Lords Sitting of 10 February 1970

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.
The Lord Selsdon—Took the Oath.

SHEEP-GRAZING IN FOREST OF DEAN
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 why, despite repeated requests from the verderers, no action has yet been taken to implement the recommendations of the 1958 Report on the Forest of Dean.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there were 39 recommendations in the Creed Report, of which 14 have been, or are being, implemented. The majority of the remainder relate to points which are no longer at serious issue or have been otherwise resolved. The major outstanding problem relates to the practice of sheep-grazing, to deal with which satisfactorily would require legislation. I cannot say when time for this will be found.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can he advise the House whether all parties concerned within the Forest are agreeable to some form of sheep enclosure? If so, do the Government agree with either of the two specific recommendations which the Commission made in this connection in 1958?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure that everyone is agreed about this. The Report itself suggested enclosure or the complete elimination of sheep-grazing. Certainly I think that the amenity societies would be against enclosure, and I can think of many
806
prominent Members of this House who would object to enclosing this land.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us the figures for road accidents within the Forest over the last five years?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this has been a problem, and the Report calls attention to the fact It is an additional reason why some action ought to be taken. But I gather that it is a declining problem and I am informed that within the last twelve months there were no accidents to persons as a result of sheep straying. Whether there have been any accidents to sheep I could not say.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Finally, my Lords, can the noble Lord advise us what emergency steps the Ministry of Agriculture may take if an outbreak of foot-and-mouth should occur in the Forest of Dean?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords; I should require notice of that question. I cannot at the moment say what would be done.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I have already raised this question twice in your Lordships' House. On the last occasion it was when there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and the farms, of course, were all isolated.
NOBLE LORDS: Question!
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I asked a question in your Lordships' House when there was a very serious possibility that foot-and-mouth disease could be spread by these sheep. I, of course, received the same reply. This matter of foot-and-mouth disease is serious.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would mind framing his statement in the form of a question. He must ask a question, and not make statements.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking about the problem here. I cannot say what emergency action would be taken, but clearly there is a problem which is recognised.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I am much obliged.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this problem exists in all hill areas over vast parts of the country and all over the Highlands of Scotland? The problem is not confined to the Forest of Dean.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I readily acknowledge the help given to me by the noble Viscount.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does my noble friend think that it would be a good idea if the farmers spent a little more of their time preventing their herds and flocks from straying on the roads, instead of wasting everybody's time by organising processions through the towns?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have no doubt that there is something in what my noble friend says, but the trouble here is that we are not dealing even with fanners. Some individuals are grazing sheep who have no right to graze sheep; but apparently they have been grazing sheep for the last few hundred years, since Saxon times, and the difficulty of dealing with them is somewhat more complicated than that of dealing with organised farmers.

GIBRALTAR
2.41 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: 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 the position in Gibraltar has to any extent been eased in recent weeks; whether its economy and industry is being adjusted satisfactorily to the circumstances imposed on it by the Spanish Government; to what extent tourism is progressing; and whether the programme of house-building is now meeting the pressing need of adequate accommodation for industrial and other workers.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, the only sign of easement has been the temporary restoration of telephone communications with Spain over Christmas. As noble Lords will recall, I indicated on
808
December 8 the help which Her Majesty's Government were making available to assist the Gibraltar Government to carry out their development programme. The adjustment of the economy is necessarily a slow process but some progress is being made. Despite a recent fall in tourist figures, bookings for the summer are reported to be satisfactory. Tenders have been invited for the construction of the hostel for temporary immigrant workers and consultants are being engaged to advise on the permanent building programme.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he can give approximate figures of the number of tourists who stayed for any reasonable time in Gibraltar last year compared with previous years? Also, in regard to progress affecting employment and housing, can he say whether all this preparation for the future is taking account of the natural increase in population?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I cannot, I fear, give the figures to my noble friend about the number of tourists last year, but I will see whether I can find the information and, if I do, I will send it to him. There is a housing problem in Gibraltar, and the situation is made more difficult by the need to bring in further workers as a consequence of the Spanish withdrawal of male and female labour. The programme we have in mind is some 750 units on top of the present programme, and I hope that a start can be made on this shortly.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, can the Minister say what assistance Her Majesty's Government are giving to help the Gibraltar Government to provide better air communications and more reasonable fares; and whether Her Majesty's Government would consider making a further approach to the Portuguese Government with a view to having some air link between Gibraltar and Portugal?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have looked into the question of the air fares between this country and Gibraltar, but I fear that I cannot offer any hope in this direction at the moment. As regards the old Dakota—the "Yogi Bear", I think it was called—that flies between Gibraltar and Tangiers, I am

809
glad to say that in April it is being replaced at long last by a Viscount, and this should certainly help the tourist trade between Gibraltar and this country.
So far as the Portuguese question is concerned, I should like to look into it and I will write to the noble Lord.

MOTOR VEHICLES: FITTING OF MUDGUARDS
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: 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 any progress has been made with regard to the proper fitting of mudguards on heavy motor vehicles, and whether a great many heavy vehicles at the present moment fail to conform to the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations in this respect; and if so why there are no prosecutions.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE. R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, accident investigations do not show inadequate mudguards to be a significant factor in accidents. As much attention as possible is being given to the problems associated with spray from vehicles, bearing in mind that there are many other features of vehicles the improvements of which have a greater bearing on the saving of lives. The proportion of heavy vehicles not conforming to the current regulations is believed to be small. In 1968 there were 1,534 police prosecutions for mudguard offences, but the number involving heavy vehicles is not separately recorded, nor is it known how many, if any, were related to inadequate design.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that full reply, may I ask whether he is aware that on the Continent of Europe flaps on motor vehicles are the general custom and usage and are most helpful in stopping the nuisance? I cannot see why this cannot be enforced in this country. Also, would it be possible to divide the figures for prosecutions between heavy motor vehicles and lighter ones?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with regard to the second question, I will see whether this can be done. With regard to the first question, as to the comparison between the Continent and this country, this point is in the mind of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, but since we believe that inadequate mudguards are not a cause of many accidents, other features are being looked at first in an attempt to cure other weaknesses in design which we believe are more dangerous than the absence of these flaps.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I asked this question 18 months ago, and that it was in the mind of the Minister then? I hope not to have to ask it again in another 18 months' time.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, will my noble friend ask the Minister to take a tougher line on this question? Is it not a fact that anyone driving a motor car, particularly on the motorways, realises that there is grave danger from the spray of heavy vehicles that are not adequately protected, and is it not time that the Ministry got tougher?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the views of the noble Baroness and of my noble friend.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Answer he has given is one that has been traditionally given both in this House and in another place? Indeed, I am not at all sure that in the past I have not given it myself. Is the noble Lord aware that there is great substance in this? Would he ask his right honourable friend the Minister to request the Road Research Laboratory to undertake a study into this question and also into the benefits which are achieved on the Continent? Is he further aware that all of us from our personal experience of being sprayed from the vehicle in front with mud and muck are well aware of the value of flaps, and that fitting of mudguards would be a great improvement to road safety?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords I will convey that information to my right honourable friend. However, I should like to make this point. I have

811
asked this question myself, being a fellow sufferer, and I have discovered that if the rear wheels of heavy lorries are too heavily shrouded with valances and weather flaps there is a tendency to overheat on both brakes and tyres, which can lead to other types of accident.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that every time this stock answer is given it is really less applicable—because as the network of motorways extends, so does the average speed of much motor traffic, and hence the danger of obscuring the windscreen with spray becomes ever worse.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I ask whether any progress is being made in the preparation of the Paper on this subject?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will see whether I can write to the noble Marquess on that point.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is not the throwing of mud a habit to which Continentals are far more addicted than our own people?

IMMIGRATION: PROBLEMS OF ASIANS IN KENYA AND UGANDA
2.49 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 action they propose to take to meet the difficulties of Asians in Kenya and Uganda holding British passports who are denied opportunities of a livelihood in those countries.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we are, of course, aware of the difficulties which some holders of British passports in Kenya and Uganda are encountering and the voucher system enables a regular flow of such persons to come to this country, including those in the greatest need. They are also entitled to come here with employment vouchers but, up to the present, very few have done so.
812
For the benefit of those of Indian origin wishing to settle in India, we reached an understanding with the Indian authorities whereby they could be given long-term entry visas with a view to settlement.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, first, that I welcome his return?—and perhaps I may say something about that later. Is the noble Lord also aware that I had intended to raise the question of Miss Vaid on this issue, but I understand that the matter will come before the House later? Therefore, I content myself by asking this question. Are not these people British citizens? Do they not hold a British passport, which, in the name of Her Majesty, asks all those whom it may concern "to allow the bearer to pass freely, without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary"? Is the treatment of these people who hold this passport consistent with that pledge given in the name of the Crown?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend has read out quite accurately what is on the passport. But as he, and I am sure the whole House, is aware, we have problems. In view of the demands made on the various services in our large conurbations it has become necessary to put some restriction upon the entry into this country of these citizens from East Africa. The case of the particular lady the noble Lord has in mind is, I gather, to be raised later by means of a Private Notice Question, to which an Answer will be given.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not true that the total Commonwealth immigrant quota has not anything like been taken up? Is it not possible, by having some more flexibility between the special vouchers and the employment vouchers, to ease this particular problem at the present time?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there are various factors which Her Majesty's Government are continuously considering. This is one of the matters we have in mind, but I am not in a position to make a statement.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, does it not invalidate the noble Lord's Answer when he says that we have to put a brake on this particular type of immigration, yet,

813
at the same time, under the Commonwealth immigrant quota he has something like 10,000 vouchers to play with?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that applications are made under the A and B voucher system, and it is not until many months later that we know whether the vouchers have been taken up by the applicants. It is only in the course of months that we know what is the size of immigration into the country.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government represented to the Government of Kenya that their discrimination against Asians there does not help the cause of interracial harmony in the rest of the world?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, our views on this are known to both the Kenya and Uganda Governments.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that, of the 8,500 employment vouchers available, only 4,010 have been taken up? Is it not the case that the Home Secretary has said that the figure for special vouchers is not rigid, but is flexible in relation to circumstances? Under these conditions, is it not possible to allocate places to be used by these British citizens to come to this country, especially in view of the fact of last night's announcement that the number of Commonwealth immigrants in 1969 was down by almost one-third on the 1968 figure?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will refer to the answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, he will see that I have said that we are considering ways and means. But it is a very difficult problem.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, in view of the fact that what is called "national prestige" is still a matter of some concern to some people, do Her Majesty's Government regard it as conductive to national prestige that holders of British passports should be wandering about the world like Flying Dutchmen begging hospitality from "lesser breeds without the law"?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is the sort of question which no doubt will get the headlines, but the fact is that
814
these people who are floating about Europe are people who have jumped the queue. The whole question then arises as to whether they should gain admittance because they have jumped the queue and caused problems, whereas others have remained in Kenya and Uganda awaiting their turn.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, does not the noble Lord's reply overlook the point made by my noble friend Lord Byers, that there does not seem to be much of a queue?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, is the discrimination against these people in Kenya and Uganda because they hold British passports, or is it racial—because they are Asians?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it has nothing to do with racial discrimination. Those of Asian origin who became Kenyan citizens have not been involved. There are many Asians who have not become Kenyan citizens and are still in Kenya and Uganda, and no particular threat is being made to them. There are certain others who fall into the particular categories in which Kenyanisation is involved, and it is these people who are in present difficulties.

