We now move to an important set of amendments which comprehend the position of security during the period of transition and raise the issue of the part to be played by the present Rhodesian security forces and the present Rhodesian police force and which also call for the abandonment of the Selous Scouts and the dismissal of General Walls as the head of the security forces. The amendments invite the security forces to become composed of independent forces from the Commonwealth. They also raise the issue of an advisory committee to the Governor composed of members of the Patriotic Front and members of the Muzorewa regime.
I shall not be referring much to the last of these amendments because it now appears that there has been some agreement at Lancaster House on the absence of the need to have an advisory committee. My concern relates to the remainder of the amendments dealing with the state of the security forces in the interim. We have touched upon this matter in earlier debates, but this series of amendments provides the opportunity to explore at length the somewhat ludicrous position in which the Government have found themselves after the discussions that have so far taken place. It was originally proposed that security would be handled in the interim by the existing security forces and police force. That must seem, even to Conservative Members, an intolerable situation.
A civil war has been raging for 10 years. The fight between the two sides has resulted in incidents which one side or other has characterised as a massacre or an atrocity. There were well-confirmed allegations by the Justice and Peace commission that on one occasion the security forces entered a village where the villagers had been addressed by some members of the Patriotic Front. By the time the security forces entered, the Patriotic Front had gone. But the villagers had done what normally happens in such a situation. They had fallen to the ground. The allegation was that the security forces then opened fire on them on the ground and that well over 100 people were killed.
That story can be repeated endlessly. Conservative Members will no doubt argue that it was an unjust assertion and that a similar story could be repeated endlessly about the activities of the Patriotic Front. With so recent an allegation believed by one side or the other, it is inconceivable that the people who support the Patriotic Front, or members of the Patriotic Front forces, would look upon the security forces with the same degree of detachment as that with which the armed forces or the police of this country are viewed. The situation is not the same.
The security forces and the police forces have been the military arm of a Government against which the Patriotic Front and the guerrillas, and a great many who support them, have been fighting. It is not satisfactory for the Government to say that the Governor, when he arrives, will take over control of the security forces and the police and that they will behave in accordance with the rules under which we would expect the military and police forces in this country to behave. That will not happen. These are people who have been imbued with the sense of hatred, malice and fight which is necessarily involved in fighting a war against an enemy.
Anyone in Rhodesia who talks about the guerrilla forces discovers that it is enough to get representatives of the Army or the police spitting at the very word "guerrilla". They call them "terrs". They insist on calling them tens because it has the propaganda value of diminishing the sense that the people who are fighting against them are fighting for a reasonable, responsible cause. Whether that is right or wrong, it is impossible with that degree of conditioning over 10 years that the men who have been fighting the tens and going back to Meikle's hotel and boasting about what they have done in the bush should be allowed to go and administer the ceasefire and take a view of the conduct of people in the Patriotic Front which is entirely dispassionate.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say that the present security forces and the present police force should not be allowed to administer the transitional period in the time up to elections. One can conceive of any number of occasions when the security forces, whoever they are, will be required in an atmosphere of tension to hold the peace in that tension. It would be easy to imagine that in a hard-fought election in this country. I remind the Committee of the 1974 election, when the police had to intervene to hold down passion in a very hard-fought election. But if that task is to be entrusted to the police and the security forces who have that reputation with the other side, clearly there can be no sense in which that can be fair.
The Government have moved a little. They have now moved to the position where they say that they will not entrust the task entirely to the security forces and the police force but that the security forces will remain in being, the Patriotic Front forces will remain in being, the responsible commanders of each will be responsible to the Governor, and, therefore, it will be administered fairly.
One can conceive of very obvious difficulties in such a state of affairs. If an incident occurred which was likely to precipitate violence and required a force of armed men to put it down, who should put it down? Should it be the forces of the Patriotic Front, or those of the present regime? Should General Walls send in his men, or should Commander Tongagara send in his men? The answer would be likely to lead to a major row in Salisbury when the issue was arising 30 or 40 miles out in the bush, the dispute simmering up to open bloodshed in minutes.
That is inconceivable as a way of dealing with such incidents, and I suspect that what is really in the minds of the Government is that the security forces themselves will not on the whole be required to do anything but that the police will be allowed to administer such incidents and that the security forces of the Muzorewa regime will stand opposite the security forces of the Patriotic Front regime and the two will cancel out each other by looking on while the police go in and deal with matters.
The record of the police is just as tainted in the eyes of those who support the Patriotic Front as are the security forces themselves. The police do not serve a non-military role in Rhodesia. They are part of the total security of the armed forces. They take part in operations in the same way as the troops, and out in the bush they wear a uniform more akin to the military uniform of the security forces. Therefore, it is not true that they have the kind of non-military, non-violent role of the police here, and it cannot be acceptable that they and they alone will be responsible for appeasing whatever kind of momentary disturbance occurs around the country.
Therefore, I think that the Government logically are left with the only conclusion that is viable. Conservative Members were earlier despising the attitude of the Patriotic Front in negotiations. That proposition, however, has been advanced by the Patriotic Front for some time—namely, that neither it nor the security forces should do the policing but that it should be done by some independent force brought into the country for the purpose.
Initially, the Patriotic Front wanted the United Nations. However, the Government were not prepared to have that. The Patriotic Front was willing to compromise on the Commonwealth. The Government have accepted the idea of having the Commonwealth. All that has happened since last Thursday when they were planning to push the Bill through the House without providing proper time for discussion. We discovered during the weekend that a major change of Government policy had taken place. They have conceded that the Commonwealth observers will actually be swollen to a force nearer to 800 men, but again they are failing to give full effect to the rational compromise—namely, that that force would itself be charged with administering security. The Government are claiming that it would simply observe the other forces, particularly the police force, at work.
Is not the hon. Gentleman discussing matters that are currently being negotiated between the parties at Lancaster House? Does he agree that that is no part of the function of the House of Commons this evening and that these matters should be agreed between the parties involved, not debated on the Floor of the Committee tonight?
I know that discussions in the House are sometimes so formalistic that nobody listens to the other side, but, surely, in a debate such as this we are trying to talk to each other. The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that interjection because he has heard it several times today. If the Government did not want us to talk about the very guts of what is happening at Lancaster House, they should not have brought in the Bill. That was why we said that it was absurd to bring it in before agreement was reached.
The fact that the Government brought the Bill in means that we have to talk about things that are being discussed at Lancaster House. For the hon. Gentleman to say that we ought to be a responsible Opposition and lie down and let the Lord Privy Seal walk all over us so that he can have his Bill without a discussion is an absurdity. I was not sent to the House of Commons to take the diktat of the Lord Privy Seal—nor that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I shall do what I conceive to be right in the circumstances presented to us in the House.
We would not be in this position if the Government had done as a requested last Thursday and delayed the Bill until they secured an agreement. Since we have to discuss it, however, I think that I am perfectly right in raising the question of the kind of security force that there will be. The Government have not faced up to the logic that if it cannot be the Patriotic Front, the Salisbury security forces or the police force of the Muzorewa regime, it must be an independent force. They have gone only as far as allowing observers.
Eight hundred observers in a country that is only slightly smaller than the United Kingdom will have the major job of being around in the right place at the right time. The idea is that one man serving up in the bush in one of the tribal trust lands will be able to go to an area where trouble has flared up between supporters of different parties, where violence is likely and where the police, the security forces or the Patriotic Front forces have been sent to try to maintain order. The observer is expected to determine whether they are doing the job properly, whether they are favouring one side or the other or whether a dangerous situation is brewing up and the forces are making matters worse. What on earth is he to do? He will send back a report to the Governor saying that it was unfortunate that the Patriotic Front forces or the police or the security forces had not done very well and that several people had been killed.
One can imagine the effect that such a report would have on the conduct of the elections. It would call forth the worst kind of emotions in a situation which the Government have constantly said would be "fragile" anyway. Would it not be better if there were sufficient troops from outside sources who could take a grip of such a situation and ensure law and order? Their orders would be accepted by both sides because they would be dispassionate
Does not the hon Gentleman think that it might be extraordinarily difficult for a force consisting of Canadians, Ghanaians or Nigerians, in completely strange surroundings, to make the arrangements required for the holding of an election without very close help from the other forces to which he referred?
Even a soldier from Nigeria or Canada would realise that if there were a crowd of people, some of them flourishing and firing guns, that situation must be contained. It would not necessarily matter that the outside troops were not familiar with the country. They would be able to bring their presence to bear in order to contain that violence. Of course, there would be problems with native customs, language and the local geography and they would need advice from the people familiar with those questions.
The Government's scheme is different. They suggest that there should be advisers and observers. Under the scheme that I propose, the Commonwealth forces would decide issues with the help of local advisers. That would make a world of difference to the attitude of the people of the countryside and the townships about whether to accept the decisions of the Commonwealth forces or of the other security forces.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) is perhaps the reason why the time scale of two months is not long enough? The hon. Gentleman should be joining with us in trying to ensure that the time given for the forces who go into Rhodesia, and who will be unfamiliar with the environment of that country, should be at least six months, if not longer.
The hon. Gentleman seems to think that 800 observers are insufficient. Is he aware that that will be the equivalent of one observer per 10,000 electors? That will make these elections the most closely scrutinised in the history of the world.
It is when there is only one observer to 10,000 electors that the trouble starts. I do not believe that that is the right proportion. In any case, according to the Government's proposal they would be there not to quell disorder but simply to report what happens to the Government. That is the way the Government see it. This is the major difference between the parties at the moment. It is one of the most serious issues of contention.
However, there is on offer from the Commonwealth a force of 20,000 men. Such a force would more than match the existing forces of the Patriotic Front and the Muzorewa regime. Twenty thousand men would be able to get a grip of the situation and, if they were to come in before the implementation of the ceasefire, even I might be persuaded that we could organise an election in two months.
If the present security forces are left in charge, it will be impossible to have fair elections. I do not wish to go on at length about the iniquities of the security forces, the military or the police in the past 10 years. I have referred to one incident but there are many more. It is certain that if the security forces which are entrusted with acting for the Governor include the Selous Scouts there can be no hope of assent to their activities during the interim.
