Sitting of 4 July 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITIONS

  Plessey Company plc
  9.35 am
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition from the employees of Plessey plc at Cowes in my constituency, where about 1,350 people work, and it is signed by nearly every one of them. It says:
  That the undersigned object to the proposed takeover of the Plessey Company plc by the General Electric Company plc because such a takeover would result in very heavy job losses, serious harm to the research and development in which the Plessey Company plc has up to now been involved and the creation of a monopoly which would limit the choice facing major customers in the electronics and defence markets.
  I should add that such a merger would be catastrophic for the economy and my constituency.
  To lie upon the Table.

Nuclear Waste Disposal
9.36 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from the people of Humberside, which showeth
That United Kingdom Nirex Limited are looking for sites for the storage or disposal of radioactive waste. It is known that sites in Humberside are among those being considered. It is also known that the Secretary of State for the Environment is proposing to make a Special Development Order granting planning permission for related exploration
1286
purposes. The undersigned are totally and absolutely opposed to these proposals because they believe that they could threaten public safety, that they would seriously damage the area's economic and social development prospects and that radioactive waste should be stored or disposed of at the site of origin.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will under no circumstances approve a Special Development Order allowing preliminary site exploration or associated works in connection with the storage or disposal of radioactive waste in Humberside and will take all such action within the powers of the House to prevent a national radioactive waste storage or disposal facility being established in Humberside.
The petition is signed by 1,550 signatories and it completes a series of petitions from Humberside which have been signed by over 160,000 people a tremendous voice from Humberside — asking the Minister not to agree to the special development order. Unfortunately, the Minister has betrayed those aspirations. I am afraid that we shall now pay the price in public opinion which, as a result, turns against the nuclear programme and is driven to more extreme action than signing petitions.
To lie upon the Table.

Social Security Bill
9.39 am
Mr. Max Madden: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by Mr. John R. Ellis of Park Road, Bradford 5, and 1,745 of my constituents. They are petitioning against the Government's Social Security Bill, arguing that it
will reduce the incomes of poor families, including pensioners and the unemployed.
Figures were recently produced which showed that 19,000 households in my constituency, including those of pensioners, the sick and disabled, single parents, the unemployed and low-income families will lose income, and that 2,700 households, including, in particular, pensioners will lose more than £5 a week if the Social Security Bill becomes law.
The petitioners, who include many pensioners, pray that your honourable House will oppose the Social Security Bill.
Indeed, they are demanding that the Bill be scrapped.
To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day
  Protection of Military Remains Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Protection of Military Remains Bill
    Clause 1

      APPLICATION OF ACT
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 on page 2 and insert—
      "(1) This Act applies to any aircraft which has crashed (whether before or after the passing of this Act) while in military service.
      (2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument—

      (a) designate as a vessel to which this Act applies any vessel which appears to him to have sunk or been stranded (whether before or after the passing of this Act) while in military service;

      (b) designate as a controlled site any area (whether in the United Kingdom, in United Kingdom waters or in international waters) which appears to him to contain a place comprising the remains of, or of a substantial part of, an aircraft to which this Act applies or a vessel which has so sunk or been stranded;

      and the power of the Secretary of State to designate a vessel as a vessel to which this Act applies shall be exercisable irrespective of whether the situation of the remains of the vessel is known.
      (3) The Secretary of State shall not designate a vessel as a vessel to which this Act applies unless it appears to him—

      (a) that the vessel sank or was stranded on or after 4th August 1914; and

      (b) in the case of a vessel which sank or was stranded while in service with, or while being used for the purposes of, any of the armed forces of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, that remains of the vessel are in United Kingdom waters.

      (4) The Secretary of State shall not designate any area as a controlled site in respect of any remains of an aircraft or vessel which has crashed, sunk or been stranded unless it appears to him—

      (a) that less than two hundred years have elapsed since the crash, sinking or stranding;

      (b) that the owners and occupiers of such land in the United Kingdom as is to be designated as, or as part of, that site do not object to the terms of the designating order which affect them; and

      (c) where the aircraft or vessel crashed, sank or was stranded while in service with, or while being used for the purposes of, any of the armed forces of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, that the remains are in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters.

      (5) An area designated as a controlled site shall not extend further around any place appearing to the Secretary of State to comprise remains of an aircraft or vessel which has crashed, sunk or been stranded while in military service than appears to him appropriate for the purpose of protecting or preserving those remains or on account of the difficulty of identifying that place;"
      9.40 am
      Mr. Michael Mates: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 37, at end insert—
      1288
      "(5A) For the purposes of this Act a place (whether in the United Kingdom, in United Kingdom waters or in international waters) is a protected place if—

      (a) it comprises the remains of, or of a substantial part of, an aircraft or vessel to which this Act applies; and

      (b) it is on or in the sea bed or is the place, or in the immediate vicinity of the place, where the remains were left by the crash, sinking or standing of that aircraft or vessel;

      but no place in international waters shall be a protected place but virtue of its comprising remains of an aircraft or vessel which has crashed, sunk or been stranded while in service with, or while being used for the purposes of, any of the armed forces of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom."
      No 3, in line 41, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
      "(7) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute references to a later date for the reference in subsection (3)(a) above to 4th August 1914 or for any reference to a date which is inserted by an order under this subsection; and a statutory instrument containing an order under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      No. 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 9, leave out "is, or"
      No. 5, in line 12, leave out
      "to which this Act applies"
      and insert
      "which has crashed, sunk or been stranded while in military service"
      No. 7, leave out lines 32 to 36.
      No. 8, in line 42, leave out "is, or"
      No. 9, in page 4, line 5, leave out
      "(whether or not the place is, or"
      and insert
      "or in a place which"
      No. 10, in line 10, leave out
      "to which this Act applies"
      and insert
      "which has crashed, sunk or been stranded while in military service."
      No. 11, in line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      "(4)In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence for that person to show that what he did or, as the case may be, what he caused or permitted to be done was done under and in accordance with a licence under section 4 below."
      No. 12, in page 4, line 19, leave out "is not, and".
      No. 13, in page 4, line 24, leave out from "place" to end of line 27.
      No. 15, in line 38, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
      "(8) References in this section to any remains which are comprised in a protected place or to any remains which are comprised in a place which is part of a controlled site include references to remains other than those by virtue of which that place is a protected place or, as the case may be, to remains other than those in respect of which that site was or could have been designated."
      No. 16, in clause 4, page 5, line 43, leave out, "under section 1(4) above" and insert "designating a controlled site"
      No. 17, in page 6, line 5, leave out
      "of an aircraft or vessel to which this Act applies"
      and insert
      "to which the licence relates"
      No. 18, in line 11, leave out "under section 1(4) above" and insert "designating a controlled site"
      No. 19, in line 23, leave out
      "to which this Act applies"
      No. 21, in clause 9, page 8, line 33, after "a" insert "hovercraft,"
      No. 22, in line 37, leave out from "site"" to end of line 38 and insert

      1289
      "means any area which is designated as such a site under section 1 above;"
      No. 23, in page 9, line 3, at end insert—
      ""military service" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1A) below;"
      No. 24, in line,7, leave out "section 1(2)" and insert "section 1(5A)"
      No. 25, in line 12, after "voyage" insert
      "(including in the case of a vessel, any aircraft which were on board)"
      No. 26, in line 21, at end insert—
      "(1A) For the purposes of this Act an aircraft or vessel shall he regarded as having been in military service at a particular time if at that time it was—

      (a) in service with, or being used for the purposes of, any of the armed forces of the United Kingdom or any other country or territory; or

      (b) in the case of any aircraft, being taken from one place to another for delivery into service with any of the armed forces of the United Kingdom.

      (1B) Where a place comprising the remains of, or of a substantial part of, an aircraft or vessel which has crashed, sunk or been stranded while in military service is situated only partly in United Kingdom waters, that place shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as if the part which is situated in United Kingdom waters and the part which is situated in the United Kingdom: or in international waters were separate places each of which comprised the remains of a substantial part of the aircraft or vessel."
      No. 27, in line 22, leave our subsection (2).
      Mr. Mates: A few months ago the Bill completed all its stages, without amendment, in this House and had the warm support of all those hon. Members present. It has returned from the other place with what some may think is a formidable list of amendments. They are all Government amendments.
      Amendment No. 1 was itself amended in the other place. Lord Grimond proposed the removal of a subsection which restricted the Secretary of State's powers relating to the designation of controlled sites. He felt that Secretaries of State could be trusted not to go completely round the bend, and it appears that the Government had some sympathy with that view. It was agreed that, in the interests of brevity, that subsection could be omitted.
      I welcome these amendments, and I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Minister to say a brief word about the Government amendments. Their Lordships accepted the amendments, after consultation, without reservation, and I hope that the House will do the same.
      I am grateful to all those in both Houses who have taken an interest in this small but necessary Bill. I should particularly like to thank my noble Friend Lord Sandford for bringing forward this measure in the other place. On Report he paid tribute to the Government for the concern that they had shown for the special problems of those with a legitimate interest in the remains of military aircraft and vessels. I should like to do the same. I am delighted that these problems have been recognised and satisfactorily answered. I can, therefore, warmly commend their Lordships' amendments to the House.
      Mr. Ian Mikardo: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and Lord Sandford on the progress that they have made and on bringing the Bill to the House in a condition which they believe to be a considerable improvement as a result of the amendments before us.
      The range and complexity of their Lordships' amendments are an indication of what a difficult area of law it is. It is vital that there should be clarity, because
      1290
      there may be some quite powerful commercial vested interests in military remains. As we know, there is much souvenir and treasure hunting among the remains of vessels, and the same might apply to aircraft. No doubt that was one of the factors that the Government had in mind in seeking to make the legislation as precise as possible.
      In general, the House has a duty to ensure that legislation is not ambigious. I say that with a smile, because, after long experience, I know just how difficult it is to achieve that. If someone has to go to court to pursue what he believes to be his rights, and has to find out whether they really are his rights, it must represent a failure on our part. We have then failed to make the legislation so clear that no learned judge needs to put his mind to interpreting it.
      As I am anxious that we should get the legislation right, as the Bill is important and, as the hon. Member for Hampshire, East has said, valuable — we will all be happy when, in a short time from now, it completes its progress through Parliament—I want to ask either the Minister or the hon. Gentleman some questions about the amendments.
      Lords amendment No. 1 seeks to omit the word "vessel" from subsection (1). It has the effect of confining the application of that subsection to an aircraft. What puzzles me is that subsection (2)(b) of the amendment applies to
      "an aircraft to which this Act applies or a vessel which has so sunk or been stranded".
      I am sure that there is a good explanation. Although I am not the most astute reader of legal language, I am not the dimmest either. If the legislation is not clear to me, it will not be clear to many of our citizens, and so may cause a lot of trouble.
      Is there not an inconsistency between subsections (1) and (2)? Subsection (2) gives powers to the Secretary of State to make an order within the area covered by that subsection, but subsection (1) says that the area covered involves only aircraft, not vessels. Thus, subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State can make an order about a vessel which is now, as a result of subsection (1), outside the ambit of this part of the Bill.
      I am sorry if what I am saying sounds complicated and jargonish, but the whole Bill is like that. Moreover, why is subsection (4)(a) confined to a "crash, sinking or stranding" that occurred less than 200 years ago? That seems to be an arbitrary cut-off point and I wonder why it was chosen. There were crashes, sinkings and strandings more than 200 years ago. For example, if the Bill had been enacted a couple of years ago, the Mary Rose might not have been protected. What would the justification have been? There may be other Mary Roses. Bits of Spanish galleons that sailed in the armada are still littered round St. George's channel and round the coast of south-west Wales. Does that mean that they are not protected? If so, why?
      I have read amendment No. 2 four times side by side with the original text. I cannot for the life of me see what change has been made or what the purport of it is. I cannot understand its effect. It would be helpful to the House and to the people who will be affected by the legislation if the Under-Secretary of State would tell us what has been changed.
      Under clause 2(3), in certain circumstances

      1291
      "An excavation or diving or salvage operation prohibited by this subsection—
      (a) if it is carried out"—
      on
      "any remains of an aircraft or vessel which are comprised in a place"
      which is wholly or partly a controlled site. I have, to some extent, translated the text. Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 42, is to leave out "is, or". Under the original text, the provision applies to remains in an area that is wholly or partly controlled, but, under the amendment, it applies only to remains in an area that is partly controlled. That puzzles me no end. If the site is controlled, what does it matter whether it is wholly or partly controlled? Surely we want the provision to apply equally in both cases.
      In respect of amendment No. 111 shall repeat the point that I put on amendment No. 2. I do not believe that the proposed wording as a different import from the original wording. It is only a little longer and more involved. The House should be given an explanation.
      Finally—we do not want to spend more time than is necessary on this—I shall refer to amendment No. 26. Proposed subsection 9(1B) lays down the criteria against which it is decided whether
      "an aircraft or vessel shall be regarded as having been in military service"
      at a particular time. That definition is necessary because many of the Bill's provisions hinge on whether an aircraft or vessel was in military service at a particular time. This is puzzling. Under proposed paragraph (a) an aircraft or vessel is defined as being in military service if it is in service with
      "the armed forces of the United Kingdom or any other country".
      That is simple and obvious. Under proposed paragraph (b) an aircraft that is not in service with any of the armed services but is in transit on the way to being put into service with the armed forces of this or any other country shall be deemed to be in military service. That, too, seems to be sensible. Why does that provision not apply equally to a vessel? It applies only to an aircraft. The first three lines of the proposed new subsection (1A) refer to "an aircraft or vessel". Why, then, does it not cover proposed paragraph (b)? For example, if an aircraft which had been on its way to service in the Falklands campaign had, unhappily, crashed, its remains would be covered by the Bill. If a ship on its way to service in the Falklands had, unhappily, sunk, its remains would not be covered by the Bill. What is the difference in principle? If the principle that an instrument of war in tranist to a place where it will be used in military operations is deemed to be in military service, why does it not apply to all instruments of war—ships as well as aircraft?
      I understand from the hon. Member for Hampshire, East that the Government are responsible for the amendments. I shall not, therefore, burden the hon. Gentleman with the task of replying to my detailed questions. I shall be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State if he will give some guidance in these matters. Indeed, it is necessary that he should do so.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has, as usual, with his sharp eye for these matters picked out a number
      1292
      of difficult parts in the Bill. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), but the Bill seems to be a Government Bill.
      Mr. Mates indicated dissent.
      Mr. Davies: I would not call it a hybrid Bill because it is not "hybrid" in the parliamentary sense. The Bill is somewhere between a private Member's Bill and a Government Bill. However, that is not an important point.
      In the main, we welcome the Bill. We understand the sensitivity of these matters and the difficulty involved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar has shown, in drafting once one gets down to trying to provide in legislative form the type of protection that we all wish to see.
      I think it is fair to say that the Bill went through its earlier stages quickly. I am not blaming anyone for that. I do not know why it happened. There was concern in some circles about the Bill in its original form. There is always a conflict between the desire and necessity to protect military remains of this kind and the commercial interests involved in legitimate work. I would not pretend to be an expert on the Bill, but it seems to me, having looked at it quickly late last night, that to some extent these conflicts have been resolved.
      My concern in respect of the amendments is with jurisdiction. This perhaps goes to the heart of the Bill. This concern was expressed by various organisations, although I do not argue their case. Amendment No. 1 which is an amendment to clause 1, states in subsection (2)(b) that the Secretary of State may make a statutory instrument designating an area as a controlled site
      "(whether in the United Kingdom, in United Kingdom waters or in international waters)"
      Reading that without looking at the background I thought what a powerful Secretary of State we have who can designate anything he likes in international waters. That seems to be a contradiction because, by definition, we have no power to designate anything in international waters. However, no doubt Acts of Parliament can do almost anything. As Professor Jennings has told us they can deem a man to be a woman or a woman to be a man. Therefore, I suppose it is possible to deem that international waters shall be covered by the Bill.
      10 am
      The amendment is in respect of clause 1, but, as I understand it, we then have to refer to clause 3 because if an area in international waters is designated as a controlled site, and presumably we are talking about an aircraft or a ship, the Secretary of State has to do something in respect of that. Presumably the intention of the Bill is to protect that piece of hardware in international waters whether it is a ship or an aircraft. However, the writ of the Secretary of State does not run to international waters, it runs only to Britain. And that is where we have a problem. Clause 3 "Extraterritorial jurisdiction" seems to be the heart of the Bill. Clause 3 talks about offences where there is a contravention of subsection (2). It says
      "a person shall be guilty of an offence".
      That is a serious matter. Parliament is not just legislating about protection, but laying down criminal offences. No doubt people could go to prison or be heavily fined. I have not seen what the actual penalties might be, but that does not matter. The penalties apply
      "if the acts or omissions which constitute the offence are committed in the United Kingdom, in United Kingdom waters".

      1293
      The writ of the Secretary of State does run to the United Kingdom and to United Kingdom waters. It goes on:
      "or on board a British-controlled ship".
      Therefore, the wide intention of the first part is confined because the Secretary of State does not have any powers in international waters.
      Mr. Mikardo: Can my hon. Friend tell us—I am not too clear about this—whether the provision of the Bill would be in conflict with the law of the sea treaty?
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend asks an interesting and difficult question. Of course, we know that there has been a treaty, but I do not think that the Government ratified that treaty. I think that, rather shamefully, the United Kingdom Government followed the United States and refused to ratify the new law of the sea treaty, which took about 10 years of intense work to negotiate. Whether this is in conflict with the general body of the law of the sea I would not know. I suppose, again, we can do whatever we want to do in an Act of Parliament.
      The jurisdiction for the offence is confined under clause 3(1)(a) to acts committed in United Kingdom waters. However, that is not the point I am making. We now have to look at international waters. We are talking about whether the offences are committed on board a "British-controlled ship", which is presumably defined somewhere, in international waters. Therefore, any British-controlled ship in international waters which transgresses or contravenes the provisions of the Bill is subject to a fine.
      Clause 3(1)(b) states:
      "in a case where those acts or omissions are committed in international waters but not on hoard a British-controlled ship".
      The offence is then confined even more because the person who commits it has to be
      "a British citizen, a British Dependent Territories citizen or a British Overseas citizen".
      The law of nationality was never my strong point and I would not wish to try to go down that road. These may be precedents for establishing offences that British dependent territories citizens or British overseas citizens can be convicted for and a law passed in the House. There are new citizenship rights, if they can be called rights. It seems to me that they are derogations of rights.
      Mr. Mates: They are five years old.
      Mr. Davies: Yes, they are five years old, but I merely, ask whether there is a precedent for making those people guilty when they are not here. Perhaps our legislation does cover people who are British overseas citizens.
      Mr. Mikardo: Is there not also another point? Would it not be possible for a British citizen to contravene the provisions of the Bill by employing a Frenchman or American to do what it would be illegal for him to do himself?
      Mr. Davies: That is a good point. The Bill says only if the offence is committed
      "on board a British-controlled ship".
      The person committing the offence may be too clever to do it from a British-controlled ship so it may be on a French-controlled ship. It also says that the act must be committed by a "British citizen". Maybe the British citizen could be said to be an acccessory before the fact. I do not know whether one can be an acessory to an offence which is not an offence, if that is not a roundabout way of saying it. I shall come back to that point later.
      1294
      That is taken a little further by amendment No. 2. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar referred to that. I find it slightly difficult. Amendment No. 2 states:
      "but no place in international waters shall be a protected place by virtue of its comprising remains of an aircraft or vessel which has crashed, sunk or been stranded while in service with, or while being used for the purposes of, any of the armed forces of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom."
      Obviously, we are not protecting other countries' ships or aircraft.
      What protection is there? It seems that British companies—I use the phrase generally because there are closer definitions—will be confined or prevented from carrying out these acts on British aircraft or ships or aircraft or ships that have been in the military service of the United Kingdom in international waters. I am not saying that that is wrong because we agree with the Bill. However, it seems that foreign companies are not so confined. I wonder whether that was the intention of the Bill. It is probably the effect of the Bill because I do not know how that can be stopped. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar mentioned the law of the sea treaty. He is absolutely right. The only way in which these things can be dealt with adequately is by international convention or treaty, through the numerous law of the sea agreements that have come down over the years. It is not the case of arguing for commercial interests. It seems strange, however, that British companies will be prevented, apparently, from making money out of these remains while other companies—French, American or Japanese, for example—can go ahead and disturb the remains. Is that the intention of the Bill? Are the Government concerned about that? Are the Government trying to do something in collaboration with other countries so that the Bill does not remain British in its scope, limited, and ineffective to some extent in its jurisdiction? What are the Government's views on these matters?
      It seems that the central problem has not been resolved. We have been told that certain assurance have been given. I have read the report of Lord Sandford's speech in another place and he seemed confident that assurancess were coming from left, right and centre. It seems that people did not get as far as reading Lord Trethgarne's reply in full. The assurances which have been given seem not to cover the possible activities of non-British companies and perhaps they cannot. I shall not continue to advance the argument as it is fairly straightforward and clear. I shall be grateful if the Minister addresses himself to it.
      Mr. Alfred Dubs: I welcome the Bill, but wish to make a few brief observations and to ask some questions. One of my most poignant childhood memories is when, during the war, an RAF Lancaster crashed on a hillside near to where I was. I remember the agony and concern over the aircrew who were unfortunately killed and who had to be removed from the wrecked aircraft. I remember the Lancaster being guarded by troops.
      I fear that there is a flaw in the nationality provisions as set out in the Bill. There is an omission which I accept did not apply when the Bill started its passage through Parliament. However, since the recent Order in Council on Hong Kong, one might have expected the point to be covered. I refer to the concept of British nationals overseas, who are not included, as I understand it, in clause 3. As recently as yesterday evening the Outer Space

      1295
      Bill was before the House, a measure which contains similar provisions covering citizenship and nationality. There is a reference in the Outer Space Bill to British nationals overseas. I refer to clause 2(2)(a).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Perhaps I am not following the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) with sufficient care, but I would be grateful if he would tell me to which of the Lord's amendments he is referring.
      Mr. Dubs: I fear that you have caught me out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in trespassing on your tolerance. There is no Lord's amendment to the issue that I am raising. I have taken it up because my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) mentioned it. The omission of British nationals overseas is a minor matter but a real one.
      I move on swiftly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the amendments. I shall refer particularly to Lords amendment No. 1, and develop briefly the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) on time limits. As I understand it, the concept of the 200-year period applied, although in a different form, in the original version of the Bill as it appeared in another place. The reference to 4 August, 1914 has been added and it is that which causes me to be puzzled. I am puzzled also about the 200-year period. We are all aware of the tragic war that began on 4 August 1914, but it is not clear to me why that date, and that date alone, should enable some of the Bill's provisions to be brought into being. I have studied the amendments and I cannot understand the thinking behind that date and the 200-year period. For example clause 1(3)(a) states:
      "unless it appears to the him" — that is the Secretary of State— "that the vessel sank or was stranded on or after 4th August 1914".
      The House will be aware that there are vessels such as the Mary Rose, and there may be many in that category. It is difficult to understand why the date 4 August 1914 has been selected. It seems that no such time limit should have been necessary, given the spirit of the Bill, and that respect for the remains of people should apply to dates before 1914.
      10.15 am
      I am concerned also about the change in the definition of military service. The original version of the Bill referred, in clause (1)(1)(b) to
      "while in the service of the Ministry of Defence of or any other authority which at the time exercised functions in relation to anyof the naval, military, or air forces of Her Majesty".
      That passage has been dropped, and we now have the expression "while in military service". By changing the terminology are we not excluding certain aircraft or vessels which would otherwise have been covered by the Bill? I would think that the definition "military service" is more limited than
      "while in the service of the Ministry of Defence or of any other authority".
      I have no doubt that the Minister will advance the argument that if a civilian aircraft were to be used to take soldiers from one part of the United Kingdom to another, it would be covered by the term "while in military service", but I wonder whether "Ministry of Defence" does not go wider than "military service". Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that.
      1296
      Thirdly, there is the phrase
      "armed forces … outside the United Kingdom",
      which appears in Lords amendment (1)(4)(c). That is a reference to the
      "armed forces of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom".
      I am not sure about the intention behind that. Will there be definitional difficulties in referring to other armed forces? I understand that if an aircraft carrying American soldiers who were based in the United Kingdom were to crash, the intention would be for the Bill to cover such an event. Perhaps the reference to other armed forces goes wider than that. If that is the intention, it would be helpful for the Minister to provide clarification.
      I apologised earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for referring to something which was not covered directly by the amendments. I took up the matter because I was genuinely puzzled and because there will be no further opportunity to question the Government on these matters after the consideration of the Lords amendments has been completed. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having gone beyond the bounds of the amendments.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I do not wish to detain the House for long as I wish the Bill to take its proper place on the statute book within a reasonably short period. However, there is. one matter which concerns me about Lords amendment No. 1, which relates to the extent of the controlled site designated by the Secretary of State. We have before us two alternatives, one of which is contained in the Bill. Clause 1(4) says that the Secretary of State
      "may by order made by statutory instrument designate as a controlled site so much of that area as he considers it appropriate so to designate for the purpose of protecting or preserving any remains comprised in that place."
      That wording seems to be clear and unambiguous, and seems to cover all possible parts of territories which the Secretary of State might wish, for the purposes of the Bill, to designate as a controlled site. However, the other place has somewhat expanded on that definition, and by subsection (5) of amendment No. 1 appears to wish to substitute for that wording a rather more complicated wording which, on my initial reading, does not add very much to the possibilities open to the Secretary of State. It also includes the strange phrase:
      "or on account of the difficulty of identifying that place".
      My concern can perhaps be exemplified by one particular crashed aircraft of which I know. As some hon. Members may know, I spend considerable amounts of the little free time that I have walking the hills and mountains of Scotland, and an extremely pleasant and healthy exercise it is. There is one particularly beautiful part of Scotland, in Torridon, where a mountain called Beinn Eighe has, at the back of it a coire called Coire Mhic Fhearchair, one of the most spectacular spots in the mountains. It is contained on three sides by mountains with a lochan at the foot of it and at the back three triple buttresses of about 1,000 ft., in height, which provide an extremely popular rock climbing ground.
      Back in the 1950s, sadly, an RAF aircraft flew, by mistake, into the coire and before it was able to rise sufficiently to clear the summit of the mountain it crashed near the top of the triple buttresses. The wreckage spread — tragically, because everyone involved was killed — right the way down the cliff face and into the floor of the

      1297
      coire. In the context of the Bill, the problem is that the wreckage is spread over a considerable area. My concern is over the definition of the controlled area.
      Mr. Mates: I think that I recall this case. Were not all the bodies recovered, which would mean that the Bill would not apply?
      Mr. Smith: I think that most of the bodies were recovered, hut I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman is correct. Even if he were, my point would none the less apply on a general basis, because there are other similar examples.
      The terms of the Bill are very stringent. No one can move or tamper with any of the parts of a crashed aircraft or wrecked ship. That might place restrictions on people, for example, walking in the mountains. I am concerned that the controlled area should be no greater than what would be required to effect the purposes of the Bill.
      The wording of the Lords amendment seems to offer rather greater scope than the wording of the Bill and might lead to unnecessarily large areas being designated as a controlled site and to particular restrictions being put on that which not necessarily be needed to pursue and promuwitylgate the purposes of the Bill. They might then be to the detriment of some of our citizens. I shall be glad to hear from the Minister some of the thinking that might be leading the Government to accept the new wording rather than the wording of the Bill.
      Mr. John Prescott: The proceedings surrounding the Bill have been deplorable. I know that it is the practice for Departments to seek the assistance of hon. Members to promote private Bills, and that practice has been followed by both sides of the House. I am not complaining, because the process can be of advantage to the House. However, I have been watching the progress of the Bill with care for some time. I am one of the few hon. Members who dive on wrecks, and I have some knowledge of the problems that are likely to be brought about by the Bill.
      The Bill started with some controversial principles. Some are embodied in the amendment — for example, how we extend British jurisdiction into international waters. I notice that this provision will apply only to British ships and British personnel on British vessels in international waters. However, I am told by international authorities that it is extremely difficult to define this problem, and that it discriminates between British and foreign companies involved in salvage operations. Perhaps we shall hear from the Minister about this.
      The other place made considerable changes, and has made the Bill better, but it has transformed a private Bill into a Government Bill, because all the amendments are Government amendments. The substance of the change, particularly that made by amendment No. 1, is considerable. I intervene now, but I hope to catch your eye at a later stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after the Minister has spoken. We are asking questions when it might be better for us to hear first what the Minister has to say on the changes that have been made.
      The Bill came from the other place only two or three days ago, and I have been watching for it to appear on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, as this is a private Bill, it does not come in our normal notice of business. Therefore, I did not appreciate that it was on the Order paper this morning,
      1298
      due to something that happened last night. Therefore, we are expected to consider many amendments, involving important principles, at short notice.
      Amendment No. 1 says that a statutory instrument will be laid before the House. That is an improvement. The original provisions of the Bill, which was rushed through its stages here, meant that the Department had total powers of designation for just about any vessel or aircraft. At least the statutory instrument, which seems to be a major change, now applies to aircraft. The Government must bring forward a statutory instrument designating a particular aircraft or vessel. If that is the case, it is to be welcomed. I hope that the Minister will confirm that when he gives the Government's view.
      What will be the process of designation of a controlled site? Will it be by statutory instrument? The rather global approach that the Department adopted before meant that any area could he so designated, provided it fitted in with the date restriction of after 1914 and the 200-year qualification. Every hon. Member would want to do everything possible to protect the burial remains of military vessels. Nobody wants to interfere with that important priciple. However, anybody who dives knows that one finds a ship not in its complete state, but in bits and pieces buried below or resting on top of the sea bed. Not often does one find a whole vessel. I recall diving on the Mary Rose in the early 1970s. I had to put my hands through the mud to find the timber.
      The Bill, as originally drafted, meant that even to move or tamper with any vessel became an offence. Unless one had done a great deal of research, one would not k now whether a vessel was used for military or commercial purposes. The situation is quite different from the vessels that were sunk in Scapa Flow. Ironically enough, though, under the Bill one would still be able to dive and do salvage work on the Scapa Flow vessels, because I understand that everybody escaped from them and no bodies are associated with them. Therefore, a certain amount of flexibility is associated with salvage operations.
      10.30 am
      When those who are associated with the industry first became aware of the Bill, their first reaction was to oppose it. In reality, the Bill came before the House without the industry having been consulted about it. The Department decided that something must be done. However, it did not consult anybody; it simply produced a Bill and asked the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) to introduce it because it was a worthy cause. I understand why he would want to co-operate with that particular cause. Therefore, he must have been surprised by the vehemence of the reaction to the Bill. The number of amendments that this House has been asked by the other place to consider — amendments on very important issues — should make us very cagey about listening to Government Departments that want Bills containing perhaps only a few sentences to be introduced by Back-Bench Members.
      The reason for the introduction of the Bill was to allow the Department to deal with the problems created by people who want to dive on vessels and carry out salvage work. A case in my constituency is particularly relevant to this amendment. Shell were found on a vessel. As a commercial operation, people wanted to dive on this vessel, which was sunk in 1914. There has been one heck

      1299
      of a hassle with the Department as to whether, these shells having been found, they can be used to commercial advantage.
      The Bill would prevent that kind of hassle. I had to intervene on behalf of certain of my constituents who had found these empty shell cases and wanted to use them, because they had found a profitable market for them. The Government took the shells into safe keeping, but somebody burgled them, using 4-tonne lorries. Nobody has been able to find out where the shells went, after having been in the safe custody of the Government. After all the fuss that I had with the Department, the purpose of the Bill was to try to solve all those problems and to designate any area that it was thought should not be dived on or tampered with.
      Many major matters are covered by the Bill, but it is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with them. In the other place the industry battled intensively against the Bill. As a result, we are considering these amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a clear indication of the Government's attitude towards them. If the Minister would do that, we could consider his reply and make points upon it later in the debate.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am grateful for the Opposition's contributions and I shall deal with the points that have been made. First, however, I ought to underline the fact that the purpose of the Bill is to protect military remains—that is, aircraft which have crashed or vessels which have been sunk with human remains on board. The purpose of the Bill is to treat them as war graves. This is a serious and important subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) on introducing the Bill, looking after its passage through the House of Commons and speaking to it this morning. It is an important and serious Bill and I shall seek to answer all the Oppositions contributions, which I think I have interpreted correctly as points of detail rather than as objections to the Bill.
      I intend to comment briefly on the Lords amendments and with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall deal briefly with the other Lords amendments that are grouped for debate later, because, already, the debate has ranged widely. All but one of the 28 amendments were put forward by the Government. No fewer than 22 of the 28 amendments relate to a change to the designation of a regime for vessels, as opposed to designating vessels as a class—those that were in military service but were sunk and that are believed to contain human remains. A major change in the procedure was introduced in the other place, and the Government accepted it as a sensible response to some of the points that have been referred to this morning by hon. Members. Military vessels will no longer be protected as a class. They will need to be individually designated by an order made by statutory instrument. The reason for this is simply because of the difficulty of defining a class of military vessels. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), referring to diving interests, in particular sub-aqua interests, put his finger on the problem: that if one is interested in diving to observe but not to interfere with a vessel, how does a diver
      1300
      or the Ministry of Defence know for certain whether a particular vessel was being used for military or civilian purposes?
      In wartime, many merchant vessels are commandeered and used for military purposes. Therefore, the dividing line between the civilian and military use of vessels is not so clear as it is in the case of aircraft. It is much easier and simpler to identify a crashed aircraft as having been fulfilling a military purpose and role as opposed to a civilian role.
      Vessels can now be so designated, even where their exact location is not known. I shall deal later with that point when answering the question that has been raised in relation to controlled sites. The change was made to reduce the uncertainties for divers about whether particular vessels were covered by the Bill, which I am sure both sides of the House hope will soon become an Act.
      Amendment No. 5 redefines the offence involved in the protection of military vessels and aircraft. The prosecution now has to show tht the person believed or had grounds for suspecting that the vessel was in military service. The effect of amendment No. 5 is slightly to change the onus of proof and it is an intelligent and sensible response to the representations. It is designed to draw a clearer distinction between the intention to commit an offence and an offence that might be committed unwittingly and without particular intent or purpose.
      Amendment No. 6 removes the offence of boarding and defines that of entering. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce an offence that is not so strong as boarding. This amendment was introduced partly in response to representations from diving interests. The act of entering and interfering with parts of a vessel is covered now by the Bill, as a result of amendment No. 6.
      Amendment No. 14 provides that no offence will be committed by those exercising statutory powers. I am sure that that amendment will commend itself to the House. Amendment No. 20 relates to the powers of boarding by authorised officers and makes it clear that the Secretary of State and authorised officers can authorise persons not only individually but also by description—for example, naval officers. Amendment No. 28 enables the provisions to be extended to the Channel Islands by Order in Council.
      I am grateful for the tribute that was paid by Lord Sandford in another place to the Government's efforts to protect the interests of British salvage companies and others who may be affected by the Bill. We have agreed to issue licences to reputable British salvage companies to enable them to salvage protected vessels in international waters, provided that they adhere to a code of practice designed to minimise disturbance to any human remains.
      Mr. Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are all the amendments being moved in one block?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are following the amendments listed on Mr. Speaker's provisional selection list. The Minister made a passing reference to an amendment that is not in the group that we are discussing, but as I thought that it might be helpful to the House I did not comment. The other amendments will be dealt with as we reach them in the proper order.
      Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The Minister referred to reputable salvage operators. How will he judge what is reputable? Quite frankly, many

      1301
      of them are little more than pirates. What criteria will the Minister use? Will they be non-members of certain associations or bodies?
      Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, 1 shall deal with that matter later. I confirm that I am addressing the first group of amendments, but I thought that it might help the House if I touched briefly upon the purpose of other amendments.
      On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) expressed concern that the interests of fishermen should be safeguarded. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement wrote to him saying that we would issue a general licence for fishermen that would protect them from prosecution under the Bill if they exercised reasonable care. Preliminary discussions have been held with fishing organisations on the content of the licence, and we believe that they are satisfied.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) expressed concern about sports divers. Indeed, other hon. Members have received letters from their constituents on that matter. The Government's amendments have been welcomed by sub-aqua associations, and I hope that they are now reassured that the Bill will not restrict the activities of divers who respect the sanctity of war graves.
      The Government have been heartened by the expressed view of all concerned that, despite the problems, the Bill is worthy. I hope that, in due course, the House will approve the Lords amendments, all of which the Government fully support.
      The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), in welcoming the clarity that the Lords amendments bring to the Bill, raised a number of points. His first related to what he believed to be inconsistencies in amendment No. 1. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) also make that point. He courteously informed me that he would have to leave the debate, but I understand that he is returning later.
      10.45 am
      Amendment No. 1 is the key amendment and its purpose is to change the policy from designating a class of vessels to designating specific vessels. The Bill still retains a provision to designate classes of military aircraft. this group of amendments enshrine our change of policy from blanket protection to a procedure that involves a great deal more work. However, I hope that that means a great deal more clarity, especially for such interests as divers. Vessels will be designated by statutory instrument, and I will explain the procedure later.
      The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar also asked about the 200-year provision, which is not covered by the Lords amendments. He specifically asked about the Mary Rose, as did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. Certainly the Mary Rose foundered and sank more than 200 years ago, but she was protected by the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, which protects vessels of historic or archaeological interest. Therefore, there is sufficent protection for any vessel that sank prior to 1914. The Bill deals with those involved in the great war, the second world war and subsequent conflicts where the classifications historic or archaeological would not be appropriate.
      Mr. Prescott: Why include a date of 1914—why not leave it open and bring in a statutory instrument, as the Minister explained, to deal with specific military vessels? The state of the ship is not really relevant.
      Mr. Freeman: We are seeking to respond to the reasonable request of the diving fraternity and others who want clarity of purpose. The designation procedure will involve considerable effort. For the sake of clarity, good order and procedure, we intend to start from August 1914 and work to the present day. We are satisfied that existing legislation is sufficient to deal with vessels that sank earlier than that—even if there are human remains—because they would be regarded as of historical or archaeological interest.
      The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar asked me the purpose of a number of amendments. Amendment No. 2 simply relocates, with minor drafting changes, clause 1(2). That technical change is required if dealing with the amendments as a whole. Amendment No. 8 removes provisions rendered unnecessary by amendment No. 1, which changes policy from a class to a designation regime.
      Amendment No. 11 puts beyond all possible doubt that where it is claimed that an act was done in accordance with a licence, the onus is on the defence to prove that it was. Amendment No. 26 inserts a definition of military service that is already used elsewhere in the Bill.
      The hon. Gentleman asked why vessels being delivered to the Royal Navy were not covered by the Bill. We are not aware of any such vessel that was sunk or severely damaged during military conflict, so there was no reason to include them in the Bill.
      The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) generally welcomed the Bill, but he posed a number of questions to which he wants satisfactory answers. The kernel of the hon. Gentleman's points concerned jurisdiction. He asked why we are considering designating particular vessels or controlled sites in international waters, if we have no jurisdiction over foreign companies or individuals. He asked whether we were not disadvantaging our nationals and British salvage companies. That is a perfectly fair point, but before I respond to it, I confirm that there are specific procedures regarding vessels. The intention is to designate a few controlled sites. They could be mainly or, even exclusively, in territorial waters, and would be specifically designated by geographical co-ordinates. Within them no diving would be permitted. That would be where there was an important national war grave. Designated vessels could be either in territorial waters or international waters.
      We are responding to representations made by salvage companies which are worried that if we prevent them from entering into controlled, sensible, salvage operations in international waters, they will be disadvantaged by companies from other countries. We have responded that we shall permit them to carry out controlled salvage on most designated vessels by issuing a licence to reputable companies. I shall deal with the definition of reputable in a moment. However, there will be a few vessels where we would not like any salvage to occur and they will form a restricted class. I hope that that assurance will be satisfactory to the salvage interests.
      We shall not seek to restrict a designated vessel some time after the designation of that vessel. In other words, when we designate the vessels by statutory instrument we shall not subsequently, after the salvage company has put

      1303
      great effort, trouble and money into preparing the salvage operations, tell that company that the vessel falls within the exclusion subcategory of designated vessels. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I think that it has satisfied salvage operators thus far.
      Mr. Prescott: In the case of the Edinburgh the Government had a great of interest in salvaging the gold and presumably, as seamen were on it, it could be designated as a burial site. Under these regulations, would the Government designate it as a war grave, which presumably would be legitimate, and then allow a salvage operator to salvage the gold so that they could get their greedy hands on it, getting over the principles of interfering with a burial site?
      Mr. Freeman: That raises a specific question and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer it in writing in due course. It depends on whether we would intend, under the provisions of the Bill, specifically to designate a particular vessel. He is asking questions about a specific controlled site or vessel, and I hope he will permit me to answer subsequently.
      Mr. Mates: Ministers cannot give specific answers, but I remember the case, as I followed it closely. Edinburgh was a designated war grave. There were remains of the crew on board and before the Government gave permission for the salvage operation to take place, the most detailed stringent arrangements were made about not disturbing those remains. A long period of negotiations between the salvage company and the Government took place before permission was granted. I have no doubt that if the same position arises any future Government will take the same care to ensure that the remains are not disturbed.
      Mr. Prescott rose—
      Mr. Freeman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me make a little progress and then I shall be happy to give way again.
      Mr. Prescott: I understand that the Minister may not know all the details of the case. That is normal and I make no criticism of it. But we are dealing with a fundamental point. The Government may designate sites in this legislation, whether or not it is a private Member's Bill, and that then becomes law. The Government will have to decide which areas they wish to designate as burial sites, for which a statutory instrument may be tabled and discussed in the House. Therefore, the Government's view is relevant. Are we to assume from the evidence that it is possible that the Government will judge that an area deemed a burial site, for example the Edinburgh, would be allowed for salvage operations so long as it is done carefully, the bodies are not disturbed and the gold is salvaged? Is it possible that a deemed burial site can still be a site for salvage operations?
      Mr. Freeman: The intention is to permit reasonable, sensible, salvage operations and to issue licences to specific named salvage companies to salvage on—
      Mr. Prescott: Burial sites?
      Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my sentence, he will have an answer. We shall judge salvage companies to be reputable according to their past performance, experience, ability and behaviour to
      1304
      carry out salvage. The intention would be to permit as broad an activity of salvage as possible. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the intention is not necessarily to restrict legitimate salvage operations.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: As I understand it, the Government are saying that it is a crime to carry out salvage operations in territorial waters, but that they will license some people to carry out a crime in international waters. That is the point about jurisdiction. Although it is a crime, if one is reputable and goes along with the Ministry of Defence, one can be licensed to commit a crime. That is an extraordinary attitude.
      Mr. Freeman: The representations of the salvage companies were that in international waters we have no power to prevent a foreign company from carrying out salvage operations on a sunken vessel, and that if they do not carry out the work some other company will. Our response has been to draw a balance. We have said that we will issue licences to reputable salvage companies so that they are not put at a disadvantage. I appeal this morning to foreign companies and citizens to respect the purpose and intent of the Bill, which we hope will shortly become an Act. Although our jurisdiction does not cover them, we hope that they will respect the legislation.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The Government are making a certain act in international waters a crime but the crime will apply only to British citizens, residents, ships and so on. The problem is that foreigners can do those acts and cannot be stopped. Are there any moves towards an international agreement because, obviously, that is the real solution? Now the Government are telling us that there is a genuine problem caused by the drafting of the legislation, and to get round it they will give some people, no doubt nice people whom they like, a licence to commit what would be a crime if somebody else did it. Perhaps there are other precedents in legislation for that.
      Mr. Mates: There are.
      Mr. Davies: It is certainly not to be encouraged that the Minister of Defence or any other Ministry, with no disrespect to them, can decide who commits a crime and who does not.
      11 am
      Mr. Freeman: Obviously, this Parliament can legislate only for its own citizens, but I hope that foreign companies and citizens will respect the intents and purposes of the legislation.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) asked about controlled sites, which are dealt with in clause 1. The provision will cover all vessels within a specific prescibed area of the sea. All diving within that controlled site will be prohibited. It will be an offence to dive in that controlled site, but the intention is to designate by statutory instrument only a few such sites.
      I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that named vessles will be disignated. It will be an offence to enter—board is too strong a word—to damage, remove or disturb the contents of a maritime war grave.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made two implied criticisms. He welcomed the Bill, but he stressed that it was a private Member's Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East on introducting the Bill. The Government support the Bill strongly and warmly. The hon. Member for Kingston

      1305
      upon Hull, East is not against the Bill's principles, but he is worried about the speed with which the Bill is being examined. This morning we are considering Lords amendments and the hon. Gentleman will agree that they do not affect the purposes of the Bill.
      Mr. Prescott: I was complaining about the speed with which the Bill is being considered. It went through all its stages in one go. It has set some precedents in the speed with which it has been rushed through the House. Today's debate is revealing the difficulties involved in considering the Bill in this way. Once the Minister sits down we cannot intervene to question some of the essential points that he is making in his reply. That is not satisfactory, but we have to operate under the rules of the House.
      I have already asked the Minister about international jurisdiction. I am sponsored by the National Union of Seamen, the members of which are concerned. When a vessel in international waters is designated, a British salvage company can operate with protection under the law because it will have a licence. That applies to British companies and British seamen. However, salvage is an international industry.
      Some members of the NUS sail on ships flying foreign flags. British divers might have to work from a ship flying a Greek flag. They will be commiting an offence under the legislation because they are British citizens. They will be affected by the Greek law. What protection does a British seaman have under these circumstances?
      Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is thinking on his feet and I am impressed with the speed with which he is doing that. He is asking important questions. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the dilemma. The Bill's purpose is to protect military vessels with human remains on hoard. We are talking about war graves. Some such vessels sank outside British territorial waters. In a reasonable and constructive way we are seeking to indicate during the passage of the Bill how seriously we take war graves and to provide a limited procedure for the control of British salvage companies when salvaging such vessles.
      We intend to issue licences to reputable British companies so that they can operate in competition with foreign companies.
      Mr. Prescott: The Minister has made some important comments about British citizens. I appreciate his difficulty, but I ask him again, what advice can he give to British seamen on a ship ruled by the law of another country because it bears the flag of that country? What happens if the British seaman disobeys the law of that country? Does he face prosecution under British law or Greek law? What advice can the Minister give to members of the NUS in that dilemma?
      Mr. Freeman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. His question is more than hypothetical. The hon. Gentleman accepts the principles behind the Bill. I hope that the dilemma that he describes will not occur. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's union will be able to give its members guidance.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also asked me how a controlled site will be designated. This will be by statutory instrument in which the House will he involved. That provision is contained in clause 1(2).
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about Scapa Flow. I assume that he has in mind the tourist attraction which
      1306
      that has become. We are talking about German ships which were scuttled, not sunk, with human remains on board. I confirm that those German vessels will not be covered by the legislation so there will be no problem for divers or for the tourist industry.
      I commend the amendments to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 10

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 9, line 31, at end insert
      "any of the Channel Islands or"
      Mr. Mates: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Mikardo: It is clearly right that the Channel Islands should be included in the Bill, but why has the Isle of Man not been added?
      Mr. Prescott: We have arrived at the last amendment, which proposes to add the Channel Islands to the areas where the Bill will apply.
      I was not prepared to vote for the previous amendment that we discussed, although the Minister assured me that he would write to me about the difficult problem that I presented to him. It seems that British seamen could also be affected by amendment No. 28. The house has a resonsibility to look after the citizens of this country and I do not believe that the Minister can give me a satisfactory answer to the questions that I asked him.
      Amendment No. 28 is also in conflict with international law. The law of this country can apply only to our ships and citizens in British areas. The Bill proposes — uniquely, I think; I should he interested to hear whether the Minister knows of any other such case— to cover areas outside our jurisdiction.
      Jurisdiction in international waters was to have been dealt with by the law of the sea conference, but opposition by the Americans and by our Government prevented a satisfactory solution.
      I shall hope to use the Minister's letter to me to advise NUS members, many more of whom now serve on foreign flag ships, how to deal with salvage operations. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he will write to me. We shall let the Bill go on its way, on the understanding that the Department will look at the problem and give us some advice.
      Mr. Freeman: I confirm that I understand the point that has been put with great force by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I shall write to him.
      The hon Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) asked why the Isle of Man was excluded from the Bill. The Isle of Man Government have advised us that the permissive extension clause—clause 10—would not be appropriate in their case, because responsibility for making orders in respect of wrecks of ships and aircraft on the seabed of the territorial waters of the island is vested in the Isle of Man Harbour Board under the Wreck and Salvage Act 1979 of the Tynwald.
      We are advised that if any military wrecks are discovered within the territorial waters of the Isle of Man the Government would no doubt favourably consider a

      1307
      designation order under Manx legislation in respect of that site. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar.
      Question put and agreed to.

Protection of Children (Tobacco) Bill
Lords amendment considered.
Protection of Children (Tobacco) Bill
  Clause 2

    AMENDMENT OF SECTION 18 OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1937
    Lords amendment: No. 1 in, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
    "(d) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(6) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, any substance sold in a container (whether sealed or not) shall, subject to subsections (7) to (9) of this section, be presumed to conform to the description of the substance on the container.
    (7) Where a prosecutor (within the meaning of section 462 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975) intends to rely on subsection (6) of this section, he shall give notice of his intention to the accused or his agent not less than 14 days before the commencement of the trial.
    (8) The accused shall not be entitled to challenge the presumption in subsection (6) of this section, unless he or his agent gives notice to the said prosecutor of intention to do so not less than 7 days before the commencement of the trial.
    (9) A notice under subsection (7) or (8) of this section shall be by recorded delivery letter, and the execution of the recorded delivery shall be sufficient evidence of the date of posting and of intimation of the notice, which shall be presumed to have been intimated to the addressee on the day after the day on which it was posted, except that, in the case of a notice posted on a Friday or a Saturday, it shall be presumed to have been so intimated on the Monday next following."."
    11.15 am
    Mr. John Home Robertson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This is a technical amendment, which applies only to Scotland. It arises because of the rules of evidence applicable to a criminal trail in Scotland. A prosecutor must prove the nature and contents of a container, such as a bottle or a tin, and evidence would require to be led of scientific analysis of the contents having been carried out by two forensic scientists. That is so even when the contents are specified on a label on the container or where the nature of the contents is not a matter of dispute between the Crown and the accused.
    The amendment will do away with the need for full scientific examination in every case by creating a presumption, for the purposes of any trial, that any substance in a container, whether or not the container is sealed, shall be presumed to conform to the description of the substance in the container.
    It is important to emphasise that that is a rebuttable presumption and does not compromise the accused's position. When the matter is contentious the accused can insist on full scientific proof. Under subsection (7) the prosecutor must give notice to an accused person of his intention to rely on the presumption, and thereafter it is open to the accused to give counter-notice of his intention to challenge the presumption.
    The use of the presumption is, therefore, expected only in cases when the matter is not in dispute. In such cases, much time and expense will be saved in proceeding to trial without needing full scientific evidence. I understand that there are precedents for that principle.

