Repeals
Question proposed, That this schedule be the third schedule to the Bill.
I am advised by my hon., but not learned, Friends that this is the appropriate moment to advance my argument. In the debate on 12 November on the Southern Rhodesia Bill, No. 1, so to speak, which was rushed through the House of Commons—
Like this one.
Yes, like this one. On 12 November I asked the Lord Privy Seal, in Hansard at column 1098, to give an undertaking that nothing in the Bill, or in consequential legislation flowing from it, would grant any indemnity or amnesty to anyone who had been breaking sanctions. In the right hon. Gentleman's reply—I refer to column 1099–he merely abused me for attacking the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Order. I must bring the hon. Gentleman to order. He must address his remarks to the contents of schedule 3. We are not dealing with the repeal of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979.
The schedule repeals sections 3(4) and (5) of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), and I invite him to continue.
I believe that it is in order, Mr. Weatherill, to suggest that a further section should be included. If that is so, it seems appropriate to raise the matter now. I appreciate that in the earlier debate, when the negotiations at Lancaster House were at their height, or possibly depth, it was reasonable, and perhaps necessary, for the Lord Privy Seal, even if it was irritating for my right hon. and hon. Friends and for some of his hon. Friends, not to come clean on what was going on at the conference, and not to draw out in great detail matters that were then in dispute between the Government and the other parties to the conference.
Having been faced with that straightforward question, surely the right hon. Gentleman was under an obligation. If he now grins and says "You are too late in the No. 1 Bill to catch up with an amnesty on sanctions", I contend that be was honour bound during the passage of the No. 1 Bill to acknowledge, when asked the specific question by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and myself, that it was the Government's intention that the No. 1 Bill when enacted would provide the power to grant an amnesty or indemnity in the circumstances that my hon. Friend and I had in mind. In those circumstances, it is appropriate for the Government to put forward an amendment to schedule 3 that will make it clear that that part of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 has been repealed. That is the only way in which the Lord Privy Seal can honourably discharge his duty to the Committee.Further to that interesting point and to the fact that the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 has reared its head as a result of the Lord Privy Seal's earlier reply, will he tell us when, during the debate on that measure, he and his colleagues drew our attention to fact that the provisions in clause 3(1)(b)(ii) cover that aspect? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about the effect of repealing sections 3(4) and 3(5) of the Southern Rhodesia Act? If one reads sections 3(4) and 3(5) of that Act, one sees that they maintain four of the Orders in Council even though section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 has lapsed. Section 34(c) deals with Southern Rhodesian matrimonial jurisdiction. What will happen to that when that order is repealed? The fourth order that was covered by subsection (4) was the immunity order for those attending the Lancaster House conference. If that conference continues but the Zimbabwe Bill becomes an Act, will immunity be withdrawn? What provision in the Zimbabwe Bill maintains immunity for those attending that conference? If the Zimbabwe Bill is enacted before that conference finishes, what provisions will apply? Section 3(4) will be abolished as a result of the Bill. Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us what will happen to those four orders for which special provision was made in the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979? What part of the Zimbabwe Bill will cover those four orders?
A part from any matrimonial problems that may arise as a result of the abolition of section 3(4)(c) of the 1979 Act, what will happen if section 3(4)(d) is abolished? That provided immunity to those attending the Lancaster House conference. If that has been abolished, where do party delegates to that conference obtain immunity?I did not raise a point of order on the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), but his objection concerns section 3(4) and (5) of the 1979 Act. Those sections were provided to protect, in particular, British citizens. For example, it protected those who had obtained divorces in Southern Rhodesia after the Adams v. Adams case of 1970, which created an odd position. A woman had succeeded in a divorce action and been granted a decree nisi by a judge who had been appointed before UDI. In fact, that divorce was not recognised. She was in this country with children, the unfairness of that was recognised, and a special order was laid by the then Foreign Secretary, now my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Home. That was one of the orders that was kept going in the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 until we could get the Zimbabwe Bill through.
However, the hon. Gentleman's objection goes back to the immunity which relates to the repeals in schedule 3. Those repeals are merely those designed to protect those who might otherwise have suffered unfairly because they had no direct connection—for example, in the Southern Rhodesia (Matrimonial Jurisdiction) Order—with Rhodesia, or to protect the immunity of persons attending the Lancaster House conference. Those have been provided for in the present Bill and were, therefore, properly repealed in the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979.Exactly where in the Zimbabwe Bill is the immunity for persons at the conference?
The immunity is provided, as I think the Committee has been told, in clause 3, where one finds that there is now an amnesty in respect—
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Why are people being cast out of the Strangers' Gallery?
That is not a point of order.
I am sorry, but I did not quite understand the purpose of the interruption. I am always sad to lose any audience, whether here or anywhere else, but probably none of my constitutents is there.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil will appreciate that the immunity is contained in clause 3(2), but the whole purpose, as I think my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said, is to wipe the slate clean domestically within the confines of Rhodesia.Schedule 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
12.2 am
There should be no doubt that many of us remain unhappy with the Bill. Had the Lord Privy Seal been more willing to accept some of the amendments, I believe that he would have gone some way towards satisfying Labour Members. I refer particularly to the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) regarding parliamentary approval before the Order in Council is made. However, there was no willingness to accept any of the amendments, and that is rather unfortunate.
