifth Brigade. He said this:
"First you will eat your chickens; then you will eat your goats; then you will eat your cattle and then you will eat your children".
A concentration camp was put up at Bolaque. There were 1,000 men and 860 women in it. There were 136 per block, with no bedding, no blankets. The prisoners were fed and watered—let me emphasise watered—only every other day. Night was for cleaning out the area. Corpses—a great many of them—were moved every night. Every night one lorry, often two, went to a mining shaft which, oddly enough, belonged to Mr. Tiny Rowland. When they left, explosives were thrown down, I suppose to conceal the bodies; but it did not conceal the smell of the bodies.
These horrors—really, they are horrors, and something the world has seen very rarely—were described in detail by the Catholic bishops on first-hand evidence, and that report was brought to the government by Bishop Karlen on 16th April 1984. It is interesting to see the reaction to this report, which
236
says what I have said but a great deal more. First, what was Mugabe's reaction? I quote him:
"I rule, not a clutch of sanctimonious bishops who belong to ZAPU".
He went on to say:
"But the troops have done a wonderful duty and restored a perfect peace".
My God, it is a peace beyond all understanding!
Mr. Calistrus Nclloou—I am not quite certain how he pronounces his name—one of the remaining ZAPU ministers in Mr. Mugabe's Government, resigned. In resigning, he said:
"Anyone who thinks he can effectively take part in this country's affairs is whistling in a graveyard".
How did the media behave? They were astonishingly quiet, considering what there was to report. The local press never mentioned it and has not mentioned it today. Exceptions to this are the Telegraph, which published a lot of brave articles by David Graves, and Mr. Telford, the editor of the Observer, who published a splendid article on what he himself had seen. This brings us back to Mr. Rowland. Mr. Rowland, the owner of the Observer, I understand promised not to interfere with the editorial. But Mr. Rowland was engaged in swopping sides, a job to which he is not unaccustomed. He was swopping over from Nkomo to Mugabe only just before Nkomo, his old friend whom he had invited to London, received a notice that his income had been stopped and he must clear out in 12 hours.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but the noble Lord did say he had a 20-minute speech. He has now taken 25 minutes and I hope that he will have some regard for the many noble Lords who want to speak after him in this short debate.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I am sorry. I will swop straight over from there. It is a very long subject, but I must come to the final things I want to ask the Government.
The terrible results from Lancaster House must weigh on the conscience of the Government, if, indeed, they have one. But what can they do now to repair the situation? I would say three things. First, there is the question of the airmen. The airmen's trial cost them £100,000; it took all their savings. That is a bill the Government must pick up. Secondly, they must give them their pensions. Thirdly, they must give them some compensation. This should be subtracted from the next payment of aid we may think of passing there. It is something which, in all conscience and decency, should be paid.
Secondly, we should require that the president's guard should be moved from Matabele country into its own country. And I think we should say this to them: "If you don't move these assassin troops and Mr. Nkomo follows the example of President Machel and appeals for rescue for his people to the only country that can give it, then we will give him all the support we can". At this point, I would congratulate the Government on having invited Mr. Botha. He is the man who probably could do best on this.

237
Finally, I want to mention Bishop Muzorewa. I know we trapped him, but he is held without charge. The only thing alleged against him is what he said in Israel, and the constitution entitled him to do that. I do not think we are absolved from letting him out of his trap. He should be released. The Americans have shown us the only argument that works with Mr. Mugabe, and that is a threat to remove aid. That is what made them take off the curfew. Similar talk should be directed to him. It is no use talking pussyfooty with a man of that sort. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Paget, for introducing this Motion, I find it very difficult to go down the road which he has taken in his speech. To some extent, his speech was a slashing attack on the freedom and independence granted to Rhodesia by Her Majesty's Government, added to which, any description of tortures and excesses which the noble Lord has mentioned, and which might possibly be read by Mugabe or his government out there at the present time, would not, in my opinion, assist the people whom we are trying to assist and help attain some semblance of understanding between Mugabe's government and the existing situation in Rhodesia.
I happened to be out in Zimbabwe—or Rhodesia, as it was then—when the Lancaster House Conference was in session. I was invited there by the government servants of that country to discuss some of their problems. I had talks not only with white officers of that government, but also with many blacks who were present and who had concerns of their own to express to me. Much of what they said was to the effect that if there was one thing that they desired under independence, it was stability and peace. I tried to impress on them as I flew to various areas of that country, landing on airstrips which had been cut out of the reserve property lands and the tribal trust lands, that they now had an opportunity to decide the future of their own country, that that was a responsibility that they should take in their hands and that they should do their best to attain a good name for themselves, and prosperity and happiness for all. That was the one desire that they expressed.
Having heard the noble Lord's speech, I am not going to comment on any of the other matters which he mentioned. We have to be very careful today how we act. Obviously what we all desire is the release of Bishop Muzorewa. I consider that Her Majesty's Government are in a difficult position. Whatever representations our Government make to a government of the type which is in office in Zimbabwe at the moment, will have to be very carefully considered. I ask my noble friend the Minister who is to reply whether already representations have been made to our High Commissioner in Harare to get his opinion on the situation and to seek his advice.
There is just one thing that I would like to say about excesses which are perpetrated in various areas of the world. This has not happened only in Zimbabwe; it has happened elsewhere. It is a terrible thing that is going on in many places at the present time. I do not want to give descriptions, because I myself suffered
238
under some of those excesses. I was held under water for goodness knows how long in order to make a confession. Then I was brought out when I was drowning to make that confession. So these things do go on. We must try to ensure that these things are wiped from the face of the earth. We should strive by our activities, ingenuity and everything that we can do to bring that situation about. By all means let us seek the release of Muzorewa. Let us try to make contact with the people who are perpetrating these horrors, and let us try and make a better world for all of us to live in. I have made an extempore speech and it is completely different from what I had planned to say.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I have always held the noble Lord, Lord Paget, in the highest esteem, but I have to say that never in my experience in your Lordships' House have I listened for 28 minutes to what I can only describe as a farrago of insinuation, imagination, inaccuracy and distortion. The picture that the noble Lord purports to give of Zimbabwe is one which nobody who has the remotest concern with the country can possible recognise; nor, indeed, anybody who has studied it even in the newspapers. I shall move quickly, because the time is running out fast.
Let me say at the outset that I share with the noble Lord, and I am sure with all noble Lords here, an utter abhorrence of torture, of detention without trial and of brutality. I also, regretfully and reluctantly, accept that in Zimbabwe at the present time there are instances of all those things; just as there are instances—as we heard on the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, today—of detention without trial for many years of many people in Namibia. It goes on in far too many areas as the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, who made an admirable speech, if I may say so—just what was needed at this stage—has pointed out.
But it is important for us to look at the question of Zimbabwe, including the detention of the bishop, in some perspective. After all, it is not many years since that country was subjected to a savage, brutal and lengthy civil war. Very many of the young men and women in the country today were brought up not at school, not with education, but in the bush fighting—fighting against their fellow Zimbabweans. That was all that they had been trained to do. So when eventually, after free and fair elections, as attested by very many people, Mr. Mugabe became the Prime Minister of that country, it was with enormous relief that we all heard that he was to pursue a policy of reconciliation. One of the first things that he did in pursuing that policy was to appoint the white General Walls to be in command of the army. I will not go into the details of the extraordinary behaviour of General Walls which led eventually to his dismissal. But that was simply one indication of the attempt at reconciliation.
Not only was the country full of young men and women who had been under arms for many years, but it also had a very fair proportion of discontented politicians who had not won the election, who were not going to reap the fruits which they thought were theirs by right from their years of fighting, and who were not going to enjoy the privileges and the

239
responsibilities of office. In addition to that, there were the white settlers who had decided that Rhodesia was no longer a place for them since it had now become Zimbabwe. They moved across the border into South Africa where they were received with open arms by many of the white South Africans as people who had experienced similar situations, and also with covert assistance by the Government of South Africa. Indeed, the South African Government, for reasons best known to themselves but which are very hard for me to understand—in fact, impossible for me to understand—seem to believe that it is in their interests to have a disorganised and disrupted economy on their northern borders in Zimbabwe instead of a prosperous country which they could do so much to help create. That was the situation with which Mugabe and his colleagues found themselves faced.
What has happened since then? A large number of those people under arms have now been absorbed into civilian occupations. Admittedly there is a large army and the reason for that large army is not for defence internally or externally, but because it is the only way of controlling these people who otherwise would be a very dangerous element in society, just as throughout the history of Europe, after the lengthy wars in Europe, the soldiers with no work to do roamed about in robber bands and caused so much death and disruption.
The murders which have taken place and which have received so much publicity in this country—particularly the murders of white farmers—have virtually ceased at the present time due to this general policy. Peace has been restored. It is a far safer country now than is, for instance, New York or Chicago. There is a general feeling of peace, except in a relatively small area. I repeat, I do not condone what has been happening there, but the threat which has been posed to the legally constituted Government of Zimbabwe is a very real one and must be dealt with.
It is not for us to say what are the right methods to deal with this, any more than it is for them to tell us what are the right methods to deal with what is happening in Northern Ireland. Remember, not only are some horrible things happening in Northern Ireland today, but we do not have a great deal to be proud of when we look back to the Black and Tans in Ireland after the First World War. If we really looked into the position in detail we would find that some of the things which went on in General Templer's very successful operation in the jungles of Malaya would make even the unsqueamish among us feel rather unhappy.
These things do happen and they are horrible. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, says, our job is to try to create a country, an area and a world where these things do not happen. That is what the Government of Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe personally are attempting to do. Excesses have taken place. They are appalling and we must tell him so—indeed, I believe that we have told him so. By all means let us use all the influence we have to achieve the release of Bishop Muzorewa. That would be a humane action to take, just as we should strive to obtain the release—and so far we have been unsuccessful—of Rudolf Hess and many other prisoners of conscience throughout the
240
world. Let us do that, but let us keep this matter in proportion. We should not indulge in a form of histrionics which can do a great deal of damage to our relations with Zimbabwe, to our influence on Zimbabwe, and to the attitude which those who are not so well versed in that country may have about it, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Paget.
3.53 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Paget, in introducing this debate this afternoon and I entirely support his view over affairs in Rhodesia or Zimbabwe, as it is now. I cannot bring myself to agree with either of the two previous speakers. In view of the grievous suffering that he experienced, I should have thought that it would have been clear to my noble friend Lord Gridley that the only way in which to prevent a continuation of those conditions is by bringing that government or the military regime responsible for it to an end. I do not think that the plea which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, made will have any other effect than to encourage Mr. Mugabe to continue on his present course. If we support what Mr. Mugabe is doing (which is what I understood the noble Lord to say) he will think that he is perfectly entitled to continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget, mentioned Lancaster House and the position of the bishop. My understanding of that situation is the same as his. Indeed, we both saw the bishop the night before the conference started. I think that he was under the impression that Her Majesty's Government had given him certain undertakings, which subsequently was found not to be the case. I was all in favour of a settlement and I understood that the Government's proposals at Lancaster House would have given certain security and have brought peace at the end of many years of strife. However, events did not turn out like that and we know what has happened to the bishop, so I shall not add to what has already been said on that point.
However, I understand that the bishop's son is also in detention. Apparently he had his ticket and he was due here some weeks ago but has never turned up. It is also thought that he is now being held in detention without charge or without any prospect of being tried. He was coming here to try to obtain support for his father in order to help get him released.
So we are faced with a situation where law and order are distorted to such an extent that one might say that human rights have ceased to exist. One of the most worrying aspects is the question of detention without trial. The courts can acquit an accused on perfectly good evidence, or lack of it, and that person can then be re-detained; a decision of the courts can be overridden, indicating that the government there are above the law and that they have the most complete contempt for the law. While that situation continues, I do not see how we can support what is taking place in Zimbabwe or the government that are doing this.
It has been suggested that the torture and beatings that take place could take place anywhere. That is no reason to condone them. They appear to be particularly sadistic and are used as a means not only to extract confessions but to create a situation of

241
intimidation. This is not in keeping with what we were given to understand happens.
I have re-read what my noble friend Lord Belstead said on 2nd December 1982 when we last discussed this subject. He painted a rather rosy picture of what is going on. He also said that as a country we were no longer in a position to influence what happens in Zimbabwe, and no doubt he was quite correct in saying that. But to my mind he was really saying that we have got rid of the situation at Lancaster House, that we do not want to have any more to do with it, and that it is very fortunate that we were able to get rid of it so comfortably. My noble friend also said that Mr. Mugabe intended to pursue a policy of conciliation. I can see no sign of that at the present time.
We have heard of many cases of hardships and torture and I should like to mention one in connection with the situation in Matabeleland. I quote from the Occasional Newsletter of the Rhodesian Christian Group of April this year. It says:
"One of many typical accounts of security forces brutality is that of 17-year-old Nomsa Ngwenya who reached Bulawayo after a two-day journey. During interrogation on suspicion of feeding "dissidents" she was forced to lie flat on the ground. Two soldiers held her hands and two her feet, while another beat her violently across the buttocks and another asked questions and took notes. She claims the treatment was repeated over three days".
The same newsletter says:
"An opposition ZAPU Member of Parliament, 61-year-old Mr. Sikwili Moyo, was recently beaten almost senseless by the Fifth Brigade. Another ZAPU MP Mr. Vote Moyo, is in Chikurubi untried".
This surely is a sorry state of affairs. I should like to ask the Government what the position is about the conditions in Matabeleland. Has a protest been made about the treatment being meted out there? Is it true, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Paget, that the United States Government refused to continue with aid unless the present conditions in Matabeleland were improved? As a result, have the North Korean advisers been withdrawn from that brigade? If so, is it true, as I have been told, that they have been replaced by British advisers, and what steps are they taking to deal with the atrocities?
There is no doubt that there is a serious programme of genocide going on in Matabeleland. I would hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to making vigorous protests about it. Earlier in the Sitting today the noble Baroness who is to reply said that they were constantly making representations to the Government of South Africa about conditions there, and I hope that this applies also to the Government of Zimbabwe.
There is one other point I should like to mention on the behaviour of the police. As your Lordships may know—it was reported in the press here—there was a police sweep in Harare and lot of perfectly respectable ladies, both black and white, were rounded up and taken to the prison. They were held there and not allowed to communicate with their families or lawyers for a considerable time before being released.
May I put to the noble Baroness who is to reply: how would she like it, a very respectable lady as we all know, if this had happened to her: if she had been arrested by the Oxford police, accused of being a prostitute, taken into a wagon, perhaps raped on the
242
way, and then stripped naked in the police station? These are the conditions that these people are having to face, and we should take due note about it.
I would suggest to the noble Baroness that so long as we continue to give aid to this government without strings as to its behaviour, the Government—and the Government in our name—are making themselves accessories to what is going on there. Surely they realise that we are dealing with a lot of savages whose behaviour was kept somewhat under control while the white regime existed, but now freed of it they are reverting to type.
I would finish by quoting from the same speech that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made on 2nd December. He said, at col. 1391:
"we should also acknowledge freely the real progress achieved by people from all political parties and all tribal and racial backgrounds in the creation and development of their new country".
My Lords, does not that sound rather hollow today?
4.3 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I warmly welcome the debate this afternoon because in tabling this Motion the noble Lord, Lord Paget, has put his finger on one facet of a vast and terrifying problem, the full extent of which few of us realise. Disraeli said:
"Justice is truth in action."
Perhaps the greatest tragedy in Africa today is that it is not justice hand in hand with truth which walks the land abroad, but all too often injustice hand in hand with falsehood; hatred hand in hand with fear.
Instead of the Old Bailey with its glorious traditions of criminal justice probably unsurpassed throughout the world, we have in much of Africa today the New Bailey where impartial justice is virtually unknown, truth is manipulated to suit the whims of unscrupulous dictators, and one's sentence depends more than anything else on the size of the bribe one is prepared to pay the judge. This situation prevails throughout the greater part of Africa today: from Libya to Liberia; from Morocco to Malawi; from Somalia to Sudan; and from Zaire to Zimbabwe.
If your Lordships think I am exaggerating I would call your attention to this magnificent report by Amnesty International which gives particulars of violations of human rights in no less than 45 of the 53 countries in Africa, 16 of which I have either served in or have visited, though unfortunately Zimbabwe is not one of them. I am sad to say that this report of 1983 contains practically no record of improvement on the previous year's report, about which I spoke when I asked an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House in July of last year.
The cases which Amnesty International continue to deal with are concerned mainly with extra-judicial execution (that means, of course, execution without trial); abduction; imprisonment without trial; torture preceding trial (to extract confessions); and the denial of legal representation. Details of all these horrible happenings are to found in the Amnesty booklet. If you still have the stomach for anything stronger I would recommend this other pamphlet of theirs, Torture in the '80s, but that is outside the scope of our debate this afternoon.

243
Perhaps the most disturbing feature of the Amnesty International report is that almost all the Commonwealth territories are included in it: Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana, Malawi, Zambia, and of course Zimbabwe. It is indeed important to point out that of all these countries the one with the most terrible record on human rights is Uganda. I served there from 1969 to 1971. I have many Ugandan friends, both in Uganda and Britain and elsewhere. Every single one of them without exception has lost friends and relations who have been killed either by the security forces or by the guerrillas. The sum total of this tragedy is so great that I can hardly speak about it without emotion.
It is in the sphere of judicial procedures that we must speak this afternoon. What is happening now is that the judiciary and the Bar are continually being intimidated. This movement stared way back in 1972 under Amin—I stress Amin—when, as some of your Lordships may recall, the Chief Justice, Kiwanuka, was removed from a session of the High Court.
At that time there were a number of Ugandan judges who were trained in England. They were called to the English Bar. Many of them took silk. I can say without fear of contradiction that their judgments, which were a pleasure to listen to, were in the finest traditions of the English Bar. Now of course they have nearly all followed in the footsteps of Kiwanuka; some have fled, and some have been killed. Those that remain—a few Ugandans do remain—continue to be seriously circumscribed in all their actions by this continuous government oppression.
However, I must return to Zimbabwe and Bishop Muzorewa. Although his arrest was as a politician rather than as a Christian, this arrest was surely an affront to christianity not only in Africa but throughout the world, and, if I may be permitted to say so, I am sorry that we shall not have a contribution from the spiritual Bench this afternoon.
One must bear in mind that there has been a tremendous resurgence of christianity in Africa. There is a vigorous and vibrant christianity pulsating throughout the heart of black Africa today. I have heard of it from friends in the Church in Kampala, for example,where I used to worship. A friend there tells me that the congregations are full to the doors. The same is true in Nairobi, Botswana, and elsewhere. The interesting thing about it all, as some right reverend Prelates are likely to confirm, is that this christianity has taken on an essentially African image. It has succeeded because it has managed, if I may say so, to shake off the shackles of Canterbury and Rome. Indeed, this vigorous and vibrant christianity is an inspiration for all of us when we feel, as I often feel, overwhelmed by the terror, the torture, the senseless suffering and slaughter that seems to engulf so much of Africa today.
However, we must be constructive. What can one do? I want briefly to turn to what Amnesty International are doing. As your Lordships presumably know, Amnesty's main concern is with prisoners of conscience, like Muzorewa, and it is looking after or trying to help about 5,557 such prisoners. There are more than 3,000 Amnesty
244
International groups, nearly 300 more than there were last year. These workers are, I like to think, like a great multitude of mice, gradually nibbling away at this vast problem; and although they may have the teeth of mice, they have the perseverance of beavers and the hearts of lions. Some measure of Amnesty's success can be judged from the fact that of these 5,000 prisoners that I have mentioned, no fewer than 1,000 were released last year: a great achievement of which Amnesty can be justly proud.
What of Her Majesty's Government's attitude? We have spoken about progress and representations. I want to put to your Lordships one other possibility—it has but a remote possibility of success, I fear. In my days in the diplomatic service we had a very well-organised system of visits for overseas visitors, Ministers, officials and so on. I wonder whether perhaps we might not invite judges and others connected with the law from Commonwealth Africa and perhaps outside. We would do this not in the spirit that we were trying to force our ideas down their throats. We would say, "Come here to see what we have to offer. It has been working here for many hundreds of years. It has evolved. We realise that there are differences between Britain and Africa, but we hope that perhaps you might like to take note of what we can offer".
So my final thought is this: in dealing with Africa and African problems, particularly in the sphere of human rights and judicial procedures, we shall get nowhere if we try to force our own environment, our own milieu on them. In other words, we cannot transfer the milieu of the Middle Temple and Chancery Lane into the cities of the African bush, any more than we can transplant a Westminster-type democracy or Canterbury-type christianity.
I would say, let the courts in Africa evolve in their own way. Let the judges wear their tribal robes and let them bring drums into court if they like, spears as well. But in all their counsels and deliberations, in all their judgments, let them always remember those great and stirring words of Disraeli: "Justice is truth in action".
4.13 p.m.
Lord Soames: My Lords, in the short time available I find it necessary to talk in shorthand. There are many things I should like to say—for instance, about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton—but they were said, and well said, by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I agree with him, and I leave it there.
This debate so far, with the notable exception of the speech by my noble friend Lord Gridley and that by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has referred to a large extent to stories of horrors, violence and torture in Zimbabwe. Much of what we hear is inexcusable; it is indefensible. We do not know the details of it, but it is a part, alas!, of the story of Zimbabwe—and, indeed, of a number of other countries in Africa, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has said. But it is not the whole story of Zimbabwe by a long way.
I think it would be a mistake if this House concentrated only on those horrors and did not put them into the perspective of what is going on in that country. Though there has not been much talk about it in the debate, the Motion is about the judiciary and

245
Bishop Muzorewa. First, a word about the judiciary. I doubt whether there is any black country in Africa today which has a better and a more fair judiciary than Zimbabwe, with members drawn from all races: black, white and Asian. I should like to hear if any noble Lord knows of any better judiciary in black Africa than that in Zimbabwe. Doubtless it was noticed by your Lordships that in the debate that was held in another place after the trial of the airmen the Prime Minister said that the behaviour of the judiciary had been impeccable. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Paget, referred to the judge who sat upon that case and said that the government had been let down by the judge. I should have thought that it would not have passed unnoticed by him, as it seems to have been, what, after that trial, the Prime Minister, Mr. Mugabe, did to that judge. He made him Lord Chief Justice—that is what happened to that judge. I think perhaps this taints somewhat some of the things said by the noble Lord, Lord Paget.
Now to Bishop Muzorewa. I grieve very much that circumstances should be such that a man who sought to serve to the best of his ability the highest interests of his country as he saw them should have been held in detention without trial for many months already. But such detention is not imposed by the judiciary but by the government acting under emergency power regulations. What we all should abhor is the fact that there is need still in Zimbabwe today, as there was for all too many years when it was Rhodesia, for the existence of the emergency power regulations. But these regulations were more or less inherited from the previous government; and, indeed, they formed part of the agreement made between Her Majesty's Government and all other parties at the Lancaster House Conference. Perhaps when my noble friend the Minister winds up she will say whether or not anything has been done in regard to Bishop Muzorewa which falls outside the constitution as agreed at Lancaster House. I would say here in parenthesis that some of what has been said in this debate is undoubtedly true, though I think there has been some gross exaggeration. But I am not in any better position to judge than others of your Lordships what is happening within Matabeleland today.
Much has been said about the Lancaster House agreement. What would have happened if the Lancaster House Conference had not taken place? There had already been seven years of war. It was a war to attrition. For every white man that was killed, others left the country. For every black man that was killed, for every guerrilla, or terrorist as he was called then, 10 more came into the country. One thing is absolutely certain: without the Lancaster House Conference and subsequent election there would never have been the sort of situation that there is in Zimbabwe today of a multi-racial society with, for instance, as many white farmers farming the land of Zimbabwe today as were farming the land of Rhodesia before. My opinion is that if there had not been the Lancaster House agreement, if elections had not taken place, the war would have continued unabated with horrific results.
My second point is that of course there was intimidation during those elections; but there were an awful lot of observers watching closely. It seemed to
246
me at one time that there were probably more observers than there were voters. And the elections, given all the circumstances, were given a clean bill of health by the observers. There was intimidation, but the intimidation was not throughout the country and the pattern of the voting was remarkably similar throughout the country. There were also large majorities for Mr. Mugabe in areas where there had not been intimidation. Why? I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Paget, has considered this. Undoubtedly, the main issue in that election was which party was likely to bring an end to the war. That is what it was all about. It had been going on for seven years, and the mass of the people were sick and tired of it. Bishop Muzorewa had been Prime Minister, but there was no prospect at the time of the election, as the people saw it, of the war being brought to an end. That, in my view, was the main reason for the enormous majority that there was.
When Mr. Mugabe, the Prime Minister, took office he had to face a world recession—a recession which affected all the countries in southern black Africa. The country has had three consecutive years of drought—unheard of before. It is necessary for them this year to be importing as much maize as they normally export. It has been totally impossible in that situation to meet in any way either the expectations of their own people—expectations which were very high, after what they saw as a victory—or our expectations of what we hoped would happen in Zimbabwe if the world situation had been different and if there had not been the drought. Then, there were the after-effects of the civil war. When I was there I noted that there was probably as much hostility between Zaula and Zipra as there was between each of them and the security forces.
There are a lot of dissidents left in Matabeleland; there are a lot of men who were under arms and who feel that their interests are not sufficiently well represented in the government today. There are a lot of bandits, there are a lot of young men who have never known any other life than living off their wits in the bush. There is a genuine and serious law-and-order problem.
We might wish that it was being handled in a different way, but we are not talking about experienced white countries; we are talking about a black, African country only recently independent. Of course, we regret a lot that is happening there. But it is necessary when thinking about the inexcusable things that are happening to bear in mind also the good things that have happened in the past three years, and to bear in mind the exceptionally difficult situation facing the government, no matter what government would have been in power, in Zimbabwe today.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I regret the fact that this debate, it appears, is being used by certain noble Lords for intemperate attacks on the government and state of Zimbabwe, and I believe that there is a great deal of hypocrisy being talked around this subject. We have heard from noble Lords who, I know, were silent when the allegations that they have mede this afternoon were being perpetrated by the Ian Smith government against black Africans. Nor have