FIJI: CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES
2.56 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely, what further constitutional changes are envisaged for Fiji.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at the invitation of the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition I visited Fiji between January 26 and February 2 to acquaint myself at first hand with the position reached between representatives of the two main political Parties there who had been having discussions about constitutional change. I found that both parties were agreed that Fiji should proceed to Dominion status: that is to say, that Fiji should become a fully sovereign and independent State with The Queen as Head of State, and that Fiji should seek membership of the Commonwealth. There was also a wide area of agreement

815
between the Parties about other aspects of a new Constitution.
As a consequence of what I saw and heard during my visit, and in particular of my talks with the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and their colleagues in the Alliance and National Federation Parties (and in view of the wide area of agreement between them), I informed the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that, subject to the Legislative Council endorsing by means of a formal resolution the proposals so far agreed, Her Majesty's Government will be willing to convene a Constitutional Conference in London in April with a view to finalising arrangements for the independence of Fiji.
I have arranged for copies of the report of my visit to be placed in the Library.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his reply. The noble Lord was good enough to arrange for me to have a copy of his report and I am grateful to him for it. I will not go into it in detail, as other noble Lords have not yet had an opportunity of seeing it, but perhaps I may just mention three points. I do not expect the noble Lord to go into them in great detail, but perhaps he can give me an interim reply.
I am not clear whether the question of defence has yet been exhaustively discussed. Also I am not quite clear whether the special position which I think is at present enjoyed by native Fijians will persist, or whether this will change under the new Constitution. Then there is the difficulty, of which I myself have a certain amount of experience, of the composition of the Legislature and the method of election. I understand that, as has so often happened on other similar occasions, this problem has not yet been solved. It may well be that it will not be solved before the Constitutional Conference takes place in April. I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord, because I know how extremely delicate these conferences are, but am I right in understanding that in the event
816
of disagreement it would be up to Her Majesty's Government, to provide the formula for election? I take this to be the case from the report the noble Lord has given me.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on the question of defence, this is clearly a subject that would be discussed formally at the Constitutional Conference. With regard to the special position of Fijians, particularly in the matter of land, this will continue as at present. As to the composition of the Legislature and the election machinery, as the noble Marquess will see, the two Parties have agreed that in the event that they themselves cannot reach agreement on the Lower House the British Government should rule. I felt it only right to Fiji, however, if that responsibility was going to be placed firmly on the British Government, that I should indicate how we would rule in the present circumstances; that is, that the present composition, the present machinery and method of election should remain, the only amendment being that necessary for the removal of officials from the Legislative Council.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us who are at times critical want most sincerely to congratulate him on the success of this Mission—extraordinarily difficult because of the conflict in the past between the Indians and the Fijians. He has accomplished quite an achievement in reaching this Agreement, and we should like sincerely to congratulate him.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if congratulations are in order I think they should be extended to the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in Fiji, and to all those colleagues who have worked very hard to reach what I think is a remarkable milestone for Fiji. We can take pride and satisfaction from the fact that this particular Agreement was signed by all the Members of the Legislative Council with the exception of one, a minority, a member of the Liberal Party.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I will not follow the last observation of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I rise to beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the assurance given by Mr. Callaghan on February 28, 1968, they will honour the spirit of the Home Secretary's undertaking in the case of Miss Ranjan Vaid to give her permission to remain in this country.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Beswick will be replying to this Question in the form of a Statement at a convenient moment after half past three, after which my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Common Market.

BASINCSTOKE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, in the temporary absence of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Chairman of Committees to advance the Second Reading of the Berkshire County Council Bill from tomorrow to this day, and that the Bill be taken after the Insolvency Services (Accounting and Investment) Bill.—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT 1932
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932, to the Urban District of Runcorn, be approved.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BILL
3.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Delacourt-Smith.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 (Intermediate areas and. functions exercisable in relation thereto):
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("() Without prejudice to the foregoing subsection, on the coming into force of this Act all receiving districts as defined by section 2 of the Town Development Act 1952 which have entered or at a subsequent date enter into agreements with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in accordance with section 8 of the Town Development Act 1952 or which have received appropriate consents or approvals of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in accordance with sections 2, 4, or 5 of the Town Development Act 1952 shall be deemed to be localities specified as intermediate areas under the said subsection and the provisions of this Act shall have effect accordingly.")
The noble Lord said: This rather daunting looking Amendment has in fact a simple purpose. It is also, I believe, quite important and I have some hopes that it may be received with sympathy by the Government. Under the 1952 Town Development Act provision was made for the recognition, with the approval of the Ministry of Housing and

819
Local Government, of various areas as receiving areas for population. In fact the Act itself is entitled:
"An Act to encourage town development in county districts for the relief of congestion of overpopulation elsewhere."
The object of this Amendment is to put these receiving areas on the same basis as intermediate areas for receiving industry.
I think one can say with assurance that the results of the Town Development Act 1952 have been extremely beneficial. The continuing process of making certain that great conurbations do not become too congested and overcrowded, of clearing slums and of re-establishing populations in new town planning areas has been extremely worth while. These are areas which, by their own actions, have prevented themselves from becoming intermediate or grey areas, as mentioned in the Report. They are areas which are building up thriving communities in partnership with the conurbations from which they receive their people. One in particular of which I have personal knowledge and experience, Winsford, in Cheshire, is doing a great job in building up a new community on an old community without any of the difficulties which often affect the making of new towns. These areas have often managed to build up a very good balance of industry and residents. Sometimes they are near enough to the old conurbation to enable a large number of jobs to be found in the conurbation, but very often that is not the case; the receiving areas are some considerable distance away and they must produce their own industry. These are worthwhile developments and are, indeed, part of a worthwhile form of town and country planning and industrial movement which I think all your Lordships would applaud.
When the Hunt Committee came to consider those areas they fully recognised the claims of Such areas for special treatment. In paragraph 329 of their Report the Committee say:
"We recognise that to date there has been really little difficulty in securing an adequate supply of industry and most of the new and expanded towns are growing very fast. However, all the Economic Planning Councils in the main regions affected by the overspill programme have expressed concern that, because of the high level of development area incentives, the flow of industry to the overspill areas
820
may no longer be sufficient. With the possible exception of Telford and some of the less successful town expansion schemes, this is basically a concern for the future, when, given the present overspill programme, the outward flow from the two conurbations will have to be much more substantial than in the past."
At paragraph 336 of their Report the Committee go on to say
"In our view the present Government policies for dealing with physical problems arising from congestion, that is the creation of new and expanding towns, must be matched by equally positive policies for the location of industry."
Then, in paragraph 338, they say:
"On balance, therefore, we concluded that a more liberal I.D.C. policy towards the new and expanded towns is needed so that policies for building up employment are more closely integrated with policies for population and housing."
And in paragraph 490 they say:
"We recommend, therefore, that a firm wishing to move to an overspill location should be permitted to do so, provided that the Board of Trade has advised the firm of the incentives and attractions of the development areas and provided that the movement is within the planned growth programme of the overspill location."
So far, this recommendation of the Hunt Committee has not received any attention from the Government, and so far as I can see in the course of the various discussions on the Bill here and in another place it has not been mentioned as one of the points on which the Bill appears to differ from the Report of the Committee. It is for this reason that I rather hope that it is an accidental lapse on the Government's part rather than a deliberate policy move. Indeed, I should be most surprised to find that it was a deliberate policy move, for it cannot possibly make sense to start discouraging this extremely worthy development.
We are not asking for any specially soft treatment for these areas. If this Amendment is successful they will take their place in the hierarchy of priorities for development. First would come the special development areas, then the development areas, then the intermediate and receiving areas together. Indeed, in paragraph 49 of the Hunt Committee Report, it says:
"In making this recommendation we are not creating a 'soft option'. The overspill areas must rely on their inherent attractions. They will not qualify for any of the incentives available in development areas, which, we believe, will not stand to lose a significant share of mobile industry by this recommendation."

821
So much for the Hunt Committee's recommendations, which I believe are right. As I have mentioned, in a large number of cases the expanding towns are some distance from the exporting authority, and in these circumstances the offer of housing accommodation to people moving out of the big conurbations is valueless without the provision of adequate employment opportunities.
In addition, considerable capital expenditure in the public sector is involved in implementing town expansion, and it would seem only logical that the creation of capital assets in pursuance of national policy should be given the maximum coordinated support. Since the timescale involved in the provision of housing and amenities is much longer than that involved in individual industrial movement, unless some reasonable assurance of continuing industrial support is forthcoming expanding towns, some of which already find themselves with houses left empty, will be faced with a continuous state of uncertainty and be faced with the problem of abortive capital expenditure.
I believe that if town expansion schemes are to succeed in their objectives, which have been officially approved as part of national policy, they should have the same statutory recognition and priority as the intermediate areas. There is, of course, only a limited amount of mobile industry, but if expansion schemes can have a similar statutory recognition to intermediate areas, leaving the choice of location within this whole category to the industrialist, the status of the town expansion schemes would be established within the machinery of allocation in a manner which would give effect to the expressed intent of providing a more flexible policy of industrial movement.
"Often"—
we are told in paragraph 336 of the Hunt Committee's Report—
"by the time an industrialist had considered and rejected a location in the development areas he had, not infrequently, decided as a result of frustration to develop in or on the periphery of the congested area, possibly in second-hand premises, or in certain cases to abandon plans for expansion altogether."
This was obviously not desirable, and I suggest that the widening of the intermediate area category will also widen the choice in a most satisfactory way for mobile industry itself.
To sum up, the adoption of this Amendment is essential to the effectiveness of the expanding towns policy. I cannot see any doubt about that. The only possible reason for rejecting this Amendment would be that expanding towns were no longer necessary. This surely cannot be so since the whole of the expanding towns policy has had the effect of making much more thriving a number of areas which might have become intermediate areas. To help the intermediate areas and to kill the expanding areas at one and the same time would certainly be to rob Peter to pay Paul. In addition to this, the Department of Economic Affairs, in its Progress Report for May, 1969 (the industrial and regional section), commenting on the Hunt Report, says on page 6:
"It is intended that all approved schemes for new and expanding towns should be properly supported by employment opportunities."
That is the way to do it. I sincerely hope that the Government can see their way to accept this Amendment. I beg leave to move.
3.15 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has, in a very valuable way, drawn our attention to the position of the expanded and overspill towns as part of the whole problem of the location of industry and population with which this Bill is concerned. However, I hope that in the light of the points which I shall be able to make, the noble Lord will agree that perhaps we should not be justified in amending the Statute in this way.
As the noble Lord has said, the effect of this Amendment would be to extend intermediate area status to all those areas which are at present, or may in the future become, what are described as "receiving districts" within the meaning of the Town Development Act 1952. These are, as he has said, the "expanded" or "overspill" towns in England and Wales— because the Town Development Act does not apply to Scotland. I should further make clear that the Amendment would not affect the position of the new towns which, of course, are covered by quite different legislation.
Throughout the preparation of this Bill, the Government have had to be very conscious of the fact that the supply of what is known as "mobile industry" is