That impression was gained when I was in Rhodesia a year ago, when I saw the townships of refugees from the tribal trust lands. During the Lancaster House conference, the BBC has followed its bulletin about what happens there with a bulletin about the attitude of the whites and the Muzorewa regime in Rhodesia. Last Friday, the BBC reported what was going on in Salisbury at a crucial time. Inevitably, the report was conditioned by the Smith—Muzorewa Government press agency. If the BBC presents a wrong report, its reporters will be thrown out.
The reporter said that he saw the townships of refugees in Salisbury. The refugees said that they had been displaced by the terrorists in the bush. When I was there a year ago, I talked to many people on my own. No one with a particular point of view accompanied me. Overwhelmingly I was told stories of people fleeing from the countryside because of the activities of the security forces, not of the terrorists.
It is inappropriate, to say the least, to accept that the security forces should be left with this job. Perhaps they cannot be stood down but perhaps they can be stood back, just as the Patriotic Front forces have to be stood back. It is totally unacceptable that they should engage in peace-keeping in this crucial period. I hope that the Government's proposals include a plan which involves something more than 800 observers.
One of the amendments demands that General Walls be dismissed. This is a crucial, symbolic act to indicate that the future will be different from the past. There is no doubt that the effective government of Rhodesia is in the hands not of Muzorewa, or, indeed, of Smith but of General Walls. For him to continue as commander of the defence forces in the interim would give a wrong impression.
I disagree with practically every argument advanced by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). He told the Committee that he had spent time in that wonderful country, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, a year ago. He said that he had visited some townships and that he had been permitted to talk to as many people as he wanted without any other person being present. He said that there was no intimidation and no pressure was brought to bear on the person interviewed. He implied that quite a number of those to whom he spoke indicated that they had fled the countryside to get away from the outrages committed by the security forces.
Although I was not there 12 months ago, I was there two years ago and also six weeks ago. Like the hon Gentleman, I visited various areas of the country, including townships such as Seki, Zengazi and St. Mary, and I found there many people who wanted peace. They had come to the areas surrounding Salisbury and Bulawayo for the protection of the security forces, who were in greater numbers in the more populated areas.
I met many people and, like the hon. Gentleman, was permitted to speak to them without impediment. I wonder, however, whether the same facility would be extended if we went to Tanzania, Zambia, Angola or Mozambique.
Bearing in mind that Mozambique and Angola have Marxist regimes, I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has been invited there. Judging from what he has said in this place and elsewhere, I am sure that he would be welcomed by the leaders.
The people whom I saw in the townships were grateful to Bishop Muzorewa and his Government—and I do not call it a regime. They are a properly elected Government and the most democratic Government in the entire African continent. These people were grateful to their Government, even in a time of what the hon. Gentleman calls war or civil war. I believe that the hon. Gentleman overplays his hand.
I visited various parts of the country. I saw many members of the security forces and the police but was able to go anywhere I liked. The Patriotic Front and its guerrilla leaders peddle the nonsense that there are "no go" areas for the security forces and for the people of Rhodesia.
Even in a time of war, the Rhodesian Government in one area of townships were building 20,000 houses in the current financial year.
I wish to respond to the hon. Gentleman's attack on me for going to other front-line States. I went to all the front-line States as well as Rhodesia. I was not invited to go to any. I went of my own accord and paid with money given to me by a well-known charitable trust in England. Under whose auspices did the hon. Gentleman go to Rhodesia and who paid for his trip?
It most certainly is there. It has been entered by the Clerk responsible for keeping the register. I went to Southern Africa at the expense of the South African Government and I made private arrangements to visit Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. While I was in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, I received hospitality from the Bishop's Government on this last occasion and two years ago from the then Rhodesian Government, from private Rhodesian citizens and from my own resources. I paid for certain things.
I am happy that every hon. Member and every member of the public should know exactly how I got to Southern Africa. I am not well breeched, and perhaps I am not particularly well looked upon by the trust to which the hon. Member for York referred, and thus the sort of benefits extended to him were not extended to me. I still believe that, as the House of Commons has a responsibility for the future of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, hon Members from the Back Benches should have the opportunity to visit that vital part of the world, which is of such strategic importance to this country.
I say to the hon. Member for York that it would appear from what he says that he is completely unaware that an election took place in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia in April of this year. Whatever the hon. Gentleman might think about the constitution on which that election was fought, the vast majority of the observers found the elections to be fair and free. Freedom House in the United States—an extremely liberal organisation—held this view, as did a representative of the Labour Party from Australia. He is on record as having said that the elections were fair and free. The Boyd Commission, sent out from this country, found the elections to be fair and free.
What Lord Chitnis said in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and what he said in this country appear to be in conflict. I can only presume that influence was brought to bear. The vast majority of the observers at those elections—[Interruption.] It is amazing that the hon. Member for York, a man, supposedly, of intelligence, should hold his head when facts are uttered and the truth is spoken.
Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I ask him to relate his remarks to the "existing armed forces" and their use for security work, and not to the last elections?
I am trying to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that elections were held in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia in April and that they were highly successful. They were held with the present security forces doing precisely what they are there to do. The security forces, under the command of Lieutenant-General Peter Walls, have a fine reputation, not only in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia but elsewhere. They are highly disciplined, and I believe that any elections contested under the new constitution which the House of Commons is recommending to the people of Rhodesia will be well safeguarded with the existing security forces.
I shall not give way. If I may relate one remark to the amendment of the hon. Member for York about the Selous Scouts, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a deep hate of that force, which is at least 80 per cent. black. I have met representatives of both its black and its white members. The force is one of the finest antiterrorist groups in the world. I am confident that the Patriotic Front would not like to see it survive, because it is perhaps owing to the existence of the Selous Scouts that the Front and its terrorist guerrillas in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia have made such little progress in bringing that country to its feet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Knees."] I am happy to accept that amendment to what I have said.
The Selous Scouts have done a wonderful job for Rhodesia, holding up the advance of Marxism and the advance of terrorism. They have probably given more blows to the terrorists than the country has received from the terrorist forces. They have killed and taken out—a phrase that is often used where terrorists are concerned—more terrorists than any other army force in the world today. They are doing a wonderful job.
I wonder why there is this malice. If that is an unparliamentary word, I am happy to withdraw it. Why is there this hatred, this bigotry, against an armed force that has a fine record? I believe that that country will long be proud of what the Selous Scouts have done.
The Committee should disregard the hon. Gentleman's views. Perhaps he has been as consistent from his point of view as I have been from mine. Our points of view differ. I believe that I am right, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman believes that he is right. But his philosophy and mine differ.
I believe in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia playing a major part in the development of Southern Africa. It can do that only if it is a stable country.
Lieutenant-General Peter Walls has stated publicly—and I believe him—that he will serve loyally any Government who are elected in that country. [HON. MEMBERS: "If he is asked."] Of course, if he is asked. He was asked to be the commander of combined operations by Bishop Muzorewa, as Prime Minister, and he has served the present Government of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia very well and very loyally. If he is asked to stand down by any subsequent Government, I am sure that he will be prepared to do just that. But nobody is better qualified by experience and knowledge to assist the orderly conduct of the elections—whenever they come, and the sooner the better—than the present security forces, under the command of Peter Walls.
As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the only legal Government of Southern Rhodesia is that of whom he is a supporter, would he not agree that it would be as well if that only legal Government of Southern Rhodesia asked Mr. Walls to give up his post immediately?
I am always happy to receive compliments from the hon. Gentleman.
Rhodesia has been, de facto if not de jure, an independent country for 14 years. If it had not been for the collapse of the Portuguese empire, it would be a thriving, prospering country today. However, it is probably more thriving and more prosperous than any of the black African countries to its north, with, perhaps, the exception of Kenya, despite the civil war that has been described to us in such graphic detail.
I have a deep love for Rhodesia. I have no vested interest in the country despite the cheap comments that are made from time to time below the Gangway on the Opposition Benches. If more Labour Members were prepared to visit Rhodesia, they would see the potential that there exists for peace and the example that it could set for development in the rest of Southern Africa.
I saw in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia a greater harmony between black and white than exists even in Britain. My right hon. Friend will be well advised to reject the amendment, to ensure that the die that is now cast is carried forward as quickly as possible and to allow the record of the Rhodesian security forces to continue. They can serve their country and ensure that the elections, when they come, are held in peace.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) stated that the Selous Scouts comprised the best antiterrorist force in the world. He said that it took out more terrorists than any other similar force. The hon. Gentleman is maintaining that that force is a reasonable contingent of the security forces to police an election in which those whom he describes as terrorists will be contesting the election. I cannot believe that he is serious in what he says.
Throughout the period of illegality, the security forces have existed to maintain the illegal regime against all challenge. As a result, it is unlikely in the extreme that any of the senior army officers can be neutral in their attitude towards the Patriotic Front, against which they have been conducting armed hostilities. During the course of the war the security forces must have had many experiences that have hardened their attitudes against the Patriotic Front. Civil war is conducted along the most barbaric lines, and it is not feasible that members of the security forces will change their attitudes overnight. Surely, the members of the existing security forces are singularly ill adapted to police the change that we are saying should now take place.
It is argued by Conservative Members that it is not to be accepted that former guerrillas or members of the Patriotic Front will regard the security forces with the respect generally accorded to the British police or the British Armed Forces. It is only natural that that should be so.
I accept that in the long run it is possible that the security forces of the Salisbury regime and the Patriotic Front will be merged. However, if anyone imagines that that can take place in the short period of two months, he is simply not facing the realities of the situation. No time is to be given for tempers to cool and for attitudes to be changed. To allow the existing security forces to be responsible for policing during the elections would, I believe, be a recipe for disaster.
Of course, the election will be a crucial experience. It is liable to give rise to all sorts of intense feelings which may easily burst into acts of violence. Even in this country during election periods intense feelings are created, and this at a time when we have had more than 30 years of peace. If we experience these clashes, how much more liable is Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to much greater outbursts of violence? I believe that it will be very difficult to prevent clashes where the guerillas come into close proximity with the security forces of the Salisbury regime.
In these circumstances, there is only one possible way of preventing those clashes. That is, to relieve the security forces of the Salisbury regime, as well as the guerrilla forces, of any liability for maintaining law and order during the election period and to bring in an independent force—preferably from the Commonwealth—as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) suggested.
