Lords Sitting of 11 November 1970

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK
The Right Honourable Harold Davies, having been created Baron Davies of Leek, of Leek in the County of Stafford, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Bowles and the Lord Wigg.

BARONESS WHITE
Eirene Lloyd White, widow of John Cameron White, Esquire, having been created Baroness White, of Rhymney in the County of Monmouth, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Champion and the Baroness Phillips.
The Viscount Simon—Took the Oath.

ANGUILLA
2.51 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 conclusions have been reached on the recommendatons of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the future of Anguilla.]
THE PARLIAMENTRY UNDER SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the Report of the Anguilla Commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Hugh Wooding, was published on Friday, November 6, as a White Paper (Cmnd. 4510). Copies are in the Library of your Lordships' House. Her Majesty's Government will be considering the
732
Report in the light of further discussions with the parties principally concerned, and the process of consultation has already begun.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that many of us sympathise with the Ministry in their difficult task of bringing about a settlement? Can he give us an assurance that a settlement will not be imposed by force, and that Her Majesty's Government will continue, by patient negotiation, to bring the two sides together finally to find a settlement?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance quite unequivocally.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before putting two supplementary questions to the noble Lord, may I have the indulgence of your Lordships' House, since I was involved for some two and a half years with the Anguilla episode? I appeared before this Commission and of course took part in the conferences in Barbados and in Jamaica, and I should like to give a personal expression of appreciation to Sir Hugh Wooding, and his colleagues, who produced a notable Report.
The noble Marquess says that conversations are now proceeding with those principally concerned. I am certain that the noble Marquess will appreciate that this is a Caribbean problem, and I should like to know whether he intends to have discussions with the Governments within the Caribbean. Secondly, I should like to know whether the noble Marquess can say anything about Her Majesty's Government's intention in regard to the troops and police who are now in Anguilla?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to associate the Government and, I am sure, all Members of your Lordships' House with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, concerning Sir Hugh Wooding and his Commission for their Report. We are most grateful to him for undertaking this work, which, as the noble Lord says, is a most remarkable effort.
In answer to the noble Lord's two supplementary questions, I think it would

733
be right to say that the initial discussions will be with the parties immediately concerned. I am quite certain, at the same time, that after this it may well be necessary to consult with other Caribbean Governments. The noble Lord may like to know that copies of the Report have been sent to all other Governments in the Caribbean who may be interested. Regarding the second supplementary question, concerning the troops in Anguilla, I cannot at this stage give the noble Lord an answer. I think the future there really depends on what progress is made in the present consultations.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the withdrawal of troops—recognising that they have contributed immensely in a constructive way while they have been there—will be in negotiation, or discussion, with the Council in Anguilla itself?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I cannot say definitely, but I should think that if there is any question of withdrawal the interests of the Anguillans and the Council there will naturally be considered.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Anguilla is a very barren island? It is not economically viable, and some day Anguilla and the other islands will have to federate.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that is why we are considering the future so carefully.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not wish to press the noble Marquess, recognising the importance of the fact that the discussions initially should be between the two parties. But I hope that the noble Marquess, and the Government, will be under no misunderstanding that this is a Caribbean problem, and will recognise that an "Anguilla-" could be found in many other parts of the Caribbean; and that in the long run, both for St. Kitts and Anguilla, and many other territories, there should be very close consultation not only with the independent Governments of the Caribbean, but also with the Governments of the other Associated States.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I entirely take the noble Lord's point, and will certainly bear that in mind.
LORD REAY: My Lords, if I understand it correctly, the association between the United Kingdom and the State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla could be terminated by Her Majesty's Government upon notice, or by that Associated State on request, in which case the State would become fully independent. May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government can tell us, if not now then at some other lime, whether they envisage either of these possibilities within the term of the present Parliament?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, what we want to do, and I am sure the House will agree, is to find a solution that is acceptable, if possible, to all parties concerned. This will take time, and if the noble Lord would put that question later on, I will try to answer it in the light of what happens in the future.