    1309
    The amendment would do away with the need for a procurator fiscal in Scotland to have the contents of packets of Skoal Bandits or cigarettes chemically analysed if all parties agree that the packet contains what it says it contains. I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for introducing this useful technical amendment in the other place, because it should further simplify the prosecution of those who sell tobacco products to young people under 16, but it will not prejudice the fundamental rights of the defendant.
    I do not wish to delay the House, in view of the importance of our next business. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his excellent Bill for the benefit of disabled people and I am pleased that I was able to assist him during its Committee stage. However, I shall dwell on my own Bill for another couple of minutes, because the amendment provides a useful opportunity to press the Minister on the enforcement of the Bill when, as we hope, it comes into effect in about three months' time.
    The Bill has two fundamental purposes. The first is to make it easier to prosecute those who sell cigarettes to youngsters. It is a national scandal that this poisonous trade is being carried on to the tune of £90 million a year. A new generation is getting hooked on the lethal addiction to nicotine and we expect the Government and the prosecuting and police authorities to take action to deter the trade when the Bill comes into effect.
    The most recent Government figures show that fewer than 50 prosecutions a year are made against those involved in the £90 million trade. It is clear that the old legislation has become a dead letter. My Bill should make it possible to crack down on that trade and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is his intention.
    The second intention of the Bill is to extend the ban on the sale of tobacco to youngsters to include tobacco for oral and nasal use, which specifically includes the notorious Skoal Bandits. Many of us would like to ban these dangerous products altogether, and it is nonsense that the people who produce them have been able to escape the ban on sales to youngsters. They are exempt from tobacco duty, they do not yet have to carry a Government health warning on the products and the United States tobacco company that manufactures them has even had a Government grant to establish a factory in East Kilbride.
    I hope that my Bill will be the beginning of the end for Skoal Bandits in Britain. I am grateful to the House for supporting this measure to deal with a serious problem, and I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead for piloting the Bill through another place.
    We must stress that legislation is not enough. It must be enforced, to deter the unscrupulous people involved in this trade. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government intend to crack down on this trade as soon as the Bill comes into effect.
    Dr. John Marek: The Opposition welcome the amendment. It is useful, in that it will speed up justice and save time and administrative costs in a number of cases. In the past, prosecutions may not have been successful because the evidence has not been proved beyond doubt or because it was suggested that the contents of a box were different from those described on the label. Do the terms of the amendment already apply in England? If not, why has a similar procedure not been introduced to save the public analyst's time when a dispute arises?
    Finally, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on bringing the Bill forward. It will be a useful addition to our legislation. Under-age smoking is one of the most serious questions before us, and if this small step helps young people not to become addicted to nicotine before the age of 16, as I am sure it will, all hon. Members will welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has rightly pointed out that this is a technical amendment that arises because of the rules of evidence applicable to a criminal trial in Scotland. The amendment applies only to Scotland, and I can tell the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) that I understand a similar problem does not arise in England. The hon. Member for East Lothian spelt out clearly the reasons for the amendment and it would serve no purpose for me to repeat them.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the Government's intention regarding enforcement of the Bill. Clause 3(3) states that the Act will come into effect three months after the day on which it is passed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to have a wide-ranging publicity campaign through the Scottish Information Office, to educate the public and we shall bring the Bill to the attention of health boards, the police and prosecuting authorities in Scotland.
    I am sure that the passing of the Bill and the publicity which it receives will have a substantial deterrent effect on those who may be tempted to sell tobacco or tobacco products to young people below the statutory age. Clearly there is limit to the extent to which chief constables can deploy resources to combat the problem, but I am sure that they will have due regard to it within the competing demands on their resources.
    Finally, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on steering the Bill so successfully through and I assure him that Ministers with responsibility for health will use their best endeavours in the current discussions with United States Tobacco to ensure that Skoal Bandits are not sold to anyone below the appropriate age.
    Question put and agreed to.

Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill
  New Clause

    APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES OF DISABLED PERSONS
    Lords Amendment: No. 1, before clause 1, insert the following new clause:
    ". — (1) In this Act "authorised representative", in relation to a disabled person, means a person for the time being appointed by or on behalf of that disabled person (in accordance with regulations made under this section) to act as his authorised representative for the purposes of this Act.
    (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to the appointment of persons to act as the authorised representatives of disabled persons, including provision—

    (a) for the manner in which the appointment of a person as an authorised representative is to be made; and

    (b) for any such appointment to be notified to the relevant local authority (as defined in the regulations) if made otherwise than by that authority.

    (3) Any such regulations—

    (a) may provide for the parent or guardian of a disabled person under the age of 16 or appoint himself or some other person as the authorised representative of the disabled person (but shall not permit a person under that age himself to appoint a person as his authorised representative);

    (b) may provide for the appointment of a person as the authorised representative of a disabled person who is a child in the care of a local authority to be made by that authority in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations;

    (c) may, in accordance with subsection (4), provide for the appointment of a person as the authorised representative of a disabled person to be made by, or under arrangements made by, a local authority in a case where the disabled person appears to the authority to be unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative by reason of any mental or physical incapacity;

    (d) may contain such incidental or supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

    (4) Regulations under paragraph (c) of subsection (3) may make provision—

    (a) for requiring a local authority, for the purpose of enabling them to determine whether a disabled person is unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative as mentioned in that paragraph, to obtain the opinion of a registered medical practitioner;

    (b) for authorising a local authority, where they determine that a disabled person is so unable, either—

    (i) themselves to appoint a person as the disabled person's authorised representative, or

    (ii) to make with any voluntary organisation, person or persons approved by them for the purpose of such arrangements as they think fit for such an appointment to be made by the organisation, person or persons concerned;

    (c) for requiring or authorising a local authority, before determining the question specified in paragraph (a), or (as the case may be) before making any appointment of an authorised representative, or any arrangements, in pursuance of paragraph (b), to consult any of the following, namely—

    (i) a person or persons appointed by them for the purpose, or

    (ii) a person or persons falling within any class or description specified in the regulations;

    1312

    (d) for requiring a local authority, in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, to review the case of a disabled person whose authorised representative has been appointed in pursuance of paragraph (b) (whether by the local authority or under any arrangements made by them) for the purpose of determining whether he is still unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative as mentioned in subsection (3)(c).

    (5) Subsections (2) to (4) shall apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to the termination of the appointment of a person as an authorised representative as they apply in relation to the making of such an appointment.
    (6) It is hereby declared that any person exercising under Part II of the 1983 Act or Part V of the 1984 Act—

    (a) the functions of the nearest relative of a disabled person, or

    (b) the functions of the guardian of a disabled person received into guardianship under that Part of that Act,

    may, if appointed as such in accordance with this section, also act as that person's authorised representative."
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—
    "(2A) In relation to a disabled person whose authorised representative has been appointed by virtue of subsection (3) of section (Appointment of authorised repesentatives of disabled persons), subsections (1) and (2) above shall each have effect as follows—

    (a) if the appointment was made by virtue of subsection(3) (a) of that section, the words "the parent or guardian of" shall be inserted after the words "if so requested by";and

    (b) if the appointment was made by virtue of subsection (3)(b) or (c) of that section, the words "if so requested by the disabled person" shall be omitted."

    No. 3, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—
    "(aa) in hospital accommodation provided by the Secretary of State under section 3(1)(a) of the 1977 Act or, in Scotland, in hospital accommodation (other than accommodation at a State hospital) provided by the Secretary of State under section 36(1)(a) of the 1978 Act, or"
    No. 4, in page 2, line 45, at end insert—
    "(4A) In paragraph (b) of subsection (4) "voluntary organisation" in relation to England and Wales includes a housing association within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985."
    No. 5, in page 3, leave out lines 1 to 34.
    No. 6, in page 3, line 37, after "appropriate" insert
    "and such other bodies as appear to him to be concerned"
    No. 7, in page 4, line 2, at end insert—
    "(9A) An order under subsection (9) may provide for any provision of regulations made under section (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons) to have effect for the purposes of the order with such modifications as may be prescribed by the order, and in that event the reference in subsection (1) of that section to regulations made under that section shall be read as a reference to any such regulations as they have effect in accordance with the order."
    No. 9, in page 4, leave out line 8.
    No. 10, in page 4, line 9, at beginning insert "and"
    Mr. Clarke: Before I address the detailed amendments to clause 1. I want to make a few general comments about the progress of the Bill in another place.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to keep in order. We must address ourselves to the content of the amendments before the House.
    Mr. Clarke: As one who has witnessed the expertise from the Chair this morning in controlling difficulties on other measures, I shall do my utmost to keep in order. However, it is appropriate to acknowledge the efforts of Baroness Masham of Ilton who steered through almost 100 amendments in concert with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, Baroness Trumpington, to whom warm thanks are also due, especially in view of her other responsibilities.
    The small band of civil servants — indeed, key officials — in the DHSS has also laboured hard to improve the Bill. They, in consultation with Mr. Peter Mitchell, Mr. John Healy and Mr. William Bingley, have done a superb job in bringing the Bill to the House in its present shape with the new clause and the amendments. I think that the Minister will agree that they have made our task this morning a great cleat easier and we must thank them for it.
    I apologise to the House for the reams of Lords amendments, including those that we are now discussing, which need to be considered today. I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members will appreciate that another place was in many ways compelled to do the Committee work on the Bill that emerged from this House which might will have been done upstairs if Ministers had accepted rather earlier the principles which I am now happy to say they so warmly espouse.
    Clause 1 has been split into two for convenience. The new clause contains all the provisions relating to the appointment of authorised representatives by disabled people or on their behalf. Most of the new clause consists of regulation-making powers in relation to the complex balance needed where the disabled person is unable to appoint someone himself.
    After five months of intense thought by all concerned, including a seminar held at MIND — to whom the presence of these clauses are largely due—it has been concluded that there are no organisations in the country other than local authorities on which the duty to make the necessary arrangements for these people could be laid in primary legislation. I understand that "double delegation" would have been frowned on by the courts—that is, giving the Secretary of State a free hand to choose the intermediary bodies at a later date and also giving those bodies the power to delegate the responsibility as they wish.
    Nevertheless, the local authority will also he the authority providing the services in relation to which the representative will operate. This potential conflict of interest is not wholly satisfactory, as the Minister will probably agree. One of the most important characteristics of the concept of representation or advocacy for disabled people as it has developed in this country and abroad is that the representative owes sole loyalty to the disabled person and is truly independent of the service-providing authority.
    Where representatives are perhaps too pushy, too demanding, or too successful, there may be a temptation to get rid of them. It is vital that once the Bill becomes an Act careful consideration is given to the rules that will cover this issue to ensure that sufficient independence is built into the procedure, especially where, under (4) (b) (i) local authorities appoint representatives themselves. Therefore, the wording of the amendments explicitly leaves open the possibility that the local authority might set up a panel, or appoint a voluntary organisation, to
    1314
    fulfil this function so that it can remain at arm's length. I wish to make only one other brief comment on the procedures relating to adults who are unable to make an appointment themselves on account of incapacity. The decision whether someone is unable to appoint an authorised representative himself may not be cut and dried, and the amendments include a stipulation that the regulations may require the advice of a doctor. However, they also allow others to be consulted on that question. Those caring full-time for a disabled person may have valid views on this as valid as a doctor, who only sees a person occasionally.
    11.30 am
    On the detail of new clause 1, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for disabled children. In most cases parents will appoint representatives for their children, but at a late stage the Department expressed concern about parents who had, for example, harmed their children in some way. Therefore, the amendments envisage the appointment of an authorised representative for children in care, to be made by the local authority. Unfortunately, at a stage too late for amendment, it was pointed out that there might be a few children who had neither a parent nor guardian and who were not in the care of a local authority.
    Perhaps I may be permitted a mild criticism. Some of the technical problems with what was, after all, the Government's new clause — which was introduced on Report — have been rather late in emerging. Nevertheless, I do not want to appear to be ungrateful or churlish. I am convinced that the new clause provides an adequate framework for achieving the Bill's intentions.
    I am sure that you will be pleased to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is little to say about Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10 to clause 1, which are largely consequential. However, amendment No. 3 is most important, and will greatly assist people who are seeking to move from hospital into the community. It allows access for the authorised representative to people in hospital in advance of the general extension of the clause to the NHS. I am rather sorry that it appears there is some accommodation for children in England and Wales—but not apparently in Scotland — excluded from the list. Again, that was discovered rather late in the day. However, I am assured that that will be tidied up in the forthcoming child care Bill, and the Minister may also have something to say about that.
    In connection with amendment No. 6, may I ask the Minister when he intends to commence the consultation regarding the extension of the clauses to the NHS and other local authority services. The vast majority of people and organisations, in response to the Government's consultative document on the Bill earlier this year, expressed concern that the Bill recognises the representative only in relation to social services provided by a local authority. As I am sure that the House would agree, one of the main purposes of representation is to prevent disabled people from falling through the net of services that are increasingly provided by different authorities. It makes little sense to limit the scope of a representative to just the social services.
    Finally, it might be appropriate if the Minister, when he responds to each group of amendments, could say when he expects to be able to bring each clause into force. I am aware of the Minister's commitment to the principles of

    1315
    the Bill, and I welcome that. It was helpful at several stages. I am sure that he appreciates the despondency, not to say anger, that would be widespread in the country if key parts of the Act languished ineffectually on the statute book.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), whose assistance I most readily acknowledge, just as my fellow sponsors would do, received a letter from the Prime Minister which was rightly widely publicised, and which is relevant to this clause and the amendments. In response to my right hon. Friend's question about resources, she did not appear to be particularly generous. I must admit that that happened at a fairly early stage in our discussions, and so, given the Government's rethink on these matters and the Minister's input, especially in recent months, I hope that it will be accepted that this part of the Bill will lack true meaning unless the necessary resources are provided.
    I do not believe that the House or the other place would appreciate any Government who hid behind the Treasury in saying that the resources cannot be made available. After all, both Houses have expressed themselves clearly on the priorities that we hope to identify. Today of all days, on 4 July, it is important to assert the independence of disabled persons. They are intitled to that independence. They are entitled to enjoy the same liberties as the rest of us: true liberty in the meaningful sense of that word. I believe that the Bill will assist in many ways in achieving that objective, which is widely shared by both Houses and by the people of this country. We know that the authorities want to implement the Bill. The message from this House, supported overwhelmingly by the country at large, must be, "Give them the money, and let them get on with the job."
    Mr. Ian Mikardo: Unhappily, in the past seven years or so there has been some diminution and erosion of elements of our social services provision, and that has adversely affected some groups of people. Probably no group has suffered more as a result than handicapped persons. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has, therefore, done a great job in introducing a Bill that at least makes some contribution towards making up for the losses that have been sustained by handicapped persons. He has earned himself much credit in the House, and if there is a heaven he has earned himself some good Brownie points there.
    I rise only to ask about some minor points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has unparalleled expertise in this area, and perhaps he will be able to put me right. Subsection 4(a) of the amendment requires the local authority to
    "obtain the opinion of a registered medical practitioner"
    and would seem to be a sensible provision, but subsection 4(c) requires the local authority to consult

    "(i) a person or persons appointed by them for the purpose, or

    (ii) a person or persons falling within any class or description."

    What sort of people could they be if their views were authoritative but if they were not medical practitioners? Why has a distinction been drawn?
    Incidentally, there is also a typographical error on page (3) of the Amendment Paper, in that at the end of line 5 there are some closing inverted commas for which there do
    1316
    not appear to be any corresponding opening commas. I just mention that so that the error can be put right when the Bill is reprinted, as it will have to be.
    What is the reason for amendment No. 9, which would leave out line 8? Its effect would apparently be to leave that part of the Bill without any definition of a health board. I cannot think why we should want to define everything else except that. But perhaps I have misread it, and if so I apologise.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall try to help the House by pointing out that the closing inverted commas to which the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) referred are those which appear to follow the opening inverted commas at the beginning of the second line of amendment No. 1.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I welcome the fact that the Bill has reached this stage. I hope that within a short time it will complete its passage through Parliament.
    I ask for some clarification of the Government's intentions with regard to Amendment No. 1. Proposed subsection (4)(b) says that regulations may make provision
    "for authorising a local authority, where they determine that a disable person is so unable, either—

    (i) themselves to appoint a person as the disabled person's authorised representative, or"

    alternatively
    "any voluntary organisation, person or persons".
    I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it is intended to make that a hard and fast provision. Subsection (4) is a permissive provision under which a local authority may appoint a representative. I should like an undertaking that that will happen. We discussed in Committee the position of those who were severely handicapped who could not appoint representatives of their own. Those are the people who most need the Bill's provisions.
    Clause 1(9) presents another aspect of concern. I should like confirmation that the changes made in the other place help rather than hinder the progress for which we hope by extending the provisions to health authorities and local authorities where appropriate. Many people feel that such a provision is needed. I hope that there is no diminution in our intention to extend the provision in that direction in due course. Again, subsection (9) is a permissive provision. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that he hopes to move in that direction at an early date after the implementation of the Bill.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his hard work and his achievements in getting the Bill to this stage. I hope that I shall not again detain hon. Members for too long.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: On this important day for my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who has my warmly renewed congratulations and for whom I am full of admiration, I know that he will join me in paying tribute to the sustained and invaluable help he has received at all stages of the Bill's consideration from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who, sadly, is not able, because of constituency commitments, to be with us this morning. My right hon. Friend has played a distinguished part in all our

    1317
    proceedings on the Bill, and he will be as active in campaigning for the Bill's full and speedy implementation as he has been in its making.
    I know that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) regret very much that they cannot be here for these final proceedings. As the House knows they, too, are tried, trusted and widely respected campaigners for disabled people.
    11.45 am
    This is an important part of the Bill. It brings representation into rehabilitation, which could do much, given the support that it merits, to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities and to ease the strain on families. Much progress has been made over the years in strengthening the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and in extending its implementation. Yet all too often the emphasis has been too much on what the providers of help under the Act think best rather than on what its recipients see as most likely to meet their needs. Now we seek to redress that imbalance, and, as the House as a whole must agree, not before time.
    Rehabilitation is best defined as giving the disabled person the right help in the right place and at the right time. The disabled person and/or his or her representative have an important role in ensuring this, and I welcome the painstaking work that has been done in another place.
    With regard to subsection (4), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) referred, for perfectly acceptable reasons the procedures for the appointment of representatives have not been fully worked out. The clause is, of course, designed to give the DHSS sufficient flexibility in writing the regulations. I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to my hon. Friend's important points.
    The most important issue is whether we can extract from the Minister dates for the implementation of each clause and a commitment to allocate the necessary resources. I want strongly to press the issue at this first opportunity.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West referred to the Prime Minister's letter to me of 24 April, in which she said:
    "The Government have made it clear that, if the Bill is enacted, it would not be possible to make commencement orders to bring into effect the provisions of the Bill which have significant financial implications until such time as the necessary funds could be made available."
    That is just not good enough. I hope that the Minister will now give us much better news than that conveyed by the Prime Minister. For this and other key parts of the Bill to lie impotently on the statute book, without being brought into force, would be widely seen as a betrayal of the many thousands of people with disabilities whose initiative and lobbying helped to create this important and humane Bill. I welcome the work done by Lady Masham and others on both sides of the House in the other place and urge the Minister now to give us the best possible guidance that he can on implementation and the provision of resources.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I, too, begin be extending my congratulations to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his success in steering the Bill to this position, which we hope is almost the last stage before royal assent, to all the hon. Members and people who have been mentioned in the debate who
    1318
    have played an important and supportive part and to my noble Friends, who were rightly mentioned, for their work in the other place.
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West made what for him must count, I suppose, as a slightly acid remark about how we might have had fewer amendments in the other place if the Government had behaved differently earlier in the Commons. I do not want to sully this morning's proceedings by engaging in an argument along those lines.
    Although this is unquestionably the Bill of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, the Government have clutched it to their hearts with considerable enthusiasm, as reflected in the devoted work of DHSS officials, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly played tribute. I wish to add to that tribute. I was in some confusion when contemplating this debate as to whether the hon. Gentleman or I was supposed to be moving that the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. I am sure that it is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should have done so. That is the spirit in which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends approached the Bill, although I would have been happy to have undertaken that task.
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West has already explained that the main substantive change to this part of the Bill, introduced in another place, is that the clause now spells out in more detail the Secretary of State's power to make provision by regulations for the appointment of representatives for disabled people who, because of mental or physical incapacity, are unable to appoint someone themselves. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said on Report that further consultation with the Bill's sponsors would be needed on that matter in relation to the Bill as it then stood. I am delighted that those consultations have produced the reasonably satisfactory outcome which we now have before us. We do now genuinely have a sound legislative basis for the provision of representatives for disabled people.
    Hon. Members have raised many points during the brief proceeding. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have kindly spared me the task of pointing out to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that the inverted commas at the end correspond with the inverted commas at the beginning. That is not a matter which need detain the House for long. For all I know it may be that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar has some other motives for raising these points which are, at the moment, obscure to me.
    Mr. Mikardo: Heaven forbid.
    Mr. Newton: I will not speculate further on that.
    The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar did raise some other points, especially in relation to subsection 4 of the new clause, about the types of person, other than medical practitioners, whom we might envisage being involved. We had in mind carers and relatives in particular. However, there will be full consultations on the details of the use of the powers in that subsection. He also asked about the reference to health boards and why they were not defined. The reference to health boards was deleted because it has been included in the general definitional clause 12 under amendment 78.
    The child care aspect of the clause was raised by the hon. Member for Monk lands, West. I used to be, although have not been for some time now, the Minister responsible for child care matters. If one starts to look into the

    1319
    complexity of current child care law and the various provisions under which children may be taken into care and the associated provisions, they are of almost incredible complexity. It is a pity that the Department has not spotted every last arcane corner of this aspect in its work, but I cannot say that I am entirely surprised. We shall certainly seek to remedy any defects that there may prove to be in the legislation which, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Government are hoping to undertake in relation to child care law generally. Meanwhile, I accept what he said about the need for careful consultation and we shall seek to meet any of those tidying up points in the way that I have described.
    The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked about the proposed Subsection (4)(b) and what we have in mind there. We are not proposing a compulsory duty on local authorities to set up arrangements for appointing representatives for people unable to act. We feel that that should be left to local decision in the light of local priorities. I hope that that does not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman because my understanding is that that has been made clear to the Bill's sponsors throughout all the proceedings.
    Mr. Wigley: I am afraid that it does come as somewhat of a surprise because, at earlier stages of discussion, we made our belief clear that the right to representation should be a right to a disabled person. If that person, because of his or her disability, cannot exercise that right, it should not be any less of a right. That requires there to be a responsibility either for a local authority or somebody else to make that appointment. I am not splitting hairs as to who should be doing it, but I am absolutely certain that somebody should be doing it.
    It comes as a bit of a shock at this late stage to understand that it will be left to the whim of a local authority. The local authority may not use the powers available and disabled people would miss out. It may be too late at this stage of the Bill to change anything in terms of the provisions of legislation but I press the Minister strongly to think further on this matter. It does not put an additional cost on local authorities. It is a duty that can be put on them very reasonably and disabled people would expect that to happen.
    Mr. Newton: I note what the hon. Gentleman said and I will think further about it. He knows me well enough to know that it would be my hope and expectation that these provisions should be used. However, we have to think with some care before deciding to go down the track of compulsion against the background of a position in which, whatever resources are made available local authorities will have a range of decisions to make about the balance of priorities and the way in which they use particular provisions and provide services generally. However, I note, not merely as a routine gesture, the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made and the strength with which he feels about this matter.
    Mr. Wigley: In case I have misunderstood more in relation to these provisions, could the Minister confirm that a disabled person who is capable of appointing a representative does have that as of right, under the provisions of the Bill? What we are saying is that the right
    1320
    exists without question for people capable of exercising it and it is only those most in need and who are incapable of exercising it who will not have it as a right.
    Mr. Newton: That is a slightly tendentious way of putting it. The hon. Gentleman is certainly right in respect of the right of disabled people to appoint representatives. The issue is whether we should impose a duty on local authorities of the kind he described in relation to those unable to appoint representatives for themselves. There is probably very little between us. Indeed, there is probably nothing between us about what we would like to see. However, I would not wish to disguise from the hon. Gentleman that at this moment it is not in our mind to impose that duty on local authorities. I shall reflect further on what he has said although, manifestly, there is now no further opportunity for amending the Bill.
    The main thrust of the remarks from virtually every direction, certainly from the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), concerned the question of implementation of this clause and other provisions in the Bill. There is no doubt that the representation provision will have clear resource implications for local authorities and, if the provisions are extended to them, for health authorities. At this stage I cannot attempt to give a precise estimate of what those costs might be because that is something that needs to be assessed in further consultation with the authorities concerned. It would be wrong for me to attempt to second-guess the outcome of that further work in advance.
    The House knows already, because it was said on several occasions during the proceedings in the House and, no doubt in the other place, that the total annual cost of implementing the Bill has been estimated to be something in excess of £100 million in a full year. That is not just a figure that the Government have dragged out of the air in order to show some of the difficulties with which we are faced. It rests to a significant extent on the figure that the local authorities have placed on the provisions. It is also clear that the cost of implementing the representation provisions could represent a substantial proportion of that total.
    It is only honest for me to say to the House that against that background I cannot, at this stage, give an undertaking as to when resources might be available to bring this part of the Bill into effect. I have already said that I sympathise with and share entirely the wish of hon. Members to press ahead as soon as possible with implementation of the Bill, and I hope to be able to be a little more specific and helpful about some later parts of the Bill that we shall be considering. I have to say, however, that it would be wrong to impose extra burdens on local authorities and health authorities under this part of the Bill and others, which have significant resource implications, until we can ensure that the resources are available to carry them out. It is against that background that we shall have to consider when we are able to bring these provisions into effect.
    12 noon
    Mr. Alfred Morris: The Prime Minister appeared to say that this and other parts of the Bill requiring extra finance will not be implemented for the forseeable future. Will the Minister say when he expects this part of the Bill to be brought into effect by commencement order?
    Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can add to what I have already said, which is that the timing of bringing into effect these provisions must depend upon when we are able to ensure that local authorities, and health authorities if the extension takes place, have the necessary resources to carry through the extension. We shall do our best to ensure that we reach that position as soon as possible. I cannot give any undertaking of what "as soon as possible" means in this context. I mean that we shall be working with a view to making progress as rapidly as we reasonably can.
    It is in the light of these considerations that we shall have to consider the timing of further consultation on the possible extension of the representation provision to health authorities and to other local authority services, and on the appointment regulations. It may be that there will be work there that can be undertaken in the course of refining what the cost of implementing the proposals would be. That is something to which we shall give careful consideration.
    I am sorry not to be able to be more forthcoming with right hon. and hon. Members. I hope that they will take account of the fact that we have been making progress in a variety of ways. If I were in a different frame of mind, I would take up one of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar. We have been making progress in various ways in improving both benefits and services for the disabled, and most recently in the extension of the invalid care allowance to married women. I resist any implication by anyone on either side of the House that the Government have not shown their concern to maintain the pace of development in this area.
    There are several hon. Members who know as well as anyone that the range of demands, requests and pressures, and the scope for developing both services and social security benefits for the disabled is almost infinite. Careful choices and difficult decision are involved. We shall continue to make what progress we can, but I cannot put a date on the particular piece of progress that we are discussing.
    I welcome unreservedly the fact that these provisions are to go onto the statute book. I hope that their mere existence on the statute book will have a helpful effect in causing local authorities to think about the way in which they seek to meet the perceived needs and wishes of disabled people in the way in which they provide services.
    Question put agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 2

    ASSESSMENT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF NEEDS OF DISABLED PERSONS
    Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 4, line 15, leave out "On any occasion when" and insert
    "Where—

    (a) on any assessment carried out by them in pursuance of any provision of this Act, or

    (b) on any other occasion,"

    Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 12, in page 4, line 26, leave out from "(1)" to "the" in line 29 and insert
    " , or the period mentioned in that subsection has expired without any such representations being made, and the
    1322
    authority have reached a decision on the question referred to in that subsection (having taken into account any representations made as mentioned above)"
    No. 13, in page 4, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—

    "(a) either specifying—

    (i) any needs of the disabled person which in the opinion of the authority call for the provision by them of any statutory services, and

    (ii) in the case of each such need, the statutory services that they propose to provide to meet that need,

    or stating that, in their opinion, the disabled person has no needs calling for the provision by them of any such services; and

    (b) giving an explanation of their decision; and

    (c) containing particulars of the right of the disabled person or his authorised representative to make representations with respect to the statement under subsection (4)."

    No. 14, in page 4, line 40, leave out from "services" to end of line 43.
    No. 15, in page 5, line 2, leave out from "matter" to "that" in line 3 and insert
    "included in the statement supplied under subsection (2)".
    No. 16, in page 5, line 6, leave out "further".
    No. 17, in page 4, line 6, leave out
    "the particular need in question"
    and insert "that matter".
    No. 18, in page 5, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert—
    "(a) consider (or, as the case may bc, reconsider) whether any, and (if so) what, statutory services should be provided by them for the disabled person to meet any need identified in the representations; and".
    No. 19, in page 5, line 15, after "Where" insert "(a)".
    No. 20, in page 5, line 17, after "writing" insert
    "(or in each of those ways)".
    No. 21, in page 5, line 18, after "incapacity," insert "or
    (b) both of those persons are in that position (whether by reason of the same incapacity or not,".
    No. 22, in page 5, line 25, at end insert—
    "(6A) In determining whether they are required to provide any services under subsection (6) to meet any need of the disabled person or his authorised representative and (if so) what those services should be, the local authority shall have regard to any views expressed by either of those persons as to the necessity for any such services or (as appropriate) to any views so expressed as to the services which should be so provided.".
    No. 23, in page 5, line 28, leave out from "both," to end of line 39.
    No. 24, after Clause 2 insert the following new Clause—
    Services under s. 2 of the 1970 Act: duty to consider needs of disabled person
    " . When requested to do so by—

    (a) a disabled person,

    (b) his authorised representative, or

    (c) any person who provides care for him in the circumstances mentioned in section 5,

    a local authority shall decide whether the needs of the disabled person call for the provision by the authority of any services in accordance with section 2(1) of the 1970 Act (provision of welfare services).".
    No. 56, in clause 5, page 9, line 36, at end insert—
    "(2) Where that other person is unable to communicate, or (as the case may be) be communicated with, orally or in writing (or in each of those ways) by reason of any mental or physical incapacity, the local authority shall provide such services as, in their opinion, are necessary to ensure that any such incapacity does not prevent the authority from being properly informed as to the ability of that person to continue to provide care as mentioned in subsection (1).
    (3) Section 2(6A) shall apply for the purposes of subsection (2) above as it applies for the purposes of section

    1323
    2(6), but as if any reference to the disabled person or his authorised representative were a reference to the person mentioned in subsection (2).".
    Lords amendments Nos. 13, 18 and 24 involve privilege.
    Mr. Clarke: We are now considering a group of amendments to the clauses which are concerned with local authority assessments in general, and in particular those under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is rightly remembered for his immense contribution in piloting that measure through the House.
    Clause 2 was introduced by the Government on Report, and it is fair to say that its substance was widely welcomed when canvassed in the consultation document. On reflection, however, the drafting was seen to be unnecessarily restrictive and would probably have caused more problems for local authorities if there were arguments as to whether a disabled person was entitled to a review.
    Broadly speaking, amendments Nos. 11 to 18 ensure that a disabled person or his representative may receive a written statement if they request it after any assessment and may ask for a review of any decision in any circumstances. I shall refer only explicitly to the substantive amendments. Amendment No. 12 gives a right to a written statement even if there had been no representations by a disabled person or his representative before the assessment.
    Amendment No. 13 requires the statement to specify the needs of the disabled person as well as the services to be provided to meet them. This may seem a minor clarification but it will prove useful if there is a dispute as to how the needs should be met — for example the common choice between a stairlift or downstairs adaptations on which there is often disagreement between disabled people and the social services. In combination with amendments Nos. 14 and 18, it provides the right of review on anything in the statement.
    Amendments Nos. 19 to 23 clarify the right of either a disabled person or his representative to assistance if either or both have a communication handicap. Amendment No. 56 to clause 5 extends this right to communication assistance to carers during a local authority assessment of the disabled person. New subsection (6A), introduced by amendment No. 22, attempts to meet some of the concern expressed principally by the British Deaf Association. In determining both the need for communication assistance and the nature of that assistance the local authority must have regard to the views expressed by the disabled person or his representative, who are, of course, uniquely qualified to identify what is required.
    During the passage of the Bill through both Houses there has been some confusion over the right to ask for an assessment for services under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, in particular in relation to the carers' clause, where many right hon. and hon. Members believed that it was essential for carers to have the independent right to ask for an assessment of the person for whom they were caring. The purpose of this was to prevent their own possible breakdown and enable the
    1324
    social services to fill the gaps so that the disabled person could continue living in his own home on the basis of genuine shared care.
    To be frank, I never really understood Ministers' objections to the original carers' clause, and I said so at the time; but, being a reasonable person, despite the acid comments which I might make from time to time, I accepted the half loaf that the Government offered on Report and rested content with three and a half of the four key points I was asking the House to accept then. During discussions since then, however, the Department agreed to introduce the new clause after clause 2. Happily it is one of the most comprehensible clauses in the Bill and puts beyond doubt the duty of a local authority to assess the need of a disabled person for any of the services listed in section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 on request of the disabled person, his or her authorised representative or the carer as defined in clause 5.
    Apart from the carers' issue a problem has arisen, certainly for lay people and even for some lawyers, from the complex drafting of section 2 of the 1970 Act. Although the best legal advice and, indeed, the departmental circular issued in August 1970, has always maintained that a local authority has a duty to make an assessment, this is not stated clearly in that section, and as recently as February 1986 a disabled person received a letter from a chief executive's department which flatly denied that the duty existed.
    Baroness Masham quoted at length from this letter when moving this new clause in another place, and I shall not repeat it here. I shall only restate my thanks to Ministers for responding to the concern expressed. I can now claim to have at least three and three quarters of what I was seeking on Report—and even a bit more.
    However, there are still some fears, among disabled people that clause 5 could be misinterpreted and encourage local authorities to look to residential care as a solution rather than to provide the domiciliary help specified in the 1970 Act. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that his Department's circular will be explicit on this point, and state unreservedly that the purpose of the Act is to enable disabled people to remain living in their own homes as long as they wish to do so.
    Finally, on implementation, the new clause should come into force immediately as it is simply a confirmation of the existing law. There should be no difficulties. Not to do so might increase the confusion as some people might think assessments were not necessary until it was in force. I also hope that clauses 2 and 5 could come into force next April, as there is nothing totally new involved. Many local authorities, all of which have been widely consulted, will have to make only minimal adaptations to their procedures, although some will obviously have to take their responsibilities under the existing law more seriously and thereby incur greater expense.
    Mr. Mikardo: I am bound to say, with all the charity that I can muster, that amendment No. 11 is nonsensical. It replaces one definition with another that says exactly the same thing, but takes much longer to say it. We can always be sure that when departmental lawyers start to draft amendments they will ensure that the revised wording is a good deal longer than the wording that went before, even if it says the same thing.

    1325
    In this case, four words are replaced by 23. Let me paraphrase what the two versions say. The first says, "on any occasion". The second one says, "on any particular occasion or any other occasion." Can anybody tell me, in terms of the well of English, pure and undefiled, what difference there is between those phrases? I can find no difference,. What would be the difference between a ticket from London Transport that said, "This ticket entitles you to travel to any station on the system", and one that said, "This ticket entitles you to travel to Piccadily Circus or any other station on the system."? What would be the difference between my referring to every hon. Member and referring to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar and any other hon. Member? This is just a piece of normal, legalistic verbal diarrhoea that comes from the recesses of departmental meetings.
    Amendment No. 14 is the only one of their Lordships' amendments with which I disagree, but because I do not wish to waste any time I shall not press my strong disagreement to a Division. The amendment takes away the obligation, when a disabled person has authorised representations that have been turned down, for information that he has the right to make further representations to be given to him. I cannot see any justification for that. It is contrary to all our traditions.
    12.15 pm
    I can take a parallel from the Minister's Department. If an insurance officer rejects a claim, the notification of the rejection of the claim is accompanied by a notification that the claimant is allowed to appeal against that rejection. In some cases, for example in applications for immigration or entry certificates under the immigration rules, the rejections of representations have the notification that an individual is allowed to make representations to another authority.
    Do we not want handicapped people to exercise their rights? What is the good of giving them rights if we do not facilitate the exercise of those rights? We must remember that we are talking about people who are badly handicapped. In the nature of things, many handicapped people and their representatives will not know, when their application is turned down, that they have a right to come back. Why should we not tell them? This is an infringement of civil liberties. If we had been in other circumstances than midday on Friday, I should have wanted to divide the House against the amendment.
    As in the previous group of amendments, if this group is implemented, it will involve some expenditure, perhaps more than that occasioned under the previous group. When dealing with that group, the Minister said —doubtless he will say the same thing on this group when pressed — that he could give no guarantees about implementation. It is a little hollow for him to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on all the work that he has done and his achievement in getting the Bill so far if he will not provide the wherewithal for the Bill to be effective. My hon. Friend cannot provide the wherewithal. It must come from public funds. Although local authorities are involved, we know that with the inextricable weaving of local and national finances, the extent to which the Bill will be implemented, if at all, depends on the extent to which the Minister can chisel a bit more money out of one who is probably the most uncaring Chancellor of the Exchequer this century.
    1326
    Unless the Minister is prepared to have a bash at the Chancellor, his congratulations to my hon. Friend are hollow. It is only my charitable nature that prevents me from using a more perjorative word than that. I urge the Minister to try to put money from the Chancellor where his mouth is.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: I intervene to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said about implementation of clauses 2 and 5 and to endorse his submission that the clauses could and should come into force at the beginning of the next financial year, in April 1987. We are at the beginning of the Public Expenditure Survey Committee annual round. There is thus plenty of time for additional money needed by local authorities to be built into the rate support grant. Will the Minister be pressing for that to happen? In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), will he be tryng his best to influence the Treasury fully to implement the Bill at the earliest possible date?
    There are some who feel that the local authority associations have been "bidding" up the costs of clause 2 for wholly understandable reasons. They see a close parallel with the Government's volte face over the invalid care allowance. As soon as the Government were forced by the European Court to extend the benefit to married women, the cost of doing so fell both inexplicably and dramatically.
    I am convinced that once the Bill becomes an Act and the local authorities and the Department of Health and Social Security start serious negotiations, within the scope of next year's social services expenditure, the hon. Gentleman will end up with an estimate of its cost which he will be able to persuade his colleagues is both acceptable and excellent value for money. Certainly it would be far better value for money than most of the substantial amounts that his Department currently pays out in board-and-lodging payments to rather dubious private homes.
    The Government have cut social security spending by £11·1 billion, while giving £4·4 billion in tax cuts to those earning more than £30,000 a year. When they came to power, the Government promised to "single out" disabled people for special help. Yet all of us, on both sides of the House, know from our mail bags and from our meetings with disabled people that many of them complain today of being "singled out" for special hardship.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West referred to new subsection (7), which meets some of the concern that has been expressed by the British Deaf Association. In determining both the need for communication assistance and the nature of that assistance, the local authority must have regard to the views expressed by the disabled person or his or her representative. I am extremely glad that there has been some, even if still an inadequate, response to the very important representations made to all hon. Members by the British Deaf Association.
    I turn to clause 4, which is about services under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. This clause, inserted in the other place, confirms the right of a disabled person to an assessment of his need for any of the services listed in section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now anticipating matters that are set down for debate later on. He will note that amendments Nos. 34, 35 and so on deal with clause 4, but we have not yet reached them.
    Mr. Morris: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My purpose was to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West, who told the House of a letter that was written to a disabled person by a chief executive, in which he said that there was no duty to assess. My hon. Friend was right to emphasise his deep concern about that letter. There is a duty to assess, and clause 4 puts the matter beyond doubt. It also confirms the right of a carer to ask for an assessment of a disabled person for whom he is caring, which goes some way towards restoring the essence of the original clause 5, which the Government insisted upon deleting on Report in this House.
    I hope that the Minister will respond to the point made by my hon. Friend and that he will return to the vital questions of implementation and resources.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has very clearly and helpfully set out the purpose of the various provisions that we are discussing and I shall not attempt to go over the same ground. As he made clear, a written statement can now be requested, whether or not the disabled person made representations before the assessment was made, and subsequent representations can now be made if the local authority has indicated that it is prepared to meet some but not all of the needs which the disabled person himself or herself has identified.
    I shall take note of what the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said in one of his engaging and frequent interventions during our proceedings this morning about amendment No. 14. However, if he studies the affects of amendments Nos. 11 to 18 he will see that representation rights, far from being reduced, as he half implied in his remarks, have been extended by the work that has been undertaken in another place in the cooperative spirit that has pervaded most of our proceedings. I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member will welcome that.
    I welcome in particular the amendment that, as has been acknowledged, has been made largely in response to representations by the British Deaf Association not least because, as the Scottish or near-Scottish hon. Member who is present in the Chamber will be interested to hear. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) recently made a substantial expedition to Rothesay on the Isle of Bute for two hours on one morning to address the triennial congress of the British Deaf Association. I am well aware of the importance that it attaches to some of these provisions and to improving the rights of disabled people generally. It is good that we have been able to respond to its interests and representations. That provision requires local authorities, when considering whether interpretation services are required, to have regard to the views of the disabled person on the need for such services and, if considered appropriate, what they should be.
    I apologise for having commented in the absence of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar on his first point, but the other point that he raised with me related to the reason for the drafting of amendment No. 11 in that particular way. I have been advised to say that—
    Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman does not believe it, does he?
    Mr. Newton: I do not think that I am qualified to comment on the draftsman's choice of words. What is apparent, though, is that neither I nor my officials have the faintest notion of why the draftsman chose to draft the amendment in that way. I shall not, therefore, attempt to go further, other than to say that, so far as I can see, it does not damage anyone's interests. It may improve the interests of lawyers by making the legislation slightly more complex than otherwise it would have been. I shall draw the attention of the draftsman to the hon. Gentleman's observations. May I pay a small, informal tribute to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar for the remarkable skill with which he focuses his mind on some of these points, at what I take to be reasonably short notice, and then comes out with some remarkably good points.
    On the implementation of clause 2, as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar expected, I have to repeat what I said about clause 1. There will be substantial resource costs for local authorities. I resist the suggestion that the Government's approach is in any sense hollow. I hope that I carry those Opposition Members who are concerned with the Bill with me on the proposition that, throughout, the Government have made it clear that their co-operation with the Bill necessarily rested on the need for commencement orders which the Government would have to consider in the light of when resources could be made available. There has been no deception or disingenuousness about that approach throughout the Bill. The Government have proceeded on that basis.
    The right hon. Member for Manchester Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) referred to the basis on which local authorities made their estimates. Whatever else may lie between us, we clearly need to have a fairly good estimate of the likely costs before deciding when to make commencement orders. I shall not speculate whether the right hon. Gentleman is right in his virtually explicit suggestion that local authorities have exaggerated the costs of the clause. However, it would be helpful to refine those estimates and reach ones that he would be prepared to accept as more realistic and we regard as reliable. We must have a reasonably reliable estimate before we can decide whether to bring the clause into effect.
    I hope that I made it clear earlier that I shall, with best endeavour, attempt to ensure that we reach that stage as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously expect me to discuss the nature of any exchanges within central Government that might underlie that process.
    I am pleased to say that I can be more forthcoming about the new clause. It puts beyond doubt that local authorities have a duty to consider the need of the disabled for services under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, if so requested by the disabled person, his representative or his carer. Some concern has been expressed that the current law is not entirely unambiguous. We were pleased to co-operate with the Bill's sponsors in drafting the new clause to put the matter beyond doubt. We intend to bring the provision into effect at the earliest convenient opportunity. I understand that local authorities may, unless there is good reason, find it convenient for those parts of the Bill that can be

    1329
    implemented soon to be brought into effect together at the beginning of the next financial year. We shall aim at a date of 1 April, 1987, which is what the sponsors want.
    Clause 5, which relates to carers, was discussed at length on Report. I undertook to consider whether its intention could be clarified by changes in the drafting. After careful consideration we decided that the suggested changes would substantially widen the effects of the clause. I understand that the Bill's sponsors accept that the wording should remain substantially unchanged. However, I note the helpful comment of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, who said that he thought that he was getting three and three quarters out of the five that he wanted.
    Following the commitment given by my right hon. Friend on Report, an amendment has been tabled to ensure that interpretation services are provided if carers are unable to communicate because of disability and the local authority needs to communicate with them to determine whether they can continue to provide care. I hope that it will be possible to implement that clause not later than April 1987, in line with the sponsors' request.
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West asked about clarifying the general purpose of clause 5. The aim is not to encourage residential care, but to help people who so wish to stay in their own homes, if that is the best solution to their problems. I emphasise that the overall objective of this clause, together with all provisions relating to services for the disabled, is to ensure that we find the best answer to the problems of the individual. Although we all accept that more often than at present people should stay in their own homes, that cannot always be the case. The Bill cannot eliminate the need for residential care, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not implying that the disabled should be kept in their own homes regardless of considerations that might mean that they should be in residential care. The general thrust is to improve the opportunities and services for people to stay in their own homes if that is what they want, so there is no difference of opinion between us on that.
    The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe strayed into the somewhat more contentious area of alleged cuts in social security and the position of the disabled. I simply do not accept what he said, but I shall not spend much time on that argument. Far from there having been cuts, the social security budget has risen substantially in real terms, as has the overall value of benefits paid to the disabled for a variety of reasons, including the increased numbers of disabled people receiving benefits, the real value of which have increased. The Government have made a number of significant improvements, not least in the real value of mobility allowance, by removing the invalidity trap that affected many people on supplementary benefits, by introducing the severe disablement allowance and by extending the invalid care allowance. Therefore, although I do not wish to turn the debate into an argument about Government policy, I felt that I had to explain why I simply could not accept what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    I welcome and endorse the Lords amendments and hope that the House will approve them.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

  Clause 3

    PERSONS LEAVING SPECIAL EDUCATION
    Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 6, line 27, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
    (3) Where an opinion has in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) been given in the case of a child that he is a disabled person and it subsequently appears to the responsible authority—

    (a) that the child will cease to receive full-time education at school on a particular date and will not subsequently be receiving full-time education at a further education establishment, or

    (b) that the child will cease to receive full-time education at such an establishment on a particular date,

    and (in either case) that he will be under the age of 19 on the relevant date, the authority shall give to the appropriate officer written notification for the purposes of subsection (4) of the date referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); and any such notification shall be given not later than the relevant date and not earlier than four months before that date.
    In this subsection "the relevant date" means the date falling 8 months before the date referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above.
    (3A) If at any time it appears to a local education authority—

    (a) that a person has on a particular date ceased to receive full-time education as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)of subsection (3) or will cease to do so on a particular date falling less than 8 months after that time, and

    (b) that no notification of that date has been given to the appropriate officer under that subsection with respect to that person, but

    (c) that, had that or any other authority (as the responsible authority for the time being) been aware of his intentions 8 months or more before that date, they would have been required to give notification of that date under that subsection with respect to him,

    that authority shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, give to the appropriate officer written notification for the purposes of subsection (4) of that date.
    (4) When the appropriate officer receives a notification given with respect to any person under subsection (3) or (3A), he shall (subject to subsections (4A) and (4B)) make arrangements for the local authority of which he is an officer to carry out an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision by that authority of any statutory services for that person in accordance with any of the welfare enactments, and any such assessment shall be carried out—

    (a) in the case of a notification under subsection (3), not later than the end of the period of 5 months beginning with the date of receipt of the notification, or

    (b) in the case of a notification under subsection (3A), before the date specified in the notification, if reasonably practicable, and in any event not later than the end of the period referred to in paragraph (a) above.

    (4A) If—

    (a) a notification has been given to the appropriate officer with respect to any person under subsection (3) or (3A), but

    (b) it subsequently appears to a local education authority that that person will be receiving full-time education (whether at school or at a further education establishment) at a time later than the date specified in the notification,

    the authority shall give written notification of the relevant facts to that officer as soon as is reasonably practicable; and on receiving any such notification that officer shall cease to be required under subsection (4) to make arrangements for the assessment of the needs of the person in question (but without prejudice to the operation of that subsection in relation to any further notification given with respect to that person under subsection (3) or (3A)).

    1331
    (4B) Nothing in subsection (4) shall require the appropriate officer to make arrangements for the assessment of the needs of a person—

    (a) if, having attained the age of 16, he has requested that such arrangements should not be made under that subsection, or

    (b) if, being under that age, his parent or guardian has made such a request.

    (4C) Regulations under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1981 (assessments and statements of special educational needs) may, in relation to the transfer of statements made under section 7 of that Act, make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the preceding provisions of this section."
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 26, in page 6, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 7 and insert—
    "the appropriate officer", in relation to the child or person referred to in the provision of this section in question, means such officer as may be appointed for the purposes of this section by the local authority for the area in which that child or person is for the time being ordinarily resident;"
    No. 27, in page 7, line 12, leave out "college of further education" and insert "further education establishment".
    Mr. Clarke: Although the amendments to this clause are long and complex, they are necessary to give substance to the principle accepted by the House on Report—that there should be a social services assessment before disabled children leave full-time education either at school or a further education establishment.
    The notification by LEAs to the social services of the school leaving date must take place not earlier than 12 months after, and not later than eight months before, that date. The social services assessment must be arranged within five months of that notification. Therefore, it should be undertaken at least three months before the young person leaves school, which should give the authorities time to make whatever practical arrangements are necessary.
    The great bulk of amendment No. 25 concerns what should happen if it is not possible to give eight months' notice because of a late decision or because a child moves school to another area after the procedures in subsections (1) and (2) have taken place. The same is true of the new clause introduced by amendment No. 33, which requires the local education authority to keep under review the expected school leaving dates of disabled children covered by clause 3 and which, in conjunction with amendment No. 29, specifies that the LEA responsible for a disabled person when he leaves full-time education at school shall remain responsible during his time in further education.
    It is fair to say that further education is still a very grey area, especially for disabled people. Further education was omitted from the 1981 Act, partly on the understanding that a review of the legal basis of further education was in progress. That review has apparently evaporated, and the hole identified by the Warnock report is still there. The new clause, however, gives me hope that the DES is beginning to look favourably on maintaining statements of disabled children during further education. Indeed, it is the obvious logical next step.
    1332
    Only two items have been lost in the transformation of this clause, and I should like to mention them. In the original Bill, the notification could take place only with the consent of the parent or disabled person. Subsection (4B) now allows only the parent or young person to decline the subsequent assessment—the previous notification will be automatic. I hope that LEAs will be encouraged to give parents or the disabled student full information about the Bill's requirements at that earlier stage.
    The second loss—I understand for legal reasons—is that students who are over 19 on the date eight months before they are due to leave are excluded from the Bill. I believe that the guidance to LEAs and social services departments should ask them to be included, albeit on a non-statutory basis. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on this.
    I should like to thank the Minister and his officials for their hard work on the complex drafting of this clause. I hope that he will answer any detailed questions on the wording. On implementation, which is also crucial here, it seems to me that, as the whole clause depends on the formal opinion as to whether the child is disabled given by the social services under subsection (1) or (2) soon after his 14th birthday, it is absolutely essential for the clause to be brought into force immediately so that the whole process can begin.
    I remind the House that the purpose of subsection (1) was simply to exclude non-disabled children from the later procedures—in most cases it will be obvious to everyone that a child is disabled. I hope, therefore, that severely disabled children now over 14 who may never fall within subsection (1) will not necessarily be excluded from the benefits of notification and assessment. I should have thought that LEAs could be encouraged to operate notification of obviously disabled children and young people informally this autumn, and social services departments could be asked to make assessments before they leave school or college next summer. I shall listen to the Minister with great interest and care.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Although clause 5 has more than doubled in length, the effect of the changes is minor, which will perhaps remind the House of one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I agree with the Minister's tribute to my hon. Friend. We have had a virtuoso performance from him today.
    One slight disappointment that I have is that, for legal reasons, under subsection (3), the clause will apply only to disabled people who are under 19 on the day eight months prior to their presumed leaving date. The Department of Education and Science has informally promised to advise local education authorities to apply the same procedures for people just over 19, and the DHSS has promised to do the same for social services departments whose duties under subsection (4) apply only to those formally notified under subsection (3). It would be helpful if that commitment were to be stated in the House today. I hope that the Minister will do so when he replies.
    Mr. Newton: As the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) explained, the amendments to this part of the Bill, although a further formidable compliment to the powers of the draftsman, basically tidy up the Bill. The most significant change has been to reduce the advance

    1333
    notification of the expected school leaving date for a disabled child or young person from nine months to eight months.
    Many tributes have been paid this morning and perhaps I might add another—to the Department of Education and Science officials who have also worked hard, especially in respect of this part of the Bill. They have undoubtedly contributed to it. The hon. Gentleman referred to the position of disabled young people who remain in full-time education after the age of 19. Formally, clause 3 covers only disabled people in full-time education under the age of 19 on the date that notification is due. However, if they become 19 during the notice period it will not affect the duty of the appropriate officer to make the necessary assessments under the welfare enactments. The reason for that restriction is because full-time schooling under the Education Act 1944 and the making of statements for those at school under the Education Act 1981 is geared to the maximum age of 19 years. It is necessarily within those constraints that the amendments have been drafted.
    12.45 pm
    However, the Government have no wish to deprive disabled young people who stay on in full-time education after the age of 19 of rights which they would have enjoyed had they decided to leave full-time education at 19. We shall make that clear in guidance to local education authorities and social services departments. I hope that that is a helpful assurance to the House.
    I turn to the now hallowed issue of implementation. If possible, we should like to bring the provisions into effect in time to benefit disabled young people leaving full-time education in the summer of 1987, that is by the autumn of this year. We shall be consulting urgently with local authority associations about achieving that. It has been pointed out that children leaving school next summer could not in any case fall within the scope of clause 3(1)(a), which requires an opinion as to whether a child is disabled to be recorded at the first annual review of the statement by the local education authority after his 14th birthday. However, we shall consider with the local authority associations whether any administrative way can be found of enabling children who have already at the time the clause comes into effect had this review to benefit from the notification and assessment provisions provided for in the later parts of the clause. I hope that the House will find that assurance helpful.
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West asked about the duty of local education authorities to give parents and young people full information about assessments. I am happy to give him an assurance that we shall aim to cover the point that local education authorities should be encouraged to give full information about assessments to both parents and young people in the guidance which we hope to issue. I hope that that will all be of help to the House and that it will accede to the motion to accept the amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 4

    PERSONS DISCHARGED FROM HOSPITAL
    Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 7, line 25, leave out "a".
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:
    No. 35, in page 7, line 27, leave out from "discharged" to end of line 35 and insert—
    "the managers of the hospital shall give written notification of that date—

    (a) to the health authority in whose district or area it appears to the managers that that person is likely to reside after his discharge (unless the managers are that authority),

    (aa) to the local authority in whose area it appears to them that that person is likely then to reside, and"
    No. 36, in page 7, line 36, leave out—
    "where that person will be"
    and insert—
    "in the case of a person".
    No. 37, in page 7, line 36, leave out "the age of 19" and insert "the relevant age".
    No. 38, in page 7, line 37, after "date," insert "to".
    No. 39, in page 7, line 37, at end insert—
    "as soon as is reasonably practicable after that date is known to the managers."
    No. 40, in page 7, line 42, at end insert—
    "the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland or by".
    No. 41, in page 8, line 2, leave out "in a hospital".
    No. 42, in page 8, line 5, leave out from beginning to "subsection" in line 7 and insert—
    "the managers of the hospital shall give written notification of that person's discharge in accordance with paragraphs (a), (aa) and (b) of".
    No. 43, in page 8, line 8, at end insert—
    "(2A) Where—

    (a) a health authority receive a notification given with respect to a person under subsection (1) or (2), or

    (b) the managers of a hospital from which a person is to be, or is, discharged as mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) are the health authority referred to in subsection (1)(a),

    that authority shall (subject to subsection (3)) make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision of any services under the 1977 Act or 1978 Act which the Secretary of State is under a duty to provide; and in making any such arrangements a health authority falling within paragraph (a) above shall consult the managers of the hospital in question.
    (2B) Where a local authority receive a notification given with respect to a person under subsection (1) or (2), the authority shall (subject to subsection (3)) make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision of any services under any of the welfare enactments.
    (2C) A health authority and a local authority who are by virtue of subsections (2A) and (2B) each required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a particular person shall co-operate with each other in the making of those arrangements.
    (2D) Any assessment for which arrangements are required to be made by virtue of subsection (2A) or (2B) shall be carried out—

    (a) where the notification in question was given under subsection (1), not later than the date mentioned in that subsection, or

    (b) where the notification in question was given under subsection (2), as soon as is reasonably practicable after receipt of the notification."