The problems are not limited to the election period. It is true that during that period there will be real fears that the security forces will back the candidates of the Muzorewa regime, but there will also be fears that a force which supported the illegal regime in the past might not accept the outcome if the Patriotic Front was victorious. Conservative Members may argue that it is completely unthinkable that the security forces would not respect the outcome of the election. My answer is that as the security forces in the past were prepared to support an illegal regime, those who have to contend with them might well be excused—particularly those who spent many years in detention—for fearing that those security forces might again take over and maintain power for an illegal regime if the Patriotic Front was victorious.
I believe that the brevity of the election period, together with the existence of the security forces, makes it all the more likely that the Patriotic Front will refuse to accept the outcome of the election if it goes against it. One of my arguments is that we must be realistic, understand the situation and try to create circumstances in which, as far as possible, both sides will be prepared to respect the outcome of the election.
We are being incurably optimistic if we expect the Patriotic Front to conduct its campaign, and subsequently to accept with equanimity the outcome of the election, if we have a truncated election period and if at the same time the Salisbury regime security forces remain in control. I believe that we are creating conditions in which the outcome of the election will not be accepted. Our discussions on this clause illustrate just how ill timed the Bill is.
We ask the Government to consider seriously how they may relieve the security forces of the Salisbury regime of the responsibility to maintain law and order in this period and transfer it to an alternative force. Since last week, we have moved to a position where outside observers are to be brought in. I hope that the Government will consider seriously the arguments advanced this evening to ensure that security rests with a force that can in no way be regarded as biased as to the outcome of the election. If we can persuade the Government to take that point of view seriously, we shall greatly increase the chance that peace will ultimately be restored to Rhodesia.
The case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was convincing. However, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said that he disagreed with every word. When the hon. Gentleman disagrees on matters relating to Southern Africa, we can depend on it that he is wrong.
I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to my hon. Friend's amendments. Suppose that we were considering the question whether the Patriotic Front should be in charge of security in Rhodesia. That proposition could be argued in a better way than the proposition that the existing armed forces should be put in charge. The Patriotic Front resisted the illegal regime, whereas the armed forces have sustained the illegal regime for the past 14 years. In fact, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Macclesfield speaks for the unpatriotic forces.
I realise the difficulties experienced by the Government in dealing with their own Back Benchers. The hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends said that we should recognise the Ian Smith regime. Thirteen years ago they would have recognised the illegal regime in Rhodesia. That is shameful. Not one country in the world recognised the illegal regime in Rhodesia.
The hon. Gentleman goes to South Africa under the auspices of the South African Foundation. We know that the Government of South Africa in a surrepetitious way have broken sanctions and tried to sustain the illegal regime in Rhodesia. It was said that the regime should have ended in weeks rather than months. That would have happened if the former colonial territories of Portugal, which have now been liberated, and the Government of South Africa had not gone against the wish of this House to bring that illegal regime back to legality.
The Government state that after the ceasefire, when the Lancaster House talks are over, if we can reach an agreement we shall move forward to elections within two months. We argue that two months is not long enough. There should be a longer period. Let us imagine the situation in Rhodesia. For the past 14 years there was a rebellion against the Crown, which was supported by some members of the Conservative Party. [Interruption.] Read the reports of our debates. All the evidence is in Hansard. The Tory Party was split on subsequent occasions. One minute, the Front Bench Members recommended Tory Members of Parliament to abstain, on other occasions, they advised them to go into the Lobby and support the Labour Government. Even the Conservative Government did not recognise the illegal regime. Therefore, we recognise the difficulties that the Government now face. In fact, there are those of us who believe that we are having this enabling Bill in order to enable the Government to maintain a sort of unity on sanctions which does not exist. I believe—
I shall come to the amendments, Mr. Weatherill.
The point I am making is this. If we get agreement at Lancaster House, we shall be moving towards real democratic elections in Rhodesia under a new constitution. There will be the chance then that for the first time for 14 years a Government will emerge in the new Zimbabwe who will have international recognition.
If we are to have free elections and if the people who vote are to feel that they are free to exercise their democratic right, it is important that the very people who have been accused of harassing them and have been employed to support and sustain the illegal regime are not seen to be the people in charge of law and order, of the military and of policing.
The Government are now having serious talks. They have accepted the suggestion that there should be Commonwealth observers there. I think that we need to go further than that. We need a peacekeeping force. There have been offers from Australia, Canada and other Commonwealth countries. I hope that such a force will come from Commonwealth countries, although it could be argued that this force could be provided under the United Nations auspices.
But whether it is under Commonwealth or United Nations auspices, it is important that in the two-month period, or whatever it is, between the ceasefire and the election there should be an independent military and police force in the territory Then it will be seen by the outside world that the people there are really free, without being oppressed by the military who have been there over the years, to come to a decision. We would then have a real chance of the outside world recognising that the people are being given a chance to form their own Government.
This amendment involves issues of principle and of practicality. The issue of principle is that the elections shall be seen to be free and fair. I do not see how the Government can expect to convince the world that the elections are free and fair if the effective power on the ground supervising the process is the executive arm and the armed forces of the existing Muzorewa Government.
I find it incredible that the Government suppose that they will be able to convince the Commonwealth, the United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity and others that the elections have been properly conducted if the forces that have been waging the war at the behest of the rebel regime—and are at present waging the war—are the same forces as have been controlling security during the transitional period.
We must remember that more than two sets of forces are involved. There are other private armies in Rhodesia at present. Mr. Sithole himself complained bitterly, after the so-called election, that his supporters had been intimidated by the forces of Muzorewa. A whole complex of security arrangements is required to be made if these eventual elections, and the transitional period itself, are to proceed effectively and lead to the emergence of an acceptable Government.
A number of things have been said about the Rhodesian forces as they are at present constituted and about their record. The fact is that Rhodesia is now under martial law and the forces about which we are now talking are enforcing that law. They are constituting summary courts in various parts of Rhodesia and they have been condemning Rhodesians to death and carrying out those sentences. These are the forces that the Government think will effectively take control of the situation and command the confidence of all Rhodesians in the forthcoming transitional period.
Reference has been made to the Selous Scouts. I shall not go into detail on that subject. But the World Council of Churches, through missionaries of many denominations who have spent years in Rhodesia ministering to the needs of its people, has reported ugly and unpleasant tales of the Selous Scouts. There may be arguments about atrocities perpetuated on either side within Rhodesia, but there has been little argument about atrocities such as the massacre at Chimoio, carried out by Rhoclesian forces, which they did not attempt to hide and about which they openly boasted. We should be aware of the kind of forces that are available to the current regime and of their record and powers in recent years.
Incidentally, apart from the black and white Rhodesians in those forces, mercenaries are involved. According to some estimates, there are 1,500 or more. I do not believe that hon. Members would seriously wish foreign mercenaries to be involved in the policing of what we hope will be free and fair elections in Rhodesia.
There is the practical question of how best we can control warring factions which are engaged in a civil war. The lesson of the Congo and Southern Lebanon is that, unless there is an effective, independent force on the ground, there is little hope of maintaining a stable and peaceful situation in which to conduct the kind of exercise that we all hope will come about in the transitional period. Whatever their limitations, the United Nations peacekeeping forces in Cyprus, Southern Lebanon and the Congo demonstrate that a highly trained, well-organised, independent international force can contribute an element of stability to a situation that would otherwise be uncontrollable and completely impossible to supervise.
The offer of Commonwealth forces—not just observers—should be accepted by the Government in the interests of their own policy. Part of that policy must be not only that the transitional period is carried through and that the elections are conducted properly but that the international community is assured that the process has been free and fair. The police in Rhodesia are an armed fighting force. They are not police as we understand that term. World opinion would not be convinced that the transitional period and the election campaign had been conducted in a free and fair manner if the Government relied on the armies of the Rhodesian regime and the so-called British South Africa Police.
I hope that the Government will accept the substance of the amendments, will seriously consider requiring the armed forces of the regime to withdraw to their barracks and to take no part in the transitional period and will take advantage of the generous offers of our Commonwealth friends to supply an effective supervisory force for this process.
Labour Members would be quite willing to welcome the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Wintenon) into the Lobby at the end of the debate, because it is clear that, like us, he is opposed to the Bill. The best way for him to express that opposition is by voting with us. He obviously understands the problems that would arise if the Bill were to be passed by the House tonight.
Labour Members have been greatly concerned at the lack of any real negotiations during the Lancaster House talks. It is only because of pressures from outside bodies that the proposals put forward by the Foreign Secretary have been negotiated at all. We have the impression from listening to the reports—certainly those coming from the Patriotic Front—that there are no negotiations taking place. Documents are simply placed on the table for consultation. It is all talk, with no real negotiation.
The question of the security forces is of prime importance if Zimbabwe is to return to legality. We have to recognise that there is a war going on in Zimbabwe. That war should be brought to an end. The question is how to bring it to a successful conclusion. Labour Members are suggesting that the method of policing the return to legality should be such as to ensure that at the end of the day all the people within the country have confidence in the Government who, it is hoped, will be elected. The present security forces are working at the behest of an illegal regime. The people of Zimbabwe could have no confidence in those forces if they were to remain after the country's return to legality. They cannot be regarded as legal forces. If the regime is illegal, it can hardly employ forces which are themselves legal.
The role of the police is a crucial one. The police would be expected to be a regulating force, operating to ensure that all those wishing to participate in the elections would have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of action. Labour Members are concerned that the police may be under some pressure at some stage, not perhaps to interfere with the leading members of the Patriotic Front but to be concerned with the lesser-known members of the Patriotic Front, many of whom would be involved in the infrastructure of an election campaign. Some of them might be wanted for alleged crimes within the country against the illegal regime. There could be pressures on the police to make some effort to arrest those people and charge them with crimes, thus ensuring their removal from any election procedures.
If such decisions were left to a British Governor, he would find it very difficult to make them, because they would be based not on his political judgment but on the law of the land as it stood at that time. We would be concerned to see that the police force was one which was able to make judgments of that kind free from any pressures which might exist within the country. The only type of force which would recommend itself to Labour Members would be a Commonwealth force which had no commitment other than to the rule of law and order.
