HC Deb 06 February 1967 vol 740 cc1215-307

8.26 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden)

I beg to move,

That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order 1966 (S.I. 1966, No. 1595), dated 21st December, 1966, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

It might be for the convenience of the House if with this Order we discuss the next following Order: That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 99), dated 30th January 1967, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved. If required, we could have a separate Division on each.

Mr. Bowden

There are two Orders which the House is being asked to approve, the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order, 1966, and the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order, 1967. The latter Order amends both the earlier Order and also the Southern Rhodesia (Petroleum) Order, 1965. It might therefore be for the convenience of the House if I take both Orders together.

As the House is aware, the Security Council of the United Nations, on 16th December, 1966, adopted a resolution providing for effective and selective mandatory economic sanctions against Rhodesia. I do not propose to weary the House by rehearsing yet again the background to this development. Our intention to implement the undertakings contained in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué was debated at length in both Houses earlier in December, and I hope that there is no desire that I should repeat all that was said by Government spokesmen during that Debate.

The purpose of the two Orders now before the House is to give effect, when read together with the Petroleum Order, to the Resolution passed by the Security Council of the United Nations on 16th December last year. The Petroleum Order was, of course, fully debated in this House when it was made over a year ago.

Like some of the other Orders made under the Southern Rhodesia Act that have come before this House, they operate not only as part of the law of the United Kingdom, but they also operate as part of the law of Southern Rhodesia itself. They do not operate as part of the law of any other of our overseas territories, but separate and corresponding provision has been made, so far as necessary, in the law of all those territories.

I turn now to the particular provisions of the principal Order. Article 1 prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of goods specified in Schedule 1 that have been exported from Southern Rhodesia since the commencement of the Order. The goods in question are: asbestos, iron ore, chrome, pig iron, sugar, tobacco, copper, meat and meat products, and hides, skins and leather.

Under paragraph (2) the Article has effect as an enactment relating to customs, so that all the provisions of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952 concerned with the importation of goods are applied.

Article 2, except for paragraph (5), operates as part of the law of Southern Rhodesia as well as of the United Kingdom and prohibits the exportation from Southern Rhodesia of the goods which I have already mentioned. So, under those two separate sections, the importation and the exportation of those articles are prohibited.

Paragraph (6) of Article 2 calls for special mention, since it is this provision, together with a couple of other corresponding provisions elsewhere in the Order, which is the subject of the amendment effected by the second Order of 1967, the one made last week.

In accordance with previous practice, prohibited activities by individuals outside the United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia—leaving aside special cases such as carriage of prohibited goods in British ships and aircraft—constituted offences only if committed by citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, British subjects without citizenship, or British protected persons who were ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, or by citizens of Southern Rhodesia. However, the Security Council Resolution required Member States to prevent dealings in the specified commodities which I read out, not only "within their own territories" but also "by their nationals" without qualification as to their place of residence.

United Kingdom citizens, even though resident abroad, are still our nationals and ought therefore to be covered by our legislation. Accordingly, the amending order of 31st January,1967, makes United Kingdom nationals resident outside the United Kingdom liable for prosecution whenever they come within the jurisdiction of British Courts if they commit an offence under the main Order of the Southern Rhodesia (Petroleum) Act of 1965, or under this Order of 1966. This is the reason for the Amending Order.

I turn now to the Articles which deal with trade in the reverse direction. That is to say, with the supply of certain goods to Southern Rhodesia.

Article 3 prohibits the exportation from the United Kingdom to Southern Rhodesia of goods specified in Schedule 2 of the Order. Article 4 prohibits the supply or delivery of those goods to Southern Rhodesia, and also prohibits certain ancillary transactions.

Article 5 prohibits the importation of those goods into Southern Rhodesia and, again, certain ancillary transactions. The goods in question, as set out in Schedule 2, are: arms, ammunition, aircraft, motor vehicles, and equipment and materials for the manufacture, assembly or maintenance of any of these goods.

It will be appreciated that the question whether equipment and materials are, in fact, for the manufacture, assembly or maintenance of any of these goods, may not be readily apparent in every case. To meet this difficulty, Part II of Schedule 2 lays down certain rules for determining this question for the purposes of all three of these Articles.

Broadly speaking, the effect of these rules is that equipment and materials are deemed to be for a prohibited purpose if, and only if, it is shown that the person concerned himself intended that they should be used for that purpose or if it can be shown that he had reasonable cause to believe that another person intended that they should be used for that purpose.

Article 6 deals with the manufacture and maintenance in Southern Rhodesia of motor vehicles and aircraft. It directly prohibits the use or operation of undertakings in Southern Rhodesia for this purpose.

Article 7 is the provision which gives effect to that part of the Security Council Resolution which calls upon States to prevent the carriage of the various prohibited commodities in their ships and aircraft. It will be seen that paragraphs (1) and (3) deal with goods exported from Rhodesia, and paragraphs (2) and (4) with goods that are being carried to Rhodesia.

Article 8 of the Order confers certain powers to investigate ships and aircraft which are suspected of being involved in the carriage of goods contrary to Article 7 or to the Southern Rhodesia (Petroleum) Order of 1965.

In respect of ships, these powers are conferred on authorised officers, that is to say, on naval and military officers, Customs officers, consular officers and Board of Trade officials. In respect of aircraft, they are conferred on the Board of Trade and officers of Customs and Excise. We cannot afford to have British ships and aircraft flouting the Security Council Resolution with impunity. I am sure that in most cases these powers will not need to be used. But, in view of the wide diversity of ships and aircraft that operate under British registration, we cannot rule out the odd case of deliberate contravention.

The fact that we have taken these powers will also help us to persuade other countries to police their own shipping equally effectively. Conversely, it will help use to resist any demand, wherever it may come from, that any other authority should police our shipping. For all these reasons, I hope that the House will agree that this provision, though drastic, is justified.

Article 9 and Schedule 3 confer certain powers on the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to obtain evidence and information for the purpose of securing compliance with or detecting evasion of this Order, or of the prohibition on the carriage of petroleum. We cannot afford to dispense with these powers if the prohibitions we have imposed are to be a reality and not mere window-dressing. For the most part, I am sure that the commercial community will scrupulously comply with the law. But there may be a few black sheep, and the existence of these powers will both act as a deterrent to them and enable those who transgress to be found out and brought to justice.

Article 10 deals with penalties and with proceedings for offences against the Order. I would particularly draw attention to paragraph (5). Proceedings for an offence against the Order shall not be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Treasury or the Board of Trade or, in England or Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions or, in Northern Ireland, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. This ensures that prosecutions will not be brought lightly or frivolously.

I do not need to deal in detail with Articles 11 and 12, but I should like to draw attention to paragraph (2) of Article 12 which makes it clear that goods passing through Rhodesia merely in transit are not caught by the Order. This is intended to prevent, in particular, any difficulty about the transit through Rhodesia of goods from Zambia, especially Zambian copper. Paragraph (3) of Article 12 makes it clear that goods imported into Rhodesia for the purpose of the three common service organisations, that is to say, the Central African Power Corporation, Rhodesia Railways and the Central African Airways Corporation, are also not caught by the Order. Paragraph (4) of Article 12 safeguards the position of vehicles and aircraft whose entry into Rhodesia, either on an ad hoc journey or as part of a regular scheduled service, is merely incidental to their carrying persons or goods into or out of or across Rhodesia and is not part of the process of importation in the ordinary sense of that word.

The mandatory sanctions resolution opens a new phase. While it is still too early to attempt any realistic assessment of the effects of mandatory sanctions, the commodities covered by the resolution comprised no less than about 60 per cent. of Rhodesia's total exports in 1965. Mandatory sanctions will, therefore, intensify the existing pressure on the Rhodesian economy. If the embargoes are successful—and we shall do our best to see that they are—Rhodesia's exports will be reduced by up to a further £30 million, with particularly serious effects on the mining and agricultural sectors.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will wind up the debate on these Orders, and deal with any points of legal interpretation which right hon. and hon. Members may raise.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

Could the right hon. Gentleman give the cost of this to Great Britain in a year, including the loss of trade and the cost of policing?

Mr. Bowden

Purely from memory, I think that the last time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered the question the figure was £16 million.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling (Barnet)

I should like to start by saying that we on this side also are glad to see the Secretary of State back in his place and hope that he is fully restored after his recent illness. Before dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's speech and with the Orders I must say that I thought that the answer which he has just given to my hon. Friend was very inadequate. I do not believe that the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman—obviously, one needs notice of these figures—was anything like the total cost to the British economy, direct and indirect, of the present sanctions policy.

In discussing the Orders, we are debating a fairly narrow issue. We on this side were rather surprised that the Orders were necessary, because we had the impression from what the Government had said in the past that the powers which they had taken and the Orders they had issued had already brought trade between this country and Southern Rhodesia pretty well to a complete halt. It was difficult, therefore, to understand what more was needed. The Secretary of State has very kindly taken us through some of the intricacies of the Orders, but I am still a little baffled.

I should like to ask a couple of questions about the effect of the Orders. The first concerns British ships at sea. What win happen if a British ship is carrying to a Southern African port, for example, a motor car destined for Rhodesia, which it was perfectly legal to export from the port when the vehicle was picked up? Suppose that the ship goes to a port in a country from which it is legal to sell a motor car to Rhodesia, then picks up the car and takes it to a Southern African port on the way to Rhodesia. What is the position then of a British ship? Can it he stopped at sea or held up for breaking the law? Why would it be breaking the law when carrying something which it was perfectly legal to take on board at the time when it was taken aboard?

This whole business of stopping and, presumably, searching ships at sea is a major step to take. As a maritime nation, we have always rightly been jealous of the position of ships on the high seas and we would be very reluctant to accord to the authorities of any Government the right to stop and search ships. We must be very clear on this point.

What is it that British ships cannot carry? Why is it illegal for them to carry it'? What powers do the ships of other nations have over our ships in carrying these commodities to Southern African ports if they happen to be destined ultimately for Southern Rhodesia?

The second point on which I would like elucidation concerns subsidiaries of British companies operating overseas. What is the position of a British company's subsidiary operating in another country and exporting goods to Southern Rhodesia if the country in which it operates legally permits the export of those goods? Is it prohibited from exporting them? If so, what is the position between the country concerned and ourselves in the matter of control of companies operating within their respective jurisdictions? These are questions of considerable importance which we should like to probe and to have answered.

The Government are saying that in putting forward the Orders they are doing something of substantial importance, otherwise it would not be necessary to make the Orders. We would like to know how these Orders impinge upon the position of British shipping companies operating throughout the world and the subsidiaries of British manufacturing and trading companies equally operating throughout the world in conditions where local domestic jurisdiction concerning trade and business may vary very much from the legislation of this country.

If I may turn to the Orders in general, as the Secretary of State said, they are designed to carry out the Resolution of the Security Council imposing what are called selective mandatory sanctions upon trade with Rhodesia. We on this side of the House opposed the policy of mandatory sanctions and, therefore, we oppose these Orders, because they are a consequence of the policy which we voted against just a few weeks ago. Clearly, like the Secretary of State, I think that it would be wrong for me to go at great length into the arguments against the general policy, but I should briefly remind the House of the reasons why we think that the policy is wrong and, therefore, the reasons why we think that these Orders are wrong, because the Orders follow upon the policy.

First, we believe that submitting the problem to the United Nations meant a loss of control by Britain over an essentially British problem. Though we have heard arguments from the Prime Minister based, for example, on the wording of the Preamble to the Resolution, we are not convinced that the problem now remains wholly within the control of the British Government.

Secondly, we feel that the sanctions by this country which are brought into being by the Orders which we are now discussing will not be effective.

I should like to ask what is happening in other countries. All the history of economic sanctions suggests that they do not work unless everyone is prepared to operate them. I understand that in Germany they are not prepared to implement sanctions in respect of existing contracts, and that is a major matter which affects our own sanctions directly. That is why I think that it is relevant to these Orders.

Similarly, the Swiss are very keen, energetic, active and ingenious traders. Are they carrying out regulations of this character? Upon the effect of their regulations, we must judge the effect of our own regulations, and therefore this is a very relevant matter.

What about the United States? One has heard or seen suggestions that there is considerable opposition in the United States Congress to the imposition of these sanctions so far as American traders are concerned. What about Zambia? No doubt for very good reasons, their economy depending very much on Rhodesia, I understand that there also the sanctions ordered by the United Nations are far from being carried out by the Zambian Government.

In these Orders, the Government are asking the House of Commons to impose certain sanctions so far as British traders are concerned. I think that I am in order in saying that, before granting the Orders, we ought to know whether other traders competing with our own are in practice subject to the same inhibitions, and whether the Governments of countries like Germany, Switzerland, America and Zambia are doing the same thing. We cannot fairly impose upon our own traders inhibitions which their competitors do not suffer in practice.

Mr. Christopher Rowland (Meriden)

I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern that other countries should also impose sanctions effectively, but does he not appreciate that one way of getting them to do it is to make sanctions mandatory through the United Nations?

Mr. Maudling

My answer to that precise point is, "No". That is what I want to know. In theory, that should be effective. In theory, there should not be any more goods going from America, Switzerland, Germany or Zambia, for example. However, in practice they are. Before we decide what to do, we ought to know what the effect of mandatory sanctions is upon other countries.

Our third argument concerns the position of South Africa. That is highly relevant to the Orders before us, because we have always argued that to try to impose mandatory sanctions on Rhodesia without the support of South Africa is purely wasting time. So long as goods can flow through South Africa, and, in particular, so long as South Africa is prepared to see the flow of oil to Rhodesia continuing, the proposals in these Orders are totally ineffective. So far as I am aware, the attitude of the Government of South Africa has been clear from the start. They said, "Our line is normal trade. Our policy is that we will not take part in any boycott whatsoever". I believe that this is still their position. Have the Government any contrary information?

If it be true that this is the position of the Government of South Africa, if it be true that these mandatory sanctions will not be imposed by South Africa, this country cannot hope to produce any decisive effect in Rhodesia by imposing sanctions on British traders which will be nullified by the actions of another Government. Before passing these Orders, or before, as I hope, not passing them—as I explained, we intend to vote against them—we should hear what the position of the South African Government is.

Our final argument against this whole process and this whole policy was that, by going to the United Nations and asking for mandatory sanctions, the British Government were merely consolidating opinion behind Mr. Smith and discouraging moderate opinion in Rhodesia. This once again is coming to pass, as we said it would. One sees in more than one instance—I regret to say that I think the latest speech by Mr. Smith himself shows this—the way in which this putting of the problem to the United Nations, as the Government have chosen to do, is consolidating and hardening opinion and giving more strength to the Right wing in Rhodesia.

The most dangerous thing in the last few days—this is directly linked once again with sanctions as part and parcel of the whole policy—was the Prime Minister's statement at Question Time last Thursday that, no matter what government were in power in Rhodesia, no matter if the moderates came forward—whoever they might be—there would be no independance before majority rule.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now getting wide of the Orders.

Mr. Maudling

With deep respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister has always emphasised the linkage of paragraph 10(a) and 10(b) of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference communiqué. He has always emphasised that the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations was linked indissolubly with the question of no independence before majority rule; it has all been part and parcel of a single policy. My argument is that the implementation of these rules is the implementation of that policy, of which no independence before majority rule is an essential part.

Our four points against mandatory sanctions, which are the purpose of the Orders, have always remained the same. First, there will be a loss of control by Britain. Secondly, they will not work, unless other countries do the same thing. Thirdly, they will certainly not work without South African support. Fourthly, they will consolidate opinion behind the Right wing in Rhodesia and make the position of the moderates and a would-be moderate alternative government totally impossible. All the arguments are arguments we advance against the policy, and all these arguments we advance against the Orders.

We believe that by these Orders and by the policy underlying them the Government are set upon a disastrous course. We can see on these lines no sign of an alternative to a very serious clash between Britain and Rhodesia and possibly between Britain and the whole of Southern Africa.

We argue that the alternative to these measures must be discussion and agreement, because the alternatives are either agreement or force. Force is ruled out, we believe—and we think that every one believes—in military terms. We think that force is also ruled out in effect in economic terms. Therefore, the Government's purpose should not be to bring forward Orders of this character. It should be to try to seek all the time a way of agreement between Britain and Rhodesia to find the answer we all want.

It may be said that by voting against these Orders we are voting against the authority of the United Nations.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Maudling

This, with respect to the Attorney-General, is absolute nonsense. The House is entitled to consider alternative actions. We contend, as the alternative policy to the present policy, that, instead of carrying on with this course, which is fraught with disaster, the Government should return to the United Nations and say "Instead of imposing economic sanctions, we should like the opportunity once again of seeking agree- ment between Britain and Southern Rhodesia on the basis of discussion, on the basis of agreement". I hope that the Attorney-General will not say that this is impossible. He of all people cannot say that, because the Government have always maintained that Britain has not lost control of the situation. If we have not lost control, we certainly do not have to proceed with economic mandatory sanctions. If we have not lost control, if Britain still retains control of this essentially British problem, it is still possible for the Government to go back to the United Nations and say, "We do not think that this policy is right". We on this side do not think that it is, and therefore in voting against these Orders we are voting against a policy which we think is wrong, and voting for an alternative wholly consistent with our obligations under the United Nations Charter which would be better in the interests both of this country and of all the peoples in Rhodesia.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

I start by referring to the last point made by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in his reference to the United Nations. I can understand his case, or the case put by himself and his right hon. Friends, that they did not want this matter referred to the United Nations, although this is a point for argument which we argued before, and which we may no doubt argue again. But once the Security Council has made a decision by such a majority as it did on this occasion, then I think it is stretching the case very far to suggest that to oppose the operation of the mandatory sanctions which have been voted for by the United Nations is not action which is opposed to the United Nations itself.