247
we heard from them any complaints made against either the judiciary or the Administration of the Republic of South Africa. Yet one of the notable parliamentarians of South Africa (herself well known to many Members of this House), Helen Suzman, has in the last few days complained that the Government of South Africa are appointing judges to try cases on such a basis that if you are white and are accused and convicted of murder you tend to get a suspended sentence, whereas if you are black the sentence is always death.
That has not happened in Zimbabwe. I think that it would be much more consistent if those noble Lords who have been attacking the Government and the state of Zimbabwe this afternoon had at least widened their attack against detention without trial wherever it may occur, torture wherever it may occur, and violence wherever it may occur—whether it be in Zimbabwe, in South Africa, in Vietnam, in the Soviet Union or in Northern Ireland. I would declare myself against detention without trial and against the use of violence wherever they may occur.
I will not attempt to answer Lord Paget's Rider Haggard version of history, but I would suggest to him that he would learn a good deal more about the realities of Africa if he were to watch the excellent programme of Basil Davidson now being shown on Channel 4 on Monday evenings. One thing I can say to him, and say to him quite directly and specifically, is that it is untrue to say that there was no electioneering in Shona country other than that by the party of Mr. Mugabe. I know that to say that would be untrue because I, too, was there and saw the electioneering taking place. There are other Members of your Lordships' House who will bear me out on that.
Nor is it true to suggest that the violence and intimidation during the election, to which the noble Lord, Lord Soames, has quite correctly drawn our attention, took place simply from one side. Again, I have specific evidence that that intimidation took place from various sides, including from the party of Bishop Muzorewa. However, the noble Lord did not draw our attention to the fact that, under the government of Mr. Mugabe, many of the white Members of Parliament have left the party of Mr. Smith in order to collaborate more closely with that government. And these are the elected, European, white Members of that Parliament.
Finally, on the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Paget, surely he can see that he destroyed his own case. This is supposed to be a Motion about the judiciary and about the judicial processes. When he described the fact that when you bring a case to court you have to have corroboration, then, yes, you have to have corroboration in the courts in Zimbabwe. You do not have to have corroboration in the courts in South Africa; or, indeed, in many other countries. I would draw to his attention, as has the noble Lord, Lord Soames, the attitude of the government of Mr. Mugabe to Judge Dumbutshena, well known to, and trusted by, many Members of your Lordships' House. When he passed his verdict on the airmen and dismissed the allegations against them, the reaction of the government of Mr. Mugabe was to promote him to Lord Chief Justice.
248
We have heard from a number of noble Lords and from the noble Lord, Lord Paget, and the noble Marquess. Lord Salisbury, that there is a feeling that the Government should use some form of coercion against the government of Zimbabwe for their present actions. Does that also apply to the Government of South Africa? And does it apply in the same way to the practices of apartheid? We have not heard it from either noble Lord. We have never heard any plea for the release of Nelson Mandela or Walter Sisulu, two old friends of mine with whom I worked closely 30 years ago and who have been imprisoned in vile conditions for over 20 years.
Nor have we heard any protest about the number of South Africans who have died in police stations and in cells. Nor have we heard any protests about the forcible removal of two million to three million black Africans under the policy of apartheid. I would suggest that the pleas that have been made this afternoon would carry more weight and more conviction if they applied to opposition to the use of violence in any circumstances, and not just in the country of Zimbabwe.
When the noble Marquess talked about the officials and members of the government of Zimbabwe acting like savages, does he include also the actions of the white officials and the white members of the Administration in the Republic of South Africa? Have they acted like savages? If so, let him say so, and let him say so as forcefully and as often as he has done against similar people in Zimbabwe
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's contention that conditions in South Africa are the same as they are in Zimbabwe today. Quite apart from anything else, the African population there have a higher standard of living than anywhere else in the world. What I am criticising is the behaviour of the Government in Zimbabwe in attacking defenceless people. I disagree entirely with him and with other speakers who have said that they were likely to cause trouble. It seems to me that the difference in South Africa is that there are dissidents who are trying to cause difficulties and disturbances against the government who are trying to maintain law and order.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I leave that intervention for noble Lords to read in Hansard.
My Lords, this is supposed to be a debate about the judicial processes, and particularly about the detention of Bishop Muzorewa. Let us be quite clear as to what the situation is, since it has been very greatly distorted so far. Bishop Muzorewa is in preventive detention, which is permitted during a period of public emergency by express provision of the terms of the Lancaster House Constitution. As required by paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the constitution, the regulations provide for due observance of all the safeguards: notice of reasons for detention; access to legal representation; review by tribunal within 30 days, and thereafter at intervals of 180 days; legal representation before the tribunal. All those conditions have been carried out.
Zimbabwe is at present under a state of emergency. Like the noble Lord, Lord Soames, I very much regret

249
the need for that; but a great deal of Africa—indeed, a great deal of the world—is in a permanent state of war: war against poverty, war against infiltration from outside influences and forces, war to establish a state where no state had existed before colonial days. There is a constant state of war. We may regret it, but it is there.
The review tribunal is composed of members appointed by the president acting on the advice of the Judical Service Commission, which is an independent body presided over by the Chief Justice, Chief Justice Dumbutshena. Detainees have the right to seek relief from the High Court and the Supreme Court if they allege failure to comply with the constitution or the regulations. Section 24 of the constitution provides a special jurisdiction for the Supreme Court in enforcing the Declaration of Rights, and Section 69 entrenches the right of any person to go to the High Court to protect his civil rights. These rights have been used by detainees.
The bishop's case was heard by the review tribunal on 25th and 27th January of this year, and the bishop was represented at the hearing by two legal practitioners (in effect, by counsel and an instructing solicitor). The report of the review tribunal was submitted to the Minister of Home Affairs on 16th March 1984, and already the government had pledged that it would abide by the decision of the review tribunal.
The review tribunal recommended the continued detention of the bishop, and that the case be resubmitted for review on the expiry of 180 days, that is, for normal periodical review as required by the constitution. In every case in the past in which the review tribunal has recommended release of any detained persons, the minister has complied with that recommendation and in no case has the president been approached for a direction overruling the tribunal as provided by the constitution.
In detention, the bishop is allowed two visitors per day, including family, lawyers, church colleagues. He is allowed newspapers and other reading material. I wonder how that compares with the conditions under which Mr. Mugabe was detained, or Mr. Nkomo.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I hope that noble Lord will watch the time, otherwise noble Lords will be in great difficulty over this debate.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I was interrupted, after all. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Paget, has done a disservice to the reputation of this country. It has done a disservice to Bishop Muzorewa, and it has done a disservice to those who are trying to preserve the rule of law in Zimbabwe.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Saint Oswald: My Lords, this is a debate which I had assumed was bound to be conducted in a mood of deep sorrow and dire disappointment. The noble Lord, Lord Paget, in whose name it stands and upon whose thoughtful initiative it was set down and opened, has explained why, in trenchant terms, not mincing his phraseology or fears for the future. In contrast, one or two noble Lords have found
250
protection in a kind of complacency, which I am unable to envy or to emulate. Among the congenital optimists in your Lordships' House I am certainly one. Yet the fate of this beautiful land which we are discussing, of its people—exultantly happy by nature, as I have seen them—seems bleak indeed unless leadership can alter in some magical or sensible way. This is in no sense an attack upon the black rule in Zimbabwe within southern Africa, which had been inevitable for many years.
Our feelings of sadness are intensified by the memory of those high hopes at the time of the Lancaster House talks, and even during the early days of the governorship of my noble friend Lord Soames. The contrast between those hopes and the realities of today is stark and identifiable. The promises offered in good faith have been swept aside and, as is so often the case, the innocent are the victims.
What benefits were those charming, intelligent and trusting people led to expect? The independence of the judiciary, for instance, has been eaten away, devoured in a variety of forms. Citizens have been detained without trial for long periods, in direct contravention of the Lancaster House agreement. Accused persons, after having been acquitted by the High Court, have immediately been re-arrested and incarcerated by ministerial order. For once in my career, I find the explanation of my noble and beloved friend Lord Soames, that it was necessary for the government to by-pass the judiciary, unappealing and unconvincing.
Lord Soames: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? Could he give the House one example where the judiciary has misbehaved in the manner which he has just described?
Lord Saint Oswald: My Lords, I have not given, nor have I intended to give, any example where the judiciary has misbehaved. I can give examples where the judiciary has been by-passed. That is my complaint. To cite a few distinguished cases, Bishop Muzorewa, mentioned in the noble Lord's Motion, and Mr. Vote Moyo have been detained for over eight months without trial. General Lookout Masuku and Mr. Dumiso Dabangwa and others were re-detained after acquittal by the High Court and are still detained, more than a year later.
To be fair to Mr. Mugabe, and without echoing at length the relevant words of the noble Lord, Lord Paget, Mr. Mugabe has never at any point in his career concealed his belief in a one-party state under one man's leadership, or his intention to establish and maintain such a state in Zimbabwe. The Lancaster House agreement clearly envisaged a democratic state allowing free political activities within a multi-party pattern. This is now being openly repudiated by the announcement of a one-party Zimbabwe.
The Lancaster House agreement, while it is respected, ensures freedom of the press and freedom of expression; but the present government has deprived the people of Zimbabwe of the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression. Other parties which have opposite views from those of the ruling party are deprived of access to the national newspapers, which have become government-owned and directed; they are deprived of access to the national radio and the

251
national television, which are also government-controlled, owned and directed, and this against the spirit of the Lancaster House agreement, and completely altering the letter and the spirit of that agreement and thereby the the true nature of the state of Zimbabwe as envisaged in that agreement.
The dishonouring of important parts of the agreement by the government is having serious consequences in that it has the potential of releasing the people's loyalty to that agreement and of causing destabilisation of the new state, as well as potential chaos and economic and social upheaval, the innocent and the guilty suffering alike. In the eyes of most Zimbabweans, the government itself is disparaging, even degrading that solemn agreement. The results of this will be disastrous for the government and the people of Zimbabwe. The agreement upon which so many trusted will be a dead letter.
The methods being employed in this process of destruction are themselves shocking brutalities—by which I mean large-scale assassinations against the Matebele—which continue to be committed by the Fifth Brigade; and it is important to know what the Fifth Brigade is. It is totally distinct from the Zimbabwe army, which was brought into being with such care and skill by my noble friend Lord Soames and General Acland. It is a private army at the direct command of Mr. Mugabe, and employed in the elimination of his opponents after bloody destruction.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget, drew a telling comparison between the theory and the ambitious thought processes of Mr. Robert Mugabe and the late Adolf Hitler. It would not be exaggerated to compare the Fifth Brigade with the infamous SS. It exists to incite and conduct a reign of terror. The whole of this odious policy has been, and remains, a costly matter to the country. The problems of security, or lack of security, drive commercial farmers, many industrialists and businessmen out of the country, thus bringing close to ruin an economy which had been in my recollection second only to that of South Africa in that whole vast continent. This beautiful and once prosperous nation is being reduced to a beggar state. As in so many captive nations, it is the terrible silence from the outside which undermines the morale. The atrocities reported in Britain and other western countries are only heard of in Zimbabwe by clandestine means.
These words, and as I solemnly affirm these truths, will cause great pain to my dear colleague the noble Lord, Lord Walston, the sweetness and honesty of whose disposition over many years has been revealed to me. He is, I know, a personal and affectionate friend of Mr. Robert Mugabe and is unwilling to credit much of what is told to us about events. I too am fortunate in having a personal friend in Zimbabwe: the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole. He is an African leader of stature, who until today has failed in political terms. Unlike others, he has never been a terrorist. He has never I think conceived, still less committed, any act of violence in his life. He is deeply religious and deeply thoughtful. I speak with some knowledge because he has been in my house as I have been in his and I have had the opportunity of having long and inspiring discussions with him.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I should like to ask him quickly: if that is the case, why then was the Reverend Sithole gaoled before independence?
Lord Saint Oswald: My Lords, he was gaoled for thoroughly unsatisfactory and improper reasons by Mr. Ian Smith; and that I would not attempt to contradict. He was, as I was just about to say, imprisoned for 12 years by Mr. Ian Smith and yet he has emerged without rancour towards any man or towards any race. Notwithstanding, he is a man of powerful character whom I am happy to regard as a friend, as I hope he may regard me.
He has written a book which so far to my great regret has found no publisher in England or elsewhere in the West. The book is written as a warning to the West and its message overlaps the boundaries of Zimbabwe. It is a warning to the West, as I say, spelled out in calm tones in order to conceal the anguish that the whole of Africa is liable to be converted to Marxism. The effect of such an occurrence over a number of years would be so disastrous for humanity at large that I believe we owe it to that world, so far as our influence counts, to warn of the danger. It is our special responsibility, because we were as a nation responsible for shaping the minds and more latterly the future of what was a kind of an African paradise and is now becoming a type of hell. While recognising the proper caution that Her Majesty's Government have to apply, I beg them as my contribution to this debate to ensure that the good will which still, though perhaps on a waning scale, in observed towards our country is turned to useful account in terms of guidance.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I wish to speak very briefly from the Cross-Benches as one who, unlike many other noble Lords, has no specialist knowledge of the long development of southern Rhodesia and the unhappy developments in Zimbabwe since the high hopes of independence. I make no apology, because in this respect I am no different from the majority of our fellow countrymen who might overcome any reluctance to speak out of turn in order to join in denouncing the evils we have heard about in this latest Marxist regime. I wonder myself, when I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, how someone who can criticise so vehemently every blemish and every imperfection of free societies and liberal economies in the West, can moderate his criticisms when confronted by the progressive oppression that appears inseparable from advanced socialist dictatorships.
The Motion before us calls attention to the state of judicial procedure in Zimbabwe, and the noble Lord, Lord Soames, has helpfully pointed out that many of the worst abuses occur under the emergency regulations. My Lords, it makes not much difference to the victims of these arrangements and, in my view, the incidents that we have heard recounted by the noble Lord, Lord Paget, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, have not the remotest link with any kind of systematic law as we know it.

253
It is surely a mockery that, despite the brave efforts we have heard about of the higher courts, the system allows bishops, MPs, airmen, farmers and even women to be subjected to the whims of vengeful tyrants. One feature which may give small comfort to the defenders of this system is that there seems to be equality for blacks and whites, in that both might receive equally inhumane treatment.
Since I am not able to stay for the following debate, which calls for increased trade with developing countries, I should like to link this Motion with the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, although I fear it may be stretching optimism just a little to regard Zimbabwe as a developing country when we see what state control has done to Tanzania and to neighbouring economies.
As a staunch upholder of free trade and the market economy, I am often accused of such crimes as believing in laissez-faire, which some translate, quite wrongly, as allowing no role for government. Whatever their differences about M3 or M0, adherents of the free market accord a number of vital functions to government. Indeed, the first duty of a ruler in the most free of free societies is to uphold the safety and the security of property. Here again, socialists often misunderstand "property" to mean no more than material wealth and possessions—and certainly they require protection. But even more important, as Adam Smith declared 200 years ago, is the property which every man has in his own person and labour which, said Smith:
"as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable".
Economic analysis confirms the promptings of common sense in suggesting that in the absence of entrenched safeguards for personal safety, people are unlikely for long to work and invest in forward-looking productive enterprises. It is not therefore surprising that in Zimbabwe we have seen the emigration of trained and talented people continuing since independence. Nor does it take any great prescience to predict an accelerating decline in wealth-creating activities if the arbitrary abuse of power frightens more families into quitting.
If some of the horrors we have heard about continue, whether or not under emergency regulations, it is not fanciful to foresee the possible collapse of the inherited apparatus of orderly production on which the welfare of the mass of the people depends. When there are so many countries, as we have been reminded, of whose domestic policies we may variously and vigorously disapprove, I agree with others that it is hardly for us to interfere if Mr. Mugabe and his Marxist friends put their restrictive ideology before the fostering of conditions favourable to expanding economic prosperity. The consequences will in time be fully brought home to their unfortunate subjects, though the perpetrators may take refuge in the rather unsubtle device of a one-party state. But if this goes on, it is certain that in due course their exports, and then their imports, will decline and dwindle, without our having to consider the unrewarding policy of contemplating a trade embargo.
However, when we come to consider what we can do to influence a better outcome, I join with the noble
254
Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I would strongly urge the Government to announce an early date when all foreign aid would be terminated, unless cast-iron guarantees are given of an end to what we have heard of as the perversion of "judicial procedures" through brutality and even terror. Foreign aid is taxpayers' money handed over—not to the poor or afflicted, nor to beneficial commercial enterprise, but to a group of often cruel party zealots who, with its help, are digging themselves in as the future dictators of Zimbabwe.
Foreign aid is always a soft option. It everywhere enables the recipient governments to live beyond their means by neglecting to create the conditions of security and safety which would attract commercial investment in truly productive enterprise. But foreign aid to countries like Zimbabwe is, in my view, far worse than a soft option. It is a subsidy to what stands out, even in this wicked world, as a harsh and oppressive regime which has forfeited any claims it might ever have had to our charity.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, as so often happens in your Lordships' House, this debate has taken an even more interesting and powerful turn than might have been expected beforehand by the subject matter. First, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton for providing this opportunity to discuss this matter today. Whatever view is taken about the particular matters he has raised, especially the detention of Bishop Muzorewa and the other disturbing matters about which we have heard this afternoon, I hope that we can all agree on one thing: that we all hope for the success of Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwean people. I say that because we on this Bench, and, I am sure, elsewhere in your Lordships' House, approach this matter with that basic aim in mind—in a constructive way. I should also add at the outset that I propose to concentrate on the matters referred to in my noble friend's Motion—the judiciary and Bishop Muzorewa.
Following the Lancaster House Conference and the transition to independence, we on this Bench were encouraged and, indeed, impressed by the course of events in the newly-emerged sovereign state and the way it was grappling with its problems. Here I should like to pay tribute to the preparatory work done by the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. We have also had the benefit this afternoon of hearing from another Member of your Lordships' House who played a key part in those preparations and in the transitional period, the noble Lord, Lord Soames. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soames, who emphasised the need to keep the whole matter very much in perspective.
I want at once to refer to a particular part of that preparatory work—the constitution itself—because it bears directly on my noble friend's Motion. It is worth keeping firmly in mind and stating at the outset that the constitution is in line with basic British models for Commonwealth countries gaining independence and is adapted to suit the needs of this particular African state. As the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Mr. Mugabe, has observed:
"The constitution is British rather than Zimbabwean in origin".

255
Mr. Mugabe referred to that fact in an article in the Parliamentarian of January 1984. Not least is it British in origin in its judicial system. One of the fundamental aims of that constitution—I cannot think of any other constitution which might have done better than that one did in paving the way for the independence of Zimbabwe—was to provide for an independent judiciary. Whatever criticisms may be made, as they have been made this afternoon, of certain events within Zimbabwe, of one thing, in our view, there can be no doubt: that the judiciary in Zimbabwe has acted in an exemplary fashion. It has asserted its independence. Let me also say, because it is a corollary of that fact, that its independence has been preserved.
There are numerous examples of the way in which the judges have shown their independence. One or two examples have been mentioned this afternoon. I wish to refer to one or two other examples. As Mr. Mugabe himself said:
"Whilst as an executive we by no means always agree with the decisions of our judges, our constitution requires and has ensured an independent judiciary".
Mr. Mugabe goes on to point out—I do not believe that we can ignore facts of this kind—that of the three major constitutional cases which have gone to the Supreme Court, the court upheld the executive's case in one—Hewlett v. Minister of Finance and Another—and found against the executive in the other two—Minister of Home Affairs v. Dabengwa and Another and Minister of Home Affairs v. York and Another. There has been a number of cases involving security matters as well, in which those accused have been acquitted. The most celebrated, no doubt, of those cases is the one to which reference has been made this afternoon by a number of noble Lords: the air force officers' case, the case of The State v. Slattery and Others.
Without going into further matters, already covered this afternoon, which are connected with that case, it is nevertheless worthwhile, I believe, looking at one or two other parts of the judgment which was delivered by the judge who heard that case, sitting with two assessors—Mr. Justice Dumbutshena. He said that the case rested entirely on the officers' alleged confessions to the police and then ruled, as we have heard, that those incriminating statements were not valid because the officers had been "persistently and deliberately"—those are the judge's own words—denied access to their lawyers before making their confessions, and also because of the evidence that four of the men had been tortured with electric shocks by police interrogators. Mr. Dumbutshena went on to say, as reported in The Times of 1st September 1983:
"The evidence of prosecution witnesses did not come close to establishing the guilt of the accused and the State's case rested purely on the confessions".
He also said:
"Although the police denied mistreatment, the officers' stories corroborated each other and had the ring of truth".
He added:
"The psychological effects of lengthy interrogation, incommunicado incarceration and torture suffered at the hands of the police drive an accused person to hopelessness".
256
He said:
"However, even without this evidence he would have had to have ruled the confessions inadmissible because they were obtained after the officers had clearly been denied access to lawyers—a right enshrined in the legal code and the constitution".
If the judiciary is not free, it does not make statements of that kind. As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and by my noble friend—and perhaps I could just add this point to theirs: he was the first black judge to be appointed in Zimbabwe—he was later promoted to Chief Justice. This was despite his having acted against the supposed wishes of members of the Zimbabwean Government. Of course, as we know, further grave disquiet arose when the officers were detained minutes after their acquittal.
This brings me to the question of preventive detention. This is a subject that we view with, to say the least, extreme distaste. In fairness, it must be said, too, that Mr. Mugabe has stated that detention has been used there, to quote his words,
"reluctantly and as a last resort".
It is also the case that preventive detention is provided for under the Zimbabwe constitution, as my noble friend Lord Hatch has said, and he quoted the relevant passages. It should be emphasised also that detainees' cases are reviewed, as my noble friend Lord Hatch has also indicated, by an independent review tribunal appointed by the president on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission. It is headed by the Chief Justice himself. The tribunal can recommend that the detainee be released. That recommendation is binding on the government unless the president directs otherwise. I gather that, as reported in The Times on 13th February this year, all detainees recommended for release have been released and that the president has not used his power to direct otherwise.
That commission is not the only body other than the courts themselves in Zimbabwe which safeguards constitutional rights in that country. There is also, for example, the Senate Legal Committee appointed under the constitution, which reports on whether proposed legislation contravenes the provisions of the constitution concerning fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. Where it has reported that, for example, the provisions in a Bill were unconstitutional, the Bill has been amended accordingly to meet the committee's objectives—further provisions foreseen in the Lancaster House Constitution. I say all this because I believe it is essential to view the whole situation in perspective and not to be blinded by some very disturbing happenings into believing that absolutely everything is wrong and that nothing is right.
To return to the judiciary and preventive detention, as the Prime Minister said in another place on 1st December last year,
"the judicial process in Zimbabwe was impeccable".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/83; col. 996.]
And as the noble Baroness the Minister, Lady Young, has said of the detention of Bishop Muzorewa,
"What the Zimbabwean Government is doing is not unconstitutional and is not illegal".
But just as disturbing happenings must not be allowed to blind us to what is good in Zimbabwe, so by the