This side of the Committee is also concerned about the involvement of South African Ministers in the discussions. It is obvious to the outside world that South Africa is watching closely how these discussions proceed. One wonders what has been said and what meetings have taken place between General Walls and Ministers of the South African Government. One wonders what would happen if an attempt was made after the election, assuming that it was won by the Patriotic Front, to give a directive to the existing security forces and that directive was not accepted. What would happen if civil war broke out at a time when Britain had moved out of the conflict? Would there be a direct involvement by South Africa? Would we consider that we retained some responsibility? These are the situations we are trying to avoid, hoping that, after the election, reconciliation will take place in Zimbabwe. That cannot happen unless reconciliation is seen to be taking place in the run-up to the election.
Opposition Members have explained their reasons for proposing a Commonwealth force. If the Government are serious about wanting a reconciliation in Zimbabwe, they should take these arguments on board and accept the amendments. The hon. Member for Macclesfield, at least, should be voting with us.
The amendments are concerned with the most difficult of all the questions—namely, the problem of security and how it is to be achieved and maintained during the period up to the appointed day and up to the elections. If the debate has done nothing else, it has brought out vividly the enormous problems to be faced. Years of terror and counter-terror of the kind to which Rhodesia has been subjected for so long between the main forces of the guerrillas and the security forces can only leave total mistrust and distrust. On top of that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) pointed out, inside the main separate forces there are other forces and private armies that pose an additional problem in making effective security arrangements.
If one put to the European and Muzorewa wing of the conference proposals that the security arrangements should be substantially monitored and policed by the forces of the Patriotic Front, such proposals would be treated with the utmost suspicion and hostility. It is equally true that the Patriotic Front would view with the utmost hostility and seek to remove what they would see as the discrimination that would follow upon security arrangements leading up to the election being in the hands of the State security apparatus that it has been fighting for many years. We know that this is the matter to be discussed in the crucial, last and most difficult stage three of the Lancaster House conference.
I do not see any perfect solution to the security problems that are posed. When, two years ago, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr Owen) attempted to advance the cause of a settlement and peace with his colleague the American Secretary of State, the Anglo-American proposals were produced. As the Committee will recall, basically they were to bring in a third force precisely to attempt to deal with the very obvious and acute hostilities and suspicions which existed between the two main parties to the present conflict. The idea was to have a third force which would be sufficiently powerful to keep apart the opposing factions and parties and to achieve security in which proper elections could be held.
I understand the appeal of an independent force. I think that most fair-minded people can see the strength of it. Whatever other arrangements we make, they are bound to be flawed. We shall be making considerable efforts to remove some of the major flaws. From the point of view of the contending parties, however, the proposals which are emerging are bound to be treated with considerable suspicion.
In a sense, the trouble is that the Lusaka conference, from which the London conference draws so much of its guidelines and strength, did not deal with this aspect. But it was not just a matter of omission by error. We have to accept that the parties at the Lusaka conference were not proposing that there should be a United Nations third force brought into Rhodesia, and this was a significant departure from the previous Anglo-American plans.
Against that background, it must be asked, what is left? What are the alternatives? One obvious alternative is touched on in paragraph 21 of the document which I described as "phase three" In essence, the proposal is to achieve a ceasefire which at the same time will neutralise the main forces of both the contending factions. The idea is to neutralise the main Rhodesian security forces in the sense, I assume, that they would have very limited duties and would basically be in barracks or camps, and also to neutralise the major guerrilla forces in their bases and camps mainly across the frontiers of Rhodesia in neighbouring countries.
That is one part of the alternative which has been put forward. My understanding is that the Government are trying to set up advisory machinery in which the military commanders of both the Patriotic Front and the Salisbury Government are advising the Governor about how the ceasefire can be preserved.
The paragraph goes on to say that it will require all parties to commit themselves to accept the Governor's authority. It is asking a lot. All the same, it is one element in this inevitably second-best arrangement for securing a ceasefire and reasonable conditions for fairness under it.
Of course, it is not the only factor. The only other option that the Government have is to bring in an independent element, but in a rather different form. Here, I think, the Lord Privy Seal should take the Committee more into his confidence. Earlier, I spoke about the proposal which had become public on Friday for a somewhat extended Commonwealth observer role. I put that proposal to the right hon. Gentleman when I replied to his statement on 24 October. It seemed to me that the idea that the Commonwealth, which had played such a major role in making Lusaka and London possible, should be invited simply to witness the elections was a kind of absurdity, given the Commonwealth's good will and influence and the possibility of its resources being brought to bear to assist in reaching a solution.
Since then, the Government have moved forward in two ways. They have made it perfectly plain that the Commonwealth civil observer role will not be simply to witness the ballot box operation but will extend to cover the whole conditions of the territory. That is fine.
Now, the additional proposal has been made since Friday for there to be a Commonwealth military observer force containing a substantial British contingent. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will tell us something about it and whether any consideration has been given to the proposal contained in one of the amendments we are discussing for the Commonwealth military role to be made more extensive to help to bring about a greater sense of security, stability and fairness in Zimbabwe in the period up to election day.
I understand that many of the amendments are designed to elicit a response, to deal with particular problems. There is
at this stage, however, one point upon which we can agree. Provided that there is a ceasefire—and that is the great proviso—
the existing armed forces should not be used for security work during the period up to the appointed day.
I am using the precise words of the amendment we are discussing. I include in "existing armed forces" the guerrilla armies of Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe as well as the Rhodesia main security forces. The main effort of seeking to neutralise them in one way or another offers the best prospect of making progress in the direction that we all want.
However, it is perfectly plain that a very heavy burden will fall upon the police. The Government's document of 2 November states specifically in paragraph 20, in which law and order are discussed, that
In the event of an effective ceasefire, the necessity for martial law will disappear. The task of maintaining law and order in the pre-independence period will be the responsibility of the civil police.
The civil police have some sections with associations of which we are all aware, but I am glad to see that they are to be reinforced and substantially commanded by senior personnel from this country who will not merely be available at headquarters but will operate in the different regions of the country where the police presence will be of great importance.
That is a crucial role for the police. They will have to see not merely that there are conditions of reasonable security—it will not be perfect security—against armed men and bits of private armies. In addition, they will have the job of safeguarding the lives of political leaders and of making certain that proper election activities can take place. There will also be the problem of protecting the candidates who are some way from centres of authority and communication.
Their task will be very heavy. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell us how he envisages the police being helped and assisted, maybe by outside elements other than those I have discussed, we shall be most happy to hear. We shall support the amendment, which seeks to exclude the main armed forces of both sides. That is not, in my view, a controversial issue between us. The amendment accepts that the main task of maintaining security and the conditions under which fair and free elections can take place must be for the police, however they may be fortified, reorganised and supervised under the arrangements that are being negotiated.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) stated, rightly, that the House of Commons had every right to discuss these matters. I am sure he appreciates that these issues are still being negotiated at Lancaster House. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) say that he proposed to support amendment No. 43.
The right hon. Gentleman did, however, quote accurately and fairly the Government's proposals in paragraphs 20 and 21 of our paper on the interim arrangements. We envisage that the role of the armed forces of both sides will be limited to the maintenance of the ceasefire. The maintenance of law and order will be the responsibility of the existing police forces under the Government. No matter what the hon. Member for York says, there is no practicable alternative. We must use the existing forces. The hon. Gentleman bandied numbers around and spoke of 800 observers and an outside force of 20,000 men. Those are his figures. They are not ours. I do not know where they come from, and as far as I am concerned they are entirely speculative. I do not believe that a force of 20,000 men is available or that it would be desirable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] To have another army of 20,000 men in a country which already has too many armed forces would not necessarily be a good idea.
The hon. Member for York earlier cited Lebanon as a country where observers had not been much good and where a United Nations force had been useful. I do not believe that the experience of UNIFIL has entirely borne out that judgment. There would be great difficulties with such a force even if it were available.
Amendment No. 43 aims to stop the armed forces being used. We do not envisage the armed forces being used, but I think that it would be quite wrong for us to inhibit the Governor from making what might be difficult and disagreeable decisions. This should be a matter for agreement between the parties, and I repeat that this stage has not yet been reached.
Amendment No. 44 would prevent the Governor from using the existing police. That cannot be right. Another amendment requires the dismissal of General Walls. We believe strongly that it is for the newly elected Government of Zimbabwe to decide whom they employ. It is not for us to lay down whom that Government shall employ.
We have no proposals to alter the commands of the security forces, the Patriotic Front forces or those of anyone else. If the hon. Gentleman were consistent, he should have called for the dismissal of General Tongagara as well. That also seems to me to be quite gratuitous and we should not countenance it.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar asked, very fairly, for more particulars of the Government's plans for monitoring. These proposals have not been put to the conference. Before we could do that, we had to ascertain whether certain Commonwealth countries were prepared to provide forces. That is how the information became public. We have always recognised that there must be adequate machinery for monitoring the observance of the ceasefire. These details must be left for negotiation at the next
The right hon. Gentleman says that these matters are still subject to negotiation. Will he therefore reconsider what he has said? He has endorsed the use of the illegal security force for the transitional period before negotiation at Lancaster House. That is a serious proposition.
The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to what I said. We shall be making two proposals. First, we envisage that there will be a ceasefire commission which will meet in Salisbury under the chairmanship of the Governor's military adviser. The military commanders of both sides will be represented on the commission. The task of the commission will be to ensure that the agreed arrangements, whatever they may be, are complied with and to investigate breaches.