PEERS' TELEPHONE AND POSTAL EXPENSES
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 how far the postal and telephone concessions allowed to Members of the House of Commons also extend to Members of the House of Lords.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I assume that in this Question my noble friend is referring to the concession granted to Members of the Commons from October 1, 1969, of free trunk calls and free postage for Parliamentary purposes. This concession was granted to Members of another place in recognition of the growing burden of expenses necessarily incurred in the discharge of Parliamentary duties which had to be met out of Parliamentary salaries. The concession was not extended to Members of this House upon whom the expense of telephones and of postage on Parliamentary business is not thought to bear with equal severity. Moreover, I should like to remind my noble friend that the maximum amount available to Peers in respect of reimbursement of expenses incurred in attending the House was increased from January 1, 1970 from 4¼ guineas to £6 10s. 0d.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that not very encouraging reply and ask whether he is aware that I did not put down this Question in any attempt to keep up with the Joneses, but because the duties and responsibilities of Members of this House do not just begin and end by attending in this Chamber?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am fully aware of the reason behind the thought which my noble friend has just expressed, and I take the point that we in this House, the Browns, do not necessarily wish to keep up with the Joneses.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would the noble Earl give further consideration to this matter? It is not a question of postage, because I do not think that noble Lords can compete with the House of Commons in so far as postage is concerned. But in regard to telephone calls the present position in this House is, as the noble Earl is well aware, that if you are resident within the London area you may make the cheap telephone calls, but if you are, like myself and many others, resident in the Provinces you have to pay the heavy trunk charges. Will the noble Earl have a further look at this point, with a view to bringing equality to all Members of this noble House?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am aware of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, has expressed to me, and of course I am only too glad to give some consideration to it. But it is not for me to say what can be done in this matter.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, further to that point, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that as Members of this House attend in many cases at the cost of business time, and of course without salaried remuneration, one amenity which would be very welcome would be a dial telephone system, so that we do not have to go through the operator? If it could be extended to S.T.D. it would be better still.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has a point there, and it is certainly my understanding that it is proposed to extend automatic dialling facilities to both Houses in about two years' time.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that long before the recent granting of the concessions to which he has made reference, it was possible for a Member of the other place to write to the chairman or an official of a nationalised industry, to a local authority, to a constituent or to a Minister without putting a stamp on the envelope? Why should the people in the other place be granted all the privileges? Why do we not stand up for our rights?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has become such a doughty defender of your Lordships' privileges.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Leader of the House aware that we appreciate his answer in defending the inflationary influence which is going on in the economy?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is a matter to which some consideration was given, as the noble Earl will know. In the light of the powerful expression of feeling on this matter, I think that an appropriate Committee—the Offices Committee or the Administration Committee—might consider it further.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there has been some considerable expression of feeling in your Lordships' House, of a somewhat lighthearted kind. Nevertheless, if it is the collective view of noble Lords that there may be a case for a concession of this kind, there is no reason at all why this matter should not be referred to the Administration Committee for their consideration, in the first instance, and we can see where we go from there.

HEAVY VEHICLES AND NOISE CHECKS
3.3 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: 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 annual noise check on heavy lorries, announced by the last Government, is to be instituted].
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON:: My Lords, detailed studies are in progress on the practical and legal aspects of applying a static noise test at heavy goods vehicle testing stations.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that six months ago the Government announced their intention of carrying out this noise check?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON:Yes, my Lords, the Government are quite well aware of that. We agree in principle to the desirability of a test, and we are now examining how best it could be carried out. There are technical problems, as well as manpower and legal problems.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, can the Minister indicate when the studies which he has mentioned as taking place will be completed, and when a report on the matter may be expected?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am sorry not to be able to give a completely satisfactory answer. It is difficult to predict exactly. The Ministry hope to be able to consult with the industry on the proposed testing method in the fairly near future. But it will probably still be a matter of a few months before I can give an exact answer.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that this is regarded by many people as a matter of considerable urgency, as well as of importance?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. As I said on November 3 in answer to another Question, the Government are going ahead on the point about noise. We are now talking about including a noise check in an annual static test. There are many problems, and we are considering alternative methods which might avoid problems and yet achieve effective inducement. I will give your Lordships one example. We could have mobile testers who would circulate around the stations in an area. They would arrive without warning and any vehicle due for test that day could be examined. People taking vehicles in for examination would never know whether there was going to
738
be a check, and therefore they would have every inducement to keep their vehicles in a good state of maintenance.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as one who dedicates his life to reducing noise, am I to understand from the noble Lord's reply that the Government intend to add to the number of snoopers who are daily interfering with the lives of free citizens?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think it is rather hard to call a vehicle tester a "snooper".
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, is there any possibility of an annual test on the noise of motor-cycles?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, at the moment I do not think we have that down as a problem. But under the regulations which are being introduced in 1973 the noise level from motor-cycles is due to come down, as the noble Earl will be aware, and by 1980 it will be down still further.

MOTOR DRIVERS AND SLEEPINESS TESTS
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that research carried out within the Mayo Clinic, U.S.A. suggests a simple test to discover those automobile drivers particularly prone to fall asleep at the wheel, and whether they will undertake to explore the possibility of using such tests in this country in order to reduce the incidence of cross-over motorway accidents.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I understand that the test referred to was evolved primarily for people suffering from the rare disease of narcolepsy. A recent study by the Road Research Laboratory of a sample of drivers falling asleep at the wheel indicated that they were medically normal. The Government's recent decision to install crash barriers on the central reservations of about 1,000 miles of motorway is the most effective way of preventing