Mr. Maudling

The hon. Gentleman would agree that the matter is now out of the hands of Britain?

Mr. Foot

No. I shall try to the best of my ability to deal with all the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot deal with them all in one sentence. I was dealing first with his last argument. I was trying to draw the distinction which I should have thought was a clear one. After all, hon. Gentlemen, argued strongly, or some of them argued, they were never quite clear which of them were arguing strongly, that this matter should never be referred to the United Nations. Presumably they did not want it referred to the United Nations partly because they feared what might be the decision of the United Nations, and did not want to abide by it, but now the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that once a decision of this character is made by the Security Council, once the Security Council passes a resolution saying that certain action is mandatory on all the countries who are members of the United Nations, we need not carry it out. I know that there are some hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so opposed to the United Nations that they do not want to carry out what the United Nations says, but that is not the claim of the Front Bench opposite. They have, until recently, claimed to be supporters of the United Nations.

What we are discussing partly today is a further retreat by the Conservatives away from any claim to support the general principles of the United Nations and towards their general isolationist policy.

Mr. Maudling

That is not the point. I am saying that, having asked the United Nations for mandatory sanctions, it is possible for the British Government to go back and say that this was an error. This is what a Conservative Government would do.

Mr. Foot

I suppose that is a conceivable possibility, but so long as it is a decision of the United Nations that certain mandatory policies should be followed, I should have thought that for this country not to follow those policies would be a defiance of the United Nations. Words are robbed of all meaning otherwise. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would have been more candid with the House—and he is usually extremely candid when his party policies enable him to be—if he had made it clear that his party, as some hon. Gentlemen will no doubt say quite openly, is opposed to these policies of the United Nations and is so bitterly opposed to them that it does not care what injury is inflcted on the United Nations by the policies it is advocating.

One of the main reasons why we should support the Government is precisely that this is a decisison of the United Nations, and this country has made pledges and given binding undertakings to carry out the Resolutions of the United Nations—not every Resolution, but mandatory Resolutions formally passed by the Security Council. These resolutions are binding on all members of the United Nations. We have pledged ourselves to carry out such commitments, but the Conservative Party is attempting to get us to abandon those pledges and to tear up the commitments we made when we signed the Charter of the United Nations. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to conceal that fact.

Now let us take the three arguments that the right hon. Gentleman put forward as forming the ground on which he opposed the Government's policy. If the Opposition had come forward in this debate merely citing certain technicalities of the Order, or referring to practical details which they said were difficult to achieve and inquiring how this or that could be operated, we could have understood it. It would be in conformity with the desire to make the decisions of the United Nations effective. But the right hon. Gentleman has greatly broadened the argument. If we were to follow his advice this country would defy the decision of the United Nations and the vast majority of the nations of the world which assemble together to make it.

The right hon. Gentleman's first argument against the Government was that they should not have agreed to refer this matter to the United Nations because it would mean a loss of control by this country. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister had said that he wished to keep this matter within the control of the Government. The Prime Minister has said that on a number of occasions, and I am sure that that was his desire. But he has also said, whenever we have debated this matter, "I warn the House, and I warn in particular right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if we were to pursue the courses that they are recommending we would find it more and more difficult to retain control of the question".

That is what happened at the Commonwealth Conference. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to that. He went very wide in his speech, but I am not surprised that he did not refer to that, because what he recommended to the House and what the Conservative Party will presumably be voting for tonight is the break-up of the Commonwealth. The commitment we made to the Commonwealth was that if the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Conference were not accepted by the Smith régime in Rhodesia we would proceed with an alternative policy, one item of which was to withdraw all offers to Mr. Smith and his régime and commit ourselves to the proposition of no independence before majority rule.

That was one proposition to which this country was committed at the Commonwealth Conference, assuming that the negotiations with Smith broke down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member will recall that I reminded the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) that he was getting wide of the Order in dealing with this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get back to the Order.

Mi. Foot

It is certainly not my intention to go as wide as the right hon. Gentleman did. If I am veering in that direction I am glad to be warned of the fact. I was seeking to underline the fact that two interlinked commitments were made at the Commonwealth Conference, one of which was the proposition to which I shall not refer again, and the other that action would be taken to deal with the Smith régime by alternative methods. Everyone knew that there would be a reference to the United Nations if the Smith régime did not accept the propositions that the Government made. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman says that his first objection to this policy is that it means a loss of control by this country he must take into account the fact that if we had not taken this matter to the United Nations there would have been a complete rupture with the Commonwealth.

If we had not made the proposition to which I am apparently not entitled to refer and taken the other step, of referring the matter to the United Nations, we would have broken our pledges [...]o the Commonwealth, the Com- monwealth would have been destroyed, and at the United Nations action would have been taken by some Commonwealth countries and countries outside the Commonwealth to put forward Resolutions much more unacceptable to this country.

So it is no good the right hon. Gentleman thinking that his policy is one that could have kept the subject within the control of this country. That was not the alternative. If the policy that the Government pursued had not been pursued, other countries would have gone to the United Nations and proposed resolutions which might have gone much further than the Government desired, and in any case the matter would have been removed from the control of this country. These are the facts, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.

The right hon. Gentleman's first argument about the loss of control by this country is completely false. Whatever differences of opinion we may have in this House about how this matter should be dealt with, all of us should acknowledge in candour that it was impossible for this country to have kept this matter solely within our own control. [HON. MEMBERS: "Utter nonsense."] Perhaps I should alter that sentence and say that we could have kept it in our own control at the price of a complete break-up of the Commonwealth and complete isolation at the United Nations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is the logical deduction from the policy which the Opposition are advocating.

Mr. James Dance (Bromsgrove)

The hon. Gentleman is speaking a great deal about the Commonwealth. What assistance to the Commonwealth does he think really comes out of the Government's present attitude to Malta and Gibraltar?

Mr. Foot

I should be out of order if I replied to the hon. Gentleman. However, I am quite prepared to express my views on Gibraltar and Malta at any time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman was right in his first reaction.

Mr. Foot

I come now to the second ground on which the right hon. Gentleman opposed the Order. He asked: Will the sanctions work? I am not sure whether he was suggesting that if the Government could say "We know that the sanctions will work perfectly" he would be any more satisfied. Most of his right hon. and hon. Friends would be angrier than ever if the Government could prove that. They cannot do that. I am also interested in getting the answer to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman. I think that there are many countries which will abide by their word. Let us see which ones will stand by their word.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)


Mr. Foot

There is the United States. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] These matters will probably be reported in the United States. Sometimes I am very critical of the Government of the United States, but I hope that it will be noted that when I happen to suggest that the United States Government will stand by their word on this subject I am received with jeers from the Conservative benches. Hon. Members opposite want to laugh the proposition out of court. So there are hon. Gentleman opposite who are not prepared to say in this House that they think that the United States will abide by the pledge that it gave to the United Nations a few months ago. I think it will.

Mr. Goodhew

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Dean Acheson, like some hon. Members in this House, has said that he believes that the decision by the Security Council was ultra vires and illegal? If this is thought to be so by the American Congress, it may be that the United States will not keep its word.

Mr. Foot

Mr. Dean Acheson is not the Government of the United States.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles (Winchester)

Neither is the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Foot

I hope that it will not be such a simple case of mistaken identity as that. I am not quoting myself on these matters. I am quoting the authoritative decision of the United States Government given in the Security Council after a decision reached by the United States President and the United States Cabinet. I should have thought that that was good enough for anybody. What is the position of the United States? Mr. Dean Acheson takes a different view of the matters. He takes a different view of the legality of it. The right hon. Gentleman did not even dare to raise that question again. It looks as though that mare's nest has been destroyed for ever. Lord Salisbury tried to raise it in another place. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not press the question of the legality, and I think that he was very wise not to do so. I think that was very discriminating of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Paget

My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the President of the United States does not make the laws of the United States? They have to be made by Congress. The Congress is extremely doubtful as to the legality of this measure, and so am I, for that matter. If my hon. Friend really thinks that President Johnson in his present difficulties is going to give this a high priority, I think he is rather wrong.

Mr. Foot

My hon. and learned Friend says that Congress is very dubious about the legality of this measure which has been passed by the Security Council. That is not correct. Certain Congressmen, like Dean Acheson, have raised doubts—

Mr. Paget

He is not a Congressman.

Mr. Foot

I know he is not. I said certain Congressmen like Dean Acheson. Trying to deal with so many interruptions by hon. Gentlemen makes my speech rather like running an obstacle race, there are so many interventions to surmount.

It does not seem to me such an outlandish proposition to quote the decision of the United States Cabinet given at the Security Council. I am not contesting—and not even Mr. Dean Acheson—that the United States Government have made this declaration. I should have thought it perfectly feasible for anybody to cite it as proof of what is the view of the United States Government on these matters. I do not always agree with the United States, but because I disagree with them on many things that does not mean that I disagree with them on this point. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who, by their general conduct, apparently do not give a straw for the United Nations or its general future—

Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth)

That is not true.

Mr. Foot

—are not even prepared to accept the fact that, first, the United States Government—and I was citing different Governments—would act in such a way that sanctions would work—the second point of the right hon. Gentleman. Personally, I think that the United States will stand by their word. I think they will carry out the policy to which they are committed. I think they may have debates in the Congress about it, and Mr. Dean Acheson may raise doubts, but I believe that, having given their word on this matter, the United States will carry it out. I do not know who will wind up the debate for the Opposition, and failing anyone on the Opposition Front Bench I would be quite satisfied to have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), and perhaps he will tell us very plainly whether he thinks that the United States will stand by their word on this matter; or, failing that, may we have an authoritative statement about this from the Opposition Front Bench?

Let us look at some of the other countries which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Germany. Germany is not a member of the United Nations and is therefore not in the same position, but I would have thought that it was perfectly open to the diplomacy of this country and of the United States and of the other countries which have joined in passing the Resolution to make representations of the most strenuous kind to the German Government that they should associate themselves with all the other civilised countries in the world in carrying out this policy. I think it would be a grave disservice to the policy of this country if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this debate were to seek to incite Germany, among other countries, to defy the United Nations and to defy the general policy agreed by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the Government, having failed to get anywhere with the German Government on support costs, will be able to persuade them of anything?

Mr. Foot

I am in favour of reducing the burden which this country has to bear in Germany—for other reasons which it would be improper to discuss now. But if that intervention is meant to indicate that it is difficult to put pressure on the Germans, it would be an added reason for doing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] We could say we will withdraw our troops from Germany if Germany does not carry out the policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah"] I think that would be a good way to do it, but all I am proposing in this instance is that not merely this country but all the other countries assembled together to pass that resolution should use diplomatic pressure and say to the German Government that they hope that they will abide by the general sense of the United Nations resolution. That seems to be a proper request, and only those who wish to sabotage the United Nations will invite them to do anything differently. The same comment applies to the Swiss.

Extremely difficult questions are involved in the Zambian position. Nobody can deny that. It is quite right that the Government should make provision in the Order to try to exclude Zambia from having to bear the heaviest economic burdens. It is an indication of the desire that the Government have had throughout the whole of this affair that, despite all the difficulties, we should take such steps as we can to protect Zambia from the repercussions of having to carry out this general policy. I do not complain that exceptions are made in the Order precisely for that purpose. That is no argument that sanctions will not be carried out.

Nobody can say for certain whether sanctions will be effective in the end in securing the overthrow of the Smith régime, which is what I certainly desire. But it is a great disservice to this country, to the United Nations and to freedom for people to minimise the effect of the sanctions. Hon. Members may have read in the Sunday Telegraph the week before last an account of what happened to Smith's tobacco crop over the past year. It appears that 70 per cent. was unsold. I know that some hon. Members opposite do not believe this to be true, and I do not know whether it is true, but it was evidence given by a reputable reporter, reporting—[HON. MEMBERS: "From Lusaka."] Yes, he was reporting from Lusaka, but what is wrong in reporting from Lusaka about these matters? People in Lusaka know a good deal more about them than do some right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is out of order on this Order to discuss the previous sanctions.

Mr. Foot

I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that it is a valid argument to say that if the previous sanctions, which were partially ineffective because they were not mandatory on all members of the United Nations, resulted in 70 per cent. of the tobacco crop being unsold, then if we can make the sanctions more effective they are likely to have even more influence in the future.

I cannot understand hon. Members opposite who wish to play Smith's game all the time. He wishes to say to the world and his own people that all the economic action which has previously been taken and is being taken will have no effect. There are many of these public relations officers on the other side of the House only too willing to play his game, and no doubt they have been well paid for it, too.

Colonel Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre (New Forest)

On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to say that there are public relations officers on this side of the House well paid for what they are doing?

Mr. Foot

Public relations officers who are poorly paid, then.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) intended to reflect on the integrity of any individual hon. Member.

Mr. Maudling

Further to that point of order. I understood the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to say that hon. Members of this House were paid to say certain things on behalf of someone. If so, I am sure that he is wrong, and if he did not intend it, then I am sure that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Foot

I would say that there are many hon. Members opposite, particularly from the conduct which I have seen in the last 20 minutes, who so far from coming to this debate to debate the public interest, have come solely to pursue their public relations on behalf of Smith and his friends. I withdraw the charge that they are paid anything for it—even the right hon. Member for Streatham. Maybe they do it for nothing. But it is a disgraceful exhibition when we should be discussing the public interest and discussing how we are to carry out policies which have been approved by the House and by the country.

I have dealt with two of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman on the question of loss of control—

Mr. Dance

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help us? Is it not disgraceful that the hon. Gentleman makes these accusations against various Members on these benches but makes his withdrawal in such an ungracious and disgraceful way? Cannot we have some protection, Sir?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am willing to protect hon. Members at all times when I know what it is about.

Mr. Foot

I come to the third point made by the right hon. Gentleman, which I acknowledge is the strongest part of his argument and one in regard to which the Government also will have to ackknowledge the difficulties in the future. It is one on which, in my judgment, they will have to make changes and developments in their policies. This third point is that, apart from Germany, the United States, Switzerland, Zambia and the rest, the main difficulty in pursuing the policy giving rise to the Order is that South Africa will not be prepared to operate it and will sustain what the right hon. Gentleman calls and what South Africa calls normal trade. That is the right hon. Gentleman's third count against these proposals and the reason why he says they cannot produce a successful outcome.

This is far and away the most powerful argument the right hon. Gentleman has. I do not myself regard it as a reason for abandoning the policy, but it is a reason, in my view, for believing that the Government will on some future occasion have to come to the House with further measures to deal with this situation.

I have always said this and I believe that it should not be disguised. I have no opportunity now to debate the general issue as to whether we shall in future months require to carry out a much more extensive policy of economic sanctions, perhaps, against South Africa, but I acknowledge to the right hon. Gentleman that this is the most powerful argument he has made and it is one which the Government do not answer sufficiently by saying, "We will not discuss that; we will try to push it into the background and think that it will not arise". It will happen, of course. South Africa may think that it is in its interest to sustain the régime in Southern Rhodesia and it may, therefore, give the régime all the assistance it can by normal trade and, perhaps, by abnormal trade.

If this country and the United Nations are to carry through the policies to which they are committed, that is, for the prevention of permanent minority rule in Southern Rhodesia and in the South of the African continent, the British Government will have to proceed from the policies they have already adopted to further policies. We cannot discuss that—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot pursue those policies now.

Mr. Foot

I understand, Mr. Speaker, and I did not wish to present the argument about it. I was merely citing the three points which the right hon. Member for Barnet made and acknowledging that the answer to the third part of his argument cannot be given in this debate now but will have to be given, in my belief, by Government action in the months to come.

There are many of us on this side who, when we started on this operation, said that a British Government who wished to hold up their head in the world, who wished to retain the Commonwealth and to retain an association with many other free countries, had to pursue a policy of denying the right of the Smith régime to continue. That is our policy, and we believe that many further steps will have to be taken to that end. Indeed, I think that the problem of Southern Rhodesia is bound to become more and more intermingled with the problems of South Africa itself. If we deny that, we deny the realities of the situation. This is why I say that the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's third charge cannot be given now but will have to be given by action later on. That does not mean that I do not think that it is right for the Government to proceed with the measures. The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that they would be disastrous, that we should pursue the alternative of discussions and agreements. We know what those words mean. There is not only the fact that we have already had attempts at discussion and agreement that have proved unavailing, despite the fact that on the "Tiger" propositions were made to the Smith régime which, in my opinion, went far beyond what should have been offered and which, according to some experts like Sir Edgar Whitehead, might have meant minority rule in Rhodesia until the end of the century.