The Government must satisfy more than this House. International opinion will be very concerned to see that if a ceasefire takes place fair and free elections occur, and above all that there is complete fairness in the way in which political arrangements are carried out after a ceasefire. It is also extremely important that the United Kingdom is not seen as taking the side of one of the parties if a ceasefire is duly agreed upon. There remains a great deal of suspicion beyond these Benches, throughout Africa and Asia, that there is an inbuilt sympathy on the part of the British Government for the Salisbury authorities. Therefore, it is extremely important that if a ceasefire is agreed upon the elections occur as freely and as fairly as possible in all circumstances. Britain has suffered a great deal of criticism during the 14 years of UDI. It is possible that some of this criticism was not always justified. My right hon. Friend said that we had to bear in mind that since 1923 Rhodesia had been a self-governing colony and that we did not have the responsibility or the power. That may well be so, and I agree with my right hon. Friend, but some of the criticism that has been levelled at us, and certainly that over sanctions busting, was more than justified. Therefore, when historians come to write of the period from 1965 to the present, and the next few months, I do not think that we shall be altogether happy about Britain's role under successive Governments since UDI in November 1965. Above all, if a ceasefire is implemented, we must ensure that in the remaining months, we carry out our responsibility in the fairest possible way and that we do not allow our conduct to be such that it leads to more international criticism that would be justified. Although there has been no Division on the Bill's Second Reading and it is unlikely that there will be one on Third Reading either, many of us remain rather unhappy over the whole position.12.6 am
I shall not detain the House for long.
The future of the new Zimbabwe is now clearly mapped out in respect of its Government. I think that all of us would wish that we had no need to return to debate the issue whether independence should be conferred upon Zimbabwe because things will have gone so well that we shall all be delighted at the turn of events. Nevertheless, we have expressed reservations during the passage of the Bill. I regret that the Lord Privy Seal's answers did very little to reassure us, because he found it very difficult to address himself to the points under discussion. Instead of the right hon. Gentleman formally moving the Third Reading, I had hoped that he would take the opportunity to reply to the serious challenge made to him about his failure to reply to the substantive point about immunity. It is clear from Hansard that he was specifically asked by two Members of the House to give an assurance that no immunity would arise out of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. He declined to answer. I am sure that he did not deliberately mislead the House, but it is clear that the House was, in fact, misled. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take this opportunity to make clear how far the intention goes to link this Bill and the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 concerning policy on amnesty and immunity. It is clear that the two matters are related. If all goes well, the Government will take one attitude. If things go badly, they may take a different view. The Lord Privy Seal should not have regarded this Bill and the one that came before it as raising an issue on which one could take the view that has bedevilled this House for years and during the whole of the period of sanctions, namely, that whilst it was not the Government's purpose to lie to the House, it was their purpose just not to tell the truth. I hope that we shall at some later stage in this legislation find glaring loopholes in what it appears to do compared with the Government's expressed intention or the Government's intention not expressed. If we wish Parliament to have a reputation for integrity, and if we wish to seek to redress the loss of integrity which Parliament, through successive Governments, has brought about for this country by its behaviour over the Rhodesia issue we could have no better opportunity to do so than during our final acts in dealing with this matter in this House. The Government should try to re-establish our sense of integrity by not trying to slip things through the House without making clear their intentions. I hope that if we ever discuss the independence of Zimbabwe again it will be a matter for congratulation that we have finally laid the past to rest. However, I fear that that will not be the position. I trust that the Government in their dealings at Lancaster House will not negotiate on the basis of trying to slip things through. The penalty for that will not be paid by this House. The penalty for failure, for not being straight and honest at the Lancaster House negotiations, will be paid in the lives and the blood of the people of Zimbabwe. They have paid enough already. I hope that they do not have to pay any more.12.10 am
The last thing of which the Government can be accused is duplicity. If any country wishes to take up the question of sanctions busting—a point raised a number of times—it should do so with those companies which have busted sanctions on a far wider scale—and with far more Government knowledge—than have companies in this country.
Which countries?
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asks which countries. If he looks at the United Nations sanctions committee report on some of the Eastern European countries which have been involved in trade with Rhodesia he might ask himself how those countries, with State enterprises, can be brought before some international court or whether they have been so brought up to the time of the legality of Rhodesia.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
If it will be useful.
I hope that it will be useful. I believe that it is thoroughly reprehensible that all the States that were involved in trading with the illegal regime should have done that, but I think that it must be accepted that the most reprehensible of them is Britain. It was our sovereign territory that was in rebellion against us. It was at our request that the rest of the world imposed United Nations sanctions. We promoted sanctions and we went against them. It is no excuse for successive British Governments, who have dealt with this matter so pathetically at times and so perfidiously at others, to say that the East Europeans, the United States of America, the French and the USSR—
Order. The hon. Member must not make a speech.
I revert to the Third Reading. It is worth saying that I have been behind the efforts of the Government on Rhodesia, and occasionally in front of them. I hope that I have not caused too much difficulty to the Government spokesmen on foreign affairs.
It would be too easy to start listing the possible sources of instability and continued conflict. It is more important that we make sure that everything possible is done to ensure that the initiative that has taken place is not broken on the anvil of intransigent Rhodesian politics during the election campaign after independence. I hope that we can sweep away all the consequences—sanctions busting or otherwise—of the years of UDI. The last thing that I should like to see after 14 years of failed initiatives is Britain being drawn into fighting a guerrilla war. The only way in which peace will come, and the only way in which the elections can be free and fair, is if the fighting is stopped. That requires effort from all sides. It is probably true that the constitution gives total satisfaction to nobody. However, the spirit of compromise at Lancaster House can be carried forward to Rhodesia. There are some points that I want to make on the transitional period but I shall keep them for the order that is to follow this debate. My final remark on the Bill, which I welcome, is that the Government must not allow the remarkable achievements of the negotiating table to be placed in jeopardy through half-hearted measures on the ground. I hope that united support for the Third Reading will ensure that the Bill gives the lead and the opportunity to Rhodesia that it has needed not only for the last 14 or 15 years but for the last 55.12.15 am
It is sad that the Third Reading should be dominated by sanctions busting and the Bingham report, but that does not mean that I think that hon. Members should not deal with the matter. We are doing something that is important. I understand that the Attorney-General gave a specific undertaking that, although the amnesty in the Bill refers to those within the territory of Southern Rhodesia, that does not prevent the DPP from prosecuting British citizens in Britain who have engaged in sanctions breaking. If that is so, we have no complaint.
