Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 925: debated on Wednesday 2 February 1977

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Wednesday 2nd February 1977

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions

Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs

Middle East

1.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards a settlement in the Middle East.

4.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations are taking place between himself and the new United States Secretary of State designed to secure a permanent peace settlement in the Middle East.

The Government remain anxious to take whatever practical steps may be open to them to assist in the search for a settlement in the Middle East. As my right hon. Friend said in the House on 19th January, before coming to a conclusion we need to know the approach of the new United States Administration. We are already exchanging views with them on this subject.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that not for many years has there been a better opportunity of achieving a peaceful settlement in the Middle East? While the main burden of bringing this about falls on the United States, Europe has a major contribution to make as well, because the consequences of a renewed war would be disastrous for Europe. Is the Foreign Secretary discussing with his colleagues what initiative Europe can take at this stage irrespective of the American attitude?

I agree that the prospects look better than they have done for many years, but that does not mean that there are not substantial difficulties. As I have told the House, discussions took place on Monday among the EEC Foreign Ministers within the framework of political co-operation, and we all welcome very much the decision of the new American Secretary of State to visit the area.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Palestine, who have suffered most in the Middle East conflict, have been consulted least? Will he impress upon Mr. Vance, the new United States Secretary of State, that they should and must be involved in the negotiations and that the United States ought to use their influence to help them?

Palestinian participation is directly a matter for the parties. As my right hon. Friend said in his speech to the General Assembly on 5th October, one essential element in a settlement will be land for the Palestinians.

In view of the recent happenings in Egypt and the concern one has that Egyptian good will should be reinforced, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he is in close consultation with President Sadat and his Government to ensure that no opportunity is lost to try to bring about the kind of meetings that are necessary to resolve this difficult problem?

Yes. The internal problems, which I hope are only temporary, are a matter for the Egyptian Government, but there are close links between us and the Egyptian Government. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think President Sadat might play a notable part in the cause of moderation in bringing the Arab world together to form agreed views on the approach to a settlement in this area.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sort of pressures allegedly being applied to the Metal Box Company to submit to the blackmail of the Arab boycott are hardly likely to induce an atmosphere for a settlement but will rather cast doubt on the bona fides of the people applying the pressure? Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the Government's opposition to this boycott?

I readily do so in quite unequivocal terms. We are opposed to the boycott and we do not think it will achieve the ends that the people behind it think it will achieve.

Does the Minister accept that the moderate OPEC Powers of Saudia Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are looking to the West for a reciprocal gesture of moderation, particularly regarding the search for a possible peace settlement? Assuming that Europe always follows America's coat tails, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to fall into that trap because there have been so many messages, both public and private, to the European Powers, including Britain, that Arab Powers are looking for a European meeting on the subject?

I do not think that we are conducting our foreign policy on the coat tails of the United States Administration. That has never been my view. I do, however, see the United States as one of our strongest and most powerful allies, and I have no hesitation in telling the House that we shall conduct our foreign policy in the fullest co-operation with the United States and consult them at all stages when we think it appropriate.

While welcoming my right hon. Friend's assurance that we do not intend to carry on our policy on the coat tails of the United States, may I ask whether we may have a guarantee that we shall not be waiting for Godot step by step with regard to European policy in the Middle East? Surely 1977 presents a supreme opportunity for the European countries, particularly Britain, to play a constructive rôle.

We will play a constructive rôle and we will use our chairmanship and the presidency of the Council in as helpful a way as possible, both in coordinating the views of the Nine and in establishing close relationships with the United States. However, in various parts of the world we shall have the choice as to which countries have a considerable leverage and responsibility. I am quite clear that in the Middle East the United States is still the country with some of the strongest leverage in order to bring about a settlement in that area.

British Banks Overseas

2.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he employs in giving general guidance to British banks operating in foreign countries as to the policy which such banks, particularly when they are operated as local companies in which local capital is invested, should apply to the investments which they make in the Government securities of the country concerned.

My right hon. Friend does not give general guidance on the policy to be adoped by British banks operating in foreign countries.

May I direct the attention of the Minister of State to three specific issues raised by his recent action in connection with Barclays Bank? First, are we to conclude from this that the policy hitherto shown by Her Majesty's Government towards multinationals that they should obey the laws of the country in which they operate is to have a specific exception in the case of Southern Africa? Secondly, and perhaps more important, is the Minister aware that the countries in which Barclays Bank operates have recently been illustrated on a page of the The Times? Are these countries now to be graded in some order of moral reprehensibility? If so, will he tell the House what that order is? As there is no such order at the moment, perhaps he will say by what authority he called the general manager of Barclays Bank to the Foreign Office and ticked him off. Finally, and perhaps most important of all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long".]—

I was, in any case, about to ask the Minister to reply to one out of the three.

The answer is "No" to virtually all that the hon. Gentleman asked. He misrepresents completely the nature of my meeting with Mr. Dolling, who came to discuss with me his bank's policy which was reflected in the statement that he made.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a statement which I have obtained from South Africa, Mr. Dolling is reported to have said that there was nothing that he and his colleagues could do to affect the daily decisions of Barclays Bank in South Africa? In other words, although the bank ticked off the South African subsidiary for doing what it has done, it now says "We can do nothing to interfere with it, although we are the holding company." Is not the bank holding up the Foreign Office to ridicule?

There is no question of ridicule, even though my hon Friend uses terms like that. Mr. Dolling said that it was the bank's policy to do everything possible to ensure that such action would not recur.

Force Reductions (Vienna Talks)

3.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current progress of the negotiations at Vienna on mutual balanced force reductions.

No breakthrough has yet occurred in the efforts of the Western participants to reach an agreement with the Warsaw Pact on the basis of our common ceiling proposals. The latest round of the negotiations is just beginning.

Is it not unsatisfactory that, after three years of negotiations on force reductions, the figures recently tabled at Vienna show that there has actually been an increase in the numbers of troops on both sides rather than a cut in the period of the talks? Can my right hon. Friend say why the British Government are resisting the concept of national sub-ceilings since, if meaningful reductions are ever to be reached, it is clear that they will have to be translated into national figures?

I agree with my hon. Friend and I regret that progress has been extremely disappointing. We can only hope that we shall be able to build on the work which has been done over the past three years to make more rapid progress in the next year or two. The Soviet proposal for equal percentage reductions by each participant would result in the imposition of a permanent limitation on the forces and equipment of each of the Western participants in the reduction area. If we were to accede to that demand, it would mean in practice that members of the Alliance would no longer be free to co-operate with each other in whatever ways might be necessary to ensure the collective security of the West. I think that that would be wrong.

Can the Minister give a positive assurance that there will be no weakening of the British commitment to NATO except within the framework of the understandings reached in the negotiations for mutual and balanced force reductions?

Czechoslovakia

5.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia.

15.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has plans to make an official visit to Prague.

23.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for returning the visit of the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister before the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe follow-up meeting in Belgrade.

I last had talks with the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister when he visited London from 13th to 16th September last year. I have no present plans to go to Prague.

Although I welcome the reported discussions between the Minister of State and the Czechoslovak Ambassador yesterday, will the Secretary of State nevertheless seek the earliest opportunity to have a meeting with the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister with a view to conveying to him the overwhelming view of the British Parliament sympathising with the Charter '77 group in its stand against all violations of human rights in Czechoslovakia? Similarly, will the right hon. Gentleman say that there can be no detente unless the Czechoslovak regime and other Communist regimes show a greater respect for individual freedom?

There can be no doubt about the feelings on all sides of the House on the issue of Charter '77 and its declaration. The Government share the views expressed by the hon. Member, and we have conveyed to the Czechoslovak regime our profound concern about the treatment now being meted out to certain of the signatories of Charter '77. Our commitment to human rights remains absolutely firm and strong, and this kind of incident is bound to come up at the Belgrade Review Conference and is bound to colour some of the discussions there.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 70 Members of Parliament on the left and centre of the Parliamentary Labour Party who have campaigned on Left-wing and anti-imperialist causes such as Chile and Vietnam have signed a statement in solidarity with the signatories of Charter '77? Will he convey to the Czechoslovak authorities that many of us are absolutely horrified by this repression and regard it as totally incompatible with genuine Socialism?

I agree entirely. There is no question of left, right or centre on an issue of this kind. There is absolute unanimity in the House that this kind of suppression of human rights and free speech—and this is not the only recent example from Eastern Europe but is probably the most dramatic of them—is not tolerable and acceptable to Western opinion and that, if this sort of thing continues, there is no doubt that the prospects for a successful outcome of the Belgrade Conference will be diminished greatly.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House for the rebuke issued yesterday to the Czechoslovak Government by Lord Goronwy-Roberts, which should remind the Czechoslovak Government that their country is no longer a far-away place about which we care little? Because we care about it, ought we not to say to the Czechoslovak Government that the personal smear tactics used against Ludvik Vaculik and others of the Charter '77 movement and the attempt to involve Western correspondents are not merely in the slimiest traditions of the KGB but are also imperilling both the reputation of Czechoslovakia and the whole Belgrade Conference?

I think that the whole House will deplore the tactics being used against the signatories of Charter '77. They are also being used against certain British citizens, including two former ambassadors who have been grotesquely accused of acting as British spies—an accusation in which, I need hardly say, there is not an ounce of truth.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say the extent to which his intelligence sources reveal a build-up of Russia's armed forces in Czechoslovakia and Poland since the beginning of December?

Rhodesia

7.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give a date for the reconvening of the Geneva Conference on Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement about the prospects of a peaceful solution.

16.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about Rhodesia.

17.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.

Does the Secretary of State see any sign of a new initiative coming forth?

