HC Deb 07 May 1980 vol 984 cc429-59 10.13 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce)

I beg to move, That the Southern Rhodesia (Sanctions) (Amnesty) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 April, be approved. The order is made under section 3—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that it would be fairer to the Minister if he would wait for one moment. As this is a timed debate, I shall time it from the moment that I call him.

10.15 pm
Mr. Luce

The order is made under section 3 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979, by which power was granted to deal with the consequences of the expiry of sanctions provisions. The purpose of this order is to make provision for an amnesty, covering criminal proceedings, for offences against those measures which provided for the imposition of economic sanctions or other sanctions against Rhodesia.

My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal gave the background to the Government's decision to grant an amnesty for sanctions offences in his statement to this House on 15 April. The Zimbabwe Act 1979 granted an amnesty in United Kingdom law for political offences in furtherance of, or resistance to, UDI. A similar amnesty was made by the Governor in Rhodesian law. In these circumstances, the Government consider that it would be inappropriate for any further prosecutions to be initiated for sanctions offences. This order therefore affects the last category of people involved in the sad business of UDI. There are no prosecutions for sanctions offences pending. The appeal to which my right hon. Friend referred on 15 April has now been determined.

Past convictions are not affected by this order, nor does the order mean that the Government condone the actions of sanctions breakers. But, with the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to proceed over matters arising from the Bingham report, and in the absence of any pending proceedings, the time now appears right to complete the necessary arrangements for a comprehensive amnesty.

The Government regard an amnesty both for political and for sanctions offences as an essential element in the overall settlement of the problem of Rhodesia. So much has happened over the past four months that it is easy to forget how great a change has taken place in that country and how much its international standing has been affected. It is now recognised world-wide as a sovereign and independent country and as a full member of the Commonwealth.

One of the most gratifying aspects of the political settlement has been the welcome extended to Zimbabwe by the international community. The presence of distinguished foreign guests at the independence celebrations in Salisbury is evidence in itself of this. Our task now is to look to the future and to work for reconciliation. It would be quite incompatible with these objectives to continue prosecutions for sanctions offences.

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

A constituent of mine received a summons for sanctions breaking. The summons has now been put aside. However, goods have been impounded and are about to be destroyed. Will any direction be conveyed to the Customs and Excise to release the goods to my constituent?

Mr. Luce

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specfic answer. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is in the Chamber and he will be happy to deal with the question when he replies.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

We have been told that the Director of Public Prosecutions does not intend to continue the prosecution against those concerned in the Bingham report. Does that mean that the order does not affect those named in the report?

Mr. Luce

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the beginning of my speech, but I made it clear that the amnesty will apply to any future offences with effect from the tabling of the order. Any offences that could have arisen in future will not be applicable if the House approves the order. That is the key point.

I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by raking further over the past. Now that an amnesty has been granted to the other categories of offender, it is only right that it should be extended to the one remaining category so that we may close this chapter. It is with this in mind that I commend the order to the House.

10.20 pm
Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney and Poplar)

I do not dissent from the general tenor of the Minister's remarks which are about the future of Zimbabwe, rather than the unhappy and recent past. But we must be clear about the purpose of this amnesty order. First, it is not an amnesty for the many offences committed and the unlawful political conduct sustained during the long years of UDI. Those offences have already been wiped out for the Westminster Parliament and the British courts by section 3 of the Zimbabwe Act. The same offences have been similarly amnestied in Zimbabwe itself by the Governor in one of his ordinances before the formal celebration of independence in Salisbury a month ago.

The amnesties to which I have referred were welcomed and applauded, because it seemed to us that both the unlawful acts committed by the illegal regime against Britain and the acts committed by persons and organisations seeking to overthrow that illegal regime had to be wiped out in the interests of creating a new climate of reconciliation and co-operation, both inside the new State of Zimbabwe and between all its citizens and the United Kingdom. That carried the total agreement of both sides of the House.

However, we are now dealing with a very different kind of offence. These are not offences that were committed during Mr. Smith's struggle to maintain European supremacy, nor in the struggle for liberation. These are offences, the primary motive of which was economic gain. These offences were committed by British companies engaged in trading—buying and selling goods to Rhodesia. They were offences against United Kingdom laws and their effect was to prolong and bolster the rebellion. These offences helped the illegal regime to sustain its oppression inside Rhodesia and its will and ability to defy British and inter national sanctions. I remind the House that those sanctions were sustained and renewed by four successive Governments—Labour and Conservative—between 1965 and November 1979. I also remind the House that the international sanctions were, on British initiative and persuasion, invoked by the Security Council of the United Nations.

Of course, similar offences were committed by many other firms in other countries—far more than were committed by British firms—but given Britain's leading role in and responsibility for Rhodesia, these offences are not easy to overlook. An amnesty for this class of offence is very different from the amnesties that we have previously discussed and approved. An amnesty for British sanctions breakers does not serve any process of reconciliation inside Rhodesia or between Rhodesia and the United Kingdom. It simply allows those who have defied and cheated successive British Governments to get away with it.

This will have national and international implications for the future. Our own standing in the world community, and particularly in the Commonwealth, was seriously damaged by the evasion of sanctions by some of the oil companies in the way revealed by the Bingham report. That conduct has not been satisfactorily explained or properly dealt with.

The Government may argue, as the Attorney-General did in his statement on 19 December, about the great difficulties of pursuing the case, because of passing of the years, the vast volume of evidence to be assembled, the unavailability of key witnesses, the pressures of foreign Governments on nationally based subsidiaries, and the ambiguity of official policy. In spite of all that, the Government know that the reasons for their inaction have convinced neither the British people nor the international community. It is one thing to argue the difficulties of a particular prosecution, even though this was the most important of them all, and quite another to give a blanket amnesty to all offences, large or small, difficult or simple, as the case may be.

If this order is approved we shall lose credit abroad. While we pursue our national interests, we are not cynical in the way that many countries are, and we are not regarded as being so. There are important domestic implications too. Indeed, where is the justice for those firms that have been prosecuted and punished during the past 14 years? To impose penalties on some firms for breaking sanctions and to waive penalties for other firms that have committed exactly the same offence flies in the face of natural justice.

