May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week, please?

As the House is aware, the debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech will be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 9th November.

FRIDAY 10TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Public Lending Right Bill.

MONDAY 13TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill.

As the Public Lending Right Bill was included in the first Gracious Speech of this Parliament, and that was the last we heard of it, may I express the hope that this time it will get through, as the Lord President, after the end of this Session, may have need of the benefits that it will confer?

I thank the right hon. Lady for her support on all those various counts, and I think it is a fine example of the persistence of this Government that if at first we did not succeed, we are trying and trying again. I know that the right hon. Lady is very sensitive about any Scottish reference, but I hope that she will not mind that one.

May I ask the Leader of the House the question I raised yesterday about the form of the debate on Rhodesia? He will be aware that the official Opposition have indicated that they are tabling an amendment on the current situation in Rhodesia, which is a quite different matter from the Bingham report. Surely it is right not only that we should be able to express views on the Bingham report during a general debate on Rhodesia but that the House should be given the chance, if we wish to do so after we have listened to the debate, to press for a further inquiry. Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that an amendment of that kind will be possible, possibly by the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule?

The question of the calling of amendments and what amendments are in order or out of order is not one that the Government decide; it is decided by Mr. Speaker. I am fully aware of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman and others in the House yesterday, but I believe that the provision of time during the debate on the Gracious Speech, when these matters can be debated, is the first opportunity when the House can give a general view on the matter. We should approach the matter in that way.

It does not mean that the House may not return to the matter again later, but I think that we should now proceed on the basis proposed here. We are suggesting that on Tuesday the rule should be suspended, so that there will be plenty of time for Members in all parts of the House to engage in the debate if they wish and to be able to raise all the matters that are in order during the debate on the Gracious Speech.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be an early opportunity to debate, preferably in a two-day debate, the report issued during the Summer Recess by the Select Committee on Procedure?

It is obviously a very important report. I cannot give my hon. Friend an indication of exactly when we shall have a debate upon it, but of course we must give consideration to it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are reports in the press that the Government intend to turn down the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Land Fund? May we please have a statement to clarify this matter?

The hon. Gentleman will do well to follow the procedure of not believing anything he reads in the press until it is verified from the reputable quarter of this Dispatch Box.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his persistence with public lending right. May we hope that this time round the Leader of the Opposition will manage to corral her filibustering independents into a responsible Lobby?

The right hon. Lady has already offered her support on the Bill, and I think we should accept that offer in the spirit in which she has given it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why a gift of arms to Zambia was made before the House of Commons had an opportunity to debate it?

The House of Commons is to have an opportunity to debate it at a very early stage. What the Government did was to stand by their duties and obligations in the matter.

If we should not believe all that we read in the press on the subject of the European monetary system, do the Government intend to publish a paper—white, green or whatever—so that we shall know before we debate the matter what it is that we are talking about?

I am sure that it will be highly desirable that the House should know what it is debating before it debates it. Undertakings have been given that there will be a debate in the House, and, of course, by that time I am sure that my right hon. Friend and others will have seen the information which the Government have put at the disposal of the House, and I believe that they will be satisfied that the Government have met that obligation too.

Will the Lord President accept that what he said just now in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) is a classic example of how this House, far from controlling the Executive, is now totally controlled by the Executive? When my right hon. Friend raised the question with you, Mr. Speaker, you quite rightly and obviously stated that you were not able to choose, and were in no way responsible for choosing the subjects for debate. So we then went to the fount of all wisdom. My right hon. Friend asked the Lord President whether he would do something about it, but he said "It has nothing to do with me." This matter can go on being tossed backwards and forwards for ever. No one will ever accept responsibility.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what the allegation is. The allegation is that there is a conspiracy between the two Front Benches of this House to ensure that the House of Commons never gets to the bottom of having been grossly misled by successive Governments. That is the allegation. When will the right hon. Gentleman let us debate it?

The allegation, in my judgment, is absolutely baseless. Certainly there has been no understanding between the Government and the Opposition Front Bench as to how we should express a view on this matter. What the hon. Gentleman is doing, if anyone were to believe him, is spreading rumours about these matters which are completely false.

Pull the other one.

That is a more articulate interruption than we usually have from the hon. Gentleman. I advise him that in my judgment it is quite wrong to spread the tale that the Executive are in control of Parliament in these matters. That is not the case. What the Government have decided and what will happen during the coming days is that, at the earliest possible opportunity after the return of this Parliament, there will be discussions on the matter during which Members in different parts of the House will be able to express their views as freely and lengthily as the time provides. Indeed, a considerable amount of time is provided for this purpose.