Therefore, I am glad that those propositions are now withdrawn. That is the policy not merely of this Government but of the whole Commonwealth, and the right hon. Gentleman should have faced some of the problems, just as I have tried to face them. I have not tried to skirt round the question of South Africa and pretend that it does not exist. In his speech today, the right hon. Gentleman tried to pretend that the whole question of our relations with the Commonwealth does not exist.

That is why I say in conclusion, as I insisted at the beginning, that the vote which hon. Members opposite cast tonight is not merely a vote, according to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, against the measures' technicalities but is a vote against the policy that has been accepted by the whole Commonwealth—not only the African territories, but Canada, Australia and New Zealand. All those countries have supported the policy; all of them agreed the same procedure at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have not yet appreciated in what a state of miserable isolation they are. They have hardly any supporters in the world on their policies. [Interruption.] Yes—they have a few. They have Portugal and South Africa, and for year after year we had to live through the squalid indignity of seeing our representatives at the United Nations voting with those countries that maintain slave states in their territories.

They should not be fighting in the debate to restore that position. That is the position they want the country to be placed in, but I am very glad that the situation has been changed. When this question of Southern Rhodesia was considered at the United Nations, instead of being in such a tiny minority, this country was almost for the first time with the vast majority of the civilised countries of the world who wish to see the rights of people established, whatever the colour of their skins.

That is what we are fighting for and that is what the United Nations is working for. The right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members opposite came part way on the journey. It took a lot of dragging, but some came part of the way, some agreed that they would give constitutions to territories on the basis of majority rule. They came part of the way, but it is a sad and wretched spectacle to see them skedaddling back along the road as fast as they do now.

The right hon. Gentleman does not look very happy about it. I will say this for him. As I watched him today, he reminded me of the figure in the French Revolution who was following a great crowd around and somebody asked him, "Why do you follow that mob?" He replied, "I've got to—I am its leader". That is the right hon. Gentleman. He therefore did not put his case with his usual effectiveness. He has to go along with that mob, and I am sorry for him.

I hope that the rest of the House will make quite clear that this country not merely votes for the sanctions and is prepared to carry the Orders but is determined to see the United Nations' policy carried through to a successful conclusion.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Duncan Sandys (Streatham)

The Government have committed themselves to a long, sterile and losing battle. All Rhodesia's neighbours—South Africa, Botswana, Zambia and Mozambique—have made it clear that, for one reason or another, they are not prepared to break off economic relations with Rhodesia. Other countries will no doubt find excuses to follow suit. If they cannot produce any valid reasons, they will resume trade through the back door, through some intermediary in South Africa.

We shall then be asked to put the screw on to South Africa; and we shall have to refuse because we cannot afford it. When we refuse to take this further step to which this policy is logically leading us, the rest of the world will wind up sanctions altogether; and the whole policy on which these Orders are based will completely collapse.

The sanctions proposed in the Orders are part of a policy—a major part, as the right hon. Gentleman made clear—which will inevitably lead to failure and humiliation not only for Britain but for the United Nations. These sanctions will further aggravate the injury to our balance of payments which has already been caused. When it comes to meeting our prior obligations to Malta or to South Arabia, the Government plead poverty. At the same time, they seem prepared to pour away ever-increasing sums in this futile and ruinous struggle.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) suggested that we on this side were challenging the United Nations. I think that he used the word "sabotage". I would say to him that the sanctions proposed in the Orders are, like all other mandatory sanctions, quite illegal. They are contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. In order to impose these sanctions, which have to be authorised under Chapter VII of the Charter—the Security Council must be satisfied that there is a threat to international peace.

I have many times asked—and I hope that on this occasion I shall get an answer, because the legality of the Orders depend upon it—whether the Government will tell us which country is threatened by Rhodesia. Let them drop the pretence and admit that the Orders and their whole policy of mandatory sanctions are based upon a lie. Will they also explain not just what the Orders contain, as the right hon. Gentleman did, but what the Government hope to achieve by these additional sanctions?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, the Government have committed themselves up to the hilt not to negotiate with any illegal régime and not to grant independence in any circumstances before there is majority African rule. But do they not realise that no Government which could conceivably come to power in Salisbury would ever be allowed to give up U.D.I. except in return for the prospect of early independence? Still less could they agree to immediate African rule. Unless the British Government are prepared to soldier on with mandatory sanctions for another 10 years or more they will have to make up their mind to talk to the illegal régime and they will have to renew their offer of independence on the basis of the six principles. Sooner or later the Government will be forced to reopen negotiations on a sensible basis. Until they do, they can expect no support from us for their disastrous policy.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

The effect of sanctions so far has been to reduce the gross national product of Rhodesia by about 4 per cent.—very roughly the same figure as has been achieved at home by Her Majesty's Government by other means. It has also been to produce some unemployment, mostly in Zambia and Malawi, but in this, again, Her Majesty's Government have been less successful in Rhodesia than they have in Britain.

What will these mandatory sanctions which we are now being asked to impose do? Their target is £30 million of exports. This is what we are trying to stop. For that purpose we are putting ourselves to a charge of not less than £120 million a year. It is not a very advantageous or proportionate undertaking. The injury which these Orders are designed to do is very little injury to Rhodesia and a lot of injury to us.

What about the effect on others? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) asked what would other nations do. This is where legality becomes important, because while the legality of the United Nations Resolutions is in question, while the challenge which will doubtless come to it in the Court of International Justice remains sub judice, what other countries will take action on this?

I say right away, as one who can claim to have some knowledge of international law, that I believe these Resolutions to be quite illegal. I will not give only one reason, the very simplest. I do not believe that the founders of the United Nations designed that organisation as an instru- ment to enable a colonial Power to enforce its rule upon a rebellious Colony. That would have been in the spirit of the Holy Alliance rather than the United Nations. I do not believe that the United Nations Charter can be twisted to perform so alien a purpose.

Whether one is right on this or not the question is under challenge, and will shortly be under challenge in the International Court at the Hague. Portugal, South Africa or someone, will take it there. Meanwhile what happens in America? The American President does not have the same control over his Congress that Her Majesty's Government has over this Parliament. I cannot see Congress, which is extremely reluctant about this, taking action before the legality is settled. Nor can I see the American President, who has plenty of problems at home, making this demand on Congress a very high priority. So what will happen? This trade which we are refusing will go on being collected by the Americans, as it was last year.

The other country is France. Will France play in this game? We know very well that she will not. Far and away the most important of all—because she really has the keys to this problem—is South Africa. South Africa has herself been challenged by sanctions, and certainly regards the United Nations and the forces there as a threat to her existence. If the Government really feel that South Africa will stand aside and see a United Nations victory in her part of the continent over a neighbour of hers, then they are whistling in the dark to keep up their courage.

It is quite an impossible policy for South Africa. After all, the target here is £30 million. It could not conceivably succeed by more than half. The absolute limit of the sums involved here is about £15 million. The amount is so small.

Last October I discussed these various problems with a group of South African businessmen. The chairman turned to me and said, "Look round this table. I think there are nine here. The men sitting around this table represent companies whose sales are more than twice the gross national product of --Rhodesia—that is £232 million". He said, "The kind of sums that are needed here are those which we could lose in the 'sundry creditors' item in our balance sheets, and do you think that we are not going to do so?"—[An HON. MEMBER: What does that prove?] —It proves that these sanctions will not work. It proves that we will suffer, and Zambia will suffer, to the extent of well over £100 million a year, but Rhodesia will not suffer, because the people who have the power to deal with this will not allow it to happen—so we pay.

Finally, I give this warning. The enforcing of laws of this kind does not have the sympathy of the people. We just will not get juries to convict a man of helping Rhodesia, because on our juries there will be at least some who will think it is the right thing to do. It is very difficult to put in criminal legislation something which is against the sympathies of the people who are required to operate and work it.

All that we can do, all that we are doing, is to delay the industrial revolution which is taking place in Rhodesia. If that industrial revolution goes ahead, then African rule inevitably goes with it. [Interruption.] An hon. Member asks what about South Africa. South Africa knows very well exactly what I am saying. That is why she has been at enormous pains to see that in South Africa the industrial black proletariat is always in the minority. Nowhere do the South Africans allow the black proletariat to become a majority because they know what would happen if they did. In the mines, which is the only place in which most of the workers are black, only immigrants on a six months' contract are allowed so that they do not become part of an African proletariat in South Africa. South Africa recognises what would happen if there happened in South Africa what we are preventing from happening in Rhodesia—that is, an industrial revolution based on an African proletariat. Within Rhodesia industrial revolution inevitably means an overwhelming black African majority industrial proletariat; and no one here can point out to me an industrial revolution which was not taken over by its proletariat when it got under way.

All that we are doing is stopping this development, which perfectly suits the Rhodesia Front whose leadership is basically a squire-archy of the countryside, jealous and anxious about the industrial advance in Salisbury and Bulawayo. If she allowed it to go ahead, that is how the Rhodesia Front will fall. It will fall because it does not have the support of rising industrialists. By stopping those rising industrialists, we are doing exactly what the Smith régime wants: we are ruining the prospects of the African.

I have spent twenty years in trying to serve the interests of the Africans in Rhodesia. I am in rebellion on this because I see the Government destroying everything which I have tried to achieve.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Maldon)

May I revert to the clever, bitter and vindictive speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I wish he would realise that speeches like the speech which he delivered tonight do more than anything else to drive moderate opinion in Rhodesia behind Mr. Ian Smith.

The hon. Gentleman said that the views which he advanced were representative of the views in this country. I do not believe that they are representative either of the views of this country or indeed of the views of other hon. Members opposite. If the hon. Gentleman honestly and sincerely believes that, I challenge him to resign his seat and fight a by-election in a marginal constituency on that one issue. I guarantee that I know what the result would be.

I take the view that this Order stems from an illegal resolution of the United Nations. This is a view put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). But, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, it is a view which has been propounded by the surviving founders of the United Nations Charter at the San Francisco Conference. Both Lord Salisbury and Dean Acheson, who represented their respective countries when the Charter was founded, have made it quite clear that, in their view, the resolution of the United Nations, which purported to he under Chapter 7, was illegal. Not only is there doubt on that head, but also under Article 27(3) there cannot be any abstention from voting on such a resolution. In fact, there were two abstaining votes on this resolution.

Mr. Elystan Morgan (Cardigan)

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, whatever the views expressed in this connection. it is the view of Hans Kelsen, probably the most distinguished of all international lawyers, that such a resolution was not illegal?

Mr. Turton

I take the view of those who drafted the Charter even more than the view which the hon. Member put forward.

What is the Government's explanation on this point? This was raised last Tuesday in another place. If I may paraphrase his explanation, the Lord Chancellor justified the illegality by saying that the Security Council is largely influenced by political considerations and is a political organ and not a law court. What have we been doing in making our representations to the Security Council under Article 2(7) if the Security Council has no recourse to law but is merely a political organ?

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

If one has to determine whether there is a threat of war, is it wrong to apply political considerations in determining it? Surely it is a wholly political consideration.

Mr. Turton

The hon. Member usually gets his facts right. It is, in fact, a threat to peace and not to war. I should have thought that one would use legal considerations to determine that fact. If there is any doubt about this, I am quite happy to have it referred to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. I am satisfied that those who drafted the Charter knew what they intended.

I would like to ask the Attorney-General one or two questions about some details of the Order. I can understand that those who support selective mandatory sanctions may wish rightly, following their policy, to place heavy penalties on British subjects who transgress their sanctions policy, but I doubt very much whether it is wise or right for a British Government to draft an Order penalising Rhodesians who are carrying out normal trading in their country. Articles 2(6,b) and 4(2,b) deal with the export from and the import of goods to Southern Rhodesia Do they apply to Rhodesians who transact business not only with the United Kingdom but with all other countries? If so, do they apply to transactions in pursuance of contracts entered into before the Order came into existence?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) referred to the asbestos which was ordered by Germany prior to the United Nations resolution and which, according to the Germans, forms a legal contract. Are we in the position, therefore, that Rhodesians who carry out that Order for asbestos for Germany will be committing an offence punishable by two years' imprisonment?

It is a grave error for this House to impose penalties, which clearly cannot be enforced, on Rhodesians who have no voice in this Parliament. They have no way of protesting about these punishments which are being levelled at them. Quite clearly, these are useless parts of the Order. No one can enforce them. I hope that the Attorney-General will explain to us the full effect of the Order on Rhodesian citizens who carry out normal trading.

What the Government are trying to do in the House tonight is perfectly clear. The object of the Order is to create economic chaos and unemployment in Rhodesia. Any Rhodesian citizen who tries to save his country from economic chaos or to keep his African employees in employment will be liable, under the Order, to two years' imprisonment and a fine of unspecified amount. That, I believe, will again drive all moderate opinion towards the extreme Right wing of the Rhodesia Front Party.

I beg the Government to think a little about the effect of that policy in Central Africa. As I see it, it will not succeed. I do not believe that the sanctions policy will succeed except, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton has said, that it will cause them some 4 per cent. loss, and just the amount of damage which the British Government have done to the British economy will be done to the Rhodesian economy.

Our exports to Rhodesia will suffer a great deal more. Our markets in Rhodesia will be lost, and other countries like Germany, Switzerland, Portugal, the Portuguese colonies, South Africa, and, in answer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, the United States of America, are gaining all the time. A great deal of trade is being conducted with United States citizens.

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

I can assure my right hon. Friend that that is the case. My own company has been doing business with Rhodesia, but the merchandise which we cannot sell there now is being sold there by Americans, through our own agents.

Mr. Turton

There will be no great damage to Rhodesia, but there will be tremendous damage to this country amounting, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton said, to £100 to £120 million.

What the Government intend to do is create chaos in Rhodesia. What will happen if they succeed? Quite clearly, if we create economic chaos in Rhodesia, it will not stop there. It will spread across the borders to Zambia, Malawi and Kenya. What they are aiming to do is light a forest fire in very combustible material in Africa. That is a very dangerous policy to pursue.

Even at this late stage, I beg the Government to withdraw these Orders. If they will not withdraw them, I hope that they will at least do what I asked them to do when I last spoke and appoint a Royal Commission to go out to Rhodesia and work out a constitution which is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. However, that Royal Commission should not be sent out until the Government receive an assurance from those at present in power in Rhodesia that they can travel freely throughout the country and ask questions of all from whom they wish to take evidence.

In his last speech, the Commonwealth Secretary gave an indication, later withdrawn by the Prime Minister, that he would favour some new thoughts about a constitution. If a gesture like that was made, even at this late hour, we would win back the moderate opinion in Rhodesia that has been lost by this senseless, savage policy of sanctions.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King (Dorset, South)

We have listened only to two speeches from the other side commending these Orders. The first was from the Commonwealth Secretary, who said it as if he hardly believed it. The second was a passionate speech from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).

The only valid argument which seems to have emerged is that this is necessary in support of the Charter of the United Nations. I think that it was the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale who said that we, the British nation, cannot tear up the Charter. If that is what we said, I concede his point. He is quite right. However, if he thinks that, he must argue out his views both with the Lord Chancellor and with Lord Caradon, because that is not what they say.

The Charter of the United Nations lays down clearly the conditions under which mandatory sanctions may be applied. I do not want to quote overmuch here. We have had one quotation tonight which is perfectly sound stating that the Security Council, except on a procedural matter, cannot impose sanctions save with the concurring votes of the permanent members. Those concurring votes were not received. Therefore, clearly under the Charter of the United Nations, there can be no doubt that these mandatory sanctions are illegal.

I concede that there is a contrary argument, and I put it. The argument used on the opposite side, and used by Lord Caradon and by the Lord Chancellor, is the very reverse, that the Charter is not sacrosanct, that the Security Council is a political body or, as I heard one authority say, that the United Nations can do anything it likes. That is a possible argument. However, if that argument is used, do not talk about the sanctity of the Charter, because the sanctity of the Charter means nothing. It was this Government, when they took this case to the United Nations, who adopted the latter view, that the Charter was waste paper, but that the United Nations Security Council had universal power to do what it wished in the event of what it considered to be a threat to peace.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale should make up his mind as to which argument he is using. He cannot use both. On the Charter I have quoted one example only, but in fact there are three breaches of the Charter.

Mr. Michael Foot

If the hon. Gentleman argues that case, he must deal with the argument of the Lord Chancellor in another place, which completely disposed of the legal arguments he has just advanced.

Mr. King

I have dealt with the single point I seek to make, and I think that I have established it, that we are not acting in accord with the Charter. I do not concede the Lord Chancellor's argument, although I take the point he made that the Charter of the United Nations was not sacrosanct.

Mr. Paget


Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)


Mr. King

Oh, very well.

Mr. Speaker

Order. To which hon. Gentleman is the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) giving way?

Mr. King

To the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

Mr. Maclennan

The hon. Gentleman has a very excellent legal precedent for action under the United Nations Charter in the Korean War. A permanent member did not concur in that action, but the hon. Gentleman's own Government supported the Korean was as a legal war.