More important still, surely, are the effects for the future. I do not know what further sanctions this country may need to impose; I hope that there will be none at all. But the invasion of Afghanistan and the continued unlawful presence of South Africa in Namibia may well require collective economic measures in the future. We all know that on 13 January this year Britain, along with many other countries, voted for sanctions in the Security Council against Iran over the continued illegal detention of American hostages in Tehran—a decision endorsed by the European Nine at the summit meeting in Luxembourg last week.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-North-wood)

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting the imposition of sanctions against South Africa because of the presence of South African troops in Southwest Africa? He has just made a most important statement. Will he clarify it?

Mr. Shore

No, I was not saying that. What I was saying was that Governments have to consider, in the context of this order, not only the use of sanctions against Rhodesia in recent years but the possibility of the use of sanctions against other countries and on other occasions in the future. It would be very foolish of anyone on either side of the House to dismiss that possibility in relation to other parts of Southern Africa or other parts of the world in relation to which we, along with others, collectively, believe that some forms of economic action may be necessary to achieve political changes that we think are right.

Mr. loan Evans (Aberdare)

Let us take a hypothetical case. Let us suppose that next week the Government were to bring in an order imposing sanctions against Iran, for instance. Would it not be a waste of parliamentary time if a sanctions order went through this House and was endorsed by the United Nations and we were then presented with an amnesty order? If we are to have a sanctions order against Iran, will there be a sanctions-breaking amnesty order to follow soon afterwards? That is what everyone in business will think.

Mr. Shore

Like a guided missile, my hon. Friend hits the target—not only because it is a very important point that he has made but because he also hits the target of what I am about to say.

I find it amazing that a Government who may well be on the eve of inviting Parliament to approve new sanctions should take the opportunity, tonight, of granting an amnesty for past offences. How do they think this order will be regarded by those who, in the future, may be expected to observe United Kingdom sanctions law? What effect will it have on the conduct of firms and individuals who might be involved?

Our view on this matter will come as no surprise to the Government. We objected to the foreshadowing of this order when the Lord Privy Seal made his statement on 15 April. Our view was expressed at length during the Committee stage of the Zimbabwe Bill last December. In addition to the merits of this matter we feel that we have a legitimate grievance against the Minister concerned, because during the course of the Zimbabwe Bill, when the Committee discussed the general amnesty arrangements that I described earlier, we took the opportunity to table an amendment to exclude from its provisions sanctions-busting by British firms. As the House will recall, we were informed that our amendment could have no such effect, because powers to amnesty United Kingdom firms had already been enacted in the Southern Rhodesia Act the previous month.

The Lord Privy Seal, who, I understand cannot be present tonight, sounded very pleased with himself when he made that revelation late that night. The truth is that he was not frank with the House. The Southern Rhodesia Bill was published and rushed through with quite extraordinary speed—a speed that made impossible the normal scrutiny that we give to Government measures. Furthermore, this power of making an amnesty for British sanctions breakers was buried within the convoluted language of clause 3 of the Southern Rhodesia Bill—a clause whose major purpose was to stop, or at least suspend, those sanctions that had previouly been annually renewed.

The word " amnesty " was not even used in that clause. In expounding the Bill, both on Second Reading and in the Committee stage debate that followed, the Lord Privy Seal and the Under-Secretary were totally silent on this matter.

I do not think that Ministers have come out of this very well. I have no hesitation in recommending to my right hon. and hon. Friends and the House that they express their objection both to the manner in which this matter has been dealt with and, still more, the substance of the order, in their vote tonight.

10.30 pm
Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

I listened with great care to my hon. Friend who presented this order and to the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) from the Opposition Dispatch Box. Having considerable regard for the right hon. Gentleman, if I may say so, I think that he is making a bit of a meal out of a molehill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] I purposely mixed my metaphors to drive home the point. They were just about as muddled as the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman used in presenting his case to the House.

Basically, the matter that the House must consider is what this order does and what its effects are on industrialists and those who might have broken the law or found themselves being prosecuted in the future.

It is important to point out that no case is before the courts, nor has any notice been given to any firm or individual that a prosecution will be brought. Prior to this order the Director of Public Prosecutions made it clear that prosecutions would not be brought or arise as a result of the Bingham report. If that had not been so, the right hon. Gentleman might have had a much stronger case to argue.

As no prosecutions are pending, it does not seem to me unreasonable for us to clarify the law. A complaint by an individual, not necessarily by the Government, might be brought against a firm under the existing law. Indeed, if that were the case, the information that I have been given indicates that the DPP might have to indicate a case on a personal complaint—which would not happen once this order had been passed.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

Surely the position is that any prosecutions under this sanctions order require the approval of either the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State for Trade. Therefore, there is always the opportunity for ministerial discretion to be exercised.

Mr. Emery

I should not necessarily wish to get into that argument, because I believe that most of the Ministers whom I have known in this position would have taken the advice of the DPP and not attempted to override him on this matter. That is certainly the case in relation to Government supporters.

The right hon. Gentleman greatly overstated the case when he said that if we passed the order we would lose credit abroad. One has only to go round Rhodesia to see the way in which most other nations were much more lax than the United Kingdom in the way that they dealt with sanctions against Rhodesia. I refer particularly to French, German and Japanese companies.

Until now, we have been much more stringent than other nations in the application of sanctions. We shall not prosecute anyone in the future, and we have no prosecutions before the courts now. Therefore, our credit will not be reduced in the eyes of the world. It would be a mistake to accept that argument.

The renewal of the sanctions order since 1965 has proved that sanctions are a very bad weapon for bringing pressure to bear on a nation. However much people may believe that sanctions have an economic effect on the country against which they are applied, the experience of Rhodesia proves that they do not work. Sanctions did not work in Rhodesia to anything like the extent envisaged by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) when, as Prime Minister, he initiated the original sanctions order.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

As the hon. Gentleman holds these views, and as it is no secret that the Opposition will have a free vote, will he carry his views into the Division Lobby when it comes to sanctions on Iran?