When those views have been expressed, the Government will certainly take them into account, and, of course, we shall have to make our own judgment and bring that back to the House as well. Therefore, the idea that the Executive is controlling Parliament in this matter and not the other way round is, as I said, completely misleading.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that, in this situation as in all others, if the Opposition Front Bench pushed for a separate debate on Bingham with all their might there would be a separate debate? Whether or not there is a conspiracy between the two Front Benches, it seems to me that there certainly is a conspiracy in the Tory Party not to have this matter dealt with separately and for a full public inquiry to follow. Is it not time, however, that my right hon. Friend took appropriate steps to ensure that this took place?

That is a different matter and one that will be a subject for debate both within the Labour Party and within the House of Commons as to what should be determined in the future. But during the debates upon the Gracious Speech the Opposition have a perfect right to put their views as to what should be debated in the form in which they wish to see it debated. That is something that has happened in the House of Commons for generations, and I believe that it is perfectly proper. But it is quite misleading to suggest that the House of Commons will not have a full opportunity to debate this matter and to give its views, and the Government will, of course, take account of those views.

rose—

Order. I propose to call the three hon. Members who have been standing before we move on to the statements.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on reintroducing the Public Lending Right Bill? Will he confirm that on this occasion it will be taken at prime Government time? When will the Second Reading take place?

I have already announced that Second Reading will be taking place on Friday next week, so we are proceeding quickly. This is a Government measure and we hope that it will have the full backing of all parts of the House, as it has had before. I have every hope that we can get it on to the statute book at an early date.

There are two ministerial statements today about important events that occurred during the recess. Can the Lord President arrange for the Secretary of State for Industry to make a full statement about another important event—the Peugeot-Citroen takeover of Chrysler—because the press statements from that Department during the recess were rather unforthcoming?

I cannot accept the criticisms made by the hon. Gentleman of the statements made by my right hon. Friend on the subject. I will certainly see whether there should be a special statement, but I am doubtful whether that should be the case, and, of course, we have to take into account—in order to suit the convenience of the House and not merely of individuals concerned—that if one has too many statements it eats up too much of the rest of parliamentary time.

Will my right hon. Friend be making an early statement on the action he proposes to take on the Select Committee's report which deals with the medical and health coverage for hon. Members of this House?

Yes. We have not had a further meeting of the Services Committee and those concerned, but I hope that we shall be able to make an early statement.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.

The Government have decided to set up an inquiry to consider the causes of the present situation that exists in the prison system. The inquiry will examine the organisation and management of the prison system in the United Kingdom, including its use of resources and working arrangements, conditions in prison service establishments and the structure, pay and conditions of service.

The Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland and I are consulting the appropriate staff associations, and I will inform the House of the composition and the terms of reference of the inquiry. We shall ask for a report with the utmost urgency.

In recent months, unofficial action has been taken in some penal establishments which has had the effect of disrupting the criminal justice system as well as the running of the prisons themselves. The Government make clear that such action cannot be allowed, and with the establishment of this inquiry they expect all staff to work normally and to present their case to the inquiry in due course.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition support strongly the broad inquiry which he proposes, and we agree with him entirely that there should be normal working in our prisons? This inquiry will provide the opportunity to consider the whole question of conditions of service and the overcrowding in our prisons, together with the administration and management of them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the terms of reference will be wide enough to allow the inquiry to consider whether it is best for the prison service to be administered from within the Home Office or by its own professional head outside the Home Office but responsible to the Home Secretary, as has been suggested several times by the Opposition and, indeed, by many other people?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It will be a wide-ranging inquiry, but it will be carried out as a matter of urgency. On the second question, there is no reason why the possibility suggested by the right hon. Gentleman should not be looked at. It has been looked at, rejected, and discussed already, but it is right that it should be looked at again.

Given that my right hon. Friend has been warned for a considerable time now about the situation, can he explain why it has taken him so long to act? Why is it always that the Government must be seen to be acting only under pressure? Will he accept that the present crisis is not just or even mainly a consequence of the prison officers' action, but has more serious and deep-rooted causes in the overcrowding, the inadequate facilities and the lack of adequate staff in our prisons and the lack of public expenditure on them?

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will take action, urgently and immediately, to ensure that the crisis does not disrupt the prison service, and that we do not have further riots, such as those which have already occurred, and which are likely to recur, unless sensible, sensitive and imaginative action is taken by my right hon. Friend?