Mr. King

The important point is simply this. I have advanced the single argument, which I repeat, that what is being done is not in accord with the Charter of the United Nations. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has argued that Government policy must accord with the Charter of the United Nations. I ask hon. Members opposite to make up their minds which argument they are using, because they cannot argue both ways.

I move on to a second point, not a point of law, but of substance, of which the House should take note. If this were indeed a dispute between nation—an international dispute—there is a clear condition, again under the Charter of the United Nations, that the nation against which the charge is made should have right of access to the Security Council to put its case. That condition also was breached.

Further—this is the more discreditable—Mr. Smith's Government wrote 14 letters, one each to every member of the Security Council and one to the Secretary General of the United Nations, asking that he might be so received. We were informed on behalf of the Government by a Minister at the Foreign Office that those letters were never received. We were informed a month later by the Secretary General, or on his authority, that he was very sorry but the letter had been lost. We have never been told what happened to the other 13 letters.

If the argument as to the United Nations had not been raised in the debate, it was not my intention to raise it. I seek to make the point only that, whatever defence the Government may have for the Orders, a defence which I believe to be wrong, it would be wholly wrong of them—indeed, it would be impossible—to argue that they would be proceeding from law on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations or that the Security Council has done anything other than behave badly in this matter.

The debate has been allowed to go wide. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to discuss the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not have said that. It is very dangerous to call the attention of the Chair to what might be out of order.

Mr. King

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Leaving aside the point of the United Nations, the argument which is adduced—this is true—is that the House by a majority has committed itself to sanctions. That I concede. Then the Front Bench will seek to argue that because that is so it must be logical to escalate the dispute. This is a similar argument in principle which could be used by the Americans in Vietnam—because we have started a war we must escalate it to the furthest possible point. This is not an argument which I can accept. I should have thought that the spirit of the United Nations was that where one is involved in an issue, where war is feared, our duty is not to escalate it, but to mediate, to conciliate, and to seek to the last moment agreement between those concerned. I should have thought that it did not need arguing that this was the first duty of this House and of the United Nations in all circumstances.

What are the Government trying to do? It is a facile and attractive argument to say that they are trying to make sanctions succeed. What are sanctions? There are in Rhodesia 220,000 Europeans and 4 million Africans. When the Government say that they are imposing sanctions, let us turn this into more ordinary language. They are seeking so to disrupt trade as to create unemployment among 4 million Africans. The Government regard unemployment as a universal cure. If there is an economic crisis here, create unemployment. If there is a defence problem in Malta, create unemployment. If there is a Commonwealth problem in Rhodesia, create unemployment.

These things are all the more painful than is sometimes appreciated when there is great unemployment. It is better to use an accurate word to describe what the Government are doing. What they are trying to do when they use this measure is to create hunger, possibly even to the point of starvation, among 4 million Africans. Indeed, it will be more than 4 million if we think of the people in Malawi and Zambia. They are doing this in the hope that the pressure brought by these hungry Africans on the well-fed 200,000 Europeans will induce the Government there to change their minds. A more unlikely theme I have seldom heard.

I ask the Government to pause for a few moments and think what their objective is. There are two possibilities. The first is to hurt, and in this I concede that they have in certain measure been successful. The other is to convert. If they are seeking to convert opinion in Rhodesia, as opposed to having a desire to hurt people there, they have been wholly unsuccessful. Indeed, as the weeks and months go by the degree of the lack of success becomes daily more evident. In other words, they have lost their way because they have never defined what their final objective is.

How do we convert people, and if we seek to be successful what is the nature of the success? Are they seeking another Government in Rhodesia? Are they seeking chaos there? Are they trying to create hunger and strife in Rhodesia? I do not think that they are, but what I do think is that they have not thought out what they are seeking to do.

What is this policy? The Lord Chancellor is reported as saying in another place, with a measure of pride, that the sugar crop in Rhodesia had been ploughed in. In a world in which millions are starving, if he be right, let us in this House realise that this is not a matter for pride. It is something about which we ought to hang our heads in shame. [Interruption.] I look forward to the Attorney-General answering some of the legal points which I have raised, because so far no legal authority on that Front Bench has sought to answer them.

I turn now to the narrower point of the Order itself which seeks to extend to British subjects without citizenship or to the United Kingdom citizens resident abroad the penalties which previously have been confined to United Kingdom citizens resident in this country. What have the Government in mind? Let us consider the case of a single country trading with Rhodesia. For example, at this moment British subjects in Malawi are trading with Rhodesia. They are not now subject to a penalty because they are citizens not resident in the United Kingdom. As I understand it, after the Order is passed such a person will be guilty of a crime if he continues, whilst in Malawi—perhaps on behalf of a Malawi firm—to trade with Rhodesia. It is relevant to this point that the Prime Minister of Malawi has said openly that he intends and wishes to continue to trade with Rhodesia. What is a British subject resident in Malawi supposed to do? Is he to obey the laws and wishes of the country in which he resides, or is he to suffer two years' imprisonment on returning home?

There are many British citizens working in South African firms, holding British passports and presumably abiding willy-nilly by the laws of South Africa. Any such person—perhaps a person who has worked for 20 or 30 years for a South African firm and is shortly entitled to a pension—is to be told, at a few days' notice, "Either throw up your job, because your firm is trading with Rhodesia, or when you return to the United Kingdom you will be subject to two years' imprisonment or a fine". Is that a reasonable or practical thing to say? What will such a person do? Either he will seek South African citizenship or he will never return to England. Do the Government really want to achieve such a result?

Let us consider the case of an ordinary English girl—and there are thousands of them—who is travelling round the world, as many do nowadays, seeking a job as a typist with a South African firm which happens to trade with Rhodesia. If she gets the job, when she returns to this country she will be guilty of a criminal offence. Tens of thousands of people from all over the world will be in that position. The Attorney-General ought to tell us precisely how he intends to deal with that sort of case.

A major argument against these Orders, in the narrower sense, is that they are either impracticable or cruel. I implore the Government not to concentrate merely on how many tens of thousands of pounds we have robbed Rhodesia of, or of how much hunger we have brought to that country, or how far we have reduced its trade or how far we can impoverish it or made it a nation of beggars. Let them think whether their actions are taking us towards the achievement of a worthwhile objective. Above all, let them think of the nature of that objective, and what sort of Rhodesia would emerge if these policies, which in my view are disastrous, were to succeed.

10.14 p.m.

Colonel Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre (New Forest)

Listening to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), one got the impression that this was a great moral issue. Reference has been made to the resolution of the Security Council, which has also been before the General Assembly. I want to know how many countries have ratified that resolution. To my knowledge only four countries have done so. What is even more startling perhaps, none of the African countries adjacent to Rhodesia has seen fit to ratify the Security Council resolution. That includes Tanzania, Zambia and Malawi.

When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made his impassioned speech, did he not realise or take into consideration that none of the African States bordering on Rhodesia shares his views? If they did, why did they not vote or do something? The hon. Members comes here and makes an impassioned speech which will upset very many settled principles in Africa to no purpose whatsoever, simply to satisfy his own ego. [Interruption.] Let us go a little further—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. It has been an orderly debate so far. Hon. Gentlemen must learn to listen to what they do not agree with.

Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre

Let us take it further. Is it not a fact that at present the two States that are trying to come to terms in regard to mutual realisation and mutual respect with Southern Rhodesia are Zambia and Malawi? Is it not a fact that 250,000 people from Malawi are working in Southern Rhodesia, and that if there was any implementation of the Security Council resolution they would be unemployed and shot back to Malawi with no future whatever? When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale makes these impassioned speeches, they may go down in the Welsh coalmines, but for heaven's sake—

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

The hon. and gallant Gentleman should declare his interest in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Ben Whitaker (Hampstead)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to enable us to evaluate the expert knowledge of those who speak on this subject, would it be in order for hon. Members to declare their commercial connections with Rhodesia and South Africa?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman knows the rule of the House about declaring a personal interest.

Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre

I have declared my interest before, and will declare it again. Most of my family live out there, but as an individual I have no financial interests there whatsoever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I hope that I have made my first point.

Sir D. Glover

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When an hon. Member makes a personal attack on another hon. Member and it is refuted by direct reply, ought he not to withdraw?

Mr. Speaker

I think that the hon. Gentleman who raised the point raised it in general, but I think that the hon. Member who shouted across the Floor "Declare your interest" should be satisfied and should withdraw.

Mr. Orme

The hon. and gallant Gentleman was making a personal attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I asked if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would declare his interest. He did so, and I am satisfied.

Hon. Members


Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman, having suggested that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had a personal interest, now having declared that he is satisfied, that ought to be enough.

Mr. Orme

I withdraw what I said.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has now withdrawn what he said.

Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking)

Since we are having points of order tonight, Mr. Speaker, is it not generally considered out of order to impute dishonourable motives to hon. Members? Did you—

Mr. Speaker

I should imagine that the hon. Gentleman, from his experience, is used to political criticism. I have heard political criticism tonight.

Mr. Driberg

With great respect, if you will allow me to complete my sentence, Mr. Speaker, I will explain to you what I was referring to. The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) came here and made an impassioned speech in order to satisfy his own ego—or, as he called it, "eego". I would suggest, with respect, that that would be imputing to my hon. Friend a motive less than worthy of him.

Mr. Speaker

I think the hon. Member is unduly sensitive, and I further think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is perfectly capable of taking care of himself.

Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre

I will, if I may, come now to the Order itself. I wish particularly to draw attention to Article 10(5), where it says: Proceedings for an offence against this Order shall not be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Treasury or the Board of Trade or, in England or Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions… I will not bother to read the rest. I want to go back to what I asked in a previous debate, and that is, how far does that paragraph affect the Government themselves? For instance, in Salisbury at the moment are offices of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. Is that going to be closed down? We have Thomas Cook there. Is that going to be closed down? Throughout Rhodesia there are petrol stations run by British Petroleum. Are they to be closed down? In fact, throughout Rhodesia there are organisations directly responsible to Her Majesty's Government; they are running at the moment, but are they to be shut down, or are they to be exempt under that Article 10(5)—unless proceedings are instituted by the Board of Trade, then they can go on?

I particularly want to ask this question again about asbestos. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, I raised this question in a previous debate. If you look at the Schedule you will see that in Part I asbestos is very carefully defined as "heading No. 25.24." Quite honestly, I do not know what that means, but if my information is correct, up to the present the British Government have made exemption for asbestos to come into this country for a particular firm, because otherwise that firm would cease to trade unless it spent £2 million on the conversion of its machinery. I made this statement in our last debate. I challenged the Government. They did not seem to make any answer.

I do say that it is absolutely silly, with all this moral rectitude by the Government, if they allow B.O.A.C. and Thomas Cook and British Petroleum to continue trading in Rhodesia as they have been. Where is the sense of this? I am afraid I must reiterate what my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, that this question of Rhodesia has now become a private, personal vendetta. As has been said by my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, if the Government succeed, all they will do is to put 250,000 Africans out of work. If that is their idea of promoting security and progress south of the Zambesi, all I can say is, God help them.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

A theme has been running through the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite which must not go unrebutted in this forum. [HON. MEMBERS: "Forum?"]. It must not go unrebutted in this House.

It has been repeatedly suggested by hon. Members opposite that in passing the Orders tonight the House would be compounding an international act of illegality. This must not go unchallenged. In the first place, one may well ask on what authority this is regarded as an illegal act. The authority of the absent right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has been cited as leading in this matter. We have had the authority of one distinguished statesman in the United States. Apparently that is regarded as sufficient to drive the Government out of their course in following the decision of the United Nations Security Council. The opinions of two gentlemen have been put forward as sufficient. On the other side, however, we have had the opinion of the greatest living legal authority on the United Nations Charter, Hans Kelsen. This was described by hon. Members opposite as irrelevent and apparently beneath their notice.

But this important point has been dealt with in another place on at least two occasions by the Lord Chancellor. As he rightly said as recently as this afternoon, on a constitutional document of such profound political importance as the Charter, there can be many legal views. But the basic point which we have to consider is whether, as a country, having put before the United Nations a request for a certain course of action which we considered to be legal, we should then turn round and say that this course of action is illegal. What kind of statesmanship would that be?

A further point to which we ought to give some consideration is whether we should substitute our judgment of what is internationally legal for the expressed view of all members of the Security Council on that occasion.

Sir Knox Cunningham (Antrim, South)

I am very interested in the point which the hon. Member is making. Would it not be wise to ask for an opinion of the International Court on its legality?

Mr. Maclennan

As we have no doubts about legality of this matter, clearly the onus is not upon this country. It has been suggested by hon. Members opposite that such an opinion may be sought. Until it is sought we have to abide by the decision of the United Nations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we are members of the United Nations and signed the Charter of the United Nations. As such we are bound to carry out the decisions of the Security Council delivered under Chapter VII, and we must not flinch from that.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

The hon. Member has cited a number of precedents for his point of view. Could he answer the question put earlier from this side of the House? The whole of this legal argument hangs on the interpretation of Chapter VII. Which country does Rhodesia threaten?

Mr. Maclennan

My reading of Chapter VII—and I do not offer myself as the last legal authority, as some hon. Members opposite appear to claim for themselves—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have reproved one side of the House. Now I must reprove the other. We must listen to arguments even if we do not like them.

Mr. Maclennan

My reading of Chapter VII is that there must be a threat to peace. If there is a dispute, albeit an internal dispute, does not that constitute a threat to international peace? Does anyone deny that the Congo situation constituted a threat to peace? Did not the internal dispute, if one likes, in Korea constitute a threat to peace? Did not the Cyprus situation? We have heard from the Opposition the most extraordinary logic-chopping on this subject.

We have formed a clear view and are entitled, under Chapter VII, to ask for this measure in order to bring to an end a situation which we find intolerable, as all right-minded people do, for it is a moral issue. We are tonight seeking to give a lead to other countries to ensure that we attempt to make sanctions effective. But the question of whether or not sanctions are effective is immaterial to the question before us tonight. It is astonishing that the question of their effectiveness should have been raised. It is wide of the mark.

Mr. Goodhew

If it is immaterial, why did the preamble read out by the Secretary of State from the United Nations resolution refer to effective and selective sanctions?

Mr. Maclennan

We are not debating the Security Council resolution. We are debating these Orders, to which we intend to give effect. If the Opposition choose tonight to go into the lobbies against the Government on this, they must realise the significance of what they are doing. According to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), they are not considering the merits of the Orders. He said that they are attacking the Orders not because they oppose them but because they are opposed to the Government's policy.

That policy is now also the policy of the United Nations and in opposing the Orders the Opposition are opposing the United Nations. It is a clear extension and it is one from which the country will draw its conclusions. In the Rhodesia situation, we have a real opportunity to make the international organisation which the founders at San Francisco set up into a really effective body for the maintenance of international peace. We have an opportunity, with these Orders, to affix our personal stamp to that policy.

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that the United Nations General Assembly, which can only make a recommendation, none the less has passed, by a very large majority, a recommendation that British troops should leave Oman, but that the Government are taking no notice?

Mr. Maclennan

The hon. Gentleman shot down his argument at the beginning by pointing out that that was only a recommendation. The difference between that and what we are debating is that here we are acting in accordance with a Security Council resolution. If we carry it out we are bringing the United Nations into a new phase of effectiveness and we must seek to make this policy prevail.

10.35 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey)

I would like to intervene very briefly to appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, who I understand is to reply. May I appeal to him not to pontificate about the legality of the Resolutions of the United Nations? There appears to be an idea that the Lord Chancellor's recent announcement has some sanctity. We must remember that, even in this country, the Lord Chancellor has no right to pronounce on the law, except with the agreement of other Law Lords, giving judgment in the House of Lords. Still less has he any right to pronounce upon the legality of the actions of the United Nations.

We are entitled to express our opinions about it and, if I may say so with the utmost respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is an old friend of mine, I have just as much right to express an opinion on this as he has. I have expressed mine, and I agree with Dean Acheson that there is grave doubt about the legality of the action of the United Nations. Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter is not intended to operate unless there is a state of affairs menacing international peace. On 23rd November, 1965, the Prime Minister said in this House that we were not proceeding under Chapter VII, presumably because there was not a threat to international peace.

I should like to know what has happened since then to create a threat to international peace, which did not exist then? This is a quite simple point. I may be quite wrong and the Lord Chancellor quite right—I would always be willing to accept that I may be more likely to be wrong—but neither of us has the right to decide this, and that is why my right hon and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and myself have suggested that some means should be found of deciding this question, because it would be a disastrous thing if we were to set a precedent for the United Nations to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.

We might even reach a time when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister thought that there was some armed insurrection threatened against him in the country and called upon the United Nations to give him help. As I understand it, he and the Lord Chancellor think that they would be entitled to do so. There are a great many people who would disagree with them.

Mr. Christopher Rowland

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that it is impossible to defeat the Prime Minister by electoral means?

Sir L. Heald

I will not be drawn into answering questions like that, which has one perfectly simple answer, which I would be prepared to give to the hon. Gentleman outside. Is it right that we should pursue a line of conduct which might have the effect, which would not otherwise occur, of driving Smith over the edge, into declaring a republic and thereby probably making it impossible ever to reach any conclusion in this matter?