I do not wish to delay the House. We have been over the arguments. We have watched the Lancaster House talks, without always knowing what was happening. This matter is unlikely to return to the House. We must wait and pray, and hope that it works. I certainly hope that it does.12.17 am
I do not want the sour comments of some Opposition Members to be characteristic of the Bill's passage. This is the last and perhaps the most difficult example of Britain bringing a colony to independence. It would not be right for that to happen without paying tribute to all those involved in bringing that about over such a long period. Some Opposition Members have overlooked that a large proportion of the Rhodesian people were against UDI. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was?"] Hon. Members show their ignorance if they do not know that. Many of them, including at least one judge, were against UDI. He courageously and honourably resigned and left the country so that he need have nothing to do with what was happening. Too often do we overlook that there was considerable opposition and that little could be done about it.
We should praise the Government for having done what so many Governments failed to do. We should praise the parties involved for their sense of responsibility and conciliation. We should also praise the front-line States. Nigeria, through its representative at the Lancaster House talks, Alhaji Maitama Stile, has exercised considerable influence and given friendly persuasive advice and support to those who wanted this desirable conclusion. We should all wish "God speed" to Zimbabwe.12.19 am
I did not intend to speak, but the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) accused my hon. Friends of making sour remarks. It is not justifiable to say that those remarks were sour. As the official Opposition, we have a duty to examine all legislation and make legitimate criticisms of it. That is not being sour. More importantly, we have some distrust of the processes by which the legislation is being carried out. We have good reason to distrust those who have been in power in Rhodesia for the past 14 years. They have not given up power willingly or graciously. They were forced to do so.
We also have some distrust not so much of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench but of some hon. Members on the Government Back Benches. We can justly say that if the Labour Government had reached this sort of agreement with all the parties eight months ago those Conservatives would have accused us of selling out the white Rhodesians. Now they are all standing up and praising the Government Front Bench for the deal that has been made. That makes us distrustful of the agreement that has been reached. We distrust the people who have supported the Smith regime for 14 years in the House. We have been consistent in trying to seek an agreement to which all parties would agree. We are concerned to see that the majority in Zimbabwe get a fair deal and fair elections and are not victimised following the elections.Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Southern Rhodesia Constitution (Interim Provisions) Order 1979
12.20 am
I beg to move,
The order is subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses within 28 days. Articles 1 and 3 of the order came into operation on 4 December. The remainder of the order was brought into effect today by a notice signed by my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The purpose of the order, as its title clearly indicates, is to make temporary provision for the government of Southern Rhodesia. It does so in terms which have been agreed by all the parties at the constitutional conference, and were spelt out in the document on the pre-independence arrangements. The order creates the offices of Governor and Deputy Governor of Southern Rhodesia. As the House has already been informed, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Soames has been appointed by Her Majesty to be the Governor of Southern Rhodesia. The Deputy Governor is Sir Antony Duff, deputy to the permanent secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who has played a leading part in the negotiations at the constitutional conference. The order confers full legislative powers in Southern Rhodesia on the Governor. He will be able to make laws by ordinance. He will also have the power to continue existing laws with such modifications as he thinks fit, and to validate transactions entered into during the period since 11 November 1965. The Governor's first ordinance, which sets out in greater detail how he will exercise his powers, will be published shortly in Salisbury. So also will a second ordinance, setting out the functions of the election commissioner and his staff and establishing the Election Council, in accordance with the arrangements agreed at the conference for the pre-independence elections. I shall arrange for copies of these ordinances to be placed in the Library of the House. While the legislative power conferred upon the Governor is very extensive, my right honourable and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made clear at the constitutional conference that the power will not be used to make changes in Rhodesia which are properly the business of an elected Government. The Governor's role will be to organise elections and maintain the administration of the country on a caretaker basis. The order also confers upon the Governor full executive authority in Southern Rhodesia, and requires all officers and authorities in Rhodesia to obey his instructions. Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues will not exercise ministerial powers during the Governor's period of office. This provision is crucial to the implementation of the pre-independence arrangements agreed at the constitutional conference. It will give the Governor the authority with which to ensure the impartial administration of the country during the elections and the implementation of the ceasefire. At the same time, it recognises that he will have to work through the existing administration and police. As the House knows, the Government have taken the view—and this has been accepted by the parties at the conference—that there is no practical alternative in this brief period to using the existing services. It will be for the Government of independent Zimbabwe to decide on the future structure of the services of the State. The order also vests in the Governor the prerogative of mercy. During the pre-independence period no sentences of death can be carried out unless it be confirmed by the Governor. It would not be in accord with the policy of Her Majesty's Government that executions should take place. Finally, the order provides that the rights and liabilities of the Government of Southern Rhodesia, including the pre-UDI debts and liabilities, remain enforceable. I shall not detain the House at this late hour by repeating the reasons which have led the Government to decide to appoint a Governor for Southern Rhodesia. These were set out fully during the debate on the Southern Rhodesia Act, in subsequent statements and again in my speech on the Second Reading of the Zimbabwe Bill today. The constitutional responsibility for bringing Rhodesia to independence rests with Britain. It has been agreed by the parties and by the Commonwealth that there should be elections under our authority. To ensure that all parties can take part on an equal footing, that authority must extend not only to the elections but also over the whole administration of the country. This order confers the powers which enable a British Governor to carry out the responsibilities laid upon him under the agreements reached at the constitutional conference. I therefore commend the order to the House.That the Southern Rhodesia Constitution (Interim Provisions) Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 December, be approved.