I prefer not to give a definite answer to that because Mr. Ivor Richard has arrived back only today and I want to hear his personal and detailed report. I have had conversations this morning with Ambassador Andrew Young, who is due to go to South Africa tonight. I prefer not to make a statement about new initiatives until I have had time, as I said a week or two ago, to make a cool and detailed appraisal of the situation as it now exists.

Is the Secretary of State aware that by departing from the Kissinger package he ensured the failure of the Geneva Conference? Is he aware, further, that his continual refusal to recognise any talks or agreement between Mr. Smith and non-Marxist Africans may condemn Rhodesia to the fate of Angola?

The immediate factor which is condemning Rhodesia to a further and probably aggravated period of guerrilla warfare is Mr. Smith's rejection even of the proposals that we put to him as the basis for further discussion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tactic of using Mr. Vorster as an ally or quasi honest broker has failed and that it is important now that the Western world should make it clear that it is allied with the front-line Presidents and African opinion and not with South Africa?

I think that the Western world has made it abundantly clear again and again—not merely the British Government, but the Nine in their declaration issued on Monday and the new United States Administration in its statement last week—that it stands unequivocally for majority rule in Rhodesia. It is no good ignoring the existence of the South African Government. That Government are a factor in the situation, but the general moral and political position of the Western world has been made repeatedly and totally clear.

Does not the Foreign Secretary realise that Mr. Smith, in his broadcast in September last year, accepted the principle of majority rule within a given time limit? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his inability to come before us now with any kind of position to try to fill the serious vacuum which has been created by his dilatoriness and inattention to this matter is deplored very deeply?

Mr. Smith appears to have accepted the principle but to have rejected any possible means whereby that principle might have been achieved. As for dilatoriness, as I said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago it is absurd to suppose that a problem which has baffled successive Governments for 11 years could conceivably be settled in a matter of weeks, or even months. It is bound to take much longer than that.

Even if the Geneva Conference is not reconvened, will my right hon. Friend keep in contact with the Zimbabwe African leaders to prepare for the day of majority rule? Does he agree that the Smith regime would collapse within days if it was not sustained by the Vorster regime in South Africa?

We shall certainly seek to keep in contact with the nationalist leaders. They should also seek to keep in contact with us, however. It was not particularly helpful for Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe to decline to meet Mr. Richard a few days ago. There must be a sensible give and take on this issue. We do not have the power to dictate to South Africa what its policy should be. I merely reiterate that in the total Southern African picture South Africa is a force and influence which cannot be neglected.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity which this matter offers of an approach to the Botswana Government about the kidnapping of 400 children from South-West Rhodesia for indoctrination and military training against the wishes of their parents, since the reported statement of the Botswana Government about a voluntary march at gunpoint excites incredulity and ignores the parents? Is it not time that the British Government took a stand against the cynical barbarism of totalitarian States whenever it occurs and not selectively?

To call Sir Seretse Khama's State a totalitarian State is hardly an accurate description of the Botswana regime. We have had two totally contradictory accounts of this matter, one from Sir Seretse Khama's Government and the other from the Rhodesian Government. I have no intention of making an approach to anybody until we discover which of these is true. There have, of course, been innumerable incursions on the part of the Rhodesians into Botswana territory in recent months. These border incidents will occur, whether we like it or not, in consequence of Mr. Smith's rejection of the British proposals.

Can the Foreign Secretary say, following his talk with Ambassador Young, whether the policies of the British Government and the American Administration towards Rhodesia are still closely aligned? Is it not time that we in this House accepted that the way for the West to combat the spread of Communism in Africa is not for us to identify ourselves with those who seek to perpetuate white minority rule in that part of Africa?

I agree on the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. On the first part, British Government policy, while it may not be accepted by the Opposition, is fully in line with the policy of the American Administration and, as Monday's statement demonstrated, with that of the other eight members of the European Community.

United States Vice-President (Talks)

8.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what subjects he hopes to discuss with Vice-President Mondale when he visits Europe.

Vice-President Mondale had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 27th January, which I attended. Discussion covered matters of mutual concern to the United States and the United Kingdom, in particular the world economic situation and the possibility of a summit meeting of the main industrialised countries. Views were also changed on Rhodesia, Cyprus, the Middle East, relations with the developing countries and some bilateral questions.

Did the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister discuss with Mr. Mondale the importance to Britain and France of the Concorde project, and the importance of the decision to be reached in New York on 10th February to both countries? If he did not, will he please tell the American Administration of the British Government's determination to see that Mr. Colman's ruling on Concorde for a trial period is adhered to and is not overcome in New York by "phoney" political opposition?

We raised the question of Concorde, and made plain the importance that we attach to it and to the ruling that is due on 10th February. I understand that the French Government took the same view when Vice-President Mondale visited Paris and that the French raised the matter in a very positive manner.

Will my right hon. Friend say something more about the discussions that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had with Mr. Mondale about the world economic situation? What measures were discussed to coordinate the activities of the industrialised countries to tackle the growing problem of unemployment in both the developed and the developing countries?

This subject naturally played a major part in our discussions. We underlined the view, which is held not merely by the British Government but by the OECD, that the critical factor in the world economic situation at the moment is the need for some acceleration of growth in the United States, Germany and Japan. No final decisions were taken or could have been taken at a meeting of this kind, but it was clear that the question that my hon. Friend has raised is central to the agenda for the discussions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he goes to Washington in March, and also for the economic summit, which will probably be some time in May.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is a widespread feeling that his discussions with the Vice-President about Rhodesia came to the conclusion that what was important was not majority rule, which the so-called Patriotic Front of Rhodesia did not appear to represent, but that there should be an agreement to persuade or compel Mr. Smith to hand over power to Soviet-influenced and Soviet-dominated elements in Africa, inimical to British and other Western interests in Southern Africa?

I cannot believe that this was the widespread view of the discussions that we had about Rhodesia with Vice-President Mondale. So far as I know, there has been no Press speculation about the content of these discussions. As to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I have said again and again what is surely an obvious truth, that any spread of Soviet influence in Southern Africa is far more likely to be caused by Mr. Smith's rejection of the British proposals than by anything that the British Government are proposing.

Chile

9.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present state of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Chile.

There has been no change in Her Majesty's Government's consistently defined and clearly stated position.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me, on behalf of many of my hon. Friends, our congratulations on the very honourable position that the Government have taken about Chile? However, will he further accept that many of us are deeply worried about the slowing down in the granting of visas for refugees and about indications of political bias on the part of the chief adjudicator and, for instance, the Scottish adjudicator in regard to the granting of visas to these refugees? Will he consult the Home Secretary about what can be done in order to speed up this process and to sack the adjudicators who are so violently politically biased?

I do not think that I can comment on the allegations by my hon. Friend about the adjudicators. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If there is an obvious way of speeding up the process of granting visas, after close consultation with the Home Office we shall do our best to achieve that objective.

How does the state of our diplomatic relations with Chile compare with the state of our diplomatic relations with Cambodia?

We have applied or sought to have a non-rsident ambassador in Kampuchea. We have diplomtic relations with Chile but no ambassador there.

I thank my hon. Friend for the strong letter of disapproval—I think we must interpret it as such—that he wrote to the Scottish Football Association in respect of the horrifying proposed match in the Santiago Stadium—the scene of murder, death and torture.

I also ask that both the chief adjudicator and the Scottish adjudicator should be sacked. Their determinations are full of gratuitous insults towards the people involved and towards the people of this country who show their disapproval of the Pinochet régime.

My hon. Friend's latter point does not come within the purview of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; it is a matter that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

As for the proposed visit to Chile by the Scottish football team, my hon. Friend will know that we were asked to give a political assessment, which we have done. There can be no question of Government approval for such a visit.

Has the hon. Gentleman undertaken a comparative study of the extent of the observance of human rights and issues of visas in Chile and certain countries behind the Iron Curtain, including Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union? If not, will he do so?

I do not know that one can carry out the sort of study that the hon. Gentleman suggests. All I know is that at least on the Government Benches there is an even-handed policy towards human rights. Today, for example, we have had strong condemnation from my hon. Friends about the actions of Czechoslovakia, but we have heard nothing from Opposition Members. We have not had a word of criticism from them about human rights in Chile.

Ocean Island

10.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will pay a visit to Ocean Island.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, since the judge in the recent court case concerning Ocean Island and the Banaban people said that it was up to the British Government to put right a very great wrong that had taken place in relation to Ocean Island, there has been growing concern in the House and in the country about the responsibility of the British Government? Will he please say what is likely to happen?

We are aware of the remarks made by the judge in the case to which my hon. Friend has referred. We are also conscious of the expressions of sympathy that have been expressed in the House and elsewhere for the Banabans. Our main concern is to reach a settlement that is fair to all those involved, including the Banabans and the Gilbertese. It is for that reason, as was announced a few days ago, that we have sent to the area Mr. Richard Posnett, once the Governor of Belize, to have discussions with all parties and to make recommendations for a solution.

Has not the case for the Banabans been very much overstated? Is not this a further attempt to get more cash that they do not wish to share with the rest of the territory? Did they not vote overwhelmingly to stay at Rabi? Is it not now our task, together with Australia and New Zealand, to work out a sensible policy and to make further attempts to settle them properly on Rabi, which they have not yet tried themselves?

As for the desire of the Banabans themselves to live on Rabi, it is the case that they voted by an overwhelming majority to go to Rabi in the first place to stay there. It is not contested that the majority of them want to stay there. That does not remove the problem of who should get the benefit of the revenues from phosphates on Ocean Island. It is a difficult problem. Should it go entirely to the 2,000 or 3,000 people who once lived on Ocean Island, or whose ancestors did, or should the benefits be spread among a large number of the people in the territory as a whole with which Ocean Island has been associated for a long time?