We have to take this very seriously. From the very outset I opposed U.D.I. and I have always been regarded as a "middle of the road" man in this matter, but I am gravely concerned about the course that we have now set ourselves upon. There is still time. No doubt it would be very difficult for the Prime Minister ever to admit that he had made a mistake, but there are many people who think that he is a great man, and great men can admit that they have made mistakes.

10.40 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)

I am not surprised that there are still a number of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who wish to speak in the debate because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has said, the Order, setting into operation the selective mandatory sanctions, is very important indeed and has almost unlimited consequences. We are doubtful whether some right hon. and hon. Members opposite have fully understood how grave some of the consequences might be.

For me this is a very sad occasion, because it is one more chapter of a very sad story in the relations between the Government and Rhodesia. We started by sanctions more in sorrow than in anger. Then they took a more vicious twist. Then we had the oil sanctions, and now we have the sanctions imposed by the United Nations. This is the final turn down the slippery slope. My belief is that the Prime Minister, while accepting responsibility for Rhodesia, has, in effect, forfeited control.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has left his place. When he suggests that if the Government had not gone to the United Nations with their resolution, other Commonwealth countries would have gone with a much wider one, does he—and does the Commonwealth Secretary—suppose that if the Commonwealth countries had tabled a wider resolution at the United Nations embracing economic sanctions against South Africa, the United States could have let it go through the Security Council? I believe that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are doing the ostrich act about what will happen over these sanctions.

Sanctions are fine for anyone who holds all the cards and if they are a one-way traffic. They are not so good for anyone who does not hold all the cards and there is a come-back. We all know that sanctions against Rhodesia as imposed by these Orders would be largely ineffective unless they were to include South Africa. We all know very well why South Africa was excluded. Were she to be included, her retaliation would be devastating. It would be two-way traffic plus.

We therefore have the policy and doctrine of sanctions against the weaker brethren who cannot hit back. The incident of shadowing the tanker off the port of Beira would not have happened in South African waters—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or in Russian waters."]—and we all know it. There is not much morality, therefore, in this new doctrine of sanctions against the weaker brethren who cannot hit back. [An HON. MEMBER: "Malta."]

I would like to ask the Attorney-General one or two questions. He will recall that amongst the various exclusions his right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary mentioned goods in transit to Zambia. How will the Government check goods in transit to Zambia—or anywhere else for that matter—which are excluded from the Order? It will be necessary to check whatever the cargo is, whether it is by ship or rail, at the point of entry and to check it again at the point of departure into Zambia and ascertain whether there is a difference. Who is to do that?

My other question is about how the right of search on the high seas will work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) asked some of these questions. Suppose that a British cargo ship carrying asbestos or chromium, or even a tanker carrying oil, is going to Portuguese East Africa. The Portuguese are entitled to buy whatever oil, chromium or anything else they want as long as they can pay for it. Is it really suggested that the captain of the British destroyer, if we have one, should intercept the British cargo ship and ask "What is your cargo?" The master of the vessel may say that he has X hundred tons of asbestos or X thousand tons of oil bound for the port of Beira, or anywhere else in Portuguese East Africa—or, for that matter, South Africa. Is the captain of the British destroyer or frigate to say, "On instructions from the Admiralty, we think that X thousand tons of oil is a bit much, and we think that some of it may be going to Rhodesia. Therefore, you must offload 30 per cent. into the sea and proceed with the rest, or else I board you"? How will this work out physically in practice, and what will happen if, one day, the Portuguese get a little irritated by it and escort a tanker with a destroyer?

These are some of the implications of the slope down which the Government have run themselves, and I do not believe for a second that they have worked them out.

My second objection to the Orders is that sanctions by themselves are not a policy at all. They are simply a means to an end, if the goal to which one is striving is known. But I do not believe that the Government do.

There is always an element of cement in any sanctions. I am old enough to remember, and I dare say other hon. Members are, the story of sanctions against Italy in the Abyssinian war. I was in Rome at the time, and I well remember how ineffective the sanctions were against the Italians and how, almost overnight, they converted a thoroughly unpopular colonial venture, with large-scale desertions among the Italians, who did not want to fight in Abyssinia, into something like a national crusade.

I repeat that there is an element of cement in sanctions, and this is what is happening in Rhodesia, partly by incompetent administration, partly by hasty decisions, and partly by actions which, as has been said before, drive the very people whom the Government say that they are trying to encourage straight into the arms of the extremists.

The Order says in paragraph 2(5): No person shall carry out any of the following transactions, that is to say:—

  1. (a) make any payment to or for the credit of a person resident in Southern Rhodesia; or
  2. (b) make any payment to or for the credit of a person resident outside Southern Rhodesia by order of or on behalf of a person resident in Southern Rhodesia …"
Does that go further than the existing Regulations? Does it cover pensions? Does it cover payments made by people in the United Kingdom to old dependants and relatives living in Rhodesia? Does it cover payments of maintenance by a husband in the United Kingdom to a wife from whom he is separated and who is living in Rhodesia?

I do not think that it is the way to encourage the support of the moderates. I had a letter this morning from a retired naval officer now living in Rhodesia which puts the argument better than anything that I have read or heard before, in this House or elsewhere. He says: My personal position is that on retiring from the Royal Navy after very long service we decided to settle in Rhodesia in 1965. I commuted half my retired pay and, with this money and some capital from investments, set up our home and established a business which, in due course, would provide some return on the money invested in them. There must be many others whose position is similar. On the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, an action which had no support or sympathy from us, sanctions were imposed by the United Kingdom Government not only on the country of Rhodesia but, in addition, on all its citizens who normally received personal funds from Great Britain. Thus, these persons, who I submit would largely be those who support constitutional rule, are subjected to double sanctions; firstly by the effect of those imposed on the country, and secondly by the direct effect of the holding back of their personal monies. In addition to this, persons such as I who receive retired pay have United Kingdom tax deducted at source; thus not only do we receive none of our personal funds but we are in fact subsidising the United Kingdom by the amount of the tax deducted. The whole position seems to us to be grossly unfair to loyal and innocent citizens of this country but surely also, it is a psychological error on the part of the British Government. That puts the case as well as any case could be put for just the type of person whom the Government say they are trying to encourage to take a moderate view and persuade either Mr. Smith or somebody else to get back into the constitutional fold. The Government have done exactly the reverse.

Where do we go from here? This is the question to which we want an answer. The constitution agreed upon on H.M.S. "Tiger" envisaged majority rule in 15 or 20 years' time—I do not know how long. Apparently, the Government were prepared to accept that. Now the Government have changed their minds completely and say, "No independence without majority rule tomorrow". This is a non-starter. Therefore, the sanctions imposed by these Orders, plus the policy of no independence without majority rule tomorrow, is not negotiation at all. It is not diplomacy. It is simply a journey down a blind alley

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

The hon. Gentleman has used the phrase "without majority rule tomorrow". This is the point which has been so grossly misinterpreted. All that is being stated is that the Government are committed to no independence constitution for Rhodesia until such time as majority rule has been established. There is nothing about the period. There is nothing about the preparation which a moderate Government would undertake before that. Normal progress could be made as with every other British Colony.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe

I was under the impression that the Secretary of State and his colleagues had said, "No independence before majority rule". If that is not the position—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is so."]—I very much hope that it will be cleared up by the Attorney-General tonight.

10.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon (Wells)

Many people in this country are getting heartily sick of the argument about the legality or otherwise of the United Nations resolution and the results, including these two Orders, which flow directly from it. Many people are asking themselves, "Why cannot adult individuals behave as adults and find some common sense solution to this problem? Just because these people on the other side of the Atlantic call themselves the United Nations, it does not necessarily mean that they are always infallible. They could well be wrong on this issue."

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Smethwick)

So could Smith well be wrong.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

So indeed could others be wrong. So could members of the Government be wrong. I remind right hon. and hon. Members of what happened to a previous international organisation. The predecessor of the United Nations got itself into such disrepute that finally it collapsed and disintegrated. If we are not very careful, this could be the fate of the United Nations, which has great good within it if only those good things are allowed to work out and the silly bickering disputes are put to one side.

I returned recently from Rhodesia. I was in Salisbury exactly 28 days after the coming into force of the first of these Orders. In the week I was there in Salisbury and in the country surrounding, I could see no noticeable softening of opinion. All that this is doing, and all that the previous actions taken by the Government have done, is to harden Rhodesian opinion, and many very moderate, very sensible, and very patriotic people in Rhodesia have come in behind Mr. Smith and his Government.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)


Lieut.-Commander Maydon

I shall give way in a moment, if the right hon. Gentleman will be patient.

I took the opportunity of speaking to quite a number of Africans, including three Members of the African Opposition in the Rhodesian Parliament, to try to find out what views they had about this problem. The one thing on which they were united was that since the Smith régime had come into power the intimidation, the victimisation, and the horrors that we have seen illustrated and read about have been very much reduced. In fact, they are now considered to be bad dreams of the past.

Mr. Woodburn

The hon. and gallant Gentleman and several of his hon. Friends have seemed to imply that this all started when the Labour Government came into office. Will he explain why all these reasonable people did not accede to the very persuasive and sympathetic attempts made by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the former Prime Minister when they were dealing with the subject?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

I certainly never said that this all came about when the Labour Party came into office, but I do say that the Government are dealing with the situation in a foolish, inhibited way. The situation is very difficult indeed, and calls for statesmanlike behaviour, not the foolish behaviour that we are seeing here. We are dealing with what is happening today. I would be willing to debate with the right hon. Gentleman what went on in the past, but that would be out of order. We are dealing with these Orders.

The next thing to which I want to draw attention, and to which attention has already been drawn by a number of my hon. Friends, is the effect which these Orders will have. They will undoubtedly create hardship in Rhodesia, and the first people to suffer hardship will be the very Africans for whom so much sympathy is being shown in many places, much misguided sympathy, because it is sympathy about the wrong things. They will be the first to suffer. I do not agree with one of my hon. Friends who said that there will be mass starvation. This will not happen in Rhodesia, because she is more than self-sufficient in foodstuffs—foodstuffs liked and eaten by the Africans, as well as foodstuffs liked and eaten by the Europeans. There will not be starvation, so if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think that Rhodesia can be brought to her knees in that way they are absolutely wrong.

The second thing which was very soon apparent to me was the great damage which these Measures will do to British trade, and in fact are already doing to it. The whole pattern of trade in that part of Africa is altering very rapidly, and altering to Britain's disadvantage. An enormous number of foreign business men from countries all over the world, including Americans, who were mentioned just now, are to be found in Salisbury, Bulawayo, and in the other industrial centres of Rhodesia. They are there to do business, and they are doing business to the detriment of Britain. It may be harmful to Rhodesia in a way, but she will still find channels for her trade.

Lastly, these measures will be quite ineffective. Rhodesia can never starve. Her economy may be brought down to the level of a rural economy, and some of her industries and businesses may be brought to a very run-down state, but starvation and bankruptcy will never occur in that country. Foreign traders will see that she gets her supplies, and there is a wide channel which can never be blocked through neighbouring countries. These measures will be quite ineffective. They will cause grave ill will not only in Rhodesia but in other countries, and in the long run they will do great damage to this country, and will be no good in solving this difficult problem.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Rowland (Meriden)

The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) referred to this as a silly, bickering dispute which he wished we could put on one side. I wish it were a silly, bickering dispute which we could put on one side, but it is not; it is a major, important dispute, which neither Mr. Smith nor this Government can put on one side. That is one reason why it is a tragedy for both countries.

I want to refer to some of the inconsistencies which have riddled the case deployed by the Opposition. We are told on the one hand, by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), that the imposition of sanctions with this degree of severity will be disastrous for the Rhodesian economy, and that millions of Africans will be thrown out of work, and yet, on the other hand, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. and gallant Member for Wells say that these sanctions will be ineffective. Which criticism do the Opposition wish to put forward tonight?

Mr. Turton

What I said was that the object of the Government is to create economic chaos, but that in my view it would be ineffective.

Mr. Rowland

I accept that qualification. I am sure, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that many of his colleagues suggested that this would be very serious. [HON. MEMBERS:"No."] The last speaker said so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No; he said the reverse."] I reiterate that some hon. Members opposite stated that sanctions will be effective in throwing Africans out of work and that starvation might ensue, while others have stated that sanctions will be ineffective. I want to know which argument the Opposition really wish to deploy tonight.

Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)

You are ineffective.

Mr. Rowland

I wondered why the hon. Member's voice was coming from an unaccustomed place; he evidently wishes to register the fact that he is a back bencher.

The second inconsistency is that we are told that foreign States will not cooperate. The United States, Germany, Switzerland and France have all been mentioned. I can only repeat what I said in an intervention during the speech of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), namely, that if other States are not co-operating one of the few ways that we have as a nation of getting them to co-operate is to ask for mandatory sanctions in the United Nations. One of the criticisms frequently levelled against this Government is that they have been carrying the whole cost of the sanctions operations. By making them mandatory we are attempting to spread the cost. I do not like the way in which some hon. Members opposite seem to glory in the fact that certain other sovereign States are trading with Rhodesia.

A third inconsistency is that we are told that by taking this matter to the United Nations Britain is losing control of the situation. On the other hand, some hon. Members seem to glory in the fact that in their eyes Britain has already lost control—because they believe that Mr. Smith has very nearly won the battle.

We are told that our aim is to create unemployment, as if it were the British Government's fault that this should occur in Rhodesia. I must point out that if unemployment occurs among the African majority in Rhodesia the responsibility will rest without question on the head of Mr. Smith and his colleagues. They are the body of men who are committing their country to this course. Mr. Smith could have settled the whole matter on H.M.S. "Tiger" and his Cabinet could have carried the settlement through. But what do we hear this evening? We hear right hon. and hon. Members on the other side saying that it is Britain who is to blame for what has happened in Rhodesia. They say that it is Britain which is to blame and not the rebellious régime in Rhodesia.

It has been said more than once during this debate that this is a sad event, but I recall that I was in Rhodesia 12 months ago and I then predicted almost what is happening here tonight. I say that because in my last conversation with Rhodesian farmers they said, "If we ride your sanctions, what are you going to do?" I said that if they rode the British sanctions that would by no means be the end of the affair because, whether they liked it or not, or whether we liked it or not, the rest of the world would not just go away and say that it had ceased to be interested in the matter. So, we have moved inexorably to the kind of situation we are discussing tonight. In many ways it was inexorable because, although the Prime Minister has done his best to prevent this situation from arising, both in the last 14 months, and before the illegal declaration of independence, there has never been obvious willingness to co-operate on the part of Mr. Smith.

The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) has said that the Government's policy will lead to "failure and humiliation" but the only alternative policy is one of capitulation; and that would certainly lead to failure and humiliation. I realise that there are no ideal policies, and none certain of success. For my part, at least, I have never pretended that there are; but there are unavoidable policies—policies which one cannot avoid carrying out—and they are what the British Government have followed in the last 14 months. If we decide not to use force, and not to do nothing, and sanctions are applied, including those with United Nations' approval, then that is an unavoidable policy. Another policy which has been pursued if the opportunity occurred has been to talk; and hon. Members must admit that that has certainly been pursued. Many leading members of this Government have talked with Mr. Smith. There were talks aboard H.M.S. "Tiger", and although the Government's policy is now one of having "no independence before majority rule", it is still open to Mr. Smith to come to Britain and say that he will discuss that. It is open to Britain to go back to the Commonwealth leaders and say she will discuss something other than NIBMAR if they will talk of other possibilities. All these policies are open, but they must be combined with effective sanctions. Another reason why I believe that the Government's present policy is unavoidable, but is not something doomed to success or failure straight away, is because of the pressure from the Commonwealth and because of the existence of the United Nations' Organisation—which right hon. and hon. Members opposite may not like, but which are all part of the facts of life.

I do not pretend that we have absolute control over this situation and when I was in Rhodesia I made the point that there is a limit to how long we can maintain control over it because, if Rhodesia did not come to terms, the Commonwealth as well as the United Nations would become involved. But, by taking the initiative at United Nations, the Government are trying to retain control as much as is possible and as much as any British Government could do in the situation.

At every stage in this developing situation I have found it difficult to know what else any Government could have done other than what this Government has done at any one point of time. Because I felt this. I have supported the Government on this issue throughout the last 18 months, and at various times have been described as a Communist in Rhodesia for so doing or a racialist by African students in this country for so doing. This may mean that both I and the Government are right.

It is because of the unavoidable quality of the decision-making that has been taken by the British Government that I suspect that many hon. Members opposite know in their hearts that they could have done little other than what the Government have done if they had been faced with this problem.

When we had the vote on oil sanctions, there were 30 hon. Members opposite who supported the Government. When we had the last vote two hon. Members opposite abstained. We were told that many of the other hon. Members who agreed with the Government in their hearts were, as it were, "put off" by the fine passion of the Prime Minister that day. Well, there has been no speech from the Prime Minister today!