    No. 44 in page 8, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

    1335
    "(3) A health authority or a local authority shall not be required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a person by virtue of subsection (2A) or (2B) if that person has requested them not to make any such arrangements.
    (3A) Nothing in this section shall apply in relation to a person who is being discharged from a hospital for the purpose of being transferred to another hospital in which he will be an in-patient (whether or not he will be receiving medical treatment for mental disorder); but any reference in subsection (1) or (2) to a person's having received medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient for the period mentioned in that subsection is a reference to his having received such treatment for that period as an in-patient in one or more hospitals (any interruption of that period attributable to his being transferred between hospials being disregarded)."
    No. 45, in page 8, line 16, leave out "is" and insert "are".
    No. 46, in page 8, line 16, after "authority" insert "or, in Scotland an education authority".
    No. 47, in page 8, line 17, leave out "its" and insert "their".
    No. 48, in page 8, line 18, after "authority" insert "or (as the case may be) education authority".
    No. 49, in page 8, line 20, after "where" insert ", in England and Wales,"
    No. 50, in page 8, line 20, leave out "is" and insert "are"
    No. 51, in page 8, line 22, at end insert—
    "health authority"—

    (a) in relation to England and Wales, means a District Health Authority, and

    (b) in realation to Scotland, means a Health Board;"

    No. 52, in page 8, leave out lines 23 to 33.
    No. 53, in page 9, line 3, leave out
    "within the meaning of the 1978 Act"
    No. 54, in page 9, line 19, at end insert
    "and "the relevant age"—

    (a) in relation to England and Wales, means the age of 19; and

    (b) in relation to Scotland, means the age of 18"

    No. 55, in page 9, leave out lines 20 to 23.
    Mr. Clarke: Clause 4 has perhaps seen more changes of substance, as opposed to drafting, than any other clause in the Bill, so I shall spend rather more time explaining individual amendments than I have on other clauses. I should first, however, like to remind the House of the changes to the clause during its passage through this House. In the original Bill the requirement was for hospital managers to inform the social services 28 days before anyone was discharged who had
    "been receiving medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient for a period of, or periods totalling not less than, six months in the preceding twelve months."
    The social services were then required to make assessment of their needs within 28 days.
    On Report the Government produced a clause which simply required notification of discharge by hosptial to social services — a procedure described by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities as a waste of paper. I had already reluctantly agreed to drop the totalling of short periods and tabled a new clause which required hospital managers to arrange an assessment before a person was discharged. It had been agreed in discussions with the associations that the initiative should be taken by the hospital. My new clause was accepted by the Government and the House.
    As the Minister for Health said, there were certain illogical aspects in the drafting, although the purpose was clear. In particular, the clause as it stood required the
    1336
    hospitals to arrange an assessment of a person's social services needs, but there was no duty on the social services to co-operate.
    It would, perhaps, have been easy for the Minister to have taken a minimalist approach; but I am delighted to say he did not do so. Encouraged by the associations—the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the National Association of Health Authorities — who clearly wanted an effective clause, agreement was reached on the amendments which we are considering.
    Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 38 and 39 require the hospital managers to send written notification of the date of discharge to the local authority of the area in which the patient is to live and also to the district health authority and the local education authority if the patient is under 19. I should say in explanation that in most cases the "hospital managers" will be a district health authority and there are exclusions throughout the clause to prevent them informing themselves or consulting themselves if the same DHA will continue to be responsible for the patient.
    Following notification, amendment No. 43 ensures that each authority will be required to take action as follows. Under subsection (2A) the district health authority must assess the patient's need for services under the National Health Service Act 1977 in consultation with the hospital managers. Under subsection (2B) the social services department must assess the need for services under the "welfare enactments" and, of course, in this case clause 2 will also apply.
    Subsection (2C) also places the additional duty on each of these authorities to co-operate with one another in making the arrangements for assessments. In many cases authorities may wish to undertake joint assessments; but it was not felt right to tie their hands in primary legislation and tie the practical arrangements to a precise formula which may not be credible or operable in all circumstances.
    Subsection (2D) requires both these assessments to be undertaken before the discharge, or as soon as possible after discharge, following the order of a mental health review tribunal or, in Scotland, the Mental Welfare Commission or the sheriff. Where a discharge is properly planned there should be no fear of it being held up by this clause. As the Mental Health Act Commission asserted in its first biennial report in 1985:
    "Discharge should be a process, not an event."
    Where the temptation might be to make an overnight decision to discharge someone, the clause will ensure adequate planning for that person. In any event, subsection (3) in amendment No. 44 allows patients to waive their right to an assessment.
    The duty on the local education authority is not so clear. I understand that if the patient is under 16 the procedures under the Education Act 1981 will apply. The LEA will either initiate an assessment of the child's special educational needs or amend an existing statement. What will happen if the patient is over 16 but under 19 is less clear, but perhaps the Minister can clarify this in his speech.
    Subsection (3A) in amendment No. 44 is a technical amendment to stop assessments being triggered by transfers between hospitals and also to confirm that time spent in different hospitals will be added together for the purpose of the six months mentioned in subsection (1).

    1337
    The remainder of the amendments are either technical or are necessary for the application of the clause to Scotland.
    The clause introduces significant new duties to make assessments and in view of the dearth of provisions for people who are mentally ill in many parts of the country there will — rightly—be a knock-on effect on services and some authorities will need to incur substantial expenditure. Nevertheless, I am sceptical about some of the estimates that I have seen which seem to involve building new mini-institutions for people with mental illness. I say again in connection with this clause that there will be dismay around the country if excuses are made for delaying its implementation, since the principle has now been accepted.
    Assessment is fundamental to the successful discharge of long-stay patients into the community. The clause is needed immediately; indeed, it is long overdue.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: We owe a special debt of gratitude to another place for its work on this part of the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) will join me in that tribute.
    We are dealing with an extremely important provision. If there is a failure properly to assess a disabled person leaving hospital, he or she is all too likely to end up back in hospital rather than in the community. I know that the Minister will appreciate the importance of this part of the Bill and will do all that he can to ensure its implementation at the earliest possible date.
    There has been repeated emphasis on the two vexed issues of implementation and resources. We shall return time and again to those issues to make absolutely certain that this extremely important Bill is implemented fully at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. Newton: As the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has explained, following our extensive debate on the clause on Report, another place has helped us to get the provisions into what is generally accepted to be a satisfactory form. I am particularly grateful for the hon. Gentleman's warm acknowledgement of the fact that we have all sought to get the provisions into an acceptable form and have not adopted what he calls a minimalist approach. I should certainly not wish to see such an approach.
    Health authorities and social services departments are to be required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a disabled person for their respective services. When they receive notification that a long-stay patient is to be discharged, the authorities and departments will be required to co-operate with each other in making the arrangements.
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West asked about the duties of local education authorities if they are notified under clause 4(1)(b) of the discharge from hospital of a child or a young person aged under 19. The general purpose of the subsection is to ensure that local education authorities are in a position to discharge their responsibilities either under the Education Act 1981 or clause 3 of the Bill.
    The hon. Member rightly said that in the case of a child who is at school the local education authority will be required to consider whether amendments are needed to the terms of any existing statement of special educational
    1338
    needs or, if no such statement exists, to consider whether the child's education needs should be assessed with a view to making a statement.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me to say a little more about those over school leaving age. In the case of a child over 16 who is already subject to a statement and transfers to a full-time course of further education, the local education authority is no longer obliged under the Education Act to maintain the statement, but it will be under a duty, under clause 3, to inform the social services department in due course of the child's leaving date.
    In the comparatively rare cases of children who are subject neither to the Education Act 1981 nor to clause 3—children who are not, or have not been, subject to a statement and who either transfer to further education or cease full-time education — it will be for the social services department, under clause 4, to assess their needs.
    I know that this is a slightly complex issue, but I hope that my explanation will help hon. Members and those outside the House who are following our proceedings carefully.
    Predictably and understandably — I make no complaint about it—the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) returned again to the implementation of an important clause which I am pleased to see in the Bill.
    1 pm
    On Report, the hon. Member for Monklands, West said that he was prepared for the implementation of this clause to be delayed slightly longer than other clauses in the Bill—although I realise that he would not expect that to be a long time — in order to allow adequate preparation. He said that he hoped that the target date would be set no later than 1988–89. 1 regret that, once again, I must be a little less forthcoming than I have been on one or two other clauses that we have discussed recently. As always, we are once again back in an area where resources are an important factor.
    As yet, we have not come to a common view with the local authority and health authority associations on how, if at all, changes introduced to the Bill on Report, as subsequently refined in another place, will affect the overall costings. In other words, there is still a good deal of uncertainty about costings in this area and it inescapably follows from that that it is impossible for me to make any useful comments at this precise point in time about when the clause will be implemented.
    However, we shall continue discussions to try to make sure that we obtain the best and most reliable estimates of what is involved as soon as possible. Then, as I have already said, we shall be looking for ways forward to achieve the speediest possible implementation, subject always to the availability of the money—in other words, finding the resources to make sure that local authorities and health authorities have them.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister talked of the Bill costing an estimated £100 million. He talks about costs; we talk about net costs. Clearly, there will be savings on this part of the Bill if the right action is taken at the right time. If a person leaving hospital is not properly assessed, he or she is likely to return to hospital at far greater cost to the taxpayer than if adequate help is provided in the

    1339
    community. Can we be assured that full consideration will be given to the savings that will accrue if disabled people are given the right help in the right place at the right time?
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman makes an entirely legitimate point about the potential savings that might arise from some forms of expenditure under the clause. But, in doing so, he will, as I hope he will acknowledge, have to bear in mind some of the difficulties in achieving a good estimate of the cost of such provisions. Making estimates of the kind which he implies are required is a difficult and complex matter. I cannot add to what I have said. The Government are approaching the matter in the spirit of wishing to make progress as soon as possible, but I am unable to give a precise implementation date at this stage. We shall do what we can to get into a position to make a better assessment of the costs as soon as possible, which, in turn, will enable us to make a better assessment of when we may be able to make a commencement order.
    Mr. Wigley: May I press the Minister a little on this because it is obviously important? I do not want any delay in the introduction of the clause to be a reason for not pressing ahead with the integration of people from long-stay hospitals into the community. There may be some who believe that it would be preferable to wait until better safeguards are available but that would be detrimental. The Under-Secretary of State wrote to me last month telling me that the average cost in England for a stay in hospital for mentally handicapped people is £227 a week and for mentally ill people, £255 a week. That shows the fairly considerable costs that there are and I should have thought that, following what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said a few moments ago about achieving a balance between the figures, we should try to make rapid progress in this matter.
    Mr. Newton: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I can assure him that the Government are not looking for ways to diminish progress towards care in the community in the sense that he is talking about. Indeed, I think that it is fair to claim that that has advanced rapidly under the Government, especially in relation to those who were formerly in long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped, and, not least, in respect of children in such hospitals, where the drop in numbers has been dramatic during the past few years. We are all anxious to see that momentum sustained.
    One of the other complicating factors is that much of this assessment work already goes on. It is not the practice suddenly to decant children, or indeed adults, from long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped without taking a look at what their needs will be in the community, and making provision for them.
    Thus it is quite a complex business to assess what additional resources will be involved in implementing the clause. However, we shall be doing so as soon, and as effectively as possible. But I think that the hon. Member for Monklands, West will recognise that the task is complex. We shall not drag our feet, but I am not in a position to be more specific today.
    Questions put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [one with Special Entry.]

  Clause 9

    AMENDMENT OF SECTION 29(2) OF THE CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS ACT 1970
    Lords amendment: No. 64, in page 11, line 3, leave out
    "Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970"
    and insert "1970 Act".
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments:
    No. 65, in page 11, line 10, after "persons" insert ", or"
    No. 66, in page 11, line 12, leave out
    "under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968"
    and insert
    "to whom section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968applies".
    No. 67, in page 11, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
    "(2) In section 2 of the 1968 Act (social work committees and functions referred to them) in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "as read with sections 1 and 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986".
    (3) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only.".
    No. 68, after clause 9, insert the following new clause
    Persons leaving special education: Scotland—
    "9A. — (1) Before an education authority make a report under section 65B(1) of the 1980 Act on a child they shall require the appropriate authority to give an opinion as to whether or not the child is a disabled person.
    (2) Where the appropriate authority have given an opinion that the child is a disabled person, the education authority shall make a note of this opinion in the Record kept under section 60(2) of the 1980 Act and in the report made under section 65B(1) of that Act.
    (3) Where an education authority—

    (a) intend to record a child or young person under section 60(2) of the 1980 Act (recording of children with special educational needs) after the period mentioned in section 65B(2) of that Act; or

    (b) after making a report under the said section 65B(1) on a child or young person who was not at the time of the report a disabled person, become aware of a significant change in the mental or physical condition of the child or young person giving them reason to believe that he may now be a disabled person.

    they shall before opening the Record or, as the case may be, on becoming aware of the change, require the appropriate authority to give an opinion as to whether or not the child or young person is a disabled person and if the appropriate authority give an opinion that he is, this opinion shall be recorded in the Record and (where applicable) the report.
    (4) Where the appropriate authority have given an opinion that a child or young person is a disabled person it shall be the duty of that authority to make an assessment of the needs of that child or young person with respect to the provision by the authority of any statutory services for that person in accordance with the welfare enactments, and for that assessment to be carried out—

    (a) in the case of a child in relation to whom a report is made under section 65B(1) of the 1980 Act, within the period mentioned in section 65B(2) of that Act; and

    (b) in the case of a child or young person who is considered to be disabled under subsection (3) above, as soon as is reasonably practicable (but, in any event, not later than 6 months from the time the appropriate authority was asked for an opinion as to whether or not the child or young person was a disabled person),

    and to make a report thereon.

    1341
    (5) Where the appropriate authority have given an opinion that a child or young person is a disabled person and it subsequently appears to the education authority—

    (a) that the child or young person will cease to receive full-time education at school at a particular date and will not subsequently be receiving full-time education at a further education establishment; or

    (b) that the child or young person will cease to receive full-time education at such an establishment on a particular date,

    the education authority shall, not later than 6 months before that date, record the date in the report or (if no report has been made) give written notification of the date to the appropriate authority.
    (6) If at any time it appears to the education authority—

    (a) that a child or young person who has been recorded as being disabled has ceased to receive full-time education; and

    (b) the authority did not at the appropriate time—

    (i) record that date in the report made under section 65B of the 1980 Act; or (as the case may be)

    (ii) give notification to the appropriate authority; and

    (c) a copy of the report has not been sent to the bodies mentioned in section 65B(6) of the said Act,

    they shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, record the date in the report and send a copy of the report to the appropriate authority or (if no report has been made) give written notification of the date to the appropriate authority.
    (7) The education authority and the appropriate authority shall keep under consideration the cases of all children and young persons on whom a report has been made under section 65B of the 1980 Act or, as the case may be, under subsection (4) and shall at such times as they consider appropriate review the information contained in the report.
    (8) Nothing in subsection (4) shall require the appropriate authority to make an assessment of the needs of a child or young person—

    (a) if having attained the age of 16, he has requested that such an assessment should not be made under that subsection; or

    (b) if, being under that age or unable to make such a request by reason of any mental or physical incapacity, his parent has made such a request.

    (9) In this section "appropriate authority" means the local authority for the purposes of the 1968 Act falling to perform functions in relation to the child or young person; and expressions used in the 1980 Act have the same meaning in this section as in that Act.
    (10) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only.".
    No. 69, in clause 10, page 11, line 15, leave out "Education (Scotland) Act 1980" and insert "1980 Act".
    No. 70, in clause 10, page 12, line 26, after "persons" insert "— (a)".
    No. 71, in clause 10, page 12, line 30, at end insert—
    "(b) in subsection (2) before paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
    "(aa) a decision of an education authority not to record the young person or, following a review under section 65A of this Act, not to continue to record him;";".
    No. 72, in clause 10, page 12, line 32, after "paragraph(a)" insert — (a)".
    No. 73, in clause 10, page 12, line 33, at end insert—
    "(b) for the words "(2)(a)" substitute "(2)(aa) or (a)".
    No. 74, in clause 11, page 12, line 36, leave out from beginning to "of" in line 38 and insert—
    "In relation to disabled persons the duty under section 13 of the 1978 Act".
    No. 75, in clause 11, page 13, line 6, at end insert—
    "(2) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only."
    Mr. Clarke: We now come to the Scottish part of the Bill, and I am happy to say that most of the amendments
    1342
    are technical. Perhaps I should say that I have reached the "exclusively" Scottish part, as all the Bill applies to Scotland except clause 3, whose Scottish equivalent is the new clause represented by amendment No. 68. Its construction is significantly different from the English clause, because of the very different and, dare I say better, construction of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which seems to bridge the gap between school and further education that I mentioned in relation to clause 3.
    The establishment of a Future needs assessment has already been represented as a method of improving the lot of youngsters before they leave school, in that it offers an opportunity for all involved with the child's education to consider progress to date and to plan for the future. Yet in many parts of the country, including in my constituency, improvement has not been effective because the agency that must take responsibility for helping the young person in the next stage of his life, the social work department, has not been involved.
    The new clause will avoid that break in the link and will provide an opportunity for improving the considerable progress that has been made over the past few years. If any right hon. and hon. Members have detailed questions to ask about the new clause, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will no doubt be delighted to reply.
    Hon. Members will recall that on Report a clause relating to joint planning in Scotland was deleted after the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), promised to arrange for the introduction of a clause in the other place to provided reserve powers to put joint planning in Scotland on a statutory basis. He wished, as we all did, to include the elderly. But the powers that be have decreed that it is impossible to make the necessary amendment to the long title.
    Consequently, Lord Skelmersdale repeated a committment given to me privately that the Government would introduce the amendment to the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill. I find that arrangement entirely satisfactory. My aim is to see the legislation that we all want on the statute book and in force, and not to pack all and sundry into this Bill in order to boost the status of the so-called Tom Clarke Bill. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that view.
    Although I should like to place on record my appreciation for the Government's action on this matter, I must at the same time express some reservations. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will convey them to his hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security. My reservations reflect the concerns expressed to me by the care in the community working party, which brings together a wide range of voluntary and professional organisations in Scotland. It is concerned that the Scottish Office has not been able to produce the relevant clauses for discussion. Its attitude has been in sharp contrast to that of its English colleagues, who have devoted time to consulting my advisers on the most effective means of improving the legislation.
    I hope that the time scale for the implementation of the Bill in Scotland will be similar to that, or perhaps shorter than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. At an earlier stage, I wondered whether the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland — the hon. Member for Argyle and Bute—and the Minister for Health were Mr. Nice and Mr. Nasty. I hope that they will prove themselves to be

    1343
    Mr. Quick and Mr. Speedy and that the Minister for Social Security will show the same urgency in implementing the Bill. They may be sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and 1 and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House will pounce on any signs of lethargy or lack of application.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has explained the reasons for these amendments with his customary excellence and clarity.
    I emphasise that the Government share the concern of the Bill's sponsors that effective joint planning arrangements should operate in Scotland and that voluntary organisations are brought into the process, because they have their proposals to contribute.
    The hon. Member referred to specific provisions and the reasons why no amendment to clause No. 11 had been moved. I confirm that, when a suitably comprehensive clause is included in the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill, a motion to delete clause 11 will be tabled.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me about commencement. I confirm that it is likely that the Government will wish the various provisions of the Bill to commence simultaneously throughout the country. However, we must recognise that commencement will depend in practice on a number of factors, including the availability of resources. That point was made clear during proceedings in the House and in another place. I can fully assure the House, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has every intention of implementing the Bill as quickly as that can be done in the circumstances prevailing at the time and in the light of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. However, the resources available may be subject to different pressures and priorities north and south of the border. A facility for separate commencement is therefore clearly necessary.
    I add my congratulations to those of other right hon. and hon. Members to the hon. Member for Monklands, West.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [one with Special Entry.]

  Clause 12

    INTERPRETATION
    Lords amendment: No. 76, in page 13, line 18, at end insert—
    ""the 1980 Act" means the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;".
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 77, in page 13, line 23, leave out "1(5)" and insert
    (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons) (1)".
    No. 78, in page 13, line 32, at end insert—
    "guardian" (except in section (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons) (6))—
    1344

    (a) in relation to England and Wales, means a person appointed by deed or will or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction to be the guardian of a child; and

    (b) in relation to Scotland, means a person appointed by deed or will or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction to he the tutor, curator or guardian of a child;

    "Health Board" means a Health Board within the meaning of the 1978 Act;
    "hospital"—

    (a) in relation to England and Wales, means—

    (i) a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act, or

    (ii) any accommodation provided by any person pursuant to arrangements made under section 23(1) of that Act (voluntary organisations and other bodies) and used as a hospital; and

    (b) in relation to Scotland, means a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1978 Act;".

    No. 79, in page 13, line 41, leave out "sections 1 and 2" and insert
    "section 1, as read with section 2,".
    No. 80, in page 14, line 2, at end insert—
    ""modifications" includes additions, omissions and amendments;
    "parent"—

    (a) in relation to England and Wales, means, in the case of a child who is illegitimate, his mother, to the exclusion of his father; and

    (b) in relation to Scotland, means, in the case of a child whose father is not married to the mother, his mother, to the exclusion of his father;"

    No. 81, in page 14, line 3, at end insert—
    "special hospital" means a special hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act;
    "State hospital" means a State hospital within the meaning of the 1984 Act;
    "statutory services"—

    (a) in relation to England and Wales, means services under any arrangements which a local authority are required to make by virtue of any of the welfare enactments, and

    (b) in relation to Scotland, means services which a local authority find it necessary to provide themselves or by arrangement with another local authority, or with any voluntary or other body, in connection with the performance of the local authority's functions under the welfare enactments;

    "voluntary organisation" means a body the activities of which are carried on otherwise than for profit, but does not include any public or local authority;".
    No. 82, in page 14, line 10, after "and" insert
    "sections 7 and 8 of".
    No. 83, in clause 14, in page 14, line 17, leave out "made by statutory instrument".
    No. 84, in page 14, line 19, at end insert
    ", and different provision may he made under this subsection for England and Wales and for Scotland".
    No. 85, in page 15, line 21, after "and" insert
    "(except in the case of an order under subsection (2))".
    Mr. Clarke: Inevitably, all these amendments are consequential. The definitions in particular have been moved around the Bill and a number of new definitions have been added. As clause 14 concerns both commencement orders and extent, I should like to put on the record my pleasure at the statement in the other place by Baroness Trumpington on behalf of the Government to the effect that consultation on how the Bill might be translated to Northern Ireland will be put in hand if the Bill is enacted. This was much more positive and constructive than earlier ministerial statements. I am

    1345
    delighted that the Government now accept that the benefits of the Bill should be afforded throughout the United Kingdom to people with disabilities.
    As we come to the end of our deliberations may I take the opportunity to thank the ministerial team which has been responsible for the Government's input into the Bill? I would also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my right hon. and hon. Friends for the work that they have done in taking the Bill this far. There has been an enormous amount of commitment, especially on the part of organisations for the disabled and many others. I believe that the strength of support for those organisations led the Government to many of the decisions they have taken in the course of the Bill's passage through both Houses.
    1.15pm
    We have had a most interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), in the characteristically generous manner we have come to expect from him, predicted that one day I might find myself in heaven. I hope that that will not be too soon because I am not sure that my constituency Labour party would welcome a by-election at this early stage. If that ever happens I am sure that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar will be there in his rightful place, at the very least as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders. I do not know whether there is a St. Ladbroke up there but if there is not I am sure that he will deal with that matter as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) gave magnificent help during the progress of the Bill and I know that that is appreciated by everybody on both sides of the House.
    We have reached the stage at which I would like to move the amendments before the House. In the spirit of the ministerial statements that we have heard from the Dispatch Box on other causes, may I say that I have no doubt that the discussions in both Houses and outside the Palace of Westminster that have led to this comprehensive view of the problems of disability show that the British people have set a clear priority.
    I accept, as I did on Second Reading, that it will be necessary to consider implementation on the basis of phasing. Nevertheless, I believe that in this clause, as in others, the British people and the House will not accept that resources cannot be made available. We believe that even the figure that the Minister has given on several occasions today does not represent something which is extravagant in the extreme.
    We believe that disabled persons and their carers, mentally handicapped persons and families up and down the country have experienced serious problems. The Bill attempts to right some of those problems, although not all of them. However, given the commitment on the part of the Government and the House, which has been shown almost unanimously at every stage, recognised and reflected at the Treasury, the Government are compelled to recognise the strong feelings and make sure that resources are made available.
    Mr. Newton: I shall respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) by saying that in my judgment the Government have shown, persistently over six or seven years, their commitment to the needs and interests of disabled people
    1346
    in a variety of ways, including the improvements and extensions of social security benefits in the way I described a little while ago. We shall continue to do everything we can to ensure that that progress is more than maintained. It is in that spirit and against the background of what we have already been able to achieve that we shall approach the consideration of the implementation of those parts of the Bill with significant effects on resources.
    If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since you inadvertently cut me off without a word on the previous group of amendments and I had some modest news to impart, I should like to impart that good news now. I am talking about clauses 6 to 8. On the matter of timing and implementation, I hope, subject to discussions with local authority associations and other bodies concerned, that it will be possible to bring clauses 6 and 7 into effect no later than April 1987.
    Clause 8 deals with reports to Parliament. We shall consider the possibility of bringing the clause into effect this autumn, and making the first annual report on the basis of 1985 data before the end of the year. I hope that the House will find that helpful. We should be able to produce a more informative report when what is known as Körner data—that is improved information about the Health Service—become available, but that will not be until 1988.
    Perhaps those undertakings and hopes give some further emphasis to what I said about the Government's commitment to continue the progress of improvements for disabled people in a variety of ways.
    I wish to pay my last tribute in these debates to all those who have been connected with our proceedings. I add my words to the kind remarks that have been made about the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), whose performance has been such that I think that he would be well qualified to be a Government Whip, bearing in mind the efficiency that he has shown in organising the proceedings of the House. But perhaps he would regard the prospect of being elevated to the post of Government Whip as a fate worse than death. However, his efforts in organising our proceedings have been of significant assistance to us all. I am grateful to him for what he has done to support the hon. Member for Monklands, West and us all in achieving the happy position in which we find ourselves. We hope that Royal Assent will be only a short time away.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Many who are present congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) at the outset of today's proceedings. I have reserved my congratulations to this final stage so as to be absolutely certain that the Bill is bound for the statute book. This is an extremely important measure and my hon. Friend has been skilful and tireless. He has been wholly superb throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
    I hold it to be the bounden duty of the Minister — as a member of a Government who have given over £4·4 billion in tax relief to those earning over £30,000 a year — to press upon his colleagues the point that implementing this Bill must now be a priority of priorities.
    Again, I most warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West. He will be thanked by disabled people everywhere for nudging things

    1347
    forward on their behalf. I hope that we shall be rejoicing very soon about the full implementation of his legislation.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Incest and Related Offences(Scotland) Bill [Lords]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Incest and Related Offences(Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  Clause 1

    INCEST AND RELATED OFFENCES
    1.24 pm
    Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 40, leave out
    'under the age of 16 years'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 41, after 'offence', insert
    'if that step-child is either under the age of 21 or has at any time before attaining the age of 18 lived in the same household and been treated as a child of his or her family.'.
    No. 3, in page 3, line 2, leave out '16' and insert '21'.
    Mr. Walker: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and I voted against the Bill as it stands. That is the reason for the amendments. Due to some confusion, which I have not yet managed to unravel, or a misunderstanding, my name was not printed as a supporter of the amendment along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling.
    This is not a simple matter. To a non-lawyer, it seems to be complex and legal. The Bill, which has not been amended, may improve one area of Scots law. I do not think that anyone would argue with that. However, if the amendments are not accepted, it will bring about what some non-lawyers may believe to be a legal and moral conflict, which in the end will be likely to create greater social and moral problems. This conflict would be created by problems arising from this Bill and the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986.
    If one takes the view that marriage is more than just a legal matter—that it is ordained for the procreation of children, as the marriage service says—how can it be right for our law to allow an act that could result in the procreation of children, but not allow that act to take place within the institution of marriage? That is an impossible position.
    I am sympathetic to what the Bill is trying to do, but I find it impossible to support a law that would allow an individual to sleep with his stepdaughter over the age of 16 provided that the stepdaughter gives her consent. She would probably become pregnant in the circumstances that one envisages, but, provided that she gives her consent, it is all right for her to become pregnant and have a child. As the law stands, and if the Bill is passed unamended, she will be the mother of a child, the father of which cannot, in law, become her husband. Surely that is nonsense. It is wrong to ask Parliament to put such a measure into legislation unamended. That is why these amendments are so important.
    I recognise, as I am sure that everyone else recognises, that many reforms are required to put right the anomalies in Scottish law. However, is it right for us to write into law that it is in order for a stepfather to sleep with his stepdaughter and produce children, but not legally right for him to marry the 16-year-old, or older, girl? If so, we are saying that fornication and adultery are preferable to marriage.

    1349
    One-parent families are a growing public concern. No one doubts that this matter is causing concern for those involved in social work and activity, those concerned with the churches and anyone who cares deeply about our society. If the Bill is anamended, it will make a positive contribution towards the creation of more one-parent families. The House cannot approve of that.
    More important—and it is to this issue that we must turn our attention—are the children who are likely to result from such a relationship. Does anyone really believe that children conceived in this way would not at least have a real prospect of becoming what is known as problem children—another concern for our modern society? The important aspect is what it does to the children, but another aspect is the attendant cost for the public purse and taxpayer if the situation were to get worse.
    Does anyone believe that bastards conceived between a stepfather and a stepdaughter aged 16, 17 or 18 can hope to be anything other than, at best, a curiosity to other children and other members of the community where they live? We all know that children can be very cruel, and often that makes life extremely difficult for sensitive youngsters. We have a duty and responsibility to them to think about the children who may be conceived as a result of the provisions of the Bill. At best, they will be a curiosity to other children and other members of the community in which they live. At school they will be abused and given, I have no doubt, hideous and horrendous names. Does anyone seriously believe that this is a recipe for a happy and stable home life? Does anyone seriously believe that the legal prevention of marriage between father and mother can make any kind of contribution to a stable home life for either the mother or the child.
    It is difficult for those of us who have a good home life and who enjoyed a good home life as children to envisage anything like this. If a stepfather finds, after his stepdaughter's mother dies, that his stepdaughter is attractive, although she does not find him attractive, does anybody believe that considerable pressure will not be exerted on the child? I do not have the slightest doubt that incest is committed. I do not know how frequently it is committed and I do not know how large the problem is, but it is reasonable to envisage circumstances in which, because of the conditions in the home, the stepdaughter has to comply with the invitation or the order —depending upon how one views it—to get into bed with the stepfather.
    I understand that it is extremely difficult to prove whether or not consent was given, demanded or accepted and that the circumstances become terribly fraught and difficult. However, our duty is to examine the areas of possibility, to find out which of them are likely to be areas of probability and then to reach a decision. Recently a Bill was introduced to prohibit marriage under the age of 21. If this Bill is passed, we shall be saying that provided the 16-year-old stepdaughter has agreed, this is acceptable in law. That would create a huge anomaly. If a stepfather forces a child against her will to get into bed and have intercourse with him, another member of the family has to provide evidence that that has happened. Somebody else is needed to clype—in other words, to tell.
    We have to reach a decision against that background. All this happens within the family home, where there is the real danger of abuse. We are considering legislation that is designed to deal with such abuse. As I said earlier, I am not a lawyer; I am not qualified to deal with complex and
    1350
    difficult legal matters. However, I know that it would be extremely difficult for me to accept that it is all right to have intercourse and to produce children but it is not all right for those children to be given a legal father.
    I believe that these amendments are essential. If it were to be left unamended, the Bill would he an affront to the Christian beliefs of the people of Scotland. Does anyone seriously believe that they can defend the Bill unamended? Could anyone attend church in Scotland on a Sunday and defend a position where marriage between a stepfather and stepdaughter is prevented—
    Mr. James Wallace: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill in its unamended form is substantially the product of a Bill put forward by the Scottish Law Commission, which invited comments from various authorities, including the churches? Only one of the many denominations raised any objection to the Bill. The others welcomed it.
    Mr. Walker: I do not argue with that, but the hon. Gentleman must agree that that was before the Act prohibiting such marriage reached the statute book. It is the relationship between and the difficulties and anomalies that arise from those two Acts that present the problems.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman has the privilege to be the constituency Member of Parliament for my parents. I have considerable sympathy with his point. Can he explain the specific wording of amendment No. 2 which, because of the word "or" in line 2, appears to do rather more than the purpose he has outlined? It could mean that a stepchild of any age—even above 21—who had lived in the same household while under the age of 18 could be caught by the provisions. Will he address himself to that minor but important point?
    Mr. Walker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The object of the word "or" is to prevent someone saying, "But she is no longer living with us." It is well known in Scotland that one of the most common lines of defence when going before the courts is to say, "I didna ken", to which the judge might reply, "Well, you ken noo." If the hon. Gentleman's parents have the good fortune to live in the beautiful part of the world that I represent, they will well understand that.
    I want to know how anybody could go to church on a Sunday and defend a position where marriage between a stepfather and his stepdaughter is prevented by law, although it is perfectly in order — if the Bill is unamended—for them to live together, sleep together and produce children. That question must be answered. I know that I would find it impossible— as, no doubt, would any hon. Member—to persuade the elders of the kirk that somehow that was acceptable.
    I do not pretend that we are dealing with a simple matter. We are not. But that is no excuse for putting into law another anomaly, especially one which, in my judgment as a non-lawyer, in practical terms could have an horrendous impact on the children produced from such a liaison. We must think about the road along which we are travelling and where we are going. Those who support: the Bill and reject the amendments will be saying that fornication and adultery are preferable to marriage. In the old days, the minister would stand up in the pulpit and point out the sinners. That practice has long since passed.
    Mr. Ian Mikardo: There are too many of them now.
    Mr. Walker: I accept that. Who can throw stones? Probably nobody can today. I am concerned about the children who can be produced from such a liaison. Although the minister can no longer stand up in the kirk and point to the sinners, we should not think that the congregation do not look around and comment. We can all imagine them asking, "Have you heard?" The children will be born out of wedlock, but we are saying that that is preferable to their being born in wedlock. That must be unacceptable for anybody who supports the Christian teachings and values of the Scottish Church.
    The Scots will not take kindly to being lectured on fine points of law. Many, especially those who go to church, will point to God's law. That law will be in conflict with the Bill if the amendment is not made.
    Ms. Jo Richardson: I have two apologies to make. The first is that this is the first time that I have had the temerity to speak in a debate on Scottish law. 1 have to confess that I do not understand Scottish law, although I have heard many hon. and learned Members say on other issues that Scottish law is in many respects simpler than English law. That may not be true here, however. There is, I suppose, good and less good on both sides of the border.
    My second apology is that I am not terribly clear of my stance on the amendments. I think that I support the general thrust of the Bill, which seems to be to bring Scottish law into line with English law concerning a stepfather having a relationship with his stepdaughter over the age of 16. I understand that the Bill would make that not an incestuous relationship.
    I did not quite follow what the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was saying about marriage. I am aware that the two are tied up in that there can be issue from a relationship such as we are discussing. He went on at some length about the problems of such children. We are all concerned with them, but the debate is more narrow and concerns only whether a relationship between a stepfather and a stepdaughter over 16 is incestuous. I understand that the amendment would increase the age from 16 to 21. I have mixed feelings about that. I have been forced to be interested because of the increasing and, in many ways, welcome discussion about incest, which until fairly recently has been swept under the carpet. We should all welcome the fact that now both men and women are beginning to discuss these problems, which are particularly difficult for the girl or young woman involved in what amounts to violence against her by a member of her family. I am talking about the normal incestuous relationships about which we hear. It is time that the House, not necessarily this afternoon but on some other occasion, debated the difficulties that face girls and young women who are forced into this type of relationship.
    1.45 pm
    My ambivalence about the amendments arises from my belief that basically young women at the age of 16 should be able to decide on their own relationships. Generally, I would be unwilling to increase the age limit to 21 except in respect of incestuous relationships between a stepfather and stepdaughter. That must be considered in a different light.
    1352
    I am sure that hon. Members will have had cases to deal with. I have had several. I do not know whether it is that women feel more able to talk about incest to a woman Member than to a male Member, however sympathetic and receptive he is. Many women of all ages have told me of the pressures on them from their fathers, stepfathers or, in some cases, their elder brothers to develop a relationship. It can start at an early age when the young girl does not know what is happening, is frightened, and knows that something is wrong but does not know what. She is threatened by her father, stepfather or the boyfriend of her mother who may say to her, "You must not say anything about this because your mother would be very angry and it would hurt her." Some of those women have told me that, despite that, they have a curious attachment to that person because of the secret between them. They do not like it. Indeed, they are often ashamed and worried about it. My ambivalence about the amendments arises I am worried whether 16 is the age at which a young woman with such a history of pressure, in this case from her stepfather, can make up her mind whether she has a proper relationship which she wishes to perpetuate into marriage with that man.
    At some stage we should clarify the matter in a much better way. A year ago I read a piece in The Sunday Times about the complex legal barriers to marriage. It is time that we faced that and, perhaps, the Bill will lead to our facing it. Certainly it is wrong that a stepfather and stepdaughter, at whatever age, with a genuine relationship, should not be able to get married, if that relationship is properly established. Marriage-enabling legislation is usually considered in the House of Lords. I remember reading about a 62-year-old widower who was allowed to marry his 58-year-old stepdaughter through such legislation. Those people would not be included in the categories covered by this Bill. It is wrong for such cases to be decided at personal expense, because they can be very costly.
    The Bill originates because sex between a stepfather and stepdaughter is prohibited by the Incest Act 1567. I am sorry that I am not more of an expert in the subject, but I was interested to hear that the roots of that Act are to be found in the book of Leviticus which describes a husband and wife as being "of one flesh".
    It is interesting that we still have on the statute book legislation based on a doctrine which is obviously out of line with English law. In this case I think that English law is best. It seems that the doctrine dates back 2,000 years.
    I support the thrust of the Bill, but I have to say something which is not often said in the House of Commons—I honestly do not know what to do about the amendment. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) can help me.
    Mr. Chris Smith: I am afraid that I cannot help my hon. Friend in her dilemma. The Scottish Law Revision Committee recommended the amendments which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is proposing. However, the Criminal Law Revision Committee for England and Wales, after initial hesitation and considerable thought, recommended that we should go further than the Scottish Law Revision Committee and adopt the argument presented by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). There is a clear difference between the two law committees. The issues are difficult and sensitive. Arguments exist on both sides. The difficulty has been considered in great detail.
    Ms. Richardson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that two different conclusions were reached. That gives me strength to say that I still do not know the answer. If they cannot agree, who am I to decide?
    If I have to take a view, on balance I think that I am in favour, marginally, of increasing the age to 21, on the ground that incest is such a difficult subject. But I am open to argument. Incest can begin with such violence—that is what worries me—and at such an early age. If such a relationship has gone on for a long time I wonder whether at 16 a young woman—however much she might feel that she is consenting, and no matter what affinity she has with her stepfather—has had a chance to discover her own feelings. However, that applies to marriage rather than to making the relationship incestuous.
    We are not suggesting, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North seems to suggest, that everyone over the age of 16 who is affected in this way should marry. We are debating whether the law should say that with young women over the age of 16 the act is incestuous. I think that I am talking myself into remaining where I was on the age of 16.
    I apologise for my rather confused remarks, but I am pleased that we have had a brief opportunity to discuss the Bill. I hope that it will lead to a more leisurely and better attended debate — perhaps a thoughtful and philosophical discussion—about incest, on which there has been much research by many bodies.
    It is time that the House faced up to the fact that there is considerable violence against young women and children by members of their own families, whether step-relatives or otherwise. I suspect that almost every family knows someone who has suffered. We ought not to sweep the issue under the carpet. We must see whether we can help children and, I hope, their parents.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I hope that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that anything that I said was condoning incest or suggesting that the subject should be swept under the carpet. I find it so horrendous and horrible that I want all aspects of it properly and fully debated.
    I keep coming back not to the father, but to the mother and the child, because they are the important people and we must give them adequate consideration and protection. That is the purpose of the amendments.
    Ms. Richardson: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is saying that extending the age to 21 would give a young woman more protection. However, the Bill says only that with young people under the age of 16 an act should be regarded as incestuous and that if they are over the age of 16 there will not be an incestuous act. I cannot see how extending the age to 21 would help the young women.
    Would not it be better for the children about whom the hon. Gentleman was talking not to know that they were born of an incestuous relationship? Perhaps I am not making myself clear. If so, it is too late for me to apologise now. This is a confusing issue in a confusing Bill. Even our wonderful Library, while perhaps not finding the Bill confusing, found it difficult to follow. I hope that in the not too distant future we shall have a wider discussion of the problem.
    Mr. Wallace: My name appears on the amendments for a procedural reason. The Public Bill Office and those advising me on the Bill did not expect that we would have
    1354
    an opportunity to debate it and, so that it could be deemed to be unopposed and, therefore, agreed to, I added my name to the amendments.
    These are not wrecking amendments. The Bill could live with them, but I should strongly prefer them not to be accepted.
    Let me try to put the amendments into context and perhaps clarify matters for the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). The present law on incest in Scotland is based on the Act of the Scottish Parliament in 1567, which, in turn, is based on the 18th chapter of the book of Leviticus in determining the persons between whom sexual relations would be deemed to be incestuous and criminal.
    Mr. Mikardo: I know nothing about Scottish law, but I know the book of Leviticus and the passage to which the hon. Gentleman refers contains no reference to a stepfather.
    Mr. Wallace: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of Leviticus I do not dispute, over the years the Scottish courts have deemed that the step relationship is covered by one of the verses of Leviticus. I regret not having come armed with the Bible and, more particularly, for the purpose of the Act, the 1562 Geneva translation. My point is that the chapter includes relationships, both affinity and blood, and the substantial thrust of the Bill is to decriminalise relationships by affinity.
    2 pm
    The related offences which are referred to in the Bill's title give protection to certain categories of persons who are not related by blood—stepchildren under the age of 16 and children under the age of 16 for whom an adult is in some position of trust. Some parts of the criminal law already give protection, but the Bill extends the sanctions that can be imposed if, for example, there is a breach of that trust. Indeed, if a case is brought on indictment in the High Court, it allows a sentence up to life imprisonment. One should be under no illusion about the seriousness which Parliament, and, indeed, society, attach to such offences.
    The age of 16 was arrived at by the Scottish Law Commission after much deliberation. I, too, gave considerable thought to whether it should be 18 or 21. Indeed, it was only after I had discussed the matter at considerable length with the Scottish Law Commission that I accepted that 16 was the appropriate age.
    I was guided by the fact that we are dealing with consensual intercourse between two people. If it were not consensual, it would be rape, for which there are the full penalties and rigours of the criminal law. For a child with a step-parent it may be difficult to prove consent, but that applies below the age of 16 as well as above. In fact, one might say that above the age of 16 it is a lot easier to prove because the person concerned is more likely to be forthcoming or to go to the police if he or she— it is more likely to be she—is subjected to undue pressure.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the age of 16-plus is still extremely difficult in the circumstances that can exist surrounding this horrendous situation. I have a 16-year-old daughter at home and I can imagine situations in which she would find it extremely difficult to speak out in any forms against her

    1355
    father who in no way behaves in the manner that we are talking about. A person of 16 is still a child. We must recognise that the circumstances of the domestic home impinge on the ability of the child who is the victim to say anything because that child may end up out on the street.
    Mr. Wallace: I never sought to minimise the difficulties. Under the age of 16 it is even more difficult for the child to speak out.
    A woman in her thirties may marry but soon separate from a man in his twenties and the man could fall in love with that woman's 17-year-old daughter. That relationship would be caught by the Bill and it would be a criminal offence if this amendment were to be accepted. They are not related by blood. Parties may have parted and after many years the stepfather and his stepdaughter may meet. If the stepdaughter had lived in the house and been treated as a member of the family, even if when they subsequently met he was 39 and she was 35, that would still be criminal and subject to life imprisonment.
    Mr. Bill Walker: We are more likely to be dealing with a child who lives at home passing the age of 16 and who is exposed to this problem than with the delightful, romantic but theoretical proposition that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. I believe that we should deal with what is likely to happen.
    Mr. Wallace: I was merely pointing out what the consequences of the hon. Gentleman's amendment might be. We are giving protection to the child of a step relationship. However, if the parties have not married, a girl in a similar position, who might be subject to similar pressures, could well find that she does not have that protection. Therefore, there are arguments to be made on the ground of consistency.
    As I have pointed out, only one denominational church, one of the free Presbyterian churches, has expressed any objection. It has been said that that was before the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill was passed. But that suggests that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has not given much thought to his proposals. That Act makes the situation less anomolous than it would have been at the time when the church did not raise any objections. Then there was no provision for a marriage between a step-parent and a stepchild. Now there is, subject to certain conditions. However, the hon. Gentleman has sent me a note saying that if I reject the amendments, he will talk out the Bill on Third Reading. I do not want that to happen, because if this Bill is lost after the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill has been enacted, it would be perfectly legal for parties to marry, but it would be criminal for them to have sexual relations with each other. Undoubtedly, that is what the hon. Gentleman would achieve. Interestingly enough, however he would not protect adopted children.
    At present, it is believed that the law of incest does not apply to adopted children. This Bill covers that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tayside, North would like to appear in church on Sunday to tell his congregation why he wanted to stop a Bill that would protect adopted children. At present, the law does not protect illigitimate children either. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell his congregation why he did not want to protect them.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I shall always be happy to stand up in church, or anywhere else, and say that I have not supported legislation that I deem to be so flawed and faulty that I cannot accept it. That is really what we are talking about.
    Mr. Wallace: I think that I have made my point. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider whether he wishes to press the amendment, or whether it might be better to withdraw it. Some highly anomalous cases might come up, and people may find themselves facing criminal sanctions although the vast majority of people would not think that any criminality attached to their behaviour.
    Two married people may indulge in an adulterous relationship. They are not free to marry, but the law does not make their relationship criminal. I do not support or encourage the sort of relationships to which the hon. Gentleman referred; nor does the Bill. The Bill means that they would not be deemed criminal relationships. The hon. Gentleman used the example of a child of a relationship not having protection. I accept that, but that could happen now. Today the parties could also find themselves in prison. What would happen to the child then? We are not giving our moral approbation. After all, adultery is not morally approved by society, but for many years we have not thought fit to make it a criminal offence.
    If the amendment is passed, at least we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that, under the law in Scotland, the Lord Advocate's consent is needed for every prosecution. I am sure that he will have the good sense, if anomalies arise, not to consent to prosecution.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The House will have listened with interest to the debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I should like to make it clear — I do not think that those hon. Members dispute this—that we all have a clear interest in ensuring that the Bill is passed with, or without, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North. Under the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 there are a number of relationship in which marriage can now take place but where marriage partners would be commiting incest if they consummated the marriage.
    The Government remain neutral on the Bill's details. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North told the House, the effect of the amendment would be to prohibit intercourse with a stepchild under 21 or for all time if the stepchild before attaining the age of 18 had lived in the same household as the accused and had been treated as a child of the family. This matches exactly the conditions laid down for marriage in the 1986 Act.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland put forward strong reasons why the amendments should not be accepted. He said that they were at odds with the existing law on the age of consent and created a serious criminal offence in circumstances where it seems inappropriate to invoke the criminal law—for example, where a man has intercourse by consent with an adult woman of, say, 20 with whom he has never lived in family but who happens to be the daughter of his wife or former wife. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that prosecution would remain a matter for the Lord Advocate.