Does not this whole horrifying story give meaning to the phrase "colonial exploitation"? Has not this story offended many decent people of all political persuasions throughout the country as well as those who use the phrase frequently? Does it need an ex-colonial governor to go there now after the whole matter has been thrashed out in court for several years and all the facts are known to everyone who is interested in the matter? Is it not about time that the British Government did somethting to recompense these people who have been exploited over many years?

Obviously we must be concerned with what happened at different times in the past, but the most important factors now are the views of those most intimately concerned, which include the Banabans themselves, both those on Rabi and those on Ocean Island, and the Governments of the Gilbert Islands, Fiji, Australia and New Zealand. It is important that we should know exactly what their views are, and it is for that reason that Mr. Richard Posnett has been sent out for discussions.

As the Secretary of State is not to go to Ocean Island, where he would have seen for himself the Banaban homeland ravaged almost entirely for the benefit of Britain, Australia and New Zealand, will the hon. Gentleman make the position clearer in respect of two matters? First, what answer has been given to the Fijian Government's helpful request that if Britain will detach Ocean Island from the Gilberts Fiji will accept responsibility for it? Secondly, if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make that concession, what parallel arrangements are being made to ensure that the Gilbert Islands, when they move into independence, have a viable economy and adequate aid to face a confident future?

It is true that I have not yet had the opportunity of going to Ocean Island. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State went out to Ocean Island less than a year ago and saw the position on the spot for himself. It is true that the Fijian Government have made a suggestion of the sort that the hon. Gentleman described. I can say that no constitutional arrangement is excluded. Anything, including that, will be discussed and considered. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. If we were finally to decide in favour of a solution of that sort, it would make it necessary to consider what would be owed to the Gilbert Islanders, who had expected to continue to benefit from association with Ocean Island. We would make whatever arrangements we felt necessary in that situation.

Has there ever been an instance of a High Court judge castigating successive Governments in the way that Sir Reginald Megarry has done? Does not the question of the provision of an ex gratia payment stand by itself? Is it not a matter of compelling moral responsibility if this country's good name is to be preserved? Bearing in mind that these people, in contrast with those in various other parts of the world who give expression to their grievances by hijacking and terrorism, have acted in a peaceful and forbearing way—

I do not think it is the case that the judge made continual accusations and charges in respect of the behaviour of successive British Governments. He made one highly-publicised remark about what he felt was the responsibility of the British Government. In general—he did this several times in his judgment—he went out of his way to express appreciation of the concern and care that British officials had shown for the welfare of the country over many years.

I agree that we must have concern for our reputation. We are concerned to try to bring about a settlement that is fair to all those concerned, a settlement that would take account of our responsibility for the Banabans and what has happened in the past.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a general welcome in the House for the assurance he has given us this afternoon that, in seeking a fair solution to the Banabans' claims, the well-being and interests of the 55,000 Gilbertese will be fully safeguarded?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The population of the Gilbert Iislands is about 55,000 and there are between 2,000 and 3,000 Banabans. We have to consider whether, now that Ocean Island is in receipt of large revenues from the phosphates, it is right and fair that the benefit should go exclusively to 2,000 or 3,000 people or should be shared more widely among a larger number of people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are open to the accusation of having set up the interests of the Banabans as against those of the Gilbertese in the past and that they are now reaping the whirlwind? Will he assure the House that Mr. Posnett will look at other matters in the Pacific dependencies where things may have to be readjusted? Is he aware that there are hon. Members here who will see that right is done throughout the whole of the Pacific before Britain withdraws her colonial responsibilities from that area?

On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, clearly Mr. Posnett will not go throughout all British possessions in the Pacific and make recommendations for the whole area. He is concerned with a specific problem, which is not merely financial. It is a financial and constitutional problem. The two things are closely interrelated. Mr. Posnett will visit all those who have a legitimate interest in the subject and will make recommendations on both points. The Government will have to make a decision on the basis of his recommendations.

On the constitutional position of Ocean Island, may we have an assurance that the Government will continue to support the Gilbert Islands Government so that the Gilberts can achieve independence intact, not dismembered?

I should not like to prejudice the result of inquiries which are just about to be made. The point made by the hon. Gentleman concerns a crucial element in the situation. It would be wrong for me to give the kind of assurance for which he has asked, because it would make nonsense of the visit that we are authorising. We shall take careful account of the legitimate interests of the Gilbert Islanders in any final solution of this matter.

European Community

Foreign Ministers

34.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the other Foreign Ministers of the EEC.

41.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.

I expect to meet my EEC colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council on 8th February.

Is it not regrettable that, at their meeting on Monday, the Foreign Ministers simply referred to the political directors further study of the question of human rights in Eastern Europe? As the main facts are well known and as every visitor who comes out from behind the Iron Curtain tells us that the best way we can help is to speak up in defence of human rights, would it not be desirable that the Community as a body should put out a firm and clear statement about its position on that subject?

Yes, it would be desirable. That is why we have asked that the matter be looked at by the political directors. In my view, there is an uncertain response from the West as a whole to these events. We ought to be able to speak with more of a single voice than at the moment. I refer not merely to this side of the Atlantic but to the other side as well. We have asked the political directors to report to us for the essential reason that the human rights movement in Eastern Europe, critically important as it is, is not uniform in terms of motivation. As has been made clear by the leaders of Charter '77, their motives, attitude and objectives are not the same, for example, as those of the Russian dissidents. We felt that, in order to help us to achieve the possibility of speaking with a single voice, we should have a report from the political directors. There is no difference between us on what the hon. Gentleman said about the objective.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that when he has had discussions with EEC leaders they have made fine federal European statements about all things under the sun but that in practice they have tended to put national interests first, as with sanctions on Rhodesia, the purchase of oil, and the West Germans employing Turks when it suits them and then kicking them out when they have finished with them and lending us money to purchase their goods? What is the point of having direct elections with a motley crew like that?

The point is that, if we have direct elections, my hon. Friend might be elected and might bring the motley crew under control.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said in his last answer, will he give a definite assurance that Her Majesty's Government intend to proceed with the necessary legislation in order that we may have direct elections at the time they promised?

Yes. That assurance has recently been given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I repeat it today.

Belgrade Review Conference

35.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he will hold with Foreign Ministers of other European Community countries to prepare for the Belgrade meeting to assess the consequences of the Helsinki Agreement.

Foreign Ministers of the Nine met in the political co-operation framework on 31st January and preparations for the Belgrade review meetings of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe were fully discussed. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine reaffirmed their intention to maintain the closest co-operation in preparing positions for Belgrade and noted the need for intensifying consultations in the months immediately ahead.

In thanking the Foreign Secretary for his important answer to the previous Question and the Minister of State for what he has just said, and bearing in mind that the free movement of people and the exchange of ideas is central to the British tradition and that of our partners in the Community, may I ask the Government to seek to discuss the possibility not only of speaking at Belgrade with a united voice but of imposing effective sanctions in particular cases when the British public are troubled by details of the persecution of minority racial groups and dissident voices under Communist régimes?

We take this issue very seriously. That is why we are trying to co-ordinate an approach within the Nine. We held discussions in the Council of Europe last week to try to ensure that, as far as possible, 19 voices speak with a common purpose on these issues.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the 19 voices will back up and emphasise the condemnation by President Carter of the persecution of Andrei Sakharov, his view representing that of all of us?

As my right hon. Friend made clear, this issue requires considerable discussion to get a unified voice. We need to take account of all the differing views which are coming from some of the people who are currently representing the views of the human rights movements in Eastern European countries.

Are the Government capable of differentiating between totalitarian Governments who seek to deny human rights only to their own people and the Government of the Soviet Union, who have as their avowed aim the denying of those rights to their own people and the people of the whole world?

European Council

36.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to seek a reform of the procedures of the European Council.

The European Council has no formal procedures. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will no doubt consider a little nearer the time how he will wish to conduct the first European Council meeting under his chairmanship which will be held in Rome on 25th and 26th March.

To what extent will it be possible to ensure that any changes which take place during the next five months will outlive our own tenure of the Presidency? In view of the distinct possibility of enlargement of the EEC, is there not an argument for an amendment to the Treaty to simplify the procedures and eliminate a lot of the detail which is still going to the Council of Ministers?

I certainly agree that much too much detail has been going through to the Council of Ministers as opposed to the European Council. One of my objectives has been to cut down the detail and to confine the agenda to important matters.

Regarding the European Council, I hope that any changes will outlast our Presidency. At the last meeting of the European Council at The Hague at the end of November and the beginning of December, there was great dissatisfaction on the part of everybody present about the rambling quality of the discussions that we had and the inadequate preparation that had been made of the agenda.

What progress has been made in instituting a fundamental review of the rules of the Council secretariat and of the Commission?

It is early days to say that great progress has been made. The Presidents of both the Council and the Commission are dissatisfied with the nature of the preparation that goes on for meetings of different kinds inside the Community. It will take a little time to conduct a fundamental review.

Will the Foreign Secretary follow up the encouraging reply that he gave on direct elections and assure us that by the time the Prime Minister goes to the European Council meeting in Rome and takes the chair he will be able to show our colleagues in Europe a Bill which has been introduced into this House and so dispel the fears that it might be Britain alone that disrupts this move towards European parliamentary democracy?

I am sure that those fears can be allayed. The timing is for my right hon. Friend the Lord President, and it partly depends upon the timing of the Bill which we were discussing until 6 o'clock this morning.

Once again, may I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the decision of the Labour Party Conference on direct elections? Is he aware that the Labour Party Conference was totally opposed to the concept of direct elections? Will he bear that in mind? Does he not agree that there should be no rushing forward with a policy that has no real response from the Labour movement in this country?

My hon. Friend knows that I am extremely well known for my total obeisance to Labour Party Conference decisions, and I noted that particular decision. But my hon. Friend is not quite right to say that the decision was accepted by an overwhelming majority. It was much closer than expected.