I hope it is just possible that there are some hon. Members opposite who will realise what is at stake here and will represent the small flickering flame of the torch that the right hon. Member for Streatham was carrying only two years ago on this issue. I believe that some indication of that quality in the Conservative Party is perhaps needed if only to allay the impression, which will go out once again tonight from the House, that the Conservative Party is officially not only opposed to the practical policies of the Government but is on the side of Mr. Ian Smith. That is the message that will go out, and it is one that I regret. Therefore, I hope it may be possible that some hon. Members opposite will see fit to abstain, at least, on this matter, given that we have debated it with reasonable calm and, I hope, good nature.

11.13 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett (Torquay)

Like the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland), I have listened to every speech today. He began by referring to inconsistencies among the speeches on this side of the House. We on this side are not in a position to judge in a comparable sense since so few hon. Members opposite have made any speeches on which we could base our assumptions.

We had the usual embittered speech from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) which we have come to expect. We are quite aware of his feelings. He has never forgiven his Prime Minister for not using force in Rhodesia and making peace in Hanoi. Those are his two real miseries. We have, however, got used to his diatribes, and tonight he was below standard.

Although we had not heard enough speeches opposite to be able to judge the inconsistencies between them, the hon. Member for Meriden provided us with quite enough of his own. He made an attempt to divide hon. Members on this side by saying that some of us had said that sanctions would be effective and some had said that they would be ineffective. I have listened to every speech, and every speech of ours has followed the same pattern as my views. Sanctions will be effective, but only effective against the people for whom we in this House express sympathy.

It has been agreed already that it will be the Africans—in the first place those from Malawi and Zambia—who will lose their jobs. One thing that I cannot stand from hon. Members opposite is their absolute hypocrisy in never referring to this fact in their speeches. If sanctions are successful, scores of thousands of people will be sent back across the frontiers into Zamia and Malawi without any future. When shall we get hon. Members opposite to admit this? They say that the sanctions will hurt; but whom will they hurt? I hope that one day hon. Members opposite will realise whom the sanctions will hurt.

Then there was the point, which the hon. Member for Meriden was making again, that the Government he supports have always been able and willing, as he says, to talk and to have negotiations, and he instanced the talks aboard the "Tiger". I remember that at the last election, all over the country, Tory candidates were called by Labour candidates traitors and hirelings of Mr. Smith if they suggested that we should negotiate with him. Have hon. Members opposite forgotten that, and how in their election addresses and speeches everywhere they made it out at that time to be almost a moral crime to suggest negotiations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The debate has gone rather wide, but I think the hon. Member is now going even wider than the debate has gone so far. I hope that he will get back to the Order.

Sir F. Bennett

I am perfectly ready, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to accept your decision in defence of the hon. Gentleman in what would otherwise have been an incontrovertible argument.

Mr. Christopher Rowland

Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the hon. Member to make out that you came to my defence—when I was ready to come to my own?

Sir F. Bennett

All right. It was just a happy coincidence, perhaps. I will continue with my remarks.

I will tell the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Gentlemen opposite why we oppose the policies tonight. We have had various extremely able speakers explaining from this side tonight why we oppose the Government's policies. Firstly, because they are utterly silly, because they have been shown tonight, as in the past, to be incapable of overall enforcement. That challenge has been made, and not one speech from the opposite side has shown how some of the anomalies and impossibilities of these sanctions can be overcome. We have also had distinguished legal Members on this side showing how, quite possibly, the Government are doing something illegal anyhow. But above all we oppose these policies because they have been shown to be ineffective.

I want to look back at the history of the last 16 months since all this began. We have been coming to this House and debating this subject and Orders like this, and over and over again we have been told by Ministers, "All you have to do is to go along with us just a little bit longer and you will see everything will work out". They have said the same thing to the Commonwealth, and this is why the Prime Minister's name stinks from one end of Africa to the other. "Give us a little bit longer and Mr. Smith's Government will collapse," they said.

I remember asking a Question of the Prime Minister about sanctions before they went to the United Nations. I was told, "Surely the hon. Member would prefer a painful but quick punishment and effect, rather than a long-drawn-out agony." What is painful and quick punishment? And when does it become a long-drawn-out agony? It has been going on for 16 months, and does it not become a long-drawn-out agony?

The Prime Minister went to Lagos and told the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, "Just a little bit longer and everything will be all right—just a little bit longer: a few weeks—not months—and everything will be put right." That is why distrust is rampant throughout Africa about the Government's policies. After all, the former Secretary of State said they would work; he said it in June, he said it in July, he said it in August, and it was said in October. Now we are in February, and Ministers have the gross impertinence to come to this House and ask us to pass a new series of Orders when for months past sanctions have been ineffective and, moreover, harmful to this country.

When hon. Members on this side criticise policies which they know well, as also hon. Members opposite know, too, have been proved wrong, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale says we must be public relations officers for Mr. Smith. The hon. Member and his hon. Friends below the Gangway do not hesitate to say when they disagree with some aspect of policy in the Far East, and they disagree with their Government. Are they public relations officers for Ho Chi Minh because they disagree with Government policy in that matter?

I am proud to be staying here tonight to vote against these Orders. We shall go on from this side speaking and voting against such Orders till we induce the Government to realise the gross failure of their policies.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)

The House should vote against the Orders for three reasons—first, because they are illegal; secondly, because they will not achieve their objective; and thirdly, because it is the wrong objective anyway. Apart from that, I cannot see how any hon. Member can have confidence in any suggestion brought by the Government on this issue. The Government have shown themselves so inept and so much at sea since the crisis started, what reason have we to have any more faith in what they propose? If we needed proof, the speeches that we have heard from hon. Members opposite were enough to show that there is not much confidence on that side of the House either.

But we need not judge only by the speeches of hon. Members opposite. Let us remember what was said in the first debate after U.D.I. I remember it clearly. A number of hon. Members on this side of the House said unequivocally at that stage that sanctions would fail. The Prime Minister said that they would suceeed, and that they would succeed in weeks rather than months. He said that he would never negotiate with the present Rhodesian Government and that the matter would never be handed to an outside authority. What can we believe?

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) tonight implied clearly that sanctions were much more successful than we on this side of the House maintain. I should like to explain why I think that that is nonsense. The figures which I shall quote are based on the first six months of 1966 and comes from an authority which I believe to be very well placed to know the truth—and it is certainly not an authority which supports the present Government in Rhodesia.

Assuming a fall in exports of 25 per cent. over the year, and assuming that one-third only of the 1966 tobacco crop was sold—which most hon. Members will agree, from the tips which we have picked up, is probably a gloomy figure from the Rhodesian point of view—the export figure for 1966 would be about £90 million. Imports in the first six months were £40 million, which is 30 per cent. below 1965. It is clear from this that the Rhodesian Government are keeping imports below the foreign exchange earnings. The figures for re-exports have been drastically curtailed by sanctions and in 1966 they will not exceed £7 million. Exports and re-exports therefore come to about £97 million and imports for the same year to about £85 million. This shows a favourable visible balance of £12 million. An improvement in the invisibles of about £15 million arises because payments of interest and dividends on foreign capital have been deferred. In 1966 Rhodesia should therefore finish with a surplus of current payments of about £7 million. This is a great deal better than Rhodesia has known for a number of years. If the Prime Minister and the Chancellor could come to the House and tell us that, proportionately speaking, this country had a balance of payments half as good as that, they would call a General Election.

That is why the Rhodesian Government are prepared and able for the next season to budget for a tobacco crop of 200 million lb. at 28 pence a lb. That is not a very good return, but for the efficient grower there is a profit margin in it.

Mr. Michael Foot

I presume that these figures are those of the Rhodesian Government. I was quoting the report by a reporter in the Sunday Telegraph. Perhaps the hon. Member would deal with those figures.

Mr. Hastings

The figure in the Sunday Telegraph in no way conflicts with my figure of one-third of the tobacco crop sold in any case. If I had to stake anything at all between a report of the Sunday Telegraph and the authority which I am quoting, I should choose this authority, which I can assure the hon. Member is in a good position to know and is not supporting the present Rhodesian regime.

Mr. Foot

Why will not the hon. Member tell the House the authority which he is quoting?

Mr. Hastings

For a reason which I should have thought the hon. Member would understand—that the information was given to me in confidence.

What I am asking the hon. Member to accept is my word that it does not come from a supporter of the present Rhodesian régime, but indeed from somebody who might well join the sort of opposition which right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite always imagine is going to appear.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale accused us of being isolated; he said the whole of the world was on the other side and that it was only the Tory Party which was putting forward these arguments. I wish he could go out to Salisbury and spend a few hours in Meikles Hotel on a Saturday. It used to be full of farmers who had come into Salisbury for the weekend, but now he would find himself surrounded by Greeks, by Frenchmen, Germans and Japanese. What does he think they are there for—their health or their holidays?

The authority which is isolated is the British Government, isolated in their stupidity over this affair. We are told that these Orders we are asked to pass tonight are in order to preserve the unity of the Commonwealth. In all honesty I believe that the Commonwealth, valuable institution though it is in many ways, is characterised not by unity but by disunity. I do not know of one Commonwealth conference which has been easy from this point of view. The only reason they were got into one lobby this time, so to speak, was by the Prime Minister promising to bash Rhodesia harder. What will the price be next time? The Commonwealth has no common law, no common standard of good government, no military alliance; in fact no political cohesion whatever.

The other reason advanced was the United Nations and that it was world opinion which was forcing the British Government into a policy which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meriden (Mr. Christopher Rowland) said was unavoidable. But what is this world opinion?

I would like to quote briefly from a report in "U.S. News and World Report" recently, which carried the now famous letter from Mr. Dean Acheson to the Washington Post on this subject. The article had reached about the point in the argument at which I am in my speech now, and it had this to say: At least 37 member nations of the U.N. have governments that are based on minority rule. At least 25 other U.N. members are open to suspicion in this respect. Fewer than half of all the 122 U.N. members have governments clearly based on majority rule. This is world opinion, and when is the British Government going to bring all these other matters to the attention of the United Nations? We have some 60 or 70 cases now—and this is precisely what Mr. Dean Acheson meant when he asked the same question; when is the U.S.A., if it has to involve itself with the Rhodesian situation, going to take up all these other countries as well?

The trouble with Her Majesty's Government, and so many hon. Members on the other side, is that they have lost touch with the reality of power in this situation, and when politicians lose touch with power they are in danger of doing great mischief. Certainly I would concede there is always room for ideals, but if policies are based on fantasy then this is a wicked betrayal and everybody they represent is going to suffer for it.

The truth is that the Commonwealth has no unity, and there is no such thing as world opinion. We have made the fatal mistake of pretending to respon- sibility in Rhodesia when in fact we have no power. Nothing can or could be achieved by setting out to destroy Rhodesia, even if it were possible, and we on this side of the House have shown tonight that it is not.

If hon. Members opposite are genuine in their wish for African advance, and if they want opposition to the Smith régime, they should swallow their pride, put an end to this folly and make a settlement before it is too late.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Bucks, South)

The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) made what was perhaps the keynote speech opposite when he said that he had supported the Government in their various measures because he could not think of anything else they could have done and he hoped that we on this side would support the Orders because the Prime Minister had not made a speech about them. I feel that this dispirited approach to the whole question was symptomatic of the gloom and silence which we have heard—if one can hear silence, and sometimes one can—from right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

Before the hon. Member for Meriden made his valuable contribution, we heard three other speeches from the benches opposite. I leave aside the invective of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and his denunciation of those who oppose the Orders as not consulting the public interest but carrying on a campaign—a thing he would never do, of course. I have never had the happy experience of agreeing with the hon. Member in any of his campaigns even though, since he ceased to be a Liberal, he has become more moderate.

The other three speeches opposite shared in common the claims that this country should obey the instructions of the Security Council. Therefore, the debate has largely turned upon legal arguments. I know that these are never very popular in the House, and less popular after 11.30 p.m. than before. Despite that, this argument gives me great pleasure, because I have long taken the view that the United Nations has been acting in a manner contrary to its Charter. But before embarking on my reasons I want to say something to the Attorney-General.

Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), I hope that the Attorney-General will not be unduly impressed or over awed by the Lord Chancellor. I hope, indeed, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be unduly impressed or over awed by his own opinions, if I may say so. I have great respect for the legal judgment of the noble Lord and of the Attorney-General, but lawyers are sometimes also politicians and sometimes come to a legal point rather as a practitioner comes to a brief. It is not that they do not mean what they say but that there is a sort of mysterious process which predisposes them to develop one line of thought rather than another. I also made these points when I was sitting on the benches opposite, and since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to answer the debate, I should give him a few points that he can write down on a piece of paper and deal with in the masterly and confident way in which he will make his speech.

It has been suggested that we should support these Orders because the United Nations has said we should. I would agree that the United Nations has said that we should and passed the resolution, but whether it has any binding effect on us depends on whether the Charter makes it binding and, in my view, this is not such a resolution. I say that for three reasons. The first is that it was not supported by the concurring votes of the five permanent members. This has been referred to already, and Article 27 of the Charter says that it should be. What is worse, anticipating what the Attorney-General will try to say, this is not the first time that this has been done. [Interruption.] It was done at the time of Korea, and two bad examples do not make the case any better.

That is enough to establish the invalidity of this resolution. There is no other answer to it, because the Charter is clear. But there are two further points. Sanctions can only be imposed under the Charter upon a sovereign State for the reasons lucidly set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) during the last Rhodesian debate. The third reason is that sanctions cannot be imposed under the Charter in order to intervene in a matter which is essen- tially within the domestic jurisdiction of a member State.

Since the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, it is incontrovertible that that is the state of affairs in this case, and that the United Nations is intervening in a matter which is within the domestic jurisdiction of a member-State. This would be quite conclusive as to the illegality and invalidity of the Security Council's resolution, but I know that in some quarters there has been what I can only call a legislative interpretation of this Article, and that there are many who bitterly resent the exclusion of the United Nations from matters of domestic jurisdiction.

There are many to whom the United Nations is above all the instrument to force all countries, or all White countries, or all non-Communist countries, sometimes all overseas countries, to rule themselves according to certain fashionable doctrines. One of their techniques has been to substitute in argument the word "concern" for "jurisdiction" after the word "domestic". They then say that any matter about which people outside feel strongly cannot be said to be a matter solely of domestic concern. That is the birth point of the bogus "threat to peace", about which I shall say something later.

The other attempt to escape, by ingenious interpretation, from the effect of Article 2, paragraph 7, is with the last words of the Article: …this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII. Some people suggest that this cancels out the rest of the paragraph, which I am sure the Attorney-General would agree is absolute nonsense. Alternatively they suggest that it cancels out the rest of the paragraph if there is a threat to peace. I wonder if anyone who puts that argument forward really believes it.

It is quite obvious what the proviso means. It refers to the application of sanctions, which is not to be prejudiced, and what it means is that if for some valid reason under the Charter the United Nations has imposed sanctions which under Articles 41 and 42 may involve interference with many aspects of the life of a country, for example with its telegraphic and postal communications, involving the employment of military, air and naval forces, the operation of those sanctions is not to be prevented by the effect of Article 2 in paragraph 7. That, I am sure—and I am glad to see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington agrees with me—is the obvious meaning of the proviso to Article 2(7). It refers to the application of sanctions and nothing else, and it presupposes an antecedent valid reason for the imposition of the sanctions.

Recently I have observed that those who used to put forward this argument have been shifting away from it on to the more subtle one of admitting that what I have just given is a correct interpretation of the paragraph but going on to say, "Oh, well, but this paragraph is merely put in the Charter to protect the interests of each State and, therefore, each State can waive it; and Britain, by going to the Security Council and asking for this resolution of sanctions on Rhodesia, has waived it." I have heard that argument put forward. I do not know whether we shall hear it from the Attorney-General tonight, but I hope that he will not lend his support to it, because if we start saying that this is the law of the prophets we justify every occasion when the United Nations is called in to crush a rebellion.

One of my hon. Friends suggested that it might be used in the United Kingdom. That was, perhaps, a little fanciful.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—at the moment. Let us not forget that this was done in the Congo. It is not the first time that this breach has been made. The United Nations went in with troops, aircraft and tanks to crush a rebellion in the Congo, and it did so at the invitation of the alleged Congolese Government.

If the Attorney-General says that the resolution is valid and the Government ask the House to pass the Order because, although it would be illegal under Article 2(7), nevertheless the British Government have waived the protection—

Mr. Elystan Morgan

Time and time again the hon. and learned Member uses the word "illegality". Is it not a fact that whether or not such resolutions as this are within the Charter—and it is not conceded that they are not—unless and until they are either revoked or challenged in the International Court of Justice, which they have not been, they are still binding and mandatory resolutions of the United Nations?

Mr. Bell

I was, perhaps, incautious in using the word "illegality". "Invalidity" is the appropriate word. It is not that they are illegal. It is simply that they are like resolutions passed in a school debating society. The hon. Member has helped me by getting that clear.

I was, I suppose, being a little bit drawn towards the Orders which we are debating. One tries to keep the argument general, but one is sometimes drawn into the vortex. I was elliptically saying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

The hon. Member is now being deliberately provocative. I hope that he will come back to the Orders.