Mr. Emery

I did not think that we were debating an order relating to Iran. Let us be quite clear that if it is necessary for the House at any time in the future to take action on sanctions against Iran, to help our allies, it may be necessary to show our solidarity with the Americans.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Solidarity with the freedom fighters!

Mr. Emery

I suppose that the hon. Gentleman who referred to freedom fighters thinks that the hostages in Iran—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Order. Let us not go too far down that road tonight.

Mr. Emery

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I knew that I would get myself into trouble if I allowed myself to be wooed by the hon. Gentleman.

The Rhodesian experience has shown that sanctions as an economic weapon are not very effective. It has been proved over 14 years that sanctions in Rhodesia were not as effective as those who introduced them envisaged.

There has been a great flow of good will to Zimbabwe from all nations and all people. For the British Government to hold out as the only authority still willing to prosecute a company or an individual for a past action, when France, Germany and America would be unwilling to prosecute their nationals for a similar action, would be undesirable. It well behoves the British Government to take the steps that they are taking, and I hope that the House will pass the order.

10.39 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I was fortunate and privileged to be invited by the new Government in Salisbury to share in the independence celebrations. Having been there, I am astonished at how well the country came through the many years of bitterness. There is far less bitterness than we expected. There are, however, tensions and undercurrents, and the new Government will need all the good fortune and assistance that we can give them to make a success of the new country.

We should not be under the misapprehension that the past is totally forgotten. The new Prime Minister, Mr. Mugabe, and many members of the Government—members of ZANU and ZAPU—have called for a spirit of reconciliation. They do not want the past to cause friction. However, these people are bitter over the length of time that they had to fight for their freedom and the fact that we neglected to take a proper stand.

The amnesty is not a minor technical measure; it is very serious. From time to time people break the law for private gain. Private companies are the same as individuals. There are those who seek to bend the law, or go slightly outside it. Despite differences of opinion on sanctions, there is general agreement that the purpose of sanctions was to bring Rhodesia back to legality. Sanctions breaking was a deliberate conspiracy. It was a conspiracy not merely to break the law; it was a conspiracy against the aims of successive Governments and the people of Zimbabwe who were trying to win their freedom. We cannot readily set that aside.

I do not have time to rehearse all that emerged from Bingham. The whole sorry episode makes it clear that there was a deliberate conspiracy, which we have not yet got to the bottom of. We do not know the final details.

It is not only that the law was broken, which is itself a serious matter. I find the morality of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) curious. He appeared to suggest that there are different grades of sin, and that sin can be measured against the degree of sin shown by the fellow next door. I do not go along with that justification of sin. The hon. Gentleman sought to justify what happened in Britain by saying that others were a good deal worse.

Had there been no conspiracy to break oil sanctions and a proper oil embargo, the war in Rhodesia would have ended a great deal sooner and many more people, black and white, men women and children, would be alive today. In different parts of Zimbabwe there are people maimed, without legs or arms, in wheelchairs, badly scarred by the marks of war. Had there not been this conspiracy, which the Government now condone, these people would be running about, free, happy and healthy in wind and limb.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the hypocrisy of the Tories, who five years ago pursued a vendetta against the Clay Cross councillors, and the words of my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's remarks have anything to do with Zimbabwe.

Mr. Cryer

They have, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Then let us hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Hughes

I appreciate and share my hon. Friend's concern about the Clay Cross councillors, but we are dealing with a different quality of argument tonight. We are dealing with the results of a conspiracy to break the law and to keep a racialist minority in control. There is no doubt that if the war had been ended much earlier by a proper application of sanctions, especially oil sanctions, there would have been far less bitterness than there still is in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings. I know that over the years he has felt passionately about the war in Rhodesia. If the continuation of oil supplies enabled the white regime to last longer, that is one thing, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the maiming and killing of people by terrorists was somehow the fault of the oil companies? Surely it was the fault of the terrorists.

Mr. Hughes

The hon. Member got it exactly right. This country's failure to deal with the oil conspiracy was responsible for the continuation of the war. I have never said in the House that one side was completely free from blame. On both sides incidents happened that ought not to have happened, but in my view the primary responsibility lay with those who carried out the greatest number of attacks, and that was the Smith war machine.

If we had managed to deal with this question earlier the new country would have had a much better start. I regret that it was not possible for my Government to act in a stronger manner, as I believe they should have. However, we are now providing a blanket amnesty not just for cases that are known but for those that are not. This may be thought a small technical detail, but I always understood that the provisions of amnesties included the condition that offenders reported in. If one is giving an amnesty to illegal immigrants there is usually a time limit within which they have to report in to obtain their clearance. There is nothing in the order to provide that offenders who have not yet been discovered should report in that they broke the law and should apply for an amnesty.

This wide-ranging blanket amnesty has two serious implications for the future. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) that we shall soon be faced with the prospect of mandatory sanctions on South Africa. It may be recalled that there is a General Assembly resolution on sanctions. They are not mandatory, and no one is taking any notice of the United Nations' desire for economic sanctions against South Africa.

There are only two ways in which the people of Namibia and South Africa will gain their democratic rights. The ideal of one man, one vote is shared by almost every right hon. and hon. Member. I understand that many Conservative Members who supported the Smith regime often said that it was a matter of timing, and that they were not opposed to the general idea of democratic rule. The Namibian and South African people will get those rights only by fighting for them, as the Zimbabweans did, or as a result of some external pressure to make the South African Government remove themselves from their illegal occupation of South-West Africa and give democratic rights to its people.

The Government are showing that they have not learnt the true lesson of Zimbabwe. A people's desire for freedom cannot be extinguished. They cannot be prevented from fighting for it. They must be either supported or opposed. This Government have shown that they are against those people. To be fair, when they were in office, in the years between 1970 and 1974, they continued the sanctions order, often against the will of their own Back Benchers and often because of the support that they received from the Opposition. But they have never had any heart for sanctions. They were not against sanctions in principle. In view of events that are shortly to overtake us, it would be curious if they were. They were really in favour of those against whom sanctions were applied—the minority regime in Rhodesia.