Secondly, we shall propose to establish a Commonwealth monitoring group to which other Commonwealth Governments will be invited to contribute. That is for the next stage of the conference. We have not yet reached that stage but I trust that we shall do so soon. It must be right not to set conditions now for these negotiations. These are matters for Lancaster House. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
|Division No. 102]||AYES||[12.32 am|
|Adams, Allen||Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Davies, Ifor (Gower)|
|Allaun, Frank||Campbell, Ian||Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)|
|Anderson, Donald||Campbell-Savours, Dale||Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Canavan, Dennis||Deakins, Eric|
|Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest||Cant, R. B.||Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Carmichael, Neil||Dempsey, James|
|Ashton, Joe||Cartwright, John||Dewar, Donald|
|Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)||Clark, David (South Shields)||Dixon, Donald|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)||Dobson, Frank|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Cohen, Stanley||Dormand, Jack|
|Beith, A. J.||Coleman, Donald||Douglas, Dick|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Douglas-Mann, Bruce|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Conlan, Bernard||Dubs, Alfred|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Cook, Robin F.||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Cowans, Harry||Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)||Dunnett, Jack|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)||Crowther, J. S.||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Bradley, Tom||Cryer, Bob||Eadie, Alex|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Cunliffe, Lawrence||Eastham, Ken|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Cunningham, George (Islington S)||Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)||Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)|
|Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)||Dalyell, Tam||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)|
|Buchan, Norman||Davidson, Arthur||English, Michael|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)||Davies, E. Hudson (Caerphilly)||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)|
|Evans, John (Newton)||Lyon, Alexander (York)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Field, Frank||McCartney, Hugh||Roper John|
|Flannery, Martin||McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Ford, Ben||McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Ryman, John|
|Forrester, John||McKelvey, William||Sandelson, Neville|
|Foster, Derek||MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Sever, John|
|Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)||Maclennan, Robert||Sheerman, Barry|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)|
|Freud, Clement||McNally, Thomas||Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)|
|Garrett, John (Norwich S)||McNamara, Kevin||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||McWiIIiam, John||Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)|
|George, Bruce||Magee, Bryan||Silverman, Julius|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Marks, Kenneth||Skinner, Dennis|
|Golding, John||Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)||Soley, Clive|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)||Stallard, A. W.|
|Hardy, Peter||Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Maxton, John||Stoddart, David|
|Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||Maynard, Miss Joan||Stott, Roger|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Meacher, Michael||Strang, Gavin|
|Haynes, Frank||Mikardo, Ian||Straw, Jack|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)|
|Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)||Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)|
|Home Robertson, John||Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)||Thomas, Dr Roger Carmarthen)|
|Homewood, William||Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Hooley, Frank||Morion, Barry||Tilley, John|
|Howell, Rt Hon Denis (Bham, Sm H)||Moyle, Rt Hon Roland||Tinn, James|
|Howells, Geraint||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Torney, Tom|
|Huckfield, Les||Newens, Stanley||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Janner, Hon Greville||O'Halloran, Michael||Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)|
|Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||O'Neill, Martin||Weetch, Ken|
|John, Brynmor||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Wellbeloved, James|
|Johnson, James (Hull West)||Owen, Rt Hon Dr David||Weish, Michael|
|Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)||Palmer, Arthur||White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)|
|Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Park, George||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Parry, Robert||Whitlock, William|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Pendry, Tom||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Kerr, Russell||Penhaligon, David||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Kilroy-Siik, Robert||Fowell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)|
|Kinnock, Neil||Prescott, John||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Lambie, David||Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)||Winnick, David|
|Lamborn, Harry||Race, Reg||Woolmer, Kenneth|
|Lamond, James||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Leadbitler, Ted||Richardson, Miss Jo||Wright, Sheila|
|Leighton, Ronald||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)||Young, David (Bolton East)|
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Elton & Slough)||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Litherland, Robert||Robertson, George||Mr. Ted Graham and|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)||Mr. James Hamilton|
|Adley, Robert||Bowden, Andrew||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Cockeram, Eric|
|Alexander, Richard||Braine, Sir Bernard||Colvin, Michael|
|Alison, Michael||Bright, Graham||Cope, John|
|Ancram, Michael||Brinton, Tim||Cormack, Patrick|
|Arnold, Tom||Brittan, Leon||Corrie, John|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Costain, A. P.|
|Atkins, Robert (Preston North)||Brooke, Hon Peter||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)||Brotherton, Michael||Critchley, Julian|
|Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)||Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)||Crouch, David|
|Banks, Robert||Browne, John (Winchester)||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Bruce-Gardyne, John||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Bell, Ronald||Bryan, Sir Paul||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Bendall, Vivian||Buck, Antony||Dover, Denshore|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Budgen, Nick||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward|
|Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)||Buimer, Esmond||Dunn, Robert (Dartford)|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||Burden, F. A.||Durant, Tony|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Butcher, John||Dykes, Hugh|
|Best, Keith||Butler, Hon Adam||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Cadbury, Jocelyn||Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Carlisle, John (Luton West)||Eggar, Timothy|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Elliott, Sir William|
|Blackburn, John||Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)||Emery, Peter|
|Blaker, Peter||Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Eyre, Reginald|
|Body, Richard||Channon, Paul||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Chapman, Sydney||Faith, Mrs Sheila|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Churchill, W. S.||Farr, John|
|Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)||Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)||Fell, Anthony|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Loveridge, John||Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Luce, Richard||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||Lyell, Nicholas||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||McCrindle, Robert||Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)|
|Forman, Nigel||Macfarlane, Neil||Rost, Peter|
|Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)||MacGregor, John||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Fraser, Peter (South Angus)||MacKay, John (Argyll)||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|Fry, Peter||McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)||McQuarrie, Albert||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Madel, David||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Major, John||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Goodhart, Philip||Marland, Paul||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)|
|Goodhew, Victor||Marlow, Tony||Shersby, Michael|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Silvester, Fred|
|Gow, Ian||Mates, Michael||Sims, Roger|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Maude, Rt Hon Angus||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Mawby, Ray||Speed, Keith|
|Gray, Hamish||Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Speller, Tony|
|Greenway, Harry||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Spence, John|
|Grieve, Percy||Mayhew, Patrick||Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)||Mellor, David||Sproat, Iain|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Squire, Robin|
|Grist, Ian||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)||Stainton, Keith|
|Grylls, Michael||Mills, Iain (Meriden)||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Gummer, John Selwyn||Mills, Peter (West Devon)||Stanley, John|
|Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)||Miscampbell, Norman||Steen, Anthony|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Stevens, Martin|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Moate, Roger||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Hannam, John||Monro, Hector||Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Montgomery, Fergus||Stokes, John|
|Hastings, Stephen||Moore, John||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael||Morgan, Geraint||Tapsell, Peter|
|Hawkins, Paul||Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)||Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)|
|Hawksley, Warren||Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)||Tebbit, Norman|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Heddle, John||Mudd, David||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret|
|Henderson, Barry||Murphy, Christopher||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Myles, David||Thompson, Donald|
|Hicks, Robert||Neale, Gerrard||Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Needham, Richard||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Hill, James||Nelson, Anthony||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Holland, Philip (Carlton)||Neubert, Michael||Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)|
|Hooson, Tom||Newton, Tony||Trippier, David|
|Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Nott, Rt Hon John||Trotter, Neville|
|Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)||Onslow, Cranley||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Oppenhelm, Rt Hon Mrs Sally||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Osborn, John||Viggers, Peter|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Page, John (Harrow, West)||Wakeham, John|
|Hurd, Hon Douglas||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Waldegrave, Hon. William|
|Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Paisley, Rev Ian||Wall, Patrick|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick||Parkinson, Cecil||Waller, Gary|
|Jessel, Toby||Parris, Matthew||Ward, John|
|Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Patten, John (Oxford)||Watson, John|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Pattie, Geoffrey||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Pawsey, James||Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Percival, Sir Ian||Wheeler, John|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Pink, R. Bonner||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Kitson, Sir Timothy||Pollock, Alexander||Whitney, Raymond|
|Knox, David||Porter, George||Wickenden, Keith|
|Lamont, Norman||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Lang, Ian||Prior, Rt Hon James||Wilkinson, John|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Proctor, K. Harvey||Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)|
|Latham, Michael||Ratson, Timothy||Winter on, Nicholas|
|Lawrence Ivan||Rathbone, Tim||Wolfson, Mark|
|Lawson, Nigel||Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Lee, John||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Le Merchant, Spencer||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutand)||Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Mr. David Waddington and|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)||Rifkind, Malcolm||Mr. Carol Mather.|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
Question accordingly negatived.
This group of amendments deals with sanctions. It is central to the whole of our argument, as it was to the reasoned amendment on Second Reading, that the Government's failure to renew sanctions under section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 is a major reason why we should oppose the Bill. In the amendments we try to restore the position.
Nothing has been more emotive in all the 14 years of debate on Rhodesia than the issue of sanctions. There is no greater litmus test of our integrity and the British Government's commitment, nationaly and internationally, to stand by the principle of Rhodesia's return to legality and the establishment of majority rule than our commitment to, and involvement in, the maintenance of sanctions.
Therefore, the issue is both practical and symbolic. It has been the subject of some of the most probing and searching debates in the United Nations and in the international community. It is the international community's test of our willingness to stay the course and to stand by the principles of majority rule and the return to legality. It is no exaggeration to say that the sanctions issue is the fundamental one.
During the debates on the Bill we have been given an odd mixture of reasons why the Government have decided not to retain the section 2 sanctions. These have concealed the basic reason, which is that the Government were not prepared to stand up to a group of their Back Benchers on the issue. That is the sole reason, behind which a whole host of other reasons has been thrown up.
Let us see whether the reasons that the Government have given stand up to investigation. First, we have been told that the lapse of section 2 orders covers only about 20 per cent. of all sanctions, that they are of no real concern, that, after all, the bulk of sanctions remains, and that no breach of any international obligations is involved.
Secondly, we were told a number of times by the Lord Privy Seal—it was crudely put—that the Government wished to reward Bishop Muzorewa and that they were dropping these sanctions as a reward for his worthy efforts, as they see them, in promoting a settlement. Thirdly, the Government have argued that under existing legislation it would not be possible to renew sanctions for a shorter period than the 12 months for which previous sanctions orders have been renewed.
Let us take first the argument that section 2 is of only minimal concern as it covers only 20 per cent. of all sanctions. That makes nonsense of the agonizing, emotional debates that the House has had for 14 years. It makes nonsense of some of the major debates at successive Conservative Party conferences, which rightly saw that section 2 orders were a matter of great concern, both practically and symbolically, and, therefore, sought to remove them or to prevent their being renewed. It is nonsense for the Government to argue that the sanctions under section 2 are of no consequence.
If the Committee considers some of the sanctions which will fall as a result of the decision not to renew the order, our argument will be demonstrated. The 1968 United Nations sanctions order
restricts the importation into the United Kingdom of goods exported from Southern Rhodesia.… The Order imposes restrictions with respect to undertakings in Southern Rhodesia for the manufacture or assembly of aircraft or motor vehicles. It authorises restrictions upon the entry into the United Kingdom of certain persons connected with Southern Rhodesia.… The Order also makes provision for the investigation of ships and aircraft that are suspected of contravening the Order.
The United Nations sanctions order—it was enforced by section 2 of the 1965 Act, which falls as a result of nonrenewal—was of considerable importance and significance practically, symbolically and in terms of our international obligations.