    1357
    I hope that I have fairly summarised the arguments. The Government are neutral on the details of the Bill I hope that it will pass through all of its stages this afternoon.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 32, in page 12, line 41, after 'offence', insert
    if that step-child is either under the age of 21 or has at any time before attaining the age of 18 lived in the same household and been treated as a child of his or her family.'.
    No. 3, in page 3, line 2, leave out '16' and insert '21'. —[Mr. Wallace.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Wallace.]
    2.12 pm
    Mr. Allan Stewart: I should like to take this opportunity to speak more generally about the Bill, which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He discussed its background during the previous debate on the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). As the hon. Gentleman rightly emphasised, the Bill follows a report of the Scottish Law Commission. He is to be congratulated on putting forward this legislation. As the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said, it is a complex Bill.
    The Bill deals with a matter of importance which can arouse fairly strong feelings. The House will have listened with considerable sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North who referred to the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and himself in Committee. Hon. Members were concerned about the difference between the marriage and the incest legislation and about the pressure which could be brought to bear on a stepchild over 16.
    I think that it is fair to report that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling expressed a worry in Committee that the Bill would allow intercourse between step-relations who, in terms of the marriage legislation, would not be able to marry. He pointed out that if intercourse led to conception it would prevent the father of the child in that union marrying the mother.
    Should the Bill fail to secure a Third Reading we shall be faced with a situation where, if and when the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 is commenced, persons in a step-relationship marrying under that Act will, if they consummate the marriage, be committing incest.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on bringing forward the Bill and I commend it to the House.
    2.15 pm
    Mr. Wallace: I thank the Minister for his kind words. It is only fair to say that the real hard work in regard to the Bill was put in by the Scottish Law Commission in terms of the consultative document it initially sent out, which was the product of a considerable amount of work. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said in the previous debate, this is a serious subject that evokes emotions and has sociological aspects. In the Scottish Law Commission's work on this some of those aspects were looked at. The Scottish Law Commission certainly drew on the work that has been done by many sources in dealing with the serious problem of incest.
    We are grateful to the Scottish Law Commission and I am grateful to the officials in the Scottish Home and Health Department. Although the Government were neutral in the matter the Scottish Home and Health Department was obviously concerned that if legislation was going through it should be in a good and proper form and it assisted me in that aim.
    In some respects it is rather sad that, if the Bill proceeds to get the Royal Assent, the previous Act will cease to exist. I do not think that we will ever again pass legislation that says:
    "quhatsumever persoun or personis they be that abusis thair body with sic personis in degre as Goddis word hes expreslie forbidden … as is contenit in the xviii Cheptour of Leviticus salbe puniest …"
    Draftsmen these days seem to have a more simple and colourful way of putting things forward. It is certainly simpler than the previous Act. If the Bill becomes an Act I believe that it will improve the position of criminal law in Scotland and I commend the Third Reading to the House.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on seeing the good sense of accepting the amendments. Like him, I cannot pretend that everything is as we would have wished but it is an improvement on the present position. I believe that, with the passage of time, the amendments will be seen to have been of considerable value.
    This will not be the end of the debate on this delicate, important and often distressing and disturbing matter. I am confident that we shall return to it again at a later stage because some aspects still need to be tidied up. I was never opposed to what the hon. Gentleman or the Scottish Law Commission were attempting to achieve but I believe that they were exposing individuals unnecessarily to a situation that ought not to happen. That was why I tabled the amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Obscene Publications (Protection of Children, Etc.) (Amendment) Bill
Order read for resuming of adjourned debate on Question [25 April].
Amendment No. 12 proposed: In page 3, line 17, leave out '18' and insert '16', instead thereof.—[Mr. Dubs.]
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
2.20 pm
Mr. Ian Mikardo: I think that hon. Members will be aware that this is the third time I have attempted to say a few words in support of this amendment which was moved many moons ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). On the first occasion on which I endeavoured to explain why I thought that my hon. Friend was right to move the amendment I was brutally cut short after 28 seconds. Therefore, I was not able to deploy any substantial arguments in favour of the amendment. However, a later opportunity arose. On that occasion I was cut off after only 17 seconds, which included an intervention from the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley).
I must ask the permission of the House to start from scratch. The argument is a simple one, and in dealing with it I shall address myself indirectly to amendment No. 14, which has also been selected. It is an argument about the minds of young men at the ages of 16 and 17 years. The concept of the Bill as it now is is that lads of 16 and 17 do not know anything about what used to be called euphemistically the facts of life, or sometimes called even more euphemistically the birds and the bees. The Bill contends that, against that background, we must not let 16 or 17-year-olds see anything which it would be all right for my hon. Friends, myself and Conservative Members to see. That is because it is assumed that we know about the birds and the bees and 16 and 17-year-olds do not.
That is a nonsensical proposition. When my four grandsons were teenagers about a decade ago, I used often to talk with them about the facts of life. That was because I learned a great deal from them. They were far more advanced in their mathematics than the mathematics which I learnt many years ago and so they were much more advanced than their old fogey of a grandfather in knowing about things that go on.
The idea that we old fogies can attend this place on a Friday and solemly profess to know—I am old and the Minister is preternaturally old—what is in the mind of a youngster of 16 or 17, and even worse, to profess to know what it is that will tend to corrupt and deprave a youngster of that age, is a piece of monstrous intellectual arrogance on our part.
Mr. Max Madden: I am sure that we are all listening to my hon. Friend with considerable interest and that we shall all agree with him. However, is he as surprised as I am that the Bill's sponsor has not seen fit to be with us today to see his Bill on its way? Is he surprised that the hon. Member for Daveyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has not seen fit to join us? Does that not display some arrogance and even lack of interest on his part?
Mr. Mikardo: It would not be for me to pass moral judgments on another hon. Member. The sponsor was not present when we last discussed the Bill and nor was he present on the occasion before that. I suspect strongly that
1360
his enthusiasm for his Bill has waned rapidly. Those who have followed the progress of the Bill will recall that he has knocked it down as if it were a Meccano set and rebuilt the bits into a different structure on three occasions during the Bill's consideration.
The hon. Member for Daveyhulme (Mr. Churchill) started with fine intentions. He started with a realisation that the present law on obscenity is nonsensical. I utterly agree with him about that. I do not know any reasonable person who could disagree.
Having drawn his place in the ballot, the hon. Member for Davyhulme thought that, as the existing law was nonsense, he would try to bring in a measure that would improve it. I believe that he set out seriously to do that, and I think that he did his best, which is why I do not want to be condemnatory of him. However, he discovered, as many others have discovered before him, that when one gets into this branch of the law, one walks straight into a minefield. The difficulties of definition are so ineluctable that one is better off leaving the thing alone, for all its faults.
I voted for a Second Reading, although I thought that it was an awful Bill in its first draft. Hon. Members will recall that it had what came to be called the laundry list. It was a nonsensical Bill, which would have prevented the showing of King Lear as obscene. It would have prevented a travelogue of the city of Brussels if it included a picture of the statue of the Manneken Pis in Le Grand Place. It would have prevented the showing of many great classical works of the Italian, Flemish and other schools. Why did I vote for this nonsensical Bill? Because I hoped that in Committee we could find through our collective wisdom, a way of turning the Bill into a decent Bill.
The hon. Member for Davyhulme kept trying. When somebody told him that something would not do, he tried something else and when they said that that would not do either, he tried something else, and he got browned off in the process. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), that is why the hon. Member for Davyhulme is not here. He has come to the conclusion that he has suffered enough, and my guess is that he will not even be putting his name in the ballot for private Members' Bills next Session, least he should be tempted to venture again into this, or any other, minefield.
Look where the hon. Member has got in the end. After going round and round the houses, he has come back, in subsection (3) to the tendency to "deprave and corrupt". He has adopted the very criterion, the very form of words to which he objected so much, and his objections to which, in the first place, made him introduce the Bill.
Mr. Chris Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that in clause 2, to which his amendment relates there is in effect a new definition being brought into the law, that of a tendency to "deprave and corrupt" persons under the age of 18? The amendment being supported so ably by my hon. Friend would replace that age limit with one of 16. Would that not be of benefit to the Bill, as it is easier to prove such a tendency to "deprave and corrupt" persons under the age of 16, than it is to prove such a tendency for persons of the age of 16 or over?
Mr. Mikardo: I do not go along with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that I can estimate what would tend to deprave and corrupt him, and he could not estimate what

1361
would tend to deprave and corrupt me. It is even more clear that neither of us can remember our youth so well as to make any estimate or any judgment that is worth a farthing of what would tend to corrupt or deprave a lad of 16, 17 or 18. We are too far removed from that. My heart bled for the hon. Member for Davyhulme as I watched his agonised process or retreat from one redoubt to the next redoubt. Despite all that agony, now we have reached, in an effort to improve—
It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

Private Members' Bills

  EMPLOYMENT (AGE LIMITS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  TOBACCO PRODUCTS (TELEVISION BROADCASTS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  IMMIGRATION ACT 1971 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I did not hear an objection.
  Mr. Richard Holt: This is an abuse of the procedures of the House.
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Shut up.
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are about 35 Bills on the Order Paper that have still to be considered. We seem to be gathered for what is to be the July massacre of all those private Members' Bills by virtue, I suspect, of a grey and anonymous Whip uttering in a very muffled way the word "Object".
  You will recall that on other occasions when Bills that would have provided considerable benefits to worthy sections of the community have been killed in this way we have protested that those who wish to kill them should at least have the guts to identify themselves, so that their names are on the record as opposing those measures.
  Many months ago a Bill that I introduced was accepted without opposition, but it was later killed off by somebody who uttered in a very quiet voice the word "Object". I raised this matter on that occasion, and I ask you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to require the person who objects to a Bill — in this case merely to give somebody who is refused entry to this country the right of appeal — to identify himself. If the rate of refusals continues as at present, 20,000 people will be refused entry to the United Kingdom this year. The only right of appeal that they have is when they leave—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into the merits of the Bill. I understand his point of order and I shall deal with it.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is high time that those who shout "Object" behind cupped hands should be identified in Hansard. When somebody shouts "Object" in the House of Commons, the whole House should hear it, not just Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Deputy Speaker. An objection must be heard by every hon. Member. The fact is that the hon. Member who is sitting close to you, the millionaire hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), was the person who shouted "Object" to this Bill, and he has shouted "Object" on previous occasions. He objected to the removal of standing charges for pensioners, and he ought to be ashamed of himself. It is time that pensioners boycotted Sainsbury's stores.

  1363
  It is time that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not fall prey to the nonsense of those who whisper "Object" instead of letting the whole House hear them so that the names go into Hansard. They should have the guts to make plain what they are doing—that they are ripping off pensioners and objecting to a Bill relating to immigration that has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It ill-behoves the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to keep muttering from a sedentary position about these Bills, some of which deal with employment, when Cleveland has the highest rate of unemployment in the country.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), on a number of occasions I have been the victim of a ruling from the Chair that some of my more eloquent contributions from a sedentary position should not be recorded in Hansard. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was involved in a little altercation a few weeks ago about what is or is not recorded in Hansard, should the person making the contribution not be on his feet.
  About 30 Bills have come before the House towards the end of the Session—I am a supporter of the Bill that we are now discussing—and it is our last chance to pursue them. I ask you to rule that if it is good enough for the occupant of the Chair to say that a joke by my hon. Friend for Bolsover or myself cannot be recorded in Hansard because we have not stood up and identified ourselves, similarly any hon. Member objecting to Bills should not have his objection registered in Hansard unless he — in this case the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury)—stands and identifies himself as killing the Bills on behalf of the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the points of order raised by the three hon. Members. As they said, this matter has been raised on previous occasions. I have taken the opportunity to study past procedures and precedents, and it might be helpful to the House if I describe the procedure. As I said, similar points have been raised on many occasions over a number of years, and Procedure Committees have considered the practice.
  The practice of the House does not require an hon. Member to rise to signify an objection. If there is no objection to a Bill when the title is read, its opponents can easily preserve their anonymity and still secure the deferral of the Bill by giving their voices as "No" when I put the Question. Hon. Members have never been required to rise to give their voices when any Question is put to the vote.
  I understand that the current work of the Procedure Committee includes consideration of the arrangements for private Members' Bills. Hon. Members may wish to put their points to the Committee. Until the House approves any change, I am bound to follow current practice.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful of you were aware that there is a conspiracy by three hon. Members, who are skulking behind the Clerk's Table, who appear to have come to the Chamber with the preordained purpose of destroying every one of the private Members' Bills. If they did the decent thing and stood up
  1364
  and said who they were and what they represented, the problem would be solved and we would know exactly what interests were being served in destroying these very important private Members' Bills.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot add to what I have already said. I have reminded hon. Members that if they are dissatisfied, as clearly some of them are, with the existing procedures and current practice, they can put their points to the Procedures Committee.
  Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without challenging the precedent that you have explained, and respecting your suggestion of correspondence with the appropriate Committee, may I ask you to confirm that it is open to Government Whips, should they so wish, to stand and identify themselves as Government Whips when they make an objection? Were they interested in openly declaring that it was the Government's decision, and not the decision of individual hon. Members, to block the private Members' Bills, they—for example, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) — could stand and identify themselves as Government Whips.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made it clear that there is no obligation on any hon. Member to rise when he wishes to signify an objection.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to tax your patience on this matter, because you have sat through many similar protests that Back-Bench Members have raised on Fridays when Bills are slaughtered by the Government.
  I was not sure whether you responded to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made about taking an objection, and whether it is only the Chair that has to hear the objection. One can only assume that the three Whips, who have moved very close to you, have done so so that they can make their objection known quietly and without drawing attention to their wider shame. If the Whips who object on behalf of the Government do so loudly enough, we might be able to identify them, even though they are sitting down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has to hear the objection. 1 heard objections to the Bills that have already been dealt with.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to tax you further either, and you have been in the Chair often when this matter has been raised, but this is an important issue for the House. I understood you to say—please correct me if I am wrong—that the practice is based on precedent. Precedents can be changed. What original authority gave rise to this custom or usage in the House? Hon. Members have raised this matter at 2.30 pm on a Friday so often that it is quite clear that if there is any room for the Chair to make a decision which changes our practice, without the matter going to the Procedure Committee, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker and others who can advise might well look into this issue.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In considering this matter, can it please be borne in mind that the practice to which Opposition Members so strongly object was followed consistently by the Labour party when it was last in power?
  Several Hon. Members: We were not here then.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We had better not get into a debate about how this procedure has been used in the past. Perhaps I can deal with the additional point that has been raised. What I said is based on current practice, but it also stems directly from Standing Order No. 1, and it might be helpful if I deal with that.
  The opportunity of objecting to items of business is not confined to private Member's Bills. Under Standing Order No. 1, any item of business taken after the moment of interruption — 10 pm on Monday to Thursday and 2.30 pm on Friday — which is not specifically exempted by Standing Orders or by a business motion can be blocked by any indication of objection. I might add that Government motions are not infrequently blocked by this procedure late at night.
  Mr. Nellist: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for rising again, but, as your rulings are coming out they are triggering queries in my mind. As I understand it, if I were successful—I have not been so far—in making an application under Standing Order No. 10 to have an emergency debate on the detention of trade unionists in South Africa, you would ask the House whether I had leave for such a debate, and you would require 40 hon. Members to rise in their places to show that the specified number of hon. Members backed the application. Does it not seem equitable that, as hon. Members are required to demonstrate support by standing on their feet for an application under Standing Order No. 10, Government Whips should stand up to identify themselves when they kill off Bills? Should not the Procedure Committee consider that?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is making a point that he can put to the Procedure Committee, but he will not tempt me into making comments on the procedures and Standing Orders of the House. It is my job to ensure that they are observed and correctly carried out, and that is what I am endeavouring to do.
  Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It strikes me that this practice has obtained for a long time. When I was a member of the Government, it also happened. Many of us, whether members of the Government or Back Benchers, have undoubtedly not liked the practice. I suspect, although I shall not ask whether it is the case, that it causes considerable embarrassment to the occupant of the Chair that he must rule in this way. Concern about the practice is undoubtedly growing, and I ask that colleagues write to the Procedure Committee and that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, direct the Clerk of the House to report our exchanges this afternoon to the Procedure Committee, so that it may discuss the matter at some length and make recommendations to the whole House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to direct the Procedure Committee on its business. However, I feel sure that the hon. Gentlemen who have raised these points will put the matter to the Procedure Committee. As I said earlier, I understand that it is on its terms of reference at present, so the opportunity is there. I hope the House feels that we have had a good run on this and that we should proceed with our business.
  1366
  Before the points of order, the Second Reading of the Immigration Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill was objected to and I was about to say: Objection taken, Second Reading what day?
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  ANIMAL WELFARE (ROYAL COMMISSION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  STANDING CHARGES (ABOLITION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Corbyn: With the permission of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who I understand is objecting to the Bill—he can disagree with me if that is not so—Monday next.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 7 July.

  RIGHT TO CO-OPERATE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  INDECENT DISPLAYS (NEWSPAPERS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Corbyn: With the permission of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and The Sun newspaper, we would like to have the Bill debated on Monday next.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 7 July.

  RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (PROMOTION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 7 July.

  FREEDOM OF SPEECH (UNIVERSITIES AND INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

  RIGHT TO INTEREST BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  UNFITNESS TO PLEAD BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING AND WORKERS PROTECTION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading Read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  PUBLIC SAFETY (INFORMATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  ACCOMPLICE EVIDENCE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  TOBACCO PRODUCTS (HEALTH WARNINGS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  POLITICAL PARTIES (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  POLICE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES FOR STATE RETIREMENT PENSIONERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Skinner: If no one else will get up, I will.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

  COMPANIES BILL
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [18 April]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  MEDICAL ACT 1983 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  FOOTBALL BETTING LEVY BOARD BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till 10 August.

  CROSSBOWS (RESTRICTIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  TOBACCO PRODUCTS (SPORTS SPONSORSHIP) BILL
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [21 February]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  PENSIONERS' RIGHT TO HEAT, LIGHT AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several hon. Members are competing to object to the Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All that the hon. Gentleman can do is to name a day.
  Mr. Corbyn: I wish the Bill to be debated next Tuesday, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) is unable to attend.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  UNBORN CHILDREN (PROTECTION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  SHOPS (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

  REMANDS IN CUSTODY (COMPENSATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  FAMINE RELIEF IN AFRICA BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  FIRE PRECAUTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  OWNERSHIP OF THE MEDIA BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member who has objected owns most of the media anyway.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  WELSH LANGUAGE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members have nominated next Monday as an appropriate day for Second Reading debates on Bills. Will you now call upon the Leader of the House to make time available on Monday so that these important matters can be debated? At least two of the Bills have a significant bearing on 9 million pensioners because of the proposed abolition of standing charges. It is important that we discuss these matters so that arrangements can be made to abolish standing charges before the onset of winter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a good try by the hon. Member for Islington, North (M r. Corbyn), but he knows that it is well established that a day is often named even when the hon. Member concerned knows that the chances of having a debate on that day is extremely remote.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (ESTIMATES)
  Ordered,
  That, on the next half day allotted under Standing Order No. 19 (Consolidation of estimates), notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of the Standing Order, Mr. Speaker shall at the conclusion of the debate or at Seven o'clock, whichever is the earlier, put any Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Estimate appointed for consideration on that day.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Business of the House
2.54 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement about the business next week. The business will be amended as follows:
WEDNESDAY 9 JULY—Estimates Day (3rd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on Estimates relating to supplementary benefit payments for private and voluntary residential care for the elderly, followed by a debate on Estimates relating to labour market services so far as they relate to the promotion of tourism. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motions on the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order and the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order.
Completion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill will be postponed until a later date to be discussed through the usual channels.
[Estimates Jar debate on Wednesday 9 July 1986
1. Class XV, Vote 2 (Department of Health and Social Security: Supplementary Benefits) so far as it relates to expenditure on supplementary benefit payments for private and voluntary residential care for the elderly; and
2. Class VII, Vote 1 (Department of Employment: labour market services) so far as it relates to the promotion of tourism.]
Mr. Peter Shore: The House will have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about the change of business on Wednesday 9 July and will recall that it was only yesterday—less than 24 hours ago — that we heard him confidently announcing that the business for Wednesday 9 July would be the completion of the remaining stages of the Finance Bill. That is not an unimportant matter, because it gives legislative effect to the Budget. One would have thought that it was a central part of the Government's programme.
The right hon. Gentleman has not told us why, in the past 23 hours, there has been a change in the most important item—from the Government's point of view in the coming week. Is it to do with the fact that no fewer than 68 amendments were put down yesterday? Will a further batch of amendments appear on Monday? If so, is this not a classic of muddle and incompetence in the Treasury and the Government in the dispatch of vital business?
The choice of subjects for the debates on Wednesday are certainly matters which we are willing to discuss, because we believe that benefit payments for private and voluntary residential care for the elderly and the promotion of tourism are matters of great importance. However, I should like to hear the response of the Leader of the House to what I said about the reasons for the extraordinary change of business at such short notice and affecting such an important subject.
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that yesterday the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) raised with me the difficulties that he thought might arise on this matter and I told him that I would look into it. When I announced the business for next week it was hoped that the Government would be able to table today all their amendments to the Finance Bill. That has not been possible and, in the circumstances and following

1371
discussions through the usual channels, we thought that it would be inappropriate to complete consideration of the Bill next week. Now that we have secured a little additional time, I very much hope that we can proceed in a manner which will be acceptable to both sides of the House.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman has made his business statement because there has been a change of circumstances. Will he consider making another business statement following the fact that the Glasgow Herald reports today that the Allander Institute says that 4,000 miners' jobs in Scotland are to go west and that another 8,000 jobs may go in consequence? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that those circumstances require him to make another business statement? It is a matter of urgency and we should have a debate on the matter on Wednesday, because the Scottish people want to know what is happening as a result of the Government's policies.
Mr. Biffen: I shamelessly belong to the old-fashioned school that believes that, ideally, one business statement a week is quite enough. Therefore, I do not hold out—I trust — any early prospect of additional business statements over the next few days. Of course, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman is of undoubted importance to Scotland and to the nation generally, but there will be opportunities between now and the summer recess when these matters can be considered in private Members' time.
Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the deferral of further debate on the Finance Bill for just the reason that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has given. The enormous number of amendments would have made it impossible for any justice to have been done to the debate on Wednesday.
If there are to be protests, as we have seen twice in the last fortnight, both resulting in statements to the House saying that matters are to be postponed to a further date, should that not be an encouragement to the Opposition to protest more rigorously and often and thereby to lose further Government business until an indefinite later date —ideally the next side of the general election?
Mr. Biffen: I know that last night's announcement was distressing to the hon. Gentleman It was etched on every Liberal face as they saw the fox writhing in agony, having been well and truly shot. The hon. Gentleman ought not to press me to have many more changes in business, otherwise we shall be here until mid-August or beyond as I acquiesce in every request that is made.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that in this parliamentary Session there have been more revised business statements than at any time that I can recall since I came here in 1970? As we have had another today, perhaps he will consider what occurred in the few minutes before Mr. Speaker took the chair. Why not on Wednesday have the Second Reading debate on the Standing Charges (Abolition) Bill which will greatly assist pensioners? We could debate the Immigration Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) referred. We could debate the Concessionary Television Licences for State Retirement Pensioners Bill. Here is a wonderful opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to do something
1372
decent for the pensioners. There might even be votes in it. He should make sure when we have those debates that he tells the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) to keep out of the way so that we shall have a fair chance of getting someything done.
Mr. Biffen: I always welcome the interventions of the hon. Member for Bolsover because he is now moving into maturity when he tells us how many years he has been in this place and reflects upon how, in all that time, he has never found this, that or the other. But at the same time as he ages, he retains a certain innocence of affairs. The governing of private business that we were discussing earlier this afternoon is conditioned by Standing Orders, and I simply cannot set them aside for next week.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Does the Leader of the House agree that, in the same way as he brought a motion before the House a few days ago to increase by one day the allocation of time for private Members' motions following the disgraceful attempt by the Government to carve up and freeze out my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), it is within his authority, particularly as we have lost the Shops Bill and the legislation to privatise the water authorities, which has opened up a gap in parliamentary time, to produce more time for the discussion of private Members' Bills, particularly those about which we have argued today which deal with pensioners? As he has announced a change in Wednesday's business dealing with financial services, the big bang and salaries of £100,000 a year in the City of London and substituted supplementary benefit payments for residential care for the elderly, would it not be appropriate on Wednesday to compare those salaries with the fact that in Coventry, the west midlands and nationally some residential homes charge £40 or £50 a week more than the DHSS will allow pensioners to claim in order to pay for those private residential homes? I should like to draw that comparison on Wednesday.
Mr. Biffen: I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman as best I can. He has just asserted that I have a great deal more time at my disposal because of the announcement to delay the privatisation of the water authorities. That cannot conceivably affect next week's business, or, indeed, the balance of time left for this Session. Therefore, in view of the constraints under which I operate, and which the House will seek if it wishes to rise at some tolerably early time, he will have to make the speeches that he seeks within the disciplines set out for the Estimates day debate, and I am sure that he can do it.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As you know, Mr. Speaker, before you came in a number of objections were raised about the treatment of private Members' Bills. The Leader of the House has not really answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). There are a number of private Members' Bills largely, but not exclusively, concerning the problems of pensioners in our society, which reflect a real concern that pensioners' living standards should be raised.
Will the Leader of the House rearrange the business for next Wednesday—as he appears to have a day on his hands—in order to ensure that those Bills are properly debated? There is a crying need to increase the living standards of pensioners from the present poverty levels. What proposals is he prepared to put to the Procedure

1373
Committee or to the House so that private Members' Bills, which often reflect growing public anxiety and which require a lot of effort if they are to be enacted, can be properly debated and voted upon, and so that the nonsense of anonymous objectors who try to practise ventriloquy so that they are not identified can be brought to an end? The public would then know who and what interests were trying to destroy important reforms that have been introduced by individual hon. Members.
Mr. Biffen: The provision of time for private Member's legislation is governed by the Standing Orders of the House, and I have no opportunity or realistic ability to set them aside in the week ahead. Any hon. Member who heard this afternoon's transactions, or who has heard similar transactions on previous occasions, knows perfectly well that that issue is a matter of considerable concern to the House. However, it is not something new. Previous Procedure Committees have judged that there are real difficulties in essaying any alternative. However, the Procedure Committee is considering the matter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give his evidence to it directly.
Mr. Richard Holt: Should my right hon. Friend drop his guard and allow some chink in his defences over the private Members' business for next week, will he, instead of listening to Opposition Members, give higher priority to the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on freedom of speech on our campuses and in our universities?
Mr. Biffen: I must be even handed. I can hold out no more hope to my hon. Friend than I held out to Opposition Members.
Mr. Max Madden: I have considerable sympathy with the Leader of the House because he is being compelled to make numerous statements changing
1374
the business. If I was him, I might suspect that there was a plot by some of my colleagues in the Treasury, Foreign Office or Department of the Environment to lessen my chances over the leadership of the party. However, let us put that on one side.
Many people look forward in eager anticipation to 23 July. However, I understand that that is also the day when the Social Security bill is likely to leave the other place. If so, the House seems to have little time in which to consider the three defeats that the Government have suffered so far in the other place. I do not know whether the Leader of the House intends to introduce a guillotine motion in order to steam-roller the House into reversing the decisions of the other place. I regret that lie was not in the House this morning when I presented a petition on behalf of 1,700 of my constituents, who protested that their incomes would be cut if the Bill was enacted.
We should certainly have a statement next Thursday about the timing of our consideration of the Social Security Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has suffered considerable criticism as a result of his handling of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. We are to consider that again at a late hour on Thursday. Could we not consider that Bill at a more convenient time, given the grotesque limitations that the right hon. Gentleman has placed on debating the important matters contained in it?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot in any sense help with a comment on the timing of the Social Security Bill in the other place. However, it is clearly a matter of great concern to the House, and it was raised during business questions yesterday. I have nothing more to add to what I then said. In a sense, the same applies to the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. The Leader of the Opposition made a similar request. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to give him a different answer from the one that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition.

St Andrews University
Motion made, and Question proposed, that this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
3.9 pm
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: When the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science—the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) — replied to a similar debate to this one initiated on by 18 June by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), he said that there was a
"possibility of extra cash for the universities for the 1987–88 and subsequent financial years"—[Official Report, 18 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1164.]
subject to certain qualifications about better management, especially financial management, the quality of teaching, and so on. The hon. Gentleman went on to use selective statistics to show how grateful Scotland should be for the wonderful advances made in Scottish education in the past seven or eight years. He cited the number of full-time students in higher education, but the debate was not about that. It was about universities. In fact, the number of university undergraduate entrants in Scotland remained virtually static between 1978 and 1985 at between 11,500 and 12,000.
I do not want to play the numbers game, because we have become used to the Government playing that game in health, housing and unemployment and few people believe a word they say. I prefer to use the more reliable test of what those at the sharp end of this operation think and say. On 14 June 1986 the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom sent a letter to, I presume, all hon. Members. It concluded:
"The universities now face a major crisis. Because funding is too low, protecting excellence involves damaging much that is good."
The Committee offered a remedy — for 1986–87, £15 million should be provided from the contingency fund and for, 1987–88 to 1989–90, there should be
"Enough extra cash to provide genuine level funding and the modernisation of equipment. At least £100 million is needed just to stabilise the system at the depressed 1986–87 level."
Whether that cash becomes available depends on the result of the struggle now going on in the Cabinet on future levels of public expenditure. The smiling face of the new Secretary of State for Education and Science and his skill as a public relations man will be no substitute for that hard cash.
I come to the St. Andrews problem. As I listened on 25 June to the new Secretary of State, I began to wonder, as did many other hon. Members, what the large lobby of university teachers on 12 June was all about. University staff are not, the most militant of people. They are civilised, reasonable men and women. But on 12 June they came marching down to this place from all over the United Kingdom to protest about the crisis in our universities. They came to complain not only about their salary, which is a scandal in itself, but about the overall funding of universities, the cuts they have had to endure over the past few years and the consequential effects of such shortsighted policies.
At that lobby I met representatives from St. Andrews university. Although it is not in my constituency, it affects the whole of Fife, indeed, the whole of Scotland. It draws
1376
its students from all over Scotland, the United Kingdom and the world. Those representatives put a case to me which I promised to bring before the House.
Before I do that, I should like to say a word or two about the plight facing all Scottish universities lest it be presumed that St. Andrews has a particular grievance. It is a general grievance. All eight universities in Scotland are facing major cuts in the next financial year. Five universities, Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, St. Andrews and Stirling face cash cuts even on last year's figures. Although three of the universities have received cash increases, those increases are significantly less than the rate of inflation. Therefore, they are, in effect, real cuts.
The 1986–87 grants in Scotland are, on average, over 5 per cent. less than the minimum needed to maintain the position as it was in the previous year. If one looks at the whole period 1979–80 to 1985–86 the total of University Grants Committee grants to the Scottish universities has fallen in real terms from £191·9 million to £176·08 million, a cut of nearly £16 million. To put that another way, in order to restore the level of grant paid to the Scottish universities in 1979 the 1986–87 recurrent grant settlement would have have needed to be about £220 million, instead of which it is only £182 million. Despite the Minister's denial in an answer to me a few weeks ago and in the debate on 18 June, there is evidence of some regional discrimination in these matters. I shall try to spell out what that is.
I supplied the Minister with some information about St. Andrews which I hope has helped him to prepare a reply to the debate. As a result of the UGC's letters of 20 May and 27 May specifying funding allocation for 1986–87, St. Andrews will suffer a 0·4 per cent. cash cut, which is approximately a 5·4 per cent. cut in real university finance terms. That requires about £400,000 to be added to an already projected deficit for 1986–87.
The grant allocations were presumed to be based on an assessment of the quality of research being done in universities. Each university was examined department by department for the quality of its research. At St. Andrews 14 departments and sub-departments were graded as above average and five as below. However, it suffered a cut in its financial provisions. The reason for that treatment is apparently that the above average performance of St. Andrews was in the arts faculty, which attracts little external income for research. While the UGC and the Government tell the universities to concentrate on their strenghts they penalise universities such as St. Andrews because their recognised strengths are in the arts and there is an inability to attract external finance with such a discipline.
As the universities pointed out, research selectivity is not the main problem. The real problem is what is called the common unit of resource. The UGC has apparently made some calculations on the cost per student for each subject in each university. No university, and certainly not St. Andrews, seems to know how the calculations were made and whether they took account of the different teaching patterns in Scottish universities. It is significant that six of the eight universities in Scotland were told that for 1986–87 the implementation of the common unit of resource had operated to their financial disadvantage. It is important that the universities should know the full details of the criteria on which they are being judged. The UGC has apparently made no judgment of the quality of the teaching in our universities in arriving at its common

1377
unit of resource. I hope that the Minister will agree that the quality of teaching is of no less importance than the quality of the research that is undertaken at our universities.
The overall impact of recent developments at St. Andrews since 1979–80 can be summed up shortly. Since that year there has been a 27 per cent. cut in real income. That has far-reaching effects both long-term and short-term, not least on the threat to jobs, careers and morale. There is also the diminution of opportunities for university education for the increasing number of youngsters with academic qualifications that are sufficient to qualify and entitle them to enjoy them.
In an area of higher than average unemployment, it is especially tragic that these savage cuts are endangering the community and tourist services that the university can offer. I shall give one of two examples. The Crawford arts centre promotes exhibitions, professional drama and concerts, children's activities and community education. It is funded jointly by the university, the Scottish Arts Council and local authorities. Its present annual turnover is £100,000. The university contributes £45,000, the Arts Council £25,000 and the local authorities £4,500. The exhibitions at the arts centre attract over 20,000 visitors annually, covering painting, architecture, photography and other crafts. The university's funding of salaries has been cut. One full-time post has already gone, and it is now planned to cease payment of the director's salary after 31 March next year. Unless external funding of the centre can be found, the centre will be closed.
The Government might take the view, "What does it matter that such a centre should be closed? It has no bearing on the country's economic prosperity and it can be disbanded."
The same argument might be advanced in response to my second example. The department of music was started in 1946 and it now has four full-time teaching staff, all of whom conduct choirs and orchestras and perform on instruments as well as teaching and engaging in research. The concerts of the university's musical society and the chapel choir are open to the public. The department promotes organ recitals on one of the finest organs in Scotland, I gather, and gives a series of concerts in the summer vacation. Apart from providing a full range of music courses, the staff gives extra-mural courses for the adult education department. Again, the Government might brush that aside as having no consequence in the economic battle in which we are now engaged.
The same argument might be applied to my third example, which is the archaeological museum. The museum has a rich collection of Roman and middle east antiquities as well as early Scottish items. It obtains its funds from the university and the local authorities. It is in danger of closing for the same reasons that I adduced earlier.
Another example is the university's botanical garden, which has been built up over the past 20 years into one of the country's great botanical gardens. It is of international renown. There, the effect of the cuts in the past six years has meant that a staff of over 17 is down to half that figure, and is likely to fall still further unless the gardens get more cash.
Overall, the picture is very depressing, to put it no higher. The recent UGC proposals must result in the decline in the number of home students and an increase in overseas students who pay fees, although the university is
1378
forced to extract those fees. At a time when the country and employers are calling out for graduates and well-qualified personnel, St. Andrews and other universities are turning away would-be students.
The Scottish universities and the whole educational system have a vital contribution to make to counteract the decline of Scotland's manufacturing industry by the provision of a highly qualified work force and by the stimulation of technological innovation in new industries. The cuts in the finances for teaching and research can only accelerate Scotland's economic decline. We can only hope that the Government will heed the warnings coming from all quarters. They cannot pretend that the evidence is not there. It comes not, from political parties and those with axes to grind, but from people from all walks of life who are urging the Government to invest in our future, which means investing in education and, in this case, our universities.
3.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) set out his worries about university funding in general and his particular constituency concerns in his own inimitable way. As always, I am grateful. I receive a heavy postbag on higher education matters. Scottish university concerns take at least their fair share of that. We have now had three debates on higher education—including two on Scottish universities—in the last fortnight.
Let me start by restating the current position on access and on university funding. The Government have a very good record on access to higher education. The number of full-time home students is now 77,000 higher than it was in 1979. The proportion of 18 and 19-year-olds entering higher education has increased by more than an eighth and the number of mature entrants is also up by about 15 per cent. These increases contrast starkly with the falls in numbers and participation rates between 1975 and 1979 when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office. This encouraging national picture is fully reflected in Scotland, as those who were present will know from the figures that I quoted when replying two weeks ago to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).
My sensibilities were deeply shocked by the sharp elitist distinction that the hon. Gentleman drew between universities and other aspects of education, such as polytechnics. I advise him to try that line on some of our better polytechnics. The Government's declared aim is to secure still further increases in higher education participation rates. We remain determined to press forward in that direction.
On university funding, matters rest at present with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on 20 May, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As announced, the Government are ready to increase financial provision for the universities, provided that they demonstrated real progress in implementing and building on the changes that are needed.
That is the background against which we have to examine the concerns that the hon. Member raised. I readily acknowledge that, like all universities, St. Andrews faces a difficult task in containing its expenditure within

1379
the funds available whilst sustaining quality and reshaping its provision in the light of developing national needs. I believe that, like others, it will be up to the task.
I say that with some little confidence because I had the pleasure of visiting Scotland's oldest university last March. It was a fairly whistle-stop tour, I am afraid—partly because of the diversity of the courses on offer—but I was impressed by what I saw. I also had some usefully frank and informative discussions with staff and students.
I want to look for a few moments now at the areas in which we have identified a need for improvement and at possible implications for St. Andrews. First, management. To a significant extent this must start at the top. I know that the principal of St. Andrews, Dr. Steven Watson, unfortunately died recently. I would like to pay tribute to him. He led the university successfully through a great deal of change over a period of 20 years. He was also an accomplished historian, and among other fields, Mr. Speaker, his researches focused on your distinguished office and on the contribution of some of your illustrious predecessors. It is no easy job being a vice-chancellor in today's world. Dr. Watson's work was well regarded and we wish his successor well.
Finally, on management, one issue which I cannot refrain from mentioning is tenure for academic staff. There can be no doubt that tenure in the form in which it is currently enjoyed by many academics is a major barrier to management flexibility and efficiency in the university system. The Government intend to press ahead, as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows, with legislation to limit the nature of tenure which can be granted in future. Therefore, I was very interested to hear of the strong attack by Mr. Stanley Adams, the new rector of St. Andrews, on the vested interest of tenure.
That brings me to the standards of teaching in universities, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Scottish universities—because of their place within the education system in Scotland and because of their four-year degrees — have long had a reputation for being relatively more concerned about teaching than their counterparts south of the border. I am advised that that distinction is less true than it was, both because of increased recognition throughout the system of the importance of sustaining teaching quality — a levelling up, as it were, to the hon. Gentleman's standards—and because Scottish universities have been giving increasing attention to the need for high quality research.
I understand that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals will shortly be publishing the final report of its working group, chaired by Professor Reynolds, which has been preparing advice and guidance on the means by which universities should monitor and maintain standards. All universities—English, Scottish and Welsh —will need to give priority to following up this work.
As hon. Members know, the UGC's recent grant allocations were not based, even in part, on an assessment of teaching quality in universities. The hon. Gentleman is right in that respect. I fully recognise that such assessments are very difficult, but I am hopeful that the UGC might be able to make some moves in that direction over the next few years. Judging from what the hon. Gentleman said, that should be a cause of some satisfaction both to him and to St. Andrews.
1380
Let me turn now to selectivity in the funding of research. I regard this as of the utmost importance. This was reflected in the recent grant allocations and is generally accepted as necessary in order to provide more support for high quality research. It is also generally agreed that, on the whole, the UGC has done a good job. Not a single academic to whom I have talked about the question of selectivity has challenged the principle, although most of them challenge the result in this or that area. Many people will have the odd quibble. I have just said that nearly every academic to whom I have talked has the odd quibble, and it would be very surprising if that were not so. But without doubt there is no other body that could have tackled the job anywhere near as effectively as it has been tackled by the UGC, in very close consultation with some very distinguished people.
What the hon. Gentleman said about the number of sub-departments at St. Andrews with high research ratings was slightly misleading. I hope that he will not object to my putting it in that way. In fact, the University of St. Andrews emerged from the exercise with a broadly average rating. Six of its 13 main subject areas were assessed as average, three as above average and four as below average. In terms of individual subjects, research in psychology, art, history, classics and Russian was judged to be outstanding by international standards.
The key question now is the extent to which universities, including St. Andrews, pursue selectivity through their own internal arrangements—giving extra support to high quality work and taking a hard look at that which is below average. The UGC will be keeping all this under review over the next few years—refining its own procedures by experience and watching closely what individual universities do. It will be interesting to see how much changes.
In some, though by no means all, cases, lower quality work is a consequence of departments being small. I emphasise that I am not making a particular reference to St. Andrews. Where there are only one or two members of academic staff in a particular discipline it is that much harder to sustain high quality teaching and research cost-effectively. One solution which is appropriate in some cases is departmental rationalisation. St. Andrews, is, I know, already treading this road in co-operation with Dundee university. I hope that this can be actively pursued and that yet more universities will recognise the potential benefits from such changes.
Those are the directions in which Government policy is pointing. In none of them is a finger particularly pointed at St. Andrews or the Scottish universities generally. It is not our aim to disadvantage universities in Scotland; nor, despite the hon. Member's implications, has the UGC adopted grant allocation arrangements that are prejudicial to Scotland. The committee does not discriminate in any way between universities on grounds of their location. Standard considerations were applied to all universities. The UGC has circulated all universities with details of those, and will be spelling out the implications further in meetings with universities during the next few months.
None of that, however, means that the different pattern of provision in Scotland has gone unrecognised. The UGC's grants fully reflect the fact that most honours courses in Scotland last for four years. The hon. Member complained about funding, but, as a result of that,

1381
universities north of the border receive roughly 30 per cent. more funding per honours graduate than do their English and Welsh counterparts.
So far I have spoken only about matters of direct concern to universities, and St. Andrews in particular. That is the extent of the specific responsibilities that my right hon. Friend and I hold.
The hon. Member also spoke, quite rightly, about the impact of the university on its local community. He drew particular attention to the university's importance as an employer locally and to its considerable influence on total spending power in the area. I acknowledge that, but it is true of quite a number of our universities which are sited in or near relatively small towns. Another aspect of a university's impact on its local community is also important. A key part of the Government's policy for higher education is to encourage greater links between academics and industry in their widest sense. These can provide significant support for universities and help industry gain more quickly from the fruits of research by facilitating technological transfer and making highly qualified consultancy services available. St. Andrews' involvement in the Glenrothes enterprise trust and its technology centre are good examples of that.
1382
As the hon. Gentleman referred at some length to the general position of universities, I want to stress that what is now happening in higher education in general and in unversities in particular will strengthen those vital institutions for the future. Of that I have no doubt. In a speech the other evening, which the hon. Gentleman was lucky enough not to have read, I said that in private I have been assured by many university people that they well understood that many of the changes now taking place would strengthen the system for the future.
I understand that many of the reforms being introduced are painful for dons and difficult for those who manage universities, but they are absolutely vital in the longer term. Any Government who allow the not wholly efficient management of the university system to continue would be less responsible than they should be.
The Government aim to increase participation in higher education above the record levels already achieved. We are reviewing university funding levels in the light of improvements in that sector. St. Andrews and its locality should benefit from that as much as the remainder of the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Four o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Educational Maintenance Allowances
  Educational Maintenance Allowances
  Mature Students (Grants)
  Mature Students (Grants)
  Education Budget
  Education Budget
  Schizophrenia
  Schizophrenia
DEFENCE
  Airborne Early Warning Radar System
  Airborne Early Warning Radar System
  Military Bands
  Military Bands
ENERGY
  British Gas
  British Gas
  Domestic Consumers (Disconnections)
  Domestic Consumers (Disconnections)
  Northern Engineering International Nuclear Systems
  Northern Engineering International Nuclear Systems
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Guyana
  Guyana
  Afghan Refugees
  Afghan Refugees
  Jamaica
  Jamaica
WALES
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Executive (Offices)
  Housing Executive (Offices)
  Housing Legislation
  Housing Legislation
  Voting Rights
  Voting Rights
  Irish Language
  Irish Language
  Flags and Emblems
  Flags and Emblems
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Telecommunications Act (Licences)
  Telecommunications Act (Licences)
TRANSPORT
  Safety Barriers
  Safety Barriers
  Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency
  Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency
  Catholic Church, Biddlestone, Northumberland
  Catholic Church, Biddlestone, Northumberland
PRIME MINISTER
  "The SOE in Scandinavia"
  "The SOE in Scandinavia"
  Nuclear Accidents (Effects)
  Nuclear Accidents (Effects)
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Political Adherence)
  Civil Servants (Political Adherence)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Guyana
  Guyana
THE ARTS
  Objects in Lieu of Tax
  Objects in Lieu of Tax
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Test Ban Treaty
  Test Ban Treaty
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Psychopathically Disordered Prisoners
  Psychopathically Disordered Prisoners
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  India (Kabbadi)
  India (Kabbadi)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Passports
  Passports
  Mentally Ill People
  Mentally Ill People
  Prisons (Mother and Baby Units)
  Prisons (Mother and Baby Units)
  Afghan Refugees
  Afghan Refugees
  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Immigration Rules
  Immigration Rules
SCOTLAND
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
EMPLOYMENT
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Part-time Employment
  Part-time Employment
  Lost Working Days
  Lost Working Days
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Urban Development
  Urban Development
  Public Buildings and Works (Expenditure)
  Public Buildings and Works (Expenditure)
  Council House Building
  Council House Building
  Nursing and Rest Homes
  Nursing and Rest Homes
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Faslane Bay
  Faslane Bay
  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mortgage Repossessions
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Swine Fever
  Swine Fever
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Sheepmeat (Caesium Levels)
  Sheepmeat (Caesium Levels)
  Butter
  Butter
  Fish Quotas
  Fish Quotas
  Fish Sizes
  Fish Sizes
  Persistent Plastics (Dumping Convention)
  Persistent Plastics (Dumping Convention)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Unemployment Benefits
  Unemployment Benefits
  Hospital Schemes
  Hospital Schemes
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Children's Deaths (Balconies)
  Children's Deaths (Balconies)
  Computerisation
  Computerisation
  Mental Patients
  Mental Patients
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Children (Malnutrition)
  Children (Malnutrition)
  Food (Nutritional Content)
  Food (Nutritional Content)
  Schizophrenia
  Schizophrenia
  Residential Care Homes
  Residential Care Homes

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Africa: UK Export Survey
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 whether they have studied the London Chamber of Commerce survey on British Government export promotion services and aid programmes to Africa, and what action they are to take on its findings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, this survey has been studied by the departments concerned. It was based on a small sample of respondents and cannot therefore be seen as being representative of the views of British industry as a whole. But we take seriously the comments of those who did reply. Some of the problems highlighted in the survey were familiar ones and all are being followed up on a continuing basis.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I acknowledge that this is not a survey which professes to describe industry as a whole. However, as the Minister says, it is an important survey from an important body—the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Is the noble Lord aware that the survey particularly points out dissatisfaction with the level and quality of government support to exporters both as regards diplomatic missions in Africa and resources of aid and funding packages? What do the Government intend to do rather than just observe the results of this survey?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, regarding the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, we have over 50 diplomatic and senior commercial officers serving throughout tropical Africa. When these posts are inspected the level of commercial activity is measured and changes are made to meet the criteria. As regards support, the British Overseas Trade Board has a tropical Africa advisory group and that is comprised of businessmen active in the markets concerned. They provide the BOTB with advice on strategy for overseas trade, and the BOTB directs and develops the export promotion services on behalf of the department alongside that advice.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, my noble friend used the word "small" in his original reply. How small is "small"?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand that 1,300 copies of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry's questionnaire were sent out. There were 53 responses, of which only 46 were usable.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the fact that the survey, in its ultimate result, only contained a sample is no reason at all for the Government to assume that the sample is unrepresentative? Is he further aware that when his noble friend Lord Young of Graffham sought to survey small businesses the survey covered only 200 firms, and that he nevertheless acted upon it? Will the noble Lord take another look at this survey? The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has a very significant reputation in its field, and its findings on the basis of the survey ought to be taken seriously into account. Will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that he will take another very careful look at this survey?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am very well aware of the importance of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and I believe that in my original Answer I said that we were following up those points which have been made to us. This week my honourable friend the Minister for Trade discussed the content of the survey with the Chamber. As I said, we are following up the points made.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, so far as concerns aid programmes, is the noble Lord aware that the population of Africa is on average doubling every 24 years? Is he further aware that only 1 per cent. of the aid given by Her Majesty's Government goes to family planning, and 99 per cent. to other purposes? Does not the noble Lord agree that these proportions are inappropriate?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced a subject very much wider than that covered by the original Question. We are talking about promotion services and trade aid to tropical Africa. As I have said, we continually review the amounts of money that we spend in this area. The Government attempt to have a balanced programme for public expenditure, and trade support in its variety of forms is contained within our continuing survey of this kind of expenditure.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, in his helpful definition, in answer to my noble friend, the Minister used the term "usable". Will he further assist the House by defining this term, and would it be correct to assume that the other category is "disposable"?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand that of the 53 responses, seven were, so to speak, spoiled papers and contained no information that could usefully be used by the statisticians.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while we agree that this is not necessarily representative of industry as a whole in this country, does the noble Lord realise that the findings of this report are precisely the findings of your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Trade, as noted both in its report and in the evidence provided to that committee by industrialists and manufacturers? Will the noble Lord address himself to the specific criticism of the chamber which states that recent cut-backs in staffing levels in the commercial

1153
sections of overseas posts have contributed to this level of criticism? When the noble Lord the Minister talks about "review", is he not using that term as a euphemism for "cuts", and is this not a criticism of the whole of the Government's policy in cutting back overseas commercial posts?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, staff resources are limited and they have to be deployed to the best effect. In spite of cuts, tropical Africa is still better served in its ratio of commercial manpower to exports than any other area in the world except Latin America and the Caribbean. Generous tribute was paid to the overseas commercial posts, and those who serve in them, in written evidence, including evidence from the London Chamber to the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place on the 1984–85 Foreign Office Vote and also in your Lordships' Select Committee report on the decline in trade of manufactured goods. Both paid tribute to the work being done and the success of our commercial officers abroad.

Electricity: Price Increase
11.14 a.m.
Lord Ezra: 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 the price for electricity is being increased while the prices for primary energy have been reduced.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the increase in electricity prices which took effect from 1st April has been offset to a great extent by the reductions announced on 5th June following the conclusion of the agreement on coal prices between the Central Electricity Generating Board and British Coal. That agreement takes account of the recent fall in the price of oil.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this affair has been handled in a somewhat confusing manner, bearing in mind that, according to a document that I have received from the Electricity Council, tariff rates for electricity went up by an average of 5 per cent. on the 1st April and it was then announced that they would be reduced by 3½ per cent. with effect from 1st July, the publicity being related exclusively to the subsequent smaller reduction? Furthermore, in view of the massive reduction in the price of coal charged to the CEGB—namely, a reduction of £600 million over two years—and the fact that the oil price has more than halved since the 1st January, was it not to be concluded that the least that the tariff consumer of electricity could have expected would be a net reduction and not a net increase in the tariff charges?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in answer to the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, it was unfortunate perhaps that the deal between British Coal and the Central Electricity Generating Board was not concluded before the 1st April when the price increases were announced. In regard to the noble
1154
Lord's second point, about the possibility of further reductions, the Electricity Council has said that the industry is reviewing the impact of lower fuel prices, lower inflation, high sales growth and improved efficiency, with a view to determining tariffs in the longer term, and the Electricity Council intends to make a further statement later in the year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend take note that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is advocating, however obliquely, the privatisation of the electricity industry?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I take note of my noble friend's views on that point and I shall no doubt come back to this at another stage.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some time ago in this House the Minister of the day proudly announced that in fact there were supplies of electricity to be obtained from France (which, by the way, obtains most of its electricity from nuclear energy)? It seems that they had such a surplus of energy that they were going to sell it to us at a cut price—and a figure was mentioned which was quite extraordinary. I should like to ask a very simple question. Did we get that electricity at a cut price, and was that reduction passed on to the consumer? If not, why not, Why do prices have to go up when they should go down?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that the link with France, which I do not think is yet complete, will result in the Central Electricity Generating Board being able to purchase electricity 25 per cent. cheaper than it could be generated on average in the United Kingdom, and of course this will benefit the United Kingdom consumers. However, I do not think that the link is yet complete.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Government make it quite clear to the industry that it is intolerable that prices should go up at all when its raw materials have fallen so greatly in price? Will the Government bear in mind this experience with this monopoly when they look at consumer protection over gas and telecommunications and so forth. It is quite clear that these monopolies are out to exploit the consumer to the maximum that they think they can get away with.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not accept that at all. The deal was done between British Coal and the electricity board. It was the best deal that could be done between them bearing in mind the circumstances and it was a deal which was endorsed by the Government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, do not people have short memories? The new deal with the Coal Board is welcome, but people are entirely overlooking the fact that the electricity industry had to burn an enormous amount of expensive oil during the miners' strike. In the London board area alone that represented many millions of pounds of extra expenditure. It was to recoup the losses in that period that the increase in April was announced. As soon as the price of fuel used by the industry came down. both

1155
through the drop in the price of oil and through the new negotiated price of coal, the price was reduced, and it is hoped to continue that over the long term.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is right; the electricity board suffered considerably from the miners' strike and its costs were increased enormously. However, since the end of the strike British Coal has been doing extremely well. Productivity is at record levels. We hope that that will continue and that the benefits will be passed on to consumers.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the prices are distorted by the coal element, which in turn derives from great subsidies from the taxpayers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is quite true. Coal counts for nearly 65 per cent. of the production of electricity and at the moment it is an important factor in the equation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, were we not assured by the Secretary of State that the additional costs borne by the electricity board during the coal strike would not be passed on to the consumer, and so surely that is not relevant? Does the noble Lord agree that the point of issue is that electricity prices have been increased at a time when primary energy costs are falling? In April in the Netherlands there was a 10 per cent. cut in electricity charges and in Italy it was 5.5 per cent. British consumers are being taken for a ride. Have not the Government put pressure on the electricity boards not to increase prices further, because that will put pressure on gas prices, and that is the last thing that they want in advance of the flotation of that industry in the autumn?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not accept that. Electricity prices must be a matter of negotiation for the electricity board. It has done the best deal that it can with British Coal. With regard to increases of electricity prices over the years, I invite any noble Lord to compare what has happened to electricity prices during the past few years with what happened in the period of the last Labour Government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the noble Lord will not accept what I said, will he explain to the House why British Gas is holding its price at 34p per therm when the price of oil has fallen to 26p? Could we not expect that the gas price would follow the oil price since it is related?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is another question. But the contracts of British Gas do not necessarily all fall in at once as regards those tied to the oil price. I am sure that over a period of time, as contracts come up for renewal, we shall see falls in price.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a popular fallacy that the gas price relates to the oil price? It has nothing to do with it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said just now, certain gas purchase prices are linked to the price of oil, but that is a difficult question to answer because there are a lot of different types of contract involved.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is there not another aspect that the Minister might be prepared to look at? The tariff rates announced on 1st April and 1st July seem to be at total variance with statements made by the Electricity Council. Is not the brutal truth that electricity prices are going up and will probably continue to go up? I am reminded of an ancient quotation: one part of the statistics reminds me of one part and the remainder of the statement reminds me of the other part. This is a serious situation for both the council and for the Minister who is ultimately responsible, and it should be investigated.
Lord Parry: What is the quotation, my Lords?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, just to get the facts on the record, for most domestic customers there will be a net increase in 1986-87 of about 1½ per cent., which is well below the rate of inflation. Those on Economy 7 tariffs will enjoy a net reduction. For industry and commerce there is likely to be an even greater reduction.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not still the case that there has been an increase in the price of electricity, while raw material costs have come down significantly indeed, and in particular the price of oil came down by almost 50 per cent. before the first increase in the tariff? I put it to the Minister that it simply does not make sense to the consumer.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that effectively I have explained the answers to every question that the noble Lord has asked. The coal burn of the electricity board is still around 65 per cent. Whether the price of oil has come down or not, the CEGB still has to buy coal from British Coal and it has negotiated the best deal that it could.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister agree that although he says he has answered every question, he has not explained the increase at all?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does not the electricity industry have to buy its oil considerably in advance of usage? For that reason the price change comes through at a later time.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is another question, my Lords.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: No, my Lords, that is the question that has been asked.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not entirely informed on the answer to that question. All I can say is that the oil burn involved is only about 15·7 per cent., so it is not a particularly high proportion of the overall generation of electricity.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Baroness was, however obliquely, then engaged in the robust defence of a public enterprise?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a matter between the noble Lord and my noble friend. I shall not comment on it.