Mr. Bell

I was elliptically referring to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the resolution is invalid. Therefore, the Orders which we are discussing are illegal in so far as they purport to have—this, indeed, is their main effect—extra-territorial effect in authorising things to be done which may affect people of other nations. So that illegality is the relevant point, although I take the point made by the hon. Member that the resolution itself is only invalid.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I said nothing of the kind, and this is a gross misrepresentation of what I have claimed. My argument was that this is a binding resolution of the United Nations. There may be some doubt, which is not conceded, as to its initial validity, but until it is challenged in the International Court of Justice, which no country is disposed to do at the moment, or until it is revoked in the Security Council or in the United Nations, such a binding resolution stands.

Mr. Bell

I do not think that the position is as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman says that no nation is willing to take up the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have addressed the House on the familiar subject of Article 2(7). Nation after nation has wanted to take that to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion.

Always it has been voted down in the United. Nations, mainly by the Afro-Asian members. How much better it would have been if they had agreed that that Article should be taken to the International Court for an advisory opinion. It looks a little fishy when those who try to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries bear down upon any attempt to take Article 2 to the International Court for an advisory opinion.

Since I have been challenged on the matter, may I make this further point? Until a few years ago, every Government took the view that I have been putting tonight. I started protesting when they stopped doing it. It was my own Government. The Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 always took this point in the Security Council and insisted upon it. The Conservative Government followed. Certainly I adhere to the point of view that I have been putting forward tonight.

We have heard a good deal about the threat to peace, and I will not repeat what has been said by other hon. Gentlemen. But what is the threat to peace that the two Orders which we have before us for approval could exorcise or diminish? It would be a very odd threat to peace about which they could do anything. We all know on both sides of the House that this threat to peace is fraudulent. It is a threat to someone's vanity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Where is he, indeed?

It is a threat to the peace of mind of some people. But a threat to peace which might arise out of the operation of sanctions is clearly not available to justify the sanctions. Even the present Government are not as topsy-turvy in their thinking as that, though perhaps I am being unduly optimistic.

It is said that passions run high. I will not go up any side alley there. I will only say that I venture to doubt whether passions in Africa really run high about this. I do not claim to know much about Africa, although I know much more about it than the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. I do not claim to be an expert, but I doubt whether passions run high at all. Even the African politicians are slightly tongue in cheek about it. Even if it is true and passions do run high, the relevant question is whether those high passions could or would do anything about it? The answer is that they could not and, what is more, they would not.

Finally, since paragraph 4(2,b) of the earlier of these two Orders mentions that they refer to citizens of Rhodesia, I want to say a word about the illegality of the régime on which all that is based. We know that this is a rebellion, but about half the member States of the United Nations are currently ruled by illegal régimes. Twenty of these derive from rebellions in the last four years and twelve derive from rebellions in the last two years. Two member Governments actually derive title from successful rebellions against the British Crownéthe British Government in 1688, but I suppose the Prime Minister recognises himself, and the United States Government, with whom we seem to be enjoying very friendly relations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) pointed out, 37 are minority régimes. We seem to recognise them all.

We do so upon a principle which is old, well-known and clear—that the de facto government are in effective control of their territory. That is the only thing British Governments have ever looked at. We are the most pragmatic nation in the world in deciding when to recognise a rebellion. We do it in five minutes if they are in effective control of the country.

I have not visited Rhodesia since independence, unlike some of my hon. Friends, but every report agrees that the de facto Government are in effective control of the territory.

Mr. Maclennan

Would the hon. Gentleman care to name some other Governments who have thought fit to recognise the illegal régime in Rhodesia?

Mr. Bell

If it had not been for the—as I think—very foolish attitude of the British Government, I would think pretty well all of them would have done so. What is more, the hon. Gentleman may find as time passes that even if the British Government do not change their attitude some other Governments will.

Why, these things being so, are we asked to approve these Orders, or, indeed, any orders other than ones revoking our previous folly? We have been told why by the Prime Minister. It is because of his folly in promising to call together a Commonwealth Conference last September; his folly then, having done that foolish thing, in losing his nerve at the September Conference; his folly in agreeing to have a deadline which ran out before Christmas; and his folly in agreeing to slam the door on all negotiations with Rhodesia after a set date.

The Prime Minister is on record when this Rhodesian situation was in its earliest stages about majority rule. He said that one should not envisage immediate majority rule for Rhodesia. What has happened to make him change his opinion and, instead of negotiating, produce tonight two Orders which the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs described as really drastic? That is what they are. The saddest part of this is the way in which these two Orders are the last step in a long decline into bitterness and recrimination. The sad thing about the Secretary of State's speech—I am sorry that he is not listening to me, but I realise that Chief Whips are more important than back benchers—was that it showed throughout a cold hostility to Rhodesia. But the Commonwealth Secretary is not a cold man, and not an unkind man. He is caught up in the train of events which has led people to talk about sanctions biting more deeply, and to gloat over the destruction, impoverishment, and prospective humiliation of their adversaries, but these are a branch of the British people.

When I asked the Government to take the initiative, that was all, at the recent talks so that what I called fratricidal strife might be avoided, the Prime Minister seemed very nettled. I had not referred to kith and kin, but the right hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to say that the whole world was our kith and kin. I hope that I am reasonably tolerant of other people, but I think that it makes a great deal of difference if people are of British extraction and are our kith and kin in the ordinary meaning of the word, and I am not saying that this does not influence me.

These are British people, many of them relatives, not my relatives, but of many people whom I know, and I trust their judgment in local conditions to an extent that I might not trust the judgment of people of different extraction. I am forced to say, though I do so with reluctance, that this thing has grown and developed in such a way that I fear it has now become primarily a personal struggle of the Prime Minister against the British people here and there. I prefer Sir Winston Churchill's phrase to the right hon. Gentleman's—against "the British race around the world". This is a very sad occasion. Let nobody mistake it for anything else. This is an occasion when we have ganged up the world against some of our people, and I hope that tonight the House will throw out these Orders with contempt and will tell the Prime Minister to try again.

11.57 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones)


Mr. Wall

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it in order, and in accordance with precedent, for a Minister to rise to speak when there are at least three hon. Members on this side of the House who have sat through the whole debate and have not been able to express their opinions? These Orders are of great importance both to this country and to Rhodesia.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that the hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that that is not a point of order.

The Attorney-General

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman who has been frustrated in his endeavour to contribute to the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yet.")—but I feel, with respect—

Sir G. Nabarro

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a number of Opposition Members rose to speak and you allowed the Attorney-General to catch your eye, may I draw your attention to, and ask your advice about, the unexpected presence of the Patronage Secretary? Does not this suggest that we are about to have the Closure clamped on us and thus frustrate the earnest desire of my hon. Friends and myself to catch your eye?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Happily the occupants of the Chair are not responsible for the Patronage Secretary of any Government.

Sir G. Nabarro

It is all very insidious.

The Attorney-General

Perhaps I might have a third attempt at suggesting to the House that we have had a very full debate on these Orders, and it might, accordingly, be helpful for me to endeavour to deal with some of the matters which have been raised.

May I at the outset deal with the proposition that these Orders are invalid or illegal by reason of some alleged invalidity in the Security Council Resolution. The position with regard to the Orders is that whether or not the Security Council resolution is invalid has no bearing whatsoever on their validity. They derive their validity from the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, which was passed by this House. The extra-territorial question involved in the Orders is expressly authorised in Section 2(2) of that Act, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of the Security Council resolution. Nor do these Orders depend for their validity upon the validity of the Security Council Resolution.

Nevertheless, it is right that I should remind the House that by passing these Orders tonight we are giving effect to a Resolution of the United Nations, passed by the Security Council. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) said, until that resolution is successfully challenged or revoked it is binding upon every member of the United Nations. We have accepted, by our membership of the United Nations and by our acceptance of the Charter, our obligations under Article 25, which says that: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. That is why we have introduced these Orders tonight and that is, in itself, an effective reply to the debate, along with the preliminary matter that I have raised, that in any event the validity of these Orders, in law, rests upon our own domestic legislation, namely, the Southern Rhodesian Act. I shall return shortly to the matters—

Mr. Maudling


The Attorney-General

I have a good deal of ground to cover and I hope that I will not be pressed to give way too often. Naturally I will give way to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling).

Mr. Maudling

I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Is he arguing that the House has no option but to vote in favour of these Orders? If that is his argument how can he maintain that Britain is still in control of the situation?

The Attorney-General

I say that this country, the Government and at any rate those hon. Members on this side of the House are supporters of the United Nations, and we take seriously our membership of the United Nations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We rejoice that in the stand that the Government have taken they have now obtained the full support of the Security Council, the full support of the Commonwealth and the full support of the membership of the United Nations. The only forces that seem to be against us are the Smith régime and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

We now have the full support of the United Nations in the action that we are taking to bring to an end the rebellion of the illegal régime in Rhodesia. If hon. Members opposite were serious in welcoming that possibility I would have expected that they would rejoice that the whole world is behind the British Government in this endeavour; instead, we have had the hopeful cries of hon. Members opposite that there will be failure on our part.

I want now to deal with some of the specific points raised about the Orders and their implementation. I was asked by the right hon. Member for Barnet in what way these Orders have changed the previous law and gone further than the sanctions which were previously in force. So far as concerns exports from, and imports into, the United Kingdom, the answer is that the Order has made virtually no change in the previous position which obtained. For more than a year there has been a ban on practically all goods from Southern Rhodesia and on practically all exports to Southern Rhodesia. This was a result of the legislation under which our import and export controls are operated, that is, the Order of 1964 covering imports, and that for exports made in 1965.

In theory, this standing legislation has permitted prohibited goods to be exported or imported by special licence, but such licences have not been generally granted in practice in respect of Southern Rhodesia, except for educational or humanitarian purposes. In the case of the goods specifically mentioned by this Order, the ban becomes absolute now in practice and in law, although the Order still provides for an exception for goods destined for the common service organisations which Rhodesia shares in common with Malawi and Zambia.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, can he say why the Government then agreed not to export the £20,000 collected by the Freedom from Hunger Campaign in the United Kingdom for improving production in, and knowledge of, agriculture especially when the Prime Minister is himself a vice-president of the United Kingdom Committee?

The Attorney-General

I cannot give a direct answer at the moment, but will do so before I sit down and also deal with other aspects of the Order, which has made some substantial changes in the law.

First, looking at the question from the point of view of exports from Rhodesia and imports into Rhodesia, rather than from the point of view of imports into the United Kingdom and exports from the United Kingdom, the Order has added three commodities—copper, meat and hides—to those whose export from Southern Rhodesia to any other country was previously prohibited by virtue of the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Exports and Imports) Order, 1966. It has also, for the first time, prohibited the import into Rhodesia from anywhere in the world, motor vehicles, aircraft, arms and ammunition, and equipment and materials for the maintenance, manufacture, or assembly of any of those goods. Previously, petroleum was the only commodity whose import into Rhodesia from anywhere in the world was prohibited.

Secondly, the Order prohibits for the first time, the operation and use of undertakings in Southern Rhodesia for the manufacture or assembly of motor vehicles and aircraft, and certain transactions which would otherwise enable that prohibition to be evaded or disregarded. This is very important.

Thirdly, the Order has introduced for the first time a complete ban on the carriage in British ships and aircraft of goods which are being illegally exported from Rhodesia, or illegally imported into Rhodesia, and it confers on authorised officers—naval and military officers, Customs and consular officers, and Board of Trade officials, certain powers to intercept and investigate ships and aircraft suspected of contravening this ban.

As to the operation of the Orders, the right hon. Member for Barnet asked some questions about their impact on our shipping and shipping operations. I would emphasise that no other country has the power to stop or interfere with British ships, and as regards the use of British ships, our powers to intercept and search are conceded in Article 8 of the Order and in particular, paragraph (1) of the Order. These powers are intended to help enforce the prohibition contained in Article 7. The prohibition came into effect on the commencement of the Order on 23rd December, and after that date it became illegal to carry prohibited goods to Rhodesia no matter where they were originally taken on board. It then became the shipper's duty not to complete the transaction—that is, not deliver the goods to the order of the Rhodesian consignee. In this respect the position is no different from that of any other contract the completion of which is made illegal by supervening legislation.

As to the stopping and searching of ships on the high seas, no country has done that more than this country in the long course of our history. [HON. MEMBERS: "In wartime."] In two world wars the intercepting of ships at sea and the seizure of cargoes has been one of our principal weapons, and we are now faced in the Rhodesian situation with an economic blockade, with an attempt by the peaceful means of economic sanctions to restore the rule of law and legality in Rhodesia.

Several Hon. Members


The Attorney-General

No, I cannot give way at the moment. I shall give way a reasonable amount, but I must endeavour to deal with the many questions that have been raised, and if I give way it will simply mean that I shall be unable to cope with the matters that have been put to me. I was asked by the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) about goods in transit to Zambia. The position is that it is expected that we shall be able to check goods in transit to Zambia by comparing what we shall learn from the shipping documents with what we shall learn from information obtained in Zambia. We are getting, and shall get, the full co-operation of the Zambian authorities. Although there may be occasional cases of successful evasion by means of fictitious assignment to or from Zambia, we think that we can stop any substantial traffic of that kind. Anyway, we on this side of the House are determined to try to do it.

I was asked by the same hon. Member whether Article 2(5) of the Order covers pensions. The answer is that it does not. Article 2(5) states that the transactions that are forbidden must be transactions carried out for the purposes of any act that is forbidden by any of the provisions of the Article, and the payment of pensions to Rhodesians is not affected by the Order. Nothing in either of the Orders before the House affects the payment of pensions. In general, the transfer of funds from this country to Rhodesia is regulated by the Exchange Control Act, 1947. The payment of pensions is not prevented. The method of payment is, of course, regulated so as to prevent this exception to our financial controls being abused, but pensions are paid in full regularly and without impediment.

Perhaps I may in this same connection refer to the question which was put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles). My information is that there is no knowledge of any such application from the Freedom from Hunger organisation of the type that has been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, but if he cares to send my right hon. Friend details of this they will be examined immediately, sympathetically, and with care.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be kind enough, in that case, to explain to me why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already answered that it is impossible for it to send out?

The Attorney-General

My information, I repeat, is that my right hon. Friend has no knowledge of any such application, but clearly, the matter will be examined and looked at, and sympathetic consideration will be given to it.

Let me now turn to some of the questions which were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre).

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of this reply, would it be in order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the rescue of the House and inform the House on this very important humanitarian matter?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am afraid that that is not a matter of order for me.

The Attorney-General

I was dealing with some of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest. He referred to the provisions of Article 10(5) of the Order. The purpose of that provision, requiring that Proceedings for an offence against this Order shall not be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Treasury or the Board of Trade or, in England or Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or, in Northern Ireland, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. is, of course, to prevent frivolous and vexatious prosecutions from being launched. In regard to the specific operations he asked me about, namely, operations of B.O.A.C. and Thomas Cook in Rhodesia, and British Petroleum petrol stations, none of these activities of those organisations is forbidden by the terms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh")—of the Order.

Then I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman—

Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre

In view of what was said in the opening statement on the Orders, that anybody, be he a British subject resident or non-resident, would be subject to penalty under this, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman exempt Government organisations from this? Would he also answer my other question, which is my most important one? How does he exempt from the Order asbestos coming to this country for one great firm?

The Attorney-General

It is exempted only because it is not engaging in any operations which are forbidden under the Order. That is the simple explanation. In so far as there is any particular case relating to asbestos, I would very much—and so would my right hon. Friend—like to have full particulars of this transaction in asbestos, which may well need careful looking at.

I was asked by the right hon. Member for Barnet about subsidiaries. Subsidiary companies incorporated in another country are not caught by this legislation, because they are not our nationals, but they are, of course, affected by the legislation of the countries where they are incorporated or where their activities take place. If the parent companies being incorporated in the United Kingdom, however, in any way actively encourage their subsidiaries to import prohibited goods into Rhodesia, or to export prohibited goods from there, they themselves, under the terms of the Order, will be committing an offence.

Mr. Burden


The Attorney-General

I will not give way. I have not noticed the hon. Member in constant attendance. I propose to turn to the next question which I was asked—the position of Rhodesians in Rhodesia. If Rhodesians contravene the provisions of the Order which apply to them, they commit an offence against the Order. If an existing contract conflicts with the Order, the contract becomes void and unenforceable.

It is true that we cannot enforce the Order in Rhodesia at present in the sense of bringing prosecutions there, but the persons concerned must not assume that it cannot be enforced against them if they come to this country or indeed enforced against them when lawful Government is restored in Rhodesia. May I add that the mere effect of declaring certain activities to be criminal, as this Order does, has certain useful purposes as regards contractual rights and obligations. It has the effect of discouraging those who might be tempted to engage in illegality of the kind at which the Order aims.

I was asked a number of questions about other countries and what other Governments were doing about the Security Council resolution. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest asked how many countries had ratified the resolution. A Security Council resolution does not need ratification by anyone; it is effective and valid without further steps. But it is true that some countries may have to legislate or to take administrative action to give effect to the result.

Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre


The Attorney-General

I will not give way. Many African countries never had any trade with Southern Rhodesia or have cut it off already, so that in respect of them no further action after the resolution of 16th December, 1966 was necessary.

The procedure under the resolution is that all members of the United Nations are called upon to report to the Secretary-General, who must report to the United Nations not later than 1st March, 1967, about the implementation of the resolution. Until that is done, we cannot ascertain to what extent other countries have taken the necessary action. All I can say is that other countries might be laggard, but our plain duty is to comply with the terms of the resolution.

Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre


Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously not giving way.

The Attorney-General

I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and if he thinks that I will give way as a result of his shouting offensive observations across the Floor, he is underestimating my determination to try to be fair to the whole House. Until the returns are made by the Secretary-General, we cannot fully know the compliance of other countries with the Order.

It was said that West Germany had decided to exempt existing contracts. It is true that that appears to have been said in West German sources at some stage, but the latest public information is that they have taken no decision on this point and the indications are that they will faithfully comply with their obligations under the terms of the resolution. The President of the United States made an executive order on the 5th January this year to give full effect to the resolution, and the sanctions legislation therefore is already effective so far as the United States is concerned. There again, I should have thought that it ought to receive the enthusiastic approval of hon. and right hon. Members opposite to realise that the American Government and people are supporting us in this stand. There were some questions asked—

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)


The Attorney-General

No. As I was saying, there were some questions asked about South Africa. We shall see what South Africa decides to do, in her own long-term interests. All I venture to say at this stage is that it would be quite wrong to assume that any member State will not abide by the U.N. resolution, which is binding on all member States. [Interruption.] Then I was asked.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot have a running commentary from hon. Members.

The Attorney-General

I was asked about Zambia and Malawi, and I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) who suggested that Malawi and, I think, Zambia would not implement the U.N. sanctions resolution.

Mr. Sandys

I did not mention Malawi.

The Attorney-General

I beg the right hon. Member's pardon. So far as Malawi is concerned, the necessary legislation has been passed. So far as Zambia is concerned, President Kaunda has announced that his Government will implement the U.N. sanctions, and no further legislation is likely to be required in Zambia for that purpose.

Now perhaps I may turn to the matters which were raised in regard to the legality of the U.N. resolution. I hope that I shall not pontificate in seeking to answer this. Some lawyers think that when they express opinions they are expressing opinions, but when other lawyers give opinions that differ from those expressed, that is described as pontificating. While I will certainly not be over-awed by the opinion of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, I am certainly impressed by it, and I venture to think that any lawyer in this House who knows anything of his ability and standing must be impressed by it as well.

The first matter that was raised in regard to this part of the debate, and it is not a novel point but one that has been raised many times before, is that it is suggested that the resolution was not validly adopted in accordance with the requirements of Article 27 of the Charter because two permanent members of the Security Council abstained.

I venture to submit that these doubts are unfounded. The consistent practice of the Council, which might almost be called U.N. case law since the very earliest days of the U.N., has been to interpret the phrase concurring votes of the permanent members in Article 27(3) to mean the votes of those members which actually cast a vote. Abstention in the Security Council practice is not regarded as casting a vote, and has not been regarded as amounting to a veto. All the permanent members of the Security Council have accepted the Council's practice in this regard and so also, for many years, have the nonpermanent members. No member of the Security Council which adopted the Resolution has queried the validity of its adoption.

It is argued that the Resolution is an infringement of Article 2(7) of the Charter, concerning, it is alleged, a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction. But, as I shall indicate, the action of the Security Council has been based on its conclusion and finding that, by reason of the continuance of the rebellion in Rhodesia we are in the presence of a threat to international peace and such a threat cannot reasonably be regarded as a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.

I come now to the main argument.

Mr. Sandys


The Attorney-General

No. I am sorry.

Hon. Members

Give way.

The Attorney-General

I come now—

Hon. Members


Mr. Speaker


Mr. Sandys

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The point I want elucidation on is one that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just touched upon—the question of a threat to international peace. Will he explain in what way this constitutes a threat? I thought that he was passing on to another subject.

The Attorney-General

I am always anxious to be courteous to the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, and I rather anticipated the point he has raised, for I am now going to endeavour to deal with it. First, I remind the House of the actual terms of the Charter. Under Article 34, which forms part of Chapter VI, The Security Council may investigate…any situation which might lead to international friction…in order to determine whether the continuance of the…situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. In the succeeding Article 35, any member of the United Nations may bring such a situation to the attention of the Security Council and then, under Article 36, the Security Council may at any stage of the situation recommend appropriate procedures. These Articles refer to disputes as well as situations and in some of the arguments we have heard tonight and which have been made in correspondence in The Times some hon. Members opposite appear to have taken the view that we were dealing with a dispute under these Articles and have, in my submission, confused themselves as to the procedures to be followed. But this is not the case. The Security Council was dealing with …any situation which might lead to international friction. Under Article 39, which forms part of Chapter VII, The Security Council shall"— note the imperative— determine the existence of any threat to the peace…and shall make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken… under the succeeding Articles.

One of these measures is economic sanctions under Article 41. Some right hon. Members opposite, following their theory that the Security Council was dealing with a dispute under Chapter VI, have asserted that all the conciliation procedures indicated in Chapter VI must first be followed before proceeding to Chapter VII. In my submission, there is no warranty for that view. First, the Security Council was applying itself to a situation and not a dispute. But even if this had been a dispute under Chapter VI, there is nothing in the Charter to indicate that these procedures must first be gone through before action under Chapter VII was taken.

Chapters VI and VII stand separately and use different language. Supposing that there was a breach of the peace committed, it could not be said that the Security Council had to go through all the conciliation procedure before taking action under Chapter VII to stop it. It would be an absurd conclusion. The resolution of the 20th November 1965, which amongst other things, called upon all States to refrain from recognising or assisting the régime, determined that an extremely grave situation had arisen, and that its continuance in time constituted a threat to international peace and security.

That was a resolution which the Government regarded as passed under Chapter VI of the Charter, dealing with a situation which might lead to international friction. At that stage there was no proceeding under Chapter VII. At the same time that very resolution pointed to the fact that the continuance of the situation constituted a threat to peace, a phrase which anticipated a Chapter VII situation.

Then came the resolution of 9th April, 1966, dealing only with oil. The situation in the meantime had become aggravated by the threat of substantial importations of oil through Beira. This resolution determined that the resulting situation constituted a threat to peace. Finally there was a resolution on 16th December last year, in which the Security Council expressly acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, determined that the situation in Rhodesia constituted a threat to the peace. It is for the Security Council to judge these matters in its own discretion. This was the intention of the framers of the Charter, as the records of the Preparatory Commission preceding the signing of the Charter show very clearly. There is no basis in these records, or elsewhere, for the contention that, for there to be a threat to the peace, there must be a threat of aggression by one independent sovereign State against another. A threat can arise as much from a situation within a State as from a dispute between States. It was for the Security Council to decide that matter and it decided it. The situation in Rhodesia was that a small group of men, representing a small minority of the population, by an act of rebellion, seized power.

As time went on it became clear, in spite of sanctions imposed by ourselves and many other nations on a voluntary basis, and the many efforts that we have made, culminating in the meeting in H.M.S. "Tiger," to secure the end of the rebellion, that the regime is determined to retain, if it can, the power that it illegally seized, and it is determined to perpetuate its illegality. All of this in one of the most sensitive areas of the world for race relations. It is this continuing state of affairs which the Security Council has declared to threaten the peace.

It was in those circumstances that the Security Council passed the mandatory

sanctions resolutions, which Her Majesty's Government, taking all aspects of the problem into consideration, decided to sponsor. On this issue, we on this side have no doubt whatever that the Security Council, representing in this matter the conscience of mankind—[Interruption.]—indeed the fundamental basic humanity of mankind, and the common sense of mankind, was right and the Tory opposition is absolutely and totally wrong. I accordingly invite the House to approve these Orders.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Sandys

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker


Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 120.

Division No. 263.] AYES [12.40 a.m.
Abse, Leo Donnelly, Desmond Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Albu, Austen Driberg, Tom Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Dunn, James A. Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Alldritt, Walter Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Judd, Frank
Allen, Scholefield Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Kelley, Richard
Archer, Peter Eadie, Alex Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Armstrong, Ernest Ellis, John Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) English, Michael Lawson, George
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Ennals, David Leadbitter, Ted
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'ham, Yardley) Ledger, Ron
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Faulds, Andrew Lestor, Miss Joan
Barnett, Joel Fernyhough, E. Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Bence, Cyril Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) Loughlin, Charles
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Bidwell, Sydney Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Binns, John Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Bishop, E. S. Ford, Ben McBride, Neil
Blackburn, F. Fowler, Gerry McCann, John
Blenkinsop, Arthur Fraser, John (Norwood) MacColl, James
Boardman, H. Galpern, Sir Myer Macdonald, A. H.
Booth, Albert Garrett, W. E. McGuire, Michael
Bottomley, Rt. Hn, Arthur Ginsburg, David Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert Gregory, Arnold Maclennan, Robert
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Grey, Charles (Durham) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Bradley, Tom Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) MacPherson, Malcolm
Bray, Or. Jeremy Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Harper, Joseph Mapp, Charles
Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mason, Roy
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Hart, Mrs. Judith Mellish, Robert
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Haseldine, Norman Mendelson, J. J,
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Heffer, Eric S. Mikardo, Ian
Carmichael, Neil Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) Millan, Bruce
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hooley, Frank Miller, Dr. M. S.
Dalyell, Tarn Horner, John Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.) Howie, W. Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Hoy, James Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Delargy, Hugh Hughes, Roy (Newport) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Dempsey, James Hunter, Adam Morris, John (Aberavon)
Dewar, Donald Hynd, John Moyle, Roland
Dickens, James Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Dobson, Ray Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Murray, Albert
Doig, Peter Janner, Sir Barnett Newens, Stan
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) Thorpe, Jeremy
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.) Robinson, W. O. J.(Walth'stow, E.) Urwin, T. W.
Oakes, Gordon Rodgers, William (Stockton) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Ogden, Eric Roebuck, Roy Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
O'Malley, Brian Ross, Rt. Hn. William Wallace, George
Orbach, Maurice Rowland, Christopher (Meriden) Watkins, David (Consett)
Orme, Stanley Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Oswald, Thomas Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Wellbeloved, James
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Pavitt, Laurence Silverman, Julius (Aston) Whitaker, Ben
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Whitlock, William
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Small, William Wilkins, W. A.
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Snow, Julian Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Rankin, John Spriggs, Leslie Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Redhead, Edward Steel, David (Roxburgh) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Rees, Merlyn Steele,Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Reynolds, G. W. Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Woof, Robert
Rhodes, Geoffrey Swingler, Stephen
Richard, Ivor Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Thornton, Ernest Mr. Harry Gourlay and Mr. Alan Fitch.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Goodhart, Philip Murton, Oscar
Astor, John Goodhew, Victor Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Grant, Anthony Neave, Alrey
Batsford, Brian Grant-Ferris, R. Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Bell, Ronald Gurden, Harold Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Page, Graham (Crosby)
Biggs-Davison, John Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Harris, Reader (Heston) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Black, Sir Cyril Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Peel, John
Bossom, Sir Clive Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Pike, Miss Mervyn
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hastings, Stephen Pink, R. Bonner
Brinton, Sir Tatton Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Pounder, Rafton
Bromley-Davenport,Lt. -Col. Sir Walter Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Powell, Rt- Hn. J. Enoch
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hiley, Joseph Prior, J. M. L.
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hill, J. E. B. Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Hirst, Geoffrey Renton, Rt. Hn, Sir David
Burden, F. A. Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Chichester-Clark, R. Holland, Philip Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Clark, Henry Hordern, Peter Royle, Anthony
Clegg, Walter Hutchison, Michael Clark Russell, Sir Ronald
Corfield, F. V. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Crawley, Aidan Kaberry, Sir Donald Stainton, Keith
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Stodart, Anthony
Crowder, F. P. Kitson, Timothy Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Cunningham, Sir Knox Knight, Mrs. Jill Temple, John M.
Currie, G. B. H. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Dance, James Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Vickers, Dame Joan
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Longden, Gilbert Wall, Patrick
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Weatherill, Bernard
Digby, Simon Wingfield Maude, Angus Webster, David
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Wells, John (Maidstone)
Drayson, G. B. Mawby, Ray Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Eden, Sir John Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Eyre, Reginald Mills, Peter (Torrington) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Farr, John Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Worsley, Marcus
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Monro, Hector Wylie, N. R.
Fortescue, Tim More, Jasper Younger, Hn. George
Foster, Sir John Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Glover, Sir Douglas Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Glyn, Sir Richard Munro-Lucas-Tooth), Sir Hugh Mr. Francis Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 120.

Division No. 264.] AYES [12.50 a.m.
Abse, Leo Barnett, Joel Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Albu, Austen Bence, Cyril Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Bradley, Tom
Alldritt, Walter Bidwell, Sydney Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Allen, Scholefield Binns, John Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Archer, Peter Bishop, E. S. Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Armstrong, Ernest Blackburn, F. Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Blenkinsop, Arthur Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Boardman, H. Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Booth, Albert Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Carmichael, Neil
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Jackson, Peter M. (High Péak) Oswald, Thomas
Dalyell, Tam Janner, Sir Barnett Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Pavitt, Laurence
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Delargy, Hugh Judd, Frank Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Dempsey, James Kelley, Richard Rankin, John
Dewar, Donald Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Redhead, Edward
Dickens, James Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Rees, Merlyn
Dobson, Ray Lawson, George Reynolds, G. W.
Doig, Peter Leadbitter, Ted Rhodes, Geoffrey
Donnelly, Desmond Ledger, Ron Richard, Ivor
Driberg, Tom Lester, Miss Joan Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dunn, James A. Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Loughlin, Charles Robinson,W. O. j. (Walth'stow, E.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Eadie, Alex Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Roebuck, Roy
Ellis, John Mabon, Dr. j. Dickson Ross, Rt. Hn. William
English, Michael McBride, Neil Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Ennals, David McCann, John Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) MacColl, James Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Faulds, Andrew Macdonald, A. H. Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Fernyhough, E. McGuire, Michael Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Maclennan, Robert Small, William
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Snow, Julian
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) MacPherson, Malcolm Spriggs, Leslie
Ford, Ben Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Fowler, Gerry Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood) Mapp, Charles Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Galpern, Sir Myer Mason, Roy Swingler, Stephen
Garrett, w. E. Mellish, Robert Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Ginsburg, David Mendelson, J. J. Thornton, Ernest
Gregory, Arnold Mikardo, lan Thorpe, Jeremy
Grey, Charles (Durham) Millan, Bruce Urwin, T. W.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Miller, Dr. M. S. Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Wallace, George
Harper, Joseph Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Watkins, David (Consett)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Hart, Mrs. Judith Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Wellbeloved, James
Haseldine, Norman Morris, John (Aberavon) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Heffer, Eric S. Moyle, Roland Whitaker, Ben
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Whitlock, William
Hooley, Frank Murray, Albert Wilkins, W. A.
Horner, John Newens, Stan Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Noel-Baker, Francs (Swindon) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Howie, W. Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Hoy, James Oakes, Gordon Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Ogden, Eric Woof, Robert
Hunter, Adam O'Malley, Brian
Hynd, John Orbach, Maurice TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Orme, Stanley Mr. Harry Gourlay and Mr. Alan Fitch.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hirst, Geoffrey
Astor, John Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Digby, Simon Wingfeld Holland, Philip
Batsford, Brian Dodds-Parker, Douglas Hordern, Peter
Bell, Ronald Drayson, G. B. Hutchison, Michael Clark
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Eden, Sir John Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Biggs-Davison, John Eyre, Reginald Kaberry, Sir Donald
Birch, Rt. Hn, Nigel Farr, John King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Black, Sir Cyril Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Kitson, Timothy
Bossom, Sir Clive Fortescue, Tim Knight, Mrs. Jill
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Foster, Sir John Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Brinton, Sir Tatton Glover, Sir Douglas Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter Gtyn, Sir Richard Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Goodhart, Philip Longden, Gilbert
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Goodhew, Victor Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Grant, Anthony Maude, Angus
Burden, F. A. Grant-Ferris, R. Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Chichester-Clark, R. Gurden, Harold Mawby, Ray
Clark, Henry Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Clegg, Walter Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Corfield, F. V. Harris, Reader (Heston) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Crawley, Aidan Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Monro, Hector
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere More, Jasper
Crowder, F. P. Hastings, Stephen Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Cunningham, Sir Knox Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Currie, G. B. H. Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Dalkeith, Earl of Hiley, Joseph Murton, Oscar
Dance, James Hill, J. E. B. Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Neave, Airey Renton, Rt. Hn. sir David Wall, Patrick
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Weatherill, Bernard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Webster, David
Page, Graham (Crosby) Royle, Anthony Wells, John (Maldstone)
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Russell, Sir Ronald Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Peel, John Stainton, Keith Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn Stodart, Anthony Worsley, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wylie, N. R.
Pounder, Rafton Temple, John M. Younger, Hn. George
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Prior, J. M. L. Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Vickers, Dame Joan Mr. Francis Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

Resolved, That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1595), dated 21st December, 1966, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be approved.

Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 99), dated 30th January, 1967, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 [copy laid before the House, 30th January], approved.—[Mr. Bowden.]