It is nonsense to dismiss the importance of section 2 sanctions and the international implications of our failure to retain all sanctions until there has been a return to full legality.
We have only to consider the words of distinguished commentators made since Thursday on the Government's decision not to renew. President Kaunda gave a restrained interview. It was given after a weekend of discussions. He was obviously trying to be helpful, to promote discussion and to bridge the gap separating the difference of view. I do not think that the Minister will do other than accept that that was the President's role and function. Even President Kaunda commented that the Government's decision was unfortunate and a miscalculation. He stated that the decision had aroused much suspicion. In his press interview he said:
You … may say 80 per cent. of the sanctions are still on … of course there is no way to stop any other countries from opening trade with Rhodesia in all other fields. I think this was a miscalculation. It's very unfortunate.
The Commonwealth Committee on Southern Africa has brought specific attention to the fact that the Lusaka agreement made no provision for the dropping of any part of the sanctions before agreement and implementation of a full settlement. Again, the Government have raised unnecessary suspicions and doubts as a result of their decision not to maintain sanctions.
There has been no time in the 14 years of discussion and debate on the principle of sanctions and whether they should be renewed when we have tried to divide sanctions into two categories. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has a reputation for defending the principle of sanctions. Not even the most hostile critics of sanctions have tried to divide sanctions into two categories—namely, those that have to be observed until the moment of the legality and those that do not. That is the effect of the Government's decision not to renew section 2 sanctions.
The principle of retaining sanctions until the moment of the return to effective legality has been indivisible. There has never previously been a division of category, but that is the effect of the Government's decision. The Government are to retain some sanctions while allowing a collection of important ones under section 2 to lapse. As the Opposition know, the Government's actions have nothing to do with principle. They have more to do with plastering over the cracks within their party. It is a tawdry move to conceal the cowardice of the Government in facing up to some of their own Back Benchers.
The Government have argued that to renew sanctions would be a positive act which would not be justified in this situation. It is argued that it would be a slap in the face for the Bishop if they renewed section 2 sanctions. At the present time, when the Government are chairing an important conference at a crucial and delicate moment, I do not believe that they should be in the business of slapping faces, or, for that matter, patting the backs of bishops, whoever they are. It is their job to forge an agreement as an impartial chairman of the conference, yet in some of his arguments last week, when he defended the conference, the right hon. Gentleman came close to showing his own partiality rather than impartiality at a crucial moment in time.
We offered to assist the Government. Had they wanted to renew sanctions for a shorter period than 12 months they could have brought forward a one-clause Bill to amend the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965. They declined to do so. Instead they have brought forward this Bill, and by adding the existing orders to clause 3 we find that they could renew sanctions. At the same time, the Government will have the power to terminate all sanctions the moment that there has been a return to effective and real legality. The Government are taking powers under the Bill to do just that. We suggest in our amendments that they should use the Bill to maintain the indivisible principle of retaining sanctions until there has been a proper return to legality.
I want to say a few words in support of the amendment, which I regard as an important and key amendment. Had the Government wished simply to make a gesture of good will during the Lancaster House conference, because of the unfortunate timing of the order requiring the renewal of sanctions at this time of year, they could have done so in precisely the way which the official Opposition are suggesting. In other words, instead of asking the House to renew sanctions for a full year, they could have done so on a temporary basis pending the successful outcome of the negotiations.
That would have been understood and accepted. It would have been a reasonable gesture to make. But that is not what the Government have done. In speculating as to why the Bill is in front of us at all, I reject the view that it could be to prepare the way for a unilateral settlement, first because it would not be a settlement, and secondly because it would be deluding the House and securing the passage of a Bill under false pretences.
The only real reason is the one referred to by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), namely, that for some extraordinary reason the Government seem suddenly to be over-embarrassed by the divisions on the Conservative Back Benches over the question of the sanctions order. I cannot understand why they should be so embarrassed, because we have had this embarrassment every year since 1965, both in Government and Opposition. It is nothing new.
One is led to the uncomfortable conclusion that perhaps the lunatic men of the Right have a rather greater say in current events than they have had in each of the last 13 or 14 years. That I find ominous, but it is not a sufficient reason for forcing the Committee into the ludicrous position where it cannot even discuss amendments rationally because, as the Lord Privy Seal said a few minutes ago, they are matters currently under negotiation. That is entirely a difficulty of the Government's own making.
I believe that the principle that the House established in 1965, and has reestablished each year—namely, that we maintain sanctions until there is a return to legality—is the right one. It is a major departure from that policy to bring the Bill forward now. Legality—this was confirmed by the Lord Privy Seal in an answer to me when he made his statement—resumes on the arrival of the British Governor as proposed under the Bill. That is the point at which sanctions ought to be lifted, not now in anticipation of future events. What the Government propose to do is wrong. However, it could be put right by the adoption of the amendment.
Perhaps the leader of the Liberal Party slightly overstated his case. I have no doubt that if the Government had asked the House to renew sanctions there would have been no difficulty in carrying the order, even if all the members of the other parties had gone away for the day or the night. There must have been some other consideration in the Government's mind that led them to decide not to go for a renewal of section 2.
How will it be possible for the Government to reimpose section 2 sanctions if it is decided that that is necessary? I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister said that he could not envisage circumstances in which this would be so. However, I should like him to spell out how the enabling Bill will give the Government powers.
I feel strongly about sanctions, but I am willing to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. I recognise that we in this country take sanctions rather more seriously than many other countries have done. I recall the report of the United Nations sanctions committee, which gave evidence that the Soviet Union, East Germany and Czechoslovakia were trading in Rhodesian chrome, tobacco and maize. We have not often heard in sanctions debates—and certainly not this year—that those countries should be brought before the Security Council.
Having said that, I recognise the widespread concern from many interest groups, including the United Nations Association and the British Council of Churches. It is important that we try to give a fair wind to the Government's proposals, which will make the continuing imposition of sanctions—other than under section 2—unnecessary within a very few weeks. If section 2 sanctions turn out to have a great deal of relevance, the Government will have little hesitation in coming back to the House.
I wish to raise a narrow point on sanctions. It relates to the effect that the Bill has on the possibility of prosecutions or non-prosecutions of the companies which are currently under investigation or ought to be under investigation. In some ways it is inconceivable for the Committee to believe that, having obtained a settlement, the Government would then wheel out prosecutions for sanctions busting that took place in past years. They could make a formidable case for a clean slate and not pursuing prosecutions. I wish to mention the case of one company, as the House was misled. There is an opportunity for the Lord Privy Seal to put the matter right now.
During the major debate on Rhodesia last November, my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary, referring to the mention in the preface of the Bingham report of Castrol Limited, which some of us raised in debate, said:
Where Castrol is concerned, in view of the reference in the preface of the report to that company, the DPP will already be considering whether to investigate the matter further."—[Official Report, 7 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 708.]
Given the fact that we had an interruption in the proceedings of the House over the winter and the early spring, I followed that reference, promise and the commitment that the DPP was looking at this matter with the present Government.
The Attorney-General answered:
No. The Director of Public Prosecutions is not making an investigation into any alleged supply of petroleum products to Rhodesia by Castrol Ltd."—[Official Report, 12 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 178.]
During the recess, having had discussions with some of the journalists who had followed this matter both before and subsequent to the Bingham report, I tabled a further question on 23 October asking the Attorney-General what action the DPP had taken in respect of the reference to Castrol between 7 November last year, when the Foreign Secretary said that the matter was under investigation, and 12 June this year, when the present Attorney-General told me that the Government would not do anything at all. The Attorney-General answered!
Between 7 November 1978 and 12 June 1979 the Director of Public Prosecutions was concentrating his investigations on the detailed allegations made in the main body of the Bingham report."—[Official Report, 23 October 1979; Vol. 972, c. 136.]
What were the civil servants and the DPP doing fighting the orders of the then Foreign Secretary, given the information to the House of Commons last year that
the reference to Castrol would be investigated and, in fact, was being investigated? It is clear that at some time between 7 November last year and 12 June this year Government policy on the matter changed.
I do not want to get involved in a personal slanging match with anyone in the House of Commons, but on this occasion I am prepared to do so because I want to speak for only a few minutes and to make just one central point. Some of my hon. Friends wish to raise issues concerning other companies. It may well be unfair. As some of my hon. Friends have said in this Chamber and elsewhere, the mere fact that certain directors of Castrol Ltd. are related to present members of the Cabinet may have no significance whatsoever. That is probably so. [Interruption.] It is not a smear simply to look at the commitment that was given by the then Foreign Secretary as to what the DPP was doing and then to look at the answers that the Attorney-General has given. It is the conclusion of a reasonable person, without malice, that there has been an interference with the operation of the DPP between November 1978 and June this year.
What will be the effect? Will the Government use this legislation to say subsequently " Bingham—into the dustbin. It does not matter any more. It will be inconvenient to pursue any of the companies or individuals. Therefore, we let the matter lie"? I do not think that we should let the matter lie. What we need to know tonight is the Government's intention regarding companies that may be prosecuted under sanctions rules that existed before the passage of the legislation that is before us.
That is a legitimate question for the Committee to ask, because after today we shall probably have very little opportunity to raise issues concerning sanctions since the Government will seek to bury the Bingham report as far and as deep as they possibly can. I make no apology for raising this matter now, because it cannot be raised elsewhere.
It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said, that we have regularly agonised about sanctions over the past 14 years. But it may be for that reason that he and certain other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have been blinded to the fact that the situation has changed radically since we last renewed section 2 sanctions.
The six principles have been fulfilled. There have been free and fair elections. We are now in the process of achieving a situation in which a constitution has been approved and the appointment of a Governor with full powers has been approved. There is, therefore, virtually a renunciation of UDI. In those circumstances, I believe that it would be inappropriate to renew section 2 sanctions and that the Government are absolutely right.
I found that an extraordinary statement. It was an ex cathedra statement with no proof whatsoever. No agreement has been reached yet. One of the unfortunate things is that the bringing forward of the Bill while negotiations are still going on may have even helped to endanger that.
Half of the difficulties in which the Government find themselves arise because of the Prime Minister's statement a few months ago that she would not get the sanctions order through the House of Commons. That was quite untrue. As the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, she would have got it through the House of Commons, if she had had the courage to put it forward, because of support from Labour Members and the small parties.