12.25 am
I shall be brief. This order gives power to the Governor in Salisbury, and now that the Salisbury Parliament has dissolved itself and Rhodesia has returned to the status of a colony it is inevitable that the Governor must be equipped with the necessary powers to govern the country in the period up to the elections and the formation of the new Government. That is why he is given legislative and wide executive powers, such as the prerogative of mercy and control over the armed forces, which is specifically mentioned in article 5 (4) of the order. All these things are necessary, and the only questions that come to mind are those of the circumstances in which these powers should be exercised and when they should be assumed by the Governor in Salisbury.
In our view there is a missing component in the arrangements, and that is the ceasefire. We now have a situation in which the Governor controls the whole State apparatus of Rhodesia. At the same time there are men at arms throughout that country. About 90 per cent. of it is under martial law and there are substantial concentrations of men at arms near the frontiers of Mozambique and Zambia. These men will continue operations until they receive instructions from their leaders to operate a ceasefire. The House must face the fact that a clash between the Rhodesian armed forces and the guerrilla army is a real and present danger. If that clash were to take place on any scale, Britain, through the Governor who is the Commander-in- Chief, would be directly involved in the civil war. Yesterday we tried to drive home the implications of that to the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister. We were right to do so before the Governor departed. I do not want to go over that again, if only because the Governor has already arrived in Rhodesia. I find it a matter for great criticism that this order, giving the Governor these powers, should have been put down for debate not before his departure but after his arrival. If ever there was a case of locking the stable door after the horse had bolted, this is it. I carefully read the reports of yesterday's exchanges both in this House and in the other place. I understand all the various factors in the Government's mind and how they operated upon them in coming to their decision to send Lord Soames to Salisbury yesterday. The announcement, made, I think, by the Under-Secretary of State, that the supply of maize to Zambia is being resumed is an immediate and welcome development following the Governor's arrival there, as is the information—if I gleaned it rightly—that the martial courts are being suspended. We must acknowledge that all this is indeed a gamble. We think that there are very grave risks. However, it may well be—indeed, I hope that it will be—that the Government are on a winning streak in their present gambling mood, that the ceasefire agreement will be quickly announced and that our anxieties will be shown to have been unjustified. There is nothing more that I can say to the rear of the already departed horse.12.32 am
It is important to recognise that the Government—and presumably the Governor—intend to make as few changes as possible, and only those that will lead towards free and fair elections. It is right that there should be as many confidence-building measures as possible, because what happens between now, the elections and the achievement of full independence will affect the chances of a coup, counter-coup or stability after independence has been achieved.
I hope that the Governor, using these powers, will do what he can to respond to the unprecedented appeal by the International Red Cross about the relief work and rebuilding necessary to help those who have suffered from a particularly wanton and persistently cruel war. I am delighted to hear that the Governor has already started the maize transfers to Zambia, but food relief within Rhodesia is just as important. I hope that the people of Rhodesia directly under his care will find the risk of famine receding as the weeks go by with him in office. The Governor will need to give attention under these powers to the problems of refugees both inside the country—those who flocked to the urban areas, many of whom have a miserable existence in the squatter settlements in and around the cities—and those in refugee camps outside the country's borders. I hope that during the election period and the time leading up to it operations will take place to enable people to return to their homes. It may be necessary for some of the protected villages to remain, but I hope that as many people in them as possible will be able to return home if they wish to do so. I trust that those who continue to live in them will be able to go about their business outside the camps, which they have not been able to do in the recent past. I should like the Governor to give attention to the question of the detainees. I am delighted to hear that the military tribunals and hangings will cease, but there is still the question of the conservative estimate of 18,000 detainees. Perhaps the Government or the Governor can pay attention to that. I appeal to the Patriotic Front to release any people who are at present unwillingly within its custody and care. Perhaps at some stage the Government, or the Governor, will make a statement on the question of people who were deported or who are persona non grata in Rhodesia and say whether those who have not been able to return to Salisbury from outside the country in the recent past will be able to do so if they are not openly or understandably recognised as subversive. The next points that I wish to make are on education and hospitals. Many schools, hospitals and clinics have had to close during the past few years. One of the confidence-building measures that can be taken during the next two months is to reopen them. It is estimated that 400,000 children have lost their education in the past few years. It would be confidence-building to them and to their parents if they could get back to school and start receiving the education that will be necessary for an independent Zimbabwe. As a final point, I ask the Governor to ensure that the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian Broadcasting Corporation starts using the world service of the BBC for its international news instead of using the South African news service. It is not that I have anything in particular against South African broadcasting, but, having fought to preserve the external and world services of the BBC, I think that that would be regarded as impartial both inside and outside Rhodesia.12.36 am
I want to follow immediately the last point made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley)—a point with which I agree. All of us tonight would wish to speed Lord Soames on his way with our fervent good wishes for his success and perhaps not quibble too much about the day or two days too early or too late that he might have gone. If he succeeds, no one will reflect whether he might have waited another day or two days and, if he fails, whether any amount of delay might have altered that course. We must all hope that he succeeds.