823
limited, and I think the noble Lord himself conceded that point. We have further had to bear in mind the continuing need, and the urgent need, too, of the development areas for new employment opportunities. As we saw in the Second Reading discussion, the Government have had to limit the application, at any rate initially, of the new category of intermediate areas, precisely to try to ensure that we should not spread the available mobile industry so thinly as to bring little help to the intermediate areas where, as the present Bill indicates, the need is felt to justify the special treatment.
What this Amendment proposes is that we should in fact extend intermediate area benefits to a large number of expanded towns, because the total list of expanded and overspill towns is very long. Many of them are close to London or close to Birmingham; and the great majority of them not already within either the development areas or the proposed intermediate areas are in fact areas which are relatively prosperous, with unemployment around or below the average for the country as a whole. In the view of the Government it would not be in the national interest to seek to divert industry to such places. Their claims are not as strong as those of the proposed intermediate areas; indeed, in this respect they do not have as strong claims as some of those areas which have argued that they ought to be treated as intermediate areas but which it is not proposed to designate as such. Indeed, there may well be occasions where designation would scarcely be in the interests of the expanded or overspill towns themselves since, with the intermediate area benefits in addition to their natural advantages, they would be a very attractive option to mobile industry, perhaps to such an extent as to outrun the supply of housing available.
It is intended, as is made clear in the Bill before us, to designate by order the areas which are to be regarded as intermediate areas. The benefits which will arise are a good deal more substantial than more favourable consideration in respect of industrial development certificates, and I think the noble Lord will agree that his Amendment goes a good deal further than the recommendation of
824
the Hunt Committee on the towns in question.
However, I should like to give two assurances to the Committee in regard to the point that the noble Lord has raised. We have the needs and problems of the expanded towns very much in mind. If, at some future date, the circumstances of one or more of these towns justify their designation as intermediate areas, they will be so designated by order under the Bill in its present form. A number of new and expanded towns are already within the development areas or within the proposed intermediate areas. Secondly, may I give an assurance—and this particularly bears on the point on which the noble Lord concentrated—that the needs of the expanded areas will continue to be borne carefully in mind in the administration of the industrial development certificate control. In the light of the information which I have been able to give your Lordships, and after the assurances which I have also been able to give, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister very much for the sympathetic way with which he has dealt with this Amendment and with the case that I put. There is only one point of his argument which I should like to pick up, because on the whole I have enormous sympathy for those dealing with the whole problem of dividing up the limited amount of mobile industry. Obviously, the claims of the development areas and of the intermediate areas are extremely high.
I think the one point which should be taken up is the fact of these towns very often being in areas where there is not very high unemployment. That, in a way, is exactly my point. These towns are investing in more and more houses with the kind of capital investment which goes with that. At the moment they are keeping up, because they are attracting industry at about the same rate as they are building and filling houses. But if they are to continue to build these houses in which they have already invested, they must have more industry.
Although I am a little disappointed that the Government will not go further on this matter, I very much welcome the two assurances which the Minister felt

825
able to give, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord a question on Clause 1, which I am not entirely clear about? Where it appears to the Government that the economic problems in part of what is now a development area are not so acute that all the powers conferred by the Local Employment Act and the Industrial Development Act should be used, will it be possible for the Minister to downgrade, so to speak, that part of a development area to an intermediate area? It is not clear from the Bill whether that will be possible, particularly in view of subsection (5) where the drafting seems to imply that only a development area as a whole could be downgraded to an intermediate area.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My understanding of the position is that under this clause it will be possible for part of a development area to change its status and to be designated as an intermediate area.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

INSOLVENCY SERVICES (ACCOUNTING AND INVESTMENT) BILL
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
3.26 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, this is a general powers Bill to equip this important County Council with statutory powers to carry out its many functions. Among the powers for which the Bill asks are powers to borrow money—including borrowing abroad— and powers to lend money, and it is on the latter powers to lend money that I wish to make a brief comment. The powers of lending asked for in the Bill go rather wide, and a good deal wider than Parliament has granted in previous Bills for local authority lending. The lending powers asked for in the Berkshire County Council Bill are set out in Clauses 35 and 39. Clause 35 would allow the County Council to lend to any local authority—and I stress "any local authority"—and Clause 39 would allow the County Council to lend to any person.
The recent precedent in this field is the powers given to the Dudley Corporation in the Dudley Corporation Act 1969, but the lending powers in that Act were a good deal narrower than the powers asked for in this Bill. I think your Lordships will find it relevant to recall that, when the Dudley Corporation Act was being considered in another place, attention was called to the extent of the lending powers. That Act, as originally drafted, would have allowed the Dudley Corporation to lend to any local authority, but as a result of the action taken by the Commons the lending powers were limited to—and I quote from Section 109 of the Dudley Corporation Act:
"(a) (i) an authority of which the Corporation is a constituent member; or
(i) an authority to which the Council appoint representatives; or
(iii) a member authority of a consortium of which the Corporation. is also a member; or
(b) the sum lent by the council is part of a larger sum borrowed by the Corporation by way of a stock issue, bond issue, foreign loan or issue of bills for their own needs and for the needs of another local authority seeking to raise money by the same means."
The limitation imposed was, as noble Lords will have observed, that the local authority to which they lent should be one with which the Dudley Corporation had a direct intimate relationship. I suggest that the guiding principle was evidently that, as Dudley Corporation were going to pledge the creditworthiness of the ratepayers of Dudley in order to raise the loan, they should limit their

827
lending-on to other people to borrowers whose credit they knew was completely sound and as good as their own. This implied that they should not lend to any local authority anywhere about which they would not necessarily know very much. I suggest that this is a sensible limitation, and that other local authorities seeking statutory powers in Private Bills for borrowing and lending should work within it. I suggest, in particular, that this might apply to the Berkshire County Council Bill. I would also suggest that Clause 39 of the Bill, to which I have referred—the power to lend to any person—should be considered in this light as well.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to make clear that I am entirely in favour of giving the Berkshire County Council— and, indeed, any other local council—all the powers they need to carry out their important and arduous duties, but I believe that the limitation in lending which I have suggested not only is sound in principle but would avoid the possibility of a difference of opinion occurring between this House and another place.
3.31 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has raised the fundamental points about this Private Bill, and they are, of course, points that will affect other Bills that are before Parliament at the moment. I do not think that the Government will find themselves in serious disagreement with the noble Lord, though we might put the emphasis slightly differently on some aspects. Perhaps I may look first at the provision which enables the county council to lend money to local authorities. I would remind the House again that there are nearly 20 Bills which will be affected by this, and which will have a similar provision, if not exactly the same one.
As the noble Lord explained very clearly, the background to this is that local authorities who want to borrow money, particularly if it is from abroad, naturally get better terms by borrowing a large amount, and to take advantage of this they want to be able to act together with other local authorities. Of course, one way of doing this is for one authority to borrow a larger amount than it needs for its own purposes and to
828
lend on some of that total sum to its partners in the enterprise. This seems absolutely reasonable, as I am sure the noble Lord and the House will agree.
Powers have been granted fairly readily to councils who sought a similar power restricted to lending on money to their own county districts. But the point which I think the noble Lord mainly has in mind is that the Bills deposited in the present Session, with one exception, put no restriction on the local authorities to which the money may be lent. As the noble Lord has said, a similar situation arose in the last Session over the Dudley Corporation Bill, and, as he described to us, the Bill came to us in an amended form which incorporated what has now become famous as the Dudley Clause. This meant, as he said, that joint authorities can be in the consortium, and that means, as I should perhaps explain, police authorities, water authorities, sewerage authorities and bodies of that kind. Under the Dudley Clause, they had to be authorities with which the corporation was in some kind of consortium— and, of course, this included an association for the purposes of borrowing. So as the noble Lord has said, they are wide powers indeed. The Committee which considered all this took a similar view, and the corporation is now doing as we recommended.
My Lords, my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Housing and Local Government take the view that the Dudley Clause is quite wide, and that it is an appropriate form for this provision to take. The scope for borrowing is quite good, and it is not unduly restrictive. My noble friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is therefore writing to the authorities whose Bills contain similar provisions drawing their attention to what happened in the case of the Dudley Bill last Session, and I expect that my right honourable friend will report in another place in the same sense. But, of course, the decision is for Parliament itself, and I do not think my right honourable friend will press it unduly. The view is not that the local authorities are not appropriate bodies; it is simply that the Dudley provision seems adequate.
The noble Lord was also concerned, I think with Clause 39 of the Berkshire

829
Bill, although he did not actually specify it. This clause extends to the investment powers which, as he said, can go beyond a local authority to persons who have certain specified securities: that means Treasury bills, trustee stock and so on. The real point here is that if the authority had some money which was temporarily available—in other words, which it could not use for expenditure at that particular moment—it could make a short-term loan to people with these kinds of security. I should like to emphasise that the money has to be paid back within twelve months, and if the person concerned does not pay it back the authority would redeem the securities and get its money back. In other words, it is a short-term and very sale power of temporary investment. I ought to say also that the powers in this clause have already been granted to three other corporations. The Government do not object to this power in the case of Berkshire because, apart from anything else, it adds to the authority's flexibility in dealing with financial matters; and, of course, as is also important, it may enable them to make a good bargain on behalf of the ratepayers. But it still does not seem to the Government that it is essential for the authorities to have this power.
May I emphasise again, my Lords, that this is a matter which the House itself will want to decide through the Committee which will consider these matters, and I think, therefore, that we ought now to allow the Bill to go forward and to be examined by the Committee. The Promoters of the Bill should then explain why they want these powers. I am sure that the Committee will take careful note of what has been said this afternoon, and that the Bill will have proper examination.
3.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in reply to this short debate I should like to say a few words about the procedure of the House on Unopposed Private Bills, which I hope will be helpful both to the noble Lord opposite and to the noble Baroness who has spoken for the Government. There are no Petitions against this Bill, and it will therefore be considered by the Committee on Unopposed Bills. The House will be aware that this Committee has
830
the power to amend or delete clauses from any Bill that it considers; and I shall personally ensure, of course, that the Committee takes careful note—and this merely confirms what was said by the noble Baroness—of what has been said in the debate this afternoon, especially with regard to the provision in Clause 35, giving power to local authorities to lend money, and to the provision in Clause 39, which gives power to make temporary loans. These were the two clauses with which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was particularly concerned. I shall certainly make sure that the Committee is fully seized of all the points that have been made on these clauses.
The Promoters will no doubt adduce evidence to justify the powers that they are asking for, and I should expect that the Government Departments interested in these provisions will report their views on them. There are, as has already been mentioned, a number of other Bills coming before the House in the future which contain similar provisions to those in Clause 35 in this Bill seeking power for the authorities concerned to lend money to other local authorities. The remarks I am making now in respect of this Bill will of course apply equally to the other Bills after they have been read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

IMMIGRATION: THE CASE OF MISS RANJAN VAID
3.40 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with, permission, I will now answer the Private Notice Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. My light honourable friend's undertaking applied to United Kingdom passport holders expelled from East Africa, and it has been fully honoured. Miss Vaid was under no immediate pressure to leave Kenya, and I understand that the authorities there were prepared to issue her with a dependant's pass authorising her continued stay while awaiting the issue of a special voucher from our High Commission. Nevertheless, she came here without the proper documents and had to be refused admission. My right honourable friend

831
the Home Secretary has this morning agreed that, exceptionally, she should be allowed to enter this country for a short period of three months to give her time to regularise her affairs.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply and to the Government for showing compassion and sympathy, and, if I may say so, for breaking up this horrifying game of human shuttlecock which has been going on for the last few days. The House will be deeply indebted to the Government for the action they have taken. May I ask the Minister to look at the general situation which the policies of the Kenyan, Ugandan and Her Majesty's Government are creating at the present time? This is a serious social problem and one which will get worse unless something is done about it. Is the noble Lord aware of what is happening? The overseas Government refuses permission to work; the British Government refuse permission to enter the United Kingdom; and the Asian is left to live on his or her resources until only the air fare remains. Can anyone blame these people at that stage for wanting to get out while the going is good? May I ask the Government to look at this matter again, from the angle of putting more flexibility into the rules; for example, using the quota not taken up on the Commonwealth immigrants' quota and applying it more flexibly in the case of these United Kingdom citizens?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's opening words. Of course, we all felt sorry and were immediately moved by the picture of a girl being "shuttlecocked", as the noble Lord has said, from one continent to another. But she deliberately chose to put herself in that position. There was absolutely no reason why she should have started off on this adventure. So far as the situation with work permits is concerned, I must say, with respect, that I think the noble Lord has exaggerated the situation. I was interested to note, while endeavouring to look into this matter, that of the 300 work permits allocated to Kenya which were available in the past year only nine have been taken up.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I put to the noble Lord this other point about the social problem? I do not know whether or not Miss Vaid has resources; but one can envisage a situation in which a girl of 21 has very poor resources in the country yet is not allowed to work. What is she going to do to earn a living?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is a problem, of course; but the point is that we do not have to exaggerate here. She would not have qualified for a work voucher, but she could have got a dependant's pass; she chose not to apply for it.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, what happens to girls who do not qualify as dependants? This is a social problem.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, it is a social problem, and this aspect of the matter is being looked at. I beg the noble Lord not to exaggerate the situation which, so far as I can see, is really not as serious as he makes out.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, these matters are very difficult and delicate. Is the noble Lord aware that my noble friends and I should feel bound to support the Home Secretary in refusing admission to somebody who arrived here without the proper documents? If they were admitted, it would be grossly unfair to others who might have come but who knew they were not entitled to do so. But could the noble Lord explain what is likely to happen if, at the end of three months, this girl has not "regularised her affairs"?—whatever that phrase may mean.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, again I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he said at the beginning of his supplementary question. The essence of this case is that this girl was a queue-jumper —that is the simple statement of fact; and the queue, in an orderly fashion, is being dealt with. Some 1,500 people a year are moving out—and she chose not to take her turn in that queue. As for the situation at the end of three months, that will be a matter for my right honourable friend to look at in the light of the circumstances of the time.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us deeply