I am interested in what my hon. Friend says, and I know that he has a knowledge of this matter. I accept that over the last quarter of a century not enough resources have been put into the prison service. It is my view that what has been happening in the last year or two is part of a wider malaise in society in that prison officers have taken no notice of the Prison Officers' Association, to which I give praise. I have a list here of some of the things that have happened recently which, in my view, should not happen in our society, such as people being refused admittance to prison. On the Isle of Wight at the moment, the prison officers are deciding who shall go in and go out, and it is indefensible that that should happen. Of course it has a bearing on what my hon. Friend says, but the matter is much deeper than that. It has to do with present day attitudes, and I give notice on behalf of the Government—

February 1974.

No, it is not due to February 1974. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who comments on everything every Sunday morning, would do much better if he visited a prison instead of shouting in that way.

May I, from the Liberal Bench, also welcome the Home Secretary's decision to set up the inquiry, which will be particularly welcomed in my constituency?

May I also take up his remarks about Parkhurst? Does the Secretary of State agree that Parkhurst prison, above all, has had a long tradition of good prison service? The fact that this dispute has lasted more than 11 months reveals the extent to which morale has dropped in the prison service generally and in relations between prison officers and the Home Office. I hope that that factor will figure largely in the inquiry.

Can the Secretary of State give an undertaking, as he did for the police, that the Government will accept the recommendations of the inquiry? If the prison officers are to resume working, which I hope they will, they will want an undertaking of that sort.

The prison officers at Parkhurst can put their case now to an independent inquiry. It will be a wide-ranging report and rather different from other reports that we have had. I think it better that we should let the matter lie at present. If there is a case, let it be put. My office and I will also put a case. The matter must be looked at from all sides.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his announcement of this inquiry, which we all hope will do a great deal of good, may I ask whether he agrees that in the end no great improvement can be expected without new prisons and an end to overcrowding? Have the Government any proposals for increasing prison building and thus reducing overcrowding? That is the basic cause of all these problems.

It does not answer the question precisely. As I said earlier, it is a big problem. We are spending £23 million on new construction and £8 million on maintenance and repair of existing premises. The present plans over the next four years will produce 4,500 additional places. In the current situation, even if new prisons were available tomorrow morning, there would still be a problem. That is what we want to look at.

Can the Home Secretary explain why he has allowed the present discontent, and the dangers to the prison service which attend that discontent, to mount to its present peak without previously taking action? Would he not agree that he has had well over a year of warnings that this kind of situation would arise? Will he also make clear that in this wide-ranging investigation the specific subject of overcrowding will be dealt with?

The subject of overcrowding will arise automatically, and it must be looked at. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of a peak, as though this was a problem in every prison. He spoke of steps being taken to deal with it. I believe that this is the right time to deal with it, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggestions to make—as I know he has—he should give his evidence to the inquiry. I think it will be found that there is far more to this matter than just the normal aspect, which is perfectly relevant, of resources, equipment and buildings.

Although I welcome the announcement of this inquiry, will my right hon. Friend please consider this matter as one of urgency? An inquiry of this kind will take a considerable time before recommendations are made to him. In the meantime, many members of the Prison Officers' Association have alleged that cash is owing to them immediately. That money has accrued over a period of two years. Is he prepared to consider making an interim payment to those prison officers, pending the full report of the inquiry? The prison officers allege that substantial sums of money are owed to them.

I know about the arguments in special cases. In one prison the prison officers are insisting that they be negotiated with directly and that negotiation should not be done by the Prison Officers' Association. I am not prepared to accept that. It must be done through the normal channels.

I wish to make one other point clear. We are not talking only about pay. We are talking of something far wider. In accepting the results of the inquiry, everyone would be accepting all that comes out of it. My hon. Friend said that he assumed it would take a long time. I do not accept that assumption.

Order. May I appeal to the House? There is another statement to follow. Will hon. Members not argue a case but simply ask a question?

Were not all the factors contributing to the present crisis identified in our debate on prisons on 18th March last year? Is it right that the Home Secretary should now say that the inquiry should report with the utmost urgency when he has sat on these problems for the intervening 18 months? Surely we want to get it right.

No, I have not sat on them. What was raised in the House did not cover all the problems. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has a view on this, I hope that he will give evidence to the inquiry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that as long ago as 1967—11 years ago, not last year—a Select Committee made proposals for relieving the appalling conditions in many of our old, overcrowded prisons? Does he not think that it is high time that the situation for both prisoners and prison officers in the old prisons was drastically reorganised so that prison officers could give time to education and rehabilitation work which they cannot do now? They spend most of their day locking and unlocking doors. Does he not also agree that sentencing policy should be looked at, because a large number of people are committed to prisons who should not be?