Common Fisheries Policy

37.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the current negotiations on revising the common fisheries policy to be completed.

Since we intend to negotiate a substantial revision of the common fisheries policy and there is at present a clear division of opinion between member States, it is impossible to predict.

Does the Minister realise that, although we all appreciate the efforts that he and his colleagues are making, his answer is not good enough for the fishing industry? Does he not agree that something could be done to remove the blockage by some of the EEC countries such as Denmark by allocating funds from the EEC Social Fund to help them over the necessary consequences of discontinuing the practice of destroying the herring stocks?

The hon. Member has raised a serious problem concerning the herring catch. We have made it clear that conservation measures for herring are urgently necessary and we have informed the Commission clearly of our proposals. We have said that if there is no agreement on some of the essential conservation measures we will have to take them unilaterally.

Since the review of the common fisheries policy has dragged on too long, will my right hon. Friend now set a time limit by which an agreement must be reached and state clearly that we will take action by ourselves if an agreement is not reached by that date?

We must face the fact that we are bound by the provisions of the Treaty of Accession. Of course, we can end negotiations at any time. One can act illegally and end up in the courts, but one can equally well give way in the negotiations and end up with an unsatisfactory settlement. We intend to do neither. We believe that it is possible so to revise the policy that it meets the main objectives of our fisheries industry.

Council Of Ministers (British Presidency)

38.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, in order of priority, the objectives which he hopes to achieve during his tenure of the Presidency of the EEC Council.

I made a speech to the European Parliament in Luxembourg on 12th January, in which I outlined the objectives of Her Majesty's Government during our Presidency of the Council of Ministers. Copies were placed in the Vote Office on 12th January.

May I remind the Foreign Secretary that it would be humiliating if he were to leave the chair of the Council of Ministers without having ensured that a draft Bill for the introduction of direct elections is well on its way to completion in this House? Does he not agree that Britain, of all countries, should be the one to set the lead in this matter?

In view of my right hon. Friend's previous assurance on direct elections, will he go further and say that when the draft Bill is brought forward the Government will put it through the House with the same determination with which they are pursuing the devolution Bill?

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the greatest threat to the survival of Western Europe comes from the growing attack on its sources of raw materials resulting from the expansion of Soviet imperialism? Does he agree that the first priority should be to seek to mobilise the opinion of European Governments and, through them, the Governments of the United States and Japan in order to safeguard Western civilization and industrial pluralist democracies from this danger?

I certainly wish to save Western civilisation and pluralist democracy. That seems an admirable aim. I do not think that the main threat to them comes from that direction, but as an aim and objective it is one that will be shared by the whole House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the recent statement by the European Movement that direct elections are intended as a first step towards a federal State?

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it is just possible that not every hon. Member has read from end to end the speech to which he referred earlier? Will he take the opportunity of reaffirming his commitment to expand the scope of a co-ordinated foreign policy in the Community as one of its most important objectives.

Federalism

39.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's present policy towards a federal State in Europe.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the speech that my right hon. Friend made in Luxembourg on 12th January, in which he said

"the debate between federalists and confederalists is now irrelevant and unreal".
Copies of the speech are in the Vote Office.

In view of that answer, will my right hon. Friend now reply to a question which I asked my right hon, Friend last week but to which I did not receive a complete answer? It referred to the first speech by Mr. Roy Jenkins as President of the EEC Commission, when he said:

"Our aims are economic but our end is political".
Will my right hon. Friend now publicly disapprove of that and dissociate the Cabinet from it?

The President of the Commission speaks in his rôle as President, It is not a matter for the Government.

Whatever might be the Government's policy towards a federal State in Europe, can the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House that it is his Department's intention to publish the list of foreign countries referred to in Question No. 12 today?

Documents (Publication)

40.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the current arrangements for public notification of documents published by the various parts and agencies of the EEC.

No, and in an effort to improve the situation the Government have decided to publish lists of EEC documents in the London Gazette. This arrangement will be introduced shortly.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for the arrangements he is making, may I ask him to comment on the documents emanating from the Council of Ministers? Since it is a legislative body, is it not possible for it to issue minutes of proceedings as we do in this House? If that is not done, does it not put into question the democratic nature of the EEC? Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements to ensure that decisions are published and made public?

All legislation that is agreed by the Council of Ministers is published. But the Council of Ministers is not simply a legislative Chamber. In some senses it is also a Cabinet. Even in these days of open government we do not release Cabinet minutes for general circulation—and I am in favour of our not doing so.

Since the Cabinet does not legislate and since the Council of Ministers does, is not the whole problem that the Council of Ministers operates behind a curtain of silence and is closed to the Press and the public even when it is carrying out its legislative functions? Is it not the case that it does not allow Members of the European Parliament to attend even when the subject is relevant to a particular committee? Is it not time that this curtain of silence was pulled down?

This is a difficult issue. If it were possible to make a definite separation between the legislative function and the Cabinet decision-making function it would be easy to do, but it is difficult to make that separation.

Does the Minister agree that the first thing that must be done in respect of the European institutions is to define and limit the rôle and functions of the European Assembly? Does he agree that it is clear, for instance, from the speech of Mr. Roy Jenkins in Luxembourg on 11th January that no one has an agreed or clear idea of what the European Assembly should do, and, indeed, that until there is such a redefinition of the functions and the rôle of that Assembly there should be no direct elections to it?

The speech of the President of the Commission is a matter for him. There are many different views about the rôle and functions of the European Parliament, or Assembly. However, one thing is quite clear. That is that the mere fact of introducing direct elections carries with it no commitment to any change in its existing powers.

What does my right hon. Friend think will be the cost to this country of direct elections? Will he take it from me, in view of the cuts that have recently been made in education and social services, that the money would be much better spent in my constituency of Jarrow?

I am afraid that I am not able to give my right hon. Friend an estimate of the cost of European elections. One of the matters that the House will wish to discuss is the whole question of financing and what financial arrangements may need to be made concerning European elections. However, I shall give as much information as I can to the House.

Follow. the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) a moment ago, may I ask whether the Government will arrange for a document to be issued explaining where the President thinks that the greatest threat to Europe comes from, because that surely is the basis on which defence in Europe must primarily depend?

Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman say "Where does the President feel that the greatest threat is?" The Government are always making clear their views on the threats to both the security of this country and the NATO Alliance, and the traditional way of dealing with that matter is in the annual Defence White Paper.

Falkland Islands

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the Falkland Islands and our relations with Argentina.

Since my right hon. Friend, now Prime Minister, made a statement on this subject on 14th January last year, Lord Shackleton has presented his "Economic Survey of the Falkland Islands". The whole House will join me in warmly thanking him and his colleagues for this immensely thorough and wide-ranging report.

The survey paints a vivid picture of this small community of 1,900 people, 7,500 miles away, yet staunchly British and with rich potential in the seas around them. But currently they face an uncertain economic future. The economy, essentially a monoculture based on wool, is stagnant; the resources do not exist to exploit the new potential in other fields; and emigration is increasing.

To remedy this situation, Lord Shackleton made a large number of recommendations, many of which will require further study and detailed consultation with the Islanders. Meanwhile the Government will proceed to implement those internal constitutional changes which have already been approved by the Falkland Islands Legislative Council.

The recommendations on development aid will fall to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development to implement. But I can say now that the Government are ready to consider, after such pre-investment studies as may be required, agricultural diversification, mutton freezing, knitwear production, and improvements to education. We also propose to pay special and urgent attention to the Islands' internal communications, with particular reference to the availability and maintenance of an efficient local air service.

The survey further recommended certain major capital projects, notably an enlargement of the airport and a pilot fishing project, which would bring the total recommended expenditure by the United Kingdom up to some £13 million to £14 million. The Government, like Lord Shackleton and his colleagues, are in no doubt that the potential for development is there, and they will at the appropriate moment commission the essential preliminary studies to determine whether airport enlargement is likely to be practicable and cost-effective.

But, for the rest, we cannot at this time accept more costly recommendations. The overseas aid budget, recently cut in the December public expenditure exercise, would not stand it. There are more urgent claims from much poorer communities. And the right political circumstances do not exist.

In Lord Shackleton's words,
"in any major new developments of the Islands' economy, especially those relating to offshore resources, co-operation with Argentina—even participation—should, if possible, be secured."
The Government agree. Such new developments require a framework of greater political and economic co-operation in the region as a whole. Without such a framework, the prospect of achieving a prosperous and durable future for the Islands is bleak.

The Government have therefore decided that the time has come to consider both with the Islanders and with the Argentine Government whether a climate exists for discussing the broad issues which bear on the future of the Falkland Islands, and the possibilities of co-operaation between Britain and Argentina in the region of the South-West Atlantic.

I must make certain things absolutely clear. First, any such discussion, which would inevitably raise fundamental questions in the relationship between the Islands, Britain and Argentina, would take place under the sovereignty umbrella; that is, Her Majesty's Government would wholly reserve their position on the issue of sovereignty, which would in no way be prejudiced. Secondly, any changes which might be proposed must be acceptable to the Islanders, whose interests and well-being remain our prime concern. In consequence, thirdly, there must be full consultation with the Islanders at every stage; nothing will be done behind their backs.

To fulfil this pledge, I am sending my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the Falkland Islands in mid-February to hear from the Islanders at first hand how they view their future. He will also visit Buenos Aires. His object will be, in effect, to see whether terms of reference can be agreed for further more formal talks between the parties concerned.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this to the House last January:
"Given good will on both sides, Britain and Argentina should be able to transform the area of dispute concerning the sovereignty over the Islands into a factor making for cooperation between the two countries which would be consonant with the wishes and interests of the Falkland Islanders."—[Official Report, 14th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 392.]
To day, as 12 months ago, the situation in the South-West Atlantic is a source of potential confrontation, of which there have been recent examples. It is co-operation, not confrontation, both in the Islands and in the Dependencies, which we seek to achieve.