833
appreciate the action—which is characteristic—that has been taken in this case? Is he aware that I take up a number of these cases and that I always find the attitude of the Home Office sympathetic towards them? May I ask him to give consideration to this point? This girl is 21; and my noble friend said that she had deliberately avoided her obligations. But is he aware that in many of these cases, particularly where young people are concerned, they are confused as to what their obligations are and that this may (I do not know the facts) have been the case in this matter? May I further ask whether my noble friend is aware that we must not be too denunciatory of either Kenya or Uganda in this matter?
A NOBLE LORE: Why?
LORD BROCKWAY: Is he aware that when Independence was granted to Kenya both the present Prime Minister of India and myself urged the Indian population there—and thousands were present—to become Kenyan citizens; and that the difficulty in Kenya and Uganda is due to the fact that there is a grave employment problem there and these large Indian populations are rot Kenyan or Ugandan citizens? May I ask this last question in a constructive way? Is it not clear that we must do something to clarify this confusing situation? It is not only Miss Vaid who is concerned: there are three stranded in Zurich; three others stranded in Paris, stateless, and 17 others detained in this country. Would it not be desirable that there should be further discussions between our Government, the Kenya Government and the Indian Government to try to resolve this difficulty?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I first answer the question which has been put to me by my noble friend. My noble friend asks: ought we not to have discussions with the Indian Government? The fact is that we already have an agreement with the Indian Government, the Anglo-Indian Agreement. Under that Agreement this girl, who was born in India and who has, I understand, two married sisters in India, could have gone to India. She chose not to go there. As for the other people to whom my
834
noble friend refers, most of them, I gather, are young people. There is a special problem here, largely arising from the fact that the younger people are more prepared to take the risk of jumping the queue than are some of the older ones.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the point that I wish to put to the Minister is this. I hope he will accept that there would be very general support for the Government— in most quarters of the House, I think—if no undue preference were given to anybody who tries to jump the gun.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged for what the noble Earl has said.

BRITAIN AND THE COMMON MARKET: COST OF ENTRY
3.50 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement on the White Paper, Britain and the European Communities: an Economic Assessment, which is being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. This White Paper will now be in the Printed Paper Office. The Statement is as follows:
"While this White Paper, as I have already told the House, deals exclusively with the economic assessment of the cost of British entry to the Communities, on a wide range of assumptions, honourable Members will no doubt wish to study it against the background of the four White Papers published in 1967, dealing with the decision of the 2nd of May to make application, and the basis of that application; the legal and constitutional issues; the matters relating to the Common Agricultural Policy; the fourth White Paper being the statement of the then Foreign Secretary at the meeting of the Council of Western European Union in July, 1967.
"The structure and content of to-day's White Paper follow the pattern I outlined at Brighton last autumn and announced to Parliament soon after. The estimates and assessments made in 1967 have been recalculated on the basis of more up-to-date information,

835
and they cover in particular agriculture, the balance of trade in industrial goods, invisibles and capital movements, and the consequences for each of these which entry into the Communities might have for us, and, in particular, for our balance of payments. The House will see that the White Paper also sets out the potential implications of membership for the development of our industry, and concludes with an overall economic assessment of the theoretical range of possible costs, in both balance of payments and resource terms, which membership of the Communities could involve.
"I have indicated to the House on a number of occasions the difficulties arising from the wide range of assumptions which must be made. Before saying a word about them I should make it clear that for reasons the House will understand the calculations do not allow for what we would hope to achieve in the course of the negotiations, whether in terms of quantities and costs, or in terms of periods for transition and adjustment.
"The assumptions that have been made relate in the first instance to the Common Agricultural Policy, and as far as possible reflect the most recent decisions of E.E.C. Ministers: in particular the Summit Meeting at the Hague on the 1st and 2nd of December last year, and the meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Communities ending on the 22nd of December. Even now we do not have a complete picture of the future shape of the Community's agricultural policy.
"Clearly we had to wait for the outcome of these meetings as I have told the House more than once, and this was why my earlier hope of being able to lay the White Paper before Christmas was not realised.
"But the House will recognise that this is a continuing process. The Ministers of the Six met last Thursday, Friday and Saturday when the White Paper was already in print, and there will be further meetings which may necessitate revision of the estimates.
"Even if this were not so, the House will understand that many of the estimates must be highly speculative. There
836
must, for example, be a wide margin of error arising from any calculations which may be made about the response of British agriculture and industry to changes in prices and tariff levels, whose effects cannot be fully felt for a number of years. Honourable Members will realise what margin of error this involves both in the calculations of the agricultural cost, and its wider implications in industrial, commercial and financial matters.
"Given the assumptions we have sought to present, within an inevitably wide range, as full and objective an account of the position on agriculture as is possible. We have, however, found it very difficult to present any meaningful estimates about invisible earnings and capital movements: still more difficult to make any about the long-term industrial consequences, described in the White Paper as the 'dynamic effect' of entry, though here many honourable members will have studied the report made by the Confederation of British Industry and published by them a few weeks ago. We have not found it possible to set out figures in quantifying these industrial consequences. It is right that those who are engaged in industry and trade, to whom would fall the responsibility of taking the thousands of day by day decisions which entry into the Communities would entail, should judge— as honourable Members will seek to judge—to what extent membership would give industry more opportunity for successful enterprise and expansion.
"The White Paper also makes no attempt to estimate the cost to Britain of remaining outside the Communities, if the final result of the negotiations were to produce terms and conditions which the Government, and Parliament, were to regard as unacceptable.
"Again the White Paper does not attempt to deal with the political arguments for entry into the Communities, beyond recalling what was said on this issue in the 1967 White Papers.
"The House will wish to study this document which I must say right away is lengthy, detailed and heavy going. I am sure, however, that most honourable Members, whatever their views on the issue of British entry, will accept that the figures have been calculated

837
in a completely objective and neutral way. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House"—
that is in another place—
"will be having talks through the usual channels for a full Parliamentary Debate"—
and no doubt, my Lords, if I may intervene personally, we shall, of course, be prepared to consider this in your Lordships' House.
"To-day is not the time to attempt to draw conclusions in terms of policy from the White Paper. Britain's application for membership has been made and that is not in question. The Governments of the Six have made clear their intention that negotiations will begin in the summer. Until the outcome of those negotiations is known neither the Government nor Parliament will be in a position to take final decisions. The negotiations will take place aganst the background of Britain's economic progress, and particularly of the improvement in our balance of payments and in the strength of sterling. Not only this House but the world outside recognises the sharp contrast of our position to-day with our position both in 1967 and in the previous negotiations from 1961 to 1963. These facts create a situation in which Government and Parliament can take their decisions in full confidence that on fair terms we can stand and profit by the far more competitive situation that entry into the Market implies. But equally they create a situation which leaves no one in doubt that should the negotiations not lead to acceptable terms for entry, Britain is and will be strong enough to stand on her own feet outside. This was the target—a position of strength —I set for our economic policies when the House debated these matters in 1967.
"The question of entry, what I have called the final decision, does not arise on this White Paper, nor indeed for the debate which may follow. It is in the light of the negotiations which are due to begin in the near future that this decision must be taken. The Government and the House of course will recognise that political as well as economic factors are involved. If, when
838
the decision is to be taken, the disadvantages for Britain appear excessive in relation to the benefits for Britain which would flow from British entry, the Government clearly would not propose to Parliament that we should enter the Communities. If, on the other hand, the costs, after negotiations, appear acceptable in relation to the benefits, the Government will recommend entry.
"The Government will enter into negotiations resolutely, in good faith, mindful both of British interests and of the advantages of success in the negotiations to all the members of an enlarged community. We have made clear that if the negotiations produce acceptable conditions for British entry we believe that this will be advantageous for Britain, for Europe, and for Europe's voice in the world. Equally, we have made clear that if the conditions which emerge from the negotiations are in the Government's view not acceptable, we can rely on our own strength outside the Communities. But I repeat what I have said on a number of occasions in the House and outside that this outcome— a failure of the negotiations—would involve a cost for Britain, a cost for Europe, and a diminution of Europe's influence in world affairs."
4.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having repeated to us the Statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon in another place, a Statement which I think your Lordships in all parts of the House will agree is carefully worded and well-balanced. We on these Benches fully appreciate that this White Paper is bound to contain many assumptions, and we are not critical on this account at all. We perfectly appreciate that even now, as the Statement said, we have not a complete picture of the future shape of the Community's agricultural policy. That does not surprise us at all. We realise the difficulties involved and are sympathetic with Her Majesty's Government in dealing with them.
I was glad that the Statement referred to the report made by the Confederation of British Industry. I think it is a very valuable report and one which I feel your

839
Lordships should try to read in conjunction with this White Paper. We have been told that the White Paper is lengthy, detailed and heavy-going, and if the noble Lord the Leader of the House tells us that I should certainly conclude that it is no understatement. We shall all have to sit down and read this White Paper and refresh our memories with the other White Papers that have preceded it.
I consider that in this Statement there is something which can be gratifying to those of us on this side of the House who support Her Majesty's Government in their wish to participate in the European Economic Community—it is the indication of their determination to try their utmost to get in on proper terms; and Her Majesty's Government have the support, if not of all of us, of most of us on these Benches. I feel that Her Majesty's Government may be pleased that they have this support. Perhaps the situation was not quite the same in the earlier negotiations. We all appreciate that the question of entry does not go with this White Paper; it is the negotiations that count. We shall wait to see how these negotiations go. I am glad the noble Lord has suggested that it would be possible to debate the whole of this subject in your Lordships' House, for there may well be observations made then that will be helpful to Her Majesty's Government in the conduct of the negotiations.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we must all have time to study this long and complicated document before we can express any definite opinion on it, and I was happy to hear that we shall apparently soon have an opportunity of exchanging views on it in this House. Perhaps I may be permitted now to make some short points of a general nature in relation to what is said in the Statement which I think reflect the general state of mind of my colleagues on these Benches. Obviously the economic cost to the country of joining the E.E.C. depends on the assumptions made, and these must, as we all know, vary enormously. It must be equally obvious that on any hypothesis the cost would be considerable. Whether the cost is acceptable or not can, as the Government I think rightly say, be determined only by negotiations.
840
The decision regarding acceptability must be made in the light of the vast long-term economic and, more especially, political advantages of creating a new democratic entity in Western Europe that could eventually speak with one voice in the councils of the world. But—and this is the real point that I should like to make in relation to the Statement—such an entity simply cannot be formed unless this country genuinely accepts certain minimal supranational obligations, which have already been accepted by the Six, who incidentally have definitely now fixed their agricultural policy—not federal, in the old-fashioned sense, but sufficient to permit a common will to emerge as a result of the adoption of modern techniques worthy of the technological civilisation in which, whether we like it or not, we shall all have to pass the remainder of our time. Having said that, I can only say that negotiations seem now happily to be inevitable, and we wish the Government the best of luck in their endeavours to bring them to a successful conclusion.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords. I do not think there is anything I can usefully add until your Lordships have had a chance to read the White Paper. I wish you good luck in this. But I should like to stress that it is because this White Paper is a determined attempt to be objective within a wide range of possible assumptions that it is inevitably so highly qualified. I would echo what the noble Marquess said: that complementary to this White Paper is the C.B.I. report, which is a very valuable document and which I commend to your Lordships. We know the views of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I am grateful that he accepts that this is the right approach in the matter. I do not think that on a White Paper purely concerned with an economic assessment I ought to follow him into the discussion of some of the political aspects, which we could discuss at another time.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the White Paper states that the cost of living will go up from 18 to 26 per cent., and that the balance of payments (the figures are very cautious) will require from £100 million to £1,100 million more? Does he think that the country can bear that, in the