739
cross-over accidents; we do not consider that the introduction of a test of the kind suggested would produce savings in accidents at all commensurate with its cost.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I cannot thank the noble Lord for what I regard as an extremely unsatisfactory reply. Is he aware that we are exercising very much greater care on eyesight tests for drivers, to eliminate hazards that are much less than those which might be eliminated if the Mayo Clinic's research findings were investigated in this country? Will the noble Lord please go back to his Minister and ask him whether this matter can be properly and seriously considered as a matter of public safety?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, of course I will go back to the Minister on any matter, if the noble Lord requests me to do so. But our information at the moment is not such as to indicate that any sizeable number of accidents is due to natural sleepiness in drivers. To save probable further questions from the noble Lord, I may tell him that tests have been done by the Road Research Laboratory, and it was shown that out of a total of 733 serious accidents which took place perhaps 3 per cent. were caused through a driver falling asleep. All of these happened either at night or in the early morning. More than half of those drivers had missed a night's sleep or part of a night's sleep, and 13 out of 20 drivers concerned had also taken alcohol. So I think the evidence shows that a combination of not enough sleep and taking alcohol is the chief reason.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, there seems to be a little dispute about the evidence here. Is the noble Lord aware that The Times about three months ago published a report which indicated that cross-over accidents were primarily due to mechanical faults, and that the two secondary equal causes were, first, skidding and, secondly, falling asleep or nearly asleep at the wheel? May I also ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the standing of the Mayo Clinic in research matters of this, kind?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether
740
he would not agree with me that it is quite unnecessary to go to the Mayo Clinic to discover the effect of over-eating and over-drinking?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, I think we should agree with the noble Baroness's suggestion. As regards the question asked by the noble Lord, I have a copy of the Mayo Clinic's report here, and I have read the whole of it. I agree; we are well aware of the importance of the finding, and it is a very thorough medical examination. It was chiefly, as I have said, a test on narcolepsy. The Ministry are certainly looking at this problem, but at the moment the effects of having to carry out this test would be out of all proportion if every person asking for a licence annually had to undergo it. There is one other point I would make. Anyone prone to nearly falling asleep is bound, in his annual application for a licence, to say that he is suffering from some defect.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, as the noble Lord has read the report from the Mayo Clinic, would he not agree that they distinguish quite clearly between the clinical tests on the diseased condition and the pupilographic tests which will show defects which are not revealed by normal clinical examination? Is it not therefore essential that in this country we should at least have a similar investigation carried out in order to make certain that a proper examination is made of all those who drive? If I may continue on this matter, would the noble Lord not also agree that defects of vision are extremely serious in drivers even when they do not result in accidents?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is quite correct. The Mayo Clinic has differentiated between the various degrees; and I have read all about the five degrees of sleepiness and the various forms it takes. But I must ask your Lordships to remember that there are something like over 7 million drivers applying annually for licences. To put all those 7 million people through a test would be prohibitively expensive in both time and money.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord assure me that this research

741
will not be applied to the House of Lords?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider whether, in order to prevent the incidence of this type of accident, motorists who find themselves compelled to draw up to the hard shoulder of a motorway should not be liable to prosecution by the police, since the number of lay-bys on the majority of motorways is totally inadequate?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am speaking completely from my own memory, but I seem to recall that we were told about 18 months or two years ago that if motorists pulled in for a rest or in order to walk around and get fresh air they would not be prosecuted by the police; but I must stress that I am speaking purely from my own memory on this matter.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, since on one occasion I myself was subjected to such a prosecution, would the noble Lord reconsider the whole question?

"ARK ROYAL" COLLISION
3.15 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about the collision between the 'Ark Royal' and the Soviet naval vessel in the Mediterranean."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, H.M.S. "Ark Royal", together with other Royal Naval and R.A.F. forces, is taking part in a national exercise being held in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Last Monday night she was in open waters between Malta and Crete, and was engaged in night-flying exercises. She had begun launching her aircraft, and was displaying the appropriate internationally recognised lights which showed that she could not easily manœuvre.
742
After the launch of the first aircraft, a Soviet Kotlin-class destroyer approached the "Ark Royal" on a collision course from the starboard bow. The carrier took what avoiding action she could and put her engines at full astern, but she was unable to miss the Soviet vessel, whose port quarter struck the "Ark Royal's" port bow.
The "Ark Royal" immediately stopped her night-flying exercise and diverted the aircraft already airborne so that she and her accompanying frigate, H.M.S. "Yarmouth", could undertake, with Russian vessels, a search for Russian crew members who were understood to be in the water. Although some were picked up by the "Ark Royal" and "Yarmouth" and returned to their ship, I regret that two are still believed to be missing. Only minor damage was suffered by the "Ark Royal", and she had no casualties.
In accordance with normal practice, a Naval Board of Inquiry will be convened to consider all the circumstances of the collision. Meanwhile, appropriate representations will be made about the incident to the Soviet Government.
It is not uncommon for Soviet vessels to keep close company with ships of the Royal Navy which are engaged on training and exercises. This particular incident reflects the dangers of this practice, and we trust that the Soviet naval authorities will take full account of it in their future deployment.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I note that there is to be a Naval Board of Inquiry, and of course I have no desire to prejudice the findings of that by asking any questions of substance. May I first of all say that I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House will regret the loss of life that has taken place, whatever may be the rights and wrongs of this accident, and I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will feel themselves able to convey to the Soviet Government their regret that there has been loss of life of any kind at sea. It gives me, and I am sure most of us, a feeling of great pleasure to hear that the "Ark Royal" and "Yarmouth" interrupted their manœuvres to search for Russian crew members—an action which seems to