The point that I wish to make concerns the executive powers of Lord Soames under article 5 of the statutory instrument with regard to the control of the public services in Rhodesia. We are told by the Lord Privy Seal that the Governor will issue ordinances consequent upon this statutory instrument. Those ordinances will not come before the House, so this is our only opportunity to raise points which we have attempted to bring up at Question Time and on other occasions recently. I wish to press the Lord Privy Seal on a matter that I raised with him at Question Time recently and which has been touched on by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, namely, the control of the Rhodesian broadcasting services in the run-up to the independence election. The public services taken over by Lord Soames in his capacity as Governor fall into two distinct functions: some purely administrative, and others that are in a sense mediatory. The administrative functions go on as before. There may be a tug of loyalties and problems, but most public servants in Rhodesia will continue in their jobs. That goes for policemen, too. They will be doing what they were doing before. But for those who are in charge of the information services there is a different and more complex problem. That problem arises from the massive change in function that they must now undergo. Those of us who have been subject, as most hon. Members have over the years, to Rhodesian propaganda emanating from Salisbury know the nature and style of that material. They have been used to being—and so have the Rhodesian broadcasting services—a mouthpiece for the Smith Government and then for the internal settlement. They are now being asked to provide an even-handed service between their former Government—no longer their Government—and an organisation that for many years they have been accustomed to describe as, and no doubt believed to be, bloodthirsty terrorists. In the circumstances, it seems extremely unlikely that the Rhodesian broadcasting services, left to themselves, could, even if the best will in the world obtained, which I doubt, provide the kind of services necessary to get over in this deeply divided country anything like a proper balance of views and opinions. I am thinking much more of radio and of the vernacular services in the Shona and Matabele languages than of the comparatively few people who watch television or listen to English language relays. I hope that, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West said, the service provided externally to Rhodesia will be not the South African but the BBC service. The BBC's overseas services were formerly relayed through Francis town to Rhodesia, so it should be technically possible, before the election, to have the overseas services relayed there again. The Lord Privy Seal, in answer to me in the House recently, said that the House could rest assured that there would be fair coverage provided by the Rhodesian broadcasting services. However, he did not say how, and there have been extensive press reports that the Government have turned down proposals to send BBC or other experts from Britain to oversee the broadcasting services during the election period. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should think again on this matter Mr. Garfield Todd and others in Rhodesia have made strong representations about the nature of the broadcasting services which the Rhodesians enjoy—if that is the right word—at the moment, and the need to change them. Although Mr. Todd used to be the subject of some derision on the Conservative Benches, he has been clearly vindicated by events. Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether it is envisaged that Lord Soames' entourage will include people who will take over the administration of the Rhodesian broadcasting and information services? Unless that happens I do not believe that there can be anything like proper provision of even-handed coverage, particularly in the vernacular languages, for the people of Rhodesia. They will need that in the run-up to the election bearing in mind what is being asked of both sides who will be fighting it.Earlier today we were told that an official from the Central Office of Information would be going out. Does the hon. Member agree that we want to hear that there has been a request from the Governor or from the Central Office of Information official that BBC personnel should be seconded to provide in Rhodesia the same kind of balance as we have here?
That is precisely the point. I am talking both of technical personnel and reporters, those who will keep the ring in the broadcast service. It will include interviews with the leaders of the various parties. It is highly unlikely that this will be anything like a British election. I have seen some naive documents suggesting that election round-up programmes should be introduced with "It is your line to Robert Mugabe" as the chief enticement to the housewives of Salisbury. That is not the kind of programmes that we are talking about. I am referring to the opportunity being provided for all the various factions in the election to put their points of view, and for that to be mediated fairly by the professional broadcasters.
I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to tell us that experts from this country, or from elsewhere in the Commonwealth, will go out, at the Government's request, to provide that service.12.43 a.m.
I wish to make a general comment about the order and the Lord Privy Seal's method of presenting it. He should speak not of the power of the Governor but of his authority. The two things must not be confused. The Governor has the authority. Whether he has the power we have to wait and see.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) raised the issue of the return of refugees from outside the country. It is important that they should be able to return at the earliest possible stage. I have not had a figure confirmed, but there may be as many as 250,000 voters outside Rhodesia. If that is so, it could make a substantial difference to the result of the election. I hope that they will be able to return and that it will be possible for the protected villages to be disbanded so that people can go about their business in as normal a way as possible. It would be too much to expect that within a matter of days a country that has been strife-torn for seven years can suddenly return to normality. It will be a very long time before the country does return to normality—probably it will be long after the election. The process of conciliation and reconciliation will take some time to become fully effective. I hope that it will begin as quickly as possible. The points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) about the way in which the media will deal with events should be taken very seriously. There is certainly evidence in this country that our reporting of events in Rhodesia leaves a lot to be desired. I have written today to ITN on the basis of a complaint raised with me about ITN's coverage from Salisbury of the announcement that a ceasefire had been agreed in principle. The ITN reporter went out on to the streets of Salisbury and purported to seek the views of the people of Rhodesia on the outcome of the ceasefire. It is incredible that he sought the views only of white people, who are outnumbered by seven to one.Twenty-seven to one.
It is late, but I am always glad to be corrected. The hon. Gentleman reinforces the point that I am making. It is incredible that not one black person on the streets of Salisbury was asked to express a view on the ceasefire. If that kind of biased reporting is transmitted to this country, how can we expect that balanced reporting and a balance of information will be made available within Rhodesia in the period leading up to the elections? I hope that every possible step will be taken to remedy that situation.
