Lords Sitting of 10 November 1966

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby

GIBRALTAR: CUSTOMS CONCESSIONARY LIMIT
3.7 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the recent statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
"that it remains the firm intention of Her Majesty's Government to sustain Gibraltar in her present difficulties",
they will request the Board of Customs and Excise to consider increasing for a specific period the £5 concessionary limit on souvenirs and gifts in Gibraltar by returning United Kingdom residents, so as to assist the economy of Gibraltar in a way which would be complementary to direct financial aid.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Government appreciate the motive behind the noble Lord's suggestion, which has received very careful consideration, but they consider that increasing the present duty-free limit on souvenirs and presents acquired in Gibraltar and brought to this country would only marginally benefit the economy of Gibraltar, and that such benefit as it would give would be more than offset by the disadvantages, in the long term, of setting a precedent for using a Customs concession for a purpose for which it was never intended.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Would he not agree, though, on the question of setting a precedent, that the situation which exists in Gibraltar at the moment is a very special one, which we can only hope will be of limited duration? Therefore, could Her Majesty's Government not possibly consider this question a little more sympathetically? Would
990
the noble Lord not also agree with the article which appears to-day in The Times, saying that Gibraltar should be economically self-reliant round about 1970, and that therefore something more than direct grants by Her Majesty's Government could be considered? Would he further agree with me that the Answer he has given (although I can understand why he gave it) will not give encouragement to the businessmen and traders in Gibraltar, some of whom I met last week in Gibraltar?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the position of Gibraltar is obviously different from that of other countries which may be in slight economic difficulties. But the noble Lord will agree that the goods that would gain under this proposed concession are themselves largely, if not entirely, imported into Gibraltar and, therefore, whatever gain there might be would be within a very limited field of operation. I am quite convinced that the best way we can help Gibraltar is by providing grants, as was done the other day, and by continuing discussions with the Government of Gibraltar to ensure that the aid that we give in the special circumstances will have the maximum effect right through the economy of Gibraltar. I believe—I say this with the utmost sincerity to the noble Lord, and we have given careful thought to it—that it would be quite wrong to use such a concession (and it would be a concession, because, as the noble Lord knows, all goods that are imported into this country are legally liable for duty), accorded largely for administrative reasons, for the purposes that the noble Lord has in mind, even though all of us may sympathise with those purposes.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask one more question on this? Is it that Her Majesty's Government do not have the political will to implement my request, or is it that the Commissioners have been consulted—I have consulted one myself—and feel that it would create a regrettable precedent?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is nothing to do with political will. Political will has been expressed by the grants that we have made and have promised to make to Gibraltar. It is a question of judgment, and the judgment is that this is the wrong way to proceed in helping Gibraltar.

ROYAL GARDEN PARTIES AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of traffic congestion in London, they would be prepared to advise Her Majesty to hold future Garden Parties at Windsor Castle, instead of Buckingham Palace.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, this is not a matter for ministerial advice. The Commissioner of Police considers that any local congestion which may arise can be adequately dealt with by the police.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him: will he consider the possibility that Garden Parties might in future be held on Saturdays, as is the case with the Queen's Birthday Parade, thus avoiding the interruption of business traffic?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, in view of the Answer I have given, I doubt whether the House would wish me to pursue the matter further.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear! Hear!
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If the noble Lord wishes to see me at any time, I am, of course, at his disposal.

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER REQUIREMENTS
3.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what co-ordination has taken place between the Ministry of Technology and the Ministry of Defence regarding their requirements for computers.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, there has at all times been close co-ordination and
992
representatives of each Department have taken part in examination of civil and military requirements.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he can tell me how often discussions have taken place since the Ministry of Technology was set up? Would he also like to comment on the report that between £6 million and £8 million worth of Government money earmarked for computer development may now be wasted if there is a move towards a design of American origin?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think I can speculate on the last part of the noble Earl's supplementary question—which in any case seems to be based on reports which are not themselves accurate. As I have said, there is the closest co-operation; and the short answer to how often the various officials meet is that it is as often as is necessary and desirable. There is, in fact, a continuous series of meetings of committees, and otherwise, on what is a very important matter—namely, policy with regard to the development of the very large number of computers that will be needed in the future.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, since certain British firms have, I understand, been exporting computers to America, would not the noble Lord agree that it would be unfortunate if we now had to import machinery of American design into this country?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is all extremely premature. Her Majesty's Government have, in fact, done a great deal to encourage and help, directly help, the British computer industry, and the hope is that it will have the largest possible home and export market. I hope the noble Earl will accept that his fears so far are without foundation.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the fullest possible use is being made of computers that are now in existence to ensure their best possible utilisation in the public interest?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with the greatest respect, that really is another question.

LICENCES FOR FIREARMS
3.14 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the legislation relating to firearms so as to make the possession of any firearm conditional upon the holding of a licence, and to prohibit the issue of such licences to persons who have been convicted of an indictable offence.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, firearms certificates are already required for the possession of practically all firearms except air weapons and long-barrelled shotguns, and persons who have been sentenced to terms of detention of three months or more are prohibited from having in their possession any type of firearm either for five years following release or, where the sentence was three years or more, indefinitely. The Firearms Act 1965 strengthened the existing law very substantially and in addition my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced that he is endeavouring to draw up plans covering those shotguns for which firearm certificates are not required.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that extremely helpful Answer. May I express the hope that it will have wide publicity? May I ask him also, first, whether he is satisfied that the machinery for enforcing these regulations is satisfactory; and, second, whether it is proposed to take similar action in relation to airguns and long-barrelled shotguns?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am satisfied that the machinery for enforcing the Firearms Act 1965 and previous legislation is working satisfactorily. It was thoroughly discussed with chief officers of police before the Bill was introduced, and it is working well. With regard to long-barrelled shotguns, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is at present drawing up plans to end the unrestricted sale of long-barrelled
994
shotguns and it is hoped to include the necessary legislative provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill which he intends to introduce this Session. With regard to airguns, we are satisfied that the restrictions at present imposed are adequate: no child under 14 may possess an air-gun or use one in public except in the presence of an adult; no person under 17 may carry an airgun in public unless in a cover or a case; no one is allowed to have a loaded shotgun or airgun in public. We think those restrictions are sufficient for the present purposes.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask two supplementary questions?—I am sorry to make it two. The first is: have Her Majesty's Government any idea of the number of shotguns now in the possession of private persons?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should not care to say that Her Majesty's Government had any idea, in the sense that they know the number with any exactitude. Estimates made are that there are a very large number; but I should not like to commit myself on this matter.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, in view of that reply—and we all know that the number is very large—may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will pay particular attention to the administration of firearms certificates when shotguns are included, to see that no undue burden is placed on the police? Because it appears to many of us that if the method of administration of these certificates is not altered the burden on the police will be very heavy.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the heavy burden of administration may well have been the reason why the restrictions which it is proposed to impose in the future were not brought in earlier. But in view of the heavy and increasing need for some measure of control, these matters have been carefully considered with chief officers of police throughout the country and with other organisations, such as the National Farmers' Union, who are particularly interested in these matters. As a result of these discussions we are convinced that the measures we propose will not place an undue or unacceptable burden on the police and that they will be effective.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the police, of all people, have the strongest possible interest in making the possession of firearms subject to stringent restrictions?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I agree. Throughout this matter we have been in continuous consultation with the police and have availed ourselves of their experience.

BRITAIN AND EUROPE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on Europe.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA ACT 1965 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1966
3.20 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I beg to move, That the Draft Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1966, laid before the House on October 31, 1966, be approved. I am sure that everyone in this House, irrespective of political viewpoint, will deeply regret the undoubted necessity for this Order. The 1965 Act which we seek to renew was passed because of unconstitutional action taken a year ago to-morrow, and the objective was to provide enabling powers to help bring back constitutional government in Rhodesia. Unhappily, this objective has not yet been achieved. I anticipate that there will be another opportunity in the not too distant future in which we can go as carefully and deeply as the occasion requires into the different aspects of this unhappy Rhodesian problem, but meanwhile I trust that the House will see fit to approve this Order and renew the powers previously granted.
The Order which I am asking the House to approve is very short. It continues in force Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965. Section 1 of that Act, as noble Lords will know, is of unlimited duration and does not need to be renewed. Section 2 confers power on Her Majesty by Order in Council to make any provision in relation to Southern
996
Rhodesia, or persons or things belonging to or connected with Southern Rhodesia, with powers that appear to Her to be necessary or expedient in consequence of unconstitutional action in Southern Rhodesia. The Order provides for the extension of the period of application of the Act for one year. This period is not based on any fresh estimate of the time which we believe it will take to bring Rhodesia back to legality. The period of one year is provided in the Order because Section 3(2) of the Act does not give an option as to the period of renewal. The Act requires a renewal period of a full year or nothing.
Probably I might just add that if the present Order is made, the previous Orders made under Section 2 of the Act do not need to be specifically renewed. If there are specific questions arising out of this Order, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be pleased to try to answer them.
The House will be aware of the recent developments in this problem. My right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary visited Salisbury; Her Majesty's Government have since made certain proposals, and the reaction to those proposals is now being considered. Whatever may be the outcome of this consideration, the renewal of these powers will still be needed to cover the immediate future. I content myself, therefore, without further words, with inviting the House to approve this Order.
Moved, That the Draft Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1966, laid before the House on 31st October, 1966, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
3.23 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his introduction of the Order, and I regretfully agree that it is necessary that Section 2 should be continued. I believe that it was agreed (though I was not here) between the Opposition and the Government that this was not a suitable moment to have a general debate on Rhodesia and I, for one, intend to abide by that agreement. The House knows that the Government have made proposals to Mr. Smith and Mr. Smith has replied to those proposals, but we do not know what the proposals

997
were, nor do we know the content of Mr. Smith's reply. Therefore, to say the least of it, we should be at some disadvantage in discussing the subject.
My Lords, there are two alternatives. It may be that some arrangement with Mr. Smith is near. If so, nothing that any of us can say this afternoon could be helpful; indeed, it could well be harmful, either in reinforcing intransigence or encouraging over-optimism. Equally it may be true that no agreement with Mr. Smith is possible. But since we do not know whether this is so, or in what circumstances, nor do we know what the Government would propose if it were so, I do not believe that any debate this afternoon would be either a very considered one or a very well-informed one. I think it would be much better if we wait until the Government announce the result of their negotiations before we have a debate. When that time comes we on this side of the House shall most certainly press the Government, and I know that they will be as anxious as we shall be for a debate on the whole problem of Rhodesia.
I have seen it reported in the newspapers that the Liberal Party in both Houses intend to have a debate. We who sit on this side of the House feel just as strongly about Rhodesia as noble Lords who sit below the Gangway, but we feel that by refraining from having a debate we are acting responsibly and in the national interest. I must frankly say that I think it a great pity that the Liberal Party should do exactly the opposite.
3.26 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for explaining the purpose of this Order. In view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may I say that I do not think my colleagues were consulted about the arrangement to which he has referred. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for explaining that the purpose of this Order is to renew the main powers granted a year ago in the original Act; and the sanctions imposed in pursuance of that Act had, I think, the support of all Parties. I understand that objection has not been made by any of the three Parties to this Order. But, before the Order is passed, I think that some brief discussion
998
and elucidation of the Government's position would be helpful.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is aware when the sanctions were reluctantly imposed the Government had the full support of my noble colleagues on the Liberal Benches, although we had reservations. I think that many of us on these Benches thought it unfortunate that more preparation was not made prior to U.D.I. so that action might have been taken more speedily and effectively immediately U.D.I. was announced, but that is in the past. A year has now elapsed and there are one or two questions which I should like to ask. In the first place—and I think that this is just a procedural question—as I understand it, as a result of this Order the specific Orders dealing with sanctions will continue. I think it would be helpful to know whether that is so or whether a series of Orders would have to be made renewing each Order. I am assuming they will continue. Secondly, it would be helpful to know to what extent sanctions have been breached during the last twelve months and what steps are to be taken to prevent these breaches; and whether any additional steps are contemplated, apart from those that have already been taken, and apart from the question of mandatory sanctions which may arise later if the matter is taken to the United Nations.
My Lords, my third question is more in the nature of a plea, and I hope that I shall not be regarded as irresponsible in making this plea. I shall put it in the form of a question. I am sure we all regret the extent to which the Smith regime has offended against the basic principles of human rights, but is it not very important that Britain, which claimed to be responsible for Rhodesia, which claims still to have responsibility for Rhodesia, should dissociate itself publicly from these breaches of human rights? I believe that this is an appropriate time to make some such statement.
Obviously I must not make a generalisation about a breach of human rights without at least one illustration. I was talking yesterday with Mr. Noel Salter, whom I have known well for a good many years. He is Secretary of the International Department of the Council of Churches. He has just returned from Rhodesia, where he investigated the case of the

999
prosecution of the Reverend Charles Blakney. On July 24 he was preaching in the Congregational Church in Salisbury and in his sermon he referred to the torture of an African member of his congregation. The form of torture was very cruel, but I do not propose to go into the grisly details. Mr. Noel Salter would not talk about such matters without going very carefully into the evidence. I know him too well to think otherwise. He not only interviewed the minister, but also had a long talk with the African concerned and, to use his own words, he said:
"I was impressed by his complete honesty and Christian charity towards his prosecutors."
But the Reverend Charles Blakney is being prosecuted for mentioning this in the course of his sermon.
Of course, there are many cases worse than that. There is the case of Alexander Mashawira, who died under torture in a prison cell in Salisbury on January 25, 1965. That case was investigated and reported by Amnesty. It seems to me that on the passing of this Order there will be an opportunity for the Government to make quite clear that Britain does not condone these breaches committed by some of those who have been referred to as "our kith and kin".
I am well aware that there are other breaches of human rights in other countries of Africa and elsewhere—but that is no answer. I am most anxious that Britain should uphold the rule of law and the principles of human rights, and it is going to be much more difficult to do so, if we appear to condone what is happening under the Smith régime in Rhodesia. Furthermore, when majority rule comes in Rhodesia, as it must come sooner or later, I want to see everything possible done to safeguard the white minority. For there will be a minority, and I should like to see as much as possible done now to provide safeguards. But unless Britain speaks out now on this subject of human rights it may be allowed to go by default.
My last question is this. May we have an assurance—and I am sure that the Government will give this—that there will be no departure from the six basic principles? However long it may take to settle this matter, I hope that it will not be necessary to go to the United Nations. I think that the reference earlier this year
1000
to the Smith regime falling in a matter of "weeks rather than months" was a grave error of judgment. I said so at the time and this is not just hindsight. If agreement is not reached, as we all hope that it will be reached, honourably and consistently with the six principles, then we may have a long and difficult task ahead. Before the new period under this Order commences, I think that it would be fitting that we should have a reassurance that the six principles will be firmly upheld.
It has been suggested to me that it would have been better if I had not spoken at all.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD WADE: I have endeavoured to say what I thought right calmly and with responsibility. I have never believed that the only way to be responsible is to remain silent.