743
be in the best traditions of this country and of the Royal Navy. May I also say how pleased we on this side are that there was no loss of life in "Ark Royal".
I should like to ask two questions of the noble Lord. First, is there any evidence so far that the Russian naval vessel was engaged in any form of monitoring or espionage? If so, will the Government make the strongest possible representations to the Soviet Government about the dangers of this kind of activity? Secondly, I would ask the noble Lord whether, as a result of this accident, "Ark Royal" is likely to be out of commission for any length of time.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while associating myself and those on these Benches with what has been said about the action of the "Ark Royal" in this distressing incident, and while expressing also our satisfaction at there being no loss of life in the "Ark Royal", may I ask the Government whether it ever happens that ships of any NATO countries keep close company with Soviet ships engaged on manœuvres and practices?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to both noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked me two questions. I do not think there is any evidence that the Russian destroyer was on a mission of espionage or of monitoring electronic equipment, but I should have thought it highly unlikely that she was there in order just to take an ordinary cruise. With regard to the noble Lord's second question, the "Ark Royal" will not be out of commission at all. Her damage was very slight— almost negligible—and she is carrying on with the exercise. With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, we also do this but at very safe limits; and there are very strict rules.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a convenient moment after half past three my noble friend Lord Sandford will be making a Statement on Town and Country Planning (Local Planning Authorities in Greater London) Regulations
744
1965 and 1967. This will be followed by a Statement by my noble friend Lord Aberdare on additional expenditure on the National Health Service. Finally, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be making a Statement on financial aid to Rolls Royce, Limited.

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, on behalf of the Lord Chairman, who is on Parliamentary duties overseas, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA ACT 1965 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1970
3.20 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before the House on October 27, be approved. While I am sure noble Lords will not wish me to rehearse the events of the past, it is perhaps appropriate for me to explain briefly the position at the present time.
Your Lordships will have heard that Her Majesty's Government's Permanent Representative at the Security Council yesterday vetoed an Afro-Asian draft resolution on Rhodesia. Explaining his vote, he said:
"In so far as this new resolution repeats previous obligations it is unnecessary: in so far as it imposes fresh obligations, it is unacceptable. … The fresh attempt in operative paragraph 1 to bind the United Kingdom' not to grant independence to Southern Rhodesia without the fulfilment of majority rule' …impinges on matters which are within the sovereignty of the British Parliament.… We are not prepared to enter into negotiations with our negotiating position dictated to us publicly from outside"
My Lords, it was for this reason that Her Majesty's Government's representative had no alternative but to use the veto in the Security Council last night. I would remind the House that when a similar

745
attempt was made in 1966 to bind Her Majesty's Government in this sense, the Security Council rejected the proposal.
The effect of the Motion now before your Lordships' House will be to continue in force Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, which gives Her Majesty in Council power to take any action that may be necessary concerning events in Southern Rhodesia. In introducing this Order on November 9 in another place, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that the Government intend to carry out their Election commitment to ascertain whether or not a realistic basis for a negotiation in accordance with the Five Principles can be found; and that to this end a preliminary message has recently been sent to Mr. Smith through our Ambassador and Mr. Smith's representative in Pretoria. It has been made clear that this has been done without prejudice to the present constitutional position. Your Lordships will not expect me to disclose the substance of this message, but I can state the purpose quite simply. It is to start the process of establishing whether a negotiation on the above basis will be possible or not.
I cannot pretend that the outlook is particularly hopeful, for circumstances have changed since a similar Motion was debated in your Lordships' House last year. During the last twelve months the Rhodesian régime have taken steps purporting formally to repudiate the Queen's sovereignty by introducing a Republican Constitution. There will, I feel sure, be no Members of the House who do not regret that this should have happened. We on this side of the House have always supported the aim of trying to reach a settlement, under agreed principles, and to restore legality in Southern Rhodesia. But we were not always in agreement with all the methods the last Administration chose to try to achieve these objectives. I know that there are Members of your Lordships' House who sincerely believe that Britain no longer has any power to influence the course of events in Rhodesia and that sanctions should therefore be abandoned.
It cannot be denied that sanctions have failed so far to bring about the political change which was their objective. Nevertheless, they do exert pressure on the Rhodesian economy and restrict the rate
746
of development; and it must surely be right that until we know the result of our attempt to find out whether a negotiation is possible and, if it is, the outcome of any such negotiation, any change in our attitude on sanctions must be ruled out.
So, in inviting your Lordships to approve the Motion, we are asking for your support in our attempt to see whether an acceptable way can be found finally to solve the tragic problem of Rhodesia under the principles which are fair to all races and creeds in Rhodesia and to which both sides of this House have subscribed, and in accordance with the commitments we have made before and since coming into office.
Moved, That the Draft Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1970, laid before the House on October 27, be approved.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
3.25 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, this Order must be one of the least satisfactory Orders which annually come before Parliament. No Party likes it. The Rhodesia Act 1965, as the noble Marquess made clear, was designed to achieve a political solution; but each year has brought us, even those of us who support the policy of sanctions, closer to the point of absolute despair about the ability of sanctions to effect a political outcome. This year some of us feel we have reached that point. The Order was introduced when this country, under the last Government, after having been trapped in a problem that was a legacy from her past, anxious to show that she, too, shared the principles of a certain international moral consensus, went to the United Nations in order to lead the United Nations in the direction they would have gone without us.
This action was designed to reinforce the assurance, which was also given, that Britain was capable and willing to solve this problem on her own to the satisfaction of the rest of Africa. This was unfortunately never true. Britain never wished to exert her strength against Rhodesia. This country under the last Government—and there are plenty of us in all Parties who gave at least some measure of support to the Government—simply accepted the blackmail (and one