I am sorry that our history in Rhodesia and the new Zimbabwe is to be ended by this blanket amnesty. I shall certainly vote against it. It is ironic that at a time when press and Government announcements are preparing us, if not next week, the week after, for an Iranian sanctions order, we should be disposing of sanctions orders by a blanket amnesty. Will there be provisions in the Iran sanctions order that there will be no future amnesty? Will the public interest be interpreted as taking no proceedings against multinational oil companies? I hope only that those hon. Members who were opposed to sanctions over the years and now wholeheartedly support the amnesty will reflect, when they go to bed tonight, on the damage done to Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and that they will repent and feel shame.

10.52 pm
Mr. Churchill (Stretford)

This order is designed to wipe the slate clean in respect of breaches of the Southern Rhodesia sanctions orders and to protect from further proceedings certain oil companies and other commercial interests. There will no doubt be certain Opposition Members, whichever way they vote, who will heave heavy sighs of relief when this order is carried. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who? Name them."] That would be indelicate. I think that Opposition Members are as aware as anyone else of those who connived at oil sanctions busting.

The House has made provision for an amnesty in respect of political offences within Zimbabwe that became effective on independence. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, introducing the order, stated that this was how the last category of companies or individuals not so far covered by the amnesty. I venture to suggest that there is one further category. It is, in fact, one individual I refer to the British subject, Mr. Bore-lace, who is currently detained in Zambia on charges of espionage, and who had a distinguished career in the Rhodesian Air Force as a pilot. He is to be brought to trial next week, and I understand that if he is convicted he could face 25 years in gaol.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no suggestion that Mr. Borelace has committed any act against the lives or property of any citizen of Zambia? Will he undertake that, at whatever moment the Government may judge appropriate, they will approach the Government of Zambia to join in the spirit of good will and reconciliation lying behind these various amnesty orders and show clemency towards this British subject?

10.55 pm
Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)

I accept that within the territory of what is now Zimbabwe there must be a comprehensive amnesty covering all aspects of the war that was waged for seven years. The citizens of that new nation deserve the highest praise for reconciling deep differences. An amnesty is an essential and inseparable part of that.

To extend the amnesty to the United Kingdom and to the territories for which the United Kingdom remains responsible is a different proposition. Within what was Rhodesia a war was waged and the rules of war applied. For those supporting the Smith Administration, breaking sanctions was an extension of that war. I thought that they were wrong, but they were fighting for a cause. There was no war within the United Kingdom, there was a slate of peace and a lawful Government who at all times had the support of the Opposition. Governments of both parties imposed sanctions and called upon other nations to do likewise.

We are asked to exonerate people who breached sanctions not because of their beliefs but in order to make money. We are asked to do that by the party that prides itself, frequently justifiably, in having a special belief in law and order. To make the issue even more inconsistent and arbitrary, the amnesty applies only to those who got away with sanctions busting. Those who have paid fines get nothing. Apparently, it pays not to be caught. Those who were clever enough to evade the law get away with it.

The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) referred to domestic and other repercussions in the event of other sanctions orders. I agree with the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar. I confess that when I was in what was then Rhodesia, with the hon. Member for Honiton, I thought that sanctions were largely ineffective and possibly counter-productive. I suspect that if we impose sanctions on Iran they will also be ineffective. However, for political reasons we might have to go along with an attempt to impose political pressure in co-operation with the United States.

That is not the point. The point is that the law should be respected. Government Members, of all people, would agree that that is so. If the law is breached, the law breaker should be pursued, sought out and brought to justice. That is the essence of the argument.

The hon. Member for Honiton referred to lax application by other countries. That is not an argument in this case, any more than it would be to the Clay Cross case. The whole matter is extremely depressing, as is the failure to do anything about the Bingham report. It boils down to the fact that if one is big and can conceal an unlawful action one can get away with it. That is not right, and cannot be right, and I shall vote against it.

11 pm

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I give full support to the order. The fact remains, despite what has been said by Opposition Members, that after 13 years of the illegal regime in Rhodesia the economy of that country was much stronger than it was at the beginning of the illegal regime. That was not the result of sanctions busting by firms in Britain, or any other country, but because sanctions forced Rhodesia to be much more self-reliant.

At the end of those years Rhodesians had been forced to produce many of the commodities that they had formerly imported automatically. As a result, the economy of the country was greatly strengthened.

I welcome the sanctions amnesty order because I regard the application of sanctions as being the height of wasteful futility in the past. To continue proceedings in the future would be equally wasteful.

There may, or may not, have been much sanctions busting by British firms, but the fact is that in Zimbabwe today—and certainly in Rhodesia at the end of the 13-year period ol illegality, where formerly one would have found the majority of imports there to be of British origin—British manufactured goods have been almost phased out. The small quantity of British goods that did arrive in Rhodesia during that period arrived as re-exports of British goods from other countries. That was beyond our control.

During the 13-year period there were great increases in the import to Rhodesia of manufactured and finished goods from other countries, particularly from the Continent and Japan. There was at the same time a considerable decline in the import of British goods.

Now that Zimbabwe is independent the dragging on of proceedings in this matter could well be divisive in that country. So far as the trading partners of the illegal regime are concerned, British firms were involved only on a small scale and it is surely not right, after the independence of Zimbabwe, that we should continue these abortive proceedings when many other countries—far greater culprits than Britain in the export of goods to the illegal regime—have either abandoned their proceedings against the companies involved or probably never took proceedings in the first place.

If we were to be so ill advised as not to introduce this order tonight we would be in the unique position of having been the one country that lost its predominant trading position in those 13 years of illegality and at the same time the only country still pursuing a rather farcical vendetta against those few British companies that may have exported to the illegal regime.

I believe that if we do not support this order tonight the result will be a difficult and divisive situation for Zimbabwe. The best thing that the House of Commons can do in the interests of that country's great future is to support the order.

11.3 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

I shall be brief in speaking about this indemnity order and cut through some of the cant and hypocrisy that has been exhibited tonight by people who say that at one fell swoop this House should, in the interests of decency, pass this order and let bygones be bygones without limitation or qualification.

It has been suggested that there could be conditions. It is not unprecedented for an amnesty order to require some sort of recognition by those who broke the law, by an expression of regret, that that was the case. There might be a limitation on the number of years. But there is none of that. It is total amnesty, totally unconditional.