The other half of the Government's difficulties arise because of the Prime Minister's action in bringing forward the Bill. The Bill has done two things. First, it has precipitated us into the negotiations. Secondly, at the same time, it has endangered some of the negotiations because of the statements that we are now getting from the Treasury Bench. As the debate has proceeded, I have become more, not less, anxious. I think that even at this late hour we could have the single statement on sanctions. It is important that some of us should express our anxieties on the situation.
I do not want to reopen old wounds. I have already mentioned the Prime Minister's silly statement of a few months ago. We all know that, together with the timing of the Bill, the Government have been faced with their own zealous scouts below the Gangway. It is a pity but it is a fact of life.
Unfortunately, we are not alone on this issue any more than Southern Rhodesia is on its own in the whole of the African context. Other people are involved. I read with no great pleasure the report of the Security Council committee that was established in pursuance of the appropriate resolution connected with sanctions on Rhodesia and the sanction order. It states that the
Committee had learned with distress that the United Kingdom Government contemplated the non-renewal of some sanctions".
it goes on to say that the
Committee expressed grave concern that the measures contemplated by the United Kingdom Government would amount to unilateral action by that Government with regard to the sanctions established by the Security Council against the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia. Committee emphasised that only the Security Council, which instituted the sanctions in the first place, had a right to lift them.
By rushing forward the Bill and removing sanctions we are putting this country in a difficult situation, and some of us have to try to rescue the good name of our country when that happens. We have defended legality for the past 14 or 15 years against some of the frenzied Right-wingers on the Government side. Even at the eleventh hour, they are defending illegality. Indeed, we have heard attacks upon the one effective force that is opposed to illegality in Southern Rhodesia—the Patriotic Front.
The Security Council goes on to state:
All member States should therefore continue to respect and apply strictly the provisions of all the relevant Security Council resolutions on Southern Rhodesia until all the aims and objectives set out in resolution 253 have been completely achieved.
We certainly have not reached that situation. It is worth reading on, because it is useful to have it for the record:
Its concern was all the greater because the member State involved, the United Kingdom, carries the dual responsibility of administering power of rebel territory and of a permanent member of the Security Council primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Our action is seen in certain circumstances as a dereliction not only of our own duty but of our duty in the international context. We must rescue the House of Commons from the shame that the Government and some of their zealots
below the Gangway have brought upon us.
Let us narrow the situation down to the African context. The Commonwealth Committee on Southern Africa reminded us of this aspect. We have heard much about the six principles being accepted. It is not true that they have been endorsed. We have heard much about the Lusaka agreement which it is claimed they are fulfilling. That is not true. The Commonwealth Committee makes it clear that—
in all appropriate ways the Lusaka agreement"—
I wish that I had had this in my possession earlier today—
envisaged a lasting settlement in Zimbabwe only through agreement between all the parties to the conflict".
This is the assessment and interpretation of the Lusaka agreement by the appropriate Commonwealth Committee, and that was being denied earlier in the debate.
The committee then goes on to sanctions and states that the Lusaka agreement—
specifically envisaged the lifting of sanctions only in the context of the implementation of such a settlement".
We have not yet proceeded to such a settlement. Therefore, why are sanctions being lifted now? Is it in order to ease a partial solution to the Lancaster House conference? Is it in line with what the Lord Privy Seal has been saying today—namely, that if there is no agreement the Government may take unilateral action by imposing their concept of a settlement for a return to legality in Rhodesia?
Finally, if I may narrow the argument even further and refer to the front-line Presidents, it will be remembered that President Kaunda was with us in this country last weekend. He said that the decision on sanctions was unfortunate and that the timing was not correct. We know why it was not correct. He also said that it was a miscalculation which could have the effect of leaving the door open for other countries to open trade with Rhodesia in other fields.
I do not wish to follow the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who mentioned companies referred to in the Bingham report, but I would find it even more shameful if that kind of thing were to be buried in the general euphoria of some hon. Members below the Gangway should these things go wrong. We must reject paragraph 1 (b). It may be that the Opposition Front Bench will also consider rejecting the clause, which is tied up with the security aspect. The two things together are quite intolerable, and I make no apology for detaining the Committee in order to say so.
The issue of sanctions goes to the heart of the debate in two senses. First, we would not be having the debate on the Bill if it were not for the political cowardice of the Prime Minister, who was not prepared to come to the House and stand up for this country's obligations under the sanctions order. This is well established, because the only debate required this week was a debate on the sanctions order.
It has been made perfectly clear that, had an agreement been reached at Lancaster House—as we hope it will be—the Government could have obtained all their enabling powers in a brief debate, in a couple of hours, with the full help of the Opposition. There would have been no difficulty at all about that. The manoeuvre that we have been going through over the past few days arises solely and simply from the fact that the Prime Minister was not prepared to exercise discipline if she possesses any over her own party and to require that the sanctions order be laid and debated, as it should have been, this week. That is the first point, and it lies behind the whole debate.
The second aspect is in many senses much more important, because it concerns our obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. It is quite absurd to argue that this country can in any way terminate sanctions. What we can do is to refuse to shoulder our obligations under the mandatory sanctions resolution of the Security Council. It has been pointed out that those sanctions were imposed by the Security Council. They were imposed strictly in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
This country has no unilateral power to terminate, modify or in any way change that sanctions resolution. What we can do, to our own disgrace, is to throw aside our own responsibility in respect of that resolution. We can denounce it, saying that we are not concerned with honouring our special obligation, as a permanent member of the Security Council and as a founder member of the United Nations, to abide by a mandatory sanctions order of the Security Council. This was, I believe, the only time in the history of the United Nations that a complete across-the-board sanctions resolution was passed by the Security Council, yet here we are trying to pretend that we can ignore or disregard part of that resolution.
The sanctions issue is of fundamental importance because it is part of the whole concept of law and order under the Charter. It was the sanctions issue that destroyed the League of Nations. Failure on the part of this country, which is still influential and important within the United Nations, to honour to the full its obligations and to observe the sanctions laid down by the Security Council—sanctions for which we ourselves asked—can only result in a diminution of the prestige and authority of the Security Council. I am surprised that the Government, who posture so frequently on the principle of law and order, should be taking so cavalier an attitude to the issue of international law and order, represented by the sanctions issue.
The Leader of the Liberal Party has pointed out correctly that the matter can be put right simply tonight by the acceptance of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands). The amendment, which would restore the position completely under the enabling Bill, is simple and straightforward and consists of two lines. It is offered to the Committee and to the Government by the Opposition. The Government have a free and fair chance to accept the amendment. There is no need for further debate and no need to bring forward a further sanctions order.
The acceptance of this simple amendment would put the matter right, restore the position, restore our obligations under the United Nations Charter and maintain an honourable situation for the House of Commons and the Government. I am sure that, on this basis, my hon. Friends will press the amendment. I hope that it will be supported by those who are seriously concerned with the principle of law and order in the international context as well as mouthing about it at home.
I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in seeking from the Lord Privy Seal an undertaking that nothing in the Bill or any consequential legislation flowing from it will grant any indemnity or amnesty to anyone who has been breaking sanctions up to today. It seems clear to me, as it ought to seem clear to anyone who has read the Bingham report, that BP and Shell broke the law of this country consistently for more than a decade in supplying oil and petroleum products to Southern Rhodesia. It is also clear that Government officials and some Ministers in this country acted in collusion with those oil companies in assisting them either to supply the oil or to cover up the fact that they were supplying it.
The Bingham report was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions on a date early in September 1978, which I believe to be 5 September, but it is not clear in any record. Since that date, a number of hon. Members of the previous Parliament and a number of hon. Members of the Parliament that has been assembled since the May election have asked questions of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General about the progress of the investigation of the Director of Public Prosecutions into the Bingham report. We should remember that the Director of Public Prosecutions had the advantage over most hon. Members in that he saw, and had referred to him, the secret and even more damaging part of the investigation that has not been made public.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr asked what the DPP was doing in relation to the inquiry into Castro], he was told as he informed the House, by the Attorney-General—[An HON. MEMBER: "Repetition."]—I intend to continue my speech, whatever hon. Members may say—that:
Between 7 November 1978 and 12 June 1979 the Director of Public Prosecutions was concentrating his investigations on the detailed allegations made in the main body of the Bingham report."—[Official Report, 23 October 1979; Vol. 972, c. 136.]
The Director of Public Prosecutions seems to take a devil of a long time when he is considering the main body of the
Bingham report. For a year and two months—14 months for those Conservative Members who cannot count—the Director of Public Prosecutions has been considering what is clear evidence, to anyone who has read the Bingham report, of law-breaking by companies, by British companies or companies based in Britain.
It is a disgrace to this country that the Director of Public Prosecutions has not proceeded more quickly with that investigation. It would be an even bigger disgrace—a disgrace as big as the Government's collusion with sanctions busting—if this rushed piece of legislation, to which we gave a Second Reading on Thursday and which we are considering today, were to be used to bail out the BP and Shell directors and their friends who helped them simply because the DPP had managed to spin out his investigations. It would suggest to people who are already dissatisfied with the actions of the Director over a number of public scandals that there had been direct political interference in the DPP's office.
The Opposition look forward to receiving an assurance from the Lord Privy Seal that nothing that is passed tonight and nothing consequent upon it will grant an indemnity or amnesty to anyone who has been breaking sanctions.
I am sure that the Committee will depore the remarks of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) about the Director of Public Prosecutions [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Equally I do not think that the Committee will expect me to comment on the affairs of a particular company mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). But the matter of the Bingham report in general is one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I understand that counsel has now submitted his advice to the DPP. In due course a decision will be taken, and my right hon. and learned Friend will make an announcement to the House.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and the Leader of the Liberal Party kept harking back to 1965. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) pointed out, the position is very different today. In Rhodesia, there is an African Prime Minister and a predominantly African Government elected by an African majority. Very few members of the present Government had anything to do with the illegal declaration of independence. Moreover, Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues have agreed to take the actions which will bring the rebellion to an end.
I must remind the Opposition that sanctions were put on for a specific reason, and that was to end the rebellion. The Bishop and the Salisbury delegation have agreed to take the measures to bring that rebellion to an end. It is in those circumstances, not in the circumstances of 1965, that Her Majesty's Government can see no justification for the positive action of renewing section 2 of the 1965 Act.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil said that we should not worry about giving anyone a slap in the face. I disagree with him. I do not believe that that is a sensible way to negotiate.