I hope that the Governor will take on board that an attempt to get free and fair elections is not simply a question of holding the ring between opposing forces in terms of military forces. It is not a matter of sitting back and passively waiting to see whether any technical breaches of the constitutional arrangements or irregularities in procedure occur. There are serious problems, some of which have been mentioned, such as the difficulty of obtaining committee rooms. If it is accepted that communications are important, it should be remembered that telephones are a matter of our electoral life that we take for granted. If we explain to the Post Office that we have a committee room in a particular street, it is only a matter of hours before a telephone is installed. Do we imagine that if the Patriotic Front says that it wants a telephone in a remote area those in charge of installing telephones in Rhodesia will go out of their way to see that such a request is met quickly? If this election is to be run fairly, the Governor must make sure that communications are provided. I believe I am correct in saying that the Government have agreed to make radio sets available to the Patriotic Front in order to communicate orders about the ceasefire. Perhaps the provision of telephones should be considered in a similar way. Article 6 deals with the prerogative of mercy. I am glad to hear that the martial law courts have been suspended. That is the kind of action for which we have been looking to get things moving. I am also glad to hear that hangings are to cease. May we assume that the prerogative of mercy will be exercised by the Governor for those who have been sentenced by these courts in the past and that they will be released from whatever the circumstances in which they have been imprisoned?indicated assent.
Those are the kinds at matters that justify sending the Governor in advance. Had we been told in advance that that was the sort of action that was likely to be taken, some of our fears might have been taken care of earlier.
I wish to raise one specific point about which I have spoken privately to the Lord Privy Seal and about which I have now written to him. A constituent of mine in Salisbury prison was sentenced for making available, through his banking job, information about how the Rhodesians were able to keep finance flowing throughout the world. I do not know whether he would be included among those for release under the terms of the amnesty provisions in the Southern Rhodesia Act. An added complication is that he was also charged with moving money illegally from the country, which I understand is a criminal, and not a political, offence. He may therefore not appear as a political prisoner, but the Governor could exercise the prerogative of mercy for my constituent who has served six years of a 15-year sentence. We hope that he can be released and returned safely to his family.12.50 am
I owe it to the House, even at this late hour, to respond briefly to one or two matters raised by hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) mentioned Rhodesian refugees in Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana. The Governor will do his utmost, as quickly as possible, to enable those who wish to return to vote to be able to do so and, in the longer term, to be able to settle in Zimbabwe. He will have at his disposal international agencies and United Nations bodies to assist him in that process. I am grateful for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). I am sure that the Governor will note many of my hon. Friend's suggestions. My hon. Friend referred to detainees, and another advantage of the presence of the Governor is that he will undertake an immediate review—though I hope that he will get a good night's sleep after his overnight flight—of the cases of all detained persons in Rhodesia, with the object of securing freedom of those whose release would not constitute a threat to public safety and order. Anyone detained on political grounds will be released. That applies to both sides. The Governor has a right to ask for a list of those detained by the Patriotic Front in Mozambique or anywhere else and to review their position. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and a number of other hon. Members referred to the media. I responded to that matter on Second Reading, and I reiterate that it is the task of the Governor, supported by the Election Commissioner, whose task is to secure free and fair elections, to ensure that all the political parties have free, equal and proper access to the media, including the broadcasting authorities. I understand the point raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North about the advice available to the Governor and the Election Commissioner to ensure that that access is granted. The Governor has at his disposal an adviser on these matters. They flew out together. We must not tie the hands of the Governor, but if he feels that it is necessary to seek further advice from this country in order to ensure that the criteria on access to the media can be satisfied, it will be up to him to do so. However, we must give him a little time to settle in and discuss the matter with the Election Commissioner and other authorities. I thank the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) for his remarks about the order and the appointment of the Governor. The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the dangers, which we all acknowledge. For the reasons that have been deployed, we still feel strongly that the arrival of the Governor today will assist in the process of bringing about a speedy resumption of legality. the holding of free and fair elections and the bringing about of peace. We appreciate the good wishes that the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Governor, and I am sure that the Governor will appreciate them even more on his first evening in Rhodesia.Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Southern Rhodesia Constitution (Interim Provisions) Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 December, be approved.
Glasshouse Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Waddington.]
12.56 am
I am glad, at long last, to leave Rhodesia and turn to the horticulture problems of North-West Kent. I welcome the opportunity to raise the problems of glasshouse producers.