Prison Dental Service
11.27 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: 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 how many penal establishments were unable to offer to the prisoners dental treatment comparable to that available to the general public in 1985–86 and how many prison dental clinics were cancelled during that period.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as far as I am aware in the financial year 1985–86 dental service was temporarily restricted to emergency cases at two establishments. A normal service is now being provided at both. Regrettably, dental sessions sometimes have to be cancelled because prison officers are not available to escort and supervise patients. The problem has been confined in the main to a small number of remand establishments. Information on cancellations is not routinely collected centrally but I shall try to obtain it and will write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat reassuring reply. In view of the basic principle that a prisoner is entitled to the same medical care as anybody else, and the concern shown by the association for prison dental surgeons that the budgetary constraints were more widespread, can he assure us that in the coming year no arbitrary financial ceilings will be placed on penal establish-ments and that dentists should be guided by the normal consideration of the need of patients?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as with all public expenditure, there has to be a system of budgetary control. In advance of the financial year, each establishment is given a financial allocation for dental treatment for the year. Because expenditure levels are dictated by patient demand, the allocations are inevitably to some extent arbitrary. However, they are adjusted as the financial year progresses, if necessary. I assure the noble Baroness that there is no question of patients being denied essential treatment because of financial constraints.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister tell me how dental surgeons in prisons are remunerated? Is it on a salaried sessional basis? Is he aware that there is a greatly under-used capacity of national health dentistry available and that many general practitioners would welcome having suitable prisoners brought to their surgery for treatment, as I do myself, to help to fill the gaps?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot cap the last remark in my noble friend's question. The surgeon is paid in the same way that he is paid within the National Health Service, part of the charge being paid though the Dental Estimates Board and the patient's contribution being met by the Prison Department. Dental surgeons contract to provide treatment under the Health Service usually within prisons, in a dental surgery equipped and provided by the prison department.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not important when considering this matter to remember that prisoners are sent to prison as punishment and not for punishment?
Lord Davidson: My Lords, all I can add is that they have the great advantage of getting their dental treatment for nothing which is probably why the queues are slightly longer than outside.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the rather unsatisfactory system that exists that when a remand or convicted prisoner is expected to move to another prison the dentist is not allowed to start the necessary treatment? Does he agree that it would be better if dentists were permitted to start the treatment and that the dentist in the establishment to which the prisoner was moving was given instructions and details of the treatment already carried out?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is a problem when the prisoner is moved from one remand establishment to another. At the busier remand establishments the medical officers have to be selective about the referral of non-urgent cases and to give priority to those patients who are expected to remain in the establishment long enough for a course of treatment to be completed. It is up to the dentist to send the prisoner's records to the dentist in the prison to which he is moved.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are some forms of treatment which it would be unsatisfactory for one dentist safely to leave to another to complete.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my noble friend knows much more about this than I do.

Business
11.32 a.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about today's debate on South Africa, in which 35 noble Lords are due to speak. Although this is not a timed debate, Front Bench opening and winding up speakers of all parties have agreed to exercise voluntary restraint, and to limit their speeches to a maximum of 20 minutes in the case of the Government and 15 minutes in that of the Opposition parties. But even so if Back-Bench speakers were to take on average 10 minutes each, the debate would not end until about 5.30 p.m. Noble Lords will no doubt wish to bear this

1159
chilling prospect in mind when they come to address the House and the position would be markedly improved if the average could come down to seven minutes each.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, would it not have been an advantage if we had had that Statement before Question Time, bearing in mind that the House took 25 minutes for three Questions?
Lord Denham: My Lords, yes; but unfortunately the Orders of your Lordships' House say that Business Statements come after Questions.

South Africa
11.33 a.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the number of your Lordships participating in this debate demonstrates how deeply concerned we all are about the situation in South Africa.
Despite the recent clamp down by the South African Government on media coverage of the unrest, we know that violence continues in the townships; that the death toll rises; and that arrests and detentions continue. Millions of ordinary South Africans continue to suffer under a system which denies them, purely on grounds of their colour, the basic human rights that we take for granted. The international community has a legitimate interest in their plight. I welcome the opportunity today to debate the situation in South Africa in this House and to set out the Government's policy.
Last week the Government made formal representations to the South African Government both in London and in Pretoria. We expressed our concern about all those detained, but we made particular mention of the detention of a whole range of people who could not reasonably be accused of being associated with acts of violence. These are not dangerous radicals. On the contrary, they are the sort of people who have been active in helping those in need and in preaching reconciliation, moderation and restraint. I refer of course to the clergymen, lay church members and community workers in moderate organisations such as Black Sash who have been detained over recent weeks. We have urged the South African Government to lift the state of emergency, to release detainees, to restore press freedom and to restore normal collective bargaining, in short, to restore the freedoms cherished in any civilised society.
I hope I do not need to reiterate that this Government utterly and unreservedly condemn the policy of apartheid and the repressive measures used to enforce it. We wish to see this unnacceptable system brought to an end as soon as possible. We should like to see established in its place a non-racial society with democratic, representative government and with proper safeguards for all minorities. As I have previously told your Lordships, we are not seeking to prescribe the particular political and constitutional arrangements that may be necessary—that is a matter
1160
for the South African people as a whole to decide for themselves. What I am saying is that until such a society is established in South Africa, the Western objective of a prosperous, stable southern Africa, with all the countries in the area living in harmony and respecting each others borders, cannot be achieved.
But, we want these changes to come about peacefully, not through confrontation. This Government have always denounced violence, from whatever quarter. We shall continue to argue that violence can solve nothing; that what is required is dialogue and negotiation, accompanied by a suspension of violence on all sides. This was precisely the message which my honourable friend the Minister of State gave Mr. Oliver Tambo, acting president of the ANC, when she met him for the first time on 24th June. At the same time she left Mr. Tambo in no doubt about our commitment to the early and complete elimination of apartheid.
The Government see the violence in South Africa as a symptom, not a cause of the deep malaise which affects that unhappy country today. We therefore consider the South African Government to be sadly mistaken if they believe that they can cope with the problem simply by applying force. The root cause lies in the unjust and morally indefensible system of apartheid and the distortion and tensions which it generates.
Gloomy though the outlook is, it would be quite wrong to paint a picture devoid of any light or shade. The honest observer should concede that the situation in South Africa has evolved over the past two years. State President Botha made the belated admission in January this year that apartheid was outmoded. Reforms have been introduced which would have been considered unthinkable even a few years ago. On 1st July it was announced that the pass laws had at last been abolished. This is a significant step forward. The South African Government have pledged themselves to consider further reforms at a special session of Parliament this summer. But the pace of reform is still painfully slow. Changes have appeared too little, too late, and too grudging. The result is that the South African Government have not got credit for them either from the black community or from the international community. The focus remains on the distance yet to travel, rather than on progress already made.
It was precisely in order to encourage the South African Government to take bold steps that we took certain measures last autumn, in concert with our partners in the international community, intended to promote and encourage the process of change. I refer to the packages of measure adopted by the European Community at Luxembourg on 10th September 1985 and the initiative agreed with Commonwealth partners at Nassau on 20th October last.
The Commonwealth initiative established the Eminent Persons Group. This was an imaginative attempt to bridge the gap between the South African Government and their domestic opponents, and to work for reconciliation. The group of respected Commonwealth statesmen included the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I know we shall all listen with great interest to what he has to tell us today. The difficulties

1161
of the task were clear from the outset. Many people were at first sceptical that anything could come of the Group's efforts. But the Group did make headway in the six-month period laid down at Nassau. It came to be trusted and respected by many who at first had been wary of it. It managed to establish a dialogue with the South African Government, with a wide range of opinion inside South Africa, and with the African National Congress. Above all, as the group's report records, it managed to produce a negotiating concept which could have given the South African Government the opportunity to make a real breakthrough in establishing a genuine process of dialogue, based on a suspension of violence on all sides. As we now know and regret, the South African Government failed to take that opportunity and the group concluded in its report that it could go no further. But it came tantalisingly close to making real progress. We are convinced that its approach was correct. We must not shut the door on future negotiations. The seven Commonwealth Heads of Government who were each asked to nominate a member of the group will be meeting in London to review the situation at the beginning of August.
When the European Community Heads of Government met in the Hague on 26th and 27th June, they agreed that the aims of the Commonwealth group remained valid. Dialogue and the suspension of violence remained the only constructive way forward. To support the process of non-violent change in South Africa and to emphasise their deep concern about the recent course of events, they decided to take fresh action of their own.
First, they called for a concerted European programme of assistance to the victims of apartheid. This programme will build on the substantial assistance already being given to the black community in South Africa by Britain and the other European states, both nationally and through the European Community.
Secondly, the Heads of Government called on the South African government to take two most important steps: unconditionally to release Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners; and to lift the ban on the ANC, the PAC and other political parties. In our view, these steps are essential to beginning a dialogue.
Thirdly, the Heads of Government said that the European Community would during the next three months enter into consultations with other industri-alised countries on further measures which might be needed, covering in particular a ban on new investments and on the import of coal, iron, steel and gold coins from South Africa.
Finally, and, I believe, most significantly, they decided to ask my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, in his capacity as President of the European Council of Ministers, to visit southern Africa in a further effort to establish conditions in which dialogue could begin. Discussions on the precise timing of the mission are still in progress, but I would wish to reiterate that it is not a fact-finding mission. My right honourable friend is going with the full authority and backing of all the states of the European Community, which comprise several of South Africa's major trading partners and which have important historical
1162
and personal links with South Africa. His purpose is not to deliver an ultimatum or issue threats. His aim is to impress upon those he meets that, as seen from Europe, South Africa can no longer afford any delay in beginning the national dialogue we have for so long urged.
Her Majesty's Government remain totally committed to continuing the search for a peaceful negotiated settlement. We shall do so with our partners in the Commonwealth, with our partners in the European Community, in consultation with other Western governments, and on our own account. We do so in full recognition that the forces which will change South Africa are primarily internal, not external. It will be a difficult process and will take time. The task of the world community is to encourage and reinforce the positive forces for change in South Africa. We should seek ways to strengthen the hand of liberal whites. We should encourage the business community who are already pressing for change. We should signal to blacks that there is only a real prospect of a solution through negotiation, and not through violence.
The Government understand the frustration that leads to calls for the imposition of comprehensive sanctions. Britain has already taken a wide range of measures to put political pressure on the South African Government. We have implemented the United Nations arms embargo, the Gleneagles agreement on sport, the further measures agreed with other European governments in September last, and those agreed with the Commonwealth partners at the Heads of Government meeting in Nassau last year. But we are convinced that general boycotts would be counter-productive. They would make the South African Government more resistant to change. They would also cause serious harm to the very people whom we are trying to help in South Africa. They would damage the economies of neighbouring countries. We do not see what would be gained by undermining the economy of the whole southern African region, and encouraging the South African Government to retreat into the laager and fight on to the bitter end for what could be many years. For there can be no doubt whatsoever that the South Africans could hold out for a long time indeed under siege conditions.
Cynics in the international community have argued that there is no point in trying to influence the South African Government at all—that they are totally impervious to outside opinion. Equally, there are hard-liners inside South Africa who claim that this is true. The Government happen to think that it would be tragic if this view prevailed. It would mean giving up all hope of a peaceful negotiated solution. I firmly believe that we must do everything we can to make a peaceful solution possible. This is the view of the European Community as a whole. It is for this reason that they have entrusted my right honourable friend with the mission that he is due to undertake.
So long as there is any hope of a peaceful solution, we must keep on trying to work towards it. We must leave the South African Government in no doubt of the urgent need to grasp the opportunity that still exists before it is too late. I hope that your Lordships will join

1163
with me in wishing my right honourable friend every success in his difficult task.
Moved, That this House takes note of the situation in South Africa.— (Baroness Young. )
11.46 a.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for acceding so readily to the request for a debate on this grave issue. We are also glad that he is to make the final speech. The noble Baroness has made a clear opening statement of the Government's policy. We agree with many of the points that she made and I shall deal with some of her arguments as I proceed. But both she and the noble Viscount must know that we on this side have profound reservations about the effectiveness of the Government's policy. That is not to say that we disregard the enormous political, economic and social problems involved on the road to a settlement. There is a price to be paid, although no one is sure what that may be. What we are certain of is that it would be much less than the ghastly price that will be exacted if there is no early settlement, and if the South African Government persists on the road to inevitable disaster. The consequences of that catastrophe for the world are unpredictable.
The House will recall that we debated the problems of South Africa as recently as 30th April. Noble Lords who took part dealt with the developing tragedy and expressed their views about it. But it is our worst fears in that debate that have been proved right, and the crisis in the meantime has become far more acute. For the purposes of a balanced debate, it is right that I should say at the start that there are matters of first principle upon which we and the Government agree. We want to see an end to apartheid and we want to see measured progress to a plural democracy. The noble Baroness has made clear that this is the Government's attitude. At the conclusion of The Hague summit, the Prime Minister also repeated the Government's total opposition to apartheid. It is right therefore to stress that all parties in this Chamber are fundamentally opposed to apartheid and desire to bring it to an early conclusion. Where we differ is on the measures to be taken to deal with this great evil. I shall come to them in a moment.
In the two months since our last debate a number of important things have happened—that is, in addition to the mounting crisis in South Africa itself. First, the term of six months, set by the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Nassau, has come to an end. Secondly, the Eminent Persons Group appointed by them has published its report. Finally, last week's EC summit at The Hague, at which the Prime Minister played a major role, has taken place. The noble Baroness dealt with this in some detail in her speech. But at the end of The Hague meeting the Prime Minister seems to have got the objectives of the Commonwealth meeting at Nassau and the EC decisions mixed up. The overwhelming Commonwealth opinion is one of dismay and disappointment with the reaction to the crisis at The Hague. We must await the next Commonwealth meeting here in London early in August for a
1164
considered view. Yet, the Prime Minister, as reported in The Times on 28th June, said that Sir Geoffrey Howe's proposed mission was the next stage following the recent report by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group and that it would be absurd
"to cast away a chance that is still there".
The Foreign Secretary is an old friend of mine; I hold him in high regard and also wish him well in his mission. But, it requires a quite remarkable imagination to believe that Mr. Botha and his friends are prepared to contemplate proposals that would come anywhere near international acceptance. I hope that I shall be proved wrong, but the messages from Pretoria over the last few days are certainly not encouraging.
It is also clear that the eminent persons themselves did not regard a visit by the Foreign Secretary as the next desirable stage in the proceedings. They came to a very different conclusion. Before anyone starts criticising them in this debate—and I hope that no one does—I would remind the House that the noble Baroness herself said, in the debate on 30th April, that they had
"won a great deal of respect and co-operation on all sides… Its credibility is reinforced by the broad base of international support which it now enjoys … the mission represents much of the best prospect at this time for a positive international contribution to a settlement in South Africa. [Official Report, 30/4/86; col. 380.]
The noble Baroness has used more or less the same words today. She went on to say that Her Majesty's Government would give the group all possible help, using their long-standing links with South Africa to best advantage. We all supported the sentiments of the noble Baroness at that time and wished the group, which included the noble Lord, Lord Barber, every success. We on this side are delighted that the noble Lord is in his place today and we look forward very much to hearing what he has to say because his knowledge of the problem at this crucial time is more detailed than anyone else's in the Chamber.
However, whatever qualities Mr. Botha has, subtlety is not one of them. He quickly showed what he thought of our long-standing links and of the Eminent Persons Group when he sent his troops into three of the front line states, at the moment when the group was approaching its final conclusions. That effectively scuppered the Eminent Persons Group's efforts to achieve progress, but it did not—mercifully—scupper their report and it remains in my view a historic document. In April the noble Baroness spoke of the "credibility" of the group. I hope that the Government still believe in the credibility of the group, and in the credibility of the group's report. I am sure that the noble Viscount will give us his view of that when he winds up.
Let us be clear what the report said. It came to five conclusions of basic importance which may be summarised very briefly as follows. First, on the issue of apartheid it says:
"We have examined the South African Government's 'programme of reform' and have been forced to conclude that at present there is no genuine intention on the part of the South African Government to dismantle apartheid".
That is a fundamental conclusion of great importance to this House as we debate the issue. Secondly, they concluded that emergency laws were broadly in force.

1165
Since then, of course, far more draconian measures have been introduced. Thirdly, Nelson Mandela and other political leaders remain in prison and, as we know, many more have been imprisoned without trial since then. Fourthly, political freedom, they say, is far from being established. If anything, it is being more rigorously curtailed. The ANC and other political parties remain banned. Fifthly and lastly, the group said this:
"The cycle of violence and counter violence has spiralled and there is no present prospect of a process of dialogue across lines of colour, politics and religion and the establishment of a non racial and representative Government".
Since the group published these five conclusions matters have deteriorated further. But it formed the view on what the noble Lord and his colleagues saw, and on what it heard across the whole spectrum of opinion, namely, that the South African Government are not ready to negotiate measures towards representative government except on their own terms and those terms fall far short of black expectations. They also fall short of well accepted democratic norms and principles. The group said specifically,
"It"—
that is the South African Government—
"is in truth not yet prepared to negotiate fundamental change".
It said that there could be little doubt that the alternative to a negotiated settlement—and an early negotiated settlement—would be
"appalling chaos, bloodshed and destruction".
That is the reality of the situation. This is what we face as we contemplate what action this country and others should take in the face of that possible cataclysm. In my view the group has done its job. This "credible" group included the noble Lord and Mr Malcolm Fraser, honourable and practicable men on the Right—if the noble Lord does not mind my saying so, although not too far to the Right—of the political spectrum who would certainly not have put their names to the report unless they believed in it. I was greatly impressed by the article written by Mr Fraser in The Times on Tuesday.
It is against that background that we must look at The Hague decisions. Sadly, once again the Prime Minister took the lead against positive measures and for further delay. The old arguments were deployed again. They have been met with a predictable response right across the world. But what did the Eminent Persons Group itself say about economic sanctions? It commended "concerted action of an effective kind". It went on to say this, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Barber will underline it:
"We point to the fact that the Government of South Africa has itself used economic measures against its neighbours and that such measures are patently instruments of its own national policy. We are convinced that the South African Government is concerned about the adoption of effective economic measures against it. If it comes to the conclusion that it would always remain protected from such measures, the process of change in South Africa is unlikely to increase in momentum, and the descent into violence would be accelerated".
That is a profound conclusion and a profoundly important judgment on the Government's own policies, their unwillingness to face reality, and to plan for the longer term in the interests of South Africa and the rest of the world. But the Government's views have always been clear. They are that sanctions will fail;
1166
that they are no good; that they would injure the black population and create economic difficulties for us in Britain. The Eminent Persons Group takes a different view and so does almost everybody else except the Government and two or three newspapers. The Government have at different times, but in other circumstances, called for support for sanctions: sanctions against the Argentine, against Libya, against the Soviet Union, and against Poland. They did so not merely because they thought that it would influence those countries to change course, but because they—Her Majesty's Government—with our support wished to express their abhorrence about what was going on in those countries. That is always the primary reason for sanctions. As I understand it, that was the view of the majority of our EC partners in The Hague.
The practical question about sanctions is precisely what they should be and how far they should go. Specific measures for the future were agreed in The Hague. I assume that the noble Viscount, when he concludes the debate, will confirm that the Government will join in imposing those sanctions if the Foreign Secretary returns emptyhanded. Personally, I do not think that sanctions by dribs and drabs are "effective measures". The Afrikaner will not be impressed by that. The liberal Afrikaner—and there are splendid liberal Afrikaners in South Africa—will not be assisted. Nor will the Commonwealth be impressed. We must consider what the consequences of all this will be for the future of the Commonwealth.
We have heard what President Kaunda and others have said, but I am sure that they will give very careful thought to the implications of jeopardising the future of the Commonwealth at this crucial time. However, of course, as I am sure the noble Viscount will again agree, it is the actions of Her Majesty's Government which will finally decide the future of the Commonwealth in due course. In all this, Britain's tenure of the presidency of the Community and the Foreign Secretary's mission are of focal significance. As I said at the start, we wish him well in his task.
I noted that the Prime Minister defined the Foreign Secretary's task in another place on Tuesday at cols. 823 and 824 of Hansard. She said that if those objectives were not achieved the Government must in a short space of time join in a further effort. She referred to the objectives as set out in the communiqué:
"In this context the European Council calls on the South African Government:
—to unconditionally release Nelson Mandela and the other political prisoners;
—to lift the ban on the African National Congress, the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania and other political parties".
Those are the objectives of the right honourable and learned gentleman's visit. However, the future is awesome. I have not seen it so well described as by the Economist a few days ago when it said:
"Change in South Africa is ever less likely to be negotiated, let alone decided, through a ballot box. It will come through the blood-stained power-broking of sectional interests; guns, armour, arbitrary arrest, backed by patronage and bribery, pitted against riot, arson and terror. Governments which set their policemen outside the law, which ban priests and community peacemakers, which deny free dissemination of information, which suspend constitutional rights, usually plead that repression is the pre-condition of future freedom. The history of modern politics replies that that is rubbish."

1167
Of all places on earth, this Parliament and this House must agree that that is so.
We hope, therefore, that the right honourable gentleman's visit will be a success. I pay a tribute to liberal elements in South Africa, to Mr. Nelson Mandela himself, and refute the rubbish that is talked about him as a tool of communism. He is an enlightened liberal politician, as are Mrs. Janet Suzman and so many others. The solution at the end must emerge from them, from within the community in South Africa itself. Our task is to see that a just society, a fair, free and democratic society, emerges. I hope that the Government will bend their will and their efforts to that end.
12.3 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is common ground between us on all sides of the House that we abhor apartheid. Let us remind ourselves that apartheid is not an old cultural pattern in South Africa. It was invented and introduced as late as 1948, although it is true that it was built on the great discrimination before those days. It is also common ground between us that we abhor the intolerable bloodshed; the police action; and the action of the armed forces which is taking place in South Africa at present and which appears week by week—indeed, day by day—to be deepening and becoming ever more serious.
However, I am not sure that it is such common ground between us that the time is running out, that there is very little time left to avoid a descent into the abyss in which only violence will be seen to be the deciding factor in what is to come. We must remind ourselves that it is particularly running out for those moderate, patient African leaders who attempted for so long not to use violence but who were driven to the use of violence because they did not have the use of the ballot box. However, those patient African leaders are beleaguered themselves on all sides. They are not only opposed by the white Government; they have behind them and coming around them the younger, intolerant blacks, and if we are reduced to negotiating with them the future will be very bleak indeed.
It is surely in our own greatest interest, if we really believe that there must be peace in South Africa—and surely we all do—to back people like Bishop Tutu and others who have stood patiently and tried to avoid the retreat into violence. However, they could so easily be swept aside and they will be swept aside unless very soon they can see that the black leadership that has been their leadership up until now will lead them to success.
The fact of the matter is that today there is only a choice between a decision based on violence and a decision based on negotiation. The Government believe and acknowledge that. However, what is the negotiation to be about, and who is to do the negotiating? We accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, that there have been important changes. It is good that the pass laws are to go; and there are other changes that we welcome. However, that is not what it is all about. It is all about the distribution of power. It is about getting rid of a system which does not recognise basic democratic rights and
1168
that those democratic rights are based on persons and not on groups.
The basic error of apartheid has been the belief that you can develop so-called democratic governments by dealing separately with groups of persons but denying the rights of individuals. That is the matter about which negotiation must take place. Sooner or later it will mean—indeed, it must mean (because how can this Parliament say otherwise?)—one man one vote, with of course safeguards for the rights of minorities. That and that alone is what effective negotiation has to be all about.
Who is to do the negotiating? Surely it has to be—and here I think we are in agreement—the people who are at present in prison. Emphatically, and first and foremost, because he has become a symbol as well as being a person, it has to be Nelson Mandela. It has to be the ANC. It has to be the people who the people of Africa themselves recognise as being their leaders. And it has to be done sooner rather than later.
Six months ago we had the Nassau Accord. On that occasion we agreed to the Nassau Accord and said that if there was not positive movement in the direction that we wanted to go we would take stern action; there would be stronger measures to enforce what the Nassau Accord wanted to bring about. The remarkable report by the Eminent Persons Group has made it crystal clear that there has been no such advance. It has made it crystal clear that without advance, and advance soon, the situation can only become rapidly worse.
For our part, we on these Benches wish that the Government had delayed no longer. We wish that they had stood by what they said at the time of the Nassau Accord and were prepared now to introduce those stronger measures. Indeed, let us call them "stronger measures" if it makes it easier, rather than calling them "sanctions", provided they amount to the same thing. We wish that they had introduced those stronger measures to show the South African Government that they really mean what was said at Nassau; that they really mean that there has to be negotiation to force the establishment of genuine democracy in South Africa—genuine democracy led by men in whom we can have some confidence because of their past record—and not wait until it is too late.
We wish that that step had been taken now; but it is not to be. There is to be yet another three months for consultation. Sir Geoffrey Howe is to go for further consultation to see what he can do to bring about a negotiated settlement. We all wish him, in the full sense of the words, God speed. He is up against the most difficult task that he, or perhaps any other Foreign Secretary, is likely to have to tackle in our lifetime today. It is, as I see it, perhaps the worst crisis that has been faced since the crisis when we had to face Hitler in 1939. It is going to be a most enormously difficult task to undertake.
But has Sir Geoffrey a chance unless he goes with the South African Government realising that if he fails, if he does not get agreement, then in reality the Government will use tough action? Surely he has to negotiate from a basis of strength. The South African Government have already seen that we have stepped backwards from what we suggested we were going to

1169
do at the time of Nassau. If they continue to believe that we will dilly-dally after this three-month period, what hope has the Foreign Secretary that he will get them to move from the position that they have taken up at the present time? Therefore, surely he must go out armed with the knowledge, and able to say, that sterner measures really will be taken if nothing is achieved at the end of those three months.
There is so much at stake not only in South Africa itself, not only in the problem, between black and white and the coloureds and Asians inside South Africa: there is a great deal at stake, too, for this country; for our position of leadership inside the European Community. It so happens that at this moment we have the presidency. We shall not have it again for six years. We do not want to be seen to be leading from behind. We have not a great reputation for having shown leadership inside the EC.
There are many who think that The Hague Agreement would have been stronger, would have been more positive, but for the action taken by the British Government. That is not the sort of leadership that we want to demonstrate within the EC. The British presidency and Sir Geoffrey Howe's mission to South Africa give us a chance (a chance that we have missed so often in the past) to show that we really are leaders inside the EC. Let us seize that chance with both hands, and use all the forces that we have to see that the results of this mission lead to effective change and not just to more talk.
Then there is the position of the Commonwealth. We know that all over the Commonwealth there is deep criticism of the slowness with which we have taken action against South Africa. There must be the deepest criticism, too, of our failure to take action now with the results of the Nassau Accord being so puny, and indeed the report that has come from the Eminent Persons Group. The Commonwealth is a great creation, of which this country is rightly proud. It has an influence such as no organisation of nations in history has ever had.
Are we going to throw that away—that instrument for good; the best result of Empire that any Empire has ever had? What other Empire has ever left behind a record as good as the record of the Commonwealth? Are we not going to use the power that the Commonwealth gives us? Are we going to say that when it came to the point we were not prepared to use our strength? Then there is our own strong economic interest inside South Africa. South Africa is a rich country. It has a great economic future if it is handled aright, and we have a big part to play in the development of that great economic future.
That brings me to the last point I want to stress. Politics and economics are inevitably intertwined. There is a far better hope of a good political future if the economic prospects of the country are rosy than if they are dim. Can we not, in a number of ways, give a lead to help on the economic front?
One of the most important developments must be the growth and development of people among the African population who are able to take a leading role in the economic and industrial development of the country. The great companies operating in South Africa have had various records in their relations with
1170
their African staff, but some of them have done a great deal indeed to bring on skilled men and skilled supervisee, skilled managers, so that there can be a core of trained African specialists able to contribute to the economic development of their country.
I believe that at the present time there are some legal limitations that the South African Government imposes on the extent to which those companies are able to bring forward their African staff. One thing at least we can surely do is to see that there are no restraints whatsoever put on European companies in the development of their African staff. We can do more. Can we not get them together and ask those companies what, in addition to what they are already doing, they can do to promote the development of African managers, African skilled men, and African trade unions? So when the day comes—and the day will come; countries, unlike individuals, cannot take retreat in oblivion, there always is a tomorrow—will it be a tomorrow with a real economic prospect or a tomorrow of economic chaos? As the Africans come to the power that, sooner or later and by one means or another, will be theirs, we must help them to be economically prepared to do it.
One thing that the Government could do straight-away is to increase greatly the number of places for South African blacks in our universities and polytechnics (and indeed the EC could do this, too) so that they could have trained manpower ready for the economic development of their country when that day comes, as most surely come it will.
Lord Burton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her one short question? She talked about one man one vote. How many other African countries have one man one vote?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, because it has gone wrong in other places is no reason why we should not continue trying elsewhere.
12.17 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I should like to record my thanks for the arrangements that have been made for this debate, and also for the words of wisdom that we have just heard. I must confess that I am rather glad that I am not a bishop in South Africa today. I would be likely to be in detention, like the Assistant Bishop of Johannesburg. It would be most unlikely that my wife would be able to visit me; my children would probably be detained—fates which have been experienced by bishops in South Africa. Whole congregations in my diocese might have been arrested, despite the fact that President Botha wrote only on 29th May last guaranteeing freedom of religion and worship in a letter to the EPG.
He also guaranteed freedom of the press and of expression in general. But now, only a few weeks later, thousands, as we know, have disappeared from view. It seems to me that the situation for a black African in South Africa today is not altogether unlike that of a Jew in pre-war Nazi Germany: liable to arbitrary arrest, subject to violence and sudden disappearance without trace. We must think of what the situation

1171
looks like from their point of view and not just from ours.
Of course South Africa is not the only tyranny in the world today. But there are special reasons for our concern over South Africa. The Treaty of Vereeniging, which ended the Boer War, contained the fatal clause:
"The question of granting the franchise to the natives will not be decided until after the introduction of self-government".
It was this which has led step by step to the total disenfranchisement of blacks, coloureds, and Indians, and to apartheid.
I think I am right in saying that South Africa is the only part of the British Empire in which we did not grant independence to the majority of its citizens. So there seems to be a special responsibility that we have for that, to say nothing of the vast sums of money that we have invested there and the large number of people from our country who have emigrated there.
The Churches too have a special interest in South Africa, because it claims to be a Christian country. If the Churches here do not speak up they seem to be concurring with these false claims, and we need to support Bishop Desmond Tutu, Doctor Beyers Naude and Dr. Alan Boesak, those courageous opponents of apartheid and who are for peaceful change. Your Lordships may not know that there came from the South African Churches last year a document, the so-called Kairos Document, which has been likened to the Barmen Declaration of the Confessing Church in Germany about the Nazis. In it they wrote:
"If we call for reconciliation and negotiations now before repentance and equality have been established, we will be calling for reconciliation between good and evil."
The Churches over here have responded quickly to the crisis. The Methodist Conference last week called for mandatory sanctions. The Roman Catholic Cardinal has said that
"there is an urgent need for increasing pressure—economic, moral and political."
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland asked for targeted sanctions on South Africa and our General Synod of the Church of England, which is due to start meeting this afternoon, will discuss a motion to deploy sanctions against South Africa.
I am aware that the last time I said in this House that the Churches were united (on the Shops Bill) it did not have much effect upon your Lordships' House, but I hope that you will be more impressed by the Churches' unanimity on South Africa.
Now that the EPG has reported, I think we ought to know without equivocation whether or not Her Majesty's Government endorse the proposals, and, if not, why not? After all, the group was set up through British initiative. When it was set up there was much cynicism over its appointment—which proved entirely unjustified. I read from the last page of that report:
"Is the Commonwealth to stand by and allow the cycle of violence to escalate? Or will it take effective action of another kind? Such action may be the last opportunity to avert what could be the worst bloodbath since the Second World War".
I think it is fair to ask, does Her Majesty's Government endorse that judgment or not? That is a fair question to ask in the light of Sir Geoffrey Howe's mission. It would be most grievous if our hesitations and
1172
vacillations were to mean, in the words of the EPG, that the
"cost in lives may have to be counted in millions".
Of course this may just be a holding operation because measures, to be effective, would need to be agreed between the EC, the Commonwealth and if possible the USA. Perhaps underlying this terrible delay is the hope and expectation that within three months effective measures could be agreed all round, but the difference of opinion between the Dutch Premier and our own Prime Minister on whether effective measures will be taken after the three months are ended if success has not been achieved by Sir Geoffrey Howe, is not a very hopeful sign. The impression is given in this country—the "impression" I say—that instead of leading opposition to apartheid we are in the rear of any movement. We are becoming the despair of our black friends. We are in danger of losing our own moral integrity. Coming as I do from the West Midlands, of course I do not want more unemployment as a result of any measures that we take, but some effective measures could be taken which would not have that effect. The greatest pressure of all that could be put on South Africa would be in connection with the repayment of its loan by creditor banks.
Let us not forget that effective measures are what many black South Africans are asking for. It will be painful for them both in South Africa and in the front line nations, but they say, and we must listen to them, that they will gladly bear that burden for the sake of justice and to get the matter settled.
Like others, I wish Sir Geoffrey Howe well. I shall pray for the success of his mission. There is the possibility that he may succeed in gaining the release of Mandela and the start of negotiations, but it seems to me that the stakes are piled very high against him. As Mr. Fraser wrote:
"What can he learn in a day or two that is not covered in our Report?"
The back-tracking by the Botha Government in their letter of 29th May to the EPG—might not that happen again to Sir Geoffrey Howe? What hope of success will he have unless he can get the sympathy of black Africans too? That will be hard to gain. Every day of delay means we are giving more and more space to extremists to stir up hatred between whites and blacks and between blacks and blacks. If we can send an immediate signal now I feel there is still hope of comparative peaceful change, because Mandela, if he were released, commands the respect of the young and he would assert his influence for orderly conduct.
Like other noble Lords, I must mention the Commonwealth. I have a very great respect and love for the Commonwealth: one in four of all peoples on the planet, one-fifth of its landmass united in a common brotherhood which brings together black and white, rich and poor from all continents and many peoples, the greatest experiment in voluntary co-operation that this world has ever seen. May we be assured that whatever decisions will be taken they will not endanger the future association of the countries of our Commonwealth?
I end with a plea for moral leadership in our present crisis which, as I have tried to show, we have a duty to

1173
give; with a plea for the clarification of our position against the EPG Report, and I ask whether further action can be taken to help end the tyranny and injustice in South Africa—an action which the EC will endorse and which will unite our Commonwealth and not divide it.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate will correct a statement he made, in so far as that the coloureds and Indians do have representation in the South African Parliament. The right reverend Prelate said that they have no representation.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, it is true that the coloureds and Indians are on the President's Council, but to say that they have representation in Parliament is another thing altogether.
12.27 p.m.
Lord Barber: My Lords, for more than 10 years I have been travelling regularly to South Africa, and during that time I have also visited most of the front line states, some of them more than once. So, when I was nominated by the British Prime Minister to be a member of the Commonwealth Group I was already familiar, indeed very familiar, both with the horrors of apartheid and also, which is important, with the understandable apprehension of the whites in South Africa, many of whom nonetheless, despite that apprehension and to their credit, have been pressing for more radical change.
There has been so much comment on our report that I think there is a danger that the principal task we were given is sometimes overlooked. It can be simply stated, and I should like to quote it because this is what we were sent to South Africa to do: to,
"initiate, in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides, a process of dialogue across lines of colour, politics and religion, with a view to establishing a non-racial and representative government".
Elsewhere in the accord, as has already been mentioned by my noble friend, we were specifically enjoined not to involve ourselves in the forms of political settlement. Those were for the people of South Africa themselves to determine.
At the outset, as I think your Lordships know, we took what turned out to be a very important decision. That was that throughout the whole of our time, the whole of the six months and more, we would operate in non-public ways. Unlike some who have recently been to South Africa, we decided that we would seek no publicity and make no public statements until our mission had been completed. That was, for those of us who had been engaged in politics in our earlier careers, quite a sacrifice to make, but it proved to be a very wise decision.
There is obviously so much that I could say about the way we set about our mission, but I must be brief. The report outlines our visits to the front line states. It goes on to deal in some detail with our talks with the African National Congress and the United Democratic Front, with Buthelezi and with Mandela. It also refers in some detail to our meetings with Government Ministers. There were 21 meetings in all with Government Ministers, culminating as your
1174
Lordships know in a very important meeting with the eight most senior Ministers who formed the Constitutional Committee.
It was after our first round of meetings and talks that we formulated our proposals. We deliberately headed the two sheets of paper on which was set out the proposals: "A possible negotiating concept". In accordance with the mandate which we were given by the Commonwealth, the African National Congress and others were to enter into negotiations and to suspend violence. That was what they were to do and that is what was included in our negotiating concept.
As far as the South African Government was concerned, for its part it was to agree to certain steps. What I should like to do now is to explain to your Lordships why we selected those steps and why we thought them to be wholly reasonable. The first requirement was the release of Nelson Mandela—and I may say that it pretty soon became clear to us that the South African Government itself would have liked to release him but, as the House knows, they found it impossible to find a formula which was acceptable to the South African Government and also acceptable to Nelson Mandela.
It was self-evident—and I think it was tacitly understood by the South African Government—that you could not logically release Nelson Mandela without also releasing other political prisoners, certainly other political prisoners in the same category. That was the first requirement. The second requirement really flowed inevitably from the first. That was the un-banning of the African National Congress. I say that because, as the ANC is banned at present, if Mandela and his colleagues were released then it follows as night the day that one word from them about the ANC and either the Government would be permitting them to flout the law or they would be back in jail. So it was inevitable that one consequence of their release would have to be the unbanning of the ANC.
It follows again logically from the un-banning of the ANC that there would be no point in doing that unless the third requirement was fulfilled; namely, freedom of assembly and a return to normal political activity. And the fourth requirement in our negotiating concept was the suspension of detention without trial and the removal of the military from the townships. I think it is important to note that we did not ask the Government to remove the police from the townships; it was the military from the townships which we put in our concept. We left this so-called "possible negotiating concept" with the Government because we told them that we thought it would be sensible to try to obtain their reaction (and if they required any modifications that we might accede to, to consider those) before we put the concept to anyone else.
We left it with the Government, in fact, for two months. They neither accepted it nor rejected it. After those two months were up, we went for what, as far as I was concerned, was my second meeting with Nelson Mandela. It was a long meeting. It lasted over two hours. I wanted particularly to get his personal reaction to the concept, which, of course, he had not seen until then; bearing in mind that, if he were to accept it, it would have involved negotiations and,

1175
quite clearly, it would have involved a suspension of violence during those negotiations. I wanted to ask him what he thought about that, whether he personally could accept it.
I was also, if I may say so to your Lordships, very conscious of the fact that he had been in prison for well over 20 years, and, of course, I knew that our conversation was not private. Indeed, there was no pretence that it was a private conversation. I said to him: "Before you answer and give your views on our concept, I would point out that it has already been with the Government for two months and they have not given a 'Yes' or a 'No' ". Therefore, I said that as far as I was concerned I would fully understand if he did not wish to comment at that stage but would like to consider, and take time to consider, the proposals.
He read it carefully once through and his answer was that, while he could not speak for the ANC, as far as he personally was concerned he would accept the concept as a starting point. I must say that I had no doubt at all, from what he went on to say after that in the discussions which we held, that if the concept had been implemented his would have been a powerful voice for calm throughout South Africa. And I am absolutely convinced—and I weigh my words carefully—that he would have used all his efforts to bring an end to violence if in fact that concept had been accepted.
There is much that I could say about Nelson Mandela. I shall simply say to your Lordships that to my mind—I met him on two occasions, and I had almost three hours with him altogether—he is a remarkable man; intelligent, articulate and, if I may say so, also a man with a sense of humour. As we were leaving after my second meeting with him, in front of the brigadier who was in charge of the Poelsma top security prison, I said to Mandela, "I think I am probably the only other person here who has also been in jail". "Yes, "he said, "I know. You were a prisoner of war". I said, "As a matter of fact, I escaped through a tunnel from Poland". I said, "It's all down in print". He replied, "Lord Barber, send me a copy. That could be very useful. And to make sure that I get it, send it through the British Ambassador." There is much more that I could say, but time does not allow me.
Shortly after we had seen Mandela—and one must remember that the concept had been with the Government for some two months—we returned to Lusaka. As far as I was concerned, I was very encouraged by what Mandela had said, that he personally could accept the concept.
We returned to Lusaka for our second meeting with the ANC. It was in fact a very long meeting. Including a buffet lunch, we talked for over six hours on that occasion. I would remind your Lordships that the concept at that stage had been with the South African Government for more than two months. We decided that, as we had not got a clear answer from the South African Government, the time had come when we should show it to the ANC. So, for the first time, we gave them copies of the concept. As I say, we had a long discussion. They said that they would need some time for consultations, but they promised that they would give us an answer within 10 days. Therefore, our intention was to go ack to Lusaka in 10 days' time.
1176
After that meeting we returned to South Africa, to Johannesburg, where we then had a meeting with the leaders of the United Democratic Front. We told them where we had got to and explained the background to them, and we showed them the concept for the first time. They looked at it and they said they would like to consider it. We asked how long they would require before they could give us an answer. Having told them that the ANC were going to give us an answer within 10 days or so, they said that they would do their best to give us an answer within 10 days or so. So I think that your Lordships will appreciate that at that stage our hopes were rising.
We then returned to Cape Town, to the seat of government, for what we understood to be probably the most important meeting that we had had so far with Ministers; namely, with the Constitutional Committee, the eight senior Ministers. We were informed beforehand that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss with us our concept, to question us about it, and that after that they would advise the State President. So that was the purpose of the meeting.
As your Lordships know, about an hour or an hour and a half before we were due to meet we began to get reports of the raids which had taken place on the three neighbouring countries. I think that I should remind your Lordships that two of the seven members of the Commonwealth Group had been nominated by heads of government of the countries which were being attacked. So they felt very strongly about what was happening. Even though the raids had obviously been planned well in advance, I could not myself understand why, if in fact the South African Government really wanted to do business with the Group, they could not have aborted the raids. To allow them to take place on the very morning we were to have this important meeting seemed to me to be very strange. Certainly, the situation was hardly conducive to goodwill in the meeting which followed. Yet I think it is to the credit of my colleagues on the group that, in the general overriding interest of trying to get a peaceful solution, we all decided that at the meeting none of us would make any reference at all to the raids which took place; and we did not do so.
I will not weary your Lordships with the details of the meeting. Suffice it to say that in the end the South African Government could not bring themselves to agree to only a suspension of violence by the ANC during the negotiations. They wanted an undertaking from the ANC to renounce violence for all time, regardless of the progress of negotiations. That is something to which the ANC would never have agreed. It was also a requirement which we considered—certainly I felt this very strongly—to be an unreasonable requirement. After all, during the negotiations involving Rhodesia—I have not checked this, but I think I am right—the parties did not even agree to a suspension of violence. So, as your Lordships know, sadly, our mission did not succeed.
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to say a brief word about the matter of sanctions or further measures in relation to the Commonwealth Group. The Nassau Accord makes it quite clear that, whatever the personal views of members of the Group or the desirability or otherwise of further measures, this is a

1177
matter for the heads of government. I quote from the accord:
"It is our hope that the process and measures we have agreed upon will help to bring about concrete progress towards the objectives stated above in six months. The heads of government mentioned in paragraph 5 above"—
that is, the seven nominating heads of government—
"or their representatives will then meet to review the situation. If in their opinion"—
that is, the opinion of the seven—
"adequate progress has not been made within this period, we"—
that is, the 30 or 40 heads of government at Nassau—
"agree to consider the adoption of further measures."
Furthermore, in our report, while we expressed the view which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the South African Government was concerned about the possible adoption of further measures and, while we called for concerted action of an effective kind, we made it clear that we were not determining (and I quote again from our report):
"the nature or extent of any measures which might be adopted, or their effectiveness."
Those were not matters for us. Those members of the Commonwealth Group who have expressed views on these matters were speaking for themselves in a personal capacity. I should add—I simply state this as a fact since it has been raised in the press—that the foreword by the Commonwealth Secretary-General does not form part of our report.
In conclusion, I return to the main theme of my remarks. Although our proposals had the personal endorsement of Nelson Mandela, in the event—and I think this is important—they were never finally tested with the ANC or the UDF. So far as the South African Government are concerned, summing it up, I believe that they simply could not bring themselves to take what seemed to them to be a leap into the unknown. So my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State will be following in our footsteps. I would only say that all those who genuinely want to see faster progress towards the elimination of apartheid will give my right honourable and learned friend their full support.
12.43 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I begin with an acknowledgement. Like other Back-Benchers, I normally do my own research for my speeches here; but not on this occasion. I have had the invaluable help of Joan Hymans, a foundation member of the anti-apartheid movement, in what I am going to say; and I wish to thank her.
I have been to many African countries—I counted them last night and the number is 13—but I have never been to South Africa. I probably would not be admitted if I wanted to go, but all through my political life I have been linked very closely with what has happened there. The Boer War occurred when I was still at school. I began as a fervent patriot, wearing the badges of General White and of General Buller (was it?), but before the end of the war I was converted by Lloyd George and became a pro-Boer.
In the 1906 election, South Africa was involved because of the conditions of indentured Chinese labour in Johannesburg. In 1910 came the Act which
1178
gave self-government to South Africa. Nearly all of us recognised it as an Act of great generosity. It contained Clauses demanding justice for the African people.
In the years which followed, one lost interest in South Africa. We were absorbed by the women's suffrage campaign, by the confrontation between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, by the conflict in Northern Ireland, and by the war itself. But just before the war a delegation came to Britain representing the African native national congress. They came to protest aganst the Lands Act, which prohibited any African from owning any land whatsoever. They indicated to the Government their support of the British cause in the war, and they received from the Government a very remarkable response. The Government promised that,
"At the close of the war we shall do all in our power to help you regain the justice and freedom to which, as loyal British subjects, your people are justly entitled."
The British Government, 72 years ago, made that promise to the African people.
In 1919 I published an interview with Solomon Plaatyaye, which began the agitation in this country against apartheid. It revealed how already South Africa had gone far towards applying apartheid, and there was questioning in the House of Commons. Mr. Plaatyaye was a remarkable man. After only three years' schooling, he became a fluent writer in the English language, and general secretary of the African National Congress.
Between the wars, interest in South Africa diminished. We had our own problems of unemployment and then the rise of Fascism. But we heard that the South African police arrested Africans in pick-up cars in the townships and sent them to work as prisoners for Afrikaner farmers, often under very harsh conditions. We heard that Mahatma Gandhi had been thrown out of a train for daring to sit in a compartment which was reserved for whites.
Interest revived in South Africa after the war. Under the Public Safety Act, Africans were kept in prison without trial for increasing periods, and when discharged arrested again and imprisoned. In 1959 Chief Luthuli, the head of the African National Congress, proposed to the committee of African organisations in this country that they should refuse to buy goods from South Africa. That advice was widely followed. There are many who still practise it today, but not enough really to affect the situation. It is interesting that that appeal had the same response from its opponents as the proposal for sanctions today. It was urged that Africans themselves would suffer mostly if there were a boycott of South African goods.
Then came the new emergency laws. Three thousand Africans and white supporters were imprisoned, there was evidence of torture in prison and reports of dying from alleged pneumonia. The African National Congress was banned, its leaders who escaped going underground and forming the "spear of the nation" which hit back with acts of sabotage. Some limited success was obtained when exiled white supporters of the Africans proposed a sports boycott, which led to the Gleneagles Agreement, which spread from the Commonwealth to many countries. Because of the keenness of Afrikaners for sport, the South African Government dissolved

1179
segregation in certain areas of sport, though it left the nationwide picture the same.
This was followed by the demand for economic sanctions. Despite the opposition of our Prime Minister and President Reagan to sanctions, I think it is certain that within the next few months certain limited sanctions will be imposed. I support them, because British investment sustains apartheid in South Africa. Principle should come before profits. But I recognise that sanctions alone will not defeat apartheid. It will probably lead very soon to increased confrontation in South Africa, leading to a bloodbath which is likely to lead to African governments joining in a war against South Africa.
We cannot be surprised that the African National Congress should engage in violence, giving up the policy which Chief Luthuli practised and for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize, of applying in South Africa non-violent non-co-operation. Gandhi made that policy succeed in India. It could have succeeded in South Africa; but the African people, like other peoples, do not have the conviction or the self-discipline to practise it.
The final victory of the African people in South Africa is undoubted. They have shown themselves prepared to accept suffering for their cause, the suffering which sanctions would cause and the greater suffering which will follow. History suggests that, when a people is prepared to accept suffering for its cause, victory will come. There are the precedents of India, of Hungary and of Ireland. Seventy-two years ago, the British Government promised that it would help to bring justice to the Africans in South Africa. No government has done so. Let us hope that when the opportunity comes we may have a government in this country which, at last, may fulfil that promise.
12.59 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw of Aintree: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will not mind if, because of the time, I do not follow his line of argument. None of us was prepared for the full reality of apartheid. As a contrivance of social engineering, it is awesome in its cruelty. With those words begins the book of the report, and for another 140 pages one follows a story of human suffering which is appalling and which brings disgrace upon any country which allows these things to happen. I have not been more moved since I read about the holocaust and the 6 million Jews who went to the gas chamber. The only difference here is that they have not gone to the gas chamber, although many of them might have been better if they had done so.
It is a sad day for me to have to speak in this debate. During the war I knew the friendship of many people in South Africa. For three years, one of my constant friends was an officer who had come into our unit from the South African forces. What I say here today I say because I have an affection for South Africa. I do not say it out of any bitterness or to seek to gain a point on anybody: but time is running out.
Quite often I used to cause surprise among my former colleagues in the Labour Party because I extolled the virtues of the British Empire and the good
1180
that it had brought to the world. That was probably one of the reasons why one of my first speeches in another place urged my party to draw British forces out of Malaysia. I had learned the lesson—a lesson which unfortunately many politicians do not learn—that what is good in one era is bad in another, and that what was good in 1886 is not good in 1986.
Of course there is the problem of whether sanctions will work if sanctions are imposed. Sanctions will work only if the people have the will and if governments have the will, to make them work. Some people will quote sanctions against Abyssinia in 1935, when I was in my teens. I thought "The League of Nations has done this. We are going to have victory for justice in the world". But what happened? It did not pay this country to impose sanctions. We were more worried about whether Mussolini would go in with Hitler or whether he would come in with us when the conflict came. We finished up with that disgraceful proposal in which we in the whole of our pact sought to carve up Abyssinia, the country which we were pledged to try to support under the League of Nations.
Then we come to the Rhodesian crisis. They say that sanctions did not work. Of course sanctions will not work if you do not want them to work. The history of those sanctions has still to be written; and when it is written there will be some very red faces among some of the main businesses in this country and among many people who are directors of those companies. We have still to know about that. Sanctions have never really been tried.
I see that the right reverend Prelate has left the Chamber. I am sorry about that because I wanted to raise a particular point, but I still intend to raise it. About eight years ago I had the privilege to serve on the Synodical Committee Board for Social Responsibility. On that board we dealt with issues such as the matter we are dealing with today. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was chairman of that board. I remember eight years ago, at the time when Rhodesia was in turmoil and civil war, discussing South Africa. I said that it was an insult to this country that the Church I belonged to should have these investments in South Africa and refuse to take them out, having regard to what was happening in South Africa. I still say the same today. We heard from the right reverend Prelate that there are sanctions one can impose without hurting people. Well, forget about that. All sanctions will hurt, and we have to be prepared for them to hurt. Let us not be hypocritical and pretend to impose sanctions.
At that time eight years ago—and I have not changed my views today—I remember saying that, if in the next 15 to 20 years we have not solved this problem in South Africa by imposing sanctions of some sort and by the Church withdrawing its money from South Africa, what is happening in Rhodesia will be minimal in comparison with what will happen in South Africa. I say this out of sadness because these things will happen.
When we discuss the imposition of sanctions we always turn it on to the black communities in South Africa, saying, "They are going to be hurt". I wonder what would have happened if, after five years of Hitler in the 1930s and after we had seen him subdue one place after another, the crisis in Poland had come up

1181
and a Prime Minister had come on to the wireless and said, "Well, of course, we can do something abut this but it means that perhaps we shall be bombed and our sons and husbands will be killed. I don't think I ought to do it". Does anybody really believe that we would have done anything different if that had been put to us in 1939? The stakes were so high and the stakes are as high in South Africa today. If we as the leader of the Commonwealth cannot take a lead, I think the days of the Commonwealth should be over—not will be over but should be over. That is one of our main roles.
What was I suggesting about eight years ago on sanctions? I was not suggesting blanket sanctions, because I agree with the noble Baroness that, if you impose those straight away you will drive them into a position in which they will say, "Right, we shall fight rather than accept it". What I proposed eight years ago was that we should draw up a list of sanctions in order of severity which we could impose over a period of time dependent upon whether South Africa responded. I say here and now today that I urge the Government to consider this line of approach. If it is all done at once we shall have that bloodbath because they will fight, and there will be nothing worth saving in South Africa at the end of it. But if we propose sanctions to be imposed over periods of time dependent upon whether there is any response, I believe we shall have some success.
What would be the response if we tried to say that we should not impose sanctions because it might hurt the black community in South Africa or the states? I believe that I know what would be the response of those who have lived their lives in South Africa since 1948 under this regime—and certainly the younger people who are now looking forward to having to live their lives in the same way. Their response would be, "Yes, it is going to hurt us, but we are not prepared to continue to live indefinitely under this sort of regime for the safety of the world in general", because one never knows, when a conflict starts, as it definitely will start, what the consequences will be. If Her Majesty's Government try to get out of this issue, if they definitely say, "No, we think the risks are too great; we are not going to do it", that is one thing, but for goodness sake do not let the Government pretend that they are going to impose sanctions and let the same thing happen as has happened in the past.
1.8 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I join noble Lords and noble Baronesses in expressing my deep concern at the current state of emergency, the widespread detentions, including the detention of trade union leaders, and the severe censorship of the mass media in South Africa.
At the outset I wish to put my standpoint forward in the sense that I am a permanent resident of South Africa. I have lived all my life out there and I am totally opposed to the system of apartheid. I am a strong supporter of a totally non-racial South African democracy. I have come here today not representing the business interests, nor representing any of the political party interests, but more to try to present a balanced view and add some perspective to the complex South African issue. I am aware of the large
1182
number of speakers we have here today and so I shall try to restrain my comments to 10 or 15 minutes.
Some two months ago I initiated a debate in your Lordships' House in which I asked Her Majesty's Government what measures they would like to see in South Africa consistent with economic growth and security for all people. I think it is important to reiterate that there have been major reforms in South Africa in the past three years—in fact more reforms have taken place in the past three years than in the past 30 years. These have included the raising of influx controls and pass laws, the abolition of the Immorality Act, the Mixed Marriages Act, job reservations, and more recently the granting of freehold rights to blacks in urban areas. Those reforms are the start, but we urgently require the repeal of the remaining vestiges of apartheid. That must include the Group Areas Act, the Land Act, which the noble Lord mentioned, the Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act.
In addition to the repeal of the apartheid laws, for prolonged peace negotiation must take place. That negotiation must take place with the widest spectrum of peoples in South Africa. It must include the ANC as well as the political prisoners. Here I refer specifically to Nelson Mandela. I sincerely hope that sanity will prevail on the South African Government to release Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners. I believe that the only way to obtain a long-lasting settlement will be by speaking to people over the widest spectrum. There is no quick fix to the situation there. Change cannot take place overnight. There is a very diverse population.
Here I make brief mention of the Eminent Persons Group. I listened with intrigue and fascination to what the noble Lord, Lord Barber, had to say and to his very moving comments about Nelson Mandela. I wish that I could have met him myself. I believe the group made a tremendous amount of progress in laying the foundation to future negotiations. But six months is not sufficient to achieve the type of objectives which they set out to achieve. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, will achieve results where the Eminent Persons Group left off. I hold great hopes of his trip to South Africa and I join the House in wishing him all the very best. I believe he will be warmly welcomed in South Africa.
The world is at the moment debating what actions to take against South Africa to pressurise its government to bring about these meaningful changes and end the state of emergency. Here I want to mention economic sanctions. I believe that economic sanctions will be totally counter-productive. The immediate effect would be the massive unemployment of blacks. There will also be mass hunger. At the moment the population growth is 2.6 per cent. per annum and last year there was a negative economic growth rate. The chances are that there will be a negative economic growth rate this year. South Africa needs a 4.5 per cent. economic growth rate to create jobs for those who are coming onto the job market. Every year 300,000 blacks enter the job market. At the moment 8,000 jobs per month are being lost. Disinvestment has been partly responsible for that loss of jobs. For the future political prosperity of South Africa a strong economy is necessary.