BRITAIN AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
3.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a Statement concerning the European Economic Community. I will use, if I may, the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. His words are as follows:
"The position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the European Economic Community was stated in the gracious Speech on the 21st April in these terms:
'My Government will continue to promote the economic unity of Europe and to strengthen the links between the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Community. They would be ready to enter the European Economic Community provided essential British and Commonwealth interests were safeguarded.'
This policy, which was itself a reaffirmation of that laid down in the Labour Party Election Manifesto, has also been reaffirmed on many occasions in this House, in the country and abroad, notably in the speech of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, then First Secretary, at Stockholm on the 6th May.

1001
"On the 21st April I informed the House that we had made certain ministerial arrangements to ensure' that any opportunities that do present themselves in Europe can be quickly seized upon so that they can be evaluated …' and I said that it would be our intention' to probe in a very positive sense the terms on which we would be able to enter the European Economic Community and its related organisations.'
"In recent weeks the Government has conducted a deep and searching review of the whole problem of Britain's relations with the E.E.C., including our membership of EFTA and of the Commonwealth. Every aspect of the Treaty of Rome itself, of decisions taken subsequent to its signature, and all the implications and consequences which might be expected to flow from British entry, have been examined in depth.
"In the light of this review the Government has decided that a new high-level approach must now be made to see whether the conditions exist—or do not exist—for fruitful negotiations, and the basis on which such negotiations could take place.
"It is vital that we maintain the closest relations with our EFTA colleagues. Her Majesty's Government therefore now propose to invite the Heads of Government of the EFTA countries to attend a conference in London in the next few weeks to discuss the problems involved in moves by EFTA countries to join the E.E.C.
"Following that conference my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I intend to engage in a series of discussions with each of the Heads of Government of the Six, for the purpose of establishing whether it appears likely that essential British and Commonwealth interests could be safeguarded if Britain were to accept the Treaty of Rome and join E.E.C. In the light of these discussions the Government will then take its decision whether or not to activate the arrangements for negotiating for entry, and what the appropriate time for such negotiations would be. Commonwealth Governments, as well as EFTA Governments have been informed and we shall maintain the closest degree of consultation with them throughout.
1002
"The House will agree that—provided the right conditions for negotiations are established—itis vital that we should enter only when we have secured a healthy economy and a strong balance of payments, with the pound standing no less firm and high than it is to-day.
"I want the House, the country, and our friends abroad to know that the Government are approaching the discussions I have foreshadowed with the clear intention and determination to enter E.E.C. if, as we hope, our essential British and Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded. We mean business.
"It will, of course, be our intention to keep the House as fully informed as is possible in the circumstances of the progress of our discussions. If, as I would expect, there is a general desire in the House for a debate before these important meeting begin, my right honourable friend the Leader of the House will be glad to arrange discussions through the usual channels to agree on a date which would meet the convenience of the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for having repeated the Prime Minister's Statement. Any Statement which brings British entry into the E.E.C. nearer is, so far as I am concerned, welcome. I think that this one does. But I must say that it left me with some doubt. In certain phrases it seemed to be rather unenthusiastic, and there seemed to be a good many ifs and buts. Nevertheless, I think that we should congratulate the Government of having very nearly reached the stage which the Conservative Government had reached over five years ago.
I should like to ask the noble Earl two questions. Does this statement mean that the Government are prepared to accept the Treaty of Rome; and would the discussions to which he has referred be discussions purely about transitional arrangements which all of us agree are necessary? Secondly, may I ask him whether it means that the five principles which were laid down by the Labour

1003
Party are now no longer considered an obstacle to joining the E.E.C.?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord will not expect me to argue with him about the past, because I do not feel that he and his friends have any special reasons to congratulate themselves on the past. But if they wish to pat themselves on the back, they should perhaps read that passage in the New Testament which deals with the labourers in the vineyard; and if they wish to claim that they entered this particular pasture earlier, they should not gibe at people who in their opinion have come into it later.
LORD CARRINGTON: But I congratulated the Government.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Well, I am only referring to the New Testament; I am not trying to make a Party point. If I may now refer to the question about the Treaty of Rome, which the noble Lord will understand has been, so to speak, anticipated, I will keep very closely, if I may, to words which the Prime Minister has prepared in case of a similar question being asked in another place. I would say to the noble Lord that we recognise the importance of the question about our attitude to the Treaty of Rome. The Government take the view that, while there are anxieties on this point, the Treaty of Rome is not in itself, or necessarily, an impediment. There are anxieties, as I say. The Treaty need not be an obstacle if our problems can be dealt with satisfactorily, whether through adaptation of the arrangements made under the Treaty or in any other acceptable manner. Perhaps I can summarise by saying that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to accept the Treaty of Rome subject to the necessary adjustments consequent on the accession of a new member, and provided that we receive satisfaction on the points where we see difficulty. That is the answer to that particular question.
Perhaps I can now answer the other questions the noble Lord put to me about the five conditions. I expected that this question might be put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, but from whatever source it comes I can now answer it. When they were formulated, the five
1004
conditions were a measure of the problems which we thought must be overcome before there could be any question of entry into the Community. They remain relevant, but as the Prime Minister told the House in May, there have been certain changes in Europe itself, not least in relation to EFTA, which make some of these conditions no longer impediments, as they seemed to be.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, speaking on behalf of noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, may I say that we sincerely welcome the Government's Statement as a definite advance in the direction of the formation of a genuine European Community. It is quite right, as we think, that the whole matter of our possible entry into the E.E.C. should first be examined with our EFTA partners on the basis, we hope, of a clear intention of Her Majesty's Government to join the E.E.C. as soon as they possibly can. I have little doubt that this consultation will result in some joint agreement on the part of all of us in EFTA that Britain and some other European States should as soon as possible make a second application to join the E.E.C. with a minimum of essential conditions. We quite agree, too, that no such second application should be made before we, so to speak, get over the hump as regards our balance of payments, and we must all hope and believe that this moment will arrive within at most one year from now.
What we on these Benches would additionally wish is that in the forthcoming discussions and probings the Government will make it clear that on the economic side, apart from the general blessing of our EFTA partners, all we should press for is, first, suitable transitional periods during which our agriculture and our industry are adapted to the existing European system; and, secondly, that some suitable arrangement be made for the amount that we should be expected to hand over to the common agricultural fund from sums accruing from the agricultural levies at any rate during the transitional period—that, and the principle of some special requirements for New Zealand imports. All the rest should be left over for decision, with our participation, in the existing machinery of the E.E.C.

1005
Finally, we and our partners will still undoubtedly have to discover whether there is or is not any possibility of a continuing veto on our entry for political reasons on the part of the Government of France. This is perhaps the most important consideration of all. In our view, the likelihood of such a continuing veto will be greatly diminished if the Government can declare at the right moment that it is their intention, once they are a member of the E.E.C., to work towards the construction, within the Western Alliance, of a real democratic European Political and Defence Community, which might eventually be enlarged to include Eastern European countries as well.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not think the House or the noble Lord will wish me to reply to the series of points he has made, because it seems almost certain that we shall be debating this question before long, and he has presented us with the beginnings of an excellent speech.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with reference to the answers given by the noble Earl the Leader of the House to my two supplementary questions, I must just say that I think they were both very disappointing. They were obviously carefully worded in such a way that they were extremely difficult to follow. I do not think there is any point in pressing the noble Earl, because he obviously is not going to depart from his brief. But I would say that his answers are further evidence of a lack of enthusiasm in this matter on the part of the Government.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, while I am sorry that the noble Lord should take that line, certainly the question of the Treaty of Rome is a large, serious political question. For the noble Lord to raise the question of the five conditions laid down by the Labour Party some years ago amounts, in my opinion, to a trap question and I do not see why one should not be reluctant to answer it in the way I have.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if it is a trap question to ask the noble Earl whether he still sticks to his Party programme, then I am not ashamed of asking a trap question.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that these conditions were formulated some years ago, and they were not in the programme on which the last Election was won. The noble Lord has attempted to score, and if he has not done so, then he must put up with it.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA ACT 1965 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1966
3.48 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THEMARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise only to say that I and a number of other noble Lords for whom I have the honour to speak have decided not to intervene to-day in the debate on this Order which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, we feel that a more appropriate occasion will be on the general debate on Rhodesia, which I understand is likely to take place in the near future. But we wish to make it quite clear that the experience of the last year has in no way weakened our total opposition to the whole policy of sanctions, the results of which, in our view, have been as disastrous as we expected them to be, and possibly more so. We shall develop these views at greater length and, I hope, with suitable force when the day of the debate arises.
LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON: My Lords, many of your Lordships know that I have never taken any part in politics, and I will not take part in them to-day. But I feel bound to say this. I think it is lamentable that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, should have made those one-sided statements, and it is peculiarly unfortunate at this stage of history.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, when I heard that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition had decided to postpone the Motion which was down for to-day, I thought that that decision was a right and wise one in the circumstances. But the more I have thought about the problem which faces your Lordships' House at the moment, the more I think that this is in fact the right psychological moment when a debate on Rhodesia should take place. Therefore I intervene in this debate shortly to put a point of view which I hope may commend itself to some Members of the House.

1007
When he intervened earlier, my noble friend said that his reason for not raising Rhodesia as a subject for debate at the present moment was that we do not know what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made to the Smith régime, and whether an agreement is near or not. It is precisely for those reasons that I think we should press Her Majesty's Government at the present time to make clear, not so much to us here—although it is important that we should know what proposals are in train—but, what is much more important, to the generality of the European population of Rhodesia, who do not, so far as I am aware, know at the present time, what the Government have offered to the Smith régime as a solution to this problem.
There is only one chance, and it is a very slender one, of a solution to the Rhodesian problem being achieved which would be satisfactory to this country and to Rhodesia—this is, a modification of the attitude that has been taken up over a period of more years than one by the present régime in Rhodesia to the political progress and future Constitution of that country. The only way in which a modification of the views of the present régime in Rhodesia can be achieved is by the pressure of European opinion in Rhodesia; and the only way in which Europeans in Rhodesia who may not be committed to the Rhodesian Front policy can bring that pressure to bear on the present régime is by knowing what the alternative before Rhodesia is.
This is a point which I made a year ago. I prophesied at that time, when there was considerable optimism on the Government Benches, that we should still be wrestling with the Rhodesian problem at Christmas of this year. This will turn out to be true, and it may go on for very much longer than that. For reasons which I need not go into in this House at the present time, it was clear to me as long ago as January of this year that there was no chance at that time of an emergence in Rhodesia of any régime that was a modification of the Smith régime. It has been clear to me that there can be no agreement which the present Government, or any Government in this country, could reach with the Smith régime and still maintain its self-respect, its sense of confidence and its integrity.
1008
The long period of negotiation that has gone on was perhaps inevitable, and I would not criticise it. But, of course, it has made a settlement more difficult, because the longer Rhodesian European opinion thinks that there may be a settlement as a result of negotiation with the United Kingdom Government, the less pressure internally there is likely to be on the Smith régime to modify its policies in order to come some way to meeting the policies of a British Government. I say "a British Government" specifically, because it has always been my view that the policies to be followed, or the settlement which could be achieved, by a Socialist or a Conservative Government would follow very much the same lines and have the same principles at the base. So I think that, because we have been carrying through a negotiation which I say is inevitable, it has in fact made the task facing the Government of the day even more difficult.
We cannot now reach an agreement, and in my view we should be mistaken to suppose that we can ever do so with the Rhodesian Front régime. If we are to reach any settlement, then the people of Rhodesia—that is, the European electorate of Rhodesia—must know what the British Government propose. Over a long period of time both Conservative and Socialist Governments have been carrying out negotiations with the Government of the day in Rhodesia which have been kept a close secret. I know because, at any rate for a short period, I was party to that process. The result is (and this is particularly true of Rhodesia at the present moment) that public opinion—reasonable, fairminded, moderate public opinion, which undoubtedly exists in Rhodesia at the present time—has no idea what the British Government are offering and the chances there may be of survivial for them and all they stand for in a future Rhodesia if they reach a settlement with the British Government. They are only listening, and have been for more than a year, to the loaded propaganda of a régime which in this respect has been following the principles of an authoritarian State.
In my view it is not fair to European public opinion in Rhodesia—I am not referring perhaps to many; I am not referring perhaps to a majority, although I