747
must call it that) that this is what she ought to wish to do, and attempted to achieve by diplomacy a passable imitation of something which could only have been achieved by force. This is a situation from which we have not progressed at all.
Technically, this Order deals only with Rhodesia, but in practice it deals with our policy towards Southern Africa. It is hardly possible to separate any longer Rhodesia from South Africa. Mr. Smith was asked in public a week ago how long it would be before "one man, one vote" came to Rhodesia. He replied, "I hope never!" Rhodesia's eyes are on South Africa, and her one anxiety is that South Africa should not repudiate her, should not exclude her from her own defensive circle. For South Africa, Rhodesia is a welcome buffer State to be strengthened where possible, diplomatically, militarily and financially. They are only dissimilar in strength. From the point of view of the African countries of the Commonwealth each is identically evil. Accordingly, the consequences of a change in policy on our part towards South Africa would be the same consequences as a change in policy on our part towards Rhodesia; would be the same consequences as a change in our policy towards both countries together.
The authority we follow, the source of the commands that we obey when we adopt policies that we do not wish to adopt in these areas or take actions which are against our interests, is essentially the Commonwealth. No United Nations consensus would so restrict our policy were it not for our attachment to the Commonwealth. It is the break-up of the Commonwealth which has become the standard threat used to limit the freedom of our action.
I should like to ask this question. What is it in the idea of the Commonwealth which can bind us to endure so many painful situations, to listen to so many exhaustive lectures, and take actions which are not in our interests at all? The remarkable thing is that these interests are not sacrificed to any other country's interests; they are not expected to further any other country's economy or even to change the balance of power in South Africa: they are sacrificed to an idea. I believe that the answer lies
748
in a conservative attachment to tradition in this country which wishes to perpetuate the form of the past even when it no longer corresponds to fact. And the support for this attitude comes from what I see as the truly conservative element in all Parties: that element which starts from the premise that the unity of the Commonwealth, because it was the unity of the Empire, is paramount.
To perpetuate a form of the past when it no longer corresponds to fact is by definition hypocritical; and to be hypocritical is to be vulnerable to all the moral blackmail of other countries. There is not one moral argument of the Commonwealth countries—and all their arguments are moral—which we dare defy by an appeal to reality because our position is based not on reality but on pretence. I therefore think that it is the radicals of all Parties—and by "radicals" I mean all those who wish Britain to find her modern place in the world—who must in the end support the break-up of the Commonwealth, or support an action to be taken by Britain which deliberately risks the break-up of the Commonwealth; and then choose instead relationships with individual countries, including of course Commonwealth and developing countries, but choose these relationships in place of one relationship to one single, archaic idea.
It might be constructive to compare our position with our closest Continental neighbour and not least at this moment. Since the news of General de Gaulle's death yesterday afternoon, many noble Lords will have read and heard generous and admiring tributes, in the sentiments of which many noble Lords will, I am sure, have shared. It was largely under de Gaulle's leadership that France emancipated herself from her past, and in particular her colonial past. De Gaulle enormously stimulated that country's nationalism and made her a force with an independent course and an independent will, both in Europe and in the world. What General de Gaulle achieved was a post-colonial national renascence, and it may be worth remarking that for this achievement even those who are not French prefer on the whole to admire him as a patriot rather than to object to him as a nationalist. France also followed behind us in Africa, taking the