257
same token those very advantages must not be allowed to blind us to what is not good. We cannot disguise the fact that there have been the reports coming out of Zimbabwe of which we have heard this afternoon, and elsewhere, which have been causing grave disquiet to many—including friends of that country as well.
There can be no doubt that the detention of Bishop Muzorewa is an internal matter for the Zimbabwean Government—and we of course bear in mind what has been said about the state of emergency. Zimbabwe is an independent, sovereign state—and we cannot ignore that, either—and neither we nor anyone else has the right to interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Nor, despite our historic links with that country, do we have any right or, I hope, any wish, to adopt anything even remotely approaching a paternalistic attitude. That would be wrong; it would be resented; it would be misunderstood; and quite possibly—and perhaps this is the most salient point—it would be counter-productive. Here, too, I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, in respect of his approach to these matters.
What I feel we have to say is something which I hope would be taken as coming from a country being one equal partner to another equal partner. What concerns us, and what is alien to us and to our two judicial systems, is detention without trial for more than a limited period. We ourselves recall the anguish we felt over our Prevention of Terrorism Act and the reluctant way in which we have accepted the need—and I myself certainly accept this need in present circumstances—for very limited detention for not more than a few days without charges being preferred, and then only to enable inquiries to be pursued.
We simply could not condone indefinite detention without trial. Such a course would be bound in time to tarnish a country with even the finest judicial system in the world. That tarnishing is something which we and friends of Zimbabwe especially do not wish to see happening.
I could not help noting that my noble friend Lord Paget did not dwell upon the situation under the previous regime of Mr. Ian Smith—which, after all, was so much responsible for the civil war. Responsibility should certainly weigh very heavily indeed upon Mr. Smith's shoulders, and he has a very great deal to answer for. In respect of other matters before independence, the noble Lord, Lord Soames, referred to earlier years as well. I am reminded, too, that when it comes to more recent events after the election, Mr. Mugabe did offer the presidency of that country to Mr. Nkomo but it was rejected.
In conclusion, I will go just one stage further. I believe that every country of the Commonwealth has a special duty to seek to maintain the highest standards; to uphold the reputation of the Commonwealth—for so many people both inside and outside the Commonwealth still regard it as a great force for good in the world; to set an example; and to strive as best we can to act in a way that is as close as is humanly possible to being beyond reproach.
We know, of course, of the difficulties. We know of the problems which will face Zimbabwe for some time to come. But we cannot build a strong and happy
258
nation on the basis of fear. Acts of magnanimity and conciliation can be seen as signs of strength and not of weakness. I would just express the hope that the Zimbabwean Government will act accordingly and with that approach in mind.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paget, introduced a debate today on Zimbabwe in a speech that went well beyond the Motion he has down on the Order Paper. May I say at once that the Government condemn the violation of human rights wherever it may occur. In the course of my remarks this afternoon I shall refer to the steps we have taken to make the Zimbabwean Government aware of our concern.
To begin, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Soames for his speech. He speaks from very considerable recent experience in Zimbabwe. As he said, while in no way condoning violence wherever it may occur, we have to set what has happened in Zimbabwe since 1979 in perspective. That is a very good starting point for any discussion on Zimbabwe.
I should like to thank also my noble friend Lord Gridley. I believe we were all very moved by his speech. He is a man who has suffered and therefore he speaks from particular personal experience. He asked me one specific question which I should like to answer right away; namely, whether or not we have the views of our High Commissioner in Harare on what is happening in Matabeleland. I confirm to him that we are naturally in the closest touch with our High Commissioner and pay careful attention to his reports. He is under instruction to keep us closely informed of developments in Matabeleland.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget, asked a number of quite specific questions which I should like to answer before turning either to his Motion or to more general points. First, he asked whether Zimbabwe was to become a one-party state. The Zimbabwean Government have frequently stated their intention of moving towards a one-party state, but have emphasised their wish to proceed constitutionally. The constitution contains provisions for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. He also asked whether or not there will be changes in the Criminal Justice Act. This, of course, would be a matter for the Zimbabwean Government, but we know of no new legislation.
The noble Lord asked about the position of the air force officers. The trial of the Zimbabwean air force officers was referred to by a number of noble Lords. Again, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Soames for the point he made, and also the noble Lord, Lord Boston, who referred to this issue in, if I may say so, a most helpful and constructive speech about the judiciary and judicial proceedings in Zimbabwe. The air force officers are all Zimbabwean citizens. At their trial last year the officers were acquitted by the court on charges of sabotage. I can confirm that the judge in their case, Mr. Justice Dumbutshena, has subsequently been made the Chief Justice of Zimbabwe. After their acquittal the officers were detained under the emergency powers regulations and subsequently released over a period of time. All were set free by the end of last year.

259
The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, asked about the officers' pensions. As I have already indicated, the officers are all Zimbabwean citizens and their claim is against the Zimbabwe Government. They are pursuing it through their legal advisers. We have no formal standing in the matter although some of the men can currently hold British citizenship. Nevertheless, we are in touch with the officers and we have raised the matter informally with the Zimbabwean authorities on several occasions. We shall continue to do what we can properly do to be helpful.
We should remember that Zimbabwe has been an independent country for only four years. Before then the country was ravaged by a long and bitter civil war in which many thousands of people of all races lost their lives. The Lancaster House agreement brought peace and majority rule to the country, but years of civil strife inevitably leave a difficult legacy.
Since independence Zimbabwe has had to cope with the problems inherited from the past, while attempting to meet the newly aroused expectations natural to the people of an emerging country. The task has been made even more daunting by economic problems: world economic recession and the three years of severe drought are two major examples. Despite all these problems the government of Zimbabwe have many considerable achievements to their credit: the three warring armies which entered into an uneasy truce in 1979 are now a unified force; the government themselves contain, as they have done since independence, representatives of different races and political parties; there is a high level of racial harmony and the important continuing contribution of the white community to the country's economy has been recognised; social benefits—once limited to a privileged few—have been more widely spread. The number of pupils in secondary education, for example, has increased fivefold since independence and is set to rise further within the next few years. This is a major accomplishment.
There have been setbacks, too. A great many have been referred to this afternoon. The most worrying has been the situation in Matabeleland. The Zimbabwean Government face a serious security threat from dissidents in Matabeleland and obviously must try to take effective action to deal with it. However, the reported behaviour of elements of the army towards the civilian population there both this year and last must cause concern. I confirm that the Zimbabwean authorities are aware of this concern. That point was raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I confirm to him that we have made sure that the Zimbabwean Government are fully aware of our concern at reports of recent excesses by the Zimbabwean national army towards the civilian population in Matabeleland. The Zimbabwean Government have said that specific allegations of misconduct will be investigated. Following earlier allegations of misconduct by elements of the army at the beginning of last year, the Zimbabwean Government set up a committee of inquiry which has since been hearing evidence. It is expected to report shortly. Following the military operations soldiers have been convicted in the courts on charges of rape.
260
Turning to the main points of the Motion before the House this afternoon—judicial procedure in Zimbabwe and the imprisonment of Bishop Muzorewa—I must remind the House again that we are considering the internal affairs of an independent country. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Boston, made that point; and, as I think my noble friend Lord Gridley put it very well, it is something to which we must give careful consideration.
History has given us a special interest in what happens there, but we have no right to attempt to tell them how to run their own affairs. Zimbabwean judicial procedures (which are not dissimilar from our own) were established at the constitutional conference at Lancaster House in 1979 and incorporated into the Zimbabwe constitution at the end of that year. The constitution and the position of the judiciary remain unchanged. The judiciary is independent of the executive. The constitution contains specific provisions for what courts there shall be, the way in which judges shall be appointed, and the setting up of a Judicial Services Commission. Indeed, it is accepted that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is independent. Judicial integrity has been demonstrated in cases in which Members of this House have taken an interest, and these were referred to this afternoon. That of the air force officers last year is a recent example.
The constitution also provides for emergency powers, and it is under these that Bishop Muzorewa is detained. I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Soames that nothing has happened to Bishop Muzorewa outside the consitution agreed at Lancaster House. The bishop is, I know, held in respect and, indeed, affection by a number of people in Britain. But he is a Zimbabwean citizen and we have no standing to intervene in his case. Nor, if I may be frank with the House, are we in a position to judge the rights and wrongs of it. Nevertheless, the Zimbabwean Government are well aware of public concern here at his continued detention. My honourable friend Mr. Rifkind raised the matter with the Zimbabwean Minister of Home Affairs last month. Under the procedure laid down in the constitution the bishop's case has been before a review tribunal and we understand that he is not to be released yet. Normal procedure under the emergency powers regulations would be for a further review within six months.
Zimbabwe and its place in southern Africa remain of great importance to Britain and the West as a whole. Our ties are a mixture of past history and current trade, investment and the many everyday links between Commonwealth countries. Our interest in Zimbabwe is to do what we can to encourage the development there of a stable, multiracial and prosperous society—and I think that that was the point about which my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald was asking—a society in which civil rights and the rule of law are observed and links with Britain and other western countries are maintained.
To this end we are doing our best to respond to Zimbabwe's most vital needs: since independence we have pledged some £113 million of development aid, over £60 million of which has already been disbursed on a wide variety of projects covering post-war reconstructions, agriculture, and transport. In addition, our military advisory and training team,

261
which has had conspicuous success in helping with the unification of the army following independence, continues to provide training and advice for the Zimbabwe national army.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked me a question about the military advisory and training team. The number is currently about 60. There are long-standing plans to reduce it to a little over half that number by 1985. It provides training courses and advisers. The point was raised that we might be training the presidential guard and the Fifth Brigade. I should like to confirm that we have not trained those units, but individuals from them have taken part in courses run for the Zimbabwe army as a whole.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, asked whether we would invite to Britain a number of Zimbabweans. I should like to confirm to him that we have invited to this country as our guests visitors from a wide range of countries and professions, including of course the legal field. In the case of Zimbabwe, within the past year our official guests have included the Minister of Home Affairs, who was formerly the Minister of Justice, the Attorney-General and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice (Legal and Parliamentary Affairs). We shall continue with our programme, though we must give due weight to visitors from other fields as well.
The noble Viscount also asked a question about Amnesty International. I can confirm to him that we greatly value the contact and discussions that we have had with Amnesty International on a wide range of countries.
The objectives that I have outlined are important for the interests of all Zimbabwean citizens as well as for British policies in southern Africa as a whole. I can confirm that we have not been, and shall not be, deterred from speaking out on events in Zimbabwe whenever we believe it to be right. Nor shall we be deterred from persevering with our efforts to help Zimbabwe through the difficult period which, given the circumstances leading up to independence, it will inevitably experience for some time to come.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we must remember that Zimbabwe is an independent country. We played a part in the achievement of that independence and we naturally have a close interest in Zimbabwe's development, but it was clearly understood at the time that we have no other role. The application of the Zimbabwe constitution is a matter solely for the Zimbabwe Government and courts. We have no responsibility for Zimbabwe's affairs and no right to attempt to interfere. It is, nevertheless, right to express concern. Our hope must be that political reconciliation will be pursued so that Zimbabwe may prosper. That is something which I think everyone who has spoken in this debate tonight would wish.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, it now falls to me to thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and in particular to thank the noble Baroness who has replied to us. I am sorry that she could not tell us that we were going to be a little more generous to the officers who suffered so grievously in what they believed to be our service.
262
Of other speeches, I was moved greatly—I think with nostalgia—by the speech that I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and, to a lesser degree, by that which I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Soames. They were so exactly like the speeches I remember hearing half a century ago when the same sort of news as we have heard today was coming back from Germany: what good does it do; it only makes things worse to raise the matters; can you not keep quiet? It was the wisdom of the three wise monkeys that was imposed on us.
Then, I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald. He, I think, knows much more of Rhodesia than anybody else here. He has more personal experience of it. He spoke from a most passionate feeling. In particular, he has known what it has felt like from inside to experience these four dreadful years, when everything has been going backwards. But there was one particular phrase of his that moved me above everything else, and that was, "the terrible silence from outside". It rang in my ears, because it was exactly what a German friend said to me half a century ago. I do not believe that the three wise monkeys are right. If we go on, determined not to see, not to hear and not to speak, what we hear, what we see and what we do not mention will get worse and worse. I thank your Lordships, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Trade with Developing Countries
5.27 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to call attention to the need to increase British trade with developing countries in order to stimulate British production and the purchasing power of the third world and to reduce world poverty; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate is about an apparently simple issue which I think can most graphically be described by two sets of figures. On the one hand, in this country of the United Kingdom there are roughly 4 million men and women unemployed. At the same time in the developing world 17 million children a year die from malnutrition. Indeed, many scores of millions more children are born permanently crippled with brain damage because of the lack of nutrition of their mothers during pregnancy. It is to put those two sets of figures together that I am moving my Motion tonight.
Any comfortable citizen of this country who reacts to that tragic picture with apathy, unconcern or lack of imagination is guilty of responsibility for those children's deaths and for the misery of millions of families. I make no apology for repeating the oft quoted words of John Donne:
"No man is an Island, entire of itself …
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind;
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee".
That is more relevant today than it has ever been before in human history.
This is the moral, ethical and humanitarian dimension of my Motion. I believe—and I think that

263
most noble Lords would agree—that many (indeed, most) British people have humane instincts and these are shown by the great contribution made to charitable organisations and to the non-governmental organisations concerned with development. But having said that, I must point out that this debate is designed to be about the application of those instincts through the concept of mutual self-interest of interdependence.
I could not have had a better context in which to initiate this debate than the Government's statement yesterday on British Leyland. The tragedy of Bathgate, which some of us have seen coming and which was recently forecast by the Glasgow Herald, is a tragedy which illustrates every aspect of the Motion that I have placed before this House.
In 1982, British Leyland reduced the number of jobs in Bathgate by over 4,000: 27 per cent. of its workforce. Now 1,800, plus all those lost through the contractors and the suppliers, are going to be added to that total. So that in that area of West Lothian there is now over 40 per cent. of the workforce unemployed.
Why is this? It is because of the collapsing African export market. British Leyland have been accustomed to supplying 2,500 lorry kits to Nigeria alone. Last year they could supply only 300. It was not because they could not construct them or because the Nigerians did not want them, but because the Nigerians could not afford to buy them.
Surely this is a time in which the third world market should be opening up. Half the markets of the world have been closed from time immemorial. They should now be opening up. British production should be adjusting, specialising, reconstructing and expanding to meet this rising demand. This is not what is happening. The third world market is contracting, for example through the vicious circle of protectionism.
The common agricultural policy is surely the worst example of this protectionism. It is denying both cheap food to the people of this country and the opportunity for the development of agricultural resources in the developing world. It is reducing the export opportunities of the third world and increasing the consumer prices here. It is doing this by creating low commodity prices and maintaining the price of manufactured goods which are imported in their place. It is creating a scarcity of foreign exchange. This scarcity is inevitable once you have the low price paid for the commodities that are exported to the developing world and the compulsion upon such countries to continue to pay the high prices for the manufactured goods that are essential to them and for their energy, in particular the oil which they have to import.
Therefore, through the scarcity of foreign exchange there is a reduced purchase of the exports that we want to send to them and so an increase in unemployment in this country. What is the consequence? The consequence is that most of the developing world has to borrow at the high interest rates that we have seen growing over the last five or six years. When they get into difficulties through their borrowing, when they have to concentrate their production on the payment and the servicing of their debt, they have to turn to the
264
IMF, who say to them, "Yes, we will help you, but only on condition that you contract still further your whole productive process and divert from producing food and consumer goods for yourselves, to exports". This results in leaving many more people in hunger and poverty and the workers of Bathgate unemployed.
That is the vicious circle which no Government has been able to break or has really set out to break—at least not since the war. This Government do not seem even to recognise either the problem or the opportunities which the new situation creates. So what have we seen in Britain? We have seen record bankruptcies. We have seen record unemployment. We have seen an absence of that relevant research and development work which is essential to the restructuring of our industrial base. We have seen a lack of leadership and direction throughout our industrial world. We have seen the constant overlooking of the potentials of our new global society.
We have seen this before, and we are seeing it today. In 1982, the total exports of this country were worth some £55.56 billion. Of that sum, £13.05 billion, or about 28 per cent., went to the lesser developed countries. In the following year, 1983, our exports had increased by about £5 billion, to £60.53 billion. But the exports to the lesser developing countries had declined. They had gone down to £12.78 billion, or just over 20 per cent., which is a very substantial fall, particularly in percentage. Continuing that to this year. in the first quarter of this year our total exports were £16.84 billion, of which only £3.25 billion went to the lesser developed countries, substantially under 20 per cent. So the whole trend of our export trade has been to diminish that proportion which goes to the developing world.
Of course, there is an argument that we have to safeguard ourselves against competition. This is an argument which is often put up by trade unionists. I want to repeat something which I have said several times before in this House. I hope it will be noted by both trade unionists and by the Government. It is that if you take the most vulnerable section of our industry, which is always textiles, the major competition to the textile industry in this country comes not from the developing world but from the developed world; it comes from the industrialised world. To see this, you have only to look at the figures: 12 per cent. of our imports of textile goods comes from the developing countries, over 85 per cent. comes from the industrialised countries. Of course in sectors of our industry there are problems in the drive to increase the imports of the developing world, to increase that section of the trade that comes to us. But these problems have been distorted out of all reality. They are problems which need to be tackled if we are going to take the opportunities offered by the developing new world.
When we are talking about the favourable terms of trade and about the decline in the products that we tend to import—particularly in commodities—and the maintenance of the price of the goods that we export, there is here a hidden false argument. The terms may appear to be favourable to us, but do we not realise that what they are doing is to depress the purchasing power of the developing world and thus to depress their ability to buy our exports?
You have only to look, for example, at the country of Zambia, again referred to many times before here. Zambia is producing copper at a price that is below the cost of production. It has to do so in order to get foreign currency. But it has to live on a hand to mouth basis. What Zambia buys tomorrow in this country depends upon how much copper Zambia can sell today here in London, and the price is going to mean a net loss to the Zambians.
There are some countries that have recognised this issue. Many noble Lords, I think, would agree with me that you cannot talk about American policy as such without recognising that there are many strands of American policy. I would refer noble Lords to what was stated in the Wall Street Journal of 28th March 1983:
"In recent years the United States and other major industrial nations have been able to count on developing countries as their fastest growing export market. By last year the United States sales to third world countries had swelled to 39 per cent. of its exports".
Thirty-nine per cent., whereas our top figure was 28 per cent.!
"Because of the developing countries' cash problems and because the strong US dollar makes United States goods more expensive abroad, this country's total exports have fallen".
That is recognised by the Wall Street Journal. Later in the article, the writer says:
"Others in Congress"—
this was a reference to a debate that was taking place in Congress—
"want to put pressure on the International Monetary Fund whose demands that poor countries cut their spending to reduce their balance of payments deficits are dampening markets for US exports".
Yes, some other countries do recognise this issue. The Japanese are another instance. As your Lordships know, the Japanese run a very high deficit with the developing world and, although perhaps hesitantly, they are still looking to the future to increase the purchasing power of developing countries, particularly in Asia, in order to sustain Japanese industrial and particularly manufacturing output.
My main plea is for the Government to recognise that here is an issue that requires serious attention. It has dangers but it also has opportunities. What can the Government do about it? I can make a number of suggestions. I can suggest that the Government should encourage and expand trade missions and that they should pay particular attention to the negotiations now taking place on the Stabex and Sysmin agreements under the Lomé Convention. They can provide offices and a conference centre for commodity associations, for trade commissions and for the management of the common fund.
The Government can engage in national stockpiling which would do a great deal for the commodity producers of the developing countries. They should take a lead in insulating the lesser developed countries from both the United States and United Kingdom financial policies, by freezing the floating rate of borrowing instead of capitalising the interest, which is now becoming common and which only postpones, compounds and escalates the final reckoning. Above all, the Government—I would say this to any Government—have failed so far to co-ordinate and to develop co-operation between their own departments
266
in overseas trade. This involves the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and other departments. But, above all, it involves education. It involves education because any Government seizing upon this as a policy can only succeed by educating our own people. That is why I regret so deeply the winding-up of the committee set up by the previous Government, the Committee on Development Education.
It is essential that the people of this country recognise the direct connection between expanding trade with the third world and employment in this country, and, at the same time, the attack on world poverty. All are part and parcel of the same policy.
I know that there are many issues to which I have not had time to give consideration—the operation of multinationals, the policies of third world governments themselves, the operation of international institutions, the desperately dangerous element of arms sales, the question of energy provision, and the whole issue of the world environment. I have had little to say on the financial crisis. I hope that other noble Lords will address themselves to it. I have had little to say on the problems of competition and the necessity for restructuring.
I know that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government is both a humane and a rational man. I submit to him that there is, in this Motion and in the issues that I have brought before him, a set of real opportunities that, at one and the same time, can help to dig our country out of depression, to assist in the development of third world countries and to undercut the misery, the deaths and the degradation that are common there. I submit the Motion to the House in the hope that the noble Lord will seriously take it back to the Government and give it consideration as practical policy for the future. My Lord, I beg to move for Papers.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, we must thank the noble Lord. Lord Hatch of Lusby, for his Motion on two counts. First, it is an example of his determination to raise third world issues from which domestic concerns too often divert attention. Second, it stresses trade as an instrument for economic welfare. In what follows I must try to avoid the Scylla of generalities and the Charybdis of detail. Since the nineteenth century unrestricted trade has transformed many poor countries into flourishing developing countries where progress is linked with commercial contacts with the West and poverty with their absence. One can contrast Singapore and Malaysia with aborigines and desert people.
In 1890 there was no cocoa in British West Africa. By the mid-1930s, cocoa exports from the then Gold Coast alone were 300,000 tonnes a year, all from African owned farms. Since then, this progress has been retarded by official disruption of the market. Again, the rubber industry in South-East Asia began around 1900. Exports were above 1 million tonnes in the 1930s. They are now around 2·5 million tonnes in the face of many political obstacles. Ninety-five per cent. of the acreage is Asian owned.
Such developments greatly increased local purchasing power and import capacity. For example,