1009
hope it is a majority—that we should follow the policy of maintaining secrecy with regard to the propositions which we have put to the régime in Rhodesia, without letting them know what they are, and then suddenly facing them with what is a very dangerous and perhaps tragic prospect of having the whole of their problem handed over to the United Nations. And this without allowing a period of time to elapse during which they would have a chance of understanding what Her Majesty's Government are proposing and then, if they wish and regard it as being in their interests as the people of Rhodesia, to bring pressure on the Smith regime to adjust its policies towards reaching a settlement with Her Majesty's Government here.
I do not know whether the Prime Minister is making a detailed Statement in another pace with regard to the proposals which have been put to the Smith regime. I do not know whether during the next few months, few weeks or few days the Government plan to try to get their proposals over to the people of Rhodesia. It is no good my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale talking about the B.B.C. I am very doubtful whether the B.B.C. is able to penetrate into Rhodesia, and whether it has any effect at all. What I am quite certain is that, before Her Majesty's Government take the next step, which apparently they intend to take, are committed to take and which they will take in my view as sure as fate—that is, to hand the problem over to the United Nations—they should give a chance to the moderate elements in European Rhodesia to think again, knowing (which they do not know at the moment, and have not done during the whole of the last twelve months or more) what Her Majesty's Government propose for the future constitution and political settlement of the Rhodesian problem.
Therefore I would strongly urge Her Majesty's Government to make any effort they possibly can to ensure immediate publicity of the details of their proposals —the full details—and, secondly, to make certain that they do everything they can to ensure that the people of Rhodesia know what those details are and what they will mean in the long run. I hope noble Lords will not think I am like my friends on the Liberal Benches and have
1010
become a dove in hawk's plumage, if I suggest that there should be air activity over Rhodesia. What I am suggesting is that if it came to dropping leaflets by unarmed aircraft over Salisbury or Bulawayo, which contain 50 per cent. of the European population of Rhodesia, at any rate it would be an effort on our part, and an effort with a certain amount of integrity and purpose behind it, to ensure that our message and our point of view is understood by reasonable people there.
I have always held that we face the prospect, and indeed almost the certainty, of a tragedy in Rhodesia unless by some fortunate chance we can reach a settlement. I think we are now at the very last moment and the situation will shortly pass beyond the control of the British Government. All I am saying is that, realising the significance of that moment as far as the people of Rhodesia are concerned, it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the people of Rhodesia do not become the victims of their propaganda machine, the victims of the lack of integrity of their own Government, but that they have a fair chance of knowing the issues and understanding them, which the vast majority of Europeans in Rhodesia at the present moment unfortunately do not.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a question? What is the earliest moment when this Order must be passed to be valid? If, as he says, there will "shortly" be a debate, and it appears that the usual channels have been talking about "shortly", cannot this Motion be withdrawn, and then we can have the debate and then vote?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I understand that this is the last Parliamentary day which will enable us to do it.
4.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I listened to the speech of my noble friend Lord Alport with the deepest regret. I am sorry he did not follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the example of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I, like him, have thought it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to reach a settlement with Rhodesia. I

1011
must say that what he has said this afternoon has not diminished those difficulties. Therefore I much regret that he should have taken the course he has done to-day, when the speech he made could just as well be made next week if no settlement is arrived at, and need not have been made at all if in fact a settlement is achieved. I hope a settlement will be arrived at, and I should be the last person to wish to express any view which might impede its being effected. Therefore I hope we can pass this Order, the need for which has been clearly established, without any further debate or discussion which might imperil the very delicate negotiations which are now proceeding.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, the only Question before the House is whether or not the House approves of an Order, the sole effect of which is to continue the legal status quo in relation to Rhodesia for a further period. For my part, if I may say so, I echo the statesmanlike words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that it is unlikely to be helpful if any general observations on the Rhodesian situation are made this afternoon.
May I reply briefly to those observations which have been made? The noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked how sanctions were working. This is something which it is quite impossible to answer in a sentence, and no doubt it would repay an afternoon's discussion at some suitable time. Then he asked whether the Orders made under the Act which we are continuing will themselves require renewal. The answer is that if the Order now before the House is approved they will simply continue and will not need renewing. Thirdly, the noble Lord asked whether the Government still adhere to their six principles. The answer to that is, Yes, they do. He then asked whether the Government accepted responsibility for some alleged tortures in Rhodesia. There again, if I may respectfully say so, I concur with the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henry ton. I cannot imagine any question more likely to give rise to feelings of anger and both in Rhodesia and outside, than if we were to discuss at this point of time whether or not
1012
African Rhodesians are being tortured by white Rhodesians and, if so, who is responsible for it.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, I appreciate what he says, but, if I may say so, he appears to have forgotten that after the Prime Ministers' Conference my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General went to Rhodesia and saw there a large number of representative citizens. It must also be said that the discussions which are taking place are on the footing that while they last they are treated as confidential, and no such discussions would have been possible on any other terms. Not one of your Lordships who has spoken has suggested that this Motion should not be passed approving the Order, which, as I have said, does no more than continue the Act in force for a further year.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment to correct a misstatement which I made on the spur of the moment in reply to a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale? I said I thought to-day was the last day: actually it could be taken on Monday or Tuesday, but we are taking it to-day in order to run concurrently with the other place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BARBADOS INDEPENDENCE BILL
4.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Barbados Independence Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this is the sixth time this Session that I have had the privilege of introducing into your Lordships' House a Bill which reflects the changes in the institutions and provides for growth within the Commonwealth. It is the fourth measure providing for the establishment of an independent nation State where previously there

1013
was a dependent territory. This afternoon we are dealing with a Bill which establishes the independent State of Barbados. In each of the four cases there have been special characteristics: each community and country has its own personality, and that of Barbados, as many noble Lords in this House who know the country intimately will agree, is as delightful and attractive as any.
Barbados is one of the countries with which we have the longest association of any of our territories, and for more than three centuries it has come within the constitutional framework of British territories. Administrative experience has been steadily acquired over many years which I believe will stand them in good stead as they now move into independence. It is true to say that the economy of the country is very narrowly based, being dependent virtually on one crop, but nevertheless sound financial administration has marked the development of this country. Barbados proudly points to the fact that it never called upon us for a grant towards the cost of its public services. Indeed, in human as well as financial resources it has been largely independent of us and has been able to provide from its own resources an efficient Civil Service.
Nature has endowed this island in the Caribbean with a wonderful climate, and, due to its natural attractions and the growth of comparatively cheap air transport, its tourist industry has grown apace. I understand that it has more than doubled over the past five or six years and shows every sign of expanding further. Thus, with tourism helping out sugar as a basis for her economy, with the average national income amongst the highest in the British Caribbean, Barbados enters independence more reasonably placed economically than some of the other newer Commonwealth countries with which we have recently been dealing. Her political experience, too, should enable her to meet the growing pains which undoubtedly all countries clothed in brand new Constitutions are liable to experience.
Although on independence she will cease to qualify for Commonwealth Development and Welfare aid, it has been agreed that an amount equivalent to the unspent balance of the C.D. and W. allocation will be made available to
1014
Barbados as a grant, subject to not more than £150,000 being spent in the financial year 1967–68. In addition, we shall continue to provide the capital aid already pledged from C.D. and W. funds up to July, 1969, for the Barbados College of Arts and Science. We shall also be ready to continue to provide Barbados with technical assistance under the various programmes. The value of this aid to Barbados has risen yearly since 1961–62 when co-ordinated records were first maintained.
Clause 1 provides for fully responsible status for Barbados as from November 30. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with nationality matters. Clause 4, together with Schedule 2, deals with modifications of various U.K. enactments consequent upon the grant of independence. Clause 5 provides that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council made before November 30, provide a Constitution for Barbados to come into effect upon that day. Clause 6 contains a Short Title and the usual interpretative provisions.
I am sure that Members of this House from all sides will join with those in another place to wish this new country and its proud and happy people a future as bright as the sunshine that blesses them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
4.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of this Bill and his remarks on the independence of Barbados which all sides of the House must share. It is indeed a very happy thought that Her Majesty the Queen will now be Queen of yet another very beautiful island in the Caribbean. I have only once visited Barbados myself, and I must say that my wife and I thought it the happiest four-day holiday of our lives. Its golden sands provided an agreeable intermission in what was otherwise a hard-working business tour. I long to see some of those first-class cricketers play on our ground in West Sussex, although I hope they will not bowl us too many googlies—and in that connection I can assure the noble Lord opposite that I will not bowl him any googlies this afternoon.
As the noble Lord said, this is the fourth occasion in six months when we

1015
have had the pleasure of passing a Bill to advance an independent territory to fully responsible status. I think we must congratulate all those responsible for achieving this, particularly the Governor, Sir John Stow, for all he has done to smooth the passage of the country towards independence, and, of course, Mr. Barrow, the Prime Minister, whom we must now all congratulate on his very recent victory at the polls.
As we know, the Barbados Parliament is the third oldest Legislature in the whole Commonwealth. We must greatly respect them for this, even if there is perhaps a tendency for them to cross the Floor of the House more often than we now do here, although this was not such an uncommon occurrence in your Lordships' House some time ago. I do not think that we need worry unduly about this, and I sincerely hope that political differences in Barbados will not lead to any instability.
As we have been told, Barbados has virtually a single crop economy (a most useful one at that, the sugar industry), but they also have that other industry, tourism, to which the noble Lord referred, and which has, I believe, more than doubled in the past five or six years. We all wish the Barbadians all happiness and prosperity in their newly-won independence. We and the Canadians have been giving them considerable aid, and I was interested in what the noble Lord said about that this afternoon, particularly about the new College of Arts and Science which we are helping to set up. I hope that this aid, technical and otherwise, will continue in accordance with our pledge to the United Nations.
The Barbadians are old friends of ours, and I hope they will long remain so. Even if the larger West Indian Federation never came to fruition, we have no reason to blame the Barbadians for that. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, is to say a few words this afternoon on that subject, for he held the most distinguished position it was possible to hold in the Caribbean some years ago. Therefore, all I would say in conclusion is that we wish Barbados well and welcome them warmly as, I think, the twenty-sixth member of the Commonwealth.
4.18 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, my noble friends and I myself would wish to join most heartily with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Earl, Lord Bess borough, in wishing every possible happiness and success to the people of Barbados, a country, a territory, an island, which, as has been mentioned, has been connected with us in this country for over 300 years. But I am bound to say —I am sorry to say this—that I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, looked upon the future with rosy-hued spectacles. I quite agree when he pointed out, quite rightly, that this country is far more able to support itself than many others. That is so. Many other countries whose Independence Bills have gone through this House cannot support themselves at all. So it is only a very modified argument that he presents to your Lordships.
I must say that I rather wonder what the future of these small countries is going to be. There are little earthenware pots, bobbing down the stream among their big brass brothers—or, anyway, big brass other pots—not brother pots; they may be antagonistic pots. I believe that we should years ago have given far more thought, in all parts of the House, to the future of these small territories than we did. I am on record for the last sixteen years in this House as regularly raising this matter, without the slightest success. Dicey once said that it took thirty years in Parliament to get an idea into the head of the Legislature. It had to be raised outside Parliament and inside Parliament for thirty years; that was the average time, or the normal time, according to Dicey, that it took to get any idea accepted in Britain. I must say that sixteen years is not, in the circumstances, a long time.
Fortunately, most of these countries in the meantime have become independent; but in my view we have not given as much thought to them as we should have done. But in the last week or so the Stationery Office have produced an interesting reprint of some House of Lords Papers from the Victoria Tower, relating to the years 1706 to 1708, in the reign of good Queen Anne. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will no doubt have seen it. I looked up in this

1017
book the name Barbados, and found several references to Barbados. They were all about exactly the same sort of things as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has been talking to-day, and which I shall be talking about. They are the problems of Barbados to-day: they have not changed. The first was:
"An Act to supply the want of cash and to authorise a paper currency …"
to meet that want. This, I may say, was disallowed. There is still a want of cash in Barbados, as there is in every small territory of this type—and in larger ones, too, for that matter.
The position of Barbados, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, is dependent largely on sugar. The soil of Barbados is not nearly so fertile as some of the other islands—St.Kitts, for instance. No doubt your Lordships will remember that in Thackeray's Vanity Fair the heiress Miss Swartz was much admired by the youth and glamour of London in those days because she was rich. In those days the nobility and gentry did not mind so much about colour, so long as the money was good. Miss Swartz certainly had the money. St. Kitts and some of the other islands are quite fertile. Unfortunately Barbados is not. It has always been a problem in Barbados to maintain the fertility of the land and to keep the sugar crop up to normal. At times they have not succeeded. I think every five years they are not allowed to grow sugar and have to grow other crops.
The other big contribution made to the Barbados economy is, of course, tourism. In this respect Barbados is fortunate, because it is the centre of communication for the whole area. There is a good air and sea service to and from the island. But the cost of credit is high. Jamaica has just floated a loan on the London Market and is paying 7¾ per cent. for £3 million. Jamaica is one of the best countries there is, so far as credit is concerned: it has a high reputation in the City. But 7¾ per cent. represents a great deal of money to pay out for money which will be spent on development. It seems to me that the Western World, the rich nations of the world, should recognise this situation and help the poorer countries who cannot afford to pay such interest as 7¾ per cent. I should like to ask the noble Lord what he thinks the economic future of
1018
Barbados is going to be. I should be only too glad to have an assurance that it will have a happy economic future, but I think he will need to reassure me, because this is an important question in relation to the island's future.
The second subject which was dealt with in these House of Lords Papers was defence, and it was said that:
"Owing to the weak condition of the Militia and danger in war, Barbados desired the formation of a full Barbados Regiment."
I cannot find in these House of Lords Papers what was the result of that wish. Queen Anne does not seem to have given any command on the subject. I have never heard of a full Barbados Regiment, however, so I assume that nothing was done about it. But the defence situation is of course that there is no Barbados Army at the moment, even if there was one in the past. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, what are the prospects, or the intentions, with regard to the defence of Barbados. Are we in Britain committed in any way in defence to Barbados? So far as I know, we have only one battalion of infantry in the whole of the vast area of the West Indies and Caribbean. There may be one or two gunboats there, or something of that sort; but the defence forces are quite thin on the ground. I am not suggesting that they should be more thickly spread on the ground, but I think we in this House ought to know what the intentions are.
Finally, in these Papers there were proposals relating to the President of the Council and the extension of the term of the Assembly. One of these proposals was allowed by Queen Anne; the other was disallowed. It is an interesting fact that there was a Legislative Assembly in those days, and it had some sort of a franchise. There are now two Chambers. I do not know whether there were in those days. Your Lordships can see how old and stable the whole system is, but even in those days Queen Anne was being requested to make amendments to the Legislative and governmental provisions. I think to-day that in these countries (and I have said this often to your Lordships over the years) the Government and the Administration should be simple and inexpensive. Glittering, costly harness is far too expensive for the small horse upon which it is usually put.