749
commercial advantages, where we were forced to become the victims of our own moral pretensions. Where Her Majesty's Government hesitate now in the face of international anger to sell a certain amount of arms to South Africa, that country, France, has long ago completed sales of many times that value.
The point is that France is no longer bound by her past, and, whether noble Lords like the fact or not, there is a connection between the achievement of General de Gaulle and the freedom that that country acquired to behave internationally in a manner in which we have never dared to behave ourselves. There are other countries whose foreign policies are inhibited by their past and in particular by guilt associated with their past; but perhaps none in so comprehensive a way, and to so inflated an extent, as this country.
In the months or even in the years following U.D.I., it may or may not have been reasonable to argue that the United Kingdom should attempt to acquire a control over the destiny of Rhodesia, and to ensure that that country received its independence on the same enlightened principles as we used with our other imperial territories. Most of us on these Benches believe that it was correct to make that attempt. We also considered that if sanctions were being applied—and they were being applied—then at least they should be applied effectively enough to be likely to bring about a political solution within the Five Principles. But every year has increased the distance between the objective and the fact. To-day Rhodesia celebrates—and "celebrates" is, by and large, the right word—the fifth anniversary of her effective independence. To-day, my Lords, as I said earlier, I should have thought hardly anyone could be found who believes that economic sanctions one way or the other will affect the political outcome.
We on these Benches do not find it unreasonable that Her Majesty's Government should wish to test for themselves, through a contact with the Smith Government, the possibility of a settlement on the basis of the Five Principles. We support Her Majesty's Government in their intention to maintain sanctions over this period. If a last attempt is to be made, it should be made without any
750
change in our demands or in the conditions supporting those demands. But if Her Majesty's Government report next year that there are no prospects of a political settlement with Rhodesia consistent with the Five Principles—and we must all expect that this will happen—then we shall be faced with two alternatives. We shall either have to withdraw sanctions; to start a fresh, more realistic policy; to admit with regret, but not necessarily, I agree, with shame, the failure of a not entirely dishonourable policy that had its origins in an impossible arrangement of pre-war colonialist policy and then to take the risks that must inevitably follow from any assertion of our independence as a nation. Or we must continue along the indefinite road of paying a certain price in trade, because we wish to do what the Commonwealth wishes us to do; and pay a much larger price for other inhibitions that the basis of such a policy imposes on all other aspects of our foreign policy.
Which of these alternatives should be chosen must be a matter that depends on the valuation one puts on the unity of the Commonwealth. Undoubtedly, there are many Members of your Lordships' House, and certainly there are many Members on these Benches, who set passionate store by the unity of the Commonwealth. For reasons which I have partially outlined, I no longer share this view. At this moment I would add only this: that for the Commonwealth to break up would by no means mark the end for us in our possibilities for positive relationships with countries now inside the Commonwealth, or with other developing countries outside it, in which we could continue to discharge, as we discharge now, some of the duties of an ex-colonising power to an ex-colonial territory, of a rich country to a poor country; and to assist such countries, either alone or with international co-operation. My Lords, we on these Benches do not believe that the time has yet come for such a decision; but I hope, and I believe that every other noble Lord in this House will hope, that this is the last time we shall see this Order come before this House.
3.37 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to offer our warmest thanks to the Leader of the House for readjusting to-day's business

751
so as to enable this debate on Rhodesia to take place at a reasonable hour. Yesterday it looked as if we should have to discuss it in the middle of the night, and that, I am sure your Lordships will agree, would have been very wrong. For there are, I suggest, certain new elements in the situation which differentiate to-day's debate from those which we have had in the past and which give it a rather special significance and importance. The first is, of course, the fact that this is the first opportunity that we in this House have had of examining the Rhodesian question since the General Election and the advent of a different Party to office in this country. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not think it offensive of me if I say that some advantage should surely accrue from new eyes being turned on this most intractable problem. It already seems apparent, from what the noble Marquess has told us this afternoon, that there may be substance in that view.
There is, moreover, yet another new element in the situation, which seems to me to make an even more fundamental change in it. It is this: though so many people in this country seem unwilling to face the fact (and this I am afraid I thought was true even of the speech of my noble friend Lord Lothian; and certainly of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay), Rhodesia is no longer what she was; a dependency of the Crown; a member of our family—or whatever you like to call it. Now, so far as we are concerned, Rhodesia is a foreign country, like any other foreign country; a country which sprang originally from the same stem as ourselves, as the United Slates did, but foreign all the same. I hate to say this, my Lords, but it is true. Whether we like it or not—and I personally was very sad at the news—Rhodesia, by her declaration of a Republic, has severed her last links with Britain and is now in exactly the same position as any other foreign country; and any negotiations that take place between us and the Rhodesian Government from now on must, I believe, take place on that basis.
I know that there are people—perhaps there are a number in this House—who even now will argue that they do not accept that assumption. Of course, they can say this if they wish: but it does not
752
alter the hard fact. After all, Great Britain, I believe, continued to quarter the lilies of France on our Royal Standard up to the year 1801; but that did not mean that we had any control over what went on in France or had done so for many centuries, and during that long period France would have greatly resented any interference by us in her internal affairs. And so I believe it is now with Rhodesia.
Many Rhodesians may retain, and I believe do retain, their old affection for Britain and especially for the Monarchy. Yet Rhodesia has made her great decision. She has, by declaring a Republic, cut her last links with us, and she will probably never come back to our fold. I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Reay, into recalling yet once more to your Lordships the sad story of how all this has come about. We all know it only too well. My purpose to-day is to look into the future and not into the past; and what I have said I merely state as a self-evident fact.
That being so, to go on harping about the Five Principles, as if we were in a position to insist on this or that, is to my mind irrelevant to the position as it exists to-day. It belongs to the past. If, before starting negotiations, we try to make pre-conditions on matters entirely concerned with Rhodesia's internal affairs, her representatives will merely say, "We are now an independent country, and our internal affairs are nothing to do with you", just as the delegates of France or Spain—or, indeed, of Tanzania—would say in similar circumstances. It is essential, I believe, that our Government—and all of us—should recognise this simple fact if we are to get a settlement at all.
And yet, my Lords, there is no doubt at all that it would be greatly to our own national interest that a settlement should be reached. There is something which we really must take into account. Indeed, Sir Alec Douglas-Home himself made a great point of our national interest in the speech on the sale of arms to South Africa which he made at the Conservative Conference at Blackpool; and, of course, he was quite right. But what he did not say is that this is equally true of Rhodesia.
Nor is there anything new about an apparent conflict between abstract ideals