267
the then Gold Coast and Nigeria have increased the volume of imports this century by the order of 50 to 100-fold in the face of much disorganisation and adverse policies. These imports are practically wholly for African use.
Expansion of trade for commercial motives has brought about profound changes, unrecorded in statistics. Thus, in northern Nigeria, slave markets gave way to groundnut trade. In 1890 there was no wheeled transport in eastern Nigeria. By the 1940s, one Ibo contractor operated over 30 lorries. In a few decades Malaya was transformed from a sparsely populated country of hamlets to one of populous cities, thriving commerce and excellent roads. As a result of trade, millions of people there now live longer and better than their forebears.
Who benefited most from these new opportunities? It was the poor and the humble. The opportunities have enabled millions to escape from the extreme poverty, insecurity and cultural prisons of subsistence production and many down-trodden people to escape by emigration from the oppressive conditions of South India and South China. This refutes the rhetoric about the benefit of the market being like the Ritz—open only to the rich and well connected. Even more than in the West, in LDCs it is the poor who most need the widening of economic opportunities.
External trade transcends goods and services. It is a channel for new ideas, methods, skills and crops. Trade often first suggests the possibility of economic improvement. It helps the voluntary discarding of beliefs and habits which impede economic, social and cultural advance. Trading activity introduces people to such important features of an exchange economy as the distinction between stock in trade and personal possessions. It paves the way for unsubsidised manufacturing. Every single viable manufacturing and transport enterprise in early post-war West Africa, both African and expatriate, began as a trading business. This role is ubiquitous, from entrepreneurs in West Africa to the large-scale development of manufacturing in the Far East. It can also foster trust across ethnic and cultural divisions. Amidst acute political tension in Nigeria in 1950 I witnessed, as between European and African traders, commercial transactions requiring the utmost confidence, to a degree not exceeded in the West.
The trade-induced prosperity of the third world has greatly benefited jobs, living standards and consumer choice here. In 1982—I am not so up to date as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch—our exports to the third world were about £14 billion, and imports were around £11 billion. Such figures cannot easily be translated into jobs; but the benefits are undoubtedly very great, and unlike so-called job creation schemes the incomes from unsubsidised trade do not absorb taxes, but yield them.
Both in the West and in the third world severe barriers obstruct the trade which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, rightly wishes to see increased. This debate can only touch the tip of the iceberg. Some United Kingdom barriers antedate entry into the EEC, as, for instance, textile quotas, support to beet sugar and tariffs on processed products. Others are EEC policy,
268
like the CAP and common external tariff. There are strict quotas on the import of many third world products. To describe some as "voluntary" misuses language and adds insult to injury.
Besides restricting trading opportunities, they also set up conflict between and within third world countries as exporters struggle for shares in the quotas. The tariffs can be far more restrictive than appears, because a duty of 10 per cent. on a finished product can give effective protection many times that amount on value added. Quotas are sometimes raised at short notice, which inhibits investment for fear of still stiffer barriers. Again, EEC governments, including our own, have for many years subsidised products competing with third world exports; for example, sugar, dairy products and textiles. Some of these policies yield large surpluses dumped abroad, damaging third world exporters. Procurement policies which discriminate against imports also often harm LDCs.
Instead of being a liberalising influence in the EEC, since the mid-1970s we have tended in the opposite direction—towards more restriction of imports and more domestic subsidies, often very harmful to the third world. Thus we go partly counter to the declared objectives of our Government and the widespread desire to relieve third world poverty. Simultaneously, these policies restrict consumer choice here and raise the cost of living, notably food prices, bearing disproportionately on the poor and impairing the control of inflation. It is by reducing trade barriers that we can best contribute to third world development and relief of poverty. This would also benefit this country.
How can we combat the formidable pressure groups, both here and in the third world, which will not be moved by recital of the benefits from freer trade? Yet it is only when we recognise the hardship inflicted by trade barriers, especially on third world victims, that we can decide whether, or how best, to tackle the vested interests. There may be various possibilities. First, foreign aid could be used to nudge recipient governments towards more open economies for the benefit of their own peoples. Secondly, in the West, because the reduction of trade barriers is painful, we might consider offering compensation to the worst-hit casualties of freer trade. This is open to various objections, the most obvious from victims of politically-induced change who are not compensated. But it might still be a lesser evil than ever-increasing barriers to third world exports combined with ever-increasing aid. Since buying out vested interests would directly benefit the third world, the cost could be financed legitimately from the aid budget.
Official aid and official trade barriers are an anomalous combination which, besides other perverse results, invites charges of hypocrisy and suggestions that aid is only conscience money for restrictive policies. I hope the noble Lord the Minister will show awareness of the extensive social and economic hardship inflicted by official trade barriers on people in the third world even more than in Britain.
5.57 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I feel very diffident on two points—first, that I should presume to address your Lordships' House so soon after I have taken my

269
seat; and, secondly, that I should be addressing myself to a problem which at this moment is insoluble. The countries of the third world of which I have some knowledge are those of central and eastern Africa. Today things have come to a pretty pass. With the combination of many years of the changing prices of commodities, of difficulties, of internal strife, of the problems in the industrialised world, we have now reached the stage where it is almost impossible for us to deal with these countries, in that, quite frankly, they are unable to pay for what they need—not for what they want, but for what they need.
In referring to the countries of East Africa which most often are in the newspapers, I will take first the one which receives the most favourable press—Kenya. In this country, Kenya was considered the jewel of the ill-fated East African community—an idealistic concept which unhappily broke down. Since the death of President Kenyatta, Kenya has seen a very fragile regime, a political upheaval bubbling under the surface. We have become very fearful of a continuation of that process because it is so close to the borders of Uganda, which, as we know, is a country which has shown enormous resilience in actually surviving to the extent where recovery now looks possible. Over a number of years that country suffered a turmoil with changing régimes which I think most of your Lordships would feel would sink any country.
Tanzania, the other country in that group after the break-up of the East African community, decided to go a different way from Kenya, and here perhaps we are coming to an important point, which is worth considering, in the attitude of the Western industrialised countries to the third world and, in particular, to the countries of this region.
Tanzania took it upon itself to follow a different road. It has an idealistic president. He is a great leader, as I think most of your Lordships will agree. In fact, in that part of the world we have had a number of great leaders and some not so great. But President Nyerere must certainly go down as one of the most sincere leaders of our time. He chose to follow a path of what is described in the press as "African socialism". Indeed, "African socialism" is a term which, like "third world", I do not like. I see only one world. African socialism is a contradiction in terms.
President Nyerere chose to follow a line which was idealistic and in some ways mistaken. As a result, that country—which was a very poor country—alienated itself from other countries within the group, particularly Kenya. And what is more important, it alienated itself from countries with whom it could have shared an enormous amount of goodwill had it followed another road. Happily, at present the signs are that we are seeing a return to a more moderate view in Tanzania. President Nyerere has not made any statement to show us that that is a certainty, but certainly it seems that he is moving more towards the middle of the road and abandoning some of the more dramatic policies which have alarmed this country and other industrialised countries.
I agree that his policies have not enhanced his country's economy. Nevertheless, the achievements that have been attained in Tanzania cannot be minimised. In Tanzania there is a general standard of
270
health and education and—thanks to generous donor countries—there is a general standard of essential facilities such as water, and so on, greater than those that exist in Kenya where there has been a sharp difference between the marginal areas and the areas which attract more attention; namely, the urban areas around Nairobi, and so on.
The point that I am making is that we have had a relationship with these countries which can be likened to the relationship of a parent with a precocious child. When those countries became independent—and we made every effort to see to it that independence was granted peacefully—for various reasons we stood off in the way that a parent stands off from his child. We failed to take advantage of our long association with these countries and we allowed their thinking to develop along lines with which we find it hard to associate.
I hazard a guess that, had we taken a different view about the development of the three countries in the East African community, had we exerted our influence and had we taken advantage of the goodwill which existed there, then the East African community might have existed today. If it did exist today there would probably be no General Amin and there would probably not be a situation in Tanzania where they are not only unable to buy goods which are essential from the developed world, but where they are, as of today's date, unable to repay the debts to many countries which they owe on past transactions.
This situation is very dangerous. I share absolutely the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby on the obscenity of world poverty, particularly African poverty. Indeed, African poverty differs from the poverty that we know, as I am sure many of your Lordships have probably experienced. We are not talking of poor people who have experienced a fall in their standard of living and who have had their motor cars reclaimed. We are talking of people who find every day a struggle for survival and who face hunger of a crippling kind.
Many of your Lordships will have seen on television in the areas where there has been either natural disaster or a refugee problem, the faces of people who are living in daily agony. I do not wish to sound pessimistic, but unless the conventional wisdoms of the Western world in terms of banking, finance and so on are seriously reviewed, and unless we find some way of developing the third world, and Africa in particular—and I restrict myself to those countries because they are the ones that I know—with their increasing populations and the heavy international pressures which they have from other countries in the world, if we do not help them, then others will do so. To hark back, this has been shown in the case of President Nyerere of Tanzania. He was assisted; he is still in a neutral position and he would take help from us if he could do so.
I fear that unless we break away from the old standards of financing and returns on capital invested in the short term, and unless we take a longer term view, the likelihood is that in certain countries disaster will ensue and that will lead to further upheavals and add to the terrifying situation which we see in terms of famine, suffering and hunger today.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I follow a noble Viscount whose association with this honourable House spans 400 years. I have been here just four months. Nevertheless, my membership of another place entitles me to say that I think that I can judge a good speech when I hear one. The sentiments expressed by the noble Viscount appeal to me very much; but I am confident that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say that we congratulate him on his maiden speech and look forward to hearing from him again.
I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Hatch. I know that the subject that he has raised today is very dear to his heart. We worked together for a very long time. Indeed, when I was a shadow Minister he was my adviser, and he was very courageous in many of the recommendations that he made. They were unpopular at that time, but they have now been generally accepted by the British public at large.
It has been said that trade follows the flag. I think it can be said that today trade follows aid. When I was Secretary for Overseas Trade, I had some responsibility for overseas aid as the Minister in charge of the Export Credit Guarantees Department. The responsibility for development aid was shared by the Treasury, the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Colonial Office, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This was an absurd situation, and the Government in 1961 decided to form a special department—the Department of Technical Cooperation. That department was responsible for coordinating, promoting and carrying out aid to overseas countries in the fields of economic development, administration and social services. The financial part of the aid administration was still controlled by all the other Government departments.
However, when the Labour Government came to power in 1964 they decided to put the whole of the economic aid programme under one Ministry—the Ministry of Overseas Development. Later I had the privilege of being the Minister. I very much regretted the break-up of that department and the transfer of power to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, the fact that there is a Minister responsible for running the department gives some encouragement that the work will be carried on efficiently and enable resources to be provided to the developing countries.
The weakness of the department is the failure of the Government to provide the facilities for it to carry out the aid programme efficiently and effectively. The provision of aid is the most effective way of developing trade and assisting the third world. There are those who feel that overseas aid is wasting the taxpayer's money. That is not so. Countries to which aid is given have to find 80 per cent. of their investment from internal resources, so they have a vital interest in avoiding waste. It is in the interest of the donor and receiver not to discuss or promote schemes which are useless or grandiose in character.
The overseas aid programme provides Britain with an intimate knowledge of and influence in markets for the future, and gives us an opportunity to carry out
272
research on a world-wide basis. Ultimately this means that people who have used British goods and find them to be of good quality and value, or who have been trained by British skilled craftsmen and technicians will seek to place orders with British firms in the future.
There are many ways of safeguarding the abuse of overseas aid. From my own experience I know that Ministers meet in order to agree the level of aid, what particular part of the country's development is to be financed, and to agree terms and schedules. They also make arrangements for the placing and supervising of contracts. Our own experts make an evaluation of the scheme to be undertaken. British aid is mainly concerned with agriculture, irrigation, electricity, communications, roads, ports and railways. Scientific experts, technical experts and teachers play their part in helping the developing countries to build up their economies. I like to feel that I played a part in extending this kind of practice. Too many people in the developing counties concentrate upon becoming white-collar workers. Wealth does not come from the efforts of academics and white-collar workers alone. The substantial production of wealth is created by skilled craftsmen and labourers.
When I was the Minister for Overseas Development, with the help of the Trades Union Congress. skilled craftsmen, foundry workers and shepherds concerned with hillside sheep farming were sent to Colombia to train and work alongside the local people. I was present to see the scheme started and a plaque was put up in the government department in Bogotá. I should like to think that this kind of work is still being done.
Overseas aid is not only morally right, but it is also very much in our self-interest. It lays the basis upon which trade develops, and I think we would all agree that is most important to Britain as a great trading nation. Aid helps to promote exports of plant and equipment, and ensures that Britain will continue to supply replacements and spares. This would be the equivalent of a large home market. Of this I am sure: if we do not increase British trade with the developing world in order to stimulate British production and purchasing power, we shall be the sufferers. In addition, no country which prides itself on its humanity and goodwill can leave the deprived people of this world to struggle upwards by themselves.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his maiden speech. The noble Viscount is clearly an expert on African affairs, as was evidenced by the extremely sensitive nature of his remarks. I hope he will forgive me if I say that I perceive him as a relatively young member of a new party in this House—and indeed in the country—and as such I think that he will be in great demand as a speaker. We on this side certainly look forward to hearing him frequently in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has had his Motion down on the order paper for a long time. I congratulate him on his persistence. As he said, this is a very large subject and it is impossible for us to touch on more than certain aspects. I should like to take up one aspect which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord

273
Bottomley; namely, the question of aid, but a rather particular part of aid—the aid and trade provisions, which is normally known as ATP. I must declare an interest in this as a director of an engineering group which has been the recipient of ATP in trading overseas.
ATP is sometimes seen to be a subsidy to United Kingdom exporters; but I put it to your Lordships that it is no such thing. It is a means of obtaining business for United Kingdom industry at a time when so many major contracts in the world are considered by developing countries on a government-to-government basis. As has already been mentioned, major contracts represent a transfer of resources, and ATP forms an important ingredient in the obtaining of this transfer and the successful conclusion thereof.
As was outlined by my noble friend Lord Bauer, in an ideal world it would be better if this system did not exist. It would indeed be better for the United Kingdom if greater discipline could be imposed internationally to phase out this system of support. But what is clearly essential is that the United Kingdom does not take any unilateral action which would result in leaving hard-pressed capital goods industries in a disadvantageous position against their competitors in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. In terms of employment, capital goods contracts give rise to follow-up orders, and these may continue for years and years.
The noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, raised the subject of ECGD. I was very glad that he mentioned the work of this department because it is also a concern of British industry that in times when so many countries in the developing world with which we are doing business are in difficulties, the ECGD would inevitably feel itself required and constrained to curtail its activities. This of course would be disastrous both for the countries concerned and for British industry. As has been mentioned, the third world needs not only trade and aid but investment, because investment ultimately leads to trade.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to a part of the world with which I have a great deal of experience. One of the main reasons why our trade with Latin America has diminished so catastrophically during the course of this century is because our investment has declined. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider favourably requests from the ECGD, because what is needed is some continuity of approach and the ECGD needs to be encouraged and strengthened if the objectives which have been outlined so cogently in this debate are to be achieved.
There is another aspect which has not been mentioned, and that is the training of people. One of the provisions under the aid programme is that in the transfer of resources, and in major capital goods contracts, people—operators, executives and others—may be trained to execute those works and also to operate the facilities which are thereby created. But the provisions under the current programme are rather rigid in that most of the training is required to take place in the United Kingdom if companies are to be eligible for support.
I put it to your Lordships that this is an impractical way to proceed, and may indeed not be in the best
274
interests of the developing countries or, indeed, of the industries concerned. I should like to suggest that there ought to be much greater flexibility in this whole programme, so that the training can take place wherever it will be most effective and wherever it will be most appropriate in each individual case. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be prepared to give consideration to that matter.
In closing, may I pass from the specific to the general and mention some of the things we do in the multilateral field, because this debate has been largely about bilateral activities. In the international field we belong to a number of institutions, such as the World Bank, and I have in mind more particularly the Inter-American Development Bank, of which we are a non-regional member. The Inter-American Development Bank has recently formed a new subsidiary called the Inter-American Investment Corporation—the IIC. The object of this Inter-American Investment Corporation is to promote investments, as I referred to earlier, in private sector activities in Latin America, in exactly the same way as the International Finance Corporation does in other parts of the world. In other words, the Inter-American Investment Corporation will have exactly the same relationship to the Inter-American Development Bank as the IFC does to the World Bank.
This seems to me an activity in which Her Majesty's Government should take a specific interest, because it is directly in line with the thinking of the present Government. But what do we find? We find that when we were invited to join the IIC we declined to take up this suggestion. We are therefore, so to speak, members of a club which we are not actually using properly. As with any other club, if you want to get the best advantage from it you have to be active.
It is deplorable that we have declined this opportunity, because there have been times—and in your Lordships' House I have been pleading the case of Latin America for many years, sometimes not to much effect—when we have neglected the opportunity (and this is yet another instance) to show that we really care about what is going on in Latin America. Only in a small way do we have to participate, but it would at least be a manifestation of real interest in an area of the world which is going to be with us for a long time.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider this matter. All the other non-regional members appear to have decided to join. Therefore, if we do not follow this initiative and take up the offer that has been made to us to join the Inter-American Investment Corporation we shall be once again the odd man out; it will be perceived by our friends in Latin America that we are not taking the interest which I believe we should be taking. I hope that this attitude, which of course is part and parcel of our whole relationship with the developing world—which is what has been spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and others—will change, and that we shall play an integral and positive part in this initiative.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, there are two preliminary remarks which I feel I must make. The first is to thank my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby for introducing this debate, and to express

275
appreciation of his formidable speech, which showed that this is not only an issue of the human welfare of people in the third world but one of interest to this country. Secondly, I feel I must congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his maiden speech. I have had to make two maiden speeches, and I know how nervous I was on those occasions. The noble Viscount did not show any nerves at all. The House must have been impressed by, first, his easy delivery, and, secondly, his knowledge of this subject and the suggestions that he made. I hope that we shall hear him often, and that he will have a larger House to address, which he so strongly deserves.
Some Members of this House may remember the speech which the late Lord Ritchie-Calder made on this subject. He suddenly departed from his text and exclaimed, "Suppose a child collapsed in this House. All of us would become involved. Doctors from both sides would seek to save the child, and we would all be lost in anxiety when the child died". My Lords, in the third world 17 million children die every year from hunger and from medical neglect. Their deaths are just as real as would be the death of a child in our midst.
We have not reached a stage in the development of mankind when we can feel tragedies at a distance as we can when they occur nearby. Perhaps television will help us to realise that. But if we did, we could not live one day in ease knowing that 17 million children are dying unnecessarily in the world. We could hardly bear to eat a meal ourselves, and we should demand immediate action to end this tragedy in the world.
There are two ways in which the problem of hunger in the world can he met. The first is aid. Nations of
the world are committed to contributing 0·7 per cent. of their output in aid. We do not all reach even that meagre demand. As Willy Brandt pointed out in his second report, aid is immediately necessary, particularly for the poorer nations of the world. In his first report Willy Brandt pointed out that a mere fraction of 1 per cent. of military expenditure in the world could end hunger in the poorest countries within a decade.
I agree entirely with the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, that much more supervision is necessary of the way in which aid is contributed. This nation and the industrialised nations of Western Europe and America exploited for nearly 300 years the peoples of the third world to obtain cheap food and cheap raw materials. It is no compensation if we demand that aid shall be given to them far more generously than it is to end the hunger that is in their midst.
But aid is no solution. The real necessity is for a change in the economic relationships between the industrial powers and the third world. Those economic arrangements were made at Bretton Woods in 1944, before the nations of Africa and Asia had even their independence. They had no representatives there. The decisions, despite some benevolence due to the influence of Keynes, were all weighted on the side of the industrialised nations; and they have been made worse since.
This problem of the economic relationships between the industrialised nations and the third world has now been discussed at conferences, and particu
276
larly at meetings of UNCTAD, for over 10 years. No solution has been reached, and little has been done. It is now many years since the Committee of Seventy, representing 70 third world countries, now supported by 130, proposed a new international economic order: an order in which there would be partnership between representatives of countries of the third world and of the industrialised powers; partnership in the great financial orders, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund; partnership in the great international companies, the multilateral companies which are now so powerful in the third world; partnership in determining retail and wholesale charges—we pay 10 times more for the products of Africa than the Africans receive for producing them—and partnership even in the costly transport of goods from those countries to this country. That is a great, constructive proposal. It has been rejected by the representatives of this and other countries at UNCTAD year after year; but it is only by a new world economic order that we shall destroy the economic imperialism which still exists in the world—political imperialism in the sense of the independence of nations recognised, economic imperialism even stronger today than it was when those territories were under colonial rule. We must have a new world economic order if we are to meet the problem of hunger in the third world.
As I grow older it seems to me that we need a new approach in all our political parties. We need an approach which has the object of fulfilment of the possibilities for every child that is born, not only in our country but in the world; the opportunity of fulfilment physically, mentally and spiritually. If that was the objective of our political parties there would be two major problems in the world to which we would be giving our minds. First would be the ending of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction which threaten the whole life of mankind. The second would be to end the hunger, with 30 million people dying every year of hunger and medical neglect, 17 million of them children, as has been said. We need a political approach which has that great human object as its first objective. I hope to live to see a Government which will realise those aims.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House will never cease to be amazed at the fluency of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, at his not inconsiderable age, on a subject which is so dear to his heart. I am quite sure that we all listened to his speech with the very greatest interest.
The House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for enabling us to debate a very widely drawn subject; a subject to which it is really quite impossible to do justice in a short debate of this kind. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has given this House a maiden speech of outstanding calibre. He is clearly somebody who has much experience of this very important subject and who, we hope, will address your Lordships frequently.
Last night on BBC television in "Newsnight" there was a feature about the Upper Volta Delta and the intense poverty which exists there. One saw mothers and children dying of starvation. The tragedy of that programme was that there seemed to be very little in

277
the way of a solution. It was admitted by a representative of the United Nations on the programme that one of the problems was that there, and possibly elsewhere, there are a number of organisations, charitable and otherwise, who are helping. But often there is such an escalation of help that communications become blocked and admirable organisations such as the Save the Children Fund, which has done sterling work out there, cannot on its own solve the problems. Those who watched the programme will have been impressed by the dreadful situation out there and, if they are realistic, will equally understand that it is not a problem which can be solved by any one government or any one country.
I should like to say a few words about the Caribbean which is the only part of the third world, to use that title, of which I have any knowledge at all, never myself having been to Africa. I visited Jamaica in 1978 for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference. It is a country of great interest, a country which has been very loyal. During the last war, many Jamaicans served with the Royal Air Force and elsewhere in the services. Under the premiership of Dr. Seaga, Jamaica has made considerable strides. The trade figures—because the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, turns on trade—are interesting. Imports from the United Kingdom in 1982 were £56 million; exports to the United Kingdom were £92 million. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government have had any plans to try to redress these figures? Bauxite is one of the main industries in Jamaica and much of it, as I understand, is Canadian-owned. I wonder whether my noble friend—and I have not given him notice of this question, so I do not expect an answer now—would agree that we could do much in the agricultural field, possibly by exporting more agricultural machinery (which we manufacture most efficiently) to Jamaica, because I believe it is a country which needs aid, not necessarily financial aid, but aid in kind, so that Cuba does not play too great a hand there.
We have a responsibility in this country to give aid to countries such as Jamaica and to some of the other Caribbean countries. St. Lucia is a country which is now a big tourist attraction. Industry there is very limited. I wonder whether our construction companies, for example, could be persuaded to do more in islands such as St. Lucia, which is developing all the time, and in the smaller islands such as Dominica, where British expertise on the technical side and on construction could be very useful. My Lords, how world poverty is going to be reduced is a question which few human beings could answer, certainly so far as this country acting unilaterally is concerned. I believe that the United Kingdom under successive Governments has an impressive record in overseas aid. This is not to say that we could not, or should not, do more; but it is important to remember that there are a number of people from the third world living and working in this country and, on the whole, living and working honourably and contributing much to this country. We have many domestic problems of our own in the housing field and the health services; so that when one talks about the British contribution unilaterally to overseas aid, I believe that this is something which has to be borne in mind.
278
Finally, when the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, raised a very interesting debate in your Lordships' House not many months ago on world hunger, I made the point about whether the Commonwealth as a whole—and particularly the old Commonwealth with New Zealand, a country with which I have many associations, Australia and Canada—in collaboration with ourselves and with the EEC (which is going to be enlarged) could not do more together, at least to contribute towards a solution of a problem which certainly touches the conscience of us all, even though, if we are realistic, we have to recognise that it is not a problem which can be solved in the short term.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I join the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby on introducing this matter this afternoon. Being fully seized and well aware of his enormous knowledge of this subject, I am bound to say that in doing so he compressed it into a most succinct and telling speech. Before I go any further, may I say to the Government Front Bench that there has been a remarkable number of contributions this afternoon and some very telling questions have been asked. I do hope that we get some sort of reply, even if not at the end of this debate, to those many telling points which such noble Lords as, for example, the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, have raised, so that we may reflect on whether or not it is worth while having a debate of this kind or whether we should merely spend a couple of hours having a gentle chat where the words at the end produce no action. If the latter is the case, we have got to have a look at the constitution of this House. I should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his speech.
I, too, know most African countries very well indeed, particularly Tanzania. I know Julius Nyerere. He is a man for whom I have the highest regard and the most massive sympathy. It would appear that there is no point at all in the developing world eschewing either Chinese communism or Russian communism and struggling to do your best on your own. It seems they get no help whatsoever from the Western world. This is a terrible, sad and absolutely myopic attitude for governments to adopt. What has happened is that Tanzania has not even been provided with the juice to stew in, despite its hopes that there would be support from the West.
I should like to underline again what the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, has said with regard to our lack of interest in Latin America—except when, for some reason or other, we have to go to war; and that is particularly stupid and dangerous as well. Great Britain has one enviable reputation when it comes to aid. We are probably the only nation that does not try to attach any strings in the form of military alliances and so forth when we supply aid bilaterally. That, I believe, is something on which to congratulate the present Government and previous Governments in maintaining this particular attitude.
For the few minutes that I have at my disposal, I wish to dwell on the effect of aid on the United Kingdom economy. I find it desperate to have to