I pointed out in an interjection that somewhat different standards were applied in the past. That is relevant, because I should like to quote what the Solicitor-General said on 4 August 1975. Then he did not talk about different standards or about an amnesty for some. Then he did not say, as he did in December last year, " If the question is big enough, if those people have retired and if it is complicated enough, there is nothing much we can do about proceeding with criminal matters, and, therefore, all that juicy list of known and respected people in annex III of the Bingham report can now rest easy because criminal proceedings will not be taken against them. That is on my decision and the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but just in case there is anybody anywhere who is not quite covered, we have an amensty order to make the whole thing enshrined in a statutory instrument ".

However, in 1975, the hon. and learned Gentleman said: although we agree that justice should be tempered with mercy none of us should tamper with the rule of law or put it at risk. All people who offend the law, as these people have offended, should be treated alike. No hon. Member would quarrel with that proposition. Indeed, everyone would pay lip service to it". The hon. and learned Gentleman said that at that time. My goodness, he is certainly paying lip service to it tonight. On that occasion, there were serried ranks of Tory Members standing up to say how sacrosanct, sacred and important the rule of law was, and that if the rule of law were applied differently, one against another, all our freedoms would break down, because it was the backbone of our liberty. The present Under-Secretary of State for Employment repeated that at great length and told my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) how wrong he was to suggest that there should be any difference. That was because those who were being criticised on that occasion were 11 Labour councillors, who it was claimed had broken the law.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

Surely the hon. Gentleman is trying to find a wholly fallacious link between a situation in which reconsideration is given to the propriety of a conviction and a sentence—in circumstances where the party responsible for considering that reconsideration, namely, the Labour Party in the case of Clay Cross, had given an undertaking implicit if not expressed before the general election that when it got back into power it would let the Clay Cross councillors off the consequences of their wrongdoings—and the situation that arises here, in which certain persons and companies have not been charged because there was no certainty or probability that they would ever be convicted. Is not that an utterly fallacious comparison between those who have been convicted and those who have not been charged because there was no likelihood that they would ever be convicted?

Mr. Cryer

It was not a case of conviction, in any event. I am basing my argument on the words that Conservative Members put forward against the legislation that we introduced. On that occasion, Conservative after Conservative said that it was wrong. If it was wrong on that occasion, because 11 Labour councillors were involved, how can Conservatives defend what the Solicitor-General said in such specific and absolute terms, that: All people who offend the law, as these people have offended, should be treated alike "?—[Official Report, 4 August 1975; Vol. 897, c. 104. A number of people have offended against the law. Annex III of the Bingham report was withheld from the House because the issue was treated as if it were sub judice. That is why the Government said that the report would not be published. The two examples are on a par.

The Government now say that a class of persons will be treated differently. As it happens, those people are not ordinary working Labour councillors but important people, who work for big corporations. They are extremely influential and will be given an official amnesty by means of a statutory instrument. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), in a previous debate, pointed out that if a person has retired he will be granted an amnesty for his criminal acts. The hon. Member asked whether the same terms would apply to elderly burglars.

Not only Opposition Members raised their eyebrows. That amnesty will be enshrined by statutory instrument. Double standards are involved. No amount of wriggling by lawyers who pop into the House from time to time will make up for the fact that those double standards apply. In 1975, the Solicitor-General made a claim. He should stick to that claim, and withdraw the order.

11.11 pm
Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

Perhaps we can turn to the subject of Zimbabwe and leave behind the issue of Clay Cross. However, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) should understand the difference between a conviction for which punishment has been given and the possibility of prosecution. There is a great difference between the two cases.

My attitude to sanctions has always been practical. That is the right approach to apply, whether to Iran, Cuba or Rhodesia. I originally supported sanctions. I was led to believe by the Government of the day and their successors that they might work. Confronted with an illegal act, no Government could have stood idly by. Action was required. Sanctions were proposed. I listened to the evidence and was persuaded that they might work. However, having made a number of visits to Rhodesia I gradually came to the conclusion that sanctions were not working.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said, sanctions did not make Rhodesia weaker. Indeed, if anything, they strengthened Rhodesia. I concluded that sanctions were of little value while an open border existed with South Africa. As they were not working, I saw no reason to penalise British firms when French and German firms were not being penalised. I shall adopt exactly the same approach when we consider Iran.

I find it difficult to support this order in good conscience. I shall do so because, ultimately, the House must strike a balance. It is relevant to point out how that balance should be struck. I see certain inequities and grievances in the fact that several small firms—including some in my constituency—were pursued through the courts and punished in an absurd way. The punishment was out of all proportion to the nature of the offence.

I understand why those firms feel that they have been treated unfairly. They see larger firms getting off scot-free. Anyone who has read the Bingham report will probably agree that there is inequity in the fact that small traders were pursued and punished, while those who inhabit the inner recesses of Government, and who connived at those actions, will get away scot-free. To the extent that the House of Commons is now applying to one group of people rules that were not applied to other groups of people, I find this decision hard.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Rother Valley)

The hon. Gentleman is clearly on an important point, but will he comment on the suggestion that whilst some of these major companies must be about to breathe a sigh of relief at the order before the House it might be reasonable to suggest that they ought at least to be prepared to pay conscience money? Rather than the British taxpayer or poor countries in more difficult circumstances than those in Zimbabwe having to find the sums that the Government have promised, should not those oil companies, from their profits made from breaches of sanctions and subsequently, be prepared to make some payment? That would give cause for some relief on the part of the small companies that bore fines because they had not the wit to escape penalties in the way that the major companies did.

Mr. Griffiths

I hope that in the few words that I still have to say I shall come to the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

I said that, none the less, we have to strike a balance. Again, I put a practical point. Listening to what the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) had to say in his carefully reasoned speech, I noted that he recognised the difficulties that Bingham, among others, adumbrated about the business of pursuing all the sanctions breakers. As he rightly said, there are the problems of South African law applying to subsidiaries of international companies that were caught by that law. There are the many difficulties that the Director of Public Prosecutions had to recognise very fairly in the proposition that somehow or other, one could reach back into the past and find, through all the labyrinthine processes of commerce, ways and means of bringing prosecutions that would stick in the courts.