I do not want to give a list of what has been done on sentencing policy and community service orders. My hon. Friend is right to raise the general issue. In many cases there is no educational work being done, although all the resources are there to be used right now. Certain prison officers are saying that they are not prepared to allow prisoners to participate in this.

Will the Home Secretary give an assurance that in the meantime there will be no change in attitudes towards so-called political status or special category status in any of Her Majesty's prisons?

When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I ended political status which had been created under a previous Administration.

Although the inquiry can certainly do no harm, does my right hon. Friend agree that the main cause of the problems has been well known for a long time, namely, the appalling overcrowding and the disgusting conditions in many of our prisons due to a generation of Home Office neglect? Will he tell the House what steps he intends to take to reduce the prison population by ensuring that people who are plainly not intended for prison are not committed to prison, such as alcoholics, vagrants and the mentally subnormal?

I hope we can do something about the matter of subnormality and alcoholism. Of course, the situation has something to do with a generation of neglect, but there is something more deep-seated at the moment which I want to get to the root of.

Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that, as the Member of Parliament who has Dartmoor in his constituency, I am very concerned about the future of that prison? Will he also bear in mind that, while I have been trying to help, the replies that have been received from the Home Office have taken so long that that has added to the problems and irritation of the prison officers? Will he see what can be done to speed up the replies?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support me in the action that I shall be taking about Dartmoor.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the inquiry also covers those members of the Prison Officers' Association who work in the special hospitals at Rampton, Moss Side and Broadmoor? Is he aware that they, too, have taken unofficial action because of their working conditions? Will he make sure that that section of their union is included in the inquiry?

I shall certainly look at that in the terms of reference.

Hon. Members with prisons in their constituencies will know the great urgency of this matter. Will the Home Secretary consider putting a time limit for at least an interim report by the inquiry so that it does not appear to be merely a means of keeping everything under the carpet and there will be an opportunity for positive action?

It will report as a matter of urgency, but the terms of reference, when I bring them to the House, will all fit together. One part of it will not be dealt with separately. It will be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

First, may I say on behalf of the Scottish National Party that this inquiry is extremely welcome? But will the Home Secretary give an assurance that the special unit at Barlinnie will be given special attention within the inquiry in view of the fact that it has done much to change the attitude of opinion in Scotland from punitive to rehabilitation measures?

Secondly, will the Home Secretary look specifically at housing as it is allocated to prison officers? It would appear that in the past the remuneration of those prison officers who wished to purchase their own house rather than take up a local authority allocation has suffered.

All these matters will be considered.

rose—

I propose to call the four hon. Members who have been standing.

I agree with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) on the great value that the special unit at Barlinnie has contributed towards the study of prison reform, but will there be a Scottish element in the inquiry? I recognise that there is a distinct difference between the Scottish and the English prison services, but they work closely together in many ways and what happens in England today as regards prison officers is usually followed very quickly in Scotland. Therefore, will there be a Scottish element in the investigation and the inquiry?

Scotland is covered in the inquiry and the special interests of Scotland will be taken into account.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific about his reply to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Grocott)? Is he satisfied that the terms of reference of the inquiry are such that it will be able to take into consideration the fact that prison officers are required to supervise not only criminals but alcoholics and the mentally disturbed, who should not be in prison and are there because the Secretary of State for Social Services has not provided adequate accommodation for them?

There is no reason why that matter should not be covered.

When the Home Secretary speaks of a wider malaise, does he recognise that such has been the deterioration in the standards of law and order in this country that, whereas before the war there were about 10,000 or 11,000 people in prison on average, now there are more than four times that number and that this is the fundamental problem in the prisons?

There is not a breakdown in law and order; there is a problem of law and order. I have figures here which can relate it to the advent of the Conservative Government. One can prove anything with figures. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind. One sign of success in the fight for law and order is that more people are in prison, so numbers cannot be taken in isolation.

Can the Home Secretary give a clear answer to the question which is not part of the terms of the inquiry, namely, why he has waited until now to announce the inquiry?

The matters which have concerned me in the way that people have been taking the running of the prisons into their own hands have happened in the last year. In taking the decision to do something about it, one has to choose the right moment. In the last few weeks deliberate action has been taken which I am not prepared to accept on the part of the Government. For that reason. I have set the inquiry up now. As I said in my statement, if people have views on this matter, they can give them to the inquiry. They should not be taking the action they are, which is unofficial and is leading to a breakdown of law and order, and could lead to an even worse breakdown.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on Zambia.