279
realise that about 20 years ago—and I speak now in the currency parlance of the time—for every ten shillings' worth of aid that we gave we made a pound in return. I do not believe that that would be described as a grand Christian principle. It might have happened by accident, but it was bad and it was wrong. Slowly, that is changing. The present effect of our aid programmes can still help the United Kingdom economy, and it is important to regions within the United Kingdom; it is important to various industries; it is important to a number of firms; indeed, it is important to a number of individual companies.
I believe that there must be more examination to keep under review the recipient welfare effect, both in the United Kingdom and in the country to which it is going, and to keep firms, regions and the great industries informed of what is happening. I believe that the men and women, the company directors, who are involved in great organisations providing practical aid would really like to have some knowledge of what their contribution has meant. I should like some comment to be made on that later when the Minister winds up this debate.
When we inform developing countries that we intend to try and help them, we should make quite certain that there is some sort of liaison between the British firm and the nation we are going to help. This is vital, and it can improve relationships. If we were to increase aid to help ourselves alone, that would be bad; but, my Lords, it is not impossible for us to increase our aid to the developing world and at the same time help ourselves, with justifiable profits and increased employment. All these things together sow the seeds of goodwill.
I also believe that we should ensure that the fulfilling and financing of orders should be no less profitable for individual firms than is their normal business. To do otherwise would be unjust and unfair to individual firms. I believe that aid must go to the right place, that it would help firms to know where their work is going to, and that we should make sure that normal commercial arrangements for liaison are established when aid is being worked out.
The benefits of British aid are bilateral, except in this particular instance—and it is beginning to happen and I should like some comment from the Front Bench on this—where British aid to the developing world is not confined to British companies employing Britons. The Crown Agents claim that their role also makes it possible to employ foreign firms to apply aid. A purist will say that it does not matter from whom the aid comes as long as it goes where it is needed. I share that view, but I do not believe it is an insuperable problem. If the British, via their Government, want to give aid somewhere in this world, I am quite sure that we can do it, with British endeavour and British managerial expertise. The argument is this: if we cannot, then British managerial efficiency is at fault. That question must be faced fairly and squarely.
Most British bilateral aid still goes to our Commonwealth. This long association has been a distinct advantage both to the recipients and to the British-owned companies, as well as to the British economy. We need to widen that now to include other
280
nations as well. Our goods, when compared with other manufactures, have to be examined to ensure that they are in good order before they leave.
Perhaps it is not generally understood, when we see on television the appalling famines in some parts of Africa, that in point of fact foodstuffs and textiles are not exported as part of the aid programme. I would ask the Government if we could change this, simply to provide immediate help to starving people and those who are suffering a great and terrible plight. It would appear that we have no problem in providing mechanical and electrical engineering, metal manufactures or steel vehicles. I think the British are to be congratulated on the fact that we have developed a programme of refurbishing second-hand machinery: when firms who need a very high standard of particular machinery in Great Britain have to renew it, they do not discard the old machinery as scrap; they refurbish it so that it can be put to use for some years in some poverty-stricken part of the third world. That is a typical instance of British initiative. On all these aspects I would ask if the word can get through to the Crown Agents, who play a vital part in this aid programme, to keep our firms and industries in touch at all times in assessing where priorities lie.
I should like to make one particular point here with regard to the voluntary sector. I have for a great part of my life been involved to a degree in the voluntary sector of aid for the starving third world, and there is one remarkable instance which I should like to mention in this House this afternoon. That is the work that has been done by a countryman of mine, Mr. Frank Harcourt-Munning, CBE, who was the founder of War on Want. This man has a genius for raising money, not for himself but to relieve suffering all over the world. When people knew that they had been helped because of this Briton, that not only made the life of Frank Harcourt-Munning very worthwhile—and I hope he will go on for many years; it also brought honour to our nation. He did one other thing which I should like the Government to consider. Within a matter of weeks, he could raise money and aid in the form of goods, food, all sorts of things, for any disaster that occurred in this world. I know Frank Harcourt-Munning would have been the first to acknowledge that, although he might have given the lead, the response came from the British people. That is to our everlasting credit.
In conclusion, as my time is running out, I should like to say I hope that our country under our Government can release itself from the hypnosis of the nuclear holocaust. We are spending multimillions; we are joining the lemming nations on the way to self-destruction; we are taxing our people to the hilt to buy and house these absurd weapons. I understand that we need defence, but I would have thought that we could bend our endeavours so that we could at least give a lead to mankind to accept that this is a terrible situation. We have brilliant minds which can produce nuclear weapons which are so wonderful that they will not destroy the buildings; they will destroy only the human beings inside! That is the sort of thing we have to try and wrench ourselves away from. I hope that it will be my nation, with its full responsibility for the defence of our island, which will nevertheless show mankind the need to help the third world and release

281
ourselves from the hypnosis of the nuclear holocaust. I think that can be overcome by world acceptance—led by Great Britain—of pity, compassion and understanding.
My Lords, the history of Great Britain and the record of our country is supreme. It has a massive qualification for having evolved an Empire into a Commonwealth. We all face a common crisis which needs common world co-operation. I hope that my country will not only play its part in bilateral aid but give a lead to the world in returning to sanity, to ease suffering throughout the whole of mankind so that we can lift up our heads with pride and say that we in this nation of ours have, as usual, played our full part.
7 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I, too, must begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby for giving us the opportunity for this debate. I must apologise to him for not being in my place when he started to speak. He told me he expected that—he knows I am always late! I can assure him that I shall be reading his speech with my usual interest, because what I heard was extremely good.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his very able maiden speech. He not only demonstrated his knowledge of Africa but also his sympathy with the needs of the people and their ways of trying to deal with their problems. He showed that he had a head and a heart, and that combination is always welcome. I am also grateful to him for drawing to your Lordships' attention the plight of the people and also our failures in dealing with the East African nations after independence. As many or your Lordships know, I have been trying for quite some time to get the Government to understand that in relation to the Caribbean, and perhaps the noble Viscount and I can get together and see whether we can pressurise the Government into understanding that this country has a part to play, in view of its past history, in relation to all these territories.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, for his very impressive historical description of the value of free trade and for his vigorous condemnation of protectionism. There is a great deal of substance in what he said. The fact remains, however, that this country has 3½ million people unemployed and a great deal of spare capacity, at the same time as millions of people in the developing world are living at the poverty level or even below it, as has been described by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. They need the goods that this country can produce; yet our exports to the non-oil-exporting developing countries have declined in the last decade from 15 per cent. to 11 per cent. Bridging that gap is of the utmost importance both to us and to the developing countries. To buy British goods, these countries need foreign exchange. They can get it by selling goods to us, by borrowing or by being provided with the foreign exchange.
Most of these countries rely for their foreign exchange on the sale of primary products. Unfortunately, the prices of these commodities fluctuate considerably, and recently they have been at a very low level—an even lower level than they were in
282
the 1930s. This means that these countries are not in a position to pay for British goods through the export of their commodities. My noble friend Lord Hatch instanced Zambia; and the illustration he gave of Zambia applies to lots of other third world developing countries.
Processing these commodities would help—but what happens? The position is that manufacturers have to overcome great tariff and non-tariff barriers: hence my welcome to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bauer. It is, of course, more often non-tariff barriers than tariff barriers that they face. The first essential, therefore, is action to stabilise commodity prices at remunerative levels, and this is something to which Her Majesty's Government should give vigorous support. The Common Fund, for example, is essential to enable this to take place, and the resources of the fund need to be adequate for this purpose. It should encourage and finance effective international commodity agreements. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, would agree with me about that, but I think that in the circumstances of the world in which we live they are necessary. They should also facilitate storage, processing, marketing, productive improvement and diversification, which is absolutely essential. At present, the few international commodity agreements which exist are in the doldrums. Efforts should be made to revive them and to facilitate the coming into being of many more.
There should also be action to remove the tariff and non-tariff barriers which at present exist against the processed goods of developing countries. A new Lomé Convention is at present being negotiated. Every effort should be made during these negotiations to lessen the burden of the rules of origin and to facilitate and increase the amount and value of processed goods coming from the EEC, the Community. At the same time, as my noble friend Lord Hatch has already mentioned, the funds available for Stabex should be increased and the products it covers should be extended. The British Government are taking part in the negotiations: therefore they can play a part in ensuring that these two things are dealt with: first, that the rules of origin are made less burdensome, and, secondly, that Stabex is increased not only in regard to the amount of funds available for it but also in regard to the range of products it covers. The British Government can do something about that.
Action is also needed to increase compensatory financial facilities available through the international fund. Here again, Her Majesty's Government can do something about that, or at least they can use their weight to try and get something done about it. I think that is perhaps putting too strong a burden on them, but I am not reducing the burden that I place on them in the EEC negotiations. In the case of the IMF, I agree that is probably a little more difficult.
In the past decade, the developing countries have been making active use of the commercial banks and, as a result, they are having loan problems. They have burdens that are not only burdensome to themselves but which also are endangering the world banking system. I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Lever of Manchester for undertaking the chairmanship of a Commonwealth study group on this matter, and we wish him every success. It was a

283
Commonwealth study group which gave the "push" to the establishment of a Common Fund for commodities, and we hope that my noble friend's study group will enable the Commonwealth to give a lead in handling this vexed question. But whatever happens about that, there is need to increase the funds available through the World Bank, and in particular through the International Development Agency. As we know, the USA is not prepared to play its proper role. I am glad that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to play their proper role. I give the Government full marks for that.
The International Monetary Fund is also a body to which countries go when they have a balance of payments crisis. A good deal of complaint has been voiced about the conditionality which is always imposed by the IMF. The Government have some influence over the IMF. I hope that they will try to bring about an improvement in the attitude of the IMF towards some of these developing countries, even if all that they can do is to get the IMF to slow down the rate at which they expect developing countries to conform—in other words, by extending the term to five years instead of one year, or two, which is the position at the moment.
British aid, not only aid through the international agencies but bilateral aid, is still important. Before I came to the House I read the ODA pamphlet which has been sent out to exporters. It is called Britain's Aid Programme: Opportunities for Exporters. This pamphlet says that British aid helps to foster the growth of world trade, which is vital to the developing countries and critically important for Britain. Such grants and loans offer considerable opportunities to British companies to export both goods and services. I hope that this will be fully endorsed on all sides. It is for British manufacturers to win and to hold these markets. Aid, whether it be bilateral or multilateral, provides that opportunity.
Finally, may I refer to the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby; namely, development education. We cannot pursue the right policy unless we carry the people with us, and we cannot carry the people with us unless they understand the reason behind that policy. Therefore, development education is of the utmost importance. It is important, for example, for people to understand that aid is not mere charity but investment.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, first I have the very pleasant though very difficult duty of congratulating my noble friend Lord Falkland on his maiden speech. The reasons why it is pleasant are obvious. It was a magnificent speech, delivered with delightful informality and with a very great depth not only of knowledge but of feeling. It is difficult because other noble Lords who have already spoken have taken any words which I might have used out of my mouth. This is an indication of the value which this House places upon the speech to which we have just listened. In fact, the congratulations ought to be directed rather more towards my own party for having acquired such a fine new colleague than towards the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. My thanks also are due to the noble Lord,
284
Lord Hatch of Lusby, both for having given us an opportunity to speak about this very important subject and for the masterly way in which he introduced it. It is very difficult to confine one's remarks to the relatively short time which is allowed to us and to do justice to the subject. I shall attempt to do so but it will entail a certain amount of shorthand and will make it impossible to develop, as I should like to, some of the arguments.
The noble Lord, Lord Bauer, will not be surprised to hear that although I agree with him that impediments to trade of all kinds should be removed, I am in complete disagreement with him over his suggestion that that is all that needs to be done. At the present stage in world affairs I believe that the greatest impediment to the third world's development is the burden of debt. First, the debt itself is far too high; too much money has been borrowed. Secondly, interest rates are too high and are liable to rise still higher. Thirdly, as other noble Lords have pointed out, the price of commodities is too low.
We are very much in danger—this warning was given by the noble Lord, Lord Lever of Manchester, to whom reference has already been made—of creating in the third world, which will then spread to the rest of the world, the situation which caused such havoc after the first world war, starting in Germany. If the crisis of credit is allowed to continue in the way that it is showing signs of doing, the implications will be far more far-reaching than simply affecting the development of the third world. For instance, there was the statement in a Sunday newspaper, which your Lordships may have noticed, that the rise in interest rates during the past year has added between 7 billion and 8 billion dollars to the cost simply of servicing the debts of the third world. That is a substantial amount for any borrower, even a rich borrower, to have to pay. That the borrowers themselves are on the verge of poverty is a clear indication that any development in the present circumstances is out of the question.
Turning to commodity prices, may I give just a few figures. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with too many figures but they illustrate what has happened as a result of the decline in commodity prices, even though some of them are beginning to recover slightly. In 1975, a tonne of copper was able to buy 115 barrels of oil. In December 1983 it could buy only 49 barrels. In 1975, a tonne of coffee bought 289 barrels of oil. In December 1983 it bought 104. In 1975, cotton bought 119 barrels of oil. In December 1983 it bought 60. And in 1975, sugar bought 42 barrels of oil, whereas in December 1983 it bought only six. That is an indication of the decline in the purchasing power of those countries which depend to an enormous extent on one or other of those commodities. The same figures could be repeated for the great majority of primary commodities produced by third world countries.
When one looks, which in some ways is even more revealing, at the servicing of their debts, may I take different commodities. Whereas in 1975 a tonne of lead was able to service a debt amounting to 6,000 dollars, it could do so only on 4,000 dollars-worth in 1983. Coffee could service 45,000 dollars-worth of debt in 1975, but only 30,000 dollars-worth in 1983. Maize could service about 1,800 dollars-worth of debt

285
in 1975 but only 1,200 dollars-worth in 1983. In other words, simply in order to service their debts, the countries relying upon these commodities would have to produce, or sell, 50 per cent. more of those commodities in 1983 than they produced or sold in 1975. Those are, one can say, the macro-economic effects. It is no wonder that countries which are affected in this way are unable to buy the commodities that they want, many of which would come from our factories.
If I may, I should like to be very personal and come down to the level of micro-economics. As some of your Lordships may know, I have an interest—I am glad to say not a very direct one any longer—in a plantation in the West Indies. For a variety of reasons—some of them man-made and some of them the work of God—that plantation has been going through some very difficult periods over the past four or five years. During that time, it has contracted a substantial overdraft with the bank. I am of course grateful to the bank for allowing that facility; but that debt has to be serviced at a rate of about 14 per cent.
Now the situation is rather better. Prices are higher and production is higher; but all the surplus income that comes into the plantation is spent on servicing the debt that is due to the bank. Another tractor is needed, more fertilizer is needed, repairs to buildings are needed, development of the unused land should be undertaken, trucks are needed to ship the bananas—but there is no money for them because of the burden of the debt which has been contracted. That, as I said, is a somewhat minute and personal example; but in some ways it is more telling than the examples involving global figures.
What are the answers? I believe that the first action which should be taken—and which should have been taken a long time ago—is that the debt itself should be reduced. The only way it can be reduced is for a great number of the items on which that money has been spent to be paid for out of straight aid as opposed to loans. I am speaking of those items which do not bring any immediate cash returns, such as roads, infrastructures, schools and hospitals. If countries were relieved of the burden of debt on such items, they would be in a much stronger position to cope with the present situation and continue their development.
Secondly, having reduced the debt, fixed interest loans should be converted into a form of equity shareholding so that if there are bad times, the lender suffers; but when there are good times, the lender will profit from them. It will also force the lender—whether that lender be a private bank, a private individual, a world bank or whatever—to take far more interest in the actual management of the operation than is normally the case at present. As an example, I suggest that your Lordships examine the record of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which has pioneered that type of equity involvement.
The third and rather more difficult object to achieve—but it is one of very great significance mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and others—is the stabilisation of commodity prices. It is impossible for any business concern, industrial concern, private individual or country to plan a future economy on whatever scale it may be with no idea
286
whatsoever of what will be obtained from the major sources of income—and when we know from experience that prices may vary by as much as 100 per cent. within the period of just a few months. Stabilisation in some form or another is the right answer. There is no time now to go into the different methods of achieving it; but those of your Lordships who have paid any attention to this matter will know that there is a series of ways in which it can be done. I certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, in his plea to Her Majesty's Government to take a lead in the EEC negotiations on the Lomé Convention in order to bring this about.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for having taken this opportunity to raise such an important matter. It is good to feel, bearing in mind my noble friend's long and distinguished work in dealing with the whole question of aid to developing countries and the ways of affording help to them, that they are now beginning to receive full recognition in the United Kingdom. My noble friend speaks on these matters with very great knowledge and experience, and also (as noble Lords who have listened to him would probably agree) with deep feeling.
On my own behalf and on behalf of my noble friends, I should like to extend my felicitations to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his maiden speech. I cannot add very much to the extremely justifiable tribute paid to the noble Viscount in the speeches of those noble Lords who have preceded me, but I can add one appreciation of my own. It is that the noble Viscount spoke to the House with sincerity. He meant what he said. No matter what the controversial content of a speech may be, your Lordships always appreciate it when a man speaks to your Lordships from his heart and from his convictions. I sincerely hope that we shall have many more opportunities of listening to the noble Viscount.
This debate is very timely. It occurs about a fortnight before the economic summit which is due to take place in this country. As I listened to the speeches of your Lordships, I wondered what kind of message we would be able to send to those who will be participating in that conference. There is a degree of urgency which was brought home to us very poignantly by my noble friend Lord Brockway when he gave the figures of the children who are due to die short of their normal expectation of life within the year. On the basis of the figures he gave us, no fewer than 4,800 children will have died during the course of this debate. Not all these deaths can possibly be due to matters within our control or within the control of the governments of the world. Many of them will be due to natural disasters. A great tribute has been paid, and justifiably so, to those voluntary organisations and governments which have extended assistance as much as they have been able.
The fact remains that there is unnecessary suffering in the world, and unnecessary poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, put it very well when he reminded the House of the incongruity of the position in which there are more than 3.5 million unemployed people in the

287
country who are quite willing to work and produce, and in other parts of the world millions of people who would be only too glad to have the products of their labours.
This brings us face to face with a matter we do not often like to think about. It brings us face to face with the idea that the problems of the developing countries, and those of our own country and of other richer countries, are due to some phenomenon which has come down supernaturally in the form of a recession, as though it were something quite extraordinary and outside the control of man. The people who think that are very wide of the mark indeed. The recession from which the world is suffering and which is having such an impact, not only on ourselves but also on the developing and less-developed countries of the world, is man-made. It is precisely because we are not capable as yet—and, if we were, do not have the will—of so organising ourselves in society that these man-made catastrophes, or man-tolerated catastrophes, in the name of the free play of market forces occur from time to time.
The House has listened to many important contributions as to the steps that governments ought to take and made suggestions to our own Government. My noble friend Lord Molloy made many, and so indeed did my noble friend Lord Bottomley, who has had much experience in the overseas aid programme. But there is a time bomb ticking under the civilisation of the West as we know it now. It was the noble Lord, Lord Walston, if I may say so, who raised this very important point in emphasis of what my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby said in opening the debate. Although the noble Lord opposite in the course of winding up may give us many figures showing what aid has been given over the past few years under the present Administration, and what aid is projected in the future, and may enlarge upon it and praise it with some justification, the fact is that the aid that is being given with one hand is rapidly being taken away by the international banking and financial community.
As the noble Lord would have gone on to say, had he had the time, a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates costs the South American countries two and a half billion dollars. If one takes all the other developing countries into account, the total cost to them to off-set against whatever direct aid they receive is in the region of £3 billion or £4 billion—and that in a situation where many countries are faced with such an interest burden that it exceeds their net exports. In other words, as the interest rate goes up and as the debt continues, so exactly does their propensity to buy from the developed countries, in particular the United Kingdom, go down.
It is no good, if I may say in the most moderate terms of which I am capable, the Government saying, "Yes, we realise that there is trouble and we are trying the best we can within our financial constraints and within our cash limits to do what we can", and claiming credit for that when they are themselves, at the highest governmental level in the person of the Prime Minister, who is the chairman of the Cabinet Committee on all economic matters, giving international support to policies largely determined by the United States, and ruled by the United States as the
288
leading financial power, which vitiate most of the financial and other aid which is given to the developing countries.
I said that there is a time bomb ticking. I shall elaborate on that. Your Lordships know perfectly well that the American banking system is under some severe strain at the moment, and seven and a half billion dollars has had to be put into the Continental Illinois bank. They will also know that moves are already afoot among certain of the debtor countries to act in concert and to present the international banking system with a threat of default. If that default actually takes place on any scale the threat to the international banking system would be such as to produce a situation very much akin—I address myself particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Bauer—to that arising from the collapse of the Credit-Anstalt before the war, with all the consequences that occurred in Germany afterwards.
That is the time bomb and that is the situation which has to be dealt with. It is really no good people saying, "Well, we have to ride out this recession". We have to take action now in order to ensure that the basic difficulties of the developing countries, and indeed our own basic difficulties, are taken in hand. It is no good, however nostalgic people might be about the old days—when the advantages of free play in the market operated under vastly different technical conditions from those of today—to say that there is nothing we can do except ride it out. It is no good saying, "Well, we in Britain are already recovering and the world is recovering from the recession".
What does that really mean? It means recovery in the sense that the rewards accruing to capital throughout the world are recovering. It does not mean that that recovery spreads to the ordinary common people of our country and the ordinary common people of the world. Recovery in this country, for some paradoxical reason which one could elaborate on at greater length, has meant an increase in unemployment. There is no recovery among the under-privileged in the United Kingdom. There is no recovery for the underprivileged in the other countries of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Bauer, gave some hint of the possible solution to the problem. I must say I found myself in unaccustomed agreement with him when he referred to the role that the European Community had played in this, the degree of protectionism and the adverse effect that it had upon the developing countries, because it gave me a clue for my proposal as to the best way we should proceed. It is no good the Ministers' meeting, when it takes place in a fortnight's time, coming out with a lot of pious platitudes which are quite meaningless to everyone. They must address themselves to the main problem, which is the reconstruction of the banking system—the system of credit throughout the world—very much on the lines put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Walston.
The other action it should take, since our own Prime Minister will be there, is to abandon the basic concept of being tied by the navel to the European Community. What we have to do is once again cooperate with our Commonwealth; once again have a co-ordinated and planned effort with our Commonwealth for planned trade, planned aid, planned educational facilities, and so on. If we proceed