1019
What about the overseas representation? One remembers that Barbados is slightly larger than the Isle of Wight, with a population of about two-thirds of that of the Borough of Croydon. The thought of them having Ambassadors and High Commissioners and delegations to the United Nations becomes of great importance. How can they afford this expense? The people who have to afford it are generally the peasants, or the people in Barbados who are the equivalent of peasants—the ordinary workers, who have to provide the funds from taxation and so on. I should hope—it is high time—that in many of these countries a system could be devised by which these costly superfluities are cut out altogether, or at any rate largely reduced.
On one matter about which I was going to ask a question, Lord Beswick said something which cheered me. We have never given any budgetary assistance to Barbados; any aid given to them has been in the same form as that given to any other territory, and this aid will continue under the new dispensation, although they do not qualify for grant under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. That I understand to be the case. Is this understanding correct? Are we, as we have done with so many other countries, going to give them assistance to run their budgets? That is all I have to say, and those are the only questions I want to ask. May I just repeat that we on these Benches wish Barbados and its people well. We wish them every success. We are particularly glad that an association which has lasted for over 300 years is going to continue in the Commonwealth.
4.28 p.m.
LORD HAILES: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to those of noble Lords on both sides of the House who have already spoken, to express my own warm best wishes to Barbados and her people who are soon to go forward with us in full partnership in our Commonwealth. As noble Lords are aware, and as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said to-day, events in the West Indies during the last few years have not taken the course which was originally planned. After all, it was only just over four years ago that the Federation of the West Indies, of which Barbados was an
1020
honoured partner, was dissolved within a few months of full achievement. Many were the thousands of West Indians who grieved, and I, as their then Governor General, grieved with them.
But this does not affect in any way my feelings of great warmth towards Barbados, to-day and in the future. Indeed, I have noticed with special pleasure the words which appear in the Preamble to the Barbados House of Assembly's Resolutions of last January requesting Independence, and I quote:
"The Government of Barbados, reaffirming its dedication to the principle of regional association, will continue after Independence to work in close co-operation with the Government and peoples of other Commonwealth Caribbean countries to promote a joint endeavour for the complete political, social and economic emancipation of all classes in all territories."
These statesmanlike words are already beginning to take practical shape in the strenuous efforts now being made, so I am informed, by the Prime Ministers of Barbados and Guyana and the Chief Minister of Antigua to establish a free trade area between their territories. This is indeed a step in the right direction. I wish them every good fortune and I hope it will be a case of "wider still and wider!"
I do not want to dwell on the disappointments of the past years. That would be quite out of place to-day. But as I had experience of the West Indies in the years of Federation, 1958–62, I may be permitted, looking only to the future, to say that I am confident that much closer association in the West Indies must come again in some form as time goes on. I am confident, first, because of the strong feeling—instinct, if you like to call it that—of the West Indian people, physically divided by great expanses of sea (it is truly a case here of "blood is thicker than water"), that they are one people, ethnically, in their way of life and in the sunlight and shadows—the often very bitter shadows—of their past. This was vividly brought home to me in my journeys through the Islands when so many of all sorts and conditions spoke to me, often in moving terms, of their hopes for their "new nation", which was not to be. Secondly, as regards closer union, it stands to reason that if a wide Customs Union between the territories could be

1021
achieved in due course, not only would a much greater single market offer itself to the world, but also individual territories, relying as most of them do on a single crop—and none more than Barbados on sugar—could in a combined operation achieve a much more varied and balanced economy, bringing with it a greater prosperity and a diminution of the curse of poverty.
Soon all the West Indian territories, although we must always give them all the help we can, will have their destinies in their own hands. I have often felt, arid I began to feel this at the end of my time in the West Indies when the dream was fading, that it would be from that point onwards, when their destinies were in their own hands, that there would grow again of its own free will a movement towards the ideal of West Indian union, in whatever form that might come about. There are already signs of this coming together, and I have already quoted one example of it.
There is nothing which those devoted to the West Indies want to see more than that. With prosperity and contentment at home, West Indians as a united people could step with confidence on to the world stage, where their outstanding qualities and the example which they can set of the best truly non-racial community you could find anywhere, would earn them a place in the Commonwealth and world out of all proportion to their numbers. If that day comes, and it will be entirely a matter of free choice for the West Indians themselves, and if Barbados chooses, as I hope she would, to join in a greater community, I predict that she, like her sister territories, would find that with her ancient traditions and her fine people, she would have a greater and not a lesser part to play in the world, without surrendering one iota of her own cherished characteristics and traditions. But first things come first, and in this case it is to send my heartfelt best wishes to the Government and people of Barbados as she moves into full Independence.
4.35 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, as the noble Lord finished so I begin, because I feel that the main purpose of anybody who takes part in this short debate this afternoon must be to extend good wishes to Barbados on reaching her independence.
1022
I say this with great pleasure indeed because I have a little more experience than the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in the matter of visiting Barbados. I have been there only three times, but I have accepted an invitation by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to be one of their representatives at the Independence celebrations in three weeks' time.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: You lucky man!
LORD BOYLE: I am looking forward to this tremendously, and I can imagine what a wonderful week we are going to have. Therefore I am in the advantageous position that not only am I able to say these things in your Lordships' House but I shall soon be carrying your good wishes right to the island. In conveying our good wishes, one thinks of all kinds of things. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, spoke of the fascinating history of this beautiful island. There are many stories that could be told, and the one I like best of all, which I hope is true, is that on August 6, 1914, the Colonial Office in London received a telegram:
"Carry on, England. Barbados is behind you."
In the conditions of that small island, which even to-day has a population of only a quarter of a million, that story proves conclusively that Barbados is an island which is a little England in every sense of the word. They believe that, right to the bottom of their hearts.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, referred to cricket, and I cannot possibly ignore such a subject. One of the things I am looking forward to in a week or two is renewing my friendship with Gary Sobers. I shall be happy if we can see some cricket while we are out there, but the great match against the Rest of the World does not take place until March. I will tell another story about Barbados and cricket. I once remember being taken by the then Speaker of the House of Commons of Barbados to see a school. As we left the school he pointed to the cricket pitch, and said, with a voice almost of reverence, "See that wicket there? That's where Everton Weekes learned his cricket". That is the spirit of the island and is indicative of the joy which permeates it.
When I was thinking about what I should say this afternoon, I thought I

1023
would say something about the noble Lord, Lord Hailes. The very fact that he has preceded me to-day in this debate helps me in this pleasant task, and I pay my tribute to him for his great endeavours whilst he was Governor General of the Federation of the West Indies. It was in no sense his fault, and in fact was in spite of him, that the Federation of the West Indies fell down. As a Socialist Member of your Lordships' House, I should like to put on record my appreciation of the great endeavours of the one and only Governor General of the Federation of the West Indies and of the work which he did during that time and the distinction he attained during those years. I know from my conversations with him out there how deeply disappointed he was that the Federation collapsed. I had an enormous amount of sympathy for him, because of the great efforts which he had put in, and I should like him to know that.
This brings me to what is perhaps the one point of disappointment this afternoon, the disappointment that the Federation of the whole of the West Indies collapsed, and the secondary disappointment that it was not found possible for Barbados and the Leeward and Windward Islands to come together in the form of a small Federation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, my concern at this happy moment is with regard to the viability of the island. As I say, it is an island with 250,000 people living in 166 square miles, and it must have great limitations so far as viability is concerned.
As has been so often and well said this afternoon, there is a limitation with regard to industries, and I am one of those who feel that there cannot be a viable country if it is dependent upon sugar and the tourist industry. I feel that secondary industries must come, if only from the point of view of saving a great deal of their exchange and currency which is expended on imports. In 1965 there was a trading deficit of £12½ million—50 million West Indian dollars —and this is a leeway which will take a great deal of making up in an island of that size with that limitation of industry.
I would at this moment pay tribute to the Colonial Development Corporation, who built that wonderful harbour in Barbados which has greatly assisted shipping so far as the island is concerned.
1024
It is a very beautiful harbour, but when I first went there everything had to be brought from the larger ships by lighter. To-day, big vessels can tie-up in the harbour and it is a credit to the activities of the Colonial Development Corporation that this has been made possible.
I was relieved when my noble friend Lord Beswick said that we will to some extent continue our help in Colonial Development and Welfare funds. I would have hoped that it might have been more than he said, and that as the days go by we may do something more about putting them on their feet so far as education, medical and hospital assistance is concerned.
I do not want to speak for too long, as this is not the occasion, but I will finish where I began. The people of Barbados step out from this Bill into a completely new life. I believe that they have a first-class Prime Minister in Mr. Barrow, but I do not think it would be in any way an insult to him if I said that in my view the father of Barbados is Sir Grantley Adams. He is a man for whom I have a very deep regard indeed. He became Prime Minister of the Federation of the West Indies. He is an old man to-day, but the island of Barbados owes a great deal to Grantley Adams. I believe that, in spite of the fact that his Party were ultimately defeated, those in the island still regard him as their true father, and certainly as one of the greatest leaders they will ever have. So we wish them well. They will have a struggle, but I would end by saying to Barbados, "Godspeed!".
4.45 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, may I join with your Lordships in wishing the best of luck to Barbados on its Independence? Also, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Royle, on being selected to go on the Parliamentary Delegation, and ask him to take all our good wishes from your Lordships' House? I should like to confirm every word that he said.
I have been only a very short time in Barbados, but it really is a small England in the tropics. The little boys go to school dressed as Boy Scouts, and the girls are all dressed as Girl Guides in their little hats. They have magnificent schools and a magnificent hospital. But it is perfectly true that the economy is based

1025
on sugar, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the noble Lord, Lord Royle, have said. I wish I could say that during my very short stay I heard much of that about which the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, has been talking, but I am afraid I found very little of it. Certainly there was talk of cricket, but above all the talk was of sugar and employment.
I regret that when I was there I did not know that this debate was coming up in your Lordships' House. I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that I have not been able to check my facts, but I understand that the United Kingdom Sugar Agreement is due to run out within the foreseeable future; at any rate, it will run out in due course. if anything should happen when the new Agreement is made—and I have no interest whatsoever to declare—to lower the price of sugar to Barbados to somewhere near that of the world price—and we heard something about the Common Market a moment or two ago—this will cause very great and, in fact, untold hardship to Barbados. I beg the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government, when they are considering what aid and so forth can be given, to give special consideration to what will happen when the Sugar Agreement is re-negotiated, and to what can be done meanwhile if—and, as I say, I know nothing about the subject—the price should go very seriously against the Barbados people. I felt it my duty to say those words. Possibly there is nothing to be feared, but this was the subject that everybody in Barbados talked about in the very short space of time that I was there, nearly seven months ago. I, too, beg to give them my good wishes, and to say "Godspeed!" to the newly independent Barbados.
4.47 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies for Her Majesty's Government, may I be permitted to add two sentences? It was my great good fortune to spend some weeks in Barbados two years ago, and I do not think I have ever known a happier island or a happier community. There is no racial problem of any sort, and in this respect it is an example which the rest of the world would do well to follow at this time. The children are happy, everybody is happy, and we wish them the very best of luck.
1026
It is, I agree, rather a tragedy that the Federation did not come off, but I think the reason for that is that there were too many miles of ocean between the component parts. Not even my noble friend Lord Hailes can prevail against the Atlantic Ocean in combination with the Caribbean. I think the difficulty was simply a question of distance. But now Barbados is launched on independence. We can only wish her the very best of luck and, as the noble Lord said, "Godspeed!". I would just ask Her Majesty's Government to keep an eye on the economic aspect of the situation and to help when they can, because there is no question but that they will have a pretty hard struggle.
4.49 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that the good will which has been extended from all sides towards the people of Barbados and their country will be greatly appreciated. Certainly, for my part, I should like to say "Thank you" for the welcome that has been given to this Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, far from coming in with a "googly", extended his arms so widely in welcome that the cricket-conscious Barbadians may well have thought he was signalling a "wide." I should like to join with him and other noble Lords in extending congratulations to all those, including the Governor, whom we are very pleased to see has been invited to remain as Governor-General, for the work which they have done to bring about this day.
If we are giving thanks and expressing appreciation, I certainly should like to add my word to what has been said so very well by my noble friend Lord Royle, about the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hailes. I fully appreciate his disappointment about the failure to consolidate the idea of a federation, but, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said about the enduring quality of the ocean, I do not think all is lost. Although the ocean will remain, the distances can still be diminished by new forms of transport. There are various things being done which could bring the countries close together again, and one will watch with interest and with sympathy any efforts that are made to build upon the foundation which Lord Hailes and others endeavoured to lay some time ago.