When the Prime Minister and I met President Kaunda at Kano on 22nd and 23rd September, the President asked for our help in dealing with Zambia's economic problems and for military assistance, making it clear that he was turning to us in the first instance as a fellow member of the Commonwealth with which his country has had economic and defence relations since independence in 1964. We discussed in detail the urgent problems they faced of obtaining maize seed, fertiliser and pesticide which were needed to ensure next year's harvest. We also discussed the problems of the Benguela railway.

Zambia also faces severe economic difficulties arising from the low world price of copper and difficulties with her road and rail links to the sea. The Rhodesian raids deep inside Zambia on 19th October have reinforced the Zambian Government's concern about their national security. I have just heard today of a further raid.

We have agreed to provide military aid to improve Zambia's defensive capability. Some ground equipment and spares have already been supplied, strictly for the use of the Zambian armed forces and police. More will follow after detailed consultations with the Zambians. We shall also step up military training for Zambians in Britain. No British Service personnel or aircraft will be stationed in Zambia.

The Zambian Government have given us firm assurances that the equipment will be used for no other purpose than the defence of Zambia and will not be passed to any third party, and the air defence equipment will safeguard the integrity of the capital. When we have established with the Zambians their exact needs, I will immediately tell the House the cost to the Exchequer of the military assistance that we are providing. Parliamentary approval for this expenditure—which I expect to be of the order of £10 million—will be borne on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Votes and will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate in due course.

The Government have agreed to help meet Zambia's urgent need for foreign exchange by making now an advance payment of £20 million in respect of purchases of copper for British industry. We expect this copper to be shipped to Britain during 1980. The quantities, up to £20 million in value, will depend on contract prices at the time of delivery. The copper will be resold to British buyers in such a way as not to disrupt the normal workings of the market. We have also offered technical assistance to Zambia to help in the development of Zambian cobalt production.

The Benguela railway is due to be reopened on 4th November and should ease the problem of transporting Zambia's exports, including copper, and also imports. We have offered financial assistance for improving the Zaire section of the Benguela railway and are offering technical assistance for the Angolan section.

I hope that this assistance for Zambia at a time of great difficulty will strengthen her links with this country and the Commonwealth.

This is a very important statement, but not a particularly precise one. We on the Conservative Benches naturally recognise fully the vital importance of the Commonwealth and our relations with all its African members, but is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave anxieties that exist, not only about the terms but about the implications of this arrangement within the context of the Rhodesian crisis and the central aim of Her Majesty's Government to bring peace as soon as possible to that land?

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what guarantees he has about the use and destination of these weapons, especially in view of the presence in Zambia of substantial guerrilla forces? There is a phrase in the statement about?

"firm assurances that the equipment will be used for no other purpose than the defence of Zambia".

Does that mean the defence of Zambian troops and aircraft, or does it mean the defence of terrorist bases inside Zambia? If it is the latter, how can the Government defend this position when the terrorists operating from these bases are killing innocent black and white Rhodesian civilians?

Secondly, how can the right hon. Gentleman be sure that these British weapons will be totally restricted to the defence of Zambian installations, as distinct from air space? The phrasing of the statement is vague. Certainly it is too general. References to the "national security" of Zambia and to the provision of military aid to

"improve Zambia's defensive capability".

are very vague phrases, which could be open to wider interpretation. We would certainly like the Foreign Secretary to be more precise.

Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman say what undertaking the Government have secured from President Kaunda to the effect that he will use every endeavour to bring Mr. Nkomo to the conference table so that progress towards a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia can be achieved? That seems to us to be a vital need at present. What we are questioning is whether the right hon. Gentleman has viewed his action in the whole context of the immensely serious situation in Southern Africa as a whole.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement about his support for the Commonwealth, which I know to be genuine, and particularly for African countries in the Commonwealth. I also welcome his statement about the central aim of the Government being to achieve a peace in Rhodesia. It is. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there has been no more difficult decision that I have had to take as Foreign Secretary than this issue. As the right hon. Gentleman said, I believe that we had to take it in the whole context of an extremely grave and serious situation.

As to being precise, I would with respect go back to the statement that I read to the House, which I believe answers the right hon. Gentleman's point about guarantees. It says:

"The Zambian Government"

—that is, the Government and the President of that country—

"have given us firm assurances that the equipment will be used for no other purpose than the defence of Zambia and will not be passed to any third party"

—there are other liberation movements than the ZAPU forces in Zambia at the moment, and that is why I have used the expression "third party"—

"and the air defence equipment will safeguard the integrity of the capital"

—the capital of that Commonwealth country. I believe that that is quite clear.