289
on those lines, which are positive and which give a constructive prospect to mankind, we may be able to avoid the catastrophe which I fear otherwise awaits us.
7.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I very much welcome the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has enabled us to have today because it provides an opportunity to outline the major contribution which the United Kingdom is making to stimulate trade with developing countries, and because I should like to start by saying that the Government most certainly believe in the mutual importance of that trade. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who said in his speech that the Government's attitude on the subjects raised in this important debate will be important to the heads of state at the London summit in the near future.
Before I go any further, may I also welcome the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. He spoke without needing to refer to notes and with personal knowledge of the subject. Those are both attributes which appeal particularly to your Lordships' House. If I may say so, the noble Viscount's speech gives plenty of food for thought, as indeed do all the other speeches which have been made by your Lordships today. I join with other speakers this afternoon in hoping that the noble Viscount will be taking part in our debates frequently in the near future.
A great deal has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—and I shall not follow him, if he will forgive me, at all closely—and others about the problems of the recession and the problems that we have of external indebtedness. All that I would say is that the United Kingdom has played a positive role in international efforts to deal with these debt problems. We certainly sympathise with the effects of higher interest rates upon the position of certain countries. We shall continue to give the help that we have been giving to the international efforts. We shall continue also through debt rescheduling, whenever that is possible, and through the international financial institutions, to do all that we can.
If I may resort to only one political point this evening, I would just say to the general criticisms of Her Majesty's Government's policies which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, delivered during his speech, that if we had not established over the past five years a soundly based economy in this country, following the appalling period of recession from which all countries are only just beginning to emerge, we should not have been able to give the effective and energetic support to the international financial institutions, and particularly to the IMF, which Her Majesty's Government have been able to do in recent years.
I venture to start by mentioning those matters because economic recovery is, I suggest, the most important influence on developing country trade. Of course, it is a relationship which works both ways. After all, trade generates economic development. Many of your Lordships who have much more experience of that than I shall ever have will be the first to tell me that. Indeed, it was my noble friend Lord Bauer who made the point that increased exports earn the currency needed to buy more imports, which are
290
required for development. There are other gains from increased trade—intangible but none the less real. Again, my noble friend, I think, said that trade brings with it not only new products but also such things as new ideas, new methods of training and of course new technology. Trade is a two-way relationship from which we all stand to gain.
The Government believe that, despite the difficulties, the open trading system has been a major achievement of the post-war period. We are certainly committed to doing everything that we can to preserve and improve it. Since 1945 world trade has increased eight-fold against an increase of only half that size in world output. If I may say so, the United Kingdom is a country which has one of the most export-oriented economies in the world, with exports of our goods and services accounting for about 30 per cent. of our gross domestic product; and of course we are dependent on open markets for those exports. But, in return, about 80 per cent. of our visible imports come in duty free. Only 7 percent. are subject to non-tariff restraints.
Having said that, of course on trade policy generally we work within the European Community. It is the Community which negotiates as one body with third countries. Although sometimes we in this country feel that that is a constraint on what we would wish to do, it is also a big opportunity, because access to the Community market is vital to many developing countries.
Although the open trading system has brought advantages, we have to recognise that recession has increased protectionist pressure and created some serious problems of adjustment. Perhaps the classic example of that is textiles. The Multi-Fibre Arrangement covering textile products is the only general derogation—I think that that needs to be said: it is the only general derogation—from the free-trade principles of the GATT, and the MFA is a recognition of the really vast structural difficulties faced by the textile industries. Despite the protection of the MFA, 250,000 United Kingdom jobs have been lost in textiles since 1980. Even so, the Community, with ourselves in support, has tried to take account of the textile interests of the poorest developing countries in renegotiating the MFA.
I venture to say a word or two about the general picture. No amount of specific help to developing countries will be really effective unless the overall economic and trade environment is right. Nevertheless, as members of the Community, we have taken a number of very significant measures specifically to help the trade of developing countries. I come here more closely to what your Lordships have been saying.
The first of these is the general scheme of preferences. As your Lordships will know, the Community scheme covers all industrial products which are allowed in duty free and a large range of agricultural products at preferential margins. It is true that there are some restrictions on duty free imports of the most competitive industrial products from the advanced developing countries. But I come clean about this. This has been done quite deliberately by the Community in order to spread benefits to the poorer countries. Indeed, under the GSP now product

291
coverage is almost total for products from the very poorest countries, with scarcely any restrictions.
The second major element (about which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Walston, both spoke) is the Lomé Convention, under which of course 99 per cent. of exports from 64 African, Caribbean and Pacific states enter the Community free of quantitative restrictions and customs duty. It is a system which I am so happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in saying links us the more closely with the Commonwealth countries overseas. Of course, a unique feature of Lomé is the stabilisation of export earnings, about which both Lord Pitt and Lord Walston spoke. This of course is under negotiation now, for the Lomé Convention is currently being renegotiated. During these negotiations we have noted with very great interest the views expressed in the most interesting report entitled, A Successor to the Second Lomé, Convention, from the Select Committee on the European Communities of your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Bauer had some harsh words for the United Kingdom's influence on European Community policies. But if I may just say this to my noble friend, it was Her Majesty's Government who advocated the abolition of the few remaining tariffs on agricultual imports from the ACP countries. It is Her Majesty's Government who have also presented detailed proposals to the other Community member states on how the origin rules of the present convention could be relaxed and simplified. I hope that that picks up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, also made on that important subject.
May I, in only a sentence or two, mention with some pride the work of the United Kingdom Trade Agency (UKTA) which is almost entirely financed through our aid programme and which helps developing countries to market their products here by providing information, organising trade missions and indeed training commercial attachés. It is a splendid organisation of which we are very proud. We also support community trade promotion and United Nations efforts aimed at the markets of the whole developed world through the International Trade Centre in Geneva. About one-sixth of the experts used by the ITC are British, by far the biggest national group.
There is the point which was made by my noble friend Lord Montgomery, which is that what is needed overseas in third world countries is investment. Well, this is a Government which has concentrated increasingly on stimulating private direct investment overseas. It is we who sponsored a draft resolution at UNCTAD VI aimed at encouraging both developed and developing countries to improve the climate for investment. We are also pressing for investment protection to be covered in the new Lomé Convention. In the United Kingdom of course we have a number of schemes to help would-be investors overseas. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned, of course we support the Commonwealth Development Corporation who do such splendid work assisting developing countries in the development of their economies.
I hesitate to say that I make only one political point.
292
Perhaps I had better make another one. It is this Government who have abolished exchange controls about which I have not exactly heard cries of joy from the other side of the House. Perhaps we can come together again in the House by saying that it is the Government, with I am sure all-party support, which are active in the negotiation of bilateral investment protection agreements. But I must just add the point that always much depends in these matters—does it not?—on the economic and political conditions in the host country. It is a message which we try to get over at every opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, made the point in his speech that exporting firms need advice and guidance, and of course many developing countries are important markets for United Kingdom exports. Indeed, about 20 per cent. of our exports go to those countries. I think the answer there is the British Overseas Trade Board which, as the noble Lord will know, offers a wide range of services to United Kingdom exporters, including support for trade missions, overseas trade shows and for market research and also market entry.
May I come quickly to the subject of aid and trade. The noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, spoke from his great experience of this matter and the enormous amount that he has done in his career for it. The noble Lord will know but may not wholly support the fact that in 1980 the Government did a review and concluded that commercial, industrial and political aspects should be given greater weight alongside developmental considerations. But when I say that, let us remember that British exports benefit from the aid programme in a number of ways. Just to give a figure or two, in 1983 some 75 per cent. of our bilateral aid of £604 million was tied to the procurement of British goods and services. In addition, we reckon that we are winning export business in multilateral aid programmes broadly equivalent to our contribution of some £417 million.
My noble friend Lord Montgomery spoke of the small proportion of the bilateral aid programme allocated to the aid and trade provision in order to support United Kingdom bids for developmentally sound projects in competition with overseas competitors. Because of lack of time I shall write to my noble friend on that point and simply say now that since 1977, when ATP was started, grants of some £264 million have resulted in additional British exports in excess of £1,298 million.
A very important point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and it was in the general context, too, of what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was saying about commodities, specificially on the subject of stock piles. It is doubtful whether national stock piles would help commodity prices in the long run. It is really better to look at each case on its merits multilaterally, of course on occasion there may be a need for commodity agreements with buffer stock provisions. Here let us just bear in mind that it is the United Kingdom which has signed and ratified the Common Fund and pledged 10 million United States dollars to the second account of that fund, but as yet not enough countries have ratified in order to bring the fund into force.

293
My Lords, I am sorry but I think I am beaten by the clock and I must allow the noble Lord a moment to wind-up the debate. May I content myself with saying that I know there are questions to which I have not had the time to reply but I promise I will reply in writing. Although perhaps not agreeing with everything that has been said, the Government are nonetheless extremely grateful for this very important debate, and I now hope the noble Lord who moved it will bring it to a close.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me a minute or so at the end of our debate. I should like to thank each of the speakers individually and mention his contribution, but obviously there is not time for that. But I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. I am sure everyone will understand if I particularly single out the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who I am honoured to have make his maiden speech in a debate of this kind. We not only hope to hear him again but we shall expect to hear him again on this subject.
Before I withdraw the Motion, I would just say that I must answer the central point on exchange control that was made by the noble Lord the Minister. Of course we do not congratulate the Government on removing exchange control because the removal of exchange control has allowed many funds to leave this country where they should have been invested. Very few of them have gone to the developing world. Most of them have been attracted either to places like Florida and the Bahamas or to the industrialised world, to our competitiors. So as far as the removal of exchange control is concerned it has not—
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed. Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his Motion?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: With the leave of the House I beg leave to withdraw this Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Dangerous Vessels Bill [H.L.]
7.58 p.m.
Lord Walston: 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 Walston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Directions by harbour master concerning dangerous vessels etc.]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("vessel") to ("that") in line 1 on page 2 and insert—
("if in his opinion the condition of that vessel or the nature or condition of anything it contains is such that its presence in the harbour might involve—

(a) grave and imminent danger to the safety of any person or property; or

(b) grave and imminent risk").

The noble Lord said: It may help the Committee if I say that although the Marshalled List appears to be extraordinarily long, most of the amendments are in fact drafting. I do not think, since we have discussed all of these with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that they should take too much time, although, of course, I shall attempt to explain them all as we go through.
Amendment No. 1 is purely a drafting amendment. It is designed to clarify the circumstances in which a harbour master may exclude vessels from the harbour. I beg to move.
Lord Walston: I do not propose to speak on every amendment, which may be of some relief to the Committee, but I should like to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said: that although all the amendments except one are in his name, they have been discussed with me and all of them are improvements which will clarify the intentions of the Bill without in any way altering them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("; and in paragraph (b) of this subsection, "master" means the person having command or charge of the vessel, but does not include a pilot (that is to say, a person not belonging to the vessel who has the conduct of it).").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 is, again, a drafting amendment, in that it makes it clear that a harbour master's power to give directions to the master of a vessel does not include a power to give directions to the pilot. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert ("and including the vessel in question in that case).").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a drafting amendment to put beyond any doubt that in deciding whether to give directions to exclude a vessel from a harbour, the harbour master has to have regard to the safety of that vessel as well as of other vessels. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 20, at end insert—
("(5) At the time any directions under subsection (1) above are given to any person, the harbour master giving the directions shall inform that person of the grounds for giving them.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment requires a harbour master who excludes a vessel from a harbour to give his reasons for doing so at the time that he makes the prohibition direction. It is only proper for him to have to explain why a vessel should not have the right to enter or remain in harbour at that time rather than at a later time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Underhill: May I raise one question on Clause 1? It may be that there are other provisions that cover the point; but the Bill seems to be silent on enforce-

295
ment. I know that under Clause 8 we have the maximum fine of £25,000. However, if a vessel is in such a dangerous position that it should be removed, the damage is done. I accept that there is a £25,000 fine, but there could be damage in the meantime. What is to happen on enforcement or attempted enforcement? Is there any provision—I cannot see it in the Bill—for the harbour master to call the police or any other authority to assist him in enforcing his direction?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will allow me to respond to that when we come to Clause 8 which may, I think, need further explanation. Although there is no amendment to Clause 8, we could perhaps go a little further into the clause when we reach it.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Liability of harbour authority for certain directions given under section 1]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: In moving that Clause 2 does not stand part of the Bill, I should perhaps explain that the amendment effects a major simplification of the Bill. The clause which I propose should be deleted makes a harbour authority liable to pay compensation if the harbour master unreasonably excludes a vessel and loss or damage is suffered as a result. However, under the common law, the harbour master and harbour authority would be liable for damages in the case of any negligent use of the powers or any action in excess of the powers—for example, where there was no grave or imminent danger or risk as provided in Clause 1. It seems unnecessary to supplement this common law liability with a specific clause in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Walston: If I may refer to Amendment No. 5 which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, is really an alternative to Clause 2, it is, I think, a considerable simplification. It is far better to rely on the common law. That being so, I am fully in support of the deletion of Clause 2 as it stands.
Clause 2 disagreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Application of Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and
Others) Act 1900.
Where—
(a) a harbour authority is liable for any loss or damage occurring outside the harbour of that authority in consequence of directions given by a harbour master in purported exercise of his powers under section 1 above; and
(b) the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act 1900 would apply so as to limit that liability if the loss and damage in question had occurred in that harbour;
then, for the purposes of that Act, that loss or damage shall be deemed to have occurred in that harbour.").
The noble Lord said: This new clause, to which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has spoken, follows upon the matter that we have just been discussing. Clause 3, as originally drafted, made it clear that a claim for
296
compensation under Clause 2 was subject to limitation under the Merchant Shipping Act 1900. Since we have agreed to delete Clause 2 this provision is no longer required. Section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1900 is widely drawn and the right for a harbour authority to limit its liability thereunder would clearly apply to any common law claim arising from directions given by a harbour master under Clause 1 of this Bill, if the loss or damage occurred within the harbour.
The purpose of the new clause is to make it clear that a harbour authority's right to limit its liability arising from the exercise by the harbour master of his power to give directions under Section 1 extends to liability for things which happen outside the harbour as well as within it. I would add that a harbour authority's right to limit its liability does not extend to a liability for the death of, or injury to, any person; nor does this right apply where the liability is caused by the actual fault or privity of the harbour authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Application of Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act 1900 to claims relative to section 1]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: For the reasons that I have given, I would ask that the Committee does not insist upon Clause 3 standing part of the Bill.
Clause 3 disagreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Further directions by Secretary of State.
.—(1) Where a harbour master has given directions under section 1 above as respects any vessel, the Secretary of State may, for the purpose of securing the safety of any person or vessel (including the vessel to which those directions relate), give directions under this section to that harbour master requiring him—

(a) to permit the vessel to which the directions given under section 1 relate to enter and remain, or (as the case may be) to remain, in the harbour in question; and

(b) to take such action (if any) as may be specified in the directions given under this section, for the purpose of enabling the vessel to do so or for any connected purpose;

and the directions under section 1 shall thereupon cease to have effect.
(2) A harbour master to whom any directions are given under this section shall give notice of those directions as respects the vessel in question to the person to whom the directions under section 1 were given or, failing that, to any of the other persons mentioned in section 1(2) above, in any such reasonable manner as the harbour master may think fit; and it shall be the duty—

(a) of the harbour master to take any action in relation to that vessel specified in those directions; and

(b) of the harbour master and the harbour authority to take all such further action as may be reasonably necessary to enable that vessel to enter and remain, or to remain, in the harbour.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment substitutes for the existing Clause 4 of the Bill, which enables the Secretary of State, for the purpose of securing the safety of any person or vessel, to override directions given by the harbour master to exclude a vessel from harbour, a provision which is more tightly drafted but which is substantially to the same effect. In particular,

297
the new clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State's directions must be given to the harbour master. As drafted, the Bill, if one reads line 1 on page 3, does not expressly state to whom the directions must be given, and this new clause to which I am speaking does that. Additionally, the powers contained in subsections (2) and (3) of the existing Clause 4 for the Secretary of State to pay compensation in certain circumstances are omitted. Their effect was uncertain and, as in the case of the existing Clause 2, it seems best to leave issues of legal liability to be determined in accordance with the principles of common law, as we have just discussed.
Also omitted is subsection (4) of the existing Clause 4. The provisions of this subsection did not add anything to the common law position. Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill are ancillary to the special compensation provisions contained in Clauses 2 and 4(2) and (3). If these provisions are omitted, Clauses 5 and 6 should therefore be omitted also. I beg to move.
Lord Walston: Although this may look somewhat portentous on the papers before us, really it is nothing more than a redrafting of existing clauses with a view to simplifying them and simplifying the procedures. The various amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has spoken are a considerable improvement and I hope the Committee will support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 disagreed to.
Clause 7 [Saving for section 12 of Prevention of Pollution Act 1971 and section 511 of Merchant Shipping Act 1894]:
8.12 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert ("Oil").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee—I hope it will be helpful to them—in moving Amendment No. 7 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Amendment No. 8: Page 4, line 13, leave out from ("1971") to ("for") in line 14.
Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 15, leave out from ("risk") to first ("the") in line 18 and insert ("of oil pollution; and this subsection applies to any person authorised by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) of that section to exercise the powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (4) of that section as it applies to the Secretary of State.
(2) Nothing in section 1 above shall affect").
Amendment No. 10: Page 4, line 19, leave out ("section 511") and insert ("sections 511 and 512").
Amendment No. 11: Page 4, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 25 and insert—
("; and this subsection applies to any officer or person who acts for a receiver of wreck under section 516 of that Act as it applies to such a receiver.").
All these amendments are purely drafting and technical to correct and clarify the provisions of Clause 7. Amendment No. 7 corrects an omission of description. On page 4, at line 12, reference is made to the Prevention of Pollution Act 1971. The word "Oil" has been omitted. The other amendments describe more accurately provisions of existing Acts which are
298
preserved by this Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): With the leave of the Committee, I could put a single Question as to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11. The Question is, that Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 be agreed to?
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Offences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Earlier in our consideration the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised a question about enforcement. He reminded the Committee that Clause 8 says:
"A person who without reasonable excuse contravenes or fails to comply with any directions given under section 1 above shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £25,000 and on conviction on indictment to a fine".
The enforcement action is that which would apply in any other case in that the harbour master can direct that the vessel does not enter. If it does enter in contravention, then where necessary the harbour master will have the assistance of the ordinary process of criminal law, for example, the police, and will issue a summons. The courts will take it on board from there. In matters of this kind, normally summonses are served on the master in that he is the person more readily available, rather than on the agent or the ship owner. Normally he is on board the vessel. As I understand it, in maritime cases there is some speedy processing of summonses to ensure that the vessel or the alleged offender does not leave. In effect, the normal processes of law will apply.
It may be useful to add that if the harbour master directs that the vessel be removed and it is not removed, it follows that the vessel and the master are available to receive the summons, which would be served in the ordinary way. I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but I do not think it meets the point I have in mind. Amendment No. 1, which the noble Lord moved, referred to "grave and imminent risk". There is a maximum fine of £25,000. But if there is imminent risk because there is danger and the vessel should really leave the harbour, we should remember that going through the court procedure is rather lengthy. I wonder if the Minister will have a look at this between now and the next stage to see whether or not there ought to be some means of enforcement, or at least attempted enforcement, by calling the police or other authorities to see that the vessel is removed. Certainly the £25,000 fine is a penalty, but going to the courts when possibly the harbour is already blocked does not stop it from being blocked in the meantime.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I shall be very pleased to take further advice. Probably it will be helpful to the

299
Committee if I do this in good time so that I can write and set it out for the noble Lord. Perhaps I should add that if without reasonable excuse a person contravenes the directions given by the harbour master he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £25,000. But on conviction on indictment he can be subjected to an unlimited fine. The clause further provides that it may be a defence for a person charged thereunder to show that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
Even if one looks into it further, we could not prosecute any further than under criminal law. If a vessel is partly removed and sinks, there are other remedies. What we are talking about here is the penalty for contravening this Bill, as it is now, or the Act I hope it will become shortly. If another injury is sustained which contravenes other merchant shipping Acts, then action could be taken under the provisions of those Acts. When one is talking about enforcement one has to recognise that it is enforcement only of these limited provisions. If the noble Lord still feels he would like further and more detailed explanation he knows very well that I shall be happy to provide it.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for offering to do that. I believe it is necessary. We are amateurs in this sort of field. It seems that to have the fine or the court action after there has been a blockage of the harbour is the wrong way round. I wonder whether, if the harbour master takes action, there is some way in which he can call the authorities to help him, and some provision whereby, if the master of the vessel thinks that action should not be taken, he can take immediate action to stop it. That seems to me to be the way round. In the meantime, the police and the other authorities—whatever they may be—should enable the vessel to leave the harbour (and I am talking about the case when a vessel should leave) rather than cause danger. Once the accident has happened a fine of £25,000 is a penalty on an individual, but in the meantime the harbour may be closed for a period. I hope that the Minister will kindly look into the matter.
Lord Walston: I do not think that I can add very much to this discussion, which is becoming very technical. The point which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has raised seems to me to go rather wide of what this particular Bill is proposing to do. Obviously, there may be occasions when a harbour master's instructions, even without this Bill, will be disregarded (although I do not think there is any record of that happening) just as undoubtedly there are occasions when a policeman's instructions to the driver of a car or lorry are disregarded. Surely the only recourse must be to the law thereafter. Just as the policeman cannot get into the lorry and drive the lorry away, so the harbour master—or even the police or the harbour police, if there are such people—cannot get on board the ship and drive it away. It seems to me to be something entirely beyond the scope of this particular Bill.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Saving for Crown vessels.
. No directions under section 1 of this Act shall apply in relation to any vessel belonging to Her Majesty, or employed in the service of the Crown for any purpose, including any such vessel in the possession of a salvor.").
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause, and I shall be asking the Committee not to accept the existing Clause 9, which this new clause replaces. The saving which it contains for vessels employed in the service of the Crown is comprehensive and goes a little wider than the existing Clause 9, which does not exclude from the scope of the Bill vessels being navigated in the course of fulfilling a contract with a government department otherwise than for defence purposes. There are, in fact, very few cases of this kind. The new clause does not include, as the existing Clause 9 does, an express saving for vessels being navigated by any visiting forces. The foreign vessels which should be excluded are visiting warships and other ships on government service. These are entitled to sovereign immunity, and it is therefore unnecessary to refer to them in this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Walston Lord Walston moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 12, Amendment No. 13:
At end insert—
("; or

(b) any vessel which is a pleasure boat of 24 metres or less in length.").

The noble Lord said: This is an example of the donkey following the Lord Mayor's coach, because it is to add to the exempted vessels:
"any vessel which is a pleasure boat of 24 metres or less in length";
in other words, a pleasure yacht. This amendment has been suggested by the Royal Yachting Association, and as a former yachtsman I must say that I have great sympathy with it. It is inconceivable that a boat of this description could ever be a hazard to navigation, either by reason of its own defects or of the cargo that it is carrying. I hope that your Lordships will agree to accept this amendment to Amendment No. 12.
Lord Underhill: Again, I should like to ask a simple question. What happens if, in the opinion of the harbour master, the vessel that serves the Crown presents a grave and imminent danger? What happens if that is the opinion of the harbour master? Does the danger just continue?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The Crown vessel is exempt from the provisions of this Bill.
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 disagreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 5, leave out from ("master" ") to end of line 13 and insert—
("includes any dock master or pier master who is not a subordinate of a harbour master and any deputy or assistant of a harbour master or of such a dock master or pier master;").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving Amendment No. 14, I also speak to Amendment No. 15, because these are both drafting amendments.
Amendment No. 15: Page 5, line 14, leave out from (""vessel"") to end of line 19 and insert—
("includes—

(a) a ship or boat, or any other description of craft used in navigation;

(b) a rig, raft or floating platform, or any other moveable thing constructed or adapted for floating on, or partial or total submersion in, water; and

(c) a seaplane, a hovercraft within the meaning of the Hovercraft Act 1968 or any other amphibious vehicle.").