1027
The noble Earl called attention to the fact that Barbados will take its place among the members of the Commonwealth. I am sure we all noted with great pleasure that at the Constitutional Conference held earlier this year all the political Parties from Barbados expressed the hope that Barbados would be accepted as a member of the Commonwealth; and that at their last meeting the Commonwealth Prime Ministers agreed that Barbados would be welcome as a member of the Commonwealth. I should also add—I did not mention it in my opening speech, although I should have done—that my right honourable friend has confirmed in another place that Her Majesty has agreed to become Queen of Barbados as from November 30.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked questions about the economic future of this country, as did other noble Lords. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, thought that my spectacles were a little too rosily tinted. It is not that I intended to be complacent about the undoubted problems that could arise, especially if there was any great fall in the price of this one crop on which so much of the economy of the country depends. Nevertheless, I would say that there is no reason why we should be too pessimistic. There is no reason to anticipate any early danger to the present comparative prosperity of the island.
Barbados is, of course, a party to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement—it is not the United Kingdom Sugar Agreement, but the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement—and I agree about the value of that Agreement to some of these countries. Indeed, when we are assessing aid we tend to overlook completely the fact that very valuable economic assistance is given through the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement—as indeed there is also through certain other commodity agreements—which is not taken into account when we are talking about the volume of economic aid given by this country. Through the Sugar Agreement there is a reasonable guarantee of remunerative prices for a large proportion of its sugar production until, at least, the end of 1973. In addition, there is absolutely no reason to think that there will be any diminution in the recent rapid progress in the development of the tourist industry,
1028
to which I and other noble Lords have referred.
Something was said about the desirability of diversifying the economy of the country. I understand—other noble Lords will probably be able to confirm this—that there are some very useful natural gas deposits to be found on the island, that they are being exploited and that there are hopes of marketable oil deposits. There is a small refinery there already. Over recent years the number of light industries has expanded considerably, and I believe the Barbados Government have extended tax concessions to these industries by way of encouragement. So, although I quite understand the concern that has been expressed, I feel there is every reason to believe there should be continued prosperity, when one considers the careful sort of husbandry that the Barbadians have so far displayed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred to representation of this country overseas—and I usually congratulate him upon the way in which he gives this useful little lecture (if I may so put it) to all these new countries. I do not know whether it is because he has so clearly and forcefully brought home the dangers of a small country endeavouring to spend too much on representation overseas, but certainly there have been indications in several cases—not that they are taking note of this criticism, because it is not criticism, but that they are well aware of the factors involved. Of course, it is entirely a matter for the individual country itself to decide what representation it should have overseas, but I know that their policy is so far as possible to keep down their expenditure. What they have done, very usefully, is to share certain of these burdens with countries placed in similar positions. For example, Barbados has already announced her intention, with the agreement of the Government of Guyana. to appoint the present Guyana High Commissioner in London concurrently as the High Commissioner for Barbados; I think I am also right in saying that they will have a common representation at the United Nations. Certainly this practice is being considered.
I was asked a question by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about defence, and on this I hope I can be at any rate a little more forthcoming than apparently

1029
was the late Queen Anne. The Barbados Government have not sought any assurances from us, and we have not made any arrangements with them, about post-independence defence. There is no reason at all—and I think the noble Lord agreed with this—to envisage that Barbados will suffer from any threat of external aggression; and, of course, in this respect her position is similar to that of other independent Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean area. If a situation should ever arise in which Barbados felt it necessary to seek our assistance, we should naturally expect to consider any request sympathetically in the light of the circumstances. The noble Lord spoke about the militia of Queen Anne's time. If there is any request made now for training aid for the Barbados Regiment—the local volunteer defence force—then, again, we should consider that request with all possible sympathy.
My Lords, I think that covers the questions that I was asked. I would simply say again, in agreement with what was said by the noble Earl, that we regard the people of Barbados as our friends. The fact that they will be assuming an independent status diminishes not at all the quality of their friendship, and we look forward to a happy and prosperous association with them as equal members of the Commonwealth of Nations.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

ARBITRATION (INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT DISPUTES) BILL [H.L.]
5.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, negotiated and agreed under the auspices of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. We have two main interests in this Bill. The first is that, as a country where private long-term assets overseas amount to just under £9,500 million, we naturally have a great interest in safeguarding and looking after those investments. Our second interest is that of a country which has for a very long time taken the lead in encouraging the development of machinery for the settlement of international disputes. So I suggest that we have this double reason for welcoming the entry into force of this Convention.
I may say that we played a prominent part in establishing the Convention itself and our Ambassador in Washington signed it on our behalf on May 26, 1965. We were the second country to sign it. It is a matter of encouragement that of the 49 countries which have so far signed this Convention, 28 are developing countries and, of these, 18 have so far ratified the Convention.
The Convention itself provides for the establishment under the auspices of the I.B.R.D. of a Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. Disputes between States and nationals of other States, arising out of investment, may be submitted to this Centre. For a dispute to be within the jurisdiction of the Centre it must satisfy two criteria. First, it must be a legal dispute arising directly out of an investment; and, second, it must be between a State, on the one hand, and a national of another State, on the other. There is no attempt here to define the term "investment", because before any dispute can be submitted to the Centre the consent of both parties is required so

1031
that in effect they are at liberty to frame their own terms of reference. The Centre itself will not engage in conciliation of arbitration activities; this will be the task of conciliation commisisons and arbitral tribunals set up in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.
The organs of the Centre will be the Administrative Council, which will be composed of representatives of the contracting states, and the secretariat. The settlement procedures are laid down in the Convention and they are entirely permissive. Recourse to that means is voluntary; no disputant is empowered to take the other party against his will before any arbitral tribunal or conciliation commission. But we believe that the existence of this new international body for conciliation and arbitration is in itself a significant new step forward; that it offers very important additional safeguards to investors of all countries and, in particular, of course, to British investors overseas.
The Centre will provide remedies which are not available at the present time in the International Court of Justice, and therefore fulfils a very important international need. As your Lordships know well, only States themselves may be parties to cases which come before the International Court and therefore the International Court is not empowered to adjudicate in disputes arising between a State and a private investor. As I have said, the settlement provisions of this Convention apply to disputes between States and foreign investors and, of course, the investors concerned may themselves be parties in conciliation or arbitration proceedings under it.
As a country whose overseas investments are a very important factor in our economic life—we have the highest overseas investment per head of population of any country in the world—it is natural not only that we should support this Convention but that we should have a particular interest in participating in drawing up the rules of procedure of conciliation and arbitration under the Convention. In order to participate in that we must first ratify the Convention. The reason why this Bill is brought before your Lordships at this time is to enable us, having ratified the Convention, to obtain membership of the Administrative
1032
Council which will perform the task of drawing up methods of procedure.
There are actually three main aspects of the Convention which require United Kingdom legislation. First of all, we must provide for the enforcement in this country of any arbitral awards made under the Convention. It was not possible to apply the Arbitration Act 1950 to proceedings under the Convention, because that Act subjects the conduct of arbitration proceedings in England and Wales to certain legal rules and to the control of English courts in some respects. Proceedings under the Convention, on the other hand, will be governed by the provisions of the Convention itself and the rules made under it. It would be inconsistent with the Convention to make the 1950 Act apply. The procedure of registration of awards in the High Courts has therefore been adopted; they will then have the same force and effect for the purpose of execution as judgments of the High Court. Secondly, we must give effect to the provisions of Articles 18 to 24 of the Convention (the text of which is set out in the Schedule to the Bill) concerning the status, immunities and privileges of the Centre, of members of its Administrative Council and its secretariat and of persons taking part in conciliation or arbitration proceedings under the Convention.
I know perfectly well that your Lordships always scrutinise with great care any question of extending immunities and privileges still wider than they are at present. I assure the House that the extension being asked for in this Bill is very small. In particular, the Bill sets out that no person is granted any immunity from legal processes extending beyond acts performed by him in the exercise of his functions, and no person is given any customs privileges whatsoever. Of course, it is well to remember that the Centre will be not in this country but in Washington, and the Administrative Council and the secretariat will be established there.
Furthermore, proceedings under the Convention will normally take place at the Centre, and although there is provision for them to be held elsewhere in certain circumstances, if the parties so agree, there is no reason to expect that proceedings here would be anything other

1033
than extremely rare, or that if they did take place that they would be at all lengthy. Therefore, there is no question whatever of adding to the number of diplomatically privileged persons permanently resident in this country. If the immunities produced are to be claimed here at all, it will most probably be in connection with occasional visits by some of the persons concerned for the performance of their functions.
The third aspect which requires United Kingdom legislation is that there are certain financial provisions which enable the Treasury to meet any obligations of the United Kingdom arising out of Article 17 of the Convention. It is highly unlikely that any substantial contribution will be required from us, particularly because the costs of the Centre are expected to be relatively small. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development will provide the Centre with premises and will underwrite the basic overhead expenditure, at least for some time ahead. The parties to the proceedings will be charged for the use of the Centre's facilities and it will therefore be to a very large extent self-supporting. It follows from this that the contingent liability on the United Kingdom is only to contribute to any deficit of the Centre which might remain after charges and other receipts have been taken into account.
May I go briefly through the clauses of the Bill? Clauses 1 and 2 deal with the enforcement of awards given under the Convention. An arbitral award may be registered in the High Court in so far as pecuniary obligations under the award have not already been satisfied, and subject to compliance with rules of court; the award then has the same force and effect for purposes of execution as a judgment of the High Court. There is, however, a provision for the making of rules for the stay of execution of an award in some circumstances in accordance with the Convention. Clause 3 will enable the Lord Chancellor to make the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act 1950 and the Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act 1856 apply for the securing of evidence for the purpose of conciliation or arbitration proceedings under the Convention.
Clause 4 gives legal effect so far as necessary to the provisions of the Convention
1034
concerning status, immunities and privileges. With one exception the provisions of this clause do not exceed the immunities the privileges which may be accorded by Order in Council under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act 1950 in respect of an international organisation to which that Act applies. The 1950 Act does not apply to the persons (parties, agents, counsel, et cetera, in proceedings under the Convention) who are required to be accorded limited immunity and privileges under Article 22 of the Convention. That Act does, however, provide for the grant of immunities and privileges for agents, counsel and advocates of suitors to the International Court of Justice. The German Conventions Act 1955 is a further precedent for the grant of exemption from liability to legal process to persons appearing in proceedings before an international tribunal. I think, therefore, there is sound precedent and good logic, which is perhaps more important, for this small addition.
Clause 5 makes provision for contributions from public funds towards the expenses of the Centre. As I have already said, while it is no direct concern of your Lordships' House, this is only a very remote possibility. Clause 6 provides for the extension of the Act to dependent territories by Order in Council. Clauses 7 and 8 deal with applications to Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. Clause 9 gives the Short Title of the Act and enables it to be brought into force by Order in Council on the same day that the Convention will enter into force in respect of the United Kingdom.
My Lords, this, in the main, is a somewhat technical Bill, but what it sets out to achieve, and will achieve, is something which I am quite sure all of us, even though we may have no legal knowledge, will feel is a worthwhile objective; something which we, as a country with widespread investments overseas and as a country which is doing its best to help developing countries by further investment, should undoubtedly support. I therefore ask your Lordships to agree to a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Walston.)
5.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for having given us such a comprehensive review, not only of the Bill but also of the Convention which is in the Schedule. I am sure we all appreciate the need for international co-operation for economic development and the role which private —and it is private—international investment has to play in it. The noble Lord has referred to our large overseas investments, and I have nothing further to add there. I think that the existence of the Tribunal will prove very useful to the firms concerned, such as, for example, the oil companies, and indeed to the developing countries themselves which are, so to speak, the recipients of such investment.
The fact that the new Centre and Tribunal are set up under the auspices of the World Bank must give it considerable authority, and I think the companies in this country and elsewhere which have hitherto included arbitration clauses ad hoc in their agreements with the countries concerned will find the existence of the new Tribunal very valuable. I understand that as a rule disputes are settled through administrative, judicial or arbitral procedures available under the laws of the country in which the investment concerned is made. However, it is clear that disputes may arise which the parties may wish to settle by other methods, and I think it is true to say that both the countries concerned and the investors consider it is in their mutual interest to agree to resort to international methods of settlement. I am glad to see that the executive directors of the International Bank believe that private capital will continue to flow to countries which offer a favourable climate for attractive and sound investment, and that adherence to the Convention should stimulate a larger flow of such investment into the countries needing it.
I am particularly glad to see under Article 25 of the Convention that when the parties have given their consent no party may withdraw its consent unilaterally. This certainly strengthens the Convention, and I think we must accept the point, to which developing countries have attached great importance, that the jurisdiction of the Centre should, as the noble
1036
Lord has said, extend only to disputes arising directly out of an investment, and not to political disputes. Your Lordships no doubt will have noted—and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has referred to this—that in Article 24, subsections (2) and (3), the Centre, its assets, property and income as well as its operations and transactions shall be exempt from all taxation and customs duty; but in the following subsection I see that in so far as the staff are concerned their salaries and expenses will be similarly exempt from income tax but not from customs duty. This may make some of your Lordships a litle envious. I think that it is only right that we should use this Article, since I believe the World Bank itself benefits from similar provisions. I once remember being tempted to accept a job in Washington for this very reason.
I am glad that the Convention has been warmly welcomed by many African States, and that they account for a substantial proportion of the ratifications to date. On the other hand, I am sorry to learn that the Latin American States have objected to it and that none of them has yet signed it. This seems a little regrettable. Perhaps the noble Lord can give us some explanation on that point.
Finally, I hope that the economic policies of the present Government of this country will not lead us into such a pass that we can no longer afford to invest abroad or that there will be no private enterprise to do so, but on this occasion I should not wish to press what I feel the noble Lord will take as a Party political point. I hope that we who have signed the Convention will now ratify it, and, in consequence, that your Lordships' House will give this Bill fair passage.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, to answer briefly the two points raised by the noble Earl concerning the Latin American States, all I can do is to echo his hopes that, as more and more countries ratify this Convention, so the Latin American countries will see the value of it and will follow suit. I certainly share the noble Earl's pleasure that there are already seven members of the Commonwealth and ten countries from what is commonly called Francophone Africa who have actually ratified it.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his tactful reference to our own economic