Of course, any hon. Gentleman may ask how I can be absolutely certain. I have, and this House has in this situation—as we have with many other questions of arms equipment—to make our best judgment of the integrity and the word of honour of the Government of that country. I for one am prepared to rest on the integrity of President Kaunda and of the Zambian Government.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm, first of all, that Zambia, more than any other individual nation State, has had to bear the burden of the British and United Nations' sanctions policy over the last decade? Secondly, will he accept that it is right that any British Government should always be prepared to consider giving assistance to any fellow member of the Commonwealth which finds its territory violated? Does he not find it both illogical and hypocritical that the very people who have been criticising this aid to Zambia would have been the first to criticise the growing influence of other Powers in the world if Zambia had had to turn elsewhere?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for understanding the complexities of this issue and for his support over a difficult decision, but, I believe, a right decision, to stand by the Zambian Government. As to his last point, I urge the House to look at this matter in its widest context. It is no use our trying to resist the spread of influence of others if we, when asked, are not prepared to stand up and be counted.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the indiscriminate bombing by Smith's air force is strongly reminiscent of the behaviour of Mussolini's air force in Abyssinia in the 1930s". Does he also agree that the other side of this equation is the flow of oil and arms from South Africa to Smith's regime, which is the basic reason why he is able to commit aggression against Zambia, Mozambique, Botswana and other surrounding countries? Is it not high time that the Security Council was seized of this problem and brought the whole pressure of the Western world to bear to destroy this rebellion?

My hon. Friend raises a wider question about sanctions and other issues which we shall be discussing next week. On the subject of attacks, I think tha it is a matter for great regret on the part of every hon. Member of this House that in this dispute, unfortunately, many hundreds of civilians on both sides and in many different countries are losing their lives—some as the result of bombing and other military atacks, and some as the result of indiscriminate killing. There can be no one on either side of this House who does not want to achieve a peaceful and negotiated settlement. That will be extremely difficult, but, in the context of this issue, let it not be forgotten that few people in Southern Africa have played a more significant role in trying to achieve a negotiated settlement than President Kaunda. Time after time, at very considerable risk—he has been frequently attacked—he has stood for a negotiated settlement. The whole history of various initiatives which he has taken is the most eloquent testimony that this man is prepared to take political risks to achieve a negotiated settlement for Rhodesia.

Before agreeing to supply these arms for the defence of Zambia, did the Foreign Secretary seek an assurance from President Kaunda that he would do all in his power to restrain the activities of the guerrillas who are using the relative safety of Zambia, now to be enhanced by British arms, to conduct a campaign of murder and terrorism in Rhodesia against black and white alike? If he did not ask for that assurance, why not?

The right hon. Gentleman knows President Kaunda, as do many others in this House. President Kaunda has made clear on a number of occasions his dislike—and in stronger words than that, too—of the civilian casualties that have taken place on both sides. He has asked and urged the Western press to make certain that its censure of that type of killing of innocent civilians is applied equally to both sides.

Equally, I make clear that President Kaunda, like other African Presidents, has stressed at all times his commitment to the liberation struggle. They have supported the continuation of that struggle. In the case of President Kaunda, however, it has not been at the expense of giving up the route which he would far prefer—a negotiated settlement.

Is it not a fact that these heroic attacks by the courageous young whites of the Smith regime have not been against the armed camps of trained men, where they would have been met with ground-to-air missiles, but against such places as refugee camps and a camp where women civil servants were being trained? [Interruption.] Hon. Members should learn the facts. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that, whatever Zambia's defence needs may be, the Government will meet them readily and effectively?

I have already expressed to my hon. Friend our intention to meet those requests which are made for the defence of Zambia. It is a tragedy that these raids resulted in loss of life; a large number of women were, in fact, killed in the last series of raids. I do not yet have enough information about the raid that took place this afternoon, but I hope that that will not reveal further loss of civilian lives.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in giving arms to Zambia he is providing a shield to the host country for the Nkomo guerrillas? I believe that Mr. Nkomo has just been to Moscow. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the Soviet Union is providing the sword—the weapons—with which the Nkomo guerrillas strike at Rhodesia? Is this not tantamount to military collusion between Britain and the Soviet Union?

Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that giving financial aid to Mozambique, Zambia and now, apparently, Angola, and military aid to Zambia, and at the same time asking for the renewal of sanctions against Rhodesia, explodes to smithereens his claim that he is even-handed in his attitude to the transitional multi-racial government and the Patriotic Front?