1183
Many of the sanctions lobbyists argue that the majority of blacks want sanctions. I put this thought to your Lordships. Sanctions do not bring about overnight solutions. They are long, drawn out and hurt everyone concerned—blacks, whites, everyone. But I put it to your Lordships that if every black person were to drop tools and stay at home for two weeks they could bring the means of production in South Africa to an almost total standstill. Would not that be a more effective measure than economic sanctions? I would go so far as to say that to use economic sanctions is a violent option. Much of the unrest in South Africa is not due only to political frustration but also to economic frustration. The position in the townships with the tsotsis, the vigilantes and the comrades is very complex and it is a very worrying time in South Africa. I can only believe—and I say this sincerely—that with rising unemployment there will be rising unrest.
I believe that rising unrest would play into the hands of the right-wingers as well as the left-wingers who want violence and unrest. I also believe that the decline in the strength of the economy will result in many young talented people leaving the country. The country needs young talented people. I quote a few statistics. Last year 40 per cent. more people emigrated than in the previous year. Of that 40 per cent. half were professionals. That is a worrying fact.
As I said earlier, economic sanctions have had little effect in previous cases. I cannot see them having any more effect on South Africa. Sanctions also run the very real risk of placing the South African Government back into the "laager" mentality. I believe that the South African Government are on an unstoppable and irreversible reform programme. All that sanctions can do is stunt progress.
Last week I spoke to Alan Paton, the great liberal writer; he wrote Cry the Beloved Country. He said to me that the international community will not succeed through sanctions in coercing the South African Government into making the reforms they require at this moment—the end does not justify the means. Also most important are the threats that the South African Government would retaliate with trade sanctions against the front line states. It is horrific how much the front line states are dependent upon trade with South Africa. It would affect Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Swaziland, Zambia and Malawi. I hope that such retaliation will never take place. There are almost 2 million expatriates working in South African mines. The monies they generate are sent to almost 10 million dependants outside South Africa.
Apart from the arguments against, I should like briefly to mention the role of the multinationals and the business community within South Africa. They are putting constant pressure on the South African Government to reform. Many may argue that they are not, but they have recently started a project called "Project Free Enterprise" in order to promote blacks into managerial levels. Apart from those pressures on the South African Government, they have also put a tremendous amount of money into improving such resources as education, which is desperately needed in South Africa, improved housing and job creation. For example, the advertising agency for Coca Cola put £50
1184
million into education and Gillette put £30 million into housing.
Others have asked what other pressures could be put on the South African Government if we do not threaten it with economic sanctions. I believe that strong diplomatic pressures must continue. I go so far as to say that all trade with South Africa should be regulated by EC codes of conduct and the Sullivan codes. These are proving to be a tremendous success with the multinationals in the business community. The world underestimates the moral pressures placed on the South African Government. That is not just my opinion but that of Alan Paton, too. All too often one uses the stick method. I believe that we could well use the carrot method.
The South African economy desperately needs an injection of capital, but I am not saying that moneys should be given to benefit the Government—quite the contrary. Monies are desperately needed to improve the education system and housing for blacks, as I mentioned earlier. But what are the immediate stumbling blocks to progress? They are the state of emergency and martial law. We all hope that sanity will prevail on the South African Government to lift the state of emergency as soon as possible. The police and the defence force are not seen as protectors of the peace in the townships but more as oppressors. I believe that repression leads to radicalism. I hope that, when an ultimate solution is sought, trust will be maintained. It is indeed mistrust which is causing one of the major stumbling-blocks to progress: mistrust by the blacks of the sincerity of the white reforms; mistrust of the police and the security forces; equally, mistrust by the whites of the ANC and the so-called swart gevaar; and, equally so, the fear of reverse discrimination when the blacks come to power.
What are the immediate visions for the future? As I said, there is the hope that the state of emergency will be lifted; also—something that has not been mentioned today—there is the National Party Congress which is due to take place on the 12th and 13th August. It is the third time that such a congress has taken place since the Nationalists came to power in 1948. Speculation has it that joint power-sharing in the KwaZulu-Natal area has been accepted in principle. It may quite possibly be implemented. I spoke to Dr Koornhop on the 'plane coming over and his group has tabled for the repeal of the Group Areas Act. I have not seen the agenda, but possibly they will also lay the foundations for a new constitutional dispensation with provision for blacks represented at government level. All these proposals will have to be taken to a referendum, and I believe that there will be a referendum following the congress towards the end of the year.
In conclusion, I believe that the choice in South Africa is one of danger or disaster—danger because the whites will obviously have to take the risk, by lifting the ban on the ANC, that they will lose power and lose everything. But it is the only sane way for the future, because if they do not make the moves now, I fear that there will be disastrous consequences. So what will the model be for South Africa? Many models have been propounded: a non-racial federal democracy; decentralisation of the state powers; a Bill of Human Rights; protection for minorities; a strong and

1185
independent judiciary. I have brought with me a book that was published last week, entitled South Africa: The Road Ahead, and I shall be placing it in the Library. It is a book which contains a broad spectrum of South African views and I believe that it has some very sensible ideas for the future. But the most crucial and vital criterion for a real and lasting change in South Africa must be that the solution be found by the peoples themselves.
1.22 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, it gives me the greatest pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. He knows so much about the country in which he lives. I should like to declare an interest, too. It is not a financial interest but one of family ties. As an infant child, my wife accompanied her parents from England to South Africa and lived in Johannesburg for nearly 30 years before returning to London. Her sister still lives there and has quite a large family; therefore my wife has many nephews and nieces who still live in South Africa. My own sister, over some 38 years, has lived successively in Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Cape Town. Her daughter and her young family live in Johannesburg at this present time.
There is nothing unique in this situation. There are at least 2 million persons of British descent or British birth in South Africa and their family links in the United Kingdom must be legion; and of course among those of us who have links with South Africa there is deep anxiety about what is happening there at the present time.
Of course, South Africa is a sovereign state which left the Commonwealth of its own accord, but the hostility against it of the other African states, and more noticeably those within the Commonwealth, I am afraid continues unabated. Well did the present South African ambassador, Dr. Denis Worrall, state to the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee the other day that this present anti-South Africa campaign is one of the best financed and internationally orchestrated which his country has had to endure. I am no apologist for the present internal policies of the South African Government upon which I would not presume to sit in judgment, and although the principle of apartheid is as abhorrent to me as it is to most other people, yet I believe, as does Dr. Worrall, that there could be a more constructive approach to the problem than, to quote him, "just beating the hell out of the South Africans".
Over the past 18 months the world press has given great prominence to the unrest, violence and killings in the townships; but there is much greater violence and infinitely more killings, I would suggest, in Sri Lanka and, although, this too has been fully reported, there does not seem to have been the same moral indignation aroused within the Commonwealth. In my personal view sanctions just do not work. The former Rhodesia, where the white population is or was outnumbered by black in a ratio to 22 to 1, managed to survive for 15 years, relatively poor country though it was, before a final settlement was reached. In South Africa, the ratio of blacks to whites is nearer 5 to 1 and the economy has great underlying strength, particu-
1186
larly in natural resources. Moreover, the white Afrikaner in particular is an enduring race.
Most of southern Africa is economically dependent upon the Republic of South Africa and sanctions would have a serious effect upon the living standards of neighbouring states, as has already been well pointed out. The Commonwealth Secretary-General, in his foreword to the report of the Eminent Persons Group, writes that the ordinary black people through-out South Africa are prepared to endure any additional suffering which sanctions might involve in order to effect a change. I am glad to note that my noble friend Lord Barber made it clear that that was the Secretary-General's own personal view. But I wonder what its neighbours would do if, as a result of sanctions being imposed, the Government of South Africa decided to repatriate all black migrant workers because there was no longer any work for them in the Republic? I would suggest that Moçambique for one would suffer a total financial collapse and maybe other countries would too.
Like most of your Lordships I have read the report of the findings of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group. They had a most difficult task to carry out and I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Barber for the work which he did, because it must have been quite onerous and very very difficult and required great diplomacy at all times. As I was once in his office as a Treasury Whip, it is nice to think that I can still pay tribute to my former master.
It is an interesting document which has been made public with commendable speed. Yet I fear—and it is not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and 1 am sure he will not mind my mentioning it—that it is in some respects rather unbalanced. It runs to 176 pages, yet the equivalent of only a handful of pages (I think not more than ten in Chapter I) are given up to describing some of the considerable reforms which have so far taken place in the dismantling of apartheid; the rest I suppose inevitably must be criticism.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord St John, has put right the question of the reforms because he spelled them out most succinctly. I was interested to see, among the posed photographs of some of the eminent persons—which reminded me in more happy times of a CPA annual report—that one or two rather emotive illustrations appear, showing the interior, say, of the single men's hostel in Soweto. Though it does not say so, I believe that this was built for migrant workers. I confess that I have not been inside it and certainly it looks untidy and somewhat stark. On the other hand, I do know Soweto and would suggest that it is generally a well constructed and well ordered town. I also know something of its problems and of the individual acts of violence which are frequently committed and have been over the years long before the present unrest, mostly an unpleasant series of knifings by night.
At this present time it would be folly to withdraw the police from the township patrols; otherwise the blacks would attack each other. The first to be liquidated would be the central and local government officials, and those responsible persons whom the Pan-Africanist Congress refers to as "tricameral puppets". Thereafter trouble would quickly escalate between the moderate blacks and the, mostly younger, radicals,

1187
who have become politically indoctrinated, mostly through the activities of the African National Congress, which has been debated this morning.
The ANC, according to the South African Government, is dominated by the South African Communist Party, some 19 members, so we read, of the 30-member ANC national executive committee being known members of the SACP. In that regard I wonder whether that leopard could change its spots in the event of its being given official approval.
In that regard also, the conclusions of the eminent persons make dark reading, particularly the following:
"The campaign against collaborators and the ruthless elimination of the agents of white authority will continue. More and more black townships will be rendered ungovernable and the process of creating popular structures of self-government within them will gather momentum. The number of street and area committees will increase and their functions will progressively enlarge".
On another visit, when I spent some time in the parliament building in Cape Town, I had the opportunity to have a number of meetings with the chairman of the finance committee, whose functions broadly approximated to those which I myself carried out at that time in another place. He represented a constituency bordering on Namibia and he claimed a good knowledge of some of the 13 major languages and native customs which exist in South Africa. I put to him a hypothetical question: if white supremacy were surrendered or overthrown, what then would take place? His reply was succinct, "Chaos and bloodshed".
I asked him whether the black races alone would or could form a representative alternative government. "No", he said, "There would be inter-tribal fighting on a huge scale and the Xhosas would come out on top. They would beat the Tswanas, the Sothos, the Coloured and"—surprisingly, in my eyes—"even the Zulus". No ballot box for them!
My informant was by no means an extreme member of the National Party. He was not a Verkrampte; indeed, he was more Vertligte, because he has a deep interest in and much concern for the future welfare of the black population.
Apartheid is being dismantled. Only yesterday some of us who take a close interest in South African affairs read that the residential areas of Johannesburg's central business district are now multiracial and that probably more than half of that city's downtown population is no longer white.
My wife had a letter just after Christmas from a retired headmistress, who is a very respected lady and herself the daughter of a judge. She writes:
"So far, the unrest hasn't touched our homes and the daily routine of our lives; but always there is the mental distress, and we wonder what the outcome of it all will be. Apartheid is slipping away. You would see a very great difference in Johannesburg, but things can't move too fast".
South Africa must shape its own destiny. The realities have to be faced. Three hundred years of history and custom cannot move quickly; change must come slowly. But inevitably there will come a change, which one hopes will lead to a multiracial future. Meanwhile, it would be wicked indeed for encouragement to be given to the more extremist view. Even the release of Mandela could cause a serious
1188
security problem at this time, although I think that it is probably desirable that he should be released. But if that is to be so, it would be good advice to Mrs. Mandela to cease making statements about "necklaces" and boxes of matches. That sort of thing and the utterances of the ANC are not conducive to a peaceful dialogue. I suppose that the answer in the long term is much better education; big improvements in housing; and the encouragement of the growth of a black middle class capable of accepting full responsibility.
Meanwhile, I greatly commend my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for her refusal to be stampeded into further sanctions at this time, and I am sure that it is the fervent wish of all of us that only good may come of the imminent visit of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to that troubled country.
1.34 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Murton, but it was not clear to me what he thought we ought to do except to wait for increasingly liberal actions by the South African Government. I can only say that no lesson from experience suggests to us that that will get us anywhere at all.
Apartheid is different from all the other tyrannies in the world. We in this country and in the West generally have the great good fortune to live in free democracies. In so much of the rest of the world there are tyrannical forms of government, but the peculiar feature of apartheid is that it says to one group—to the blacks—"Your subjection is to be permanent". It is based not on any considerations of what a person may or may not be fit for but on the simple biological fact that he has a black skin. It is that which makes apartheid intolerable in the world and which accounts for the great tide of public opinion—which has so surprised the noble Lord who has just spoken—that has circled around apartheid itself.
Not only is apartheid a permanent form of tyranny but it creates for us this problem. We, the United States and our other allies claim to be defending the world against the threat of Communist tyranny. I suggest that we cannot do that with one hand while condoning apartheid with the other. Not only is the position logically intolerable, but we shall not have the resources to do it. We shall pile up for ourselves so many enemies in the world that our attempt to maintain freedom in the West will be jeopardised by the fact that one country after another in the uncommitted world will move over into the Communist camp.
The noble Lord suggested that a large number of leading figures in the ANC are Communists. If that is so, whose fault is it? Had they had more encouragement from the West in the past that would not have arisen. The suggestion has been made—and rejected of course—that Nelson Mandela is some kind of Communist. If he were, whose fault would that be, in view of the treatment that he has received from the South African Government and the apparent lack of interest in the West about the treatment accorded to him and to many like him?

1189
What has been happening in recent years? It is true that there have been some degrees of pressure put on the South African Government in the field of sport, for example, and there have been some concessions—the repeal of the immorality legislation, the mixed marriages legislation and the pass laws. But it is still true that it is not open to a black man to choose freely in what part of his country he wants to live, and, above all, he cannot vote on the matter. Whatever social and economic restrictions he is subjected to, he cannot decide whether they should continue. He cannot have a voice in whether they continue to be the policy of his country.
That accounts for the judgment of the Eminent Persons Group that there are no grounds for supposing that the South African Government are moving towards a real dismantling of apartheid or an approach to the concept with which the Eminent Persons Group started. That stands out very clearly from its report.
It raises of course the question that it does not go on to answer. If you believe in measures against the South African Government, what kind of measures are they to be? I was much interested in what my noble friend Lord Crawshaw said when he put forward the idea of a list of sanctions of increasing rigour which could be put into practice over a period of time according to whether we received any response from the South African Government. I think that that may be the way to proceed.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the words of one of the members of the Eminent Persons Group, Mr. Malcolm Fraser, writing recently in The Times:
"As a minimum, air links and consular facilities should be terminated, financial restrictions made more severe and an import ban imposed on South African coal, iron and steel products, uranium and agricultural products. This could be more easily policed than a ban on the export of general merchandise to South Africa".
I do not put that list forward as the final answer to the problem. It is at least worth considering.
If one does not want to go all that far to begin with, one should consider how far it is possible to go. That depends partly on what agreement we can achieve with other countries. I put that forward merely as a list of ideas that our government might have in mind when they are discussing this matter with their fellows either in the EC or the Commonwealth.
The debate has for the most part not been partisan save for the approval given to the Prime Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne. I disagree with that most profoundly. It is important in this debate that our disagreement with the Prime Minister's approach to the whole problem should be voiced. She has managed somehow, whether she intended to or not, to give the impression that she does not like taking measures against apartheid. When the Commonwealth conference decisions were made some six months ago, she was frankly rejoicing at the extremely limited measures that were taken. At the recent European summit her attitude was the same.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that if the Foreign Secretary—we all hope that he will not—comes back empty handed, there is no obligation on this country to take any measures. Expressed emphatically we have not put forward any ultimatum.
1190
That seems to be a series of signals to the South African Government saying, "You need not worry too much. You have friends on the other side of the Mediterranean. We shall see to it that you do not come to any serious harm." That is the wrong message to send to the South African Government at present.
I view the whole situation with profound pessimism. It is possible, either of its own motion or under the increased pressure of sanctions—under its own motion, wildly unlikely, under the pressure of increased sanctions at any rate possible—that the South African Government would move to what could be regarded as a real beginning in the dismantling of apartheid. If so, I shall be greatly and attractively surprised. Unhappily, I see no such process going on at present.
We happen to be debating this matter on the 120th anniversary of the publication of the American Declaration of Independence. I imagine that we are all aware of the opening words of that statement:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".
Cynics have pointed out that some of those who drafted the statement were slave owners. We should do the founding fathers of the American constitution an injustice if we did not realise that many of them were aware of what was implied by the explosive doctrine that they had set forth. It has not been those words which have been so much in my mind today but the words of another prominent American, Thomas Jefferson, who, writing about the institution of slavery in his state of Virginia, used words that any wise, white South African might well use today:
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just".
1.44 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I shall confine myself to a few general reflections which might conceivably bear on action. I start with a personal experience. At the beginning of 1936, now just over 50 years ago, I was appointed by Mr. Eden, as he then was, to be a member of a League of Nations sub-committee in Geneva set up to consider and make recommendations about the application of sanctions, which was a new term then, taken in principle by the League of Nations against Italy because of the flagrant violation of the Covenants, inherent in her invasion of Ethiopia. It was one of the most futile committees I have ever attended, and that is saying a lot.
As my noble friend Lord Crawshaw has already said, none of the measures that we pored over for so long at that time had the slightest effect on Mussolini. Only one sanction would have had any effect and that was agreement, not only by members of the League but by America, to refuse to ship any oil to Italy. That would have meant declaring a blockade and, as we all know, a blockade can only be made effective by the use of force. As there was no agreement to use force, which might have ended in war, and for which at that moment we were totally unprepared, the Duce proceeded, as we all know, on his wicked way.
It is always risky and perhaps unprofitable to seek historic parallels for situations which may be very different. I think, however, we can say with some confidence in the light of experience that sanctions

1191
against an errant member of the international community are unlikely to induce that member to abandon the policies which give offence, unless the nations applying sanctions are determined, in the last resort, to impose their will by some manifestation of force, for example, by a blockade.
If this judgment is at all acceptable, and it may not be, how might it apply to the insistence that South Africa should not only formally renounce apartheid but should now negotiate a new constitution based on the principle of one man, one vote with representatives of the African National Congress, local nationalists and other groups?
Not having had the opportunity to study the situation on the spot, I may well be wrong. No doubt those who think differently from me may explain later in the debate why that may be so. But from what I have read and have been told—more especially perhaps in the light of what that admirable South African Liberal, Mrs. Suzman, said recently in The Times—it seems that none of the sanctions so far contemplated could be counted on to induce the present South African Government to go as far as that. They might conceivably, under the threat of such sanctions, release Nelson Mandela. At the moment that seems pretty unlikely. They might introduce a few more rather superficial reforms—we must not ignore the reforms that they have already accomplished—and they might even do a separate deal with the Zulu chief, Buthelezi, but that would probably be as far as they could be induced to go.
I repeat that I am merely saying what I have heard. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. On the other hand, the distress and unemployment in South Africa, which would of course follow drastic economic measures, may in the opinion of some and perhaps in the opinion of many, result in the Pretoria Government losing control and being succeeded by another prepared to do what was demanded of them.
If we are realistic we must assume that, given the unlimited powers now in the hands of a large and well organised police force, that could only be said to be certain if other than economic measures—and they could only be forcible measures—were taken or contemplated by those countries, notably Commonwealth countries, which were determined to impose their will. At least, that is the conclusion that I believe we should be well advised to draw.
It seems likely that severe economic measures would unfavourably affect some of the nations participating in them, notably ourselves, while many of those most eager to apply them would hardly be affected at all. It may be that the effect on this country would not be as unfavourable as some suggest, but it would be considerable. That is obviously one of the reasons why a common policy, even among members of the European Community, is not easy to come by. Against that, it may be recalled that during the American civil war, which after all was fought on a not dissimilar issue, cotton operatives in this country entirely approved of the decision not to trade with the southern states, in spite of the grave distress that this occasioned in Lancashire. It was a question of conscience then and I suppose that any British workers who might find
1192
themselves reduced to the dole or any British companies that might suffer grave loss, or even become bankrupt, would all regard it as a question of conscience now. At least, if severe economic measures are embarked upon, that must presumably be taken for granted.
My own rather tentative proposal—I only throw it out as an idea—is that if sanctions with the declared object of forcing (I repeat "forcing") the South African Government to end apartheid in the way proposed are taken at all, they might best be taken by the Security Council of the United Nations as a result of a formal vote under Chapter VIII of the charter in accordance with which the five permanent members of the council, along with all other members of the United Nations (because such a decision would be binding on everyone) would have to take, jointly, all measures including, if necessary, military measures, designed to oblige the South African Government to conform with what might, I suppose, be considered to be the common conscience of mankind. True, such action could only be taken legally under the charter if it was held that South Africa had committed the equivalent of an act of aggression—that is charter language— which might, I suppose, be considered to be inherent in the bombing of the capitals of neighbouring states. If an actual revolution was then in progress in South Africa it might, I imagine, also be argued that the South African Government were in effect indulging in aggression against a large majority of their own people.
My main conclusion in any case is that far-reaching economic measures (I repeat "far-reaching economic measures") are only likely to achieve the result that we all desire if they are taken with more or less universal consent—for otherwise, the whole operation would be plagued by leaks—and with the firm intention not so much to persuade but actually to oblige the South African Government to abandon the position to which they are at present committed even if this means organising something that may in the last resort be the equivalent of a second Boer War. Things might not, of course, come to such a pass. Probably, they would not. The Boer government might well surrender well before then. But the government would have to be somehow convinced that their position was entirely hopeless.
If such a firm and generally held intention is not for any reason present—I would regard the attitude of the United States and Japan as being the most important in such circumstances—then, although some additional measure seem now to be inevitable, no extreme measures will presumably be taken in the pretty confident hope that no government of South Africa will be able to resist both external indignation and internal pressure increasingly to modify the present system in the sense desired, so as ultimately to arrive at something not far off one man, one vote, or its broad equivalent.
Whatever course is followed—I am only trying now to indicate what I personally believe to be the broad choices—let us not be under any illusion. It was difficult enough, as other noble Lords, I believe, have said, to arrive at such a solution in Rhodesia, where the whites numbered only 2 or 3 per cent. of the population. It will be much more difficult to do that in the Union where they number 24 or 25 per cent, and where there are substantial Indian and coloured

1193
groups. We must assume that such considerations are present in the minds of the leaders of all those civilised and democratic nations who undoubtedly agree on one thing, namely, that the evil system known as apartheid must be completely abandoned in South Africa if peace is to prevail, even if the process of replacing it by a more civilised system may take rather longer than is sometimes now thought. By all means, let us hope—it is perhaps a rather forlorn hope—that the projected mission of Sir Geoffrey Howe will be successful in furthering this end. If it is not, surely it is high time that we all agreed on the best practical means of overcoming the rather fundamental difficulties that would still be in the way of achieving what all reasonable people most sincerely desire. That will not be easy.
1.56 p.m.
Lord Saint Brides: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, reminded us, it was an ill day for South Africa and for the world when in 1948 the National Party with its racist ideas replaced the Smuts Government and introduced an avowedly white supremacist regime. It was underpinned, as we all know, by creating the system of institutionalised injustice which we know and abhor as apartheid. It has taken the Nationalists all this time to realise into what a blind alley they then led their country, and to begin to dismantle some of apartheid's less essential but still iniquitous manifestations, like the Mixed Marriages Act, the pass laws and now, it seems perhaps also the Group Areas Act.
But, of course, the heart and core of apartheid is the exclusion of the blacks from political power. So far, the Nationalists have not been able to conceive of a way to bestow some political power on the blacks without their diminishing severely or indeed forfeiting their own. Nevertheless, events both inside and outside South Africa are visibly and, indeed, remorselessly, pointing in this direction. To that extent, South Africa stands again today, as it did in 1948, at a crossroads. It is a matter of concern to the whole world that this time it should choose the right direction and not the wrong one, as it did 38 years ago.
No other nation has shared as we British have in shaping South African history. And no other nation today possesses the collective knowledge that we do of that complex country. It follows that we are, or should be, uniquely well qualified to gauge—to the extent that this can be done from outside the country—what needs to be done to put right what has gone wrong there; and uniquely well qualified to judge how best our own still considerable influence and that of the world at large can be used in support of this objective.
Of course, we must respect the depth and sincerity of the feelings and views of our EC and Commonwealth partners. But we ought not to feel inhibited from telling them how we view the situation in South Africa from our own standpoint of greater involvement and greater knowledge. We shall find, moreover, that recognising this, countries the world over are likely to follow our lead.
At Nassau, as the noble Lord, Lord Barber, reminded us, the Commonwealth called on Pretoria to initiate a process of dialogue across lines of colour, politics and religion with a view to establishing a non-
1194
racial and representative government. President Botha, for his part, told the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group:
"Our political programme provides for power sharing subject only to the protection of the rights of all minorities, and we are reconciled to the eventual disappearance of white domination".
The Nassau formula is seen by most of its sponsors as leading to the immediate setting up, in the same way that this was done after the Lancaster House agreement over Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, of a majority regime based on one man, one vote. This is the solution hallowed by our own British practice in all the dependent territories that we have decolonised since World War Two (though not of course in 1910. when we created the Union of South Africa). President Botha on the other hand has said;
"Reasonable South Africans will not accept the principle of one man, one vote, in a unitary system. That would lead to the domination of one over the other and would lead to chaos".
Here is the crux of the whole matter. At any rate in the Commonwealth, whose Asian, African, Caribbean and Pacific members together constitute the most politically advanced and best governed section of the whole third world, one man, one vote, and majority rule are regarded as the only valid and respectable basis on which to found a successor regime. But most, if not all, of the Afrikaners—and I dare say a good many English-speaking whites as well—regard the prospect of black majority rule in South Africa with dread and repulsion. They believe that under such a government they, their children and grandchildren at best would be treated as second or even third-class citizens in their own country, and at worst would be compelled to emigrate—but to where? They say that South Africa, where their ancestors began to settle in the 17th century, is just as much their home as French Canada and New England are the homes of the French Canadians and the New Englanders today.
The Afrikaners, as has already been brought out in this debate, and as we British have had ample opportunities to discover, are a tough and tenacious people with deep roots in South Africa and none now elsewhere. In this respect they are quite different from their English compatriots who still have roots of language, kinship and culture with this country. Afrikaners differ still more from the British settler community in Kenya or Rhodesia whose presence there went back at most one long lifetime. If a parallel is to be found among the world's nations with the Afrikaners, the nearest candidates are that other tough and tenacious lot—the Israelis—whose delared national intention is likewise one of
"J'y suis, j'y reste".
Neither one people nor the other will submit tamely to the loss through the ballot box of what they passionately believe is their own country.
It seems to me that in this supremely difficult situation, though Britain indeed has a major role to play, we ought to play that role with shrewdness and sensitivity, and a determination not ourselves to foreclose options among which it is for the blacks and whites of South Africa to choose, once negotiation gets underway. Indeed, if we here in Britain were to declare resoundingly that we favoured one option or the other—for example, the option of immediate black majority rule—the result could well be to harden the

1195
attitudes of both sides, black and white, in South Africa to the point at which a successful negotiation became impossible. Where we can—and it seems to me most certainly should—use our influence to the maximum is in seeking to ensure that negotiations are soon and sincerely begun. I believe this to be the prime object of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's forthcoming visit to South Africa.
We must accept the view of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group that negotiations will not begin without some sort of continuing pressure from Britain and other countries upon the South African Government. In realistic language this is because, without support of this kind from outside South Africa, nothing the blacks by themselves can do will suffice to bring the authorities in Pretoria to the negotiating table, in view of the powers of repression which the latter have at their disposal and can turn on at will, but so far have used only in part.
As the right honourable lady the Member for Clydesdale, Dame Judith Hart, said on 17th June in another place, we should reject measures such as the banning of air flights and avocados which serve merely to express our disapproval. Far more effective, she thought, would be precisely aimed measures taken after careful economic analysis such as financial sanctions and disinvestment by transnational corporations in key sectors of the South African economy with the object not of destroying it but of influencing it. I thought her speech was a remarkably shrewd and constructive one. I was interested and encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso—in his telling speech just now—also make clear what an important role the transnational corporations have played and, he believes, will continue to play, in this situation.
My Lords, forty years ago I was sent to South Africa—my first ever diplomatic post—by the then Dominions Office, later the Commonwealth Relations Office. I was surprised to discover that to Smuts and his contemporaries the words "racial problem" meant the relationship between the British and the Boers. The reconciliation between them on which Smuts's rule as Prime Minister was based, was one of his major achievements; and the liberal Afrikaner element, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred, contributed notably to it. But would that Smuts had addressed himself with equal zeal to what he called "the native problem". It would have been an easier one to solve then than it is now.
But if it is to be solved now, what Britain does or does not do in the time ahead of us could well be of decisive importance to the outcome. As I see it, we British ought to stand between the two real parties to this argument, the blacks and the Afrikaners, and—avoiding all temptations to demonology or hagiography—see and recognise the strong and very human qualities which both sides at their best possess. History has prepared us for this task and, however frustrating and ill-rewarded it turns out to be, we ought not to shirk it.
2.7 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like first to apologise to my noble friend if I do not stay to the end
1196
of this debate. I had not realised that it might continue until such a late hour.
I am delighted to speak immediately after my noble friend Lord Saint Brides because, when talking about the debate a fortnight or three weeks ago, he asked whether this question had been considered through to the end. Are we doing so with this question? There are 22 or 25 million people living in South Africa. Where will they be in 20 years' time? I think that we are in an awful hurry in thinking that there is a simple solution. The noble Lord really implied, "I do not think that it is simply a question of apartheid;"—which, after all, is a diluted form of slavery—"it is a question of power".
Power is a very dfficult matter, and we are becoming perhaps a little hurried about it. I read last Sunday in the Sunday Times that we are reaching something approaching war hysteria built up by the media, with the BBC leading the bloodthirsty pack. Those words are a little too close to the truth to be absolutely comfortable. I wonder even whether the BBC is treading a little outside the terms of its charter in the careful examination it makes of and advice it gives to Her Majesty's Government on foreign policy. That is not a matter for the BBC; it is a matter for the Government. Be that as it may, it is a pity that it does not see some of the difficulties which arise in South Africa, and in that regard I should like to refer to one quotation.
Dr. Kissinger was not exactly a coward in conducting foreign affairs. So far as I know he went boldly into the most difficult problems in international affairs. But after visiting South Africa he said that of all the political problems he had met that of South Africa was the most difficult.
I believe that that is true, and it is true for a number of reasons. There is the division of hatred between whites and whites and between coloured and uncoloured. I talked to a friendly chap in Johannesburg and asked him "Which races do you hate?" He said "One, two and three". I asked, "Which are the ones that you like", and he told me. He was a splendid man and he said, "Five years ago I thought that all whites were snakes, now I know that it is not true". The situation is changing rapidly.
For a century and a half or more we have been fascinated with Africa, with its people, the country, the animals and so on. It is interesting to note that the South Africans are the most indigenous people in the world. It is there that man started maybe 2 million years ago. To those who study them, the strength of their customs and habits is fascinating. However, they do not adjust themselves very easily to the concept of this world. We do not adjust ourselves to this terrible 20th century in which fantastic changes are taking place, and so how can they do it with any great ease?
We have a pretty heavy responsibility for South Africa. We have fought the Zulus, we have fought the Boers, we have fought the Matabele and goodness knows who else. We like to think that we have made a contribution in the form of medicine, transport and administration. However, in general, the Africans say that the colonial period was a disaster for Africa. You can argue about that as you like, but one matter is clear: we have never taught the Africans how to govern themselves and that is not at all an easy thing to do.

1197
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, talked about democracy. What is democracy? The Russians have democracy; all kinds of people have democracy. Hitler had a form of democracy. We have prided ourselves on 700 years of democracy. I do not know what Simon de Montfort would think of the present parliament or what we would think of the parliament of Simon de Montfort. However, there is an element which we have developed and which I believe is very special. I am referring to what I would call a "loyal opposition". You can denounce the Government, as almost every Opposition has done, even the worst government —that of Ethelred the Unready. Every government has been denounced regularly and freely. But there remains an esential loyalty to the country. The tribal system of Africa was essentially a one-party system. You were a member of a tribe and there was no opposition. You had a leader. That is the basis of their thought. It will be very difficult for them to accept the form of government which we think is sensible.
The other day I was reading Macaulay's story of the revolutions in the 17th century. The point which he sought to make was that there is no such thing in politics as progress; there is action and reaction; advance and retrogression. It was the violent and disagreeable periods of that century which enabled our parliament to evolve.
We must recognise that South Africa must learn by its conditions. We cannot teach it. The South Africans must teach themselves. We can help them, but they will resist as any sovereign state will resist any kind of outside interference. Indeed, in some ways it is more difficult for them to abolish apartheid altogether just because we are pressing them to do so. It is a question of: "Are you doing this under government pressure?" If I may say so, the Opposition are always telling the Prime Minister that she is a lapdog of Mr. Reagan. This is a common complaint. If you are under the pressure of some outside government it is more difficult for you to do the very things that you want to do.
I was rather hopeful about my noble friend Lord Barber's speech. He obviously came moderately near to getting an agreement. I think that was hopeful. Anybody who knows South Africa knows quite well that the government have been fully aware for at least five or 10 years that they have to get reconciliation if they can. I do not think anyone who knows the Government would deny that. I do not say that they are succeeding, but there is no doubt that they are aware of that and are conscious that they cannot go on unless they get reconciliation.
I hope therefore that the Government will go on bringing pressure. I do not think that economic pressure is the way, but pressure in the manner in which the Commonwealth delegation went there. I am not certain that the sort of pressure that my noble friend Lord Barber brought to bear will not be successful in time. We are dealing here with a solution which will come only after decades. It will not come this year or next year. It is a slow process of the utmost complexity, and it can only be solved by constant pressure and encouragement. Fear is not a good instrument to use against a nation state. Nation states do not like it. I remember that on almost the last occasion when I met Sir Winston Churchill he said: "Never give way to threats".
2.16 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I must begin by pointing out that the anti-apartheid movement started in the basement beneath my surgery. In my student days South Africa and the southern states of America were the two areas which occasioned the greatest concern, as they were regarded as the areas which showed the evil of racial segregation and racial oppression at its worst.
Last September I received an honorary degree at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina. There is nothing particularly remarkable about this as Shaw is a black university. What was surprising, however, was that I was handed the key to the City of Raleigh by the white Mayor of Raleigh, and given the freedom of that city. Raleigh was one of the centres of the sit-ins at lunch counters during the civil rights campaign. I also visited Atlanta, Georgia, and Nashville, Tenessee, both cities which were previously segregated and are now fully integrated.
Unfortunately, in the case of South Africa progress has been in the opposite direction. The law has been used to enforce segregation and the separation of the communities on racial lines. A population registration Act enabled the authorities to determine the race of every citizen in some arbitrary way which enabled them to label people as white, coloured, Indian, or black. The Group Areas Act determined where each racial group should live. Then the homelands policy enabled the authorities to deprive millions of people of their South African citizenship and gave them a mythical citizenship in a tribal homeland that they had never known, and with which they had no connection, except that their parents belonged to that particular tribe.
This of course justified the existing law requiring all blacks to have passes to prove their right to be in white South Africa. These they were required to show at all times, and were imprisoned if they did not possess them. The black townships were constructed with limited access roads to enable them to be easily controlled.
Now every action evokes a reaction. The black reaction is reflected in the history of the African National Congress. The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights of the African peoples which had been seriously curtailed by the South Africa Act, and which were then threatened by the Native Land Act. The Native Land Act 1913 deprived the Africans of their land, and land security. The Colour Bar Act which followed shut off Africans from skilled trades and blocked their advancement through these channels. The Urban Areas Act 1923 established native locations, and the Native Administration Act 1927 made the Governor General supreme chief over all African areas, which were thenceforth ruled by proclamation.
In 1936 the Native Representation Act abolished the Cape franchise and gave three white men the duty of representing 8 million Africans in a House of 150, representing 2 million whites. Yet until 1949 (which is one year after the coming into power of the Nationalist Government)—that is, for 37 years—the African National Congress adhered strictly to constitutional struggle. It put forward demands and resolutions. It

1199
sent delegations to the Government in the belief that African grievances could be settled through peaceful discussion and that Africans could advance gradually to full political rights.
But white governments remained unmoved and the rights of Africans became less instead of more. Only in 1949 did the African National Congress change its stance, and even then it eschewed violence. The decision taken then was to protest against apartheid legislation by peaceful but unlawful demonstration against certain laws. Of course, peaceful demonstrations were unlawful because they were not allowed by law.
Thus the defiance campaign was launched in 1952. More than 8,500 people defied the apartheid laws and went to gaol, and yet there was not a single instance of violence during that campaign on the part of any of the defiers. However, the Government responded to that campaign by passing the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which provided harsher penalties for offences committed by way of protests against laws. Yet despite this the protests continued and the African National Congress adhered to its policy of non-violence.
In 1956, 156 South Africans of all races—members of the Congress Alliance which comprised the ANC, the South African Indian Congress, the Congress of Democrats, which is a white organisation, and the Coloured Peoples' Organisation—were arrested and charged with treason. They were accused of trying to overthrow the South African Government by violent means. The prosecution was largely based on the Freedom Charter. The Freedom Charter may be regarded as radical, but certainly it did not advocate the violent overthrow of the state. The trial lasted for four years, and in the end all were acquitted.
Demonstrations and protests continued. In 1960 the security forces lost their control and 69 black people were shot at Sharpeville. The government reacted by proclaiming a state of emergency and declaring the ANC an unlawful organisation. The ANC refused to dissolve and went underground. In the same year, in 1960, the government held a referendum among white voters on the question of becoming a republic. The Africans demanded to be consulted before this step was taken but they were ignored. They took a decision to hold an All-African Conference to call for a national convention and to organise mass demonstrations on the eve of the unwanted republic if the government failed to call a convention.
The government failed to call a convention and they organised the stay at home. The stay at home was peaceful. The government, however, introduced new and harsher laws and sent heavily armed troops and armament into the townships. Yet it was not until December 1961, nearly 50 years after its foundation, that the military wing of the ANC was formed. The ANC has been anxious, and is still anxious, to avoid civil war and has endeavoured to avoid unnecessary loss of life.
The government of course has always responded in the opposite way. In 1963, Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and others were charged with trying to overthrow the government by a violent revolution.
1200
They were charged under the Sabotage Act, the Suppression of Communism Act, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The charges against one were dropped, another was acquitted at the conclusion of the trial and the others were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Your Lordships have heard today a moving tribute to Nelson Mandela paid by the noble Lord, Lord Barber. The imprisonment of the leaders of the Congress Alliance has not prevented the continuation of the struggle. The struggle has intensified and the government has increased its use of force. In 1982, it passed the Internal Security Act which consolidated the security laws. In 1976, similar mass murder was committed by security forces in Soweto.
The South African Government seems to have recognised at this stage that things cannot continue as at present but they seem unable to bring themselves to effect the required change. They seem to think that all that is required is the rearrangement of affairs in a way that will create an appearance of progress without really effecting any change in the present structure of society. The government appears to be willing to juggle with affairs, to divide the various social groups and to keep power in white hands.
Unfortunately, that is no longer possible. The drift into chaos can only be halted by a complete change of thrust. The government needs to abandon the idea of a South Africa of communities dominated by the whites for a South Africa of individuals living in a society in which there is equal opportunity for all individuals regardless of race or colour. Willingness to accept this will make it possible to negotiate a reasonable settlement. Failure to accept this can only lead to a continuation of the slide into chaos.
The whites in South Africa are anxious to defend their present privileges; but these privileges are only possible because of the foreign investment and cheap black labour. So long as the foreign investment is available, they have an incentive to fight to control and to keep black labour. Investment in South Africa is therefore investment in apartheid. The statement that one can abhor apartheid and yet think one should continue to invest in South Africa is contradictory. It is necessary to see it clearly. The withdrawal of investment from South Africa is the first requirement of any declaration of determination to get rid of apartheid. In fact, it is the most important manifestation of any detestation of apartheid, because it is that investment which enables them to maintain it.
But more than that is required. I began by contrasting South Africa with the southern states of America. Those states did not become desegregated by being left to their own devices: if left to their own devices they would never have become desegregated. They were pressurised into doing so by the actions of the federal government and the United States supreme court. The comparable authority in the case of South Africa is the United Nations, representing the consensus of world opinion. Mandatory sanctions through the Security Council are therefore what are required. So far as concerns this country, it is necessary to face the fact that vetoing Security Council resolutions in order to protect South Africa is condoning apartheid. This country therefore must

1201
stop vetoing Security Council resolutions and co-operate with the rest of the world in imposing mandatory sanctions on South Africa. The sooner she does that, the sooner she will be relieving the world of this cancer.
This country needs to decide whether we are allied to South Africa or to the rest of the world. We cannot have it both ways. The visit of Sir Geoffrey Howe to South Africa will be useful if he takes the opportunity to spell out the facts of the situation to the South African Government. He should say to that government that they need to be prepared to repeal the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, say that it is on the agenda for their national party conference because that is one of the things they need to do. They also need to face the necessary reintegration of the tribal homelands into South Africa.
They need to do all these things if they wish to have a peaceful solution to the problem. Nothing short of this will do. They must be particularly discouraged from continuing to think that they can manipulate the system in a way that will leave them still controlling 87 per cent. of the land while the bulk of the population have to make do with a little over 13 per cent. A society which provides opportunity for the social and economic development of all the people is what is required. If that is the objective, the pace of progress towards that goal is negotiable. The goal itself, however, cannot be negotiated away.
2.34 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I begin by thanking my noble friend, the Leader of the House for giving us the opportunity of having this debate at this time, which has enabled us to hear a number of distinguished contributions, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead?
It particularly enabled us to hear a first-hand report from my noble friend Lord Barber of the Eminent Persons Group. Let me pay tribute to that able and impressive report. I do not oppose sanctions. I am sure that constitutional reform on a basis of negotiation with the accepted leaders of the ANC, such as Mr. Mandela, freed from 20 years in prison, and his associate Mr. Tambo and the present leadership of African nationalism, offers the best chance for black and white in South Africa of avoiding months, and years perhaps, of violence, insurrection and bloodshed. If sanctions can help to bring this about, let us by all means try them; though in my darker moments I wonder whether it is right for workers in the United Kingdom to be called on to lose their jobs in order to try to persuade "British and Boer" in South Africa to face up to the political and moral realities of their own country.
My own views of what the future holds for that beautiful, ill-starred country are derived from an amalgam of experience and heredity; in particular, of course, from an intimate association with the events surrounding the evolution of Rhodesia into Zimbabwe. As the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, has already said, if, despite international ostracism and economic sanctions, white Rhodesia —with a far more liberal stance on race relations than
1202
in the Afrikaner dominated South—could sustain a civil war for 12 or more years with a white population of a quarter of a million and limited resources, how long could South Africa hold out, with its white population of between 4 million and 5 million, a powerful economy and a tradition of political ruthlessness in excess of anything we saw under Ian Smith—15, 20, 25 years, who knows? And if 25.000 died in Rhodesia's civil war, how many would die in South Africa—a quarter of a million or half a million? There would be a bloodbath, indeed, and most of that blood would be black.
I suggest to your Lordships that we should make our assessment of the realities in South Africa not in economic or financial terms, but on a basis of the history of that country—as my noble friend Lord Saint Brides has said—over the past 350 years, and on the psychology of its Afrikaner rulers. We should remember the centuries of isolation, the overwhelming significance of the Great Trek, the Battle of the Blood River, the Boer War, the teaching of the predikants of the Dutch Church, the realities and symbolism of the laager, all of which have a much more powerful hold on the Afrikaner mind than the frontier has on the mind of the people of the United States.
Superficially, much has changed in South Africa during this century. For the Afrikaner nothing has changed. There is as much prospect, in the light of the historical and psychological factors which dominate the vast majority of white opinion in South Africa. of achieving a settlement satisfactory to the vast majority of the blacks by discussion and negotiation—and here I follow the views of my noble friend Lord Saint Brides—as there is of the Israelis handing over political power in Palestine to the PLO. As Mr. Pik Botha asked an Australian journalist in an interview last week, "Do you expect us to commit suicide in order to survive?"
There is an arguable parallel between the situation facing the Jews in Israel and the Afrikaner in South Africa. Both are a small, resolute minority surrounded by a huge population of a very different race and culture. Both have a belief in their entitlement by divine sanction to live in an historic homeland. Both, if the chips are down, have nowhere else to go.
I have great sympathy with the reluctance of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to undertake the mission assigned to him by the Heads of Government at The Hague. If, in President Reagan's words, Mr. Botha in recent correspondence has told the President of the United States "to bug off", Sir Geoffrey Howe faces a distasteful and humiliating experience, which can only further reduce such remnants of influence which Great Britain has over the policies and actions of the Afrikaner Government of the South African Republic.
The scenario which I have outlined during the past few minutes is admittedly pessimistic, and some would say, defeatist. Now I turn to the possibility which I think could happen. It is something which I think will not necessarily happen or even should happen, but it is the nearest I can get to an ultimate solution which gives some fulfilment to the legitimate aspirations of black and white in South Africa; something which would provide a basis for discussion and negotiation between their respective leaderships;