The hon. Member for Keighley appears not to understand that it is not enough to allege. What matters is to convict. There were some real practical problems involved in pursuing these matters through the courts to achieve conviction. Therefore, when I look at the present situation, on the one hand I recognise fully that there is a sense of inequity; on the other, I recognise the even greater inequity of attempting to pick and choose at this stage what types of prosecution could or could not retrospectively be brought.

Since he has recommended Labour Members to vote against the order, I should like the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar to tell me how, if he were in office, he would go about the practical problem of founding prosecutions in respect of the many complex matters that have been examined and that the Director of Public Prosecutions has said, in terms, he could not successfully bring before the courts. How would a. Labour Government, in practice, nursue the policy that he is recommending the House to adopt? I do not believe that he can do it.

Mr. Shore

I said that I was not satisfied with what the Attorney-General said about the reasons that swayed his judgment in terms of the Bingham report and the follow-up action of the oil companies, but I added that, irrespective of whatever conclusion one may reach on that particular and major case, I did not accept that that should be a reason for giving a holus-bolus blanket amnesty to all other cases, which, in my view, should be dealt with in the ordinary way by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Griffiths

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that, because that is precisely the point. Either we have a blanket amnesty or we have no amnesty at all. The contrary to having a blanket amnesty would be the necessity to pick and choose among the many possible cases that could be brought. The one thing that the Director has made plain is that it is extremely difficult to look for any effective prosecution and conviction in the courts, and I respect his judgment.

A balance has to be struck. Overall it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom, and certainly those of Rhodesia, that we follow the Government's advice and wipe the slate clean.

Why is it that Mr. Mugabe, who has fought many a bitter battle and who now has the awesome responsibility of leading Zimbabwe into the future, can find it in his heart to take a much more generous and magnanimous view than Labour Members? I understand that Mr. Mugabe has made no representations for the sanctions legislation to be continued in Britain. He has made no request, offered no pressure, and made no demand that we should continue to fight the battle after the war is done.

That is what I find so surprising about the attitude of Labour Members. It appears that they want to continue fighting the war. They seem to feel that they will be deprived of a bone to gnaw on. Let us put behind us the tragedies, the law-breaking on all sides, the terrorism and the brutality. War is law breaking, and when a war is over there is merit in looking to the future and not the past.

Mr. Mugabe seems to be displaying a broad-minded statesmanship and generosity that eludes Labour Members. We should follow his example and put the past behind us. Let us look now to the future of Zimbabwe.

11.21 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

I shall be as brief as possible. The main reason that the Government have advanced for saying that they are justified in introducing the amnesty is that there are no prosecutions outstanding. That does not wash with me. There are two reasons why there are no prosecutions outstanding against oil companies. One is that the Director of Public Prosecutions proceeded with all the verve, elan and speed of a two-toed sloth and took no less than 15 months to consider the evidence provided by the Bingham report, which was referred to him in September 1978. His views were endorsed by the Attorney-General.

Secondly, the Government, who say that they can introduce the amnesty proposal because there are no prosecutions outstanding, decided that no such prosecutions would be outstanding because there would be no prosecutions as a result of the Bingham report. They are merely justifying the decision that they made a few months ago.

Everyone accepts that the order will bring to an end a squalid episode in British history. It is an indication of the inability of the House to ensure that the decisions that it takes are carried out by the Government Front Bench of the day, its civil servants and the major companies. That is an important issue for hon. Members whether they supported sanctions or whether they did not. There should be no one in the House who can contemplate with equanimity the fact that the decisions of the House were defied for 15 years. Therefore, if there are no prosecutions, there should be a parliamentary inquiry into what happened, a tribunal of inquiry, or some sort of judicial inquiry.

If one considers the reasons put forward for not having a parliamentary or judicial inquiry, with the concept of double jeopardy, one sees that if people were invited to give evidence on oath to a body other than a court they would have prejudiced their position if court action were taken later.

The previous Government and the House were reluctant to give an amnesty to individuals so that they could freely give evidence to a tribunal of inquiry or parliamentary investigation. But every cloud has a silver lining. If this squalid order is passed tonight, one of the effects will be that the amnesty will have been given, and there is absolutely no reason why the House should not establish an inquiry itself, or set up a tribunal of inquiry to take evidence and find out why Ministers of the Crown, Members of the House of Lords, senior civil servants, and the present head of the Foreign Office were allowed to proceed and how they got away with it.

This will not be the last time that the House will consider introducing economic sanctions. If they are to work in future we must sort out the rotten background to this lot in order to ensure that.

11.26 pm
Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)

I intervene only briefly to support the Government on this order. To continue another long drawn-out legal battle after the ending of this terrible war in Zimbabwe seems to be continuing bitterness, and this is not a good beginning for a young, new State.

Does anybody who opposes the order really believe that prosecutions of British companies would not drag in a number of citizens of probably every colour in Zimbabwe itself? Surely there must be links. If people are passing oil, others must be receiving it. That does not seem the right way to start a new country at its birth.

Finally, I cannot believe that until the Conservative Government came into office there was ever any chance of a settlement. Indeed, that was proved. There was no chance that the previous Prime Minister or the previous Foreign Secretary could bring about a settlement. Therefore, we would not have got the settlement until there was a change of Government, with people who were determined and who had the breadth of outlook to bring about that settlement. I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and Lord Soames on having added a page of great glory to this country's history. I believe that we can now hold our heads high abroad for many of the acts of this Government. The first of those acts was to set us on the right road in this respect. I only regret that I did not vote against sanctions at an earlier stage.

11.28 pm
Mr. loan Evans (Aberdare)

I heartily support my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), who has shown that there are those in this House who have stated their principles since illegality, have stood by them, and will continue to do so until the end. We are discussing what was a United Nations sanctions order. When the Smith regime took the illegal action in 1965, and sanctions were imposed, it was because Members of this House went to the United Nations and asked for such sanctions against the regime. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) has consistently been opposed to sanctions. I wonder whether the order will apply to him. He has suffered because of his attitude to sanctions. He was a Conservative defence spokesman. His party leader quite rightly said that he would have to leave the Front Bench. He would have been Minister of State. Perhaps he would have been Secretary of State, but because he voted against sanctions, the leader of his party, the present Prime Minister, ever consistent, as all of us in the House have heard, said " You must support sanctions." Of course, the hon. Gentleman is now sitting on the Back Benches. If the order goes through, shall we find him back on the Front Bench? Other things have happened, as we know. I mention that matter merely in passing.