1037
policy. I can assure him that we value very much our overseas investments. I have already pointed out that we have per head the highest overseas investment of any country in the world. We are jealous of that position and I certainly hope that we shall retain it, in spite of our present economic troubles. We still are investing overseas, and I hope that the time will soon come when we shall be able to accelerate the speed of that investment. I should like to thank the noble Earl for his help in supporting this Bill, and I am most grateful to him and to his friends for all they have done to ease its passage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

F.A.O. AND WORLD HUNGER
5.24 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the October meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organisation Council in Rome; what proposals were made by the British representative on the panel of advisers, and what decisions have been reached by Her Majesty's Government to implement the plan to alleviate world hunger submitted by Dr. Binay Sen, Director of F.A.O. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Unstarred Question on World Hunger which appears in my name on the Order Paper. May I begin with an apology to the Minister and to the House for one technical error in that Question? I refer to a British representative on the panel of advisers. The British Government are represented through a Ministry on the Council of the F.A.O., but members of the panel of advisers are nominated by Dr. Sen, the Director, and Dr. Balogh, who is one of the members, is not an official representative of our Government. I regret that mistake.
May I congratulate the Government on the fact that they have now transferred the British representation on the Council from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Overseas Development? Inevitably, when our delegation represented the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, it was concerned primarily with agriculture in this country, though
1038
often it looked outward. Now that our delegation represents the Ministry of Overseas Development, it is thinking in terms of the world, though it is not neglecting our own agriculture. I should like to express appreciation of the fact that in 1964 the Government made that change.
It seems to me that there are three great issues before the world to-day. One is the issue of the development of nuclear weapons of destruction. The second is the issue of racial antagonisms, which unhappily in many parts of the world are becoming aggravated. The third is the issue of world hunger, which we are discussing to-night. The Council of the F.A.O. had before it two documents—the Annual Report and a plan for the next two years. They are large documents. For the first time there is in these documents a world-scale statistical analysis of food and agricultural policies and an estimate of future prospects. In my view, these reports are likely to be historic in their approach to the problem of world hunger. Unfortunately, they do not cover the Communist nations of the world, which are not affiliated to F.A.O. To that I will make some reference later.
The plan which has been presented to the F.A.O. covers the two decades, 1965 to 1985. It begins at 1965 because there has been a desire to relate existing policies to the plan for the future. The problem of world hunger can be divided into two parts: first, the existing hunger in the world, and, second, the aggravation of the problem by the growth of population. So far as the existing hunger in the world is concerned, it is difficult for us, who have satisfaction of our needs for food, to realise that at least half of the population of the earth to-day are continually hungry and that the position is growing worse. The report to the F.A.O. says that whilst in the past year world population rose by 70 million, there was no increase of food. This means that there was an average of 2 per cent. less food for each individual on earth. To deal with that appalling problem is out first need.
When we look to the future, the plan presented by Dr. Sen to the Council in Rome estimates that between 1965 and 1985 world population will grow from 3,400 million to 5,000 million. This will mean 1,600 million more mouths to

1039
feed. No doubt some contribution will be made to the problem of the growth of population by family planning. In India and in other countries not only is there a campaign for birth control, but provision is being made for it. However, the greatest optimists do not hope that within these years this will make a considerable difference to the growth of world population.
When we think of the world to-day we generally divide it into two parts on the ideological basis of East and West, reflecting the conflicting social and economic pattern. But the hunger line in the world is between North and South. I suggest to the House that the line of hunger between the rich and poor countries of the world may in time cause greater disharmony than the ideological division between East and West. The plan for the next twenty years indicates that the rich nations of the earth—North America, Europe, Soviet Russia, Australia, New Zealand and White South Africa—will in 1985 contain only one-quarter of the world's population. The problem of hunger is to provide for three-quarters of the people of this earth.
The plan submits a target. But even if that target is achieved, the per capita domestic product among the three-quarters of the earth will be less than £100 a year, while the domestic product in the rich countries will be more than £1,000 a year for each individual. To state this contrast in extremes, India by 1985 will reach a per capita domestic product of 160 dollars, compared with more than 5,000 dollars in North America. While it is hoped that deaths from actual starvation may be ended by 1985, the plan says that serious malnutrition in the world will remain.
I think that all of us who have any conscience about the hunger of others will appreciate that immediate aid is necessary. An example is the project in the United States of America of planned production for food aid, though this may be modified and postponed, unhappily, by the cost of the Vietnam war. Aid must be given. But in the long run, there are two dangers of approaching the problem in this way. The first danger is political. If aid is given by one nation or a group of nations, political strings,
1040
either avowed or implicit, are there. We could meet this if aid were distributed through the United Nations rather than by separate Governments or groups of Governments. Secondly, aid may actually discourage concentration on increased production in the countries receiving the aid, and in the long term that will make the position worse.
In the plan two major contributions to conquering world hunger are emphasised. The first is increased production in the developing countries themselves. The plan's target involves an increased demand for food over the next two decades in the developing countries by almost 4 per cent. a year. The urgency is revealed by the fact that since 1958 food production has increased by only 2·5 per cent. The plan insists that it must be more than doubled. When discussing the necessity for increased production of food in the developing countries, the plan proposes a whole series of measures, including mechanical equipment, intensified modern agricultural methods, with technical assistance and the provision of fertilisers. Here it makes one interesting and challenging suggestion: that fertilisers could be produced at low cost in the oil countries of the Middle East, and could be exchanged for the meat and maize products of East Africa.
The plan points out the necessity for the transformation of land holdings—the pathetic strip farming which many of us have seen in India. There is the feudal system in South-East Asia, where much of the product is seized from the peasants by wealthy feudal lords, which discourages them in their production. It stresses the necessity for agricultural credits and mentions the use of solar energy, into which research is now going on, and the expansion of co-operative farming. There is also the proposal for the development of industries closely associated with agriculture: textile mills, fruit canning, coffee processing, abattoirs for meat and refrigeration, boots and shoes for the use of leather, and saw mills and furniture factories for the use of timber.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord is giving an interesting discourse from, I believe, some document which we have not had the opportunity of seeing. May I ask him whether the plan for abattoirs attached to agriculture is

1041
intended to apply to the greatest area of famine, such as India?
LORD BROCKWAY: I am not sure; the plan does not enter into that. If the noble Lord wishes to know the documents, the first is The State of Food and Agriculture, 1966, which is obtainable in this country; and the second is The Plan, presented to the Council by Dr. Sen, the Director, of which there has been a very full and authoritative précis in The Times, although I do not think the actual document is in our hands at the moment.
If these plans for greater production in the developing countries are to be carried out, obviously there will be the necessity for financial aid; and I hope that financial aid will be given through the special development fund of the United Nations, and that this Government will contribute towards it.
I want to add just one word on this matter of greater production within the developing countries themselves. I greatly regret that we do not have information from the Communist countries. I have visited Moscow and have been tremendously impressed by their industrial and agricultural exhibition. It is a permanent exhibition, and they bring workers from all over the country to it, providing hostels for them to enable them to study modern methods which they then carry out on their return. So far as China is concerned, while we have our criticisms of many aspects of its policy, I do not think anyone who is following what is happening in that great territory can fail to appreciate the increased food and agricultural production which is taking place there. When we begin to look at the expansion of food production in developing countries, we should have that in mind.
The second major proposal in the plan is the expansion of trade between developed and developing countries, and between developing countries themselves. A dynamic export sector, the plan points out, provides the stimulus to internal development which is vital to lift these countries to a higher level of activity. I will not delay by discussing this problem in detail, but I believe it is clear that the laissez faire methods of trade must he modified by trading agreements between the developed and the developing countries for the exchange of products in bulk.
1042
The plan itself says that a major new clearing system is required. In the developing countries a first necessity is increased road, rail and air transport for the exchange of goods. The plan gives the example that at present if Senegal, in West Africa, wishes to export to Morocco, in North Africa, the simplest trading route is via Rotterdam.
My Lords, I hope the Government will give their fullest support to this plan, but I would urge that in these days of scientific and technological advance we surely cannot contemplate starvation continuing in the world for another twenty years, and malnutrition persisting even after that. To meet that need new sources of food must be found. There are two largely untapped sources: first, the oceans and, second, the deserts. When one refers to the oceans, one is thinking not only of fish but of the vegetation underneath which research shows is edible. Research into marine products is now being carried out by the Food and Agriculture Organisation on a limited scale. It should be done on a far larger scale. In my view, the United Nations should authorise, and all Governments should help to finance, a major research into the food which can be obtained from under the oceans and which can go far towards meeting this problem of food shortage in the world. Freedom of the surface of the seas under International Law has been recognised; freedom of food underneath the seas for international distribution should now be applied.
The second untapped source of food to meet the problem of hunger is in the deserts. The arid lands of the earth represent about one-third of its surface. The actual deserts are one-seventh of its surface, and they are extending all the time. But it has now been proved definitely that much of the desert can be transformed and can produce food. This year I was compelled to remain for two months in Algeria on the site of an experiment in the re-afforestation of the desert. Miss Campbell-Purdie is there proving her theory that it is possible to establish a green belt on arid land between fertility and desert to prevent erosion from the desert, and to form a base of trees and grain from which the desert itself can be attacked.
That is a small project compared with the greater projects which are being

1043
carried out. The Food and Agriculture Organisation is interested in this experiment and has proposed to the Organisation of African Unity that it should bring together the forestry ministries of the Sahara African Governments with a view to co-ordinating their work.
I would remind your Lordships of the achievements which have been carried out so far: in the Sudan, the Gezira Scheme; in the United Arab Republic, the Aswan Dam and the New Valley; in Libya; in Tunisia; the almost miracles in Israel; the great schemes of the reclamation of the desert in Australia and America; the work in Jordan of Miss Coate, who has established a village with farms around it, right in the middle of the desert. In addition, there is the research work of the Esso Oil Company, which now shows that petroleum mulch, distributed upon desert sand, can bring fertility and the growth of vegetables. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that pressure should be brought to bear upon the Food and Agriculture Organisation, with a view not merely to the extension of research, but to undertake this task of reclaiming the deserts with the authority and financial aid of the United Nations on a much bigger scale than has yet been done.
My Lords, I said in opening that the world faces the threat of the death of millions by nuclear weapons. The world faces the reality of the death of millions by hunger. The same power that is within nuclear weapons, if applied constructively to the oceans and deserts, could bring to the surface food which would save the lives of millions of people. My plea to-night is that the advance of science should be used for this constructive purpose, rather than the destructive purposes to which it is now applied.
5.50 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, we have listened to the most interesting summary of the latest report of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, which I agree with my noble friend makes very gloomy reading. I propose to make a recommendation of an entirely different nature and I hope Dr. Sen will certainly consider it. Of course, this is not the first occasion on which we have had a debate on food and agriculture and the difficulties of making the increasing
1044
world population equate with the food supply. The last two in which I took part, one initiated by the late Lord Brabazon of Tara and one by Lord Casey, both attached tremendous importance to contraception. Indeed, most speakers at that stage, which I think was last year and the year before, came to this House and implied that the way to solve the problem was to distribute the contraceptive pill very widely, and I will say something more about this a little later on.
On other occasions we have always comforted ourselves, before this latest report, with the belief that Canada and the United States of America appeared to have an inexhaustible supply of grain in their larders which would serve to prevent widespread famine in India and places with very dense populations. I think the striking thing about this latest report is that it reveals the serious deterioration in the situation, and the statement which should give us all the greatest concern is:
"The combined grain stocks held by the major exporters are no longer considered excessive in relation to requirements, and United States stocks of wheat are now less than the maximum amounts justifiable for strategic stockpiling."
This serious warning indicates that the world population may well absorb all available food supplies.
We are accustomed to regard the suffering in India as being, I suppose, the worst imaginable in the world. But when I had the privilege of representing Britain at the Food and Agriculture conferences after the war the Latin American countries said that the widespread nutritional diseases among their people were tragic, and I listened to many representatives telling me of conditions there. It does appear that, even twenty years after the close of the Second World War, food supplies in the Far East, the main rice eating region, have barely caught up with the inadequate production of the pre-war years. Calory supplies are still short of requirements by some 10 per cent., indicating how serious under-nutrition is in these countries, and this situation generally prevails also in countries in other developing regions where rice is the main food. I think we should try to be constructive in our approach to this problem, and I recognise what my noble