I claim at all times the need to try to achieve a negotiated settlement in relation to the parties in dispute. But let there be no illusion that we are not even-handed when comparing the actions of Mr. Smith and of President Kaunda. We do not supply arms to the liberation forces. That is a decision that this House has maintained ever since the armed struggle started. But times certainly change; the right hon. Gentleman might do well to look at Hansard and at what he said as short a time ago as February 1976. He argued then that

"we should give maximum support to the black African countries which are, broadly speaking, aligned with us, and I exclude Tanzania and Mozambique. They are Zambia, Zaire, Malawi and Botswana. The first two are desperately short of foreign currency, and I hope that the Government, with European and American support, will make generous aid available to them, secured against the copper stockpile which they have at their pit heads and which they cannot move at present. Let us make armaments available to them if they want them, and advisers and instructors if they want them, too."—[Official Report, 24th Febrauary 1976; Vol. 906, c. 228]

Does my right hon. Friend realise that there will be full support on the Government Benches for the action that he has taken? We welcome the fact that he and the Prime Minister went to Nigeria to meet Kenneth Kaunda and wish to express our support for him in the difficulties that he has faced. Does he also realise that if we have a responsibility for Rhodesia we must have some responsibility for the continuation of the illegal regime? If we have that responsibility, we must also have responsibility for the consequences of that continued illegality.

Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, not only do what he has said that he will but also consult other Commonwealth members to ensure that there is wide support for Zambia in its present situation and to bring an end to that illegality in Rhodesia? Does my right hon. Friend further realise that there is almost no one in the world—outside South Africa—who supports the illegal regime, except for some members of the Conservative Party?

I have always believed that the Commonwealth could play a very important part in bringing about a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia. I spoke to the Commonwealth Secretary-General only this morning—he was flying to Lusaka later today—and I believe that the Commonwealth link can still bridge problems in Southern Africa and elsewhere in the world. However, that means that we respond when a member country asks us, irrespective of whether it is black or white, whether it is rich or whether it is strong. In the Commonwealth we try to bind together those things which are common to us.

I believe that at Kano there was such a time when two countries—in the background of events—could have embarked on a collision course, in the aftermath of the publication of the Bingham report. Instead, they came together to discuss the future. At that Kano meeting a major part of the discussion concerned the question how we could bring about an all-party conference, which was the point raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), to which I did not refer earlier. I believe that President Kaunda still feels that that offers a route to a negotiated settlement.

rose—

Order. I propose to call three speakers from each side, in addition to those from the Front Benches who may wish to ask a final question.

Does the Foreign Secretary recall that the Organisation of African Unity achieved the somewhat precarious unity of a black leadership in Rhodesia under Bishop Muzorewa? Does he also recall that President Kaunda backed that leadership unreservedly and said that he would never support anyone who broke away from it, and yet Mr. Kaunda is giving full support to Mr. Nkomo and his terrorists? In view of that, did the Foreign Secretary make any attempt to warn Bishop Muzorewa, Mr. Sithole or Chief Chirau about this action, which they, at any rate, regard as very hostile?

I am always ready to enter discussions with any of the parties to the dispute, and I do not believe that anyone can claim that I am not. I have recently spoken to Mr. Sithole and I am always ready to see Bishop Muzorewa and Chief Chirau, as I am to see anyone who can contribute to a settlement.

It is an interpretation of the event to which the right hon. Gentlemen referred which lies at the root of a great many of the personal problems between Bishop Muzorewa and President Kaunda. I know that it is the wish of President Kaunda that that personal problem between them should be resolved, and that he would like to have a better relationship with Bishop Muzorewa than he currently has.

Does not the statement made from the Opposition Front Bench, as well as those made from the Back Benches, suggest that the Opposition do not recognise the right of Zambia to defend its territory against the incursions from the illegal Rhodesian regime? Will not this lead only to black Africa regarding their stand as totally hypocritical and incline it even more to turn elsewhere in the world for aid?

I hope not. Of course this is a difficult decision, and of course the Opposition are bound to probe the matter. They are right to question it here in the House of Commons. I have no objection to that. I hope that when they reflect on this issue they will feel that we have decided rightly. When they faced a similar problem in 1973—when they felt that Kenya, another country in the Commonwealth, needed military assistance—they were prepared to give military assistance and to charge it to the Foreign Office Vote, as we have done.

The whole history and the strength of the Commonwealth is that it has been supported on both sides of the House, and I hope that that will remain the case.

Did President Kaunda tell the right hon. Gentleman from where he expected the military threat to Zambia's integrity to come? Did he tell the right hon. Gentleman to which other supplier of arms he was considering turning? Finally, why did not the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to bring pressure to bear upon President Kaunda to ensure that the guerrilla forces of Nkomo were dispersed out of Zambia?