This is a very serious matter. When we were in government, with the support of the Liberals and other parties, we were united in saying that United Nations sanctions should be maintained. But the Conservative Party has always been divided. What has been put to the House tonight is this: " Right. We have President Banana; Robert Mugabe is the Prime Minister; Didimus Mutasa is in the Speaker's Chair; Joshua Nkomo is the Home Secretary, and everyone is happy. That is the situation. The event has happened there, and all should be forgotten."

The point is that we stated that these sanctions should be maintained. The Conservative Party is the party of law and order. There were those of us who met the people who were struggling for freedom. When sanctions were imposed, Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo were incarcerated in prisons. They were the ones who suffered. The people of Rhodesia as a whole suffered. The illegality could have been brought to an end many years ago if the sanctions that were imposed had been upheld, but now we know certain things about multinational companies in this country.

Many of us thought that the sanctions were being upheld. Those who visited Salisbury and saw all the British goods and the oil that was getting through knew that someone was breaking sanctions. But in the early days, of course, we thought that it was Fascist Portugal, which was installed in Angola and Mozambique, that might be playing a part. But Angola and Mozambique went out of the picture, and then we knew that there was a conspiracy.

We in this House sanction public expenditure. The Conservative Party is concerned about public expenditure. We had the Beira patrol by the Royal Navy, preventing oil going into Beira. All right. Wrong has been done. Multinational companies have flagrantly, treasonably, broken the law laid down by this House and passed through the United Nations. The question is, do we rub the slate clean? I say that we do not.

I do not say that there should be massive prosecutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Paneras, South (Mr. Dobson) put forward a suggestion. The economy of Zimbabwe has suffered, and that country needs economic aid. Let the multinational oil companies, which are making massive windfall profits at present, do something. The Government are setting up a committee of five to determine the salary of the chairman of the British Steel Corporation. Let us set up a Committee and try to get some recompense for the damage that has been caused by these multinational companies.

That is why I shall be with my right hon. and hon. Friends in voting against the order. I hope that the Government will not have the political impertinence next week to bring another economic sanctions order before this House. It is useless for them to talk about economic sanctions if, having argued over the years that penalties would be imposed on those who break the law of this land, they suddenly say that there shall be an amnesty order and all will be forgiven.

Therefore, I hope that all Opposition Members will vote against the order. We have been supporting sanctions all along. We want to see justice done and penalties imposed on those who have broken the law of this country.

11.35 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival)

With the leave of the House. I should like to make a few comments on the debate. I am sorry to intervene when I know that some hon. Members want to speak, but by trying not to do so I have already left myself with little enough time in which to answer at least some of the points, as I think I ought to do, in a debate of this importance.

I want to try to restore a little clarity. Some of the speeches have been confused, and I think that the hallmark, or the epitome, of that was the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who quoted what I said in 1975—

Mr. Cryer rose

The Solicitor-General

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment. The hon. Member then compared that with something that he thought I said in December, which was not what I said but what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. If the hon. Gentleman cannot even distinguish between the two, it is not a good start. I agree with every word that my right hon. and learned Friend said, but it was not I who said it.

The hon. Gentleman's analogy was hopelessly wrong. What we were dealing with there were known, deliberate breaches of the law, incited and inspired by Members of this House on a promise of an indemnity afterwards. They were found guilty—in so far as the word " guilty " is appropriate.

Mr. Cryer

There were no convictions.

The Solicitor-General

There was a surcharge. They were found liable to a surcharge by the proper procedure, and they were then given an indemnity. It was a different matter.

A point of more substance arises on the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). I acknowledge the sincerity of the points that have been made. There is room for genuine difference, which is why I wanted more than a couple of minutes in which to reply to the debate.

More than one Labour Member has used the words " blanket amnesty ", as if we are giving an amnesty to a whole lot of people who are known to have committed offences. That is not the background against which the order is introduced. Not only are no prosecutions pending; there is no evidence to suggest that any major evasion of sanctions by British firms or individuals has taken place that has not been investigated by the authorities.

Of course, there was one aspect of the matter that did raise serious questions, did call for intensive investigation, and received it. That was the question of the oil transactions. I shall not go over the arguments. They were stated by my right hon. and learned Friend on 19 December. I agree with every word that he said, and I invite the attention of Labour Members to it.

I should like to make two points. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar referred to this as a political decision, and as the Attorney-General's decision. It was not. The decision that was being reported to the House was the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions. My right hon. and learned Friend said quite openly that he agreed with it and that he shared the responsibility for it, and so do I. Let us be clear what it was. The question of the Attorney-General's consent to proceedings never arose, because the person upon whom the duty is placed of deciding in the first instance whether proceedings could or should be brought, and whether his consent should be asked, reached the decision that was stated.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the timing of the announcement of the decision on Bingham. That was on 19 December. By that time the Southern Rhodesia Act, under which this order is made, was in force. So this order could then have been made. At the same time, there had been a return to full legality. That was on 12 December. Accordingly, this amnesty order could have been made then. There was nothing to stop its being made. It could have been made before any decision on Bingham was announced, and the result of making it then would have been to preempt any question of decision on Bingham. There would have been no decision to make or to announce. However, as a deliberate matter of policy, that order of events was rejected and the decision on the oil transactions was dealt with first. That decision was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend in the House quite regardless of any question of amnesty. As the House will remember, he dealt at length with all the questions that the Opposition wanted to put to him on it. I hope that the Opposition will bear that in mind. There was no question of anybody trying to duck any of the issues here. Bingham might have been ducked by taking that simple, different order of events. It was not.