1203
and something which might after the inevitable violence and loss of life of the next few months and years provide the basis for a settlement.
Let me quote from an article written by Dr. van Zyl Slabbart, who, as your Lordships will remember, was until very recently the leader of the Progressive Party in the South African Parliament. He said:
"It is conceivable that partition may be a last resort option in a no-win sitution; but quite likely the line will be drawn where the battle has ended, and not where it has been thought out in morally and intellectually defensible terms".
The practicalities of partition have been considered by academics for the past decade and more. I am told that it has been studied unofficially in the Foreign Office. Faced with an apparently insoluble racial-political and constitutional problem, partition has frequently been the solution of the last resort. If I give my own version as to how it might be applied to South Africa, I merely offer it as a possible pattern for the future.
Partition would involve the establishment of a northern black state—Azania—and a southern state with a dominant white, Indian and coloured population. The frontier between them might run from the mouth of the Orange river in the west; east along its course to the Vaal; north along the Vaal to the Modder river; and along that to the Lesotho frontier, round the Lesotho frontier and then southward to the sea.
There would be great advantages if Namibia were incorporated in Azania, perhaps on a federal basis as that would be the most agreeable. Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho would no longer on that basis be fiefdoms of a white Afrikaner state; and Indians and coloureds would be relieved of some of the fear of discrimination by a black government as has happened elsewhere in Africa. Azania would have 70 per cent. of the present population of the Republic, and, exclusive of Namibia which has great potential riches, 75 per cent. of its GDP. It would have the great wealth of the Rand—its gold mines and its industry—it would have the port of Durban and the agricultural riches of the North Transvaal and the Free State.
The white state, South Africa, would comprise mostly the old Cape Province, representing the historic homeland of Afrikanerdom and the part of South Africa where British constitutional institutions first took root. Partition on these lines would be anathema to the neo-Nazis of Mr. Terre Blanche and the AWB, who are still fighting the Boer War and the rebellion of 1914. But heaven forbid that policy in South Africa should be formed in their image. If they were ever to gain power, then there would be no hope for the white community in that country.
I do not underestimate the difficulties. It would involve a population transfer of 2 million to 3 million perhaps, though whites would continue to live and work in Azania as they do in Zimbabwe, and blacks would work in South Africa as do men and women from Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique in the South Africa of today. But if the international community is genuinely concerned to find a solution to this problem, there are instruments by means of which help could be provided to finance the transference of population and to establish post-partition viability.
1204
No doubt the whole idea will be dismissed here and in South Africa as being absurdly visionary and impracticable. I know only too well that it is always a mistake to embark on political speculation before anyone is ready to listen. The Afrikaner-dominated Government in Pretoria will, for the time being, absolutely and certainly suppress insurgence with censorship, the sjambok and the gun. There will be sporadic and ineffective strikes—far less widespread and damaging than those to which we in Britain have become accustomed. Business leaders, as they are at present doing, will scurry round protesting, not on moral and political grounds, but because of the effect of those strikes on the economy.
For the most part, the whites will continue to live with their illusions. The circumvention of any sanctions will become a patriotic duty and a profitable business. Japan will buy the coal and steel which Britian prohibits. The United States will exclude all strategic materials from any sanctions it may impose. Italy, France and Spain will increase their fruit, vegetable and wine exports to Britain at the expense of South Africa. Divisions will be encouraged by Pretoria among the black community in the republic—particularly Chief Buthelezi's Inkatha movement—and there will be increased talk about hiving off Natal and Zululand.
Then, next time, the outbreak of violence in the black areas will escalate and in due course the situation will reach a climax of a full-scale revolution with all the human and economic destruction which that will entail. One day—perhaps not in my lifetime—the Afrikaner and the white community will, in Dr. van Zyl Slabbart's words, face a "no-win situation".
It is perhaps too much to hope that before that day arrives it might be possible to find a solution for the problems of a country which God has so richly endowed whereby black and white can share a marvellous inheritance without first reducing that inheritance to ruin and inflicting indelible suffering on human beings—black and white alike.
2.47 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, this is a truly remarkable debate, and I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for giving me, at any rate, a chance to contribute to it. I think it is a pity that with competition from summer events in this country—tennis, and so on—a wider public is not going to have access to some of the remarkable speeches made today. It would be invidious to select any, but perhaps I may say that every word and sentence told in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who gave an astonishing, historical account of South Africa and what has led up to the situation today.
I had a slight reservation about the report of the Eminent Persons Group which has been corrected by your Lordships' debate. Perhaps for good reason the group paid little attention to the historical background of what has happened in South Africa, particularly since the union. I am concerned because nowadays—perhaps because we are less articulate—we use the word "apartheid" as though the

1205
abolition of apartheid was some magic formula for peace in the continent of Africa. Apartheid is no more than the crystallisation, which appeared in 1948 when the National Party took power in South Africa, of cultural attitudes and hard Afrikaner beliefs which have existed right from the time when the first batch of Dutch people arrived there in the 17th century. As the Boers developed their agriculture it became harder and, although I will not go over the historical ground, it became harder still as the British took over the Cape Colony.
The African has never had any rights in South Africa. He has no more rights now than he had at the time when he first came into confrontation with the Boer. The Boer came into confrontation with very little when he first arrived there because the inhabitants were sparse and quickly disappeared. His first confrontations came when the migrations occurred, with the growth of population of the Bantu peoples over the centuries. Of course, the difference is that in South Africa we are not dealing with a colonial situation where someone has arrived and taken over a population, colonised the country, and had problems similar to those in other parts of Africa. It is a situation in which the migration of peoples has aggravated the problems and has hardened the attitude of the settlers. Those hard attitudes of the settlers still remain in South Africa.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, that I know many South Africans. I have spent many years in black Africa—though I have never set foot across the border for many reasons—and have often been in front line African states and know something of African attitudes. I have many friends in South Africa who express exactly the views that he has expressed, which are moderate, optimistic views. But my African experience tells me that as a result of this process of hardening over the years the African in fact understands far better the Boer mentality than that of the liberal South African. The African understands where he is. It is hard and it is clear, and he can take hard, clear action to confront it.
The Liberal South African view—and it is the view of the British, not only in South Africa but in other parts of black Africa—has led the black African to mistrust this attitude. It has led him to disappointment and loss of pride in himself as well as loss of self-confidence. At least with the Afrikaner (the Boer) he knows that he has no chance of being let down because he has already been let down. He is fighting an intransigence with which he knows there is only one way to deal, and that is ultimately to conquer it.
Of course, in South Africa today we have a movement of black African opinion, supported by the rest of black Africa, which is the result of population growth and education. I wish that more people were listening to this debate because one of the things that people say in this country is that black Africans are better off in South Africa than they are in some of the other African states. They are—they are paid more money. In a country like Kenya 80 per cent. of the people are unemployed. Of course people are better off in South Africa, but they have the knowledge and the taste for the better life and are not prepared to continue feeling themselves deprived of a share of the
1206
wealth of that country, nor of the proud position in that country of which they have been deprived for so long.
I think that is the situation. I was disappointed to hear the noble Baroness say when she opened the debate that our aims were to restore human rights. When have there ever been human rights in South Africa? And restored from where? There have never been human rights in South Africa. I remember my grandfather, who was in the Boer War, telling me that there were no rights for blacks in South Africa. The stories I heard were quite deplorable, and they have not improved. Reading from her brief, the noble Baroness said that we wished to see a situation of no confrontation. South Africa has always had confrontation. The only way that anything can be accomplished is by confrontation. We have now reached the ultimate in confrontation because South Africa is no longer helped by neighbouring countries which practise a similar ethic. The Portuguese retired from the territories of Moçambique and Angola, and we know what happened in Rhodesia. The South Africans stand alone, still with their hard core of beliefs which go back to the Middle Ages.
One has to respect the Boer mentality because it is sincere, and the African knows that it is sincere. It is a feeling that he has a God-given right to the land. It is written in his books that he has a God-given right to the land and a God-given right to work the land. Anybody who impedes him is in fact going against God's word. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, will agree with my rather glib analysis of the situation. The people of other races are there to work for him and to fill a subsidiary position in his view of the world. The African understands that, and he will take action against it. But he does not understand our attitude. In the old Western films the Red Indians used to say of the white man, "He speaks with forked tongue". That is the reaction of many blacks today to the British Government's attitude.
As usual, Britain and other Western countries are only playing with the problem. We have extreme black views in South Africa. Even the ANC cannot control the young blacks. I do not think that we can go back to a situation where it can. If Nelson Mandela were released tomorrow, I think that he would find it extremely difficult to bring his influence to bear on the young blacks of the townships. They are not communists or Marxists; they are young men with a taste of blood and a taste of power. Those are emotive words. For them it is much better to do something exciting, even if it is being killed or killing others, than being unemployed, miserable, or knocked about by a policeman.
All that has happened as a result of young black militancy is that the South African Government have hardened until we have reached the position today where thousands are in detention, the police arrest without charge or explanation and torture is commonplace. Any human rights organisation will tell your Lordships of the interrogation under torture that takes place. I need not catalogue the monstrosities.
The scenario that I put forward, knowing black Africa, is bleak. We have reached the point where the African will not be content just to see apartheid

1207
dismantled, to use a phrase that has frequently been used in our debate. He wants power, and he will settle for nothing less.
How does the industrialised world cope with that problem? I agree with Mrs. Thatcher that it is extremely difficult. It is hypocritical to say that we can jump in immediately and take sanctions against South Africa. That will not stop the trouble. As noble Lords have said, it is a false argument that it matters to the African. He does not care about suffering. He does not care about being killed, and so he will not care about sanctions. It may hurt him but he is hurt by many other things as well.
Sanctions would also be broken. With the borders that South Africa has and the interested parties, it would make the chicanery and brigandry of Zimbabwe seem child's play. The carpet-baggers and the buccaneers would be in and huge fortunes would be made by individuals and corporate bodies. As I think my noble friend Lord Crawshaw said, when the story is written about sanction-busting in Rhodesia there will be a lot of red faces in this country and in others.
That is the situation. We have to do something, whether through our banking system or through withdrawing investment in South Africa. The situation may have gone too far in South Africa, if I may take that pessimistic view, but what about the rest of black Africa? It has been poorly served since independence. We have debated that many times in your Lordships' House. It has not progressed materially, and it is in a state of political chaos. That is because Britain and other countries have not properly seen the development of black Africa. They see it vaguely as a market for our industries and as a source of raw material.
We can do something practical and constructive. The Government cannot lose by putting pressure on the South African Government. In my view the penalties that people suggest that we shall pay through unemployment here, and so on, are not realistic. We must do something. What is more important, we should consider our attitude towards the rest of black Africa, regardless of the outcome of this dire situation, to see that we lose no reputation in black Africa and the Commonwealth as a whole. That is the situation. Time is running short.
The black African has dignity, humour, forbearance and pride. His pride has been hurt. He retains his sense of humour. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Barber, give us an example of African humour, from a man hard and sore pressed. That is often found in black Africa. We have done scant justice to the black African in the whole continent. No justice has been done to the black African in South Africa. A terrible day of reckoning is probably at hand. Anything that we can do at this stage, even if it damages us, to avert or minimise the horror that could arise, would be a job well done.
3.1 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that the House should in some way express its displeasure at the attitude of
1208
the British Prime Minister. I believe that in this matter the British Prime Minister, in opposing as far as she found it possible the idea of sanctions against South Africa, has shown a realism about the truth of the situation which it behoves us all to recognise before we discuss the affairs of that sad country.
Today's debate, particularly the speeches, from different points of view, of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, contribute to a realism which was wholly absent in some of the opening speeches, where people talked as if this was a simple matter of will. We only had to wave some kind of coercive wand and we would obtain in a meaningful sense, one man, one vote.
How is a country such as Great Britain, which in the course of 300 years has failed to solve through democratic processes the problems of a neighbouring island where the divisions are not of race, culture, language or colour, but only between two branches of the same religion, to say that we can solve the problems that have been built up, as the noble Viscount rightly said, between the movement of populations and clashes between those populations, over a matter of centuries? It is showing an arrogance that passes the understanding.
Any form of sanctions involves some interference with the economic process. Whether particular groups in this country or in South Africa are directly harmed, a general diminution of the creation of wealth must affect not merely the inhabitants of South Africa as it is today but neighbouring countries, which in a variety of ways depend and will continue to depend upon the South African economy.
The noble Viscount pointed out, and it is understandable, that black South Africans are not consoled by their relatively higher standard of living compared with Africans in other parts of the continent, nor by the fact that they see around them people with a far higher standard of living. They do not see why they should be permanently excluded from the common enjoyment of the potential and actual wealth of the country. But that raises a question that the noble Viscount did not ask. It is this. Have we in mind when we propose trying to affect the course of events in South Africa a new political situation that will ensure that that wealth continues to be created and is indeed further expanded? Although sharing with other noble Lords an abhorrence of violence—I do not really like people being burnt to death as part of a political argument—I am almost more worried by the evidence that such potential leadership as now exists in the ANC and other groups has not fully confronted the problem of transition, particularly in its economic aspect.
I should like to give two examples. The BBC, that has been referred to in the course of the debate, put on a couple of weeks ago—in fact, put it on twice because it rightly thought it to be of interest and importance—a recording of conversations between two leaders of the ANC and four or five Afrikaners of the more liberal wing of that community in the hope, as the BBC presenter explained, that by free discussion in London, away from the immediate pressures, they would find some common measure of agreement. Although one could see that there was in the far distance a measure

1209
of common agreement with the white South Africans looking forward to a multi-racial society in which there would be access for all to the fruits of industry, it was clear that the two representatives—they were senior representatives—deputed by the ANC in Lusaka had not given any thought and could give no constructive idea as to how these constitutional changes would be brought about.
They said that there would be elections, one man, one vote. They did not say who would organise the elections or how the elections would be policed. Would they be policed by the present South African police, by the United Nations or by other African countries? The mere mechanics—the mechanics are, after all, of great importance in the transfer of power—of such a transfer had not even been confronted.
The other example, again on radio—noble Lords may have heard it—was an interview with two representatives of the South African mining union attending the NUM conference. The question put to them was this. Given the fact that much of South African business recognises the enormous and permanent damage done to the country by apartheid—as the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, in a very illuminating speech pointed out—did they think that they could work with the business leadership in order to bring about a better condition of affairs? Both the representatives of the South African mining union, with complete openness and, one must say, with complete honesty, said "Not a bit of it. They wish, no doubt in a modified form, to preserve a capitalist system of production. Our interest is to create a socialist system of common ownership. We can have nothing to do with the business community however enlightened it claims to be".
These are the facts. They are the facts that we have to face. It is true that the ultimate idea that political power through the vote is what all peoples are entitled to have is something that we should take, and always do take, seriously. But it is also true that wherever in the history of the Commonwealth, and even outside it, an attempt has been made to suggest this formula for countries deeply divided, partition happens before democracy or, as in the case of the Indian subcontinent, at the same time. Even where it appears that the problem has been solved, as in Sri Lanka, now 40 years later we begin to get the same problems. People do resist being run—or resist even the fear of being run—by persons from whose communities they find themselves wholly alien.
In these circumstances it is to my mind Utopian and idealistic to say that we must only consider the individual, not the community. We have to recognise the existence in South Africa of communities. We have been told how blacks have a common consciousness. We must hope—perhaps in the form that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, put it to us, or in some other way—that a solution will be found which enables political expression to be given to all the peoples and groups both of South Africa and of its neighbours with whom its destiny is permanently and irrevocably bound up.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I might say a word. Before
1210
the debate opened this afternoon I did, with the agreement of the usual channels, make an appeal for brevity. We are falling sadly behindhand in time. The House and the staff of the House—who serve us very well indeed—have been worked for very late hours recently. While we do not wish to curtail debate on such an important subject I think that if we could keep speeches shorter, as my original appeal asked, it would be a service not only to everybody in the House but also would even improve the standard of the debate.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I support very much what the noble Lord has said. I should think that if speeches were limited to between five and seven minutes we could make very much faster progress.
3.13 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I shall do my best to conform with what the Whips have said.
Although I think today's debate is a notable exception, it seems to me a great pity that the problem of South Africa is being looked at so much in the terms of our own domestic politics. Some people in Parliament, and many in the media, seem more concerned in exploiting it for this purpose than in finding a way through a profoundly difficult and urgent situation.
It is not solely a British problem. It is not a Commonwealth problem only, but a world problem. It is a moral and political problem in which all countries should be involved. It is inevitable that emotions will run high and I think we want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Barber, most profoundly for dealing in such a calm and vivid way with his difficult mission and for giving such a good glimpse of the personality of Nelson Mandela.
I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, with great interest. I find myself very much in agreement with it. We have to bear in mind that he comes straight from—if I may use the phrase—the scene of the crime. This is not a problem that can be solved at a stroke. One of the lessons of the report of the Eminent Persons Group is that it reminds us just how deep-seated is apartheid and how its abolition, however desirable, and however certain, will call for the most radical changes at the very heart of South African life. It will call for changes of laws, repeals of Acts, changes of structure, organisation and redistribution of land. Given the best will in the world one must face the fact that this cannot be done in terms of weeks and months but only in terms of years. It is totally unrealistic and wrong to suggest that the white—and the black—population can and should be coerced into accepting a revolution in its position except after negotiation involving a gradual adjustment of ideas by all parties. We are dealing not with a few people but with millions of people.
However, the fact that it will take a long time does not mean that there is not great urgency. The Government, possibly unwittingly, have sometimes given the impression that there is no great urgency. That is of course quite wrong, not least because it is inevitable that some violence will continue as long as no settlement satisfactory to the parties is reached.

1211
The fundamental question is: can Afrikaner attitudes be changed? There has already been movement, but is there a hard core of people control-ling the instruments of power and oppression who are beyond redemption as the Eminent Persons Group imply? At the moment it may seem to be so, but was it not significant that Mr. Pik Botha publicly referred to a black president? True, he was instantly rebuked, but it surely shows that some people in high places are thinking what was once unthinkable.
In post-war history we have seen changes that were at one time unimaginable: de Gaulle in North Africa; the virtual end of the caste system in India (in many ways similar to apartheid); and the traditional attitudes of the southern United States, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, referred. Even now, some people seem prepared to think, or to plan on the assumption, that Ulstermen will one day accept the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I do not believe that the obstinacy of hard-line Afrikaner opinion is not being affected by what is happening within and without South Africa. Change will assuredly come, but it will take time.
As for African opinion, the British Government have been mistaken in delaying talks with the ANC and then rather narrowing the issues discussed. However, I am sure that Sir Geoffrey Howe will seek to widen the issues.
Many noble Lords have, as I have, spoken with Oliver Tambo and Chief Buthelezi. They both give the impression of reasonable men. Whether or not they speak for all their followers, I do not know, but I suspect that they do. If they would say and imply more clearly in public what they say or imply in private, the nationalist Government might come to take a different view. Both Mr. Tambo and Chief Buthelezi say that they would serve under Nelson Mandela, and that in itself would make black and white compromise easier. The release of Nelson Mandela is central, and we understand that that will be the main thrust of Sir Geoffrey Howe's message. However, at the same time we must remember that there are deep-seated differences within African ranks which have existed over generations and which will not disappear overnight.
Who is to get these negotiations going and are wider and stronger sanctions a necessary part of the process? The Government are quite right to proceed step by step. Some measure of agreement has been reached by members of the European Commission. It is understandable that Sir Geoffrey wishes to see for himself the situation on the ground and to convey the views of the Europeans to the Afrikaners. However, I hope that he will lose no time in getting in touch, and remaining in touch, with the Americans, the Japanese and other Western industrial powers. Only in that way can we see what measures are generally acceptable to those who may have to apply them and reach a collective judgment as to their chances of success.
In such a situation as that, it is disappointing that we are not able to put greater faith in the United Nations, which ought to be able to express a world resolve in this matter. Last week I spoke to a recently retired senior official of the United Nations and asked him
1212
could he see a role for the organisation. He could give absolutely no hope. It is possible in my view that some additional selective sanctions can play a part in getting the parties to the negotiating table, but I am sceptical of those blacks who claim that their people are ready to accept the consequences of massive sanctions.
In summary—and I see that my time is up—I believe that the right policy for the Government to follow is as follows: first, they should conduct urgent discussions among the Western industrial powers to see whether there are additional economic pressures which could advance a settlement. Secondly, they should make contact on as wide a basis as possible with the nationalist political and business leaders and with the leaders and business people of the other communities in South Africa, and our own business people can play a good part in that. Thirdly, they should encourage greater dialogue by Western powers with the African leaders with a view to evolving reasonable policies and filling the gaps to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, drew attention.
Fourthly, they ought to continue attempts to reduce violence on both sides in the sure knowledge that the use of force will for some time remain a negotiating factor. And, fifthly, a clear indication should be given to other Commonwealth countries and to the non-aligned that this Government attach priority to this problem. The ultimate aim should be an international conference, or conferences, of the parties to try to work out a solution, possibly with the co-operation of the UN and other individuals. That should be the aim, and that is the way I think we should reach it.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I shall take to heart the words of the Chief Whip. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I am able to put aside a great deal of what I was going to say. Having attended the whole of the debate so far, I am reminded of a remark by Alistair Cooke, who said, "Anybody who is not confused about the situation is obviously ill-informed". To me, that is the outcome of this debate. It is obviously a complex subject and we have had placed before us a wealth of information, and not only from speeches such as those of the noble Lords, Lord Barber and Lord St. John of Bletso.
I shall take up your Lordships' time for only a few minutes, for two reasons. First, I am interested because I lost one uncle killed and two uncles wounded in the South African War, so I am not predisposed to be in favour of the Boers. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel is not here today, because my last brush over Africa took place in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. A particular group of padres with the cry, "Someone must speak for the Africans", managed to manoeuvre so that my noble friend's plan—which he had worked out with Mr. Welensky for a Central African Federation—could not be carried out. It has sometimes occurred to me that if only that had not happened this confusing situation today might not have arisen.
My mind now turns to the question of information. It is interesting to me in that I had this occasion to speak of the African situation in the Church of

1213
Scotland assembly, and the word "bloodbath" seems to fall easily from the lips of the padres. I rather feel that the padres and the BBC are all in the same gang over this. This cannot go on; the people who are addressing themselves to this complex and serious situation, instead of talking about bloodbaths should talk about negotiation, which is what our Prime Minister is doing and what our Foreign Secretary has set off to try to induce.
I am looking forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who will follow me. Perhaps he will help to do what I feel is so necessary. We should concentrate on the idea not that there is to be a bloodbath but what can we do to make sure there is not one? Having said that, I think I ought to sit down. However, I feel that the broadcasting authorities, particularly those concerned with television, should try to keep this down; let us talk about settlement by negotiation and not about bloodbaths.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I am grateful to the speaker who has just sat down because he has given me a text for what I have to say. I shall undertake to be brief, albeit at the expense of perhaps being unduly dogmatic. I find that there are two professional statements that need to be made from my point of view. The first is that apartheid is itself sinful and a particular kind of sin; that is to say, it is original because it is sin within an establishment which is committed principally to that sin, rather than occasional, to which we are all committed, some of us more regularly than others.
The second statement is that I firmly believe that we are in an apocalyptic situation. It would be very difficult to look with faith—we can look with hope—on an easy solution to the problems which now confront the whole world, let alone the particular situation in South Africa.
I want to refer in particular to the religious situation. Of the 15 members of the Verwoerd Government, 14 of them were practising members of the Dutch Reform Church: I cannot find who the other fellow was, but he certainly was not a Methodist. The relationship between apartheid and the commitments that are found in the Old Testament that would satisfy the idea of a privileged nation cannot be ignored. Mentioning this in the open air I remember a fellow not so long ago asking me whether it was not true that God told the children of Israel to pinch somebody else's territory. Thereafter they called it their own. That attitude of proprietorship is not only incidental to the whole attitude of the Afrikaner, but it is, I believe, a potent element in the perpetuation of the apartheid system which I abominate.
It is also true that within the other Churches in South Africa, particularly those who attract black people in particular to their membership, there is the same totalitarian view which I introduce, if I may, into this debate this afternoon, because I believe here is one of the essential characteristics of the perpetuation of apartheid. It relies upon dogmatic assertions coming from the Old Testament as to the privileged rights of certain groups to inhabit the earth and to enjoy its fruits and so forth, and regarding those who have to be
1214
their servants and slaves as picking up the crumbs where they can.
It is not only the Afrikaner who finds this support from his own Dutch Reform Church; it is also found within the general compass of charismatic religions so often practised by blacks where this situation is also repeated. It is necessary to appeal to the Churches in this country to recognise that they have a particular potent opportunity now of declaring another kind of Christianity than that which raises the whole question of totalitarianism and privilege.
This I believe to be so, and there is a hopeful side to it. The Dutch Reform Church only a few years ago repudiated the intimate relationship between the privileges they enjoyed and the Old Testament from which they derived those privileges; and the Dutch Reform Church said that that particular kind of apartheid could not be justified from the Old Testament.
I believe that that is a hopeful sign, and the result of it has been that there have been vociferous movements within the Dutch Reform Church and not a few outside it; and—and I mention this with some pride—a changed attitude among the Methodist churches in South Africa. I believe this to be an element which must be taken into account; for unless we stop talking about what we want to do and then looking up the appropriate text to defend it, we shall, I think, be continuing in this kind of injustice.
I have one minute left. What do we do, practically? My noble and ecclesiastical friend mentioned the decision of the Methodist Conference which was august, of course, but there was one part of it which was not mentioned and I should like to repeat it very quickly. It commends to all the boycott campaigns of the anti-apartheid movement, particularly those against Barclays Bank and Shell Petroleum. I would support that. Furthermore, I would support with great enthusiasm what can be done by ordinary people in this country in initiating the kind of attitude of refusing to purchase those things which come from South Africa, however much they might like them and find them cheap. Here is a way in which I believe we can express at a level of ordinary life the things which I find totally impossible to recognise at the moment in terms of parliamentary action with a quick result.
My final comment is this. It is simple in my judgment, and it is inevitably difficult at the same time, to think of what is right and of what can be practically undertaken. If I have not much faith in what can be done, I have a great deal of hope, and I believe that that is a virtue which is consequent upon discipline and obedience rather than upon prescience and knowledge.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, the House will be relieved to hear that I have torn up the majority of my speech because most of the points have already been covered by previous speakers. I was going to make three main points. The first is that when we talk of sanctions there is insufficient appreciation in this country of the nature of the Afrikaner and of his mentality. Their love of country is based upon an almost religious fervour and

1215
they will gladly fight for it rather than surrender. In this respect, I agree so much with what the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, and other speakers have said.
Secondly, I was going to suggest that because of South Africa's military power and economic self-sufficiency, economic sanctions would be ineffective—which is not the same thing as saying that they should not be applied. Moreover, as Helen Suzman and other courageous opponents of the Botha government have pointed out (and some of your Lordships will have read her article in The Times a couple of days ago) sanctions will in practice serve to unite the white population and create a laager mentality which can only make a settlement more difficult. I believe also with my noble friend Lord Gladwyn that sanctions will be ineffective unless they are supplemented by military or other measures.
However, my principal reason for intervening in this debate was to suggest that Sir Geoffrey Howe should go to South Africa with a positive new approach to the problem. This approach is the same as that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in what I thought was a most constructive speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, suggested partition as the ultimate solution of this appallingly difficult problem. I agree with him. The South African Government will not like partition because it means giving up four-fifths of their country. The black South Africans will not like it because they will not achieve 100 per cent. of their demands; but for that very reason the proposal probably has some merit. My suggested plan is somewhat different from that of the noble Lord. His proposal envisaged that Cape Province should be given to a white South Africa. I doubt whether that would be acceptable. My own proposal is that the Afrikaners should be offered a large part of the Transvaal, which has such mystical associations for them. I was also going to suggest that instead of having one other multi-racial state in South Africa, there should be three states—Natal, the Cape and the other half of the Free State/Transvaal—largely because the disparities in the non-white population of the country are such that I think three states are likely initially to be more effective than one. In due course possibly these different states could come together in a single state; but in any case they could be joined in a common market.
If the South African Government is unwilling to consider any substantial concessions, then I believe the British Government have no option but to introduce progressive sanctions, in collaboration with the Commonwealth and the European Community. However, I hope that the Foreign Office will at least give some thought to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and to my own because, whatever may happen in the immediate future, in the longer term some form of partition is, in my view, inevitable.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, for some nine years I was concerned in my working life with the problems of Africa and I spent three years in South Africa. Although that was 20 years or so ago, it gave me at first hand some idea of the difficulty and the complexity of
1216
the problem which, in South Africa, overshadows all others. All the policies that are today denounced so passionately have been efforts—nearly all unsuccessful —to deal with that problem.
It was clear enough 20 years ago that the system could not and would not work because it was based on an effort to keep the races apart. That could not be done in South Africa because the whole economy rested on the use of black labour in mines, in factories and on farms. Moreover, if the economy was to remain competitive, blacks had to do ever-increasingly sophisticated work and so they had to be highly trained; and highly trained men will sooner or later demand political rights.
Faced with the problem that dependence on black labour made total physical separation of the races impracticable, the South African Government tried to overcome it by setting up homelands in the townships near the cities for workers without families. But this only created, in the townships at any rate, centres of concentrated unrest. I found Soweto, both in theory and in practice, a thoroughly disagreeable concept. Then and later, I was sorry that voices in South Africa like that of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, who as a South African put forward practical and realistic proposals, were not listened to.
But there have been very significant changes over the last few years, above all in the attitude of the South African Government itself. In the evidence which the South African ambassador gave on Monday to the Foreign Affairs Committee of another place, he made it clear that the homeland policy and what he called "classic apartheid" had failed and that the South African Government was now attempting to guide South Africa from what he called "apartheid of the past" to (in his words) a multi-racial future and the achievement of a fully respresentative government. Dr. Worrall argued that one person, one vote in a unitary state was unacceptable to the white South African; but he said also that South Africans would have to accept that numbers in the final analysis would be decisive.
That sort of language is light years away from what the Afrikaner establishment was saying only a few years ago. Indeed, the reforms introduced already— above all, the abolition of influx control—have been, in South African terms, far-reaching. But, as so often happens in history, it is just when things start to improve that a revolution is apt to break out.
Of course the authorities have done many foolish things. For example, their attitude to the Cape coloureds, who were not fundamentally antagonistic to the Afrikaners, always seemed to me extra-ordinarily inept: every overture from the coloureds was rebuffed.
When I was in South Africa, I saw a good deal of Mrs. Helen Suzman, whose article in Wednesday's copy of The Times answering that of Mr. Malcolm Fraser many noble Lords will have seen. She was then, as she is now, a skilled and courageous opponent of nationalist policies. For a long time she was their only real critic in Parliament. With nearly all she said I warmly agreed but, much as I respected her views, I found myself differing from her on one central and fundamental issue: what would happen if the whole structure of nationalist policies were to be abandoned

1217
or overturned? Mrs. Suzman, I believe, held that a fair and stable multiracial society could and should be created in South Africa. I wish I could think that she was right. My own observations and experience there led me to a different conclusion.
I came away convinced that there can be no halfway house in South Africa. Either you must have a white dominated society or you must have one man, one vote, which would lead to black majority rule and, in due course no doubt, a one-party regime, soon to come in Zimbabwe. Not all the precedents for this elsewhere in Africa are encouraging. In any event, given all that has happened in South Africa, I think one man, one vote would necessitate the departure of most of the 3 million whites, many of them to this country, though they have been in South Africa for generations—about as long as the Bantu tribes which came down from the North.
White South Africa has produced many notable people and the disappearance of this society would be an impoverishment of the world. It can be argued that, since the blacks are the majority, South Africa ought to be ruled by a black government. But it is, at least, an open question whether the profound change needed to bring this about would be in the interests of Britain. From a strategic and economic point of view, it seems to be doubtful.
The struggle now taking place in South Africa, if it continues, will be a savage one on both sides and, as anyone with experience of Africa knows, there is bound to be not merely violence between blacks and whites, but bloody inter-tribal conflict between blacks and blacks. That has started already. It may be that Afrikaner domination will emerge unbroken; we should not under-rate the toughness of the Afrikaners. Or it may be that the blacks will ultimately be successful. It is just possible that some solution may be found on a federal basis. But I am quite sure that this is a problem that can be resolved only by South Africans.
I agreed with what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said about the BBC. On this issue, it seems to have lost its sense of proportion. It goes on and on about South Africa. I am not surprised that, by its own admission, the corporation has received many letters accusing it of losing its balance on this issue.
To come back to the main problem, what ought we to do? Sanctions, as the Government have explained, would do us serious damage. The Foreign Secretary has pointed out how many jobs in this country depend on trade with South Africa—and it is an important trade. Up till 1984 we were exporting more to South Africa than to the whole of Latin America. We still have not far short of £3 billion invested there—£1 billion more than in Latin America and the Caribbean. Sanctions would put all this at risk. Besides damaging us, they would damage the economies of South Africa and of neighbouring African countries, creating unemployment and misery among blacks rather more than among whites. They would stop the process of black advancement in the industrial economy.
But perhaps they would give an impetus towards a violent uprising, which is possibly what the activists here really want. But how would that benefit the people of South Africa? And if full economic sanctions
1218
should be imposed, and should achieve nothing, what happens then?—logically, I suppose, armed intervention. We have had one disastrous war in South Africa. Do we want another?
We all wish the Foreign Secretary well in his task. But it will clearly be enormously difficult to achieve anything substantial except to buy a few months' time. That, maybe, is what Her Majesty's Government have primarily in mind. But, by adopting the language of their critics, retreating inch by inch and making concessions, each of them not in itself too damaging, in order to buy time, they are being pushed ever further in a direction in which they evidently do not wish to go. And the concessions do not appease the militants; they encourage them to push harder.
Other Commonwealth members call for full democracy in South Africa, conveniently ignoring the fact that many of them are one-party states in which minority opinions are given short shrift. It is easy for other Commonwealth countries which have no major interests in South Africa to call for extreme measures which, in most cases, would cost them nothing.
There are mutterings that individual countries might leave the Commonwealth or even take sanctions against us, unless we do what they want. Such threats can only weaken the Commonwealth, for no organisation can continue indefinitely on the basis that members threaten to withdraw or take hostile measures, if another partner does not do exactly what they want. The Commonwealth is a very useful organisation, a body in which representatives of countries of all races can meet and discuss the many problems they have in common. But it is not more than that; and though clearly we do not want the Commonwealth to suffer damage, there is such a thing as paying too high a price to prevent that.
It would be unwise to do ourselves serious economic damage in order to achieve nothing constructive. We have economic problems enough, and when I listen to your Lordships' debates about them I sometimes think with some envy of the Japanese authorities, who have managed to avoid becoming embroiled in any of these insoluble external problems, and simply go on promoting their own economic interests, wholly to the advantage of the fortunate people of Japan.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, argued forcefully that there is something unique about the offence of the South African authorities. I respect that argument. But anyone who has spent all his working life in my profession knows that the world is full of horrible regimes, of endless cruelty, injustice and oppression. We have never been able to do anything about the brutalities committed in the Soviet Union and in other Communist countries. They would, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has pointed out, never dream of admitting foreign television crews or Eminent Person Groups to observe these things.
In practice we do all we can to increase our trade with the Eastern bloc. The tradition of Gladstonian indignation in this country is an old and honourable one. But when Mr. Gladstone was alive we were the richest and most powerful nation in the world. Today we need to recognise our limitations. Part of our dilemma today is that we have tried to play rather too active a role on the world stage. Now the pigeons are

1219
coming home to roost. This is not to say that we need keep silent. I am sure we are right to say what we think about South African policies. I believe we should not hesitate to do the same about oppression in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. We are I think right to use our diplomatic and other contacts vigorously to try to influence the South Africans in a sensible way. But in the last resort we must recognise that it is their problem, not ours; and to allow ourselves to be dragged by the prevailing clamour into applying further sanctions, general or particular, would, I believe, be a profound mistake.
3.47 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young set out exactly what are the Western world's interests in South Africa—a government which is acceptable to all its people, prosperous in itself, contributing to the trade and wealth of the rest of the world; and this can be achieved only by change. What that change should be I do not dare to suggest. That unknown change, however, can be brought about only with enormous difficulty, and, I regret to say, probably not at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Barber, said in his notable speech that the South African Government could not bring themselves to release Nelson Mandela. I thought that that was probably the most significant thing he said, because by saying that he acknowledged that the South African Government themselves have acknowl-edged the essential need for change but have been frightened of carrying it out.
It is our job, I suggest, to help the Boers realise that this change is the only possible ultimate hope of their salvation and survival. There are two ways of trying to produce change: one is by the stick and one is by the carrot. The population of the Boer republics in 1904 was 439,000 whites, not all of whom, obviously, were Boers. It took 500,000 British imperial troops to conquer those two Boer republics. That is approximately 1.1 soldiers per man, woman and child in the whole of the republics. In the process, 20,000 children, 4,500 women and 1,500 men died in concentration camps. That is not a record of which we should be particularly proud. To seriously think that the Boers are going to be influenced by the swopping of their market for cheap coal, as advocated by Mr. Frazer, when, surprise, surprise, the Australians have a surplus of it; by the swopping of the South African fruit and vegetable market for that of Spain and Portugal; and for the cutting off of air links, as advocated by the Canadians when Air Canada does not fly to South Africa—this strikes me as making Alice in Wonderland look like a mathematical thesis.
I do not want to be the man who goes to a British engineer at London Airport and says, "I am all right, Jack, but you are going to lose your job because we are going to stop you servicing South African Airways". I do not want to be that man, thank you very much, and I hope nobody is going to advocate that he should do it and that the man, his wife and two children should be laid off, and probably the black cleaner who cleans the aircraft as well. I do not want to be had for that.
1220
The final irony is that Equity will not allow actors to perform in South Africa. Is it because the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, delivering Hamlet's soliloquy to a black veldt Boer audience, is frightened of being contaminated by the views? Is it not more sensible to think that perhaps his presence there might add enlightenment to those people? Large numbers of blacks deplore sanctions, Chief Buthelezi among them. As has been said, Helen Suzman also deplores sanctions.
The noble Lord, Lord Barber, has allowed me to quote this, and it is an important point. As far as Chief Buthelezi is concerned he would serve under Mandela if Mandela were elected as black leader. Mandela said he would be able to work with Buthelezi. This shows that there are black men of quality in South Africa.
I go the other way. We have to produce a carrot. We have to help the Boers to change. It seems to me that we ought to increase our trade. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the point about the action of British companies promoting internally and helping the blacks to develop. If you do that the rigidities and the idiocies of Afrikaner officialdom will break down under the pressure. That is the way to do it. A prosperous country means that more people have more to lose. Surely we should increase our trade with South Africa and increase our contracts so that its government can be brought out of the laager and accept that some form of change is abolutely inevitable, that some form of change is the only hope of salvation.
I do not always say that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is a paragon of perfection, but on this occasion I think she is showing intellectual courage and moral grandeur. She realises, as I think most of us do on this side of the House, that it is more important to change and help than it is to take up strident attitudes of knowing best from a great position of comfort and ease.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in opening the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, revealed the depth of misunderstanding which is present within the Government when she used the phrase, already quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, "restore freedoms" as an objective of this Government's policy.
I suppose that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who has lived with Africans, Asians, Cape coloureds and whites in South Africa. I say "lived with" and not "visited". I was living with them before there was a single apartheid statute on the South African statute book. I saw the segregation, the inability to go with one's coloured friends, African friends and Asian friends, to a restaurant or cafe. I experienced the stopping and searching of my car if there were any non-Europeans in it. I was part of a crowd that was charged by the police force outside the Cape Parliament. I actually went with the police on searches in Johannesburg and saw how they treated the Africans. Restore freedoms, my Lords? No, there were no freedoms for the non-Europeans before apartheid. It is an insult to suggest that it is the policy of this country to restore freedoms—freedoms that were not there, never have been there and which were

1221
laid down in absentia, when this Parliament passed the Act of Union in 1910.
To his credit W. P. Schreiner, the courageous Afrikaner, came to this Parliament and appealed to parliamentarians not to pass that Act because of its segregation clauses and because it was embodying in constitutional law the principle of colour segregation. This was before the institution of apartheid in 1984; as was the land Act 1913, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pitt, which divided the country and gave only 13 per cent. of the country to four-fifths of the population, the urbanisation limitation which took place in the 1920s and 1930s, the job reservation which took place at the same time and the abolition of the African franchise in the Cape in 1936. All this happened before apartheid.
I mention these facts because it is wrong for us to consider that apartheid is a policy as monetarism or nationalisation are policies. It is not a policy; it is a way of life, and it is a way of life based upon the first principle of the Boer republics of the nineteenth century that there shall be no equality in Church or State. That is what we are dealing with. It is not a set of laws.
As I said before, I participated in the attempts of the non-Europeans by peaceful means to achieve reform. As was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pitt, there were the days of protest, the passive resistance campaign, the freedom charter, the pass law defiance; along with Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and Oliver Tambo. What were we met with? We were met by the Rivonia trial, by Sharpeville, by Soweto, and by the murder of Steve Biko and many others. I believe I am almost certainly the only Member of this House whose close colleague and first hostess in South Africa, Ruth First, was murdered by the South African Government forces by means of a parcel bomb after she had spent 117 days in solitary confinement in prison in South Africa. This peaceful movement for reform was met by a period of increasing militarisation which has not yet come to a conclusion.
In 1960 the South African defence force stood at 21,500; in 1983 it was 82,400. This militarisation of the South African regime was only made possible with the help of Britain and the West, and indeed with the help of the Soviet Union. It is very useful to the South African Government in its handling of diamonds. All the appeals from non-Europeans during this period were scorned, but we should note that this period of militarisation and increasing apartheid took place during the period of maximum economic growth in South Africa. Do not let us hear this story that economic growth undermines apartheid. It was during the period of high economic growth that apartheid was strengthened and the South African state became more and more draconian.
Those who say that there is a danger of a military coup in South Africa just do not know what they are talking about. There is no necessity for a military coup because the military men and the military machine—the military complex in South Africa—has more and more taken over the decision-making process and is stronger and stronger with the government. General Malan is the most powerful member of that government and it is the military control of the government which makes a coup
1222
unnecessary. It has taken control of political decision-making such as the Declaration of the State of Emergency.
I come finally to sanctions. It would be easy to suggest a sanction that would be totally effective, at least in bringing down the South African economy. We have only to stop buying gold. Indeed, all that needs to happen is for the United States and the IMF to start selling gold and thus reduce the price. That would deeply undermine and probably destroy the South African economy.
But I hope that the noble Viscount who is to wind up will not devote his attention, as has been done by all government Ministers so far, to arguing the case against comprehensive sanctions. That is a weak argument. It is taking the extreme and ignoring the other suggestions that have been made. Once they have said that comprehensive sanctions will not work or would be disastrous, the Government seem to show no concern.
What is the alternative? Other sanctions have been suggested, such as selective or targeted sanctions, but the Government do not discuss them. At Luxembourg last September they delayed the imposition of a carefully selected group of sanctions and at Nassau the following month they postponed the decision. Last week, they blocked the desire of the majority of EC members to put into organised process a set of sanctions. That has had a consequence which has been spelt out by the Eminent Persons Group in its report:
"The question in front of Heads of Government is in our view clear. It is not whether such meaures will compel change. It is already the case that their absence, and Pretoria's belief that they need not be feared, defers change".
Since that change was deferred and that absence was pronounced by the British Government in Nassau last October, blood has been spilt all over South Africa. I suggest that by that action the British Government have some responsibility for the spilling of that blood.
The Foreign Secretary is to be sent to South Africa. I do not believe that either the Foreign Secretary or the noble Viscount the Leader of the House believes that that is the right policy. But whatever they believe, the effect is yet further delay and postponement; again, according to the Eminent Persons Group, producing further violence and the spilling of more blood. It is a decision which is responsible for further violence in South Africa.
As the Eminent Persons Group makes quite clear in its report, the South African Government have no intention whatever of giving up white supremacy. That is the key issue. It has been said, and it has been said particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, that sanctions did not work in Rhodesia. Anybody who was engaged in the Rhodesian exercise knows that sanctions did not destroy the Smith regime, but they helped to undermine it. Nobody is suggesting that sanctions will do anything more than help. In Rhodesia they played a crucial part.
One part of the noble Lord's argument that I can never understand—and it is duplicated by members of the Cabinet—is the claim that the imposition of sanctions will only stimulate home manufacture in Rhodesia or South Africa. They cannot have it both ways. If that is the case, sanctions will not create unemployment: they will increase employment. As

1223
the noble Lord knows, to some extent that is what it did in Rhodesia. It increased local manufacture to substitute for imports and by so doing increased employment. The Government cannot have it both ways.
As has been said, the South African Government will not abandon white supremacy because of the imposition of sanctions. It may well be in British interests—I believe that it is—for sanctions to be imposed. Civil war has started. It started two years ago. The noble Lord, Lord St. John, told us that people are leaving South Africa. Yes, they are; but white people are leaving South Africa this time. Last time it was black people. After Sharpeville and Soweto there were a great many black refugees. This time they are staying and fighting.
It is in British interests to impose sanctions because this is a situation in which we must be counted, and upon which side we stand could determine this country's role throughout Africa. Above all, sanctions can have, if properly organised—I suggest organised in conjunction with the front line states, African representatives and white opposition representatives from South Africa—one important effect on the growing violent and tragic situation in South Africa. That is, to weaken the state power to oppress the non-European population. We helped to strenghten that state power in the 1960s and 1970s. We are still doing it. The important role of sanctions in the future is that they can undermine the state power of the South African Government in their war against the black majority.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is interesting to reflect that if there were a black government in Pretoria carrying out exactly the same policies as the present mainly white government—by no means an inconceivable scenario—35 of us would not be debating South Africa on a hot Friday afternoon in mid-summer on the day that the men's semi-final is being played at Wimbledon. There would be no calls for sanctions from the United Nations, the EC or the Commonwealth. Worldwide press coverage would be less than one-tenth of what it is now.
We can also be sure that if the majority of Europeans and Asians were to be forced out of a black-ruled South Africa, as over 2 million Europeans and Asians have been squeezed out of other parts of the African continent over the past 30 years, essentially because of the appalling population explosion which has meant far too many people chasing far too few jobs, wordwide media coverage and political interest would be almost nil, except in those countries which would have to cope with the exodus directly.
What is being demanded of South Africa which is not being demanded of all the other oppressive and tyrannical countries in the world which drop napalm upon Afghan tribesmen and their families, which torture dissidents in psychiatric hospitals—it is interesting to note that Amnesty International recently reported that 62 per cent. of the member countries of the United Nations employ torture either systematically or spasmodically—where pregnant
1224
women are stoned to death for adultery, where religious minorities are massacred, where 350 political prisoners are killed by helicopter gunboats and naval bombardment, which kill by bullet or minefield those of their citizens that wish to leave the country, or which allow their citizens to escape in unseaworthy boats across shark and pirate-infested waters? At least South Africa is not guilty of that crime. On the contrary, 1·5 million blacks have come to South Africa to work, and scores of others have come to study medicine, some from as far north as Zaire. Voting with one's feet, I believe it is called.
The first demand being made upon South Africa is the lifting of the state of emergency. I wholly concur with that, now that the immediate danger is over: it seems that there was a genuine danger. Now that 780 people have been charged with specific offences, the state of emergency must be lifted without delay. It is intolerable that people can be held for 180 days incommunicado withough being charged. It makes it difficult for those of us who have some knowledge and considerabe sympathy with the South African dilemma to go on defending that country publicly as long as the state of emergency is unnecessarily in force.
The next demand being made is the release of Nelson Mandela. It is worth reminding your Lordships that if a Ukrainian, a Latvian, a Jewish or Baptist dissident or a Moslem from central Asia had done in the Soviet Union what Mr. Mandela did in South Africa, with equal justification, he would not be alive today to tell the tale. Having said this, I should have liked to see Mr. Mandela released on humanitarian grounds a long time ago. But one has to think now of the morale of black moderates who are bearing the brunt of radical attacks, as well as the white, brown and black victims of car bombs, and their friends and relations.
I understand why Mr. Mandela does not want to give too many cards away by condemning all violence unequivocally, including violence against non-human targets like electricity pylons or oil storage tanks. But could he not at least follow Bishop Tutu in agreeing to publicly condemn the necklacing of black policemen and town councillors and, secondly, car bombs and other random attacks on civilians? Apart from smoothing the path for negotiations, such a step would tend to dampen down any violent reaction that there might be to his release from black and white alike.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord understand that no word of Nelson Mandela can be published anywhere in South Africa?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am saying that as a quid pro quo for his release, he should agree to say this publicly. I have no doubt that the government would permit this if he were to agree.
The next demand being made is for total abandonment of apartheid, partly on the wholly fallacious assumption, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, reminded us, that abandonment will usher in automatically a Utopia of peace, harmony and prosperity, and partly because apartheid has become the universal hate object of the moment. It is curious that this hate should have come to a head now, when so much apartheid has been abandoned legally or in

1225
practice, rather than 20 years ago when I first visited South Africa. At that time, apartheid was at its most ruthless, all-embracing and mean-minded. The real standard of living of the black and coloured populations was one-third of what it is today. At that time also, grossly unequal pay for equal work really did apply as it no longer does. I am afraid that, in this respect, the Eminent Persons Group's report got it wrong.
It is rather as if people had remained almost mute throughout Stalin's purges and atrocities only to launch hysterical attacks on the Yugoslavian communism of the 1950s and 1960s. It is interesting that such highly charged emotions are not to be found in black African countries adjoining South Africa where South Africans travel very freely and are always welcome, as are the inhabitants of those countries who travel freely to South Africa. This has no doubt to do with the fact that South Africa trades with every single state on the African continent, openly or surreptitiously.
Just as unfairness to blacks did not start in 1948, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has reminded us—South Africa was scarcely a paradise for blacks under the rule of the much revered General Smuts—so not every single aspect of apartheid is either unfair or undesirable. One thinks of that highly impressive self-governing state, Bophuthatswana, the size of Denmark and 94 per cent. self supporting, thanks to its mineral deposits. I realise that a great deal of people have totally closed minds on this subject. But no unprejudiced person who takes the trouble to visit and study that state and meet its dignified and dedicated leaders and people, with their optimism and enthusiasm tempered by realism, and imbued both with the work ethic and strong spirit of liberalism, can fail to be impressed. If only its size and resources were doubled or trebled—the same applies to the Transkei and other viable homelands—many of South Africa's problems might be solved. Here, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has gone to the heart of the matter.
Descending from such weighty and far-reaching matters to the Group Areas Act, yes of course in theory it ought to be abolished. But repeal should begin with new housing developments and with existing areas that are relatively affluent. One horror that South Africa has been spared is race riots. I was a schoolboy in America in 1944. I well remember the terrible race riots in Detroit in that year when 34 people, 90 per cent. of them black, were stabbed or beaten to death with baseball bats in broad daylight. This is what can happen if you try to force the pace in working class areas where people have to live cheek by jowl. I need hardly remind the House that similar communal riots took place in Algeria and Cyprus in the late 1950s and early 1960s, in Malaysia in the late 1960's, in Sri Lanka in the 1980's and in Lebanon and the Indian sub-continent almost all the time. For heaven's sake, let us not introduce one more problem to those already existing in South Africa.
The main demand now, however thinly disguised, appears to be one man one vote in a unitary state. This seems to most whites—not only governments supporters—to typify the way in which the outside world is always moving the goal posts while never giving credit for the substantial changes already
1226
achieved. More importantly, as the South African ambassador said the other day, it is effectively asking whites to commit cultural and political suicide. We must remember that there are many more white South Africans than there are either Norwegians or more pertinently, Israelis, with whom other noble Lords have compared the South Africans. They have been in South Africa on average for as long as Americans have been in the United States and much longer than white Australians have been in Australia, although, unlike the Americans and Australians they did not virtually exterminate the indigenous population.
What would threaten their survival in a unitary state is the appalling population explosion of which I spoke earlier. This does not affect only whites. A respected moderate black has said—if I remember his words correctly—"The sound we have to fear is not the rumble of Russian tanks but the patter of tiny feet." In that beautiful country, Swaziland, the population is expected to rise by no fewer than five times in 45 years. But with far too many people chasing far too few jobs in the age of the microchip, electoral pressures will see to it that most of the jobs going will be reserved for the majority, whatever the good intentions of black leaders may be; and I do not doubt the sincerity of those intentions. In a unitary state, white doctors, architects, chartered accountants, airline pilots and so on will probably be all right in the short to medium term, although I am not at all sure about their children, still less their grandchildren. In contrast, prospects for white railwaymen, taxidrivers, plumbers, electricians, bank clerks, shop assistants, and so on, would not be at all good; and this second group outnumbers the first. I doubt whether there would ultimately be room for more than one million to one and a half million out of the 4.8 million Europeans currently in South Africa; nor would the Indians fare all that well.
Apart from jobs, there is also the security aspect. On the African continent one can have a fine independent judiciary and a superbly drawn Bill of Rights. But as both South Africa and Zimbabawe among others demonstrate when it comes to the crunch the only thing that matters is who controls the army and police force. South Africa's problems have never been simple ones and no simplistic solution is likely to work. A federal or cantonal solution cannot be entirely easy to achieve; but some scheme along these lines would offer the best hope of security for all varying linguistic and cultural groups, and not merely the Asians and Europeans. All external pressures and promptings should be directed towards that end, which at least offers a lifeline, rather than forcing the minorities into a corner with potentially disastrous results.
4.17 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, being possibly one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who was born and lived in South Africa for the first thirteen years of my life prior to the present Nationalist Party coming to power in 1948, it has remained one of my interests in life to follow the historical, political and economic development of that country. As has been put forward by far more experienced Members of your Lordships' House than me this afternoon the past history of South Africa reflects very much of what is happening today in that