First, may I thank the Secretary of State for making that statement? I join him, naturally, in paying tribute to the work of Lord Shackleton in putting before us the very valuable report that we have had to work on. Moreover, may I say that I welcome the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and particularly the reassurance that he is giving the House regarding the absolute need for the Islanders' acceptance of any arrangements which may be entered into on their behalf?

We welcome the announcement that there are to be discussions about cooperation with the Argentine, but we are anxious lest the case be presented to the Islanders in a form which in some sense looks like some degree of coercion upon them to accept what might otherwise be unwelcome arrangements in order to secure their economic future. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us on that subject. With that caveat, we welcome greatly the visit by the Minister of State and wish him well in his work.

May I ask one or two specific questions? First, on the subject of aid, we sympathise with and understand the need at present not to extend an aid programme when there is so much need for constraint. However, is it not a fact that currently we in Britain enjoy from tax revenue resulting from activities in the Islands an extent of revenue which exceeds the aid that we currently furnish? Would it not be quite practicable at least to assure the Islanders that we would not remain a beneficiary of their own problems?

Secondly, on the fishing issue, may I ask whether it is the intention that an exclusive economic zone should be declared round the Islands at an early stage, and will that be of the same extent as that for the United Kingdom—200 miles?

Moreover, has the right hon. Gentleman considered, and will he ask the Minister of State during his visit to give careful consideration to, the potential offered by sea organisms known as krill which abound in the area of the Islands and could provide valuable revenue?

Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that he is not falling between two stools in the matter of the airport? Is it a fact that the airport as presently constructed is too short and that the extension of it to a greater length would be too expensive and would face us with a problem that would be highly unwelcome?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can reassure us on those various points.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. We have no intention of trying to apply coercion to the Islanders. That would be wrong. Both we in this Parliament and the Islanders face a dilemma, because the future of the Islanders without co-operation with Argentina is undoubtedly not very favourable. That is something that the Shackleton report has underlined for us all.

On the specific question of aid versus the amount of money coming to this country from the Falkland Islands, the position is that if we take the last 25 years we find, as the Shackleton Report says, that more money has come to Britain from the Islands than has gone from Britain to the Islands in the form of aid. If we take the last five years, we see that the picture is the other way round. We have the somewhat ironic situation that almost all the post-tax profits in the Islands are drawn to this country and made good by the taxpayer here in the form of economic aid. Lord Shackleton has rather pointed remarks to make about this slightly curious and unusual situation.

The situation with regard to the 200-mile fishing limit is unbelievably complicated. Argentina has claimed a 200-mile limit round the Falkland Islands as part of her claim to sovereignty. There is a complication inside UNLOSC, there are complications within the EEC about this, and there are possible analogies with Rockall which need careful study. I should not like to give a definite answer on the subject except to say that what is essential is that we have a de facto agreement on the question of fisheries.

The answer to the question about krill is "Yes", and the point that emerges from the Shackleton report is that it is not just krill but a mass of blue whiting, alginates, tourism potential and possibly oil at some point, all of which ought to be explored, and can be explored only if we take a regional view of the South-West Atlantic as a whole.

On the matter of the airport, the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is a risk. That is why, before we take a final decision, we must have technical studies.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations at least of many hon. Members on this side of the House at this attempt to plan a viable economic future for the Falkland Islands? Will he also take into account the fact that there is widespread perturbation lest in our attempt to help the Islanders economically, we hand them over politically to a quasi-Fascist State next door?

I am well aware of that complication, which I considered most anxiously, but I still think that at the end of the day we have to proceed in this matter. Nobody is being handed over to anybody. All that my hon. Friend will do is to see whether the Islanders agree that there is a basis for discussion. There will be full consultation at every stage, and nothing will be done that does not meet the wishes of the Islanders. Therefore, while I strongly take the point made by my hon. Friend, I must tell him that the conditions that I have laid down provide a sufficient safeguard.

Although it is easy to recognise that the competing claims of poorer countries restrict the Government's ability to implement the more costly recommendations, does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his phrase about political circumstances not being right strikes apprehensions into the hearts of the Islanders and raises fears that pressure is being put upon them? Furthermore, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in moral terms, the argument about sovereignty is much less significant than that about the right of self-determination by the Islanders, who have made their views pretty clear?

I agree, and we wholly accept the right of self-determination and are committed to that. On the final question, by far the easiest thing would be to do nothing—a very attractive and popular way out in a sense but a miserable way out—but we have this report showing the enormous potential for the Islanders' future economic development if we were willing to have economic cooperation with Argentina. We cannot have that unless certain political issues are raised. Therefore, I think that, in full consultation with the Islanders, we have to take a certain risk in this respect and see what comes out of it.

Does not an efficient local air service include that which the Islanders want most, which is some kind of direct air link and not through Argentina? Secondly, what are these complications with the EEC about fishing limits?

Thirdly, does not Lord Goronwy-Roberts go to Buenos Aires at the invitation of the Argentine Government?

Fourthly, when he is there, can he ask whether it would be possible, if there are links with Argentina, that they should be through the Province of Patagonia which has similarities with the Falklands and not directly through Buenos Aires, which is an alien city?

In my rather tired condition, I am not sure that I have remembered all four questions. The airport enlargement which is proposed by Shackleton would enable planes to fly in from other parts of South America and further afield than Argentina.

With regard to Rockall, I would rather not go into that in more detail now, for a number of reasons that will be obvious to some hon. Members.

It is my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) who is going to Buenos Aires and the Falklands, and both the Falkland Islands and the Argentine Government are happy to receive him.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the key to development in the Falklands and their safety is a proper airstrip? The construction company is there, and so is the equipment. The first duty of the Government is to get on with the extension of the airstrip.

I think that this is the critical factor that colours a large part of the Shackleton Report. The position is that the present permanent airfield is not complete. It is way behind schedule and will not be completed until May. At the end of the day it will have cost £4½ million. The enlargement of this permanent airfield, which Lord Shackleton strongly recommends, is essential to the development of tourism, of fishing and possibly of oil in the future. It is essential to the whole island, but the trouble is that all these developments depend to a considerable extent upon co-operation with Argentina. That is why the question of the airport and co-operation in the region as a whole are so closely interlinked.

In view of my right hon. Friend's reassurance to the Islanders and the continuing intransigence of the Argentine Government on the question of sovereignty, what is it that has changed so that he is able to send the Minister of State to the Falkland Islands and Buenos Aires with confidence that he will not be going on a wild-goose chase?

I do not think that I have total confidence in that. As my predecessors and those who served in Conservative Governments know, one has to make a judgment in these matters whether the time is appropriate for taking an initiative. An initiative of this sort carries the risk of failure. I do not hide that. But we cannot let this situation drag on and on with all the major recommendations of the Shackleton Report depending upon co-operation with Argentina. Without any total 100 per cent. confidence in success, I judged—and in my view this was right—that this was the moment to take the initiative.

As the right hon. Gentleman may know, I had some experience of the Falkland Islands problems while serving in the Department over which he now presides. May I join him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) in welcoming Lord Shackleton's report? I entirely agree that in the long run the problems of the Falkland Islands must be worked out in conjunction with Argentina, but timing is of the essence. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is possible to proceed or to seek that co-operation before the airfield is fully enlarged and that the stability of the present Argentinian régime is sufficient to allow it to embark on what may be the rather important negotiations which his statement inevitably opens up?

The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that he had experience of this extraordinarily difficult problem. Of course it was a Conservative Government who, I think rightly, concluded the communications agreement with Argentina in 1971. It is a matter of judgment whether the chances of success outweigh the chances of failure. My judgment is that on the whole they do and that it is better to take this risk than to let the situation go on and on with, as I said, this vast potential waiting there to be exploited and nothing effective being done to exploit it.

I warmly endorse my right hon. Friend's initiatives, but will he understand that some of us on these Benches—and I think some on the other side of the House—will have some continuing reservations both about the degree of self-determination in these matters assured to the Islanders and about the danger that the Islanders may become prisoners of developments in Argentinian political circumstances?

Yes, Sir, these dangers exist, but at the end of the day it will be for this House, and only for this House, effectively to determine whether any changes in the present situation are made. Thus, our position is reserved to that extent. What I very much hope—so far I think this is occurring—is that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State goes out to see whether a basis exists for proper discussion, he will, generally speaking, go out with the good will of the whole House.

While in general no one could find any fault with the right hon. Gentleman's statement—it must be welcomed, particularly his recognition that the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British—is he aware that there could be conflict in what he has said? Does he recall that the Shackleton report said that two developments must go hand in hand—first, the reform of administration and closer participation of the inhabitants and, second, the injection of sufficient aid to give a new economic impetus? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, therefore, that if Her Majesty's Government will not find the aid on the scale envisaged by Shackleton, that may lead to great disillusionment among the Islanders?

I hope that the group of recommendations referred to by the hon. Gentleman, who knows the Falkland Islands well, will go through. A number of them have already been approved by the Falkland Islands Legislative Council. On the second question—the major capital projects, as opposed to the smaller matters of aid that I mentioned—if we were the richest country in the world with lots of money to dish out in all directions, we might be able to take these on entirely by ourselves. But that is not our position, and that is why I came to the conclusion, which I think—I do not want to put words into Lord Shackleton's mouth—is implicit in many of the things Lord Shackleton says about tourism, fisheries, airport enlargement and so on, that in practice they can go ahead only in the framework of a wider economic co-operation in the South-West Atlantic.

Since we have so often heard in the House that the positions of Governments are being reserved and that no commitments will be entered into only to discover later that we have been slid into a position which perhaps the House did not want, shall we have a report back to the House once the Minister of State returns and shall we be kept fully informed of the negotiations at all stages? Thirdly, how precisely will the Falkland Islanders be asked in the final analysis whether they accept the outcome of these negotiations?