753
and national interests. Again and again in our history, a situation has arisen where the Government of the day has been faced with a clash between the strict dictates of a moral conscience and the national interests of our country, and where the national interests have prevailed. I think that the case of the Armenian massacres in the latter part of the last century is a fairly good example of that. And, after all, there is nothing so very immoral about a Government having a proper care of our national interests.
Moreover (and this I think follows from what I have just said), are we so certain that in this particular case the moral basis of our policy is so very solid? Are we so sure, for instance, that majority rule is a moral principle at all? Or is it, as I think I have already said once to your Lordships in this House, just a stage in the evolution of a country from barbarism to a highly civilised state? And are we so confident that in this instance we, who live 5,000 miles away, know better at what pace that evolution can safely take place than those who live on the spot?
My Lords, we have already by our policy driven Rhodesia out of the Commonwealth. Do we really want to perpetuate this wrangle and push her into the arms of South Africa, whose policy, I understand, the Government, and even more the Opposition Parties, dislike? That is something that Opposition speakers in another place the day before yesterday seemed quite unable to appreciate, and yet that is what surely will happen if we go on on our present lines. And what a boon it would be, my Lords, if a settlement could be reached; first to the African—for, as Sir Alec said at Blackpool this year, it is the Africans who suffer most from sanctions; secondly, for the Europeans in Rhodesia, who are at present denied the possibility of developing their country more rapidly, as it should be developed, to the advantage of black and white alike; and, lastly, to ourselves, whose clear interest it is to see that our trade with Rhodesia, which we have lost, should be so far as possible restored to us. Indeed, so far as I can see, the only people who are really at present benefiting from sanctions are those countries who to-day are filching our trade from us, for no very high-
754
minded reasons. I would entreat the Government to abandon the policy of trying to enter into negotiations on the basis of the past. The past is dead. We cannot put the clock back, and to try will lead only to increased hardship for black and white alike.
And now, my Lords, to sum up, we know from what Sir Alec has said to us that the policy of sanctions has failed in its object of beating Rhodesia to her knees. As far back as 1967 (I quote from the Daily Express of October 13 of of that year) he used these words:
"However much one may have disagreed with them and forecast their failure to achieve a political result, sanctions were at any rate a policy: but now, because sanctions are openly failing, the Government—"
he was referring, of course, to the late Government—
"are left with no policy at all."
And, my Lords, though he has not used exactly those words in more recent speeches, he has gone so far as to declare at Blackpool, only a few weeks ago—and, he said very much the same thing in another place the day before yesterday:
"There is nothing more tragic than the rift between Britain and Rhodesia. I am certain that we have to try to mend the breach."
But did he add, mentally, "On our own terms"? I hope not. For that would be riding for a fall; and the Government must know it: and, if there is a fall, if negotiations fail, as on the basis of the Five Principles they are in my view bound to fail, we may be committed to a continuation of sanctions, if not for ever, at any rate for a considerable time. Can the Government really be contemplating that possibility?
One thing is certain, my Lords. Our national interests demand a settlement, and to get that must surely be our supreme aim. That being the case, I would make this proposal to the Government and to this House. I am not going to suggest—though I should very much like to see it—that we should now grant de jure recognition of the independence of Rhodesia; for I fully realise that that might be too strong a dose for many people in this country to swallow at one gulp. But there is an alternative which does not raise the same moral issues; and that is de faco recognition. That is merely a recognition of what everybody knows to be the truth, and it would

755
justify taking off sanctions, to the advantage of everybody, black and white, in Rhodesia. That, I would submit with all deference, would be the statesmanlike course to adopt.
My Lords, I must confess that I should dearly have liked to challenge a Division on this Order to continue sanctions. But it is clear that the Government regard themselves as committed to yet one more attempt to get an agreed settlement, and that nothing will budge them from that position: and there is no doubt that if anyone can achieve this particular miracle it is Sir Alec. That being the case, slim though the chances may be, and taking into account the attitude of both the Opposition Parties, any attempt to press this matter to a Division this afternoon would evidently be a very futile exercise. I would, however, most earnestly appeal to my noble friend Lord Lothian, who is, I understand, to reply for the Government, that he will at any rate leave us with some hope that, whatever the result of these projected negotiations, even if they fail, or even if no negotiations take place at all, the Government will not rule out the possibility of according de facto recognition to Rhodesia. For that, my Lords, may well prove to be the only way of bringing this unhappy dispute to an end.