841
light of what we have had to go through in the last five years: wages restraints, rent increases and price increases, everything connected with a £500 million deficit in the balance of payments? Does he not think that though the three political Parties are all here to hear about this issue, the people of England ought to have something to say about a serious matter like this?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am not sure whether some of my noble friend's remarks would not amount to arguments for pursuing vigorously entry into the Community. I think it is inevitable that this White Paper, which is a frank and honest attempt to describe all the factors, provides material for anyone who wishes to do so to pick a particular point out of its context. I am bound to say, with reference to the range in the effect of entry on the balance of payments, that the cost range from £100 million to about £1,100 million not only makes no allowance for the dynamic effect of entry but is far too wide a basis for judgment and is obviously misleading, in the sense that it is inconceivable that all the elements in the calculations will work in the same direction, whether favourable or unfavourable. Nor do I think that my noble friend is correct in his statement on the cost of living which, as I recollect, the White Paper suggested may go up by 4 to 5 per cent. over a period of years. I would say to your Lordships that we cannot look at this matter in isolation. The balance of advantage would depend also on the extent of the wealth which may be created by entry and which, if things work out favourably, could more than cancel out any rise in the cost of living. This is not the time to debate it, but my noble friend's question is a warning to us that we need to look at all the possible assumptions. If your Lordships wish to debate the matter further, no doubt arrangements can be made.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I must put my noble friend right. It says in the White Paper that retail food prices would be going up from the range of 18 to 26 per cent. which means 4 to 5 per cent. on the cost of living.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has changed his assumption again. I do not think that
842
he mentioned food prices last time, but said "the cost of living".
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, while I welcome very much the White Paper, which I am sure will give us a great deal to think about, I would point out that it is primarily economic, and I think we may fear, from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, that it is just a quarry for people who want to pick out argument on the economic side. The real importance of the whole of this matter is political. I would ask the Government, if they are going to give all this ammunition to those who do not want to go into the Common Market, whether they stress the political side rather more than they have done hitherto.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the short answer is: "Not today". This is a very wide subject; it is not intended to deal with the political argument in the present context. This White Paper is to give what facts and assumptions are reasonably available for the purpose of debate. I happen to have considerable sympathy with what the noble Viscount has said in regard to some of the political arguments, but they do not arise in relation to the White Paper.

NIGERIA: RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
4.11 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: What action has been taken—

(1) To provide food and medical supplies to the victims of the Nigeria-Biafra war; and

(2) To contribute towards the means for rehabilitation.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I first table an Unstarred Question on Nigeria many weeks ago. I delayed it in order that my noble friend Lord Shepherd might be here. I do not think I need repeat the welcome which I have already expressed to him, but I should like to convey some apology to him that immediately on his arrival I have thrust him into discussing the issue, which must have been in the background of his mind while he was engaged in the investigation of islands in the Indian Ocean and in the Pacific. I have no doubt that his

843
extraordinary capacity to master a subject will make him equal to answering the debate.
On the whole, I do not regret the delay that has taken place before we consider this subject. My original Unstarred Question was put down even before the end of the war. One might have spoken then with a tension which would have been unwise. My second version of the Unstarred Question included two points which I have now deleted. The first was to ask Her Majesty's Government to assist in the maintenance of a ceasefire. When I first drafted that Question one feared the war might develop into a guerrilla war, and one had in mind the fear of the Ibos that they would be slaughtered. Happily, neither of those events has occurred. I want to pay my tribute to the discipline which has been exerted among the troops of the Federal Government, and to express the satisfaction I am sure we all feel at the fact that the Ibos have not suffered the massacre which they feared. It is always good to recognise one's mistakes—all of us probably make mistakes sometimes—and I recognise that it is not now necessary, in the circumstances in Nigeria, for the British Government to contribute towards the maintenance of peace, for the Federal Government is doing that satisfactorily.
The second reference which I have deleted was to some contribution towards an ultimate peace settlement. I wish to say this very emphatically: any settlement must be by the Nigerians themselves. It may be that from our experience we can contribute, but any contribution must be at the invitation of the Nigerian Government. The problem of a final settlement is extraordinarily difficult, with the various tribes which there are in Nigeria, but one hopes that in the new spirit that exists in Nigeria the representatives of the people may be able to get together and find a solution which will be satisfactory.
This fact makes me emphasise as strongly as I can the sovereignty and the independence of the Nigerian Government. At this moment they are rightly very sensitive to anything which is said which may seem to not recognise their authority. I have spent a good deal of my life struggling for the freedom and independence of African peoples, and the
844
last thing I should want to contribute in what I am saying this evening would be anything which suggested that the Federal Government did not have that independence. We must recognise that in internal affairs the responsibility rests entirely with the Federal Government. I say that not only to this House; I hope that the Ibo people in Nigeria will recognise this and will co-operate with the Federal Government in its fulfilment.
I pay tribute to the magnanimity of General Gowon. I very much doubt whether, at the end of any war in history (and I have tried to find precedents), there has been a case where the leader of the victorious side has spoken in such a reconciling spirit to those who have been his enemies and whom he has defeated. Those of us who have met General Gowon had little doubt about his approach and about his personal character. I never believed the allegations that he was engaged in a policy of genocide with regard to the Ibo people.
It is true that they suffered terrible massacres in the North. It is true that they had their million dead, caused by starvation—especially to the children. But that was never the will of General Gowon. They way he has spoken to the Ibo people, welcoming them back, offering them their old posts—although there will be difficulties with those who have been filling them in the meanwhile—gives us the greatest hope that there may be between the Nigerian people and the Biafrans a basis of reconciliation in the future. I have been approached frequently in the past few days by those who were from the Eastern Region of Nigeria and are now in this country, and who fear to return to Nigeria. I would say to them that all the evidence I am getting from Lagos indicates that they will be treated fairly when they return.
On this point, may I raise one issue with Her Majesty's Government? There are many students from the Eastern Region in this country. Twenty per cent. of them have been living on Nigerian State scholarships. They have in the past been denied those grants, justifiably from the point of view of the Federal Government, unless they took an oath of loyalty to the Federal Government. I hope that that difficulty will not now persist. There are also 80 per cent. of the students who

845
have not been receiving scholarships at all: they have come as private students. Their parents now have no currency with which they can pay for their maintenance here. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the problem of those students; perhaps to make contact with the African Educational Trust, which has done so much in these matters, in order to relieve that situation.
My Lords, I now turn to the two questions which I put particularly this afternoon. The first is the question of relief for the hungry and the destitute, and the second is the question regarding later rehabilitation. I want to say at once that I have not taken the view of some of my friends that the Government have been remiss regarding either the urgency or the extent of the help they have given. Their figures were quite remarkable in this respect and I appreciate tremendously what was done.
There is some doubt about the extent of relief which now has to be given. In a sense I am glad that we are having this debate when the conflict between my noble friend Lord Hunt and the journalists who visited Port Harcourt and the East is no longer an immediate issue. In my view, both were accurate. The Report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was an overall view of the situation; the reports of my journalist friends and colleagues were reports of what they saw— and they saw isolated events. However, those of us who have been to the East cannot have any doubt at all that the degree of hunger and starvation which remains must still be very great. Indeed, there is a report this morning by the Nigerian Red Cross that they are providing food now for one million people.
I feel impelled to pay my tribute, as one who has seen the relief which has been given during the war, to the Church Missions, to the Catholic Church and to other Churches which have been engaged in this task. I say that as a Humanist. But if the motivation of religion can lead to the kind of devotion and service and sacrifice which have been reflected by Catholic priests, Catholic nuns and Free Church and Anglican leaders, then that is a very great tribute to the real influence of spiritual powers which I want to be the first to recognise.
I saw those priests and those nuns feeding 3,000 women for their one meal
846
a day at six o'clock in the morning, feeding 3,000 children for their one meal a day at six o'clock in the morning, because of the fear of bombs later. I have a new view of nuns. I regarded them as serious and unsmiling, but to see one of those Catholic nuns singing and dancing among those 3,000 children and raising their spirits was quite a revelation to me of the kind of persons nuns are. I have seen since he has returned to this country the priest who was responsible for giving those 3,000 children their one meal a day. He said that the hardest thing he had ever had to do in his life was to tell those children that next day there would be no food for them. The disappearance of the service of the International Red Cross, the disappearance of practically all relief during the week before the end of the war must have intensified enormously the hunger and the starvation among those people.
It has been argued that the service which the Churches gave prolonged the war. They could have done nothing else. They were there as missionaries. Here were their people, here were their children, suffering from starvation. They could do nothing else but seek to feed them. But, beyond that, I think it is very doubtful indeed that the contribution they made to end hunger and starvation prolonged the war. If they had withheld, the main conflict might have collapsed, but the war would have become guerrilla warfare which would have made a solution of the problem of Nigeria much more difficult than it is now.
I want to say one thing to General Gowon, I think as a friend. I cannot tell your Lordships of his kindness and courtesy when we were there. When we were unable to visit Port Harcourt because of a breakdown of a 'plane there was a personal message from him by special messenger expressing his regret and asking us to stay on, or to return, even though we had been putting forward proposals which might not have been acceptable to him. In that spirit of friendship I want to ask him to reconsider the steps which he has taken against the Catholic priests and others who did this service in the Eastern Region. They are charged with entering what was Biafra illegally. They were not alone in that. I was guilty of it; Mr. James Griffiths,