Yes, the House will be kept fully informed and I do not doubt for a moment that my hon. Friend will make a statement when he returns. As to how the Islanders will be consulted, in the initial stages my hon. Friend is spending five days there. If he reaches any final conclusion which may be put to the Islanders, how the consultations should occur under those circumstances will then be a matter for discussion at the time, but there will be full consultation.

Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members who have been here throughout and who have been rising to catch my eye, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee). But I hope that they will be brief.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear that there will be no change in the sovereignty of the Islands without the full consent of the Islanders? Since the Shackleton report highlights the important commercial prospects in the islands and their fisheries, tourism and so on, can the Government not look at this whole matter as a prospect for joint investment opportunities which would bring great benefits to Great Britain, the Islands and Argentina, if Argentina co-operated economically with us, rather than as a question of doling out aid as money which will be wasted?

My statement is clear on the first point. On the other point, the hon. Gentleman made a speech in an Adjournment debate recently which I read with some interest. I agree with what he said then, that these investment opportunities, as he rightly described them, must in practice be undertaken in co-operation with Argentina. The dilemma that we face—this is the difficulty which underlies these questions—is that we know that the Argentine Government will not want to discuss solely economic co-operation. Inevitably, political issues will come up. That is why I have given the assurance, and it is in respect of that that we take this risk, deliberately.

Is not the effect of this economically desirable approach likely only to be to fan the flames of the Argentine Government's pretensions to sovereignty? Is not the reality that the Argentine Government have not abandoned their claim to the Islands and that, whether my right hon. Friend likes it or not, this initiative is bound to give impetus to that claim?

It is correct that the Argentine Government have not abandoned their claim to sovereignty, and they will not abandon it. The question is whether we should allow that claim to impose on us a position of total passivity. That does not seem sensible to me.

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to me, as someone who has lived and worked in the Falkland Islands, why it is proposed to drag our feet over the vital air runway decision, which is the key to the entire development in the future of the Falkland Islands? Do we have to seek the permission of the Argentine Government to lengthen a runway on British property?

No, Sir; certainly we do not have to seek their permission. But Lord Shackleton made it clear in his report that the runway development—the airport enlargement—was needed for the sake of tourism, further fisheries development and major capital developments in the Islands, and that those capital developments in turn largely depended on co-operation with Argentina. That is the link. Certainly there is no question of its depending on the permission of the Argentine Government.

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in spite of several references to the airfield, the position remains a little obscure, at least to me? Would he agree that the point of extending the airfield so as to allow international flights to places other than Argentina is a political rather than an economic problem?

Is there not great potential in krill, which have been increasing in numbers rapidly in the South Atlantic because of the slaughter of whales which used to feed on them, so that the balance of nature has been disturbed and they are now multiplying with great rapidity? Is that not a large potential source of foodstuffs for starving people in development countries, which could at the same time bring great benefit to the Falkland Islands?

That is certainly the case, and it comes out dramatically from the Shackleton report.

To come back to the question which has underlain much of the discussion in the last half-hour, the potential for development around the Falkland Islands—not just with krill but with alginates and the blue whiting and other species of fish—is a basic reason that I do not think that we can simply go on sitting on our backsides and doing nothing about the political situation as well. It is that which supplies the impetus for some new initiative and move in the area.

St Marylebone Grammar School

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,

"the use of her powers by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to cease to maintain St. Marylebone Grammar School".
This is the first occasion on which I have asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. It would be quite wrong for any Member to seek to use this procedure for a narrow constituency point, but the issues involved in this case go far wider than its circumstances. What is at issue is the use by a Minister of her powers, which have hitherto been used for administrative purposes only, to attain a political objective, the attainment of which has been denied by the courts. I shall not seek to argue the merits of the case, but the circumstances are important.

On Monday evening, the Secretary of State for Education and Science decided to cease to maintain St. Marylebone Grammar School. That means that the school will slowly die. It will not be able to pay salaries, and there will not be another intake of boys. This follows a proposal by the Inner London Education Authority that the school should cease.

There is a long history here with which I shall not bore the House. Suffice it to say that ILEA has been trying to destroy the school for a long time. Six months ago ILEA proposed that St. Marylebone Grammar School should merge with another school in my constituency which has considerable social and educational problems. The parents took ILEA to court and won an injunction delaying it from proceeding with the merger. ILEA then had a choice. It could have taken that injunction, and the decisions surrounding it, to a higher court, and ultimately to the Court of Appeal or even to the House of Lords, but it decided not to do so and asked the Secretary of State to use her powers under the 1944 Education Act to cease to maintain St. Marylebone Grammar School.

These powers are in the Act for administrative purposes only. They have been used in the past, for example, when a central city school has wished to move with consent to the country. Then the Secretary of State ceases to maintain. The powers have been used when a school wished to go independent. Some schools in London now wish to go independent and the Secretary of State will cease to maintain them. This is not the wish of the parents of St. Marylebone Grammar School. They want to reorganise the school on mini-comprehensive lines.

The powers have been used when the population has declined in an area and there is no need for the school. This is not the case with St. Marylebone Grammar School. Indeed, the immediate area around the grammar school is the only area in Central London where the population is increasing because of the building of a huge council estate. The powers have been used when there has been a lamentable educational failure by a school. This is not the case with St. Marylebone Grammar School, where last year 76 per cent. of the boys who took A levels passed, and all 33 boys who took science subjects at A level passed. This is just the sort of school which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Science want maintained and expanded. If young boys are to be encouraged to go into industry, this is the sort of school which provides the education for them to do so.

I believe that the Secretary of State has used these administrative powers to attain a political end, namely, the destruction of a fine school with a great scholastic tradition. She has refused requests for a public inquiry and has used her powers for a deplorable political act. Wide political and constitutional questions arise, in that she could use these powers anywhere in the country to achieve political objectives which the courts may well have denied.

The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he intended to raise this matter. He asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,

"the use of her powers by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to cease to maintain St. Marylebone Grammar School".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I am not ruling on the importance of the subject but on whether it should be given precedence. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Rhodesia (Schoolchildren)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,

"the refusal of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, expressed today, to make immediate representations to the Government of Botswana for the return to their parents of the 400 schoolchildren who were abducted on Monday from South-West Rhodesia, being children for whom Parliament has asserted direct responsibility by the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965".
That this is a specific matter hardly needs argument. There was an armed raid on the school and the children were removed and marched over the frontier into a neighbouring country. It is, therefore, plainly specific. The importance of the matter is also fairly clear, because the removal of 400 children—who are British subjects and, by statute, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—into a neighbouring country by armed force against the will of their parents is plainly an important matter.

The question that remains is whether it is urgent enough to justify the use of Standing Order No. 9. I venture to think that there would be no doubt about the urgency of this matter if the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had said in blank terms that he would make no representations to the Government of Botswana, but he qualified his refusal by saying that he would not do so because he had received two conflicting versions of the facts and he wanted to ascertain which was true.

The first conflicting version of the facts is that which is familiar to us about the abduction of the children at gunpoint and their being marched across the border. The second, from the Government of Botswana, as reported in the Press this morning, is that the children are there in a voluntary capacity and therefore the Government of Botswana do not intend to take any action.

The Secretary of State's statement this afternoon implies inevitably that if he comes to believe that the children in Botswana, in these circumstances, express the view that they are there voluntarily—one has to remember the circumstances in which they were taken and are at present kept—he intends to make no representations to the Government of Botswana. That ignores completely the rights of the parents, who are British subjects and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

The indisputable fact—which has nothing to do with the versions reaching the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—is that the parents of the 400 children feel that their children have been forcibly abducted away from their custody into a neighbouring country, over a political frontier, that the Government of that country said yesterday that they would not return them, and that the British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has said, in effect, though not explicitly, that if he comes to believe that the children say that they are there voluntarily he will do nothing about it.

It is in those circumstances that I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is not only specific and important but urgent, within the meaning of the Standing Order. This is reinforced by imagining the feelings of those parents at this time, imagining what anguish they must have to put with and will have to continue to put up with if no action is taken.

There is an element of urgency which nobody can deny, and accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I ask your leave to make use of the Standing Order to bring the matter to the immediate attention of the House.

The hon. and learned Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he would raise this matter. I beg hon. Members' pardon. I am wrong. This matter arises out of the business this afternoon. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made approaches about another question, the details of which the House will understand I cannot go into.

The hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the refusal of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make immediate representations to the Government of Botswana for the return to their parents of 400 schoolchildren who were abducted on Monday from South-West Rhodesia, being children for whom Parliament has asserted direct responsibility by the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965".
I have given very serious consideration to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and I have borne in mind that we may well be faced with a repeated number of incidents in that part of the world. The decision I reach today must in no sense be taken as a precedent in regard to incidents in that part of the world. I am ruling on this incident alone, where the 400 children have disappeared.

I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman have the leave of the House?

The leave of the House having been given

The motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

Social Security (Amendment)

4.13 p.m.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Social Security Act 1975 to provide attendance allowance to foster children.
Section 35(6) of the Social Security Act 1975 enables the Secretary of State for Social Services by regulation to withhold attendance allowance from persons for whom accommodation is provided under a series of enactments. For the most part, the people concerned are those in long-term hospital or residential care. Therefore, it is reasonable to exclude them from entitlement to an allowance which is designed to cover the extra costs which a severely handicapped or disabled person entails when being looked after by other people at home, by day or by night.

However, these regulations also include handicapped children who are boarded out by local authorities with foster parents. Therefore, they do not at present receive the attendance allowance but rely instead on these local councils to provide a special care allowance in lieu of the tax-free allowance that they would receive if they were living with their parents or relatives.