We certainly took the opportunity of the Kano meeting—if that is what the right hon. Gentleman refers to—to pursue the ways in which we could achieve a negotiated settlement. President Kaunda has made his position on the liberation struggle perfectly clear. He is the sovereign Head of State of an independent sovereign country. That country will make its decisions. We have to make our decisions. We have to live together in the world, and we have to face the fact that Zambia has decided to support the liberation forces. We will not support the liberation forces. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are now."] I believe, when hon. Gentlemen look at the very difficult distinction that has to be made, they will see that we are not supporting the liberation forces. We are supporting the defence of Zambia.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to President Kaunda the admiration and sympathy of the House at the tremendous sufferings of the people of his country resulting from the continued treason of Smith and the failure of successive Governments to put it down? Will he confirm that the troubles in that part of Africa are made immeasurably worse by the feeling of some elements in Rhodesia, rightly or wrongly, that Smith's treason is in many ways sympathised with by certain Members of the House?

On the last point, it is undoubtedly true that in their attempts to achieve a negotiated settlement successive Governments have been bedevilled by an increasingly strong element in this House that is thought to be not only helpful to, but prepared to sustain, the regime. I believe that it is also true, and needs to be said in this House, that the front-line countries—Botswana, Zambia and Mozambique—have paid a heavy economic price for the events of 1965. When we debate the issue on Tuesday and Wednesday, we shall have the opportunity to look back and to learn lessons of what has gone wrong.

None of us, however, should be ashamed to admit that the heaviest burden has fallen on countries such as Zambia, whose economy has been gravely damaged.

One does not doubt President Kaunda's intentions, but is not the real question his ability to keep these weapons out of guerrilla hands? What grounds has the Foreign Secretary for believing that if we send weapons to Kaunda Moscow will stop sending them to the guerrillas in his territory?

Finally, since some British personnel—most likely civilians—will be on the ground maintaining the weapons, if they get involved in Rhodesian counter-strikes how will the Foreign Secretary defend them? Will he send in British troops?

I have made it clear to the House that no British Service personnel will be stationed in Zambia. If it is decided that there should be civilian personnel, that is for them to decide. There is a large British population in Zambia—people who have lived there peacefully for many years. There are British passport holders who have become Zambian citizens. Let us not forget that there are many thousands of British people there. The hon. Gentleman knows that. One has to trust people, as the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said in the debate on 24th February, when I suggested that we should also offer Zambia British military advisers if it wished to receive them. President Kaunda is the same President now, in 1978, as he was in 1976. He was then under some of the same pressures, though they were not as acute as they are now. I believe that he can be certain that when he gives his word to us it will not have the consequences that the hon. Gentleman fears.

Is it not a reasonable interpretation of the present status of the internal regime that it is one of white racialism, only partially blackwashed by the limited participation of black Ministers? Is it sufficiently realised in this House and in the country at large that black Ministers have no say over whether the Rhodesian security forces invade Mozambique or Zambia, that those Ministers' participation is limited to the internal situation, and that those actions are the actions of the power which has been illegally in control of Rhodesia for the past 13 years?

My hon. Friend has just returned from a visit to Rhodesia. I am glad that he went, as did some other hon. Members. There is no doubt that it will be unacceptable in this House and also in many other countries all over the world for the military to have the power of decision-making that it currently has inside Rhodesia. I believe that it is a serious issue in judging the degree to which the decisions are shared in the Executive Council. The fact is that a further raid took place on the territory of Zambia today. All that this does is to underline the vital importance of a negotiated settlement involving all of those people who are currently fighting each other.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with one of the questions that I put to him. What undertaking has he received from President Kaunda in return for the present deal that he will use every practical effort to get Mr. Nkomo to participate in the affairs of Rhodesia? Will he please answer now the questions put by my right hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden)? What assurance has he received from President Kaunda? What effort will President Kaunda now make to disband the guerrilla bases in Zambia, which are at the core of the trouble?

I made very clear what President Kaunda's stand is on the liberation struggle. I make no secret of it to the House. It is announced in frequent press conferences. There is nothing new about this. As for President Kaunda's endeavour to bring about a negotiated settlement, I have no doubt about it—it was discussed in considerable detail in Kano—and about his wish for a successful all-party conference, after he has done the necessary preliminary work to try to make it possible to get a basic frame work for understanding. I have no doubts about those matters. They were discussed in considerable detail. Some of the negotiations since that Kano meeting have been fully in the spirit of what we discussed then.