847
the ex-Colonial Secretary, was guilty of it; official representatives of the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party were guilty of it; the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, Leader of the Opposition, was guilty of it; we could enter that territory no way except by Uli airport. I would make a sincere but a most appreciative appeal to General Gowon to reconsider the action he has taken in this matter.
My Lords, I want to conclude by concentrating on a series of proposals, which I hope are constructive, to Her Majesty's Government. They are not directed to the Nigerian Government. The Nigerian Government have their own responsibility, and even any aid which can be given from this country must be given in co-operation with them, with their consent and with their invitation. But in view of Britain's close association with Nigeria over the years it may be of some value to suggest to Her Majesty's Government what they might do in this respect.
The first problem is the problem of currency. I appreciate that the Federal Government could not accept the currency which was established by the administration in Biafra during the period of their struggle for secession. But the result of that is very terrible. It means that among the 3 million people who are still in that enclave there is no way at all in which they can buy food or their other needs. I hope that there may be some approach by Her Majesty's Government, perhaps through the International Monetary Fund, by which this problem, difficult though I recognise it is, might be solved.
Secondly, these people are now returning to their plots and their huts, and they find everything devastated—devastated not only by the Nigerian advance but also by Biafran troops. They are approaching the planting season, with their land, their huts, their homes, destroyed. There is an extraordinary necessity at this moment for seeds, for farm implements and for materials with which they can rebuild their homes. I hope that Her Majesty's Government, particularly in connection with seeds and farm implements, may be able to consider with the Nigerian Government whether some contribution can be made in those ways.
I turn to the second point in my Question, rehabilitation. Construction will be immensely important. Engineers, machines and materials will be necessary for the building of roads, the building of bridges and the construction of buildings. May I just illustrate that by one point? There is the Onitsha-Asaba bridge, a vital means of communication between East and West. If there is going to be reconstruction it is imperative that that bridge is rebuilt, not merely in a temporary way but in a final way, so that it is able to carry heavy lorries and all the normal traffic of peace time. I hope that Her Majesty's Government may be able to discuss with the Nigerian Government ways in which that help, by way of personnel and materials, may be given.
It is important also that the industries in this area should be revived. I do not think I need speak for the oil industry and B.P.-Shell—they are probably capable of doing it themselves. But there are the textiles at Aba Onitsha; there is the pottery at Umahia; there is the asbestos at Enugu—all of which will need assistance if they are to be revived. Indeed, one would like to think that in this opportunity of reconstruction new light industries might be established. There is the covered market at Onitsha, where 70 per cent. of the buildings were damaged or destroyed. I wonder whether it would be possible for our Ministry of Overseas Development to enter into discussion with the Nigerian Government as to how help could be given in these directions.
Lastly, my Lords, I turn to education. I suppose that the Ibos in the East were the most educationally developed people in the whole of black Africa, not only in their primary schools but in their secondary schools, which certainly no other African country could outdo. Financially it will be necessary to get these educational services going again. There is a particular problem for the secondary schools because the students have been fee-paying and their parents now have no money with which to pay the fees. There is the closed university of Nsukka, which used to be a pride. I would urge that aid should be given which should include the school services, from primary and secondary up to university level.
My Lords, our Government provided arms to the Nigerian Government during

849
the war. I hope that they will now offer, in co-operation and with their full consent, aid in the way of relief and rehabilitation in the ways that I have suggested. Nigeria was a great pride to us. Our hope now must be that, though the task is extraordinarily difficult, they will find the means to fulfil it and will make Nigeria a scene of greater pride than ever before.
4.36 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I feel it a great privilege to follow the remarkable speech we have just heard. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on many occasions, and on many occasions I have found myself in disagreement with him, but I have never questioned the sincerity of his humanity, and that shone through every word that he has spoken to us this afternoon. I should like to join with him in paying some of the tributes that he has paid—to join with him in paying them from these Benches. I would join with him in paying a tribute to the restraint of the troops of the Federal Government. I would join with him in paying a tribute to the magnanimity of General Gowon, and also I would repeat with him the importance that we on these Benches feel lies in remembering that Nigeria is a sovereign, independent and proud State, and anything that we are able to do in this country must, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, be at the invitation of the Nigerians themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said that much of his life has been spent in fighting for the independence of African peoples. Indeed, I remember only too well when I was at the Colonial Office receiving streams of letters from the noble Lord. I am afraid he did not always get answers that he found satisfactory, but I can assure him now that I knew that they were written in good heart, and to-day I feel happy that I am able to join with him. I find myself in agreement with practically every single word that he has said, and I feel that the speech he has made to-day will be really useful, not only in this country, but in Nigeria also.
My Lords, I should like to add my tribute to the missionaries. I add it as a practising Christian. The noble Lord,
850
Lord Brockway, is a practising Humanist. But, be that as it may, we both can give our praise to missionaries of whatever denomination they may have been, who unfailingly did what they could, as best they could, for the Nigerian people, whether they were Federal or whether they were on the Biafran side. I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in that also. The noble Lord ended his speech with a number of concrete proposals, and no doubt the noble Lord who is to reply will deal with them one by one. I would add my word In support of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, over the possibility of Her Majesty's Government making available seeds and agricultural implements. I believe that would be an exceedingly helpful action. But we realise that it cannot be done if it is not the wish of the Nigerian people, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was at great pains to emphasise this point.
I join with him also in believing that it is important that the reconstruction that is to be carried out in Nigeria should not be a makeshift, temporary affair. In fact, in all that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was saying he was seeing and hoping that out of this fearful disaster which has befallen these unfortunate people something better may emerge. I pray that Her Majesty's Government and the British people will be able to play a part in assisting the Nigerians to bring this about.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to the Ministry of Overseas Development having discussions with the Nigerian Government, and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will tell us what are the possibilities here. There was also the question of aid towards education. Here again I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I am sure that I am fully justified in saying that noble Lords on these Benches support this suggestion of the noble Lord. These have been terrible months, and it has been very difficult for any of us to hold an absolutely consistent point of view. Lord Brockway has spoken to-day with relief that something which he had anticipated, and which many of us also feared, did not take place; that is, guerrilla warfare. Like him, I thank God that this did not happen.

851
As for the noble Lord's remarks about the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the journalists, these seem to me to be absolutely in keeping with everything else he said; he was absolutely generous and fair. I have no doubt that the journalists were not seeking to magnify things; they were reporting what they saw, and these were, as I think the noble Lord said, isolated events. I have some experience of Africa, and I can quite well imagine how one might see something very distasteful and unpleasant, such as they did see, and might assume that this was the position everywhere else. We had, fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who was able to take an overall view. He also was generous in the way he spoke about the journalists. I think there is nothing more to be said on this matter, but I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, raised the point. With the noble Lord and, I am sure, with all other noble Lords and Ladies in this House, I pray that out of this disastrous war good might yet come.
4.44 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Marquess in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on his speech this afternoon and thanking him for it. I should also like to thank the noble Lord for altering the original wording of the Question on the Order Paper. I think he would be the first to agree—in fact I think he has done so—that some of the matters raised originally have been overtaken by events, and that the two which are now before us are more appropriate. Quite apart from that, I think this debate will be of value if only to enable the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to make a contribution. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, or to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, who, I believe is to make his maiden speech. We shall certainly look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He really has had a very difficult task, one which I know he has carried out with the conscientiousness that we expect from him. In offering a few comments, I do not want even by implication to appear to be approving policies which involve interfering with the internal affairs of
852
an independent sovereign State. But I feel bound to refer briefly to past history, and not merely with the benefit of hind-sight. At the same time, I must make it clear that I am expressing only my own point of view; I do not wish to commit anyone else. Looking back, I think there were two logical policies that might have been pursued by Her Majesty's Government. One was to say at the outset to the Federal authorities that we recognised this as a revolt they had to deal with, and that Britain would provide, not only those arms to which we felt already committed, but all the arms that they required, so that it would not be necessary for them to seek help from other countries, such as the Soviet Union. It may be that looking at it purely from the point of view of self-interest and not from any humanitarian motives, that would have been in the best interests of Britain.
The alternative policy, I believe, would have been very regretfully to regard this as a civil war and to devote our efforts wholly to medical aid to both sides: to provide food and other forms of aid, but to refuse to provide any arms at all to either side, however unpopular that would have been with the Federal Government. We should have tried to persuade other countries to do likewise, though maybe unsuccessfully. I know it is extremly difficult to be logical in international politics, but at least that would have been a logical and humanitarian policy to pursue.
However, that is all past history, and my only reason for mentioning it is that I believe that a considerable number of people in this country had an uneasy conscience about what they regarded as an inconsistent policy. It appeared that Britain was with one hand providing arms and with the other hand providing relief to lessen the suffering caused by the use of the arms which we had provided. It may be that that uneasy conscience explains the strength of the Biafran (as it was called) appeal. But certainly I do not believe that the motive was a desire to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign State. I believe that, so far as the ordinary people of this country were concerned, the motive was undoubtedly humanitarian.
That must be the background to the questions that are being asked to-day. I

853
hope that with the passage of time those in positions of responsibility in Nigeria will recognise the sincerity of those humanitarian motives. I will not waste the time of the House by repeating questions that have already been asked, but there are three questions that I should like to put which are ancillary to the main questions. Noble Lords will know that for a number of years valuable work has been done in Nigeria by Unicef. This was carried on before the conflict started and, so far as practical, I believe that it was continued during the conflict both in the Nigerian territory and in the Eastern Region. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can assure us that this work is continuing, as I believe it is, and also whether there are any obstacles so far as the Eastern Region are concerned. I am sure he would agree with me that, so far as an organisation such as that is concerned, there were and are no political motives.
Secondly, during this tragic conflict substantial contributions have been made in this country to Oxfam. I mention that body by way of illustration. Again, I am quite sure that there were no political motives. I believe that this money was given, often in quite small amounts, on humanitarian grounds. I wonder whether in winding up the noble Lord will be able to tell us if the relief for which this money was subscribed is reaching the places where it is most needed.
My third and last question has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I gave private notice of it to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. As Lord Brockway has said, there are in this country a number of Nigerian students, some but not all of them Ibos. During the period of the conflict no financial assistance was available for those students here in London and in other parts of this country. Several hundred were helped by voluntary organisations. I know of one, not an Ibo, who was greatly helped by Toc H. This is a continuing problem, because I understand that voluntary aid may not still be available. There is a continuing problem for students who will not finish their studies until the end of June, 1971. Their number is not great; I believe it is about 100. Is it possible for us to be told what is the prospect of the Nigerian Government taking responsibility for
854
financing their nationals and helping them to complete 1heir studies here? Alternatively, is there; anything that the British Government can do as a form of practical aid? I think this is relevant to the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because these students can, and I hope will, play an important part in the rehabilitation of their country, in the economic and administrative success of the Nigeria of the future. Therefore, I think that we here are justified in expressing our concern.
In conclusion, may I again say that we shall listen with great interest to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has to tell us, and also to the latest information that will be provided when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, winds up.
4.53 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, it would seem almost impertinent for one so recently as last Wednesday introduced into your Lordships' House to raise his voice in a maiden speech. I do so, not only because the rehabilitation of wartorn Nigeria must be a continuing concern to all Christian people, but also because since the Toronto Conference of 1963 my Diocese of Guildford has been linked with (he whole Anglican Province of West Africa in general, and with Nigeria in particular. I and some of my colleagues have been able to travel fairly extensively on both sides of the Niger, to support continuously since then various projects there, to meet and make friends there, especially with my brother Bishops and the clergy, mostly African; and to maintain regular correspondence with not a few of them, both East and West of the Niger, before and during the hostilities.
I believe that Christian opinion, every sort of opinion of men and women of good will, will echo the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to the chivalrous and generous attitude taken by General Gowon during the hostilities and since the end of the fighting. Those of us who have had the privilege of meeting and talking and praying with him know the source of his ideals, and are not in the least surprised. But I think we all should be glad to echo the tributes that have already been paid. Your Lordships will recollect that what most troubled the prophet Job was the advice