1227
beautiful and unhappy country. As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, pointed out in his speech, we have to go back as far as the Act creating the Union of South Africa in 1910 and the aftermath of the Boer War to see the seeds of apartheid being sown.
Even before the last war substantial British and Jewish interests in South Africa were directed towards investment and creation of wealth in South Africa's vast natural resources. The less attractive jobs of governing the country in the lower echelons of the Civil Service and communications were left to the Afrikaner people—the so-called white tribe of Africa—with nowhere else to go. Unfortunately I am unable to go along with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, of dividing the country along racial lines and boundaries. Indeed, if that was his suggestion, then he has got it entirely the wrong way round. If the extreme right-wing Afrikaner element gained control in South Africa it is much more likely that it would create the old white Boer republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.
I believe even at this late hour that a negotiated settlement can be achieved and I therefore support Her Majesty's Government and the right honourable and learned Secretary of State in his endeavours. The alternative suggestion of sanctions will not work—it will work far less than it did in Rhodesia. It will only lead to further hardship and unemployment among the blacks. Anyone who knows the Afrikaner people will know that if they are put under any form of external pressure they will fight that resolve to the end, taking the rest of southern Africa with them.
In conclusion, the sad reality is that the South African Government should have got the message that apartheid would not work after the Sharpeville shootings of 25 years ago. The gradual dismantling of that obnoxious system should have started then and not now. However, it is still not too late, but the political initiative must come from within South Africa and not from outside, pressue which will only lead to a retreat into the laager, the closing of the opposing ranks, followed by a bloodbath.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing mild dismay at the increasing recurrence of occasions upon which it is required that noble Lords should deploy arguments on matters of extremely profound international importance in the space of five to seven minutes. That seems to me to be an unreason-able demand to place upon Members who often have deep knowledge of the subject under consideration. I ask the usual channels to pool their undoubted wisdom to see whether we can avoid these occasions in the future.
I should like to offer my congratulations to both the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and to the noble Lord, Lord Barber, for their admirable speeches at the beginning of this debate. I thought that the noble Baroness set out the Government's policy clearly and persuasively and that Lord Barber's account of his visit and of the report of the Eminent Persons Group was succinct and admirably clear to everyone who listened to him. However, I should like to take them both
1228
gently to task in that in the course of their speeches they both referred to Nelson Mandela as a political prisoner. Nelson Mandela was tried in a court of law. He pleaded guilty to several crimes of subversive violence and was convicted and imprisoned upon those charges. If words are to be used carefully, Nelson Mandela is no more a political prisoner than the man who planted the bomb in the Grand Hotel in Brighton.
I should also like to express my sense of dismay at some of the resoundingly pious advice and sentiments that are handed down to us on the basis of what seems to me to be at the very least uncertain knowledge. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham is not in his place, because I should have liked to point out to him that if he really believes that coloureds and Indians in South Africa have no parliamentary representation, he has been gravely misinformed. Since the tri-cameral parliament was set up in 1983, coloureds and Indians have had full representations in their own assemblies. Indeed, there are two coloureds and one Indian who are members of the South African Cabinet. It is extremely brave of the right reverend Prelate to offer us his prescriptions for a solution in South Africa based on what seems to be a somewhat precarious grasp of the situation there.
There has been much talk about ending violence in South Africa. I suggest that some of it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of revolutionary violence and its causes and some of its inevitable consequences. A great deal has been made of the enlightened liberalism—if I may use the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos—of Nelson Mandela, of his wife, and of Mr. Oliver Tambo. Visiting politicians are seen embracing these distinguished figures. Mr. Oliver Tambo has been received by a Foreign Office Minister. The Eminent Persons Group speaks admiringly of Mr. Mandela, and furthermore comments sorrowfully on the fact that the ANC has been apparently wrongfully accused of communist associations. Noble Lords in your Lordships' House today have repeated that horrified disclaimer.
Let us look at some of the facts. Everyone who knows anything about South African history knows that when the ANC was founded in 1912 it was founded by moderate, mission-educated black South Africans, but the present ANC is a different organisation from that. In the 1950s it established its known close links with the South African Communist Party. In 1961 it founded the Umkhonto Wi Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), a militant organisation openly dedicated to the overthrow of the South African regime by subversive violence. It is the military arm of the ANC. It concocted the infamous Operation Mayibuye, the blue-print for the violent destruction of the South African political system.
No, my Lords, the ANC is no longer a reformist, moderate organisation of mission-educated black South Africans. It is an organisation dedicated to the violent overthrow of the regime in which it lives—rightly or wrongly is an argument we can usefully have, but the ANC is dedicated to the overthrow by violence of the regime.
In a recent article in, significantly enough, the World Marxist Review, Oliver Tambo himself wrote of the ANC's plan:

1229
"for the seizure of power in South Africa by the oppressed masses; to take our country to the terrible but cleansing fires of revolutionary war."
This does not sound much to me like the solidly-based, middle-class Tambo leadership which seems to be reflected in the popular perception.
What about Mrs. Winnie Mandela herself? She was recently seen smiling and giving the clenched-fist salute to the television cameras while she said, "Together, hand in hand, with out matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country". I wonder how many people in this country understand the terrible meaning behind those words? Do they know of the summer Saturday afternoon in 1985 when, at the funeral of two young ANC members who had been blown up preparing a bomb, one of the ANC people present pointed a finger at a young woman in the crowd, hitherto quite undistinguished, and accused her with one word of being an informer.
Immediately she was set upon, beaten, petrol was poured over her and she was set alight. As she stood there trying to keep her burning clothes around her body she was beaten to the ground. As she lay there she was kicked repeatedly in the head by the comrades; kicked as grown men would kick at a football. She then had a large rock, which it took two men to lift, smashed repeatedly into her chest while the cheering crowd cried, "Long live Mandela". Is this, my Lords, the enlightened liberalism that we are being asked to admire?
The nature of violence in South Africa is deep and profound. It is not only, as some might like to suggest, police violence. What are the causes of that violence? Is it national liberation, purely and simply? Is it the outcry of oppressed masses for freedom? Is it totally without any communist penetration, or any Marxist element?
Again, let us have a look at some facts. The ANC has the closest possible links with the South African Communist Party. This is not something that I have made up. Here is the cover of the magazine, The South African Communist, a recent issue of it, with pictures of the leaders of the two parties and underneath "Long Live the ANC/SACP Alliance". In 1985, last year, a national executive of 30 members was chosen for the ANC. The list is readily available for anyone to read, and if anyone reads it they will find that of those 30 members, 23 are either members or active supporters of the South African Communist Party.
"So what?" some people may say. "The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in this country makes common cause with the communists in its pursuit of nuclear disarmament. What is wrong with that?" Let us look a little further. Members of the ANC, its militant arm, and other revolutionary organisations in South Africa are regularly trained in terrorist training camps in Libya. They also have camps in Angola and Tanzania where they are trained, armed and equipped by the Soviet Union and East Germany. More promising cadets of the ANC go for advanced courses in the Soviet Union itself at training camps there.
I am not trying to suggest that everything that happens in South Africa is a communist plot but it will be, and is being, exploited by the enemies of the West, and if the situation descends into anarchy—and sanctions will certainly help that to come about—there
1230
will be an economic wasteland in South Africa in which the South African Communist Party and the forces of international Marxism will come into their long-awaited inheritance. I think there should now be a moratorium in the current uproar, in the current outcry for comprehensive sanctions for one-man, one-vote, for "Release Mandela unconditionally!" Let us have instead a period of imaginative and intelligent statesmanship. That means talking, but talking not only to Bishop Tutu but to Bishop Mokoena, as well. It may come as a surprise to some noble Lords to know that he has more followers in his Christian congregation in South Africa than Bishop Tutu.
We must not only talk to Mr. Mandela and Mr. Oliver Tambo but also to Gatsha Buthelezi who has a great following not only among the Inkatha in Zululand but in the townships as well, as anyone who knows South Africa will confirm. It means ridding our minds of the foolish belief that any "measures" so-called (in inverted commas) taken by us or by the Commonwealth or by anyone else will have any miraculous or advantageous effect on the development of South Africa.
Apartheid will end. It will end because it is cruel; it is unnatural and it is obsolete. But in my view the Government are right, and I hope they will continue to be right, in withstanding the clamour in the Commonwealth, the EC, the BBC, the anti-apartheid movement and all the other progressive standard bearers whose unremitting campaign against the Government of South Africa, much of it mounted (as has already been said) through domestic political considerations; because if that campaign continues it is going to do irreparable damage not only to the interests of the West and the free world as a whole, not only to the interests of this country and the countries of black Africa, but, most important of all, to the long-suffering people, white and black, of South Africa.
4.34 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, the question before us, as I understand it, is how we persuade the South African Government to dismantle apartheid and give civil and political rights to all the inhabitants of that great country. I should like to refer first to some underlying and less obvious problems. The first is the lack of education among blacks, which I believe has been touched on; but there is also the lack of housing and lack of equality of health care for blacks. This has stifled desperately the maturing of black leaders, and particularly the educated and moderate black leaders that that country so much needs.
Secondly, I should like to touch on what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred to, which is the theological justification of apartheid by the Dutch Reformed Church. It is a relatively recent step, but this theological basis for the political doctrine makes it very difficult to root the thought of it out of the Afrikaner mind; and I will refer to that again in a moment.
Fear has also been mentioned during the debate—fear largely because of the ignorance of one race of the other. This is where apartheid has succeeded so much in the separation of people, and now this ignorance has caused fear. Fear, as we all know, is a very powerful and dangerous attitude to have.

1231
I should like to mention also what has been mentioned already by other speakers. A more important question perhaps even than apartheid today is power: who is going to hold power in the future in that country? The position is urgent, and the attitudes of the people of South Africa—not only of the government—need to be changed. There are many groups in South Africa who share the same goals. I was not going to say anything about the ANC, which undoubtedly now accepts violence and has many communists and revolutionaries within its ranks; but in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has just said, perhaps I may read two sentences from a letter which I received from South Africa, by coincidence, yesterday:
"A revolutionary minority in any situation can only make significant headway if there is a widespread, spontaneous dissatisfaction among the people at large. The solution here is not armed repression but the creation of a broadly just, stable and participatory society with which the bulk of the population can be broadly satisfied and in which the seeds of revolution find no ready place to grow."
I believe that is the answer to the ANC problem.
I should like also to refer to the churches. South Africa is a very strongly churchgoing nation, and there is hope there. The National Initiative for Reconciliation, which I believe is a movement of God, bringing repentence and reconciliation for wrong attitudes, is spreading. It is even spreading into the Dutch Reformed Church. I believe that churchgoers in South Africa can play a major role, and I hope that churches in this country and Christians both here and overseas will encourage their opposite numbers in South Africa to change attitudes. Churches have mixed congregations. They are working now in South Africa to change the attitudes of people, and I believe that is fundamental.
Lastly, I should like to turn to the action which I suggest Her Majesty's Government should be taking at the present time. First, they should support and encourage those people who have already been mentioned in this debate, together with others in South Africa, who are working now for peaceful change and reconciliation. We need to support leaders like Chief Buthelezi and his very powerful following. We need to enhance their position both in South Africa and internationally.
Secondly, the Government should provide money for the training and education of blacks. I am very glad that our Government are doing a lot in that respect nowadays; but the more that can be done the better, I believe, for remedying the position in South Africa. The more the social deprivation of the blacks there can be improved, the more likelihood there is of peaceful change coming. I believe the Government can do a lot to encourage businesses, and particularly those which are basically British-owned, to improve the wages and living standards of the blacks they employ. Please, will the Government say that they are doing this, loud and clear, for all the world to hear?
Finally, I should like to refer to what has been referred to many times; that is, negotiation. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war. I do not believe that anybody has yet used that cliché in this debate.
1232
The Foreign Secretary is going out—and I hope that he will be going out this month—to talk to the South African Government before the National Party Congress in early August. That congress will be followed, as has already been said, by the extraordinary session of the South African Parliament, which I believe is due to begin on 18th August. That is intended to legislate for the abolition of the remaining structures of apartheid. What will happen in practice in the light of the current emergency, I do not know. But I believe that this visit of the Foreign Secretary is crucial and, because the South African Government regards so highly the Prime Minister and our Government at this time, there is a chance for him to be able to influence the South African Government. I hope that he will press for the release of political detainees and the repeal of the Act, as has been stated so many times.
I should like to make one final point. I hope that he will press for agreement by the South African Government and the black leaders to the acceptance of a negotiator to talk to all parties and races about civil and political rights for all. There was one man who broke the impasse in Rhodesia because he was respected by and acceptable to all the different leaders in that country, and Zimbabwe came out of it. The United States has tried this role of a negotiator in the Middle East. I believe that if one person could be respected by and acceptable to all those parties, he could bring hope for peace and peaceful change in South Africa. If our right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary can achieve this, I believe that he may go down in history as one of the great Foreign Secretaries of all times.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I feel that the Government leave many of us on this side of the House, and indeed very many eminent people in the great British Commonwealth of Nations, in a state of some quandary, because it seems that this Government look at this international problem with concern showing in one eye and with a form of cunning calculation shining out of the other. Also, I think it is a mistake for people to make comparisons which really are not comparisons. I have in mind something said by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and again later by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Let me deal first with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. All the horrors to which he referred are probably true. They are similar to what happened to white Americans who were loyal to the Crown and who were tarred and feathered by those who now rule the United States of America. We have to understand this. If we deplore what is going on, we have to look at the root cause, and the root cause can be found in one single word—apartheid. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, must understand.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, drew an analogy with the troubles in Northern Ireland. He said that the troubles there are between two forms of Christians— Roman Catholics and Protestants. There may be some truth in that. The complete uselessness of that argument lies in the fact that very many well-known Catholics have changed and become Protestants, and

1233
very many well-known Protestants have changed and become Catholics. I know of no black man who has changed himself into a white man, and that is what we have to try to understand.
We also have to acknowledge very seriously that there are millions of black people in the United States of America, our greatest ally, who can in no way support the government of South Africa. There are millions of black people in our British Commonwealth of Nations who will in no way support the government of South Africa. If this country of ours is to remain, as I hope it will, leader of that great British Commonwealth, I hope it will not have much to do with the policies of either the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, or the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, because—
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in a minute. I just want to say this. If we are not careful, this growing issue will not remain simply with South Africa. It will become a world issue, where black people everywhere will make a judgment, and I do not want them to be scolding or even finding any fault in this nation of ours.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, the noble Lord can of course add on time for stoppages if he wishes. The noble Lord criticises my policies and those of any other noble Lord, but I do not believe that he has the faintest idea of what my policies are. Indeed, I have given no indication of them this afternoon. I have made some descriptive facts available to your Lordships' House. They do not give any reason for the noble Lord to deduce any policies from them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I shall try to explain it in simpler terms. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, moaned about the horrendous and horrific things which are probably happening in South Africa. Those were born, in my judgment, not of hatred for whites by blacks but of hatred for apartheid. This is what I meant when I said that blacks all over the world will find it objectionable.
I believe that the mission of Sir Geoffrey Howe can be either of vital importance or a total dead loss. Therefore I must ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House this question, if he will be gracious enough to consider answering it when he replies to the debate. I hope that he will not make the excuse and take shelter in calling it a hypothetical question. If Sir Geoffrey Howe's mission to South Africa is a failure, what do the Government then intend to do? Ought they not to strengthen his arm against the very tough people with whom they will be negotiating?
While it is a virtue to forgive wrongs done to oneself, to make excuses for lack of action in real condemnation of wrongs done to others is a poverty of the spirit. I hope that that will not be the spirit of this nation when we have to face up to the facts.
Lastly, let us be determined that, if in the ultimate economic measures are required and are approved by the British Commonwealth of Nations, we will have the courage to inflict them—and that is the correct word. They have to be a real infliction. Just as very many people in Europe from 1940 to 1945 knew the
1234
terrors of being bombed by the Royal Air Force, they did not mind and were prepared to put up with it. That was the sort of guts that destroyed Nazism. I happen to believe that you will find that sort of courage among black people. I do not believe that either political or physical courage is the preserve of white folk. This is what I would ask your Lordships' House to consider.
Should the endeavours of our British Foreign Secretary fail, I hope that we shall not shirk our duty—because we shall then have to believe and understand this: silent pain and humiliation evoke no response, but there will be no silence in what will happen then and there will be a great deal of bloodshed and the world will hear the cries of blacks and whites in South Africa. We have to find a way while we can stop that happening. If severe economic pressures are required, I submit to the House that that would be much better than the possible carnage that will happen if we do not have the courage to act and to lead.
4.48 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I shall keep within the new rule of seven minutes. First of all, I should like to say—and I hope this makes the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, happy—that I did "tick off" the right reverend Prelate for saying that the coloured and the Indians have no say at all in the government of South Africa. Of course, as the noble Lord says, they are well represented. I thought I would tell him that because it might make him happier.
I know black Africa but not South Africa. I have been in Africa a few times. I was rather appalled by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, when he said that we had not helped our former colonies in Africa at all. That was a most amazing thing to say, because as everybody knows we poured in hundreds of millions of pounds; but, unfortunately, as I think most of us knew would happen, after they were given their freedom then "one man, one vote" vanished. One cannot blame them for that because, although human life started in Africa before anywhere else for tens of thousands of years they had their tribal chiefs and their kings. For an African to have a democracy, the opposition has to be destroyed. Democracy to an African is quite meaningless; but I shall not go on about that.
I should like to say a word or two about Mr. Healey and what he is reported to have said in the newspapers—not what he said in Parliament, because he cannot answer here. I was rather angry that he said the Prime Minister was showing (I think he almost said) cruelty, and that she was indifferent to the sufferings of the Africans in South Africa. He made a few other remarks in that vein. I suggest to Mr. Healey that he should visit other parts of Africa, and even some of our former colonies, which were so beautifully administered, and should see the poverty and the agony of the Africans in those countries. He might then change his mind.
I have read the salient parts of the report by the Eminent Persons Group. (That is a funny name for a group, but I am sure they are all very eminent!) With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Barber—and I do not hold anything against him—the report seems rather one-sided. The group do not appear to have had many conversations with the African chiefs and other

1235
such leaders. They appear to have concentrated rather more on the African leaders who are on the Left. I should like to make that point. I do not believe that the solution the group arrived at is the best one.
I have been told by many people that the ANC does not represent the whole of Africa and does not represent the majority of Africans in South Africa. My father, who knew South Africa well, had a great regard for the Zulus. He thought they were a fine race of people. The ANC, of course, is within the Russian orbit and presumably receives funds from Russia. I am told—this may be quite untrue—that some of our aid to Africa is sidetracked and goes to the ANC. I have also heard—although I do not believe it—that the World Council of Churches also sends money to the ANC. I sincerely hope not.
I am completely behind the Prime Minister in saying that, for heaven's sake, we must not impose sanctions. I would far rather see us investing more money in South Africa, because at the moment South Africa is experiencing a recession. I am told that every week 800 Africans become unemployed. If we impose stiff sanctions in those circumstances there will certainly be the most appalling unemployment and unrest. A great number of the Africans will have to go to Lesotho, or somewhere. Sanctions would be a disastrous policy and there might then be bloodshed.
What surprises me is that if South Africa is such a hell, why do tens of thousands of Africans always want to go there? Presumably it is for the higher standard of living.
I think that we ought to help South Africa with more investment. There are such organisations as the Urban Foundation, which is a South African foundation which costs £500 million a year and the object of which is to foster African community relations. That is what we ought to be encouraging. We ought not to put on sanctions and cripple their economy. I think I have already spoken for six minutes, so I shall shortly sit down. However, I hope that whatever happens severe sanctions are not imposed on South Africa because if the South African economy collapses, heaven knows what will happen.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I do not think there is any point in talking about the evils of South Africa and its present regime. Everyone on all sides of the House understands and agrees on that. However, before this debate ends we should mention something about the influence of the private sector. Although many improvements have taken place in the status of black South Africans, they are not appearing quickly enough to satisfy everyone.
When I first started to make my regular visits to South Africa in the late 1950s, the bank of which I was then a director had virtually no blacks in the higher echelons of employment. Their jobs were confined to such work as that done by cleaners, lift attendants, drivers, and so on. In fact, I think it was illegal to employ them on almost any other work. Today—and I mean today—that bank has 103 black men and women who are in executive positions in the bank, and the plan is to have at least 400 in the next three or four
1236
years. There are 30 full branch managers; and (which is very significant indeed) the chief executive has a black personal assistant.
I have no hesitation in saying that British firms in South Africa—I must say mainly recently—have done as much as is humanly and legally possible to help break down the barriers between black and white, and they have frequently stretched the law to achieve this end. I believe that the change may well come through pressure from those in the private sector who have already made contact with Oliver Tambo and who are getting exasperated by the slow pace of political change. I believe that we must pay attention to what Helen Suzman has said recently. She, if anybody, knows South Africa and really understands the true situation. She was recently in America and I should like to read to your Lorships one small extract from a speech she made on 12th May:
"Let me say at once that if I believed that sanctions and disinvestment would lead to a rapid demise of apartheid, the downfall of the present regime in Pretoria, and its replacement by a non-racial democratic government, I would be wholeheartedly in favour of punitive action. I have, after all, spent my entire political life working for those objectives, and let me also say that I understand the moral imperative that encourages sanctions and divestment campaigns—the 'clean hands' syndrome. Withdrawal, however, does also mean the end of whatever influence would be exerted, either through the example of fair employment practices, or the exercise of sound responsibility. I must say I am more impressed by Mobil's 40 million rand endowment fund to black education and Coca Cola's allocation of 20 million rand for special projects than by companies leaving in their trail desperate breadwinners without jobs".
My whole point is that sanctions are completely non-selective. They are not imposed by those in power and they hit 24 million people, who, if sanctions work, would face starvation and a precarious existence in a shattered economy.
Finally, will sanctions work? Harold Wilson's naive statement that the Rhodesian sanctions would take weeks and not months, is to my mind not a very good augury for what might happen in South Africa. During the many years that I have visited South Africa, I have seen the preparations being made for just such a threat. I saw the first sods being turned to create the town of Sasolburg and the enormous plant converting coal to oil. I watched the growth and build-up of the arms industry, the motor car industry and so forth, with the clear intention of the South African economy becoming self-contained.
Unless all the world joins the sanctions procedure faithfully, what South Africa has not got will come in somewhere along its thousands of miles of coastline. If sanctions failed, as in my view they surely would, all that we shall have done is to shoot ourselves in the foot, losing not only our trade, but any influence that we now have, as described by Helen Suzman, in moving South Africa along in the right direction. And who of those who support sanctions will state when we remove them—when all the whites are dead, when revolution and slaughter have made the country ungovernable? My time is up. Let us be sensible and practical and support Her Majesty's Government in their attempts to bring about peaceful change.
5 p.m.
Lord Soames: My Lords, in the brief time which I understand that the usual channels wish to be taken by

1237
any speaker there is only one topic that I can touch upon in any depth. I begin by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for the quotation from Helen Suzman. It is exactly what so many of us in this country believe. If we thought that sanctions were the answer to the problem, that they would cure apartheid and bring about the regime that we should all like to see in South Africa, who would be against them? But there is a genuine doubt.
What worries me is why so many people, in spite of everything that has gone before in history, continue to put their faith in sanctions. Why do so many people say that we should impose sanctions? I think that there are two basic reasons. The first is a feeling of frustration. We all equally hate apartheid. People ask what we can do against it. They feel that it is not enough to talk about it and that something should be done. They seem to think that sanctions are the answer.
The other factor is a political one. There is a lack of understanding about sanctions and what they can bring, and it suits the Opposition—and I am not referring to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—to say that if one is against apartheid one must be in favour of sanctions, and if you are not in favour of sanctions that means that in your heart of hearts you are in favour of apartheid. There is some of that feeling in the country. The situation is too serious to play a political game with it.
A study of history shows that sanctions have never worked. No noble Lord has given an example during the debate, and neither was there an example when I read the debate in another place, of where it has worked on any occasion, beginning with Abyssinia and Italy in the middle 1930s.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords—
Lord Soames: No, I am sorry, my Lords, I shall not give way. I have been held to five minutes. Sanctions have not worked and no one has quoted an instance where they have.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said that sanctions had a good deal to do with the ending of the war in Zimbabwe. I was there. An enormous effort was made by the world, and I am not saying that that had no effect at all, but it was minimal compared with what the war was doing. For every white man killed, five more left the country; for every black man killed, 10 more came into the country. It was concateny of circumstance which brought about the Lancaster House agreement and from then on, luckily enough, we sailed through. It was not sanctions, and anyone who says that sanctions played a major part in turning Rhodesia into Zimbabwe does not know what he is talking about.
Those who, regardless of history, ignore that and still say that they want to see sanctions imposed must ask themselves three questions. First, what sort of sanctions do they want to put on and in what areas? Those of us who read foreign newspapers see that one country says, "We will not buy any chrome from South Africa". Then we find that they do not need any chrome. Other countries say, "Let us stop airlines flying into Johannesburg". Others will do it. Others
1238
say, "Do not let us sell them this, that or the other". Others will do it. That is what happend in Zimbabwe.
When I arrived in Zimbabwe before Christmas 1979, the place was full of European cars coming from a number of countries. There was a great deal of oil and everything else. If sanctions are to be imposed they must be made effective. To make them effective, everyone must agree on what they are going to do and stick by it. There must be no cheating. As far as I am aware that has not happened in history.
The next question that they should ask is: what is the objective of sanctions? When would they take them off if they put them on? Is the objective to bring about the ending of apartheid?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, of course it is.
Lord Soames: My Lords, the noble Lord may say "of course it is," but there is a great difference of opinion as to what constitutes the end of apartheid. Is it just the cancelling of legislation such as, for instance, the Group Areas Act? That is part of the legislation which adds up to apartheid. Does it go further? Does it go into the custom which has been built up over the years? How does one measure the end of apartheid? It is not easy. I do not think that it is enough, anyway. We might start off with that, but that is not enough. It is not what the people who say, "Put on sanctions" have in mind. Do they have in mind power sharing? Do they have in mind a central, federal or unitary government which would be largely black and white, all sharing power and taking it for granted that there will be proportions which vary from time to time after elections in the sense that we know the democratic system in this country? No, that will not be brought about easily. Is it one man, one vote, in a unitary state, in other words, a black government? My noble friend Lord Murton, asked the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, at the end of her interesting speech, why it was that as the democratic system as we know it has not worked in any other African country, she thought that it would work in South Africa. I do not think that she found it all that easy to answer. She said that the fact that it has not worked very well anywhere else does not mean that we should not try it in South Africa.
Why has it not worked elsewhere? For what it is worth, I shall tell your Lordships what I am convinced is the reason. It is because one cannot superimpose upon an endemic tribal system and custom a democratic form of government as we know it. The two do not go together. There is either the one or the other. I see that going on in Zimbabwe today. It is six years since Mr. Mugabe came into power. I think that, given all the difficulties, he has done pretty well since then. His main problem has been, in effect, a tribal problem. He and Nkomo have been trying for six years to reach an accord; but they have not been able to reach it. This is why in every African state you tend to get a one party system. They cannot bring the tribes together. So they say, "Let's have a one party state". In South Africa, there are not two tribes, as in Zimbabwe. There are about eight major tribes. It may well be that my noble friend Lord Barber was told by Chief Buthelezi that he was perfectly prepared to serve under Nelson Mandela provided Nelson Mandela was elected. I wonder who he had in mind was going to elect Nelson Mandela.

1239
This is a very complicated subject. I would not be able to confront it even had I applied my mind to it from the start of my speech, let alone after 10 minutes. I would simply say to your Lordships: "Please, let's look at this seriously. Don't let's go round with phrases that fall so easily off the lips. Let's think of what responsibilities we have as Britain, and also what contributions the British Government and people could make to the future of South Africa". I do not believe for one second that this would be helped along by mandatory sanctions covering a broad area in the sense that most people mean by that.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I shall try to stick within all the limits that have been suggested. I believe that this has been an unusually good debate, certainly better than the one that we had on the same subject two months ago. The whole House will have been particu-arly struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, in which, by quietly informing us of the details of certain comings and goings, he was able greatly to increase our understanding of the reality in South Africa.
It is hard to accept defeat. But if you do accept it, you can survive. If you fight and fight and fight, you will not be there to accept it. You will have lost not only your political position but your political existence. It is the dilemma of the South African Government to come to understand that, despite all the history and despite all the mutual ignorance between the races.
For the South African majority who have for so long been political prisoners in their own land, we outside now have to move from general sympathy to something more active. But what? What is the aim, and whose is the aim? The aim is clearly no longer simply an end to apartheid. It has to be the accession of the majority to political power. It is their aim, not ours. We can only lend support or not, since we have no authority. So, what support?
At one extreme, we could arm them as President Reagan arms the Unita rebels in Angola. But the South African arms industry and armed forces are powerful. In claiming that the United States raid on Libya was a lawful exercise of the inherent right of self-defence, our own Government gave advance license to South African strikes into neighbouring countries, a license which they forthwith used, specifically claiming that precedent in justification. At least we could refrain from that sort of statement.
At the other extreme, the minimum, the banning of direct flights, has its attractions. There are 11 European countries with direct flights. So it is already getting quite a weighty operation if one contemplates co-ordination. Somewhere in between there is the stopping of new investment. This is already decreasing for obvious reasons. Disinvestment is happening without political compulsion, although not fast. Perhaps we should formalise those two. The more they are happening without compulsion, the easier it will be to formalise them. Beyond these, there are vast
1240
numbers of alternatives that go under the general name of trade sactions, general financial sanctions, exchanges, and so on, up to the out-and-out form now favoured by the United States House of Representatives.
Full sanctions against South Africa itself would indeed be a different matter from the sanctions against Rhodesia. South Africa has already threatened to counter-blockade its neighbours. Moreover, South Africa is not only a powerful military country. It also has, most informed people believe, a primitive nuclear weapons capability. Given that race conflict was always the main national preoccupation of the Afrikaners, what had they in mind in getting this capability? Is it absolutely unthinkable that they might threaten to bomb the ports through which world aid would be seeking to reach the distressed front-line states in an advanced blockade? They would not have to do that with nuclear weapons. That is the essence of the existence of nuclear weapons; they add weight to conventional ones.
Would any sanctions logically lead to "war"? If they were carefully and realistically conducted, clearly not. But the more "realistic" they are in military terms the less will their economic impact be. This does not mean that it would be wrong to impose them. All right, actions have disadvantages, and they are quite dangerous sometimes. The main impact of sanctions has to be political and psychological. We are expressing solidarity. We cannot directly impose any solution.
As to the effect on us, the argument is clearer. If it is right to impose sanctions to help a part of suffering humanity for whose past history we have had much responsibility, we must be prepared to put up with inconvenience. As to the increasingly talked of hundreds of thousands of dual-nationality white South Africans who might be free to come and live here if they had to, can anyone really think that they are more likely to have to if there is a transfer of power soon, rather than if that transfer happens only after 10 years or so of Vietnam-style war? Mr. Malcolm Fraser in his utterances in London recently has been extremely clear about this.
For all these reasons I am very much attracted to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Crawshaw of the graduated list of measures, starting with the smallest that one can think of, and finishing open-ended but with increasing gravity. This could then be shown—I shall come in a moment to the question, by whom—to the South African Government saying, "In order to concentrate your minds on the reality of your situation, here is what will happen to you. Until you transfer power we shall give you due warning of each step".
These would be economic meaures; some form of sanctions. To be of any use, by definition they have to be agreed in the European Community. Here I join with others—I think that the House is unanimous—in wishing Sir Geoffrey Howe well on his mission. I would go further than that and salute a considerable achievement in getting himself sent by the European Community. It may be that at the end of the day the summer of 1986 will be remembered not for any impact on the South African situation but as quite a large step in the process of constructing a Community

1241
foreign policy, and actively doing something about it unanimously—even if the "it" in question is not very dramatic. I think it is most likely that he will come back empty handed; I am almost sure he will. But it is quite unusual that he should have got there at all with that mandate of twelve nations behind him. These measures will also have to be agreed with the Commonwealth for familiar reasons, and the more advanced the measures become, the more it will be necessary for there to be agreement with the United States and Japan. This is a tall order. But it is later than we think; and, when that is the case, tall orders are in order.
Several noble Lords have mentioned partition and reflected gloomily on the experience of India, Sri Lanka and other countries. I should like to end on a more optimistic note. When I was quite young it was fashionable to talk about the coming partition of the United States into a black south-eastern part and a white north-eastern part, with some different kind of regime for the West Coast. There was quite a lot of serious talk about that. It is all forgotten now, for the very good reason that the United States settled the matter in another way. They settled it by tackling it head on, peacefully, between the races and by abolishing the unjustices which were there until the late 1950s and early 1960s. They now have an integrated society in all corners.
If that can be done in the highly-industrialised, mineral-rich United States, why on earth should it not be done in highly industrialised, mineral-rich South Africa? Let us hope that it does not take as long in South Africa as it took from the Civil War in America to integration. It is a smaller country, and modern communications are better. If the Boers could once be induced to look outwards, they would see a great ray of historical and hopeful precedent across the Atlantic.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, we have been debating one of the most momentous matters of our time, and a wealth of experience and knowledge have been displayed in our debate. We all agree that urgent action needs to be taken to bring about change in South Africa. Most of us agree on what that change must eventually inevitably be. The great problem upon which we do not all agree is how to bring it about and how long it should take.
One matter is self-evident, and we should not lose sight of it: South Africa is a sovereign country. That being so, short of armed intervention—which I assume none of us contemplates—change cannot be imposed from outside. Therefore, our role can only be to persuade or to try to persuade South Africa to change. That means that we can seek to persuade through argument or action (using sanctions and other pressures) or a combination of the two.
In the interests of brevity, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if, without disrespect, I say that I do not propose to refer to more than a very few of the speeches that have been made today. I am bound to say that I begin from the position of one who at most is always highly sceptical about the efficacy of sanctions and would use them only as a last resort.
1242
Many noble Lords throughout this debate have expressed their total opposition to sanctions in any circumstances.
We have heard, too, from the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, who brought valuable experience to this debate. We know the arguments against sanctions: they are never likely to be wholly effective; they are likely to damage the disadvantaged in the country concerned; they are likely to damage the country imposing the sanctions and especially particular groups of people, possibly putting them out of work. Let us not shrink from saying that there will be violations of the sanctions policy by countries supposed to be participating in them. We know full well from our own experience with Rhodesia—now Zimbabwe—that some of those who were most vocal in the demand for sanctions were not too scrupulous when it came to serving their own economic interests. Can we be sure that that will not happen again?
Therefore, I am not among those predisposed to rush in with sanctions. So, short of sanctions, what are we left with? It is argument and persuasion. How far will that get us? Let me say straightaway that even sanctions, effective measures or selected sanctions would take time to organise further. On that ground alone the mission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is worth trying. However, I would go further. It is worth trying for its own sake. If he were to succeed, if it were no longer necessary to contemplate sanctions, we would all be delighted—or I hope that we would be.
Therefore, I hope that his powers of persuasion and negotiation will prove as successful as those of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as regards Zimbabwe. But are they likely to succeed? What is the record of the South African Government on negotiations? How ready have they shown themselves to carry things forward with all possible speed?
It is true that South Africa, as has been said today, has brought in reforms and is bringing in more. But can we rely on it to push ahead with more, through negotiations? I shall cite one example. We all know about the time spent trying to get South Africa to bring independence to Namibia. We all know the time spent by the contact group of the Western Nations— Canada, France, West Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom—trying to get South Africa to act. Yet that group was set up in 1977 and prepared for the United Nations Security Council Resolution 435, passed in 1978, providing for United Nations supervised elections and independence, and South Africa helped to draw up that resolution and agreed it. The whole process was to be completed within seven months. That group was said to have particular influence on South Africa. It seems, alas, as we know, now moribund. We still do not have independence. We have been strung along by South Africa.
Let me take one other more topical example. The experience of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group. Anyone who has read its report knows what care it took. The group itself was made up of distinguished, respected and broadly representative people, and how privileged we have been to have one of its members, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, in our debate today. May I say that he has made a sacrifice by being here today, and we wish him a very happy birthday. His was indeed an illuminating speech.

1243
I cite just one of the group's experiences, and although the noble Lord, Lord Barber, has mentioned this, I want to spell it out as it shows, I think, the character of the South African Government. It drew up its possible negotiating concept as a basis for getting negotiations started. It knew that a precondition would be a cessation of violence. Included in the text was a proposal for the suspension of violence, and it took the view, wisely, that it was unrealistic to expect the ANC to renounce violence for all time, for it was neither possible nor reasonable to have people forswear the only power available to them should the Government walk away from the negotiating table. That was what the report said.
The Group drew the phrase from the Commonwealth Accord at Nassau which referred to a,
"suspension of violence on all sides".
A letter from President Botha dated 24th December last year to the group, and agreeing to its visit, said:
"I agree that a suspension of violence is a requirement for dialogue".
On 24th April this year, in a letter from Foreign Minister Pik Botha, the group again received acceptance by the South African Government of the term:
"suspension of violence as a basis for carrying forward the discussions aimed at negotiations".
Then on 15th May President Botha gave an address in which, according to the group's report, there was an emphasis on the need for the rejection and renunciation of violence which,
"suggested a return by the Government to its original position".
In other words, that it no longer accepted a suspension of violence as being sufficient to get negotiations going but required a renunciation of violence for all time. Subsequent exchanges outlined in the report showed this to be the Government's position. Accordingly, partly for that reason and in the absence of a positive response from the South African Government to the group's concept as a whole, the group felt unable to continue its work.
As we found with Namibia and the Western Contact Group, so we found with the Eminent Persons Group. The South African Government is a most powerful practitioner in prevarication. That is the nature of the people we are dealing with. My noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham referred to the frustrations we have suffered.
It is not possible to refer to the experience of the Eminent Persons Group and its report without referring to what they said about violence in South Africa. My noble friend Lord Brockway is among those who mentioned that today. It gives many examples of violence while the group were there. This is one:
"… we were deeply moved by the account given us by one local resident. Fearing his son might be dead, he had gone to look for him in a hospital morgue. The first body he saw was that of his son, shot several times. Steeling himself from his personal grief, he determined to see how many other bodies there were there and so pretended not to recognise his son. In all, he told us, he counted in excess of 40 bodies, all of them victims of gunshot wounds, in one morgue alone".
1244
The group acknowledges the clearly enormous task of the police in having to "try to maintain law and order in an atmosphere seething with discontent, distrust and hostility". But it points out that, as evidence to the Kannemeyer Commission last year makes plain:
"When confronted with an illegal gathering…, the police respond with a degree of force wholly out of line with that either required by the circumstances or permitted by law".
And later, the group says:
"The Minister of Law and Order maintained in discussions with us that the police invariably act responsibly, with restraint and within the law. The evidence, however, (says the report) suggests otherwise".
Another glimpse, my Lords, of the nature of the people we are dealing with. There has been violence on both sides, by white vigilantes and by black vigilantes on other blacks. Only yesterday bombings were again condemned by Bishop Desmond Tutu, we heard.
And then there was that other happening while the group was there: the South African raids on Harare, Lusaka and Gabarone, to which the noble Lord, Lord Barber, among others, has referred. Does the South African Government really want a settlement? It is not surprising in the light of all this that the group came to the conclusions that it did: that it found itself driven inexorably and inevitably to the conclusion that effective economic measures were now the inescapable alternative. And so it said:
"That question in front of Heads of Government is in our view clear. It is not whether such measures will compel change; it is already the case that their absence and Pretoria's belief that they need not be feared, defers change. Is the Commonwealth to "stand by" and allow the cycle of violence to spiral? Or, will it take concerted action of an effective kind? Such action may offer the last opportunity to avert what could be the worst bloodbath since the Second World War".
We look forward now to hearing what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has to tell us, especially about his right honourable and learned friend's mission. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn, in his incisive analysis of the situation, posed a number of questions. I would also ask the noble Viscount whether Sir Geoffrey will seek to get the South African Government to accept that a suspension of violence will enable it to agree to negotiate—and I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, used the phrase, "suspension of violence" in her speech—and to get it to spell out what exactly it (the South African Government) means by power sharing in its plans for constitutional reform. For this is the key to success.
Apartheid must be dismantled. That is clear enough. But the need now is for much more: the need is for all adults to share on a comparable basis in the government of their country—and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, dealt with this in her compelling speech. I would ask this final question of the noble Viscount: Will the Government be seeking a clear commitment with a clear timetale—and that is of great importance—over a reasonable period, for reform leading to the total dismantling of apartheid and a new constitutional settlement providing full rights for all? For we want no more prevarication.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will have borne no weightier burden than this. I cannot bring myself to claim to be optimistic. But I hope that all of us who are of genuine good will and who want

1245
that great country to be welcomed back fully into the community of nations will wish him well. I certainly do just that.
5.35 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I am very pleased that it has proved possible for your Lordships to have this debate today. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for having expressed his thanks for this. No one who has listened to the debate could possibly fail to recognise the strength and depth of interest in this subject. As on any subject—and perhaps that poses one of the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred and about which I shall say a word in a moment or two—there are those among your Lordships who speak from positions of great experience and knowledge. Indeed there is no other forum, if I may humbly say so, in our nation today where there are more people with more experience and more knowledge who can speak on many of the subjects that come before us.
That has been shown today. We have been very fortunate to have their contributions. The trouble is that there are so many of them, and our speakers have so much to contribute that really a debate of this length—and I cannot work it out now because I have sat here for so long it has numbed my memory, but certainly it has lasted from half-past eleven to half-past five—is quite a considerable debate. I think that would be felt by everyone. I am afraid that sometimes it has to be said to those who decide that they must go on longer that they will deny others the time that might otherwise have been available to them—because after all we discipline ourselves, my Lords; and that is something which does not happen in other assemblies.
I should also like to say how much I have been struck by the strength of interest in your Lordships' House in South Africa. Listening to the debate—and I think I have heard all but one of the speeches—I am equally struck by the strength of feeling that exists about apartheid. I think it is very important to put on record from your Lordships' House that there has been a universal feeling of repugnance expressed about a system that denies the most basic rights to the majority of its people because of the colour of their skins.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say that I feel that, or that I speak for the whole Government on this, as my noble friend Lady Young made it clear so eloquently earlier today. However, one has to say it sometimes because there are those, I fear, who sometimes for their own party political reasons try to pretend otherwise, so far as Members of the Government are concerned. Perhaps we are too sensitive and perhaps we mind. I do mind accusations of this sort because they are so profoundly untrue, and I always suspect that some of the people who make them know that they are untrue. So one has to say it.
However, one then comes to what is so much more difficult. It has been my experience that it is always easier to define what one does not want than to decide how to eliminate it. If we look at the problems facing us all over the world, there is a great deal of truth in that. It is not surprising, therefore, that there are deep differences among us over the means by which we
1246
might reach our end even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said very fairly in an important speech at the start, we agree profoundly over the ends that we all wish to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have made that clear as well.
My noble friend Lord Onslow referred to the carrot and the stick. I think I must add a third item, which was produced by the noble Lords, Lord Alport and Lord Vernon, which I think, in the same parlance, might be described as "moving the goalposts". The carrot was properly referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and I am grateful to him for what he said about the money the Government are seeking to make available for black education. I thought, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, speaking from very considerable experience, made a most important statement about the activities of British businesses in South Africa. He told us what has been done and what is being done; and that must be on the positive side of the account. Doing things like that—and I hope they can be more greatly encouraged—and what the noble Lord said, should be made known to a much wider audience. I believe it is on the side of what one might describe as the "carrot" and it is very important indeed.
I should refer to changing the goal posts. The history of changing the goal posts in solving the more difficult international problems such as this has not been a good one. I am not suggesting that there are many answers that have been good ones, but changing the goal posts has not been one. During my two years in Northern Ireland, a number of people came to me and saw me, time and time again, with a new map about changing the goal posts yet again in Northern Ireland. The final conclusion to which I came—and I do not think this is a provocative statement about that problem—was that changing the goal posts in the past has certainly not solved the problem, and nothing that I see now makes it at all likely that changing the goal posts would do so. I doubt whether the proposals put forward would work, but of course we are all in such difficulty that it is right that they should be put forward.
I now come to the problem of the stick. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hatch—and I am sure he will be pleased at this—that I am not going to seek to spend my time arguing as to why comprehensive sanctions would not work. But one of the best possible reasons in the world why I shall not do so is that my noble friend Lord Soames, who knows a great deal about the subject, has done it, as I knew he would, so much better than I ever could, and I do not believe in having someone do a job brilliantly and then half doing it oneself afterwards. No one could have done it with greater experience and greater knowledge than my noble friend Lord Soames. But that was on the full-blown sanctions point.
I should just like very much to welcome the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, to our debate. It is important to recognise that he came back from South Africa specially to take part in this debate. It is also important to recognise that he is someone who lives in South Africa and who shares the same aims as have been widely expressed throughout your Lordships' House this afternoon; and that, too, is very important.

1247
He believes, holding those views, that sanctions would be totally counter-productive. It is perfectly easy to dispute his views, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, would do so. But, after all, if someone who holds the view about the ends that we have, and who is living in that country, believes that perhaps the means would not work, he must at least have some attention paid to him. My noble friend Lord Murton of Lindisfarne has very considerable knowledge of South Africa, and he too, was perfectly clear in his views.
May I come to some views on the other side? The right reverend Prelate, having heard some of the expressions this afternoon, may have cause to think again. He gave us a very impressive and very important list of people in different Churches who had passed resolutions in favour of sanctions and he added his views with, I thought, just a slight proviso at the end, that he was not so sure how good they would be if they affected the employment of people in his own diocese in the West Midlands. That is one of the problems that one inevitably has to face. I hope that I am not being unfair to the right reverend Prelate there. I hope he will therefore consider very carefully some of the problems that have been mentioned.
It is perfectly fair to believe that measures need to be taken, but one must analyse very carefully indeed what these measures might be, what would be their effect, what would happen, would they be effective in getting the end that we need, would they be counterproductive or would they, indeed, do harm to ourselves and do nothing at all to achieve the ends that we want? Then, could they be enforced, would they be enforced and would other countries be prepared to carry them out? These are all points which have been made in the debate and I simply say this to those, like the right reverend Prelate, who, understandably, feel very strongly on emotional grounds that something must be done. It is a phrase which I once used at a meeting to a very eminent member of my party who was much more eminent than me. When I said that something must be done, he said, "That is one of the silliest and stupidest phrases that I have ever heard anyone use. For goodness sake, never use it again. If you know what you want to do, for goodness sake say so. If you don't, admit it, but just don't just say 'something must be done'". I feel there is a danger of this phrase "something must be done" coming into this whole proceeding. I think it is a dangerous point.
But something very important emerged during the debate, and I think I can respond positively to this. First, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whose experience of these matters is very considerable—and the House will recognise that at once—said that he had very grave doubts. He mentioned, as other noble Lords have done, Mrs. Helen Suzman and what she said in her most important article in The Times. Her views must be heeded because, after all, she has been fighting apartheid hard in South Africa for many years. She must at least have some idea as to what she thinks ought to be done. I say to those who are going to disregard her: "Very well, disregard her, but at least appreciate the strength of her views and her knowledge".
1248
I now come to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. If I may humbly say so to him, I have admired—while not always obviously agreeing with him—many of the things which he did during his time as Foreign Secretary. I think there are many people in this country who would say the same and therefore one must pay attention to what he says. The noble Lord has his reservations about the measures but he equally said—and this was put forward also by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw—that, together with other countries, we ought to be looking at the various measures that might be taken and consider the action that would result from them and what effect they would have and whether they would be effective. That is exactly, if I may say so, what was planned to be done at the Council of Europe at The Hague and that was exactly what was agreed at the Council of Europe at the Hague. That is what is being done at this moment. It is certainly a part of the Government's policy.
I understand at once that there are those who think that the measures should have been put in effect at once. But, following what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, with his great experience said, I believe it is right to consider very carefully with all the other countries involved the effects of the various measures and how they might be worked. That is what the Government are doing at the present time.
The Government are convinced that the road to a peaceful solution in South Africa leads through a suspension of violence by all sides leading to reconciliation and negotiation involving all the different groups in South Africa. We have been second to none in trying to assist that process. We have pursued the goal of dialogue in our contacts with the South African Government and with the various groups opposed to them. We wholeheartedly supported the Eminent Persons Group and deeply regret that the real hopes it generated were not fulfilled.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Barber, very much for taking the trouble to come to this debate this afternoon and indeed echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, about the sacrifice that he has made. I had similar occasion a short time ago. I rather regret now when my friends do not quite come up to the same age, but he has a bit to go yet as far as I am concerned.
The noble Lord made a most fascinating speech and gave a very interesting account of what had happened in the Eminent Persons Group. I took away from what he said one phrase. He said that he felt that the South African Government could not quite bring themselves to "take a leap into the unknown". I think that was the phrase he used. That seemed to me a very important phrase because if there is a chance of them taking something of that leap and it can be done by peaceful discussion and dialogue, that surely must be a very important way forward.
I come back simply to the basic conclusions of your Lordships' debate. We have had the universal acceptance of the need to end apartheid. We have differed on some of the meanings, but I have sensed a growing awareness on all sides of the House that perhaps some of those differences were not as great at the end of the debate as they were at the start. I think that is important.

1249
Against the existing background I hope your Lordships will feel that any British government is bound to find itself fulfilling a crucial role beset by very great difficulties. Our role is bound to be crucial because we have a unique position. Not only are we a member of the European Community and a focal point of the Commonwealth, we are also a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Historically we have close links with southern Africa, as the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, with his wealth of experience in Commonwealth and colonial affairs, made so very clear and underlined the importance of it.
The difficulties arise from the honestly held but widely differing views on the best way forward. Given this position surely it is vital that we work, as has been suggested in the debate, in close concert with our Community partners, our fellow members of the Commonwealth and our allies among the other industrial nations, including the United States and, as has been mentioned, Japan in anything that we do in this area. We must have urgent discussions; and these are being carried on at the moment. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, said, they must go on step by step.
The Government decided in their discussions with our European partners at the Hague on 27th June to try once more the path of diplomacy, and I remind the House once again that they said that the measures considered should be very carefully studied at the same time. That has also been pressed in this debate. The European Community governments asked the Foreign Secretary, as the United Kingdom assumed the presidency of the Council of Ministers, to make a further effort on behalf of the Community to establish conditions in which the necessary national dialogue could begin in South Africa. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, that that is the basis of what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be doing. It would be wrong for me at this stage to go further into particular details. That is the general basis and the objective with which my right honourable friend will be going to southern Africa.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I must say that as regards future action, while all the measures that have been proposed are being considered with our allies—and that is important—exactly what happens must in the final event depend on the outcome of the mission. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, will say that I will not answer a hypothetical question; and perhaps I may humbly say to him that he is absolutely right, because I have known for a long time that it is unwise to do so.
I am grateful to the House for its generous expressions of good wishes to my right honourable friend. I agree with the House that he faces an extremely difficult task. I believe that he is very well fitted to this difficult task. In fact, having worked with him for a long time I know very well that that is true. Therefore, I echo to him on behalf of your Lordships that whatever our feelings about the best way of proceeding 1 am sure we all wish my right honourable friend well in the endeavours he is now about to undertake.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I invite him to speak for one minute more. I was hoping he would say something about the positive aspects of the Government's policy, and in particular about the money allocated to the victims of apartheid. I ask the noble Viscount to consider that there are universities and other institutions in this country—I particularly mention the Centre of Southern African Studies in York and the Centre of African Studies in Cambridge—which could and would, with Government assistance, be prepared to train South African Africans for their awesome duties in the future. Will he consider using some of this Government money to assist such training in advance of the responsibilities that they have to undertake?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think that it would be unfair of me to reply to any one noble Lord, because I am very conscious of the time at my disposal, and I have tried as much as possible to keep my remarks within bounds in replying to such a long debate. I think it would be wrong of me to reply now in detail to any other noble Lord, so I shall write to any of those to whom I have not replied properly during the debate, and that will include the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, on the point that he has raised with me. I think that is the fairest way to proceed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
5.55 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I draw the attention of the House to a change in next week's business. On Thursday 10th July we shall continue with the Committee stage of the Building Societies Bill instead of beginning the Committee stage of the Public Order Bill. The Committee stage of the Public Order Bill will not now begin until Wednesday 16th July.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for having so quickly made arrangements for the Committee stage of the Building Societies Bill to be continued next Thursday.

Ipswich Port Authority Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Outer Space Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at four minutes before six o'clock.

  DoE GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
  DoE GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
  FIREARMS REGULATIONS: REVENUE
  FIREARMS REGULATIONS: REVENUE
  BREATHALYSER: OPERATION AT LEGAL LIMIT
  BREATHALYSER: OPERATION AT LEGAL LIMIT