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) made some very snide remarks about the Director of Public Prosecutions. It just shows how a wrong inference can be drawn. If the DPP had decided a fortnight after the matter had been referred to him the Opposition would have said that he had not given it any thought. The police investigated the matter in great detail and counsel considered very carefully whether there was a prospect of success. Therefore, it did take time. It is typical that that should be turned against the DPP in that snide way by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dobson

Would the Solicitor-General care to tell the House how many police officers were involved in the investigation on behalf of the DPP, and what were their ranks?

The Solicitor-General

No. I shall certainly not take time ascertaining that. The investigation was most thorough and was carried out with all the integrity that one would expect.

Mr. Dobson

Oh !

The Solicitor-General

It is no good the hon. Gentleman giggling about it. I knew that he would not like the answer. However, even if he wants to giggle about it, I give the House that assurance. I doubt whether other hon. Gentlemen would dispute that.

I have just recollected a point that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) raised. The customs authorities have taken no step in the condemnation proceedings. Those proceedings are civil, not criminal, and will now have to be dealt with by the representatives of the parties in the normal way. I should be happy to discuss it further with him, having had correspondence with him. How

ever, I do not think it right to take up the time of the House on that specific instance.

Now I want to deal in general terms with the substance of the argument against this matter. I accept that there may be different points of view about this, but I am trying to put the one against. Some Members of the Opposition made the error of seeing this matter too much in isolation and not as part of the broader picture. I want to stress that it is and must be considered as just one, the last of a series, of amnesties granted at the conclusion—and as the conclusion—of a unique series of events. I stress its uniqueness because of its importance.

The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar raised an important question about precedents, which was echoed by other members of the Opposition. I wish to deal with it. One of the most important features in considering the question of precedents is to set this one in its context. If one could say that this was likely to recur over and over again I would agree with him that it would be a precedent. However, it is of very great importance that it should be considered in its context. I remind right hon. and hon. Members of some of the particular features. We are trying to clear up a situation that resulted from 15 unhappy and difficult years. Happily, we are able to do so in an atmosphere of greater good will, hope and, indeed, promise than most of us would have dared to hope six months ago. Surely it must be right, in those circumstances, to wipe the slate clean.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the other amnesties that have been granted and of which he approved. Those are departures from the principle that the law must always be applied—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 87.

Division No. 287] AYES [11.45 p.m.
Adley, Robert Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) Biggs-Davison, John
Alexander, Richard Banks, Robert Blackburn, John
Arnold, Tom Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon) Braine, Sir Bernard
Aspinwall, Jack Berry, Hon Anthony Brinton, Tim
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Bevan, David Gilroy Brittan, Leon
Brooke, Hon Peter Hicks, Robert Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Brotherton, Michael Hill, James Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe) Hunt, David (Wirral) Parris, Matthew
Bruce-Gardyne, John Hurd, Hon Douglas Percival, Sir Ian
Buck, Antony Jessel, Toby Pollock, Alexander
Butcher, John Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Proctor, K. Harvey
Cadbury, Jocelyn Kaberry, Sir Donald Rees-Davies, W. R.
Carlisle, John (Luton West) Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Renton, Tim
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Kilfedder, James A. Rhodes James, Robert
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn) Kimball, Marcus Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Kitson, Sir Timothy Rossi, Hugh
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Knight, Mrs Jill Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Colvin, Michael Lawrence, Ivan St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Cope, John Le Marchant, Spencer Shelton, William (Streatham)
Costain, A. P. Lester, Jim (Beeston) Skeet, T. H. H.
Dorrell, Stephen Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Loveridge, John Speller, Tony
Dover, Denshore Luce, Richard Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Dunlop, John Lyell, Nicholas Squire, Robin
Dunn, Robert (Dartlord) Macfarlane, Neil Stanbrook, Ivor
Durant, Tony MacGregor, John Stanley, John
Dykes, Hugh Madel, David Stevens, Martin
Eggar, Timothy Major, John Stradling Thomas, J.
Faith, Mrs Sheila Marlow, Tony Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Farr, John Mather, Carol Tebbit, Norman
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Maude, Rt Hon Angus Thompson, Donald
Fisher, Sir Nigel Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Thorne, Neil (llford South)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Meyer, Sir Anthony Thornton, Malcolm
Fry, Peter Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch) Waddlngton, David
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Mills, lain (Meriden) Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Waller, Gary
Goodhart, Philip Moate, Roger Watson, John
Gower, Sir Raymond Montgomery, Fergus Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds) Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes) Wheeler, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester) Wilkinson, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll) Murphy, Christopher Wlnterton, Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith Myles, David Wolfson, Mark
Hannam, John Needham, Richard
Haselhurst, Alan Nelson, Anthony TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hawkins, Paul Newton, Tony Mr. John Wakeham and
Hawksley, Warren Normanton, Tom Mr. Robert Boscawen
Heddle, John Page, John (Harrow, West)
Alton, David Foulkes, George Park, George
Anderson, Donald Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Parry, Robert
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Ginsburg, David Penhaligon, David
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham) Grant, John (Islington C) Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Beith, A. J. Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Prescott, John
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Hardy, Peter Race, Reg
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith Richardson, Jo
Bray, Dr Jeremy Haynes, Frank Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Home Robertson, John Robertson, George
Campbell-Savours, Dale Homewood, William Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Canavan, Dennis Howells, Geraint Rooker, J. W.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed Roper, John
Cryer, Bob Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Cunliffe, Lawrence Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Rowlands, Ted
Dalyell, Tarn Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford) Lyons, Edward (Bradford West) Soley, Clive
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) McElhone, Frank Spearing, Nigel
Dixon, Donald MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Stallard, A. W.
Dobson, Frank Maclennan, Robert Tinn, James
Dormand, Jack McNally, Thomas Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Marks, Kenneth Welsh, Michael
Dubs, Alfred Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Whitehead, Phillip
Duffy, A. E. P. Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Wigley, Dafydd
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Winnick, David
Eastham, Ken Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Woolmer, Kenneth
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire) Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw) Young, David (Bolton East)
English, Michael Morton, George
Evans, loan (Aberdare) Newens, Stanley TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Evans, John (Newton) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Mr. Walter Harrison and
Faulds, Andrew Palmer, Arthur Mr. James Hamilton
Flannery, Martin

Question accordingly agreed to.


That the Southern Rhodesia (Sanctions) (Amnesty) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 April, be approved.