855
of his friends. I cannot but think that it is wholly understandable if, at times, General Gowon has felt the same about the way in which some people in this country have showered advice on the Government of Nigeria. Surely it is more important, as has been suggested by other noble Lords, to be ready in any way to give what is asked when it is asked for, within the proper limit of our ability, and to show confidence in those on the spot who are grappling with so tremendous a problem of reconciliation.
Only this day I received a letter suggesting some of the problems which have been hinted at by my noble friend Lord Brockway, who I suspect knew more about Africa than I do now before I was born. We have all learned with satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government have been supplying all the transport and the medical supplies that we have been asked to supply and tents for 10,000 people to assist troop withdrawals, and, in addition, have spent about £1 million on getting these immediate supplies out by the speediest method. This is indeed good news, especially as Lord Brockway has reminded us, and as I well know, that the end of February will be the latest time for planting, and seeds and tools must be got there immediately.
It is good to know that the Christian Council of Nigeria is helping with relief work and making every effort to act as a reconciling influence; and I have reason to know that Christian Aid and similar bodies here in this country are anxious to do all they can to assist the Nigerian authorities. Among those helping with the Nigerian Red Cross in the rehabilitation, missionaries are playing their full part. May I echo once again the tribute paid by the noble Lord to missionaries of all denominations, not a few personally known to me, whose actions and self-sacrifice in war and peace are seldom recorded in the headlines but are not forgotten in grateful hearts. I hope he will forgive me if I say that one ancillary benefit from all this has been to educate the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in the gaiety and joy of the nuns.
The size of the task facing any Government in the aftermath of war is too well known to many of your Lordships for anyone to attempt to underestimate it,
856
but it is all too easy, I suggest, to forget that a nation is a collection of individuals, with personal and family needs very like one's own. So it was in an endeavour to remember just this that some of us realised that one of the most personal losses that would be suffered by Bishops on both sides of the Niger would be the loss of every single book they possessed. I think, therefore, that your Lordships will be glad to know that, at our request, every English Bishop subscribed to a special fund which we set up to establish at least the basic ingredients of a theological library without which any Christian leader is sadly at a loss. In the last few days I have received a letter from a Bishop in the Eastern Region who has lost almost everything, expressing his heartfelt gratitude for this gesture of encouragement in the year in which he retires from the ministry of the Church. We await instructions from the Nigerian authorities as to when and how to send, not only for Bishops but for clergy and for teachers and their families, these and other necessities which we have stockpiled in our dioceses ready for dispatch.
As has been said this afternoon by many more experienced than I in the knowledge of Africa, we must go on being sensitive to the fact that interference in Nigerian affairs is rightly and naturally resented. "Here am I; send him" is a well-known slogan all too often adopted. I do not think that we must be deterred, however, or diverted from showing genuine concern, by the fear of being charged with interference. After all, like the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I know many people individually there. They are my fellow-Christians, my brother Bishops. I am proud to tell the House that last year, in the middle of the war, one of them came out from East of the Niger, and when consecrating the Bishop in Sierra Leone I looked across and saw that he had no ring. I thought it was only right that he should have a ring from Guildford, and I took off my ring and gave it to him. I suppose that now, in peace, I shall have the privilege of worshipping with him again, now that he can return, a new Bishop, for the first time to his own diocese. I am bound to go on anxiously watching throughout these months, especially when there is no sustained news hitting the headlines.

857
I think I cannot better sum up what I have tried to say than in some words which came to me yesterday from Lagos, addressed to his diocese at the end of last month by Seth Kale, the saintly African Bishop of Lagos. This is what he writes:
"The Head of State has said that the war was not fought between two enemies and there is no question of victor and vanquished. We all have to address ourselves to the new tasks now before the nation—tasks of rehabilitation, reconstruction and reconciliation. It is the duty of every Christian to play his part worthily in this different sphere of our postwar national service. May God guide and bless all who take counsel for the welfare of the people and the removal permanently of all obstacles in the way of unity and perfect confidence and trust towards one another."
Thus he ends. I believe there are many in this country who, with me, caring deeply for the people and welfare of Nigeria, would gladly echo that prayer.
5.2 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, it falls to me, a relative"new boy"in your Lordships' House, to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and, on your behalf, to offer our congratulations to him on his maiden speech. I only gathered that this would be my happy lot as this debate started. I know I shall be voicing the feelings of everybody here when I say that I listened, as all your Lordships will have listened, to a speech full of sincerity, well-informed, most interesting and, if I may add without fear of being misunderstood, for I have relatively little experience, well up to the standard of the speeches we expect to hear from the Bishops' Bench. I will not say that it was of a higher standard, or it might put him in difficulty with his fellow Bishops.
May I also say how much I appreciated the remarks of the noble Marquess, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on the much publicised confrontation between myself and the Press. I was a little concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to it as not an immediate issue, in case he felt that there might be some future occasion when we should have another happy confrontation. I have no such intention myself, although I cannot promise there will never be one in future. In general, I have the highest regard for the integrity and the rightful freedom of our Press.
858
I admit, and I admitted it to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that initially I had some misgivings about the Unstarred Question in the terms he had originally put it down, but I told him, and I say now, that I am glad he has raised these more limited questions so that all the details of the Government's action and intention, both in regard to the kind of help and the speed with which that help was provided and is being provided in response to the requests of the Federal Military Government, should be brought together, brought up to date and made clear in your Lordships' House and for all who care to read our debate outside.
I have no interest to declare in this matter at all. I am speaking now, as I have all along, as an independent witness and adviser on the relief effort in Nigeria when I say that I think this response, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the war, reflects very great credit on the Government. What is more, the speed with which these considerable contributions in material and skilled personnel were set to Lagos was little short of a miracle. This speaks wonders for the efficiency and devotion of officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Ministry of Defence and other Departments of State who all too seldom get the credit they deserve, and also, of course, the commercial agencies who are responsible to a large extent for the deliveries.
I should like to carry the question of delivery a little further forward, because, after all, it is one tiling to get these materials and these people to Lagos— the Landrovers, the trucks, the medical stores, the tentage and all the skilled people. But the real test of their usefulness to the crash programme which the Nigerian Red Cross was mounting was their arrival in the distressed areas where they were, and when; they still are, so desperately needed.
This is no place (and I follow all the other speakers in stressing this; and I know it perhaps as well as some other people in your Lordships' House, and possibly even better) to comment on the administration of the Nigerian Red Cross. But I should like to say how highly I regard their President, Sir Adetekunbu Ademola, and their administrator, Mr. Said Mahomet, and their former counterparts, Sir Louis Mbanefo and Mr. Moses

859
Iloh, from the former Biafran Red Cross, who are co-operating with the Nigerian Red Cross in relief in the East Central State. But I think it is a matter of legitimate interest and concern to hear whether every truck, every Landrover, all the medical stores, every doctor, every nurse, every relief worker—everything that has been asked for—has in fact reached the intended destination and is fulfilling its intended function. I, for one, hope that the Minister may be able to throw some light on this.
Perhaps, at the risk of digressing, I may say that I can throw a little light upon it from personal experience of somebody I happen to know very well, a nurse who arrived on the Tuesday, the day before my colleagues and I left Lagos, and who, with 31 others, reached her destination in the former enclave— and this particular nurse in Umuahia— on the Thursday, 48 hours later. That is not bad going. I can also confirm the speed of getting visa clearance, of which this was one instance; the cutting down of time in clearing vehicles and other material through the Customs, in registering the vehicles, and the efficiency of the Nigerian Relief Centre in moving the men and the material forward. This work was going splendidly when I left Lagos less than three weeks ago, and I hope that it is still going as well as it was then. The interval between the arrival in Lagos and the departure to the forward area varied between 24 and 48 hours. Having heard and seen some of the criticism earlier in the war of the delays which were going on in Lagos, I think this is a remarkable thing. This is, in addition to what my colleagues and I saw in the East Central State, in part what I had in mind when I said that I thought in many important respects the situation was encouraging and would continue to improve with every day that passed.
I have only one further observation to make, and I am following the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and other speakers in making it. and possibly extending it knowing that this is not the end of the anxiety which we must all continue to share with our Nigerian friends, and which has prompted our insistent—some would say our importunate persistent— urge to help. It is bound to take time
860
to remove the suffering, to restore order from chaos; and that profoundly modest and humble man, and honest man, General Gowon, has said as much himself. But in the hope that this will be the last occasion that it will be found necessary to debate this subject in our Parliament, I am taking the opportunity to say just this one thing now. I have been privileged to be personally associated with the relief problems in the Nigeria/Biafra war on a number of occasions since July, 1968. I have seen our people and other expatriates from many countries serving with Nigerians, with Ibos, if you like—it is quite immaterial—the needs of Nigerians in their hour of need; or perhaps I should say in their two and a half years of need.
I have seen what were for many the unaccustomed and appalling conditions in which they have done their duty, and the cheerful and devoted way in which they have stuck to their posts. I have seen them on the perimeter and all around the perimeter, in the South-East State, in the area of Ikot Ekpene, Abak, Itu and Uyo; at Udi and Enugu in the North; at Onitsa and Asaba in the West, and, more recently, inside what was the enclave at Orlu, Owerri, Santana, Ikpuro, Uli, Ihiala and other places. But whether they were feeding refugees, or providing medical help, or driving or maintaining trucks, or running the relief administration in the docks at Calabar or running the relief centre in Lagos, I am left with a sense of wonder at man's humanity to man which is quite oblivious of the differences of race. And whether they were serving with the Save the Children Fund, with Oxfam or the Salvation Army; with one of the national Red Cross organisations, including our own, or the International Committee of the Red Cross; and whether they were Lutherans or Protestants, or (as a rightful tribute has been paid to them) Roman Catholic Fathers and nuns of Caritas or one of the other Roman Catholic organisations, or whether they were simply Humanists I should like to pay my tribute to them all. And I know that your Lordships will feel as I do about them.
If ever medals were appropriate to a civil war—and I do not suggest they are—these are the men, these are the women who, with their Nigerian colleagues (and I have particularly in mind

861
the Ibo doctors and nurses and relief workers) deserve the medals. It has been a great privilege, a great experience, a great lesson for myself to be associated with Nigeria in her time of trouble, and I look forward to seeing Nigeria in her years of recovery. In closing I should like, if I may, to quote just one line from my Report about which I feel absolutely certain. It is that:
"The Nigerian people will emerge from this conflict enhanced in the estimate of people everywhere not only for their ability to forgive and forget, but also to manage their own affairs."
5.13 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to raise one point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, may be able to answer. We all know that the Ibos are a remarkably resilient people, great adepts at trade and commerce, and I cannot help feeling that food' would have been flowing very quickly into their enclave had the means of exchange existed to buy it. It is a well-known fact that in the aftermath of war one of the most important needs is to ensure that the civil population have purchasing power. At one stage it was quite clear that there was no exchange rate between the Biafran money and that of 'the Federation of Nigeria. I asked one of the Ministers a question about that, and he said that the matter was under consideration; but it seems to have taken a very long time to consider. One appreciates the anxieties of the Federal finance people about fixing any rate of exchange at all, because there is always the risk that they may be "had" by a quite unexpected flood of what they would regard as a spurious currency. Nevertheless, if you want to feed a starving civil population the quickest way to do it is to ensure that they have some purchasing power, and in places like Nigeria food will then begin to flow in.
5.15 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we hope this is the last occasion on which we in a British House of Parliament shall debate Nigeria. I have been very concerned at the prospect of this debate. I am sure my noble friend Lord Brockway will agree that certain pressures were put upon him not to proceed with this debate. The reason was simple. We were all very
862
conscious—I particularly so, having now had a long connection with Nigeria—of the growing and very sensitive feeling in Nigeria about countries continually advising them how to solve an African and a Nigerian problem.
I think one can understand their feelings when one looks back over two years, when the Federal Government had few voices speaking in their support against an increasing barrage of criticism in the Press, on television and on radio, not only in this country, but throughout Europe, Canada and the United States. Tribute has been paid to General Gowon. I have had a good deal to do with General Gowon, and I think it was my faith in him that made it possible to defend—as I had to do on an almost everyday basis in your Lordships' House—not only British policy but also what the Federal Military Government in Nigeria was seeking to achieve.
This debate has been a very different debate from what I had anticipated. In fact, the speech of my noble friend Lord Brockway set a special tone, and the debate has been of such a character that I should be most happy tomorrow to send a copy of your Lordships' Hansard to General Gowon.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt, but my noble friend has said that certain pressures were brought to bear on me. May I make it clear that I had decided to alter the terms of my Question before any of those pressures began; that I had decided to speak in the way I have spoken; and that I think I convinced five who represented the Front Bench, the Government or others who came to see me, that this debate would be of value rather than of harm.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am glad my noble friend had confidence in your Lordships' House. But, as I am sure he will agree, although he may have good intentions one is never quite sure what may happen afterwards.
If I may repeat what I think all noble Lords have said, we must always regard Nigeria, and for that matter any other Commonwealth country, as a sovereign and independent country. It therefore follows that the responsibility for providing relief for all those in need in