I agree. But, in our view, to have imposed sanctions would have been to slap the Bishop's delegation in the face when it has shown complete good faith in the negotiations since the Lusaka accord.
When we reached that decision and announced it, we stressed that our action would not mean the lifting of the great majority of sanctions. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil said that this made nonsense of all the debates on sanctions since 1965. I think that it does, and it is a sobering thought that most of the debates on sanctions since 1965 have been nonsense as matters have turned out.
It will be a matter of considerable interest to historians how everyone seems to have got most of it wrong.
The lifting of section 2 has very little effect on sanctions. In view of all that has been said and in view of all the controversy over 15 years, I agree that this is remarkable. But it happens to be true.
The great majority of sanctions will continue until there is a return to legality in Rhodesia, and this will happen when a British Governor arrives in Salisbury and his authority is accepted. The situation which led to the imposition of sanctions will be terminated, and the Government will take the appropriate action. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked whether we could reimpose the sanctions under section 2 that have been lifted. The Bill gives us the power to do that in clause 3(1)(b)(i).
The Committee will surely agree that it would be nonsensical to suggest that sanctions should be continued against Rhodesia after the return to legality. That is, however, suggested in amendment No. 58. In such circumstances we should be applying sanctions against ourselves. That is an absurdity. Once the rebellion ends, there will be no need to apply sanctions. We would expect other Governments to lift sanctions at that point, too. The settlement for which we are working fully meets the essential criterion of majority rule.
In short, in deciding not to renew section 2 the Government have struck a balance. We have recognised the progress that has been made rather than harping on the past and 1965. The amendment would, in effect, say to Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues that even though they had had nothing to do with UDI, even though they had held elections and accepted everything that the British Government had proposed, the full rigour of sanctions would be renewed. That is a course of action that the Government will not take. I do not believe that there is any support for it in the country. That is why the Government cannot support the amendments.
Successive Governments and Parliaments, in spite of the Lord Privy Seal's curious remarks about sanctions, have maintained the principle that sanctions should not be lifted before a return to legality. There has been no return to legality, and, therefore, sanctions should be retained. That is why we shall press our amendment.
|Division No. 103]||AYES||[1.34 am|
|Adams, Allen||Cowans, Harry||Flannery, Martin|
|Allaun, Frank||Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Anderson, Donald||Crowther, J. S.||Ford, Ben|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Cryer, Bob||Forrester, John|
|Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest||Cunliffe, Lawrence||Foster, Derek|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Cunningham, George (Islington S)||Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)|
|Ashton, Joe||Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)||Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)||Dalyell, Tam||Freud, Clement|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Davidson, Arthur||Garrett, John (Norwich S)|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)|
|Beith, A. J.||Davies, E. Hudson (Caerphilly)||George, Bruce|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)||Golding, John|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Deaklns, Eric||Grant, John (Islington C)|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)||Dempsey, James||Hardy, Peter|
|Bradley, Tom||Dewar, Donald||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Dixon, Donald||Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Dobson, Frank||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)||Dormand, Jack||Haynes, Frank|
|Buchan, Norman||Douglas, Dick||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon. J. (Cardiff SE)||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Dubs, Alfred||Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)|
|Campbell, Ian||Duffy, A. E. P.||Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)||Home Robertson, John|
|Canavan, Dennis||Dunnett, Jack||Homewood, William|
|Cant, R. B.||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth||Hooley, Frank|
|Carmichael, Neil||Eadle, Alex||Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)|
|Cartwrlght, John||Eastham, Ken||Howells, Geraint|
|Clark, David (South Shields)||Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Huckfield, Les|
|Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)||Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Cohen, Stanley||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Coleman, Donald||English, Michael||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||John, Brynmor|
|Conlan, Bernard||Evans, John (Newton)||Johnson, James (Hull west)|
|Cook, Robin F.||Field, Frank||Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)|
|Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)||Soley, Clive|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Kerr, Russell||Morton, Barry||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Moyle, Rt Hon Roland||Stallard, A. W.|
|Kinnock, Neil||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Lambie, David||Newens, Stanley||Stoddart, David|
|Lamborn, Harry||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Stott, Roger|
|Lamond, James||O'Halloran, Michael||Strang, Gavin|
|Leadbitter, Ted||O'Neill, Martin||Straw, Jack|
|Leighton, Ronald||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Owen, Rt Hon Dr David||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Palmer, Arthur||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Litherland, Robert||Park, George||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Parry, Robert||Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)|
|Lyon, Alexander (York)||Pendry, Tom||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Penhaligon, David||Tilley, John|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Torney, Tom|
|McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Prescott, John||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|McKelvey, William||Race, Reg||Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)|
|MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)||Weetch, Ken|
|Maclennan, Robert||Richardson, Miss Jo||Wellbeloved, James|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)||Welsh, Michael|
|McNally, Thomas||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)||White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|McWilliam, John||Robertson, George||Whitlock, William|
|Magee, Bryan||Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Marks, Kenneth||Rooker, J. W.||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)||Roper, John||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)|
|Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)||Rowlands, Ted||Winnick, David|
|Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)||Ryman, John||Woolmer, Kenneth|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Sever, John||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Maxton, John||Sheerman, Barry||Wright, Sheila|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)||Young, David (Bolton East)|
|Meacher, Michael||Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)|
|Mlkardo, Ian||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)||Mr. James Tinn and|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)||Silverman, Julius||Mr. Ted Graham.|
|Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)|
|Adley, Robert||Buck, Antony||Farr, John|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Budgen, Nick||Fell, Anthony|
|Alexander, Richard||Bulmer, Esmond||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Alison, Michael||Burden, F. A.||Finsberg, Geoffrey|
|Ancram, Michael||Butcher, John||Fisher, Sir Nigel|
|Arnold, Tom||Butler, Hon Adam||Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Cadbury, Jocelyn||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Atkins, Robert (Preston North)||Carlisle, John (Luton West)||Forman, Nigel|
|Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)|
|Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)||Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)||Fraser, Peter (South Angus)|
|Banks, Robert||Chalker, Mrs. Lynda||Fry, Peter|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Channon, Paul||Gardiner, George (Reigate)|
|Bell, Ronald||Chapman, Sydney||Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Churchill, W. S.||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Goodhart, Philip|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||Cockeram, Eric||Goodhew, Victor|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Colvin, Michael||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Best, Keith||Cope, John||Gow, Ian|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Cormack, Patrick||Gower, Sir Raymond|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Corrie, John||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)|
|Biggs-Davlson, John||Costain, A. P.||Gray, Hamish|
|Blackburn, John||Cranborne, Viscount||Greenway, Harry|
|Blaker, Peter||Critchley, Julian||Grieve, Percy|
|Body, Richard||Crouch, David||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Dickens, Geoffrey||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Dorrell, Stephen||Grist, Ian|
|Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)||Dover, Denshore||Grylls, Michael|
|Bowden, Andrew||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Gummer, John Selwyn|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Dunn, Robert (Dartford)||Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Durant, Tony||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Bright, Graham||Dykes, Hugh||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Brinton, Tim||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Britten, Leon||Hannam, John|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Eggar, Timothy||Hastings, Stephen|
|Brotherton, Michael||Elliott, Sir William||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)||Emery, Peter||Hawkins, Paul|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Eyre, Reginald||Hawksley, Warren|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Fairbairn, Nicholas||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Faith, Mrs Sheila||Heddle, John|
|Henderson, Barry||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Mills, Iain (Meriden)||Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)|
|Hicks, Robert||Mills, Peter (West Devon)||Shersby, Michael|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Miscampbell, Norman||Silvester, Fred|
|Hill, James||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Sims, Roger|
|Holland, Philip (Carlton)||Moate, Roger||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Hooson, Tom||Monro, Hector||Speed, Keith|
|Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)||Montgomery, Fergus||Speller, Tony|
|Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Moore, John||Spence, John|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Morgan, Geraint||Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)||Sproat, Iain|
|Hurd, Hon Douglas||Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)||Squire, Robin|
|Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)||Stainton, Keith|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick||Mudd, David||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Jessel, Toby||Murphy, Christopher||Stanley, John|
|Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Myles, David||Steen, Anthony|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Neale, Gerrard||Stevens, Martin|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Needham, Richard||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Nelson, Anthony||Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Neubert, Michael||Stokes, John|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Newton, Tony||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Kitson, Sir Timolhy||Nott, Rt Hon John||Tapsell, Peter|
|Knox, David||Onslow, Cranley||Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)|
|Lamont, Norman||Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally||Tebbit, Norman|
|Lang, Ian||Osborn, John||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Page, John (Harrow, West)||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret|
|Latham, Michael||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Paisley, Rev Ian||Thompson, Donald|
|Lawson, Nigel||Parkinson, Cecil||Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)|
|Lee, John||Parris, Matthew||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Le Marchant, Spencer||Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Townend, John (Bridllngton)|
|Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Patten, John (Oxford)||Townsend, cyril D. (Bexleyheath)|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Pattie, Geoffrey||Trippier, David|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)||Pawsey, James||Trotter, Neville|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Percival, Sir Ian||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Loveridge, John||Pink, R. Bonner||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Luce, Richard||Pollock, Alexander||Viggers, Peter|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Porter, George||Waddingion, David|
|McAdden, Sir Stephen||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|McCrindle, Robert||Prior, Rt Hon James||Wall, Patrick|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Proctor, K. Harvey||Waller, Gary|
|MacGregor, John||Raison, Timothy||Ward, John|
|MacKay, John (Argyll)||Rathbone, Tim||Warren, Kenneth|
|McNair-Wllson, Michael (Newbury)||Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)||Watson, John|
|McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Rees-Davies, w. R.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Rhodes James, Robert||Wells, Bowen (Herl'rd & Stevenaqe)|
|Madel, David||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Wheeler, John|
|Major, John||Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Whitney, Raymond|
|Marland, Paul||Rifkind, Malcolm||Wickenden, Keith|
|Marlow, Tony||Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)||Wilkinson, John|
|Mates, Michael||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)|
|Mather, Carol||Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Maude, Rt Hon Angus||Rost, Peter||Wolfson, Mark|
|Mawby, Ray||Royle, Sir Anthony||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman|
|Mayhew, Patrick||Scott, Nicholas||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mellor, David||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Shelton, William (Streatham)||Mr. John Wakeham|