The definitions of "harbour master" and "vessel" are not changed in substance. It does not seem necessary to refer specifically to the Queen's harbour master in the definition of "harbour master". The definition of "master" has already been moved to Clause 1(2) since it is not used anywhere else in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 15:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Citation and commencement]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 23, at end insert—
("(3) This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 16 is fairly straightforward. It excludes Northern Ireland from the provisions of the Bill because under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act harbours are a "transferred matter" and are dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 17:
Line 6, leave out ("human life, property or") and insert ("the safety of any person or property, or risk of obstruction to").
The noble Lord said: Again, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 18:
Amendment No. 18: Line 8, leave out from ("directions;") to end of line 10.
Both amendments to the Title are consequential upon the amendments which the Committee have just accepted to Clauses 1 and 4, and upon the omission of Clause 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 18:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Northern Ireland Prisoners: Location
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their policy on the transfer to prisons in Northern Ireland of prisoners normally resident there who are now in English gaols.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to start by very warmly thanking all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate on this Question. Some might consider this hour to be a slightly unsocial one, but I am very glad to say that it is nothing like as unsocial as the 5.22 a.m. at which another place recently debated the case of one particular prisoner, who may be mentioned later tonight.
I should like to add that I have received a number of letters of support and encouragement. Two came from noble Lords who are closely associated with the National Association of Probation Officers, and others I have received from noble Lords who accompanied me on an all-party delegation to discuss this very question with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at his office about a year and a half ago. I am sorry that in the interval it has not proved possible to make much progress, and that is the reason for this Question tonight.
In preparation for this debate I have visited a number of prisoners in England. These have included, first, unrepentant IRA members; secondly, men who deny ever belonging to illegal organisations, which denial has been publicly confirmed by the IRA; and, thirdly, a former terrorist who, with Home Office help in 1978, apologised to his victims and publicly repudiated political violence. I have also corresponded with an Ulster Loyalist prisoner who has spent 10 years in English prisons—I might add, for his own protection—but who now wishes to be transferred to Northern Ireland. I believe these to be a fair sample, a fair cross-section, of the 50 or 60 prisoners we are discussing tonight, about one-third of whom it is important to know are serving life sentences.
I wish to approach this Question from a humanitarian angle. I believe that there can be no doubt that resistance by various Governments to requests for transfer by prisoners with real or alleged terrorist records has caused great hardship, in particular to the families and next of kin. For instance, I have visited a prisoner whose son is now aged four. Yet because of distance and the cost of travel, he expects to get only two visits a year during the remaining nine years that he has to serve. How can that son maintain adequate contact with his father? We have to remember that the family is entitled to 12 visits per year in England, and that the father could receive one visit per fortnight if he were transferred to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord the Minister may like to verify what proportion of prisoners in Ulster in fact receive the maximum permitted number of family visits.
I understand from two separate sources that there is another prisoner now at Hull who has seen his wife only twice in nine years. The reason for this is that his son was born after his arrest and the son suffers from a severe handicap which makes it impossible for him to be transported over long distances. This means that this father has never seen his son, who is now aged

303
about nine, and I am sorry to say that it is possible that the child may die before his father is released. The situation would be quite different if the father were to be transferred to, for example, Magilligan Prison in Northern Ireland.
Therefore I ask: have the noble Lord the Minister and his colleagues in London and Belfast studied the details of these and other poignant cases? Can he confirm that these and other Northern Irish prisoners are lucky if they get three or four visits per year on average?
I would like to know why Her Majesty's Government have rejected the reasoned arguments put to them by the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders, and by the National Association of Probation Officers. In August 1982 the latter body wrote:
"It is abundantly clear that there are many non-political reasons why these men should be transferred to Northern Ireland. Transfer would ease the pressure on families and relatives, reduce the risk of family and marital breakdown, improve stability within relationships and help these men and their children to maintain some form of parent/child relationship. For others it would give the opportunity to keep closer contact with often ageing parents, who are frequently in poor health and unfit to travel long distances. In addition, it would considerably reduce the financial burden now placed on all relations when a visit to England is planned".
The noble Lord, with his experience in education and the social services, is well placed to appreciate the force of these arguments.
As to distances, it is some 310 miles from Belfast to London as the crow flies, and further by train and ship. A family travelling from Londonderry to visit a prisoner on the Isle of Wight faces a total journey of well over 900 miles. It is necessary to spell out what this involves for the difficulties to be clearly seen. It will involve a train from 'Derry to Belfast, a boat to Liverpool, a train to London, a crossing of London by tube, a train to Southampton or Portsmouth, a ferry to the Isle of Wight, and a bus or car to the prison. Few of your Lordships would, I think, wish to undertake so daunting an expedition several times a year, in all weathers, in order to visit near relatives.
The cost, too, may be prohibitive, particularly for people who are employed and cannot obtain their fares from social security. About one and a half years ago it already cost over £300 for a wife and three children under the age of 12 to visit an Isle of Wight prison from Northern Ireland. This figure includes the expense of one or more overnight stops. It was for this reason that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others have asked the Government, and the Government have agreed, to pay for air travel where this does not greatly exceed the cost of surface transport plus board and lodging. I wish to ask tonight how this important, though only palliative, arrangement is working out in practice. In how many cases has it been made use of?
To return to the main theme, I shall now quote Rule 31 of the Prison Rules for England and Wales, which is closely paralleled by Rule 57 of the Northern Ireland Code. The rule states:
"1. Special attention shall be paid to the maintenance of such relations between a prisoner and his family as are desirable in the best interests of both.
2. A prisoner shall be encouraged and assisted to establish and maintain such relations with persons and agencies outside prison
304
as may, in the opinion of the governor, best promote the interests of his family and his social rehabilitation".
Point 1 is clearly mandatory: point 2 is discretionary and in this context rather meaningless for the governors of English prisons. It would of course be highly applicable in Northern Ireland. I submit, however, that Her Majesty's Government are breaching both the intention and the letter of point 1. By refusing transfers, they are placing unnecessary restrictions on the best interests of prisoners and their families.
For this reason they find themselves in trouble (not, I might say, for the first time) with the European Commission on Human Rights. I understand that some five petitions have been presented to the commission by prisoners and their families. The Government have been remarkably slow in answering the commission's questions. In the case of Mr. S. P. O'Doherty, two extensions of time were granted, yet the Government had not replied by 2nd March of this year. Have they replied by now? If not, when will they do so?
I come now to the Government case. They say that each application for transfer is considered on its merits. This is fine. But the fact remains that there have been no transfers to Northern Ireland since 1975, except for a limited number of non-terrorist offenders. The criterion as stated by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, on 14th March 1983, Hansard, column 587, is that the prisoner must show himself likely to co-operate with a normal prison régime and, in particular, to have severed any links with para-military organisations.
I have to ask: how do you prove a double negative? How do you show that you have broken links with a body which you deny ever belonging to and which disowns you? Why, in another case I have already quoted, is a man not believed who, six years ago, wrote, with Home Office approval, to local newspapers in Northern Ireland repudiating political violence and who was then reviled for his pains in the Provisional Sinn Fein House-Magazine? It seems to me that the Government are setting a standard which cannot always be met. It is anyway unlikely that enforced separation from their families will break the will of the really dedicated para-military prisoners.
Another point has been put to me, that conforming prisoners might, if transferred, qualify for the more generous remission available in Northern Ireland. If that is the real objection, surely it would be possible to make it a condition of transfer that only the English scale of remission or parole should apply. In any case, higher remission does not apply to life sentences and conditional-release licences can be granted in Northern Ireland but not in Britain.
It has been argued that to grant transfers would outrage public opinion in England. I maintain that English opinion wishes terrorists to be caught and to be sentenced appropriately. It does not wish to be unnecessarily vindictive towards the families of prisoners, very many of whom are peaceful, law-abiding people who detest all violence, as I know from personal contact with some of them.
I would like to ask whether the objection is that transfers on a significant scale would complicate and make difficult the management of Northern Ireland

305
prisons. I do not believe that this can seriously be maintained. Northern Ireland already has a large prison population, the majority of whom have been convicted of terrorist offences. The addition of men, now imprisoned in England, in the sort of numbers we are discussing, would not markedly increase the population. Indeed, the prisons in Ulster are already less crowded than those in Britain, and a whole new prison at Maghaberry, I understand, will be in a position to open before the end of this year.
I wonder whether the real reason for Her Majesty's Government's unwillingness to accept a case, however well argued, may be the fact that transfers have been backed and supported by the Provisional Sinn Fein. If so, I think there is a way out. Let the Government, from a position of strength, begin by transferring nonmembers of the IRA and those who, in the opinion of numerous fair-minded people, have quite clearly repudiated the IRA and all its works. The next stage could be temporary transfers to Northern Ireland to enable prisoners to receive accumulated visits. The final stage should he permanent transfers, for humanitarian reasons, of conforming prisoners. The Government could well state that they have been moved by the requests of the Bishop of Derry, the Archbishops of Armagh and Westminster, the honourable Member in another place, for Foyle, and numerous other Members of both Houses, of all parties and religious persuasions. To act in this way would be to assert the values of democracy and nonviolence, and would provide an incentive for good behaviour in English prisons.
My Lords, this matter is doubly difficult, because two Government departments are involved, the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office, though I understand that the primary responsibility lies with the Home Office. I can only urge that the vital interests of the families should not be allowed to fall between two stools. I ask Her Majesty's Government tonight to treat the European Commission on Human Rights with the respect it deserves and not to fall foul of the Court of Human Rights.
In a parallel context, the Government have signed the European Convention on the transfer of sentenced persons. It will soon be in a position to ratify it, once the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill, which the noble Lord piloted through this House, has become law. In view of the convention and of the Bill, it would be both proper and consistent to take a more sympathetic attitude towards transfers between England and Northern Ireland.
It is, I think, generally accepted that loss of liberty is the essence of the penalty of imprisonment. I do therefore beg the Government not to impose additional burdens over and above imprisonment on a minority of prisoners and their families. Parliament exists in part for the redress of grievances. This is a major grievance affecting a small number of people. Present official attitudes, however, run the risk of alienating not only the families, but also the friends and acquaintances of prisoners. Every increase in alienation tends to prolong the cycle of violence from one generation to the next. For that reason, and above all on humanitarian grounds, I ask the noble Lord and the Government to think again and to reconsider their
306
present policy. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord's reply.
8.47 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to lend all the support in my power to the moving, careful, and well worked out case presented by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. So far as I know he is not even Irish, and that is all the better, because if he were he would no doubt be suspect. That an Englishman should have taken all this trouble, have gone to all these prisoners, and made all these personal contacts is something that even the ranks of Tuscany may not have done—if that covers the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and perhaps others. I think everybody must applaud the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his zeal, which is in the highest possible tradition of this House.
My difficulty is that he stated the case in a bare quarter of an hour so effectively that anything I can say is only by way of embellishment. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, as we know, is very humane and entertaining. He is not, if I may say so, at his happiest on this subject. I do not know why it is. He got off on the wrong foot earlier. But there is still reason to hope that he will come off the wrong foot. Up until now it has been his weakness, relatively speaking.
I hope that we shall not be told that there are technical difficulties about this. I remember some years ago when Mr. De Valera—and I hope I can mention him without arousing any sort of anti-Irish prejudice—told me how well he had been received by Mr. Winston Churchill. Mr. De Valera had of late years become Prime Minister, and Mr. Churchill had always denounced Mr. De Valera until then. Suddenly he showed a great deal of love towards him and entertained him royally in Downing Street. Mr. De Valera said that nothing would help Ireland more, and Anglo-Irish relations more, than if the remains of Sir Roger Casement, executed in 1916, were transferred to Ireland. Sir Winston showed every sympathy for that and gave the impression that it would be done. However, he felt compelled to write to Mr. De Valera later and say that there were legal objections which could not be overcome.
When Sir Harold Wilson came in the legal objections were overcome within 24 hours. I hope that we shall not be told that there are technical objections which are perhaps of a kind too difficult for us to understand. This has to be argued on grounds of humanitarian principle. I hope I need not say yet once more that I detest violence, whether by the IRA, the UDA, or anyone else. So, let us look at the case.
It is easier for me to speak fairly briefly tonight because Mr. Shane O'Doherty, whose case has been mentioned before now, has suddenly undergone a remarkable transformation of fortune. When I saw him about six weeks ago he was living in a hell on earth, in the remains of the old control units, along with gentlemen called Messrs. Blake, Baker and Dick. These gentlemen were there in these control units. I raised the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but I do not think that I need to go into all that this evening because, owing, possibly, to the ministrations of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suddenly he is in Wormwood Scrubs, which I do not say is exactly heaven, but compared with the control units at Wakefield it could

307
be so described. There he is in Wormwood Scrubs, taking every opportunity for education, well-received, back again where he had been before, after some much less attractive prisons.
I shall not raise his maltreatment tonight, except in the one connection that he is in prison in England. His mother, a lady advanced in years—I do not know whether she is older than me; but if she is, and I rather think she might be, she is very old—is in frail health and she finds it extremely difficult, not to say expensive, to come over to see him, in the way the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has described similar situations. While he is well looked after in Wormwood Scrubs and has no complaints at all about the treatment, he is not being given justice because he is a completely Irish boy. When he was brought here nine years ago he had only been in England for short holidays. No one could be more completely a son of Derry than he is, yet here he is stuck in a London prison. He is just one example.
If we take the case more generally, as Lord Hylton showed us, I can only repeat his arguments. He handled it all with great skill and care. The Home Office arrangements are usually based on the understanding that a prisoner is placed as near his family as possible. It cannot be done perfectly, but it would be done normally. Here no attempt has been made to do it, for some special reason. What is the reason? The reason why this boy and other prisoners should not be imprisoned in Northern Ireland has never been given. If only on humanitarian grounds, and in accordance with Home Office practise, it is a far more desirable arrangement. We may be told they are dangerous. That may be true of some of them, but it is not true of Mr. Shane O'Doherty.
Lord Elton does not know him so he cannot really speak from first-hand acquaintanceship. On what information is he relying? I must press him on this. It was his predecessor, Lord Belstead, who suddenly told me that the opinions I was receiving at the prison—that was Wormwood Scrubs then—were not in accordance with the information he had received. No one has ever come into the open and explained what this information is. Here is a boy who was an altar boy years ago of the Bishop of Derry, when he was a parish priest. He is someone whom the bishop knows intimately. As he is 29 he has probably known him for all his life. The family were very well-known people in Derry. Here is somebody whom the bishop would vouch for personally, but Lord Elton cannot in the nature of things know him. Lord Elton has some 45,000 prisoners to look after and he cannot pretend to know these people. He has to rely on some information. The question is: what information is he relying on? To the best of my belief—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Not the bishop's, my Lords.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will be making a speech in a moment and he must hold himself in. He is going to make a hell of a speech in a moment. Let us wait for it because we know he is a bit conservative on Northern Ireland. He is regarded as far to the Right
308
on that topic. Why should he not be? It is a free country.
This boy is trusted by those who know him. I have visited him often in Wormwood Scrubs in the past, and half a dozen governors told me how much they trust him. I was there yesterday once again and I was told how pleased everyone is to have him back. I say that this information that has been laid by some mole—whatever the phrase is—about him is contemptible. Whoever the mole is should be brought into the daylight. I doubt whether he will be this evening, and that is something the noble Lord, Lord Elton, should realise. I regard him as relying on contemptible information.
However, this young person is only one case. The wider question is the one that has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. When all is said and done, what is the argument against? Perhaps we shall be told that there is some mysterious argument against. Lord Hylton was making a moderate demand. He was saying that those who clearly are not dangerous should be sent home. That is all that should be done to start with. One is bound to ask and press the noble Lord again and again whether he cannot come into the open. He is a candid debater, but on this one subject he is extraordinarily secretive. On this one topic he is not worthy of himself. So I hope we shall have something rather plainer from him than we have had in the past.
No doubt there are practical arguments which can be brought up, that this might add to the problems in Northern Ireland. As Lord Hylton has explained, we are talking about 50 or a good many fewer than 50, because Lord Hylton was not saying that all the 50 or 60 should be sent back at once. As we know, there are several thousand people in prison in Northern Ireland. That is the practical argument, that this might be dangerous. The argument applied to that has been indicated.
What about the English prisons? Are the Irish prisoners here welcome? I cannot speak for prison officers or governors. I have talked to a good many at different times on this subject and every prison governor and every prison officer would like to see them go back; so do not let the noble Lord tell us that in some mysterious way it is in the interests of the prison service to keep these people here. That would be the phoniest of all arguments to be used against the proposition as it is being unfolded. If it would help the noble Lord I would go on my knees to him, but I do not think that would be of very real assistance.
I attended a conference of the Prison Christian Fellowship in Belfast—a world conference of 31 countries—and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was there. I was driven from the airport to the centre of Belfast city by a UDA man. I say that so that the noble Lord will not think I am only interested in Roman Catholics. This UDA man had been born again. I hope no one will laugh at the idea of being born again, but he was serving quite a long sentence for vicious crimes and from my conversation with him I think he was lucky not to have had a life sentence. He was serving a good many years, but in prison he was made to share a cell with a Christian, a cripple, a man with only one leg. It seems that at that time he was something of a

309
bully and he gave this man absolute hell; but the Christian with the one leg was so Christian in his attitude that this man was converted. He has now become a very active worker for the prison Christian Fellowship. Everything is possible in prison if there is kindness—the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that because he is a better Christian than I am. I hope so. The noble Lord will agree that if one can bring the right influences to bear one can achieve what seem like miracles in prison. But they will not be achieved among these people in a foreign land. I have said enough for the moment.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I have been, first, chairman, and now president, of NACRO for something like 30 years. We have always maintained that people who are to lose their liberty should be confined, as near as possible, to their families. There is nothing new about this. We have pressed the Home Office about it. We know there are technical difficulties within this country, but we are entirely in favour of this.
My first remark in this debate is that I do not think there should be any absolutely rigid rule about whether or not people from other countries who commit crimes in this country are returned. In fact, it is important that there should not be. For example, there must be in Northern Ireland a certain number of what we used to call ODCs—the ordinary decent criminals, the shoplifters and people of that kind. Anybody of that kind who is imprisoned in this country, I would think, certainly ought on humanitarian grounds to be sent back to where he came from, unless there are some particular difficulties.
But when you are dealing with people whom we describe as terrorists and whom you may describe as "freedom fighters" in the way that the Greeks described the Furies as Eumenides, if you are talking about what I call terrorism, then you have a different situation. You have people who regard it as a patriotic duty to try to escape from prison, to try to disrupt prison discipline, and, if anybody gets in their way, a patriotic duty to kill them. Make no mistake, my Lords. This is what I am saying about the IRA; and they have said it again and again, and if you deny it you are wrong.
This is clearly a different situation. What we have to consider in this country is that when somebody is convicted of blowing up people in a bus or shooting them or whatever it is, and accepts the judgment of our courts—and sometimes they are wrong, but not always; they are usually right—we confine him in this country. I think it can happen (as the noble Earl has suggested) that after a certain time people change. I have always believed in this and I think it very important. I think it is essential that there should not be a rule so rigid that, if the people concerned with the prisoner report that this man has severed all connection with the terrorists and has become a Rastafarian or something of that sort, perhaps has become religious, has changed his views altogether and is now, in their opinion, an innocent character, then there is no case for sending him home. I think there is
310
every case for doing so. But I do not think there is any case for sending back to Northern Ireland people who are dedicated to killing and disruption unless the Northern Ireland prisons are perfectly happy to have them. I have not had anything to do with the Northern Ireland prisons for seven or eight years, but my impression when I was there was that they were very much overcrowded with very dangerous men and the last thing that they wanted was 50 or 60 more sent from here. I think that the most important thing from the point of view of the Home Secretary is to consider, first, the lives and safety of the people in the prisons to which they are sending them, the people who have to contain them and who are openly threatened with death by these people. Let there be no mistake about it. This is what they do and what they think and what they regard as a patriotic duty. As long as they do so, then one must be careful how one overloads one place rather than the other.
I will say—and I shall not take any longer because it is a very simple point—that what is important is that the Government's general decision should not be rigid. They should be open-minded. If somebody changes in a way that is convincing—and, of course, people can pretend to change and it is quite a difficult decision as to whether somebody really has changed, as the noble Earl knows, and we have both had to deal with such cases—then, after a certain time to make sure of it, I am in favour of sending him home. But if there is no indication, then I think one has to bow to the fact that you cannot be somebody who believes in killing and destruction and who also expects to get the same attention as somebody who does not.
There is one thing that I should like to say. In Northern Ireland, when I was there, we had a very interesting system—and still have, I think—of home leave. People on very long sentences were allowed to go home—and I do not think that there were any exceptions—and they always came back. If they did not, their colleagues beat them up because they were then going to stop the whole system. I am not opposed to a suggestion that long-term terrorist prisoners in this country should be allowed to have a four-day weekend, say, every two years or something of that sort. This is something that I think could be looked at. This would depend really upon the first man who broke trust and then it could be finished. But I do not myself believe that they would break it. The experience in Northern Ireland is that they come back and that breaches of home leave are very rare.
But that is absolutely as far as I would go. I regard the safety of the prison officers, the governors and the policemen who have to look after prisoners as more important than one's compassionate attitude (which is a genuine one) regarding them and their family. They are deprived of something which is extremely important, the relationship with their family, but I would rather do that damage to them than give them the opportunity to do an equivalent damage—actually, a worse damage, which is what they usually do—to the people who are prepared to guard them. I hope that the noble Lord will have a fairly open view, so that when there is a real change in somebody it can be recognised. I hope to goodness that he will not concede otherwise.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the case which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I take an entirely opposing view to that which has been put forward by those Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken, except for my noble friend Lord Donaldson. I have lived my life, and, more particularly, my political life, in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I am aware of the reality of what happens in Northern Ireland. I do not live in the English countryside, in London or outside of London. I lived in Belfast and one of the reasons why I became a political outcast in Northern Ireland is that I had more sympathy, humanity and compassion with the victims of the terrorists than with the terrorists.
What this debate is all about—and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, must face the consequences of what they have said here tonight—is that it is not terribly long ago when the vast majority of the people in these islands, in Britain and in Northern Ireland, and indeed in the Republic, all held up our hands in horror at the appalling tragedy and murders which took place at the Harrods bombing. The whole world—even the world outside of these islands—held up their hands in horror. Now the noble Lords are saying that if next week or next month the perpetrators of that dastardly crime are detected by the police here in Britain and they are brought before a court and they are sentenced, if their homes are either in Belfast or Dublin they can then claim to be transferred back again. Who, in their right senses, would stand by that judgment?
We have yet to find the perpetrators or those who exploded the bomb in the Tower of London, when so many innocent people lost their lives. We have yet to find the perpetrators of all those outrages that took place throughout the United Kingdom when totally innocent people lost their lives or their limbs. What the noble Lord is saying here is that, when they are caught, if they are Irish terrorists they should be transferred back either to the Republic or to Northern Ireland. I do not believe that that is a tenable argument.
One of the noble Lords who was in support of this said that it was only from the point of view of humanitarian priciples. I found last week and the week before that—and probably shall do next week and the week after—that when a terrible murder took place in Northern Ireland both the murder and the funeral would get a little mention in the English newpapers and a little mention on the 6 o'clock or 9 o'clock television news. But about a week after the funeral has taken place nobody thinks of the victims or their bereaved relatives, so all of humitarian sympathy goes then to the prisoners, to the people who did this, and the bereaved relatives are not thought of again. I say this with a good deal of experience. I know the bereaved relatives. I have met many of them. In fact, some of them are very close friends of mine. Some have lost limbs; others have no husbands, sons, brothers or fathers left.
I resent bitterly the edicts which are handed down from the European Court of Human Rights as to how a prisoner should be treated, how he should be given
312
every consideration, how he should be given every priority. I repeat that there is no consideration given to those who have been maimed or murdered, or to their relatives.
Those people who bombed Harrods last year were well aware of the consequences of their action. They knew what would happen. They knew of all the atrocities that had taken place in Northern Ireland and throughout England. Whether their wives, their brothers, their sisters or their family know it, they knew what the consequences of their actions might be if they were caught. We are asked now to believe—in fact, the implications are in what has been said—that the wives, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters did not know that their particular relations were members of the IRA or the INLA; there was only one member of the family who knew that he was engaged in terrorist activity; and then everybody said, "My God, his family didn't know and we have to take them into consideration".
Let me also say this—and my remarks may be a little conjectural. I have repeatedly heard over the years, particularly from churchmen, that a person who has committed one murder will live with this on his conscience to the end of his days, and that that is sufficient punishment for the crime. That is not true, because UDA men and UVF men, Loyalists, have killed a Catholic one day, have killed a Catholic the next week, and another Catholic six months afterwards; and the IRA have done exactly the same thing. They do not kill one person and then throw up their hands in horror and say, "That is a terrible thing that I have done".
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, certainly.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord is arguing—and, heaven knows, he has more right to than others—
Lord Fitt: I am waiting for the question.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, yes, I am going to put the question. I am trying to be polite, you see. The noble Lord is arguing most strongly about the wickedness of these doings, and no one is more entitled to do so: but I am saying that if these crimes take place in Northern Ireland then the people should be imprisoned in Northern Ireland. It is agreed that there has to be a very long imprisonment; but why, if it is committed here or is in any way connected with here, have they to be imprisoned here?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I think that is rather a foolish argument for the noble Earl to advance. If you carry that argument to its logical conclusion, you could say that a fellow called Sirhan Sirhan, who is in gaol in America for having murdered Robert Kennedy, should be sent back to Iran to be imprisoned. Then there is the fellow, whose name I cannot pronounce—the Turkish fellow—who was convicted of attempting to assassinate the Pope in Italy. You could say that he should be sent back to Turkey. If you