863
Nigeria rests entirely with the Nigerian Government. The Nigerians have fully accepted this responsibility of providing relief for their own kith and kin and are themselves mounting a massive relief operation. Last year, while the fighting was still continuing, they transferred the authority for co-ordinating relief from the International Committee of the Red Cross to the Nigerian Rehabilitation Commission and the Nigerian Red Cross. Last month, as soon as the fighting ended, the Federal authorities made it clear that they would themselves determine and control the entire relief effort, including the co-ordination of all assistance from countries overseas. For this purpose they set up a command structure in the Ministry of Economic Development and Re-construction, under its Permanent Secretary, Mr. Ayida, under whose control the work of rehabilitation is being carried out by the Rehabilitation Commission and the work of emergency relief by the Nigerian Red Cross, headed by Mr. Said Mohammed.
As soon as the war ended, there was, quite naturally, a flood of pressing offers of help of every conceivable description from all over the world. Some Governments and private organisations presented their offers immediately to the Federal authorities. Others spoke, and even acted, in a way which suggested that they intended to provide the relief aid which they imagined might be needed by simply flying it in, without observing any procedures of co-ordination or clearance. In this situation it was clearly essential for the Nigerian authorities to insist on their right, and their duty, to control and co-ordinate all these offers, to relate them to actual needs, and to ensure that the help which was given was provided in an orderly and effective manner. This duty the Federal authorities at once undertook.
The responsibility of the British Government, by contrast, has been limited to the provision of such relief assistance as the Nigerian authorities might themselves request. We, too, have sought faithfully and promptly to discharge that responsibility. Before the end of the fighting we had certain discussions with the Federal authorities, the International Red Cross and a number of other Governments about the problem of relief which
864
would arise when the end of the war came. It was partly as a result of these contingency discussions that food and medical stockpiles were established at a number of points around the perimeter of the enclave, even before the fighting ended. Thus at the end of the war the bulk of the food and most of the drugs required were already available in Nigeria and close to the areas of greatest need.
The most immediate and pressing problem was to take those precious supplies into the heart of the area of need and to distribute them. For this purpose, an immediate augmentation of the Nigerian Red Cross vehicle fleet was necessary. There was also some requirement for additional medical staff, although the Nigerian authorities were determined to make the maximum use in the relief operation of Nigerian personnel, including former secessionist supporters, as an essential part of General Gowon's policy of reintegration and national reconciliation.
As soon as the fighting ended, Her Majesty's Government made known to the Federal authorities their readiness to meet at once any request for help which the Nigerians themselves might put to us. Within a short time of the new relief organisation being set up in Lagos, a firm list of requests was passed to us, and within hours of our receiving that request the first aircraft load of urgently needed vehicles and medical supplies was on its way from Britain to Nigeria. Here, my Lords, I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in a tribute to the officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and, if I may say so, in particular to our diplomatic staff in Lagos, who have worked very hard, through many late nights, in order to see that these urgently needed goods were dispatched.
Throughout this period our civil airlift rapidly gained momentum. Within about two weeks we delivered all the vehicles, tents and farm tools, and almost all the other supplies for which we had been asked. These comprised 50 Landrovers (15 of which were generously given by BEWAC); 110 4-ton trucks; 534 tents and 153 marquees (enough to accommodate about 10,000 people); nearly 50 tons of medical stores; 30 tons of vehicle spare parts, and a large consignment of farm tools for rehabilitation purposes.

865
My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary announced in another place on February 2 our decision to give, from the £5 million extra provision announced by the Prime Minister on January 19, grants of £250,000 each to the League of Red Cross Societies (for the Nigerian Red Cross) and UNICEF, for the UNICEF relief and rehabilitation programme in Nigeria, and £150,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross towards the cost of their Nigerian relief activities. To the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I would say that UNICEF is still in being and is doing a wonderful job, and we shall give it our continued support.
The grant to the Nigerian Red Cross through the League should alone be sufficient to finance the relief operation for 25 days. A number of substantial contributions have also been given by other Governments. In addition, we were asked to provide urgently 15 doctors and 20 nurses to supplement the Nigerian, British and other expatriate staff already working in relief operations in Nigeria at the end of the war. With the prompt and efficient help of the British relief organisations, we were able to respond at once to this request, and all 15 doctors and 20 nurses are now at work in the field in Eastern Nigeria. For the present, we have had no further requests from the Nigerian authorities for relief workers, either additional medical staff or other relief personnel. However, in case we should receive a further request the Ministry of Overseas Development has opened a register of doctors, nurses and other relief workers who would be willing and ready to go out to help with relief work at short notice, and we should thus be able to respond quickly to any further request which might be made. The British relief organisations also have a number of experienced relief workers on their records who could be quickly available.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay a personal tribute to the British men and women who have responded magnificently to the call of the relief action in Nigeria. I include in this the relief workers who have been in Nigeria for many months past as well as the doctors and nurses who went out at such short notice in the last fortnight or three weeks; those who worked in the field during the war and have already
866
returned; not least those who have responded to emergency needs by leaving their normal and regular work in order to help in caring for desperately sick children in Port Harcourt and elsewhere; and also the many other British citizens in Nigeria who have contributed so much to the great effort of bringing help, food, medical care and succour to the victims of this terrible conflict.
It is not for me, speaking as a spokesman for Her Majesty's Government, to report to your Lordships' House on the relief situation in Nigeria itself since, as I have said, this is clearly within the responsibility and authority of the Nigerian Government. There has been a strong and natural resentment in Nigeria—I have already dealt with this point, but it is worth keeping it in our mind—against discussions and debates or anything appearing to trespass on their sovereignty and their proper authority. I will therefore confine myself to saying that we are satisfied that the substantial relief assistance which we have given has been put to immediate and effective use by the Nigerian Red Cross and the Federal Government; and that with the arrival of the personnel, vehicles and other supplies which we and other Governments have urgently provided, there should now be enough transport available to enable the food and drugs to be distributed to those in need.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to whose impressive speech I listened with great interest, has three times visited Nigeria to advise the Government on the question of how best to help with relief. We have relied much on his wise counsel and on the knowledge and experience of Colin Thornley of the Save the Children Fund and Mr. Hodgson of the British Red Cross who went out with him last month and in 1968. Noble Lords will, I am sure, join me in paying tribute to the valuable work they have done. Noble Lords will have studied their Report which gave a balanced, comprehensive picture of the situation they found. That is what they were asked to go to Nigeria to do.
Everything we have since learnt has borne out the accuracy of that Report. No relief operation, on whatever scale, could hope to remedy such a state of affairs within a few days or even weeks. Much suffering undoubtedly continues.

867
There are particular areas of special concern where difficulties of access to those in need have persisted with special obstinacy. Nevertheless, all the reports which we receive from recent visitors to the areas of need agree that there has been already a tremendous improvement in the scale and effectiveness of the relief effort; and that the resources for a further improvement are now available. For all this very substantial credit is due to the Nigerian officials and relief workers who have thrown themselves wholeheartedly into the relief action and by whose efforts so many Nigerian lives have already been saved. The food situation is a matter for which the Nigerian authorities, not Her Majesty's Government, are responsible. According to our own most recent reports, there are some 19,000 tons of food stockpiled in Nigeria, with substantial further quantities on the way during the next few weeks. The Nigerian Red Cross were helping to deliver during last week about 2,000 tons of imported foods, and a roughly similar amount of local food, both within Nigeria and to the relief areas. By the beginning of this month, about 1½ million people were being fed by the relief operation. The supplies already available or due to arrive shortly are estimated to be sufficient to enable the Nigerian Red Cross to distribute within a week or so about 4,000 tons of food every week. This is of course substantially more than was being distributed on both sides together before the end of the fighting, in addition to which local production can be expected to increase. Enugu will be used as the main depot for the distribution of local food and Port Harcourt for imported food. Private traders are already reported to be active in importing food supplies.
I have concentrated so far on what we have been doing to respond to Nigerian requests for assistance to cope with their immediate and most pressing problems resulting from the end of the war. Noble Lords will realise that this of course is all additional to our normal aid programme to Nigeria, much of which will assist or has already assisted in the rehabilitation requirements to which the noble Lord refers in his Question. In the second half of 1968 Her Majesty's Government offered the Federal Govern-
868
ment a grant of £100,000 for rehabilitation and reconstruction and a loan of £1 million which could also be used for this purpose. These offers of capital aid were accepted, and as a result orders were placed for such items as spares, telecommunications equipment, inflatable warehouses and various other items. A substantial proportion of these have already been delivered.
Additionally in 1968, an offer was made to establish and support a child medical care unit in the Nigerian hospital at Enugu in the East Central State. The unit was established just after Christmas of that year and has been operating ever since with considerable success. The unit consists of five doctors, ten nurses, one radiographer, one laboratory technician, one hospital administrator and three driver mechanics. This team, I repeat, is long established, and additional to the doctors and nurses recently provided specifically for the present emergency—although, of course, its members will be playing their full part in that too. I understand that since the end of the rebellion an increasing number of Ibo doctors and nurses have returned to work at this hospital.
Returning to the provision of capital aid, in October, 1969, an offer was made to increase the 1969 loan by up to £1 million, and in November a further loan offer of up to £1,750,000 was made for disbursement in the financial year 1970–71. Last month a Nigerian delegation came to London for discussions and agreement was reached on goods and services to be provided under these loans, some of which are for rehabilitation and reconstruction and some for development.
I was asked a number of questions which I shall now seek to answer. The problem of the Biafran currency is a real one. This is being examined as a matter of urgency by the Nigerian authorities, but I understand that, through the soldiers and police and other forms of civil life, Federal currency is now beginning to circulate in this area. But the problem is well understood. I was asked about the need to bring in seed yams. We made a contribution to a scheme run by the Save The Children Fund under which seed yams which were available in some parts of Eastern Nigeria will be brought in and distributed to the people in this

869
area. We contributed some £55,000, and I understand that the seeds that have been purchased will provide about 100,000 people with means of growing their staple food. As I indicated earlier, we have sent out farming material to help.
The noble Lords, Lord Brockway and Lord Wade, mentioned the matter of students. The fact is that Biafran money has never been exchanged in this country. Those youngsters who are in this country and who are private students must have had money from external sources. Therefore the collapse of the rebel area does not affect their position. But I understand that already the Nigerian High Commission in London has taken steps in the field of students as part of their policy of reconciliation. If there is any further information that I can get from the High Commission I shall be happy to pass it on to Lord Wade.
I was also asked by my noble friend Lord Brockway about bridge building. I understand that the bridge he had in mind is already being surveyed by the Federal German Government and repairs on it can, I hope, be started in the not too distant future. I suspect that this will be undertaken by the Germans. The Ministry of Overseas Development is, of course, in continuing touch with the Nigerian authorities to see how best we can help in the coming months. I have already given an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about Unicef, and he also asked me a question about private contributions. This, of course, is a matter not for the British Government but for the responsible organisations who have been collecting. I have no reason to believe that the moneys that they have collected are not being used for the proper purposes for which they were contributed, but I understand that a good deal of this money is going through the Red Cross in Geneva.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I make clear that I was not suggesting that any moneys raised were being used for any improper purpose.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that many of these organisations are channelling their receipts through the Red Cross in Geneva. I hope the House will feel that the British Government, with this very sudden collapse of the rebels and the end of the war, acted with expedition. I do not believe that we could have got the requests out earlier and I was very glad to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who was in Lagos and in Nigeria at the time, and saw the first results of the efforts in London. I can only repeat, my Lords, that I hope that this is the last occasion on which we debate Nigeria.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL MILK) BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a and to be printed.