1045
friend says, that in the two decades to come the food it is hoped to produce may materialise. But on the other hand, I remind my noble friend that so often of course these predictions fail to materialise.
I want to comment on that aspect of the report which stresses that the dominating long-term factor affecting total rice consumption is population growth and the pressure on supplies of these massive increases in the numbers of rice eaters. I agree with him that we have no detailed statistics of the Communist countries. Nevertheless, some of us have been to China, and while we have no statistics of Chinese total and individual consumption of rice—I refer, of course, to mainland China—I have no doubt that her economic policy is determined by her growing population. When I was in China in 1955 the average family included five children, and when I queried whether the food supplies would meet the needs of the growing population the reply never varied, whether I asked politicians, doctors or ordinary people in the street. They always turned to me and said, "Mother China needs more children". The years passed, and two or three years ago I had the privilege of entertaining the Chinese Minister of Health here, and I learned from her that the policy had changed now that the population numbers approximately 600 million. The Chinese people are being advised to limit their families in view of the pressure on available food supplies.
On those other occasions when the debates were initiated by Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lord Casey, I always argued that the production of a contraceptive device is not in itself the complete answer. The facts are, first of all, that a population becomes stabilised only where women have been educated for two generations, and, furthermore, in an agricultural community every pair of hands helps to ward off economic insecurity, particularly in old age, and consequently a man is reluctant to limit his family. Also I would point out that the pharmaceutical industry, despite its widespread advertising, has made little impact on the dense populations of India and Asia. Indeed, the 1966 F.A.O. report is itself evidence of this failure.
However, there are still politicians throughout the world who attach importance to the contraceptive pill, and
1046
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the statement in The Times on October 31, which said that Dr. Victor Wynn, reader in human metabolism at St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, warned that the pill could be positively dangerous. Furthermore, only about ten days ago a Danish endocrinologist warned that the pill could cause infertility in children born to women taking the pill. In the light of this, it might well be that in a few years the contraceptive pill will be totally discredited. So those who in their hearts attach importance to this pill as the means of reducing the world population are going to discover very shortly the pill is no more.
But this is the Chinese approach, and I do not like to say to the Indians, "You should emulate the Chinese in this way", because in view of their relations that would be just a little difficult. But we are to-day trying to attack a terrible problem. We must think of every practical means whereby we can make some inroad into this population which is increasing at such a rate. As I said, before the era of the pill, to which so many people attach importance, people limited their families for social and economic reasons, thereby demonstrating that there are other effective methods whereby the birthrate can be steadied.
In the first place I must say this. The right social climate must be established. The Chinese Government have tackled it in this way. They direct the attention of the people to the need to limit the family owing to the shortage of food. They disseminate concentrated propaganda, and the couples who fail to respond are regarded as being guilty of an antisocial act, for they have created surplus mouths to feed, and it is felt, of course, that the food consumed by these surplus children should rightly belong to their neighbours. Surely this is the correct moral approach; and it is a pity that I saw on television the other night Indians rioting because cows were being slaughtered. I thought then that if those who had fomented these riots in India against the slaughtering of cows had devoted the same energy to persuading the people that it was more immoral to produce children who cannot be fed, they would have done well.
I want to emphasise this point. Those who were looking at television saw that

1047
mob of people—illiterate, ignorant; but their leaders had inculcated certain views into them despite their ignorance. I am going to argue that this should be done in all these densely populated countries. There should be concentrated propaganda. They should be told that to bring into the world children who are unwanted, who are certain to be undernourished—I want to emphasise the point—who may have a short expectation of life, and who will suffer from certain diseases, is immoral. This climate of opinion should be created. Cruelty to children is condemned in most countries, and I say that a new conception of cruelty must be given world-wide publicity by the United Nations, by the F.A.O. and by the W.H.O.
Here are two powerful organisations. The World Health Organisation has shown that it is capable of reducing malaria, that it is capable of reducing killer diseases all over the world, and it does it by going to these densely populated areas and creating a climate of opinion, persuading people to be immunised when, in the past, they have felt that to have a needle stuck in one was really unnatural and probably opposed to their parents' teachings. The W.H.O., however, created a climate of opinion, and I think that they should combine with the F.A.O. in this new approach.
I do not want to be misinterpreted over this matter. I want it to be understood carefully that I am suggesting that it should be inculcated into parents that if they know that a child will be denied essential food and they deliberately give it life, then they are guilty of premeditated cruelty. This has never been done in any country in the world, and the time has come to do it. Parents must be told that to bring these children into the world is an offence against the children and the community, and is as immoral as any other anti-social act. Just distributing contraceptives and offers of sterilisation is not enough. What a fuss they are making about the offers of sterilisation in India! I do not know how many people are coming forward in that connection. I agree that perhaps there are a few hundred thousands, but that is nothing in the light of the vast population and of the numbers which my
1048
noble friend has said are going to exist in 1985.
Distributing contraceptives and offering sterilisation is of no use unless the right public opinion is established. What will happen is that many will say that this is a denial of freedom. But we should remember that a civilised society can evolve only by creating rules and establishing conventions calculated to restrain the anti-social elements in its midst. Since the mid-19th century we have endeavoured to establish the rights of the community in the face of individual interests. Even in the field of public health there have been outcries against this. At the beginning of this century notices were put up in buses indicating that a £5 fine would be imposed upon anybody found spitting. There were outcries that this was a denial of human freedom. Every stage in the progress of public health has been denounced by somebody. I suggest that again this proposition of mine will be denounced. But the F.A.O. and the W.H.O. must have the courage of their convictions. They must go out into these densely populated countries and say that the time has come when these children should not be brought into the world because it is a form of cruelty.
In the field of freedom there is this one striking exception. Individuals are free to produce unwanted, undernourished children, knowing full well that they may be condemned to a miserable existence and premature death. I say to the F.A.O. that this plan, Dr. Sen's recommendations, will look good on paper, but it is something that may not come off; and I suggest that this form of propaganda can be introduced right away. I am sure that if officials connected with the F.A.O. and the W.H.O. were approached by a powerful committee, by representatives of the Governments concerned, supported by representatives of these densely populated countries, who told them to go forward and organise this kind of propaganda in all these countries, the F.A.O. and the W.H.O. would do it. At the moment they are fearful lest they arouse the opposition of people like the fighting priests whom we saw the other day on television encouraging their followers to protest against the slaughter of cows. I am quite certain that if we, as politicians, stood firm, and said that the time had

1049
come and that a new kind of ethic must be established in these countries, then the United Nations Organisations would have the courage to go out and do the necessary work.
6.8 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for raising this Question, and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, whom I am not going to follow on the population question, because we have down a Motion, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, on which I hope we in this House are going to discuss this problem in great depth. There are only one or two points I would make on the speech of the noble Baroness. I should like to know—this is not a needling question—once we have induced people to take account of the new ethos which she is wanting to create, how we are going to provide the means by which they are going to achieve it. She has disposed of the pill. I am not prepared to argue about methods. But I think that this is something which has to be examined. Indeed, many people in the world are examining it. Once you have persuaded people that it is wrong to bring children into the world to die of hunger, then you have to enable them not to bring children into the world.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I, as a doctor who has practised for forty years, intervene to say that before the pill, and even before there were birth-control clinics in this country, men and women found methods whereby they prevented conception?
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I must say that I have never met intuitive contraception.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I will tell my noble friend privately.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: The noble Baroness should say it loudly and publicly. That is the only way we shall solve the problem. I must declare an interest because I am heavily involved in the International Family Planning. The point which has been brought out, and is the basis of all discussion, is this frightening report—I repeat, frightening report—of the F.A.O. on Food Supply
1050
in 1965–66. Some of us can put names and faces to the sombre statistics which are given in this report. Some of us have seen the actual horrors and grotesque miseries of hunger. I have seen them in South-East Asia, in the Congo, in Latin America and in other places. Indeed many of us—and we must not forget this —saw the face of hunger in this country in the 'thirties, and some people need to be reminded of this.
Computers have no compassion, and statistics do not know any grief. There are those who actually question the figures which have been given in this report. There are those who dispute the measurement of requirement of calories and proteins on which the F.A.O. statistics are based. They say that the situation is exaggerated and that there are only 300 million people suffering from gross calorie deficiency. I am quite prepared at the drop of a hat, and even in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, to give your Lordships a professorial lecture on the scientific factors on which these figures are based. But I myself maintain that the situation is even worse than the statistics indicate—worse that is, in terms of actual human suffering, because global statistics, and indeed regional statistics, have always concealed the fact that the food available was not getting to the bellies that really needed it. This was one of the great fallacies of much of our discussion of global statistics.
We have been rightly told on global figures that up to this year the population and the food supply, at least calorie-wise, were matching up. That is now quite obviously untrue. Globally the food in 1965–66 was not keeping pace with the 70 million increase in the population. Your Lordships will realise what this means. Supplies in the highly developed countries were still being kept up; although in Europe we did not advance much, in North America they still kept up. If, therefore, there were people anywhere in the world who were enjoying a high standard of life, as was the case in Europe and North America, then it was at the expense of the populations who were getting less and less of the food available. This is a very frightening picture.
I was rather taken aback to read in Nature, a scientific journal which I respect and whose editor I greatly respect,

1051
an article called "The Big Bad Wolf". It suggested that Dr. Sen and his experts had been rather carried away by the figures and that all that we were seeing was a minor situation due to the fact there were rather more droughts than usual last year.
Dr. Sen mentioned in the report the impact of these droughts, which made 1965–66 a bad year for the production of food, added on to an already precarious situation in which the race between production and reproduction was already running neck and neck. But what was obvious was that we were now on the ski slopes. We had gone over the hump.
Even in calorie equivalence between food and population we are no longer keeping pace, and, as has been pointed out, the situation in the North Western hemisphere is, at least in global terms and in terms of world supplies, rather doubtful. I am not saying that the United States and Canada are not going on producing in large quantities, as they can do, the foods from their lands; I am saying that, because of a situation which has occurred in the last year, the reserves of food, the giving out of relief foods which North America gave to the hungry countries, and rightly so, have lowered the level below what the United States calls the strategical minimum. So acres are going to be re-sown in America on a new principle by which authorities determine what food should be produced and where it should go.
This world situation is quite intolerable. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has referred to the anticipatory plan which Dr. Sen and his staff presented to the World Food Council, the Council which meets as the executive of F.A.O. between the biennial conferences. This is a prediction of what is going to be the situation in terms of population, of food production and of rising income and so on in the next ten or twenty years. Twenty years on brings us to the year 1986. In that time the situation population-wise will have worsened. Here I hope my noble friend Lady Summerskill will agree that, no matter how energetically we create a new ethos or how effectively we introduce family planning in the next twenty years, it will not make much impression on the figures of 1986, because
1052
that is a biologically committed figure. The parents of that generation are already born and they are marrying.
I would stress that the situation we face in regard to population is not a great orgy of procreation. Couples are not having more children; couples are having children who survive. More women are surviving childbirth because science has intervened, because modern science has made it possible through the attack on mass diseases to reduce the deaths in childbirth, the deaths in infancy, the deaths in childhood, so that more and more children are born alive and more children survive to marry and to multiply. No one in these circumstances could possibly reproach them with a sort of insensitive improvidence about procreation. This is simply a fact of life. We intervened scientifically and effectively and on a humanitarian basis on the medical side of saving life, of death control, and now we are seeing the results. That is that more people are surviving to have more children. We want them to have fewer children. That is all we can say. Nobody is suggesting, I hope, that we are going to abolish children, that we are trying to ban population. But we have somehow to bring this situation back into balance. This is looking forward ten or twenty years.
I would remind my noble friend the Minister, and I would also recall to my noble friend Lady Summerskill, the fact that we did a great deal of thinking about this problem twenty years ago. What we got in the international sphere was a proposal by a Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr, who was then Director General of F.A.O., which was the World Food Board plan. Looking back with hindsight, if we had instituted that World Food Board in 1947 we should not be facing the situation in which we find ourselves. The situation would not be as bad as it is to-day, and we should not be rattling collecting boxes in a Freedom from Hunger campaign, if we had faced up to the facts which were available in 1947 in relation to the future population of the world.
I would very briefly remind your Lordships of what that World Food Board proposed. It proposed putting a floor under the farmers. It proposed in terms of world prices securing an