First, I record my thanks to Mr. Lionel Mills, Mr. Michael Wallis, Mr. Vic Ross and Mr. Richard Holdaway, all of whom are members of the North-West Kent producers branch of the National Farmers Union. Their good-natured, intelligent and persistent lobby since 3 May has led me to take great note of their continents and complaints, and, thus convinced, I have sought to raise the issue on the Adjournment. North-West Kent has traditional associations with glasshouse produce. That is partly because of the availability of land in the early part of the century, but mainly because of its nearness to the great London markets. In the early 1950s about 60 glasshouse producing units existed. It is unfortunate that only 25 now exist. Those no longer in existence have been converted to other agricultural use or lie derelict. In some instances there has been housing estate development. In former years about 1,000 people were employed in North-West Kent in glasshouse production. There are now barely 300 so employed. Although the industry is in a reduced state, it is efficient and productive. For how long can that continue? With a lack of financial investment, with fierce, unfair competition from the Dutch, and with long-term energy problems, what sort of future has my local horticulture industry? The average age of members in the Dart-ford area is now approaching 50 years. No new glasshouse units have been opened for some time. Young growers are deterred from entering because of high capital costs and low returns. A further complication exists because of the supply and demand nature of the market within which the industry operates. The first problem to which I refer is that of energy, which amounts to about 40 per cent. of annual production costs. Many growers are currently using oil. In view of the uncertainty of the price stability of that resource, they would rather convert to gas. National Farmers Union members have approached the gas board to obtain conversion but have been deterred either by the cost of conversion or by the unavailability of supply. Action is required by the Government to force the gas board to give glasshouse producers priority and to make increased grant aid available to enable the conversion of oil-fired units to gas or coal to be carried out. Energy savings of at least 10 per cent. can be achieved partly by conversion to gas and partly by the installation of thermal screens. The NFU has called for an increase in aid available under the horticulture capital grants scheme, the farm and horticulture development scheme and the Department of Energy's conservation scheme, from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. of total expenditure for installation of thermal screens. The second problem relates to unfair competition from within the EEC, and mainly from the Dutch. Comparable price data based on energy prices obtaining on 1 November in Holland, Germany and the United Kingdom show the Dutch to have an enormous advantage over the other two countries. For example, for heavy oil, the United Kingdom and Germany pay 7·7p and 7·5p per litre respectively. For light oil, the United Kingdom and Germany pay lop and 12p to 15p per litre respectively. For gas—the Dutch growers use only gas—the Dutch pay 17·5 centa per cubic metre. That converts to only 4·345p per litre of oil. Germany uses oil for 90 per cent. of its production and believes that her growers pay 200 per cent. more than the Dutch. The NFU has calculated that the price difference given to the Dutch has an advantage for the Dutch tomato producer of £6,000–£10,000 per acre over his United Kingdom counterpart. With the knowledge of the Dutch Government, the Dutch gas company operates a two-tier gas price system. That system gives horticultural units a price that is 31 per cent. cheaper than that given to domestic and other industrial users. The Dutch link their gas prices to the least expensive grade of oil. The reverse is true in the United Kingdom. Other benefits are given to the Dutch in the form of loans at low fixed rates of interest and transport savings. That means that the Dutch are able to dump tremendous quantities of horticultural produce in the United Kingdom, to the detriment of my local growers. Great cost is incurred in renovating old plant. Many growers work with wooden frames that warp with time and become less effective. The high capital cost of replacement, in addition to the low-profit market, has caused many people to live off the fat. That fat no longer exists, and no renovation is taking place. High interest rates act as a disincentive to renovation. However, our counterparts in the EEC receive low fixed-rate loans or other grants for double glazing in excess of 50 per cent. Finally, I refer to the problems associated with plant inspectors. I understand that there is an EEC harmonisation of plant health directive that is likely to take effect shortly. Local growers complain that, due to the absence of Kent plant inspectors, who are often seconded to other parts of the country, irregular attention is paid to imports from abroad. However, exports from the United Kingdom to Holland and Germany are rigorously tested and rejected for the slightest defect. The reverse occurs in the United Kingdom. The problems facing the industry are enormous and the prospect of many people reducing their output, to the detriment of the British housewife, must be faced. I shall be grateful if the Minister will answer in particular those questions relating to energy and to unfair competition.
1.4 am
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dart-ford (Mr. Dunn) for raising a number or important issues for the glasshouse industry. I congratulate him on putting these problems so succinctly on what I believe is his first Adjournment debate. I am sure that he will accept that the problems that he has mentioned are not confined to growers in North-West Kent but serve as an example of the present concerns felt by the whole glasshouse industry.
The major disquiet that my hon. Friend has raised is about the availability and the cost of energy, especially oil, which is the fuel most frequently used for glasshouse heating. That concern is fully understandable, since the cost of heating can be as much as one-third of the growers' production cost. While my hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty of making any long-term forecast about the availability or price of oil—particularly at the moment—as far Sea oil is priced at world levels. Contract prices for gas, where it is used, are fixed in individual negotiations between the customer and the gas board. It has been as can be foreseen the oil supply situation for the winter months should be satisfactory. In times of shortage, voluntary arrangements for distribution are the best as long as conditions allow. Similarly, and I fully understand that the price of oil to horticulturists has gone up by about 50 per cent. in the past year, I must stress that the Government do not determine the price of oil or gas. North suggested that we should give a subsidy, such as the one paid in 1974, to horticulturists to help them adapt to this year's price rises. But the current circumstances arc quite different from 1974, when there was an unexpected threefold increase in oil prices, which would have put many growers out of business had they not been given time to adapt to such a large increase in their costs. It is not in the long-term interest of growers to shield them from rising oil prices. They need to adapt if they are to survive in the long run. We do, however, give them help in other ways. Horticulturists receive full rebate of excise duty on oil for glasshouse heating and soil sterilisation, and their supplies are zero rated for VAT. My Department is helping all the time through ADAS advice to growers to help improve production methods, and grants are available for energy-saving equipment. This includes conversion from oil to other fuels where this is technically feasible and commercially viable. I note what my hon. Friend said about the supply of gas, but it is a well-understood problem where there have been difficulties in the supply and price of oil. Gas has been a relatively cheaply priced fuel, and many users of fuel, both domestic and industrial, have turned to the gas industry for supplies. But that industry has not been able to provide them, and horticulture is no different in that respect. It is certainly not an area in which the Government could, or in my view should, intervene. Investment by growers in energy-saving measures such as the installation of thermal screens or improvements in heating systems, including conversion from oil to some other fuel, should be worthwhile investments in themselves. Current rates of grant ranging from 15 to 25 per