I should emphasise that there is a very small number involved, possibly about 300 children. Therefore, I am not proposing significant increases in public expenditure. In fact, every time a dedicated foster parent is found who is prepared to undertake the demanding work that caring for a handicapped child entails, a substantial saving in public spending is achieved. The costs of running and providing expensive residential care for such children is probably £90 to £100 a week. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree on the overall objective that we all have—to find for such children warm, loving homes rather than the segregation of a disablement institution or hospital. We should therefore be offering every help we can to couples who are willing to offer family life to these handicapped youngsters.

Until two years ago it was assumed that such encouragement was being given by local authorities. It was believed that their special allowances matched the level of the attendance allowance. But I found increasing evidence of a wide disparity between the different local authority allowances and a substantial short-fall in many instances.

In an Adjournment debate on 14th April last year I raised the whole question and quoted examples from a survey carried out in 1975, which showed that only a quarter of the local authorities surveyed were paying the allowance up to the level of the attendance allowance. In that debate the Under-Secretary with special responsibility for the disabled, whose compassion for the handicapped is not in question, appeared to accept my argument that it was more logical to treat foster parents like other parents than put them on a par with institutions and that is was irrational to deprive them of assistance when it is agreed without reservation that foster care is more beneficial for children.

In that debate and on subsequent occasions the Minister implied acceptance of my arguments and arguments put forward by other han. Members on both sides of the House. In correspondence with his Department in May there was an intimation that a change in legislation could take place before the end of 1976. The weeks and months have slipped by and, in the words of the song,
"It's a long, long time from May to September".
No move was made, so today I am presenting this little measure in the hope that the House will give it a fair wind through all its stages.

An injustice is being done to these children and their foster parents who read of the Government's intentions to provide foster homes rather than institutions but who are denied a tax-free allowance which would be given to them as of right if they were the real parents rather than foster parents. In fact, the Government have accepted the principle I am expounding by paying the mobility allowance to a disabled child regardless of his status. Whether he is with foster parents, in residential care, in hospital or with his own parents, he is still entitled to the mobility allowance.

Another argument to be taken into account is the financial circumstances of local authorities in these days of cash limits and cut-backs. Whereas the attendance allowance is inflation-proof, as it must be if it is to cover the extra costs the severely disabled incur in clothing, diets, special equipment and assistance, the local allowances provided by the local authorities not only vary from the inadequate to the passable but are not likely to keep pace with the cost of living.

Having said that, I must add that since the debate last April, when I gave details of the survey of local authorities, there has been a range of substantial improvements by many of them. In Avon, for example, the maximum additional allowance has been raised from only £2·31 per week to £25. In Bolton there is a rise from £9·03 a week to a no-limit allowance, and the Isle of Wight, which a year ago was the worst of all local authorities, now provides £8·50 a week. Improvements are taking place, but they do not come up to the level of the attendance allowance.

However, a recent set-back has been reported in Wiltshire, where foster parents looking after a severely mentally handicapped child and receiving an extra £5 per week have been taxed on that allowance. If the child had been their own, they would have received a tax-free allowance. This is a cruel anomaly which would be eliminated by the passage of the Bill.

There are two principal effects of present policy. First, foster parents may be prepared through dedication and devotion to undertake the very arduous work involved, and willingly do so, although they are given less consideration and assistance than natural parents. The commitment of many is such that payment or non-payment of the allowance would not alter their decision to undertake the work. Be that as it may, we are still running the risk of depriv ing the child, but we are depriving even more those children in residential care or in hospital who could be fostered, if suitable foster parents were willing and available to do so. Those children are being deprived of a home life.

The Government's consultative document last year accentuated the need to provide boarding out and fostering for as many children as possible in preference to expensive residential home care. Representations on this matter have come not only from sympathetic Members in the all-party disablement group, but from organisations as disparate as the Association of County Council and Metropolitan Authorities, the Disablement Income Group, and the Health and Handicaps Group of the National Council of Social Services.

It is often difficult to obtain the agreement of the various organisations dealing with the handicapped, but when it is the unanimous opinion of so many that a change in the regulations would assist them and local authorities in caring for handicapped children, surely this House, with its manifest compassion for the disabled, should respond.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hannam, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. Jack Ashley, Dr. Gerald Vaughan, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Sir George Young, Mr. George Park, Mr. David Price, Mr. Norman Tebbit and Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.

Social Security (Amendment)

Mr. John Hannam accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Social Security Act 1975 to provide attendance allowance to foster children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th February and to be printed. [Bill 59].

Orders Of The Day

Scotland And Wales Bill

Considered in Committee [ Progress, 1st February].

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

4.25 p.m.

On a point of order, Sir Myer. It will be within your recollection and that of other occupants of the Chair that yesterday great difficulty was experienced over the powers of this Parliament in a devolved situation. This matter was constantly raised yesterday by myself and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). Indeed, this matter has been raised time and again by those of us who have heard practically every speech in this Committee.

May I appeal to you, Sir Myer, for an authoritative legal ruling to be made, either by the Lord Advocate or the Attorney-General, so that we may resolve a doubtful and complex situation? This matter is of great importance for the understanding of Members as to the progress of the Bill and is a matter of considerable substance. I speak as somebody who genuinely does not know what is the legal position, and I feel that the time has come for an authoritative legal ruling.

I am sorry that the Chair cannot help the hon. Gentleman. However, the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, is present and he has heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I must leave the matter to the Department that is responsible for the Bill.

In the absence of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), in whose name Amendment No. 97 stands—obviously he and many other Members of the Labour Benches appear to have lost interest in the Bill—may I seek to move that amendment in order to allow the debate to proceed?

We have not yet reached that stage. It was intimated to me that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) would not be present and that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would move the amendment.

If you had not called me, Sir Myer, I would have approached the matter by prefacing my remarks with the phrase "On a point of order".

Clause 3

Time Of Election And Term Of Office Of Members Of Assembly

I beg to move Amendment No. 97, in page 2, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert

'at any time within four years of the date of the previous election'.

With this amendment we may also take the following amendments:

No. 98, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'third'.

No. 99, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'fifth'.

No. 100, in page 2, line 16, at end insert
'or on such earlier date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint'.
No. 315, in page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) Upon the advice of the Scottish Chief Executive, Her Majesty may by Royal Proclamation appoint as the day for the holding of the election a day not more than one month earlier nor more than one month later than the day on which the election would be held apart from the Proclamation; and if Her Majesty is at any time advised by the Scottish Chief Executive that the Scottish Assembly has passed a resolution declaring that the Assembly has no confidence in him and that no other person can he nominated as Scottish Chief Executive enjoying the confidence of the majority of members of the Assembly, she may by Royal Proclamation dissolve the Assembly and appoint as the day for the holding of an election a day not less than one nor more than two months from the day'.
No. 519, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—
'(2A) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, an Assembly may be dissolved and an ordinary election held at any time if a resolution to that effect is passed by the Assembly in question by a vote of two-thirds of those present and voting'.

I have neither the style nor the capacity for invective of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) but I seek by means of this probing amendment to ascertain what is in the Government's mind.

May I first ask a question which was asked yesterday but perhaps at the wrong moment? What will happen in the, circumstances of a fixed-term Assembly when there is a by-election within that term thus creating a change of Government?

Such a proposal for a fixed term, is not similar to the situation in the House of Representatives or the Senate, in the United States. The United States system is wholly different and the Executive is outwith the House of Representatives and the Senate.

However, in the Scottish Assembly there is to be a formidable Executive apparatus. If there is a fixed-term legislative Assembly, what happens when there is a change of power mid-term? Since there might well be Executive and Governmental chaos in such circumstances, we should like to ascertain the Government's thoughts on the matter.

The second matter concerns synchronisation between Westminster and the Royal High School. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) was always warning us of the problems of getting out of gear and of having elections regularly mid-term when Westminster Governments tend to be at the nadir of their popularity. In those circumstances it is not only a question of what will happen when the Government in the Royal High School is of a different party from that in Westminster.

That is not perhaps the most over whelming difficulty or objection. There is something more fundamental to be considered. Whatever party was campaigning at the time when the Westminster Government were at the bottom of their fortunes would be likely to blame all the woes of the day on that Westminster Government regardless of whether its members were in the same party or in a different party. There is always a great temptation to blame other people for one's own shortcomings.

In these circumstances, I hope that the Government will give their estimate of the practicality of having a subordinate Parliament in one part of the country as part of a unitary State. In a situation involving a four-year fixed term, there is more likelihood of friction because of the nature of that fixed term and the campaigns for the Assembly with candidates heaping wrath on Westminster.

Surely my hon. Friend's argument is both facetious and time-wasting. It often happens in councils in all parts of the United Kingdom that parties returned locally are of a different political complexion from the party in power at Westminster. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that local government elections are coloured by whatever party is in power at Westminster. However, that argument does not mean that we should not have an Assembly.

Clearly my remarks have been neither timewasting nor facetious, because they have elicited a great misunderstanding between us. If my hon. Friend thinks after all the days and nights of discussion on this Bill that there is a comparison to be made between a legislative Assembly in Edinburgh and local government, he is deeply mistaken.

My hon. Friend was seeking to make a comparison. There is an enormous difference between a legislative Assembly and the situation in local government. SNP and other Assembly representatives will not be content with the role they have been given—unlike the situation in Stormont, where the idea of being more British than the British was prevalent. The idea advanced by my hon. Friend that all we are doing is setting up a top tier of local government is most revealing, although, to be fair, in August 1974 this was an idea that many people seemed to have in mind.

4.30 p.m.

I am afraid that my hon. Friend has the wrong impression. Possibly more than any other Scottish Member, I have been trying to draw the distinction between the legislative Assembly and local government, while my hon. Friend has been going about Scotland giving the impression that Scotland will be over governed. The setting up of the Assembly does not mean that there will be over-government because in the further reorganisation of local government I have no doubt that we shall return to a unitary system. My analogy was that if there were two different parties in power, one at Westminster and another in the Assembly, that would be bound to give rise to the same position as now exists between Westminster and local government.