1053
adequate return to farmers everywhere, and we were remembering that 80 per cent. of the people about whom we were concerned in the developing world of that day were peasants. The food was going to be available at consumer prices which would ensure that what the farmer produced would get into the bellies of the people who needed it. We were trying to avert in 1947 the situation which we had seen so grotesquely and so grimly in 1929.
I remember the Labour Minister of Food at that time—I believe my noble friend Lady Summerskill was a Parliamentary Secretary—quoting the epitaph of Farmer Pete, a Canadian farmer. The epitaph read:
"Here lies the body of Farmer Pete,
Who died from growing too much wheat."
I quoted that in India and one of the audience came up to me afterwards with a second verse:
"Here lies the body of Acharya,
Who died 'cos Pete's wheat was not here."
I quoted that at the London School of Economics and a student came up with a third verse:
"Statistics prove one must be shammin';
With too much food you can't have famine."
We did have too much food, but that is not even true to-day. We were talking then about hunger in the midst of plenty. What Doctor Sen's report has made clear is that there is not plenty. If you took all the food in the world at this moment, all the reserves and the growth which we are going to have this year, and redistributed it throughout the world, there would not be sufficient food for everyone. So somewhere down the line people are being grotesquely ill-fed.
This was foreseen, and it was dealt with in very precise terms in the discussion of the World Food Board. We did not get the World Food Board, but I recommend everyone here to read an excellent book called War on World Poverty which was written fourteen years ago by the Prime Minister. He explains in that book why the British Government which he represented in the Preparatory Commission as a junior Minister at that time had to withhold what was asked for in terms of the World Food Board. It has a very familiar ring, because this is where we came in. We could not in 1947 accept the proposal of the World
1054
Food Board because we did not have enough dollars, because we were in a difficult currency situation, and because the Americans at that time withdrew their support from, among other things, UNRRA, and were discouraging international organisations. I hope my noble friend the Minister will forgive me for sounding as if I had crossed the Floor and was doing the Opposition's job for them, but I would remind him that the World Food Board was put back in the Labour Manifesto of 1964. We are still waiting for some concrete development which will take care of the planning and the efforts which the anticipated plan calls for. We have to implement it. We have to show a great deal more aggressive international action in dealing with these problems.
I was concerned with the United Nations Science and Technology Conference of 1963, when we brought together the scientists and the men of affairs of the developing countries to show in terms of science and technology what we could do. We had 10 million words spoken at that Conference—I know, because I had to edit them—and in those 10 million words it was clear, manifest and plain, that while it would be an enormous advantage if we had some new discovery, some new breakthrough—as the sulpha drugs were in 1934, which triggered off the population explosion—that would be marvellous. But it is not necessary. We have the knowledge and only the intention is required. We are not short of know-how. If you take all the scientific information which we have about what could be done and to which Lord Brockway referred, but many, many more possibilities as well, you could, in fact, meet the needs of the people of the world to-day and for the next twenty years. Beyond that do not ask.
I am not going along with Professor Colin Clark to a population of 47,000million, but I will help my noble friend Lord Brockway with a population even of 1,000 million more by 1980. I believe there is no question that, in terms of science and technology, we have the answers to this problem. The one thing we have ultimately to do is to bring food and population back into balance. As I said at the beginning, the race is between production and reproduction.
6.27 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I would intervene just briefly, if only to make the point that Socialists are not the only people interested in food. I think I have digested the summary of this report in The Times a few days ago, but I must confess that my zeal has not led me to secure a copy of the full report. It is not available in the Printed Paper Office, and I think that if the noble Lord who replies could undertake to get it put in the Library for us it would be a great help, so that we may know a little more what we are talking about.
I do not think there is any doubt that, second to the preservation of peace, the next greatest world problem facing us to-day is the provision of enough food. I do not know what the noble Lord is going to say in reply to this short debate. He could refer, quite properly, to the fact that the United Kingdom is doing at least as much as many other developed countries to compete with this problem. He could refer to the large and growing programme of technical assistance in which this country is engaged in this field. He could, and he may, refer to the fact that we already give 1 per cent. of our gross national product, as we are required to do under the Development Decade, to the underdeveloped nations, towards providing more food and other things for them. He could, and he may, also refer to our balance-of-payments problem as an excuse for not doing more at the present time. But I hope he will not, because I think that the correspondent in that article in The Times last week showed fairly conclusively that that problem is very much exaggerated. I hope he will not do any of these things, because all these trends towards more aid, more technical assistance, and so on, have now been going on for many years, and in this field this Government have inherited from the previous Government a programme of growth of which there is nothing to be ashamed.
In spite of all this, as all the previous speakers have said, the surplus world food supplies are getting scarcer and scarcer. The hungry millions are as hungry as they ever were, and their numbers are getting greater. Therefore it is no good just carrying on as we are: something very considerably more must be done. Radical changes in our policies
1056
and our programmes must be made. The Government opposite have promised that this is what they will do, and the noble Lord who has just sat down has reminded them of it. They have now, for the first time, a World Indicative Plan to guide them in what they should do; and tonight I think we deserve to hear from the noble Lord opposite what the Government are in fact going to do.
6.31 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Question which my noble friend put upon the Order Paper covers a somewhat more restricted field than the wide-ranging debate to which we have just been listening. The noble Lord's Question refers to a very weighty report on what we must all agree is one of the world's most pressing problems: that of providing food for all the human beings who live upon this planet. But, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill said, we have covered in other debates, notably in the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, on January 27, many of these matters that have been raised by the different speakers and I do not think that it would be right of me, at this late hour of the night, to repeat what I said on that occasion.
This report to which the Question refers is submitted by the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, and it is primarily a review of the current situation, with two special chapters on the outlook further ahead. It is not available in this country, although we were pleased to make a copy available to my noble friend in preparation for this debate. But in response to the appeal that has been made by the noble Lord opposite I will certainly see whether we can obtain another copy and have it placed in our Library.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I interrupt the Minister for a moment? There are two reports. One is the Annual Report and the other is the Plan for the next decade. Would it be possible to have both those documents in the Library?
LORD BESWICK: I propose later in my remarks to say something about the misapprehension which I think the noble Lord is under. The picture which is

1057
painted for 1965–66 in this report is, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill said, a gloomy one. It was emphasised that no more food was produced on our globe than in the previous year, although there were 70 million more mouths to feed. I quite agree with what has been said: that controlling the fertility of human beings is, clearly, as relevant as increasing the fertility of the soil. But that is an aspect of the problem on which I do not propose to dwell this evening. What has been said upon it will I am sure be noted and will give us all cause for further reflection. Suffice it to remind ourselves again that, if the trend continues, next year will see another increase of 72 million and the year after nearly 75 million, and similarly into the future.
The report also calls attention to another particularly disturbing feature of the world's problem—namely, that food production in the developing countries actually fell. Weather, as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder said, had much to do with this and we have discussed at some length the special steps which have been taken to aid countries like India and Botswana, where drought has frustrated all the attempts to maintain, let alone increase, the production of food.
But the overall picture presented by this report is brightened to some extent by the fact that, despite what has been said, there was an increase of food production in North America, and to a lesser extent in Western Europe; and there was an alleviation of need during the last year by drawing from substantial grain stocks to meet the increased import needs of China, the U.S.S.R. and India. On the credit side, too, there were considerable increases in the world's production of olive oil, soya beans and coffee, while gains are recorded in livestock production, fishing and forestry. At the Council meeting of the F.A.O. in October, the latest information about harvest estimates for 1966–67 did much to relieve the sombre picture which is presented in this report. There should be, we understand, an increase in 1966–67 in most major commodities, and world grain production should benefit from the high level of production expected from the wheat crops in Canada and the U.S.S.R. The prospects for rice are also very much better, and the shortfall in U.S. wheat should be much less than originally expected.
1058
One other relevant factor, which I will not go into this evening but which has some bearing on other discussions on this matter, is that earnings from world trade in agricultural products were higher in the first half of 1966. But whatever may be the variations in anyone year, or in any one part of the world, due to specially favourable or unfavourable weather conditions, there still remains this basic fact that food production is inadequate if the world is to give a proper diet to all its present population, let alone to the projected increases. There are, I think most of us will recognise, considerable difficulties, and indeed dangers, in attempting to forecast future food production, and obviously any world assessment of the problem can cloak acute shortages in particular regions. Nevertheless, I believe we shall find it most useful to have the results of the ambitious undertaking to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has referred—namely the undertaking of the F.A.O. to prepare an Indicative World Plan. When completed—and I say" when completed" because there is no Plan yet—it will provide the most comprehensive analysis of this problem; the most comprehensive, I think it can be said, that has yet been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, asked my noble friend whether he could say something more about the documents from which he was quoting. I suppose I ought to say again that in fact the plan is not yet in existence, but there was a progress report to the October Council of the F.A.O. and I think it was from newspaper reports of this that the noble Lord was quoting. This progress report did bring out the disturbing long-term situation which faces the world. I do not think (and I say this to the noble Lord opposite, who said he expected me to comment on this plan) it would be useful for me to comment in detail on the statistical picture which was presented at the October meeting, since it was only an interim report and it was based only upon preliminary work.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I again ask whether copies of the progress report to which I was referring can be made available to Members of this House?
LORD BESWICK: First, I do not think it is available; and, secondly, I doubt

1059
whether it would be particularly useful as it was only a progress report on preliminary work. It is expected that the full report, even in a preliminary form, will not be available until 1968, at the earliest. There was no question at the recent session of the F.A.O. Council of member nations being asked to present their views on its conclusions. Nevertheless, the British Government have throughout given full encouragement to the preparation of this Indicative Plan.
The Plan itself, of course, will not solve any problems. One might even say that it will not feed one more mouth. But it should undoubtedly help in intelligent and constructive consideration of the problem and should enable decisions to be taken which will help in the fuller utilisation of the world's resources. Dr. Sen, the Director-General of the F.A.O., claims that
"It should maximise the contribution of agriculture to …overall economic growth."
Ultimately, however, the realisation of Dr. Sen's hopes will depend upon the determination of people, largely through their Governments, to take the necessary political, economic and social decisions without which maximum agricultural production is impossible. To take but one example of the sort of thing I have in mind, and to which reference was made in the debate that we had in January, there is the need for subsistence farmers in the low income regions to change or to adjust not only their occupation but their whole way of life.
I should like to mention one example of work which some people will agree is probably more important than all the paper planning and all the extrapolations of the econometricians. I refer to the result of research done by the Ministry of Overseas Development through its Overseas Liaison Unit at the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering at Silsoe. The Institute has designed and developed a simple hand operated paddy-transplanter which will enable rice growers in many regions greatly to increase productivity and their individual effectiveness during the critical period of transplanting. This tool could promote a really significant increase in rice cultivation in many areas. It is interesting in this connection that simple and practical developments often emerge from thought
1060
given by men working away from the field, where habits and practices have been enshrined by centuries of tradition. I have no doubt that other people could give similar examples of cases where someone has come in from outside with a fresh mind and is able to suggest improvements.
LORD SANDFORD: Is the noble Lord going to leave that subject now?
LORD BESW1CK: I was going to give another example.
LORD SANDFORD: Could the noble Lord now go on to say to what extent that particular unit has been augmented in order to develop this work? The last time I was there I saw some four men and one girl in an office. This is not a large enough effort to exploit this development.
LORD BESWICK: So far as this particular instrument is concerned, I understand that the Massey-Ferguson organisation have offered to distribute, through their agents, drawings of this instrument to rice growers in the Far East and elsewhere as a contribution to the F.A.O. International Rice Year of 1966. I take the noble Lord's point about the good work done by this unit. I know that he referred to this matter in the earlier debate. I did make inquiries, and I was told that they were not being frustrated by lack of funds, although they would like more money if it were available. I am sure that, if it is possible to assist them, more will be done.
I was about to give another example of the simple way in which a change of method can produce results. I remember Philip Noel Baker telling me about a community on the mountain-sides of India who had for centuries cut their crops with a straight blade and who were eventually shown the possibilities of a curved blade. This simple change enabled them, with no more labour, almost to double their productivity at harvest time.
The noble Lord referred to the possibility of making available more fertilisers. It is true that proposals have been made for the establishment of a large new programme for the supply of fertilisers and pesticides, and other chemicals, to the developing countries in an effort to help them increase their

1061
agricultural programme. The F.A.O. Council, which has just concluded the meeting in October, has set up a Committee to examine the proposals, and Britain has accepted an invitation to be a member of this Committee. I do not think it would be right for me at this stage to anticipate the work of the Committee. We shall give it all the encouragement possible.
Having said that, I would add that I do not think we should underestimate the contribution which Britain has already made in this sector through normal trade, private investment and bilateral aid. In 1965, our fertiliser exports amounted to 487,000 tons. Export capacity will rise to 716,000 tons in 1967 and to 836,000 tons in 1968. We also exported 37,000 tons of pesticides last year; and the Indian authorities have earmarked £1·2 million from our famine relief loan to purchase pesticides and fertilisers from Britain. A great deal, therefore, has already been done in this field.
The noble Lord has also called attention to the potential of oceans and deserts as food-producing areas. I suppose it is natural that, with all the difficulties inherent in producing more from the land available, particularly in countries where the reserves of unexploited land have dwindled or have disappeared altogether, we should turn to the oceans and deserts. As the noble Lord, Lord Todd, pointed out in our debate in January, there is a potential there; but it
1062
could not be made available without long-term development and it would involve a good deal of expense; whereas the more immediate problem is to achieve higher productivity from existing agriculture. Nevertheless, I agree with my noble friend that it would be shortsighted to concentrate on short-term answers. For this reason we support UNESCO in its very far-reaching programme for research into the potential of the oceans and the deserts. Also the F.A.O. have recently undertaken an expansion of their fishery programme. I am glad to say that British experts are to-day working in both these fields.
My Lords, although I have emphasised the limitations of paper plans, and have stressed the value of hardware which actually increases production, I hope it will not be thought that I am trying to diminish in any way the potential utility of an informed and careful study of these problems. As I have said, the British Government have given every encouragement to the work of the F.A.O., both in the preparation of its Annual Report and in the work it has undertaken towards an Indicative World Plan. These studies will prove to be more useful the more interest they arouse, and I trust that this debate will have done something to stimulate interest and lead to further action.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before seven o'clock.