313
want to continue this sort of argument, you could say that all such people should be sent back to their own countries of origin; so there is absolutely no logic in that.
There is another argument which has been put forward—something that I am increasingly resentful of and which could only have come from an Englishman. Here I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, when he talked about "alienation". He has not said it in so many words, but I will say it for him——
Lord Hylton: Thank you.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, he would say that if all these prisoners who are serving prison sentences in Britain for the most horrible crimes are sent back to Northern Ireland, it will so enhance the political situation that all the Catholics—and, let us face it, most of the prisoners are Catholics—will say, "The English are not too bad, so we will all start voting for moderation and we will reject the IRA". That does not happen. There were 102,000 people—and I say it with a great deal of regret that they were all Catholics—who voted for the Sinn Fein IRA candidates in the Westminster elections last year, and I do not hesitate to predict that more than 102,000 will vote for the IRA candidate in the European elections which are to take place on the 14th of next month. So in no way will the sending of prisoners back to Northern Ireland decrease this so-called alienation which is taking place between the Catholic population and the institutions of government.
I want to put this case forward to the House to show just how complex this matter is. Round about Easter, an IRA man (or an IRA cell) in Northern Ireland set off a bomb in Derry with the intention of killing members of the security forces. After the bomb was set up the command was taken by this man—misguided and patriotic as he may be in Irish terms—and the detonator was pressed by him. Against all the run of bombs, one of the bricks from the bomb came the wrong way and killed him; it killed the person who had set off the detonating wire. The priest who was there when his funeral service was taken in Derry actually said that the dead IRA man could now be numbered among the saints in Heaven. That is what was said by a Catholic priest at the funeral of that IRA man who was himself killed while he was engaged in the process of trying to kill members of the security forces.
So do not let us talk about the Bishop of Derry or the Bishop of Armagh, or any other Catholic bishop or any other Protestant bishop, because churchmen in Northern Ireland are also people who were born there and they have their own political support or rejection. The very fact that the Bishop of Derry or the Bishop of Armagh put forward a case and said that this man should be returned—and I know very well the case which has been put forward by certain people concerning Mr. Shane O'Doherty. The fact is that Mr. O'Doherty sent a lot of bombs to different people throughout the United Kingdom, and people were badly maimed. He was found out, and he was subsequently sentenced. But when we hear tonight of Mr. Shane O'Doherty, does anyone even remember the recipients of those bombs? Does anyone even think
314
of the terrible consequences that there were when those bombs were delivered?
Everyone, and particularly the sort of liberal-minded Establishment, are always thinking of the prisoners, of the people who did this; and they say that we should be as generous as we can to them. I say with a good deal of sincerity that I am more concerned about the victims of the terrible crimes which have been committed by the IRA. If prisoners who had been sentenced for terrorist offences were transferred to prisons in Northern Ireland, would they be accepted in the terrorist compounds in Northern Ireland? Whether we believe it or not, there are still terrorist compounds in Northern Ireland. As soon as they had returned to that atmosphere and were among their former comrades, there is absolutely no doubt that once again they would be caught up in what we regard as terrorism but which they regard as their patriotic duty. That is the reality of the problem which we are discussing tonight. My noble friend Lord Longford said, in relation to what was going to be said by my other noble friend, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that he would regard it as being of the extreme Right.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it was not meant to be personal.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I would not regard it as being of the extreme Right, because in Northern Ireland they would regard it as being, in many ways, of the extreme Left.
The Earl of Longford: Not now, my Lords.
Lord Fitt: That, my Lords, I quite accept, but I would absolutely and totally reject every argument which has been put forward. You are saying this not only to the Harrods bombers; you are sending a smoke signal and saying, "If you are caught and sentenced, you will be sent back to Northern Ireland or to the Republic". But—this is more difficult—you are saying to people who have not, as yet, committed a crime in London, or in England, Scotland or Wales, that you are giving them some kind of priority. You are saying, "We do not agree with you setting off bombs at Harrods or anywhere else in Britain; but if you do, misguided though you may be, you may be sentenced and then you will be sent back to Northern Ireland".
My very last point is complex. In Britain there is one-third remission. In Northern Ireland there is 50 per cent. remission. So one would be sending people back to Northern Ireland and saying to them that they would be getting 50 per cent. remission on their sentences. If therefore you sent back to Northern Ireland prisoners who had been sentenced for terrorist offences, it would be ridiculous if they could get 50 per cent. remission while other prisoners got only one-third remission.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to read tomorrow what I have said on that very point.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord and I shall certainly read what he has said. More particularly, however, readers in Northern Ireland will take what the noble Lord has said as giving succour and support to the IRA. That is the one thing which I

315
have never done in my political life, and I certainly have no intention of doing it in your Lordships' House.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the very fact that this debate is taking place, the very fact that a Motion of this kind is on our Order Paper, is, in my view, a great credit both to this country and to this House. There must be few countries in the world, there must be few legislatures, which, having suffered so much from terrorism, would even stomach a Motion of this kind, and have a civilised debate about whether or not it is more humane to send some of the terrorists back to Northern Ireland where their families live. It is delightful always to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, because he has a reputation in this House for great humanity, and the fact that people may differ from him in this debate in no way lessens the tribute we would always want to pay to him.
There is no doubt about the attitude of this House to the repatriation of prisoners generally. I and other noble Lords can remember a very pleasing measure that came before us concerning the repatriation of prisoners. It was one of those delightful examples of where constructive suggestions were made from all sides of the House for a humanitarian measure. I remember it as a red letter day in my life because the noble Lord, Lord Elton, agreed on behalf of the Home Office to a great number of amendments. We all stood and paid tribute to him for the way in which he was prepared to accept those amendments to a Bill which he piloted through this House with his usual ability. So there is no doubt about the general humanitarian view of Parliament, irrespective of party, as to the repatriation of prisoners generally.
Therefore, if there are prisoners who are normally domiciled in Northern Ireland and who in respect of ordinary offences—if I may call them that—are in our prisons, I am fairly sure that it is a continuing Home Office policy, from one Administration to the next, that provided (as I understand it) such prisoners have more than six months to serve, then their applications will be almost automatically granted. But tonight, we are dealing in the main not with that class of prisoner but with what policy there ought to be with regard to the repatriation to Northern Ireland of those who have been charged in this country, and who therefore have presumably committed crimes of terrorism in this country.
It has been said—and said quite rightly—that there are humanitarian considerations always involved, even when one is dealing with the most heinous of crimes and the most wicked of convicts. Of course that must be so. I can remember from these Benches urging with others that there should always be an opportunity to repent, and that there should always be an opportunity at some stage, at the end of a long dark road, of parole and of release. That, too, is not being debated tonight. Every one of us would agree that that consideration should apply even to the most dreadful of terrorists.
But one has to keep a sense of balance and a sense of public responsibility. That is the difficulty which all of us face in a debate of this kind. On the one hand,
316
one can speak—as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, did most feelingly—of those sons who are deprived of seeing their mothers and of those mothers who are deprived over the years of seeing their sons. On the other side of the balance there are those children who will never see their mothers and who will never see their fathers at any time as a result of terrorist bombs.
One can study, as I have tried to do, the very pathetic story of Mr. O'Doherty. I am glad that he is in Wormwood Scrubs now. I am glad that he is in a happier condition. But I am sure that my noble friend Lord Longford will forgive me if I take up his description of Mr. O'Doherty at 20 being "a naughty boy".
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I did not say that he was "a naughty boy".
Lord Mishcon: I am sorry, my Lords, but if the noble Earl will look at the report in Hansard tomorrow, he may not have meant to say it but that is what he said. He may not have meant to say it—and I will not even use those words again.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I must insist. I have known this young man for many years. I have never called him a naughty boy. He was 20 at the time. The noble Lord simply misheard me because I never said any such thing.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I accept that immediately. It so happens that the other companions on my Bench also must have misheard the noble Earl. I accept immediately that he did not say those words if he said he did not, or, if he did say them, that he never meant them.
The Earl of Longford: I never said them, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as I said, I accept that completely. To get a situation of some realism, it may well be that O'Doherty is one of those cases which should be considered within the principle I am about to enunciate, and it is not a very original one. If the newspaper reports that I have are right—and they are newspaper reports which are seeking, in the message that the newspapers are giving in Ireland, to get repatriation—this is how one newspaper described what happened:
"At the Old Bailey, in 1976, he was convicted of sending letter and parcel bombs, and making or placing time bombs during 1973–74. Letter bombs were sent to Reginald Maudling, the shadow foreign secretary, the Catholic bishop to the armed forces, right reverend Gerard Tickle, an Old Bailey Judge, 10 Downing Street, the Bank of England and the Ministry of Defence".
Lord Fitt: My Lords, he was a naughty boy!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have tried to study his history which I know is the history of a man who is now 28 and studying for a degree at the Open University. I know that he has said he has joined a religious order, that he is extremely sorry for what happened and that he does not regard his offences as political offences. That is what I read and that is what I have studied.
I am only going to say this. I hope that the Home Office, as a result of this debate and other pleas that

317
have been made, will look into every one of these cases with the utmost care and the utmost sympathy where that sympathy can be extended. If it be shown that this is truly the sort of person who now is wasting his life away in Wormwood Scrubs, then there will be nobody more pleased than any one of your Lordships, I imagine, to know that the transfer is made and that his old mother can visit him instead of having to travel with all the difficulties we have heard about.
However, it must be done on an individual basis. It cannot be a general principle of repatriation. One of the difficulties that I am sure those responsible for public safety in this country have to remember—and the safety, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, mentioned, of prison officers, the police, and so on—is that it is not easy for a prisoner to communicate with other members of the IRA, or other terrorist organisations that might exist, if he is in prison in England, but it is awfully easy if he is in Northern Ireland. That, too, is a consideration which must be borne in mind.
Therefore, I think that it is right that this debate should have taken place. As I have tried to say, it is a tribute to Parliament and this country, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that it is taking place. No general principle can emerge from this debate, if I may respectfully say so, except this. Of course we want to give the opportunity of mercy to be afforded in the right case after a proper examination and after being properly satisfied, even in the case of someone who started out as one of the most terrible terrorists who was responsible for innocent people losing their lives. I should have thought if that were the conclusion we all reached it would he a very sensible conclusion indeed.
9.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, we have indeed had an extremely interesting debate on a subject in regard to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has shown that he has a close interest, considerable knowledge and strong feeling. It is an issue in which all the main elements are much the same as they were when we last discussed them. Indeed, it was in recognition of that that the noble Lord said he put on the Order Paper the Motion which your Lordships are now considering. There will, therefore, be a certain familiarity, I fear, in my recital of them.
First, let me state once more that the Government fully recognise that prisoners should be located near their homes so far as is possible, both for humanitarian reasons during the sentence and to help the prisoner to readjust on release. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has properly, in a very eloquent and compellingly sensible speech, described our continuing concern in this matter. The prisoner's home area and his accessibility to his likely visitors is one of the main factors in deciding on location. But there are many others which have to be taken into account, such as pressure of overcrowding in some parts of the system, the prisoner's security category, his length of sentence, his likely conduct, his suitability for particular types of accommodation or regime and his medical, educational and training needs. Indeed, a good deal of my correspondence is with Members of both Houses who feel that in one respect or another we do not have
318
the prisoner properly matched with the resources, and I have to consider those moves. Considerable efforts are made to locate prisoners near their homes, but even within England and Wales it is not always possible to overcome the difficulties posed by these various considerations.
Where the prisoner's home is in another part of the United Kingdom—another jurisdiction—the difficulties are more acute. Each jurisdiction has its own separate legal system, and the presumption is that a prisoner will serve his sentence in the part of the United Kingdom in which he was sentenced. Under Sections 26 and 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961, however, there is a power for the responsible Minister to transfer a prisoner once he is sentenced, on his own application, to another jurisdiction, either permanently to serve the remainder of his sentence there, or temporarily so that he may receive the visits to which he is entitled. Responsibility for deciding whether to transfer a prisoner rests with the "exporting" jurisdiction, if I may so describe it, and with the "receiving" jurisdiction in consultation. Both must be content with what is proposed. Under the long-standing agreement we have with both the Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices, applications for permanent transfer are normally considered only if the prisoner has at least six months left to serve, if he was previously domiciled in the other jurisdiction and if his family still live there. Cases which do not satisfy these criteria may be considered only if there are exceptional and compelling compassionate circumstances.
The prison population in the Province of Northern Ireland has risen by four to five times since the late 1960s, and a massive building and recruitment programme was needed during the 1970s to cope with that rise. But the problem is not only one of numbers. Much of the additional prison population consists of prisoners who are committed to the activities of paramilitary groups and who retain that commitment during their sentence. As noble Lords have already said, that means that they are dedicated to killing other people. These prisoners were described in the recent report of the inquiry by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons into the security arrangements at the Maze, which was published on 26th January, as:
"totally dissimilar to the usual criminal recidivist population to be found in the nearest equivalent establishment in England and Wales. It consists almost entirely of prisoners convicted of offences connected with terrorist activities, united in their determination to be treated as political prisoners, resisting prison discipline, even if it means starving themselves to death, and retaining their paramilitary structure and allegiances even when inside".
He added that they were:
"bent on escape and ready to murder to achieve their ends".
In recent years, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has rightly told us, shortage of accommodation in the Northern Ireland prison system has eased somewhat; but the control and security problems posed by such prisoners remain as pressing as ever, as the chief inspector's report on the incident which precipitated it makes absolutely clear.
Consequently, when we consider applications for transfer to Northern Ireland we have to satisfy ourselves that the prisoner can be relied upon to co-operate fully with a normal prison régime following

319
transfer. We could, after all, hardly expect another prison administration to accept a prisoner whom—for whatever reason—they could expect to be disruptive and dangerous once he had arrived in one of their establishments. Moreover, para-military organisations tend to operate within prisons as cohesive groups to foment disturbances and disrupt the normal prison regime. We would therefore also want to be satisfied that the prisoner has formally severed his links with any such organisation with which he had been involved. In assessing such applications, we accordingly have to look very carefully at the prisoner's behaviour while in prison here. I shall revert to that to save the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the intervention that otherwise I seem to be seeking.
Another factor for consideration is the seriousness of the offence for which the prisoner is convicted. Considerations of public policy may arise in relation to prisoners convicted of particularly horrific crimes who may be regarded as undeserving of any degree of public sympathy. I am thinking here not only of terrorism but also of multiple murderers, particularly ruthless and unprincipled drug traffickers, as well as those who have killed innocent people as an act of terrorism. This is particularly relevant in cases where there may be little prospect of parole in this country. I shall read with care the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on that, but I rather think I am inclined to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has I understand, taken particular interest in the number of prisoners serving very long sentences, both for acts of terrorist violence committed here, but who have roots in Northern Ireland. I quite understand his reasons for taking up these cases. On the particular point in the case of the prisoner, Shane O'Doherty, we have recently received from the European Commission on Human Rights an application from him alleging various breaches of the European Convention as a result of our refusal to transfer him to Northern Ireland. I am not aware of any set time by which it had to be answered, but the commission has asked us for further information on the case and we have recently supplied that. Also, the commission is still considering the admissability of the application. Therefore the next move does not lie with us. The proceedings at this stage are confidential so I cannot give the noble Lord any details of what were contained in the exchanges.
The noble Lord believes that to show flexibility is not only right in humanitarian terms; he hopes it may also help to relieve tensions in Northern Ireland, and believes conversely that to show inflexibility may help those whose only interest is in violent conflict.
I, too, am in favour of moderation and reasonableness and indeed of being humanitarian, but I do not feel quite so confident as he does as to its immediate results. It is, however, unfortunately the case anyway that very few of those convicted here of terrorist acts have been able to show, by their conduct, that they meet the criteria I have described. The majority of them continue to act as part of the paramilitary organisation with which they were involved, and demonstrate by their behaviour a continuing refusal to accept a normal prison regime. Certainly
320
there are one or two cases where individual prisoners have claimed that they want to make a complete break with their past, but as their cases demonstrate it is very difficult to do so. That is why, although there are a number of permanent transfers to Northern Ireland—three last year and one so far this year—it is some time since a prisoner convicted of terrorist acts was transferred there. But as I have tried to explain, the remedy lies in the hands of the prisoners concerned. If they do not show by their own conduct that they are fit to be transferred, then the inflexibility is in fact theirs and not ours.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, know we have considered the case of Mr. O'Doherty very carefully on many occasions. He has been given every chance to show his willingness to co-operate with the normal prison regime but had refused to do so for very long periods at successive establishments, by refusing to wear prison clothing, refusing to go on parade or location and refusing to work. I will not dwell on this because I hope all this has changed. But I think those of your Lordships who have heard only the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, might have been left in the position of feeling that there might not be any justification for our not already having sent him across the water.
Last year he was moved to Long Lartin prison in order to give him the chance to break the cycle of disciplinary offences and the punishment that he had established elsewhere. But his behaviour in fact deteriorated and he participated in a smash-up in the segregation unit in November, and then commenced a dirty protest. That means smearing the cell with excrement. This behaviour was repeated at other establishments to which he was subsequently tranferred. He was transferred to Wormwood Scrubs on 18th April and is reported to have been relatively well behaved since then.
I very much hope that the improvement will be sustained, because it is what we have been looking for after every move. Should it do so, and if he meets the criteria of good behaviour, it will still of course be necessary for us to be convinced that he has genuinely severed his connection with terrorist organisations. We have received opinions from a number of people outside the House as well as in it for whom I have a considerable and genuine respect who believe that he has. We have of course to consider other evidence—and I much regret that as yet we are not confident that they are right. I hope also that this will change. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, pressed me on this point. Incidentally, let me tell him first, that it was not from a control unit at Wakefield. I am sure that that was a slip of the tongue.
The Earl of Longford: No, it was not a slip of the tongue.
Lord Elton: Control units at Wakefield were closed. My Lords, we stopped having them several years ago. He was in the segregation unit. I know because I have visited there.
The Earl of Longford: I do not accept that. I understand—and I went there not long ago—that he

321
was in the cell that was part of the control unit. So are the other gentlemen that I mentioned earlier.
Lord Elton: My Lords, maybe we are indulging in semantics. We both know where he is. He was not under the regime or in the accommodation described as a control unit, which was the subject of great controversy and which was abandoned long before I came into the prison service.
Let us turn to the matter about which the noble Earl is more particularly exercised, because Mr. O'Doherty is no longer there. He is somewhere that the noble Earl expects, and I hope that he will conduct himself well. The information on which these decisions are taken is put before Ministers only after careful evaluation by experienced members of the service. It is gathered from a wide range of staff, long practised in assessment for purposes, for instance, of the allocation of prisoners, categorisation of prisoners and the parole of prisoners, and who have the advantage of seeing the prisoner over long periods of time and who have also been able to base their own views on experience in handling dangerous prisoners as their professional duty.
It happens that they have an advantage over those who see them only on rare visits or who know them through correspondence. There is nothing secretive about this; nor is there anything designed to serve some secret policy. There are criteria that have to be met. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in a rather moving speech, has explained to your Lordships why they have to be met. Sometimes, they do appear to have been met to outsiders, when it is clear to those insiders who see the prisoners day after day and week after week and upon whom Ministers must rely for discharging their clear and inescapable duty of operating the system so as to protect the lives of innocent citizens from actual and potential terrorists, that they have not been met.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his support in the matter. It is worth commenting that the three contributors to this debate who have been most firm in their response—I hope that this is not discourteous—to the proposals of the noble Lord, have been the three Members of the House who have served with responsibility in Northern Ireland and who know what it is like at the other end. I listened therefore with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—and, again, I felicitate him on his balanced approach—that I habitually look at cases such as this with great care. I look with equal care also at those which do not have the distinguished attention and support of your Lordships or other people outside the House. I readily assure him that I shall continue so to do.
I do not suppose for a moment that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to move a fraction in my direction—I have not quite finished. I see that the noble Lord is trembling on an interruption. I do not know whether or not to ride roughshod over him. I shall give way.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Lord is very kind in giving way. I just wanted to catch him in some way or other before he sat down. It was simply to ask him
322
if he would accept that I went out of my way to suggest a phased approach to this question of transfer, and I did not ask for an across-the-board approach to it.
Lord Elton: Yes, my Lords. Recognising the pressures of conviction and emotion under which the noble Lord speaks, I think he was very restrained in what he said. He did not ask us to rush pell-mell into a new arrangement. However, the question to which we have to address ourselves is whether the new arrangement is something at which one can arrive at any speed. What I am saying is that it depends on the criteria, the nature of the crime, the behaviour of the prisoner, the question of his reverence or otherwise from previous connections with terrorist organisations and, of course, the agreement of the receiving organisation to take him. That is the question I am addressing and I think that those aspects have to be met.
I have said that we do look genuinely at these cases on their merits every time. I have already told your Lordships in detail what we do. That amounts to saying—I reassert it—that no prisoner is ever ruled out automatically.
I turn now to a final issue to which the noble Lord addressed himself. He asked about assistance to visitors to prisoners from Northern Ireland. Subsistence is payable at supplementary benefit levels at £8·35 a night and £1·35 for each meal. That is hardly generous, but some prisons operate for visitors hostels which are relatively cheap.
Air travel, which is the noble Lord's particular concern, is only marginally more expensive and may actually be cheaper than surface travel if the prison is in or near London. For instance, a return flight from London to Belfast can cost as little as £70 and at most £110. The return rail-ship journey, Belfast-London via Liverpool, costs £79. If the prison is outside London a relative who chooses to fly must pay the cost of rail travel from the airport, which in the case of the Isle of Wight prisons is about £20 return. It is open to relatives with assisted visiting facilities to use the air ticket money, as it were, to off-set the cost of surface transport if they wish to do so; I think that is what the noble Lord wanted to know.
We do not know how many relatives choose to pay the difference because it is up to them to do it if they wish. If the noble Lord is interested, we do know the numbers who on medical grounds have been allowed to travel by air. The number was one last year and three in 1982. Each close relative of a prisoner is entitled to 13 visits a year and therefore one must look further than these provisions to see why some of the cases to which the noble Lord referred have actually occurred.
What I wish to leave with your Lordships is this. First, the criteria are really necessary for running the system and for protecting the public. They are not imposed as inflexible mathematical formulae without the consideration of the human eye. They are evaluated carefully before they reach Ministers, and by Ministers. We cannot impose these prisoners on the Northern Ireland prison system, nor could we if we wished to do so.
We ought not to forget the message which our policy proclaims. It must not be interpreted in Northern

323
Ireland by terrorist organisations, however ill-advisedly, with however little justification, as a signal that we did not really mind, that these were not atrocious, horrible crimes, for which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, rightly counts on the forgiveness of the Almighty but from a repetition of which he must surely count upon Her Majesty's Government to protect the rest of the nation to the best of their ability. If we do not establish that, then we have created a false and a dangerous situation for which we could blame no one but ourselves. I admire the noble Lord's humanity. I hope that he respects our practicality.
House adjourned at five minutes before ten o'clock.

  FIRST WORLD CONGRESS OF FREE ROMANIANS
  FIRST WORLD CONGRESS OF FREE ROMANIANS
  ROMANIAN EXILES: DEATH THREATS
  ROMANIAN EXILES: DEATH THREATS
  PRIVATISATION PROPOSALS: SCOTTISH FINANCIAL INTERESTS
  PRIVATISATION PROPOSALS: SCOTTISH FINANCIAL INTERESTS
  TELECOMMUNICATION APPARATUS INSTALLATION: CONDITIONS
  TELECOMMUNICATION APPARATUS INSTALLATION: CONDITIONS
  MOLLARDS WOOD
  MOLLARDS WOOD
  EL SALVADOR ELECTIONS
  EL SALVADOR ELECTIONS