cent. under the various schemes are not an inadequate contribution to such capital investment. We are also carrying out a considerable amount of research and development on energy-saving techniques, including thermal screens, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The whole question of the long-term future of energy for glasshouses is being studied jointly by officials of my Department and the NFU. While I understand my hon. Friend's concern about high capital costs of both glasshouses and associated equipment at the present time, I am certain that he will be sympathetic to the view that this indusry is very open to competition, and he will be pleased to learn that there are those who make substantial profits as well as those at the other end of the scale. It may just be that the latter number amongst my hon. Friend's constituents. I cannot support the view that the Government should intervene in the industry beyond the present level. This is, of course, in line with our party political philosophy. However, I share my hon. Friend's concern and I am most sympathetic to the plea that the industry should be able to operate in conditions of fair competition. Glasshouse producers have undoubtedly been facing stiffer competition from imports since we joined the EEC, and in particular since the end of transition when we became fully exposed to free trade between ourselves and other member States. We are frequently being told—and my hon. Friend has said so in as many words tonight—that the glasshouse industry is not afraid of competition as long as it is fair. I applaud that sentiment. It is just what I would expect to hear from an enterprising and forward-looking industry, which I believe the glasshouse sector to be. However, we have to be on our guard against labelling all competition as "unfair". That would be a dangerous frame of mind to allow ourselves to get into. It cannot be said, as a general proposition, that what is unequal is unfair. We have to accept that natural advantages and disadvantages—soil and climate, for example—are not evenly distributed. Similarly—within certain limits which I will come to in a moment—there may be legitimate reasons why the differing policies of national Governments result in variations in the business environment; for instance, in the costs of labour, machinery, haulage, fertilisers and other inputs. It would be as impossible—and improper—to try to equalise all these factors as it would be to compensate a grower for a badly sited holding. In general, growers have to work within the circumstances in which they find themselves, and it is precisely because the exercise of management skill and decision-making is a major determinant of the ultimate success or failure of the enterprise that this branch of agriculture has always attracted the talented entrepreneur. Where I agree with my hon. Friend is on the importance of upholding the rules of fair competition under the Treaty of Rome. It has been represented to us that the rules are being breached and that there is unfairness of competition. We have thoroughly investigated the facts through our agricultural attaches, and we find that the allegations are unfounded. Let us look at the details. It has been claimed that it is unfair for Dutch growers to buy gas for heating their glasshouses at a lower price than our growers pay for their fuel, which is mainly oil. But the Dutch gas is onshore and near to the greenhouses—and I acknowledge that Dutch growers buy it cheaply. But that in itself is not necessarily unfair. There is no evidence that the gas price is below the cost of production or that Government subsidies are involved. It would be a very different matter if that were the case, and given any real evidence we would immediately act on it. I have said this in the House before, and I hope that my hon. Friend will note that promise. If there is evidence available, the Government will act upon it. Then again, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Dutch investment law—the Dutch WIR scheme—is unfair as compared with our system of support for the glasshouse industry. The WIR scheme is complex and very different from our traditional system. It is not easy, therefore, to make precise comparisons, particularly since the position of individual growers can vary widely. But the facts show that, broadly, the tax provisions that we make, such as the capital allowances, plus our system of capital grants, plus the sums spent on research and development—where horticulture, incidentally, is treated most generously—will stand comparison in total benefit to the horticulture investor. The EEC Commission has studied the Dutch WIR system. Indeed, it was modified at the Commission's request. The Commission concluded that it was not incompatible with Community rules and not, therefore, unfair. It is right to be watchful, but for action to be taken on grounds of unfairness under the Treaty we need to prove one or the other of two things: either that the Government of another member State are giving an illegal national subsidy or that the sellers are operating restrictive agreements or practices which affect trade or distort competition. On investigation, the allegations put to us so far have met those tests and cannot, therefore, be labelled unfair. I turn to the specific question of plant health which my hon. Friend raised. I fully realise that, as my hon. Friend said, there are fears in the industry that the implementation of the EEC frontier directive will weaken our import controls and increase the risk of bringing in plant pests and diseases. This is not so. The original draft directive has been very much modified to protect the special plant health situation of the United Kingdom and contains all the safeguards essential to us. Where prohibitions on imports are to be removed, alternative restrictions relating, for example, to areas of production and to cleaning and packing will be imposed. These will, as has always been the case, be controlled by the plant health service of the exporting member State. We have had experience of working with these services and in general have a great respect for their expertise and efficiency in meeting our requirements. We are sure that they will be no less effective in seeing that the requirements of the directive are carried out. It will, however, be important, as it has always been, to monitor imports, partly to see that agreed procedures are being operated but also to watch for unforeseen hazards. My inspectors will be looking particularly at those areas where the directive has altered existing arrangements, and where necessary we shall, as we have always done, destroy or reject unhealthy material. To cope with this additional work, the size of the inspectorate has been increased by 10 per cent. The philosophy of the Government is to encourage enterprise, which horticulture has in no small measure. This extends beyond the glasshouse sector. My hon. Friend will be well aware of the importance of orchard fruit production in his constituency. This is another sector in which the pace of competition is quickening and where I see encouraging signs that growers are prepared to adapt their production and marketing methods to meet the challenge. This is what all farmers and growers should be doing, as, indeed, many of them are. Fresh fruit and vegetables of top quality are in great demand in this country, and there is every evidence that our consumers are ready to pay the necessary price for the best produce. Who will supply what the United Kingdom market requires? Why should it not be our own growers, who themselves also have several natural advantages, including that of proximity to market? Where the foreign competition can be shown to be unfair in terms of the Rome Treaty—and not merelyunequal—then, as I have already said, the Government will certainly be prepared to take vigorous action to redress any imbalance. My hon. Friend will accept that we have chalked up several successes in this direction already. Where there are technological problems or opportunities for technological advances—such as within the area of plant health and in the field of research and development, to both of which I have already referred—here, too, the Government will continue to help and encourage the industry and ensure that it receives its due share of support. But in matters of business enterprise, and in facing the challenge of imports in an era of free trading, the Government look to the whole horticulture industry—of which the glasshouse sector is an important part—to live up to its past reputation, to stand on its own feet, and to reap the future rewards that are there to be earned by skilled and resolute growers.Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past One o'clock.