Unitary local government will mean either centralisation in Edinburgh—and that would be the opposite of devolution—or 60 education authorities, 60 fire services and 60 police forces, all at enormous cost. It was for such reasons that the Chairman of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Sir George Sharp—who, incidentally, comes from the region of Fife—last week described the whole idea of the Assembly as a monster. Sir George Sharp has now joined the "Scotland is British" campaign.

Certainly I am a friend of George Sharp's and happy to say so. My hon. Friend is making remarks about a figure who, for three decades, has given great service—

Local authorities in the Scottish regions have rightly or wrongly, made Sir George Sharp their Convener of the Convention of Local Authorities. He has been a major figure in Fife County Council for a long time and I take what he has to say extremely seriously, as do many other people in local government. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) is suggesting that I am lonely in my views on the Assembly, I can only answer that many Labour local and regional councillors in Scotland share them.

I do not want to continue on this point at enormous length, but part of the trouble has arisen because many people have changed their minds about the Assembly. That is a source of considerable irritation to some of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench and that is understandable and human.

Only today another organisation changed its mind.

The Edinburgh divisional committee of the AUEW has unanimously passed the motion:
"This Union, recognising the great dangers to working class unity inherent in the proposals to create Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, instructs the Executive Council to urge the Government to withdraw the Devolution Bill, currently before Parliament".
People are entitled to change their minds, This decision was made unanimously by the second biggest area of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, which covers Edinburgh, Fife, West Lothian, Falkirk and the Borders. One might say that Mr. Gavin Laird and Mr. John Boyd and others should have taken a different view in 1974—

Does the hon. Gentleman know that the Dundee Chamber of Commerce has taken a similar line?

Order. I wonder whether the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has read the whole context of the quotation. Did the motion go on to say that the union wanted elections held—as provided for in the amendment that we are now discussing—at any time within four years of the previous election?

The motion, like me, was concise and used few words in urging the Government to withdraw the Bill. The union is very precise about what it wants.

It is true that two years ago, particularly in August 1974, the AUEW was instrumental in creating and sowing the seeds of the policy that we are now discussing. But, like many other bodies, the more that the AUEW sees of the proposal and the more that it has to try to understand the consequences of the Bill, the more clearly it sees things and the more it dislikes the Bill. The Edinburgh division has now come out against it.

That process is taking place widely. I am not a keen supporter of opinion polls, but that trend was apparent in the Glasgow Herald opinion poll which showed that 42 per cent. of Labour Party supporters were against devolution and 41 per cent. in favour. That is a tremendous change over a few years. I gave the example of the AUEW as an indication of the way in which serious organisations are changing their minds, perhaps thanks to the work of the "Scotland is British" movement.

The main point of the amendment is whether the Assembly should have a fixed term. Like many other amendments that we have discussed during the past four or five days, there lies behind it an important question of principle as to the sort of Assembly that there will be. It has already been mentioned that the Assembly might be a form of glorified local government. If that happened it would be a disaster.

I am sorry that, if we were going to change the constitutional situation of tilt country at all, we did not look at it as a whole and start from the local level. Few people approve of the order in which we have tackled our reforms—beginning with local authorities and moving on to devolution. That still leaves the question of elections to the European Parliament. It would have been highly desirable to look at all the matters together, to have started with what should be done at local level and then to have decided what further tiers of government were necessary.

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was right in saying that the nation is turning against the Bill. People have had enough changes in forms of government during the past year or two, and they are dissatisfied with government as a whole. It is against that background that we must consider the amendments and decide whether we want an Assembly with a fixed term of office or whether it should be in somebody's power to dissolve the Assembly.

I have considerable sympathy with the idea of a fixed term. There is a danger that we will repeat in Edinburgh all the mistakes at present made at Westminster. It has been argued that one of our problems here is that Back Bench Members are losing power. It has been suggested that one of the reasons for that is that the Prime Minister may dissolve Parliament. I know that that is a very rough outline of the argument and that many people would dispute it. Nevertheless, there is a case for saying that the power of the Back Benchers is too weak and that the power of the Government, although not as strong as it is said to be, is stronger than that of Back Benchers and that the position ought to be altered by removing the power of dissolution. Removing the power of dissolution is an important political change, and it would have all sorts of effects on the relationship between Back Benchers and Ministers, between the Opposition and the Government and so forth.

There has been a tendency in this country to think that we can change one part of the constitution without looking at the whole of it. I favour proportional representation, but I realise that if we had it we should have to change a great many other things, including the party system, the committee system and so on.

When we change to virtually fixed-term Assemblies, there will be new possibilities for confusion. As has already been admirably spelt out by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), one has only to read the Bill to see the possibilities for, if not collisions, at least differences between the Assembly in Edinburgh and the Parliament in London.

The Assembly will probably usually be of a different political complexion than the Parliament at Westminster. Therefore, the Secretary of State and the Chief Executive will belong to different parties. This may work, but it may not; it can be cogently argued that it worked in Northern Ireland, but one party was in power there and was determined at all costs to collaborate with the Government at Westminster. Exactly the opposite position may prevail between Edinburgh and London.

There should be some escape clause by which the Assembly may be dissolved if circumstances become intolerable. Who is to have the power to dissolve the Assembly? I favour the Chief Executive, as suggested in one of the amendments, as against the Secretary of State, who might be of a different party and might be deeply involved in a dispute with the Assembly in which his view was not shared by the majority of the Scottish people. There may be other circumstances. One can imagine a situation in which it would be as well for the Assembly to pack up for one reason or another and have new elections.

In general, the period between elections is not too long. The Bill provides for four years, while some people suggest five years and others three. I think that four years is reasonable, and I would go for five years rather than three. However, there may be times when the Assembly will need to be dissolved more than two months before the scheduled time, and have suggested that this might be done by the vote of two-thirds of the Assembly. I do not stand on that as a rigid proposition because I can see that there are other ways of achieving the flexibility which is essential.

I do not wish to overturn the principle. It is reasonable to try for a fixed term for the Assembly, at least in the beginning, but there should be some way in which it can be dissolved if serious complications arise. This would move it away from being a super-tier of local government and make it an effective political body. Devolution will fail unless this is done.

I accept that there are almost insuperable difficulties about arranging a structure of government which is not a federation or unitary. The nearest reasonable system was contained in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. I do not think that these things are easy, but the Scottish people are demanding least of all another tier of local government. They want less government, better government and government which is simple. At present, we are making it more complicated and rigid.

4.45 p.m.

I oppose the amendment, but wish to speak in favour of Amendment No. 315 in the names of myself and my hon. Friends. There are no arrangements in the clause for the dissolution in certain circumstances of the Scottish Assembly. I favour fixed-term elections and believe that it is desirable that there should be a four-year period between them. That is a reasonable term. Despite the five-year maximum set by the Parliament Act, the average lifetime of Westminster Parliaments since 1910 has been about four years, even taking into account the exceptionally long wartime Parliaments of 1910 to 1918 and 1939 to 1945.

Although the Government have rightly adopted the four-year period, certain problems could still arise. Opinion polls in Scotland have shown over a fairly sustained period, that opinion is divided among three parties, with the Liberals and the Scottish Labour Party also figuring.

It is right that when we are setting up Executive apparatus there should be an opportunity for the Assembly to decide on its lifetime. It might, for instance, be impossible for the Chief Executive to get the agreement of the Assembly for certain actions, or a motion of "no confidence" might be passed by the Assembly. Without the power of dissolution, we might have a Chief Executive who does not have the backing of the Assembly or, if he could not tolerate that situation, no Executive at all. Our amendment seeks to deal with that problem.

After yesterday's debate on the relationship between the Crown and Parliament, I take it that the Minister of State has not immediately changed his mind on these matters, although if we get to the Report stage I think that he may be willing to reconsider. However, I do not put too much emphasis on the method of proceeding by way of Royal Proclamation. I shall concentrate instead on other parts of our amendment.

The amendment seeks to curtail the period within which the Secretary of State may fix elections. The Bill provides that he may choose a date two months before or two months after the statutory time. Our suggestion, which follows on from yesterday's discussions, is that we should cut back this period to one month.

If the Bill goes through, there would be elections for the Assembly every four years and political parties would operate on that time scale. They would not require long notice of elections if they were fixed within statutory limitations.

I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks. Does he favour fixed terms for the Assembly?

I do, indeed favour a fixed term, subject to certain qualifications to which reference has already been made and to which further reference will be made later.

Instead of there being an effective period of four months within which an election may take place under the four-year term, the discretion which is allowed to the Secretary of State, as stated in the Bill—which would lie with the Crown according to my amendment—should be cut back to one month on either side of the term. In other words, there would be a two-month period in which an election could take place. This would give flexibility in dealing with clashes with the dates of other elections, and in my view there could be no argument against it.

Does the hon. Gentleman favour a fixed term for this Parliament, or is he saying that Assembly elections should be held in a similar way to county council elections, for a fixed term?

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to that point in a moment, although I do not think that my view on whether this Parliament shall have a fixed term would be within the scope of these amendments. But if an answer is required, my answer to the hon. Gentleman is "Yes".

Under my amendment, instead of a four-months discretionary period we should have one of two months.

On a point of order, Sir Myer. May we have your ruling on a very important point? Surely if we are discussing whether the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies should have fixed terms, we are entitled to draw on the experience of the House of Commons and of other Parliaments. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) appears to have put words into your mouth which you have not uttered. He seems to be saying that it would be out of order to consider whether this Parliament ought to have a fixed term, and that it would be out of order to draw on our experience of this and other Parliaments.