LONDON PLANNING REGULATIONS: INDEMNITY BILL
3.52 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, if it is convenient to the House, I should like to intervene now to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend in another place, in response to a Question. His Statement says:
"I regret to inform the House that through a most unfortunate oversight the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning Authorities in Greater London) Regulations made in 1965 and 1967 were not at that time laid before Parliament before coming into operation,
756
as required by the enabling legislation.
"These Regulations, which govern the division of responsibility for development control between the G.L.C. and the London Borough Councils, were laid yesterday in their original form.
"I am to-day introducing an Indemnity Bill to deal with the legal consequences of the failure to lay the Regulations. There is the further complication that the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 prospectively repeals, also by oversight, the requirement to lay these Regulations before Parliament, though no day has been appointed for the coming into force of this repeal. It is clearly right that Regulations of this importance should be subject to Negative Resolution in both Houses. This point is also put right in the Indemnity Bill."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I gather that this is not the first occasion on which Parliament has found itself in some difficulty as a consequence of the complexity of Statutory Instruments—those that should be laid and those that should not be. Clearly this is a question of an oversight by a Department which we know is heavily involved in the use of Statutory Instruments. On behalf of my noble friends, and I think the House, I should like to express gratitude to the Government for the way in which this matter is being treated. Certainly when the Bill comes before this House I think I can assure the Minister that he will have no difficulty in getting it through.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA ACT 1965 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1970
3.55 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, this is a terrifying occasion for me, as it is the first time that I have spoken in this House, and I crave your Lordships' indulgence while I speak on a matter which I think has caused us all concern for some time. Five years have now elapsed since Rhodesia declared its independence. During this time it has

757
been hoped that some sort of settlement would eventually be reached and that Rhodesia would once again enjoy worldwide recognition. However, this has not been the case. Time has passed and nothing has been done: door after door has been closed, with the Governments of Rhodesia and the United Kingdom being no closer to a solution.
In June, 1968, the then Lord Chancellor, in opening the debate on the Southern Rhodesia United Nations Sanctions Order, said:
"The problem of Rhodesia is essentially a racial problem, because it relates to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which white men and black men are to live together …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17/6/68; col. 321.]
That is very true, but it is not only so in Rhodesia. The United States, for example, has a population of over 200 million, and of those some 22 million are negroes. Although the American Civil Rights Law of 1964 fully integrated their society, racial discrimination, or racialism as it is called to-day, still exists. However, there are negro militants who wage an almost continual war with local authorities. They are in constant conflict with the police, and there have been many casualties on both sides. In addition, there have been problems in America with white militant groups causing trouble. These clashes have no doubt caused the American Administration a considerable amount of concern; so much so that some people have suggested that the only logical solution would be to turn certain of the more densely black populated States into an independent black domain: a sort of apartheid, I suppose…
That is not only the case in America. One could name several countries where racial discrimination is practised and there is an inability of white and black people to live together. It is very difficult for the two races to live together in complete harmony. The very commendable ideas which emit from London, Washington and the United Nations are not necessarily practical in countries for which they are designed.
In the case of Rhodesia, I think we should all like to see a return to normality, but I feel that this cannot be achieved under existing conditions. If sanctions were dropped, I have no hesitation in saying that a forceful Opposition based on internal factions would arise in
758
the region. However, so long as sanctions are maintained no practical solution to the problem can be envisaged. Unfortunately, it is the fact that sanctions so far have hit the African population the hardest. It should be remembered that the lower classes are always the first to suffer. African development in the field of agriculture has not advanced as quickly as it should have done; and African education has suffered. In debating the question of Rhodesia, it is these things—the people who are hurt, and the slowing down of progress—that I would ask your Lordships to have in mind.
3.59 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it is an easy matter for me to be the first to congratulate the noble Marquess on his maiden speech. He has dealt with what most of us here would consider to be a particularly controversial subject in a completely non-controversial manner, and that in itself deserves much commendation. Further, he has done what I am afraid many of your Lordships do not often do (and I am as guilty as any in this respect); that is, he has expressed his thoughts clearly, concisely and shortly. He has made an admirable maiden speech, and I am sure that any future speeches he makes will be in a similar vein, and we look forward to them.
We are all agreed on one point in this matter; that is, that we are all equally anxious to see the situation in Rhodesia brought to an end. Where we disagree is on the methods which are most likely to succeed, and on the conditions which would bring it to an end. There is no point in reaching a settlement between Her Majesty's Government and Rhodesia if it does no more than lead to a further exacerbation of the tensions which already exist throughout the whole of Southern Africa. Our interests in this— the interests of this country; the interests of Her Majesty's Government—are, I believe, very simple and clear. We must safeguard our own economic and military position; that must not be put in any greater jeopardy than it is at present and, if possible, that jeopardy must be diminished. I do not believe that anybody will disagree with me when I say that we must also safeguard our own national honour. Our honour demands that, in so far as it is in our power, and even at the sacrifice of some of our own

759
material wellbeing, we must do all that we can to look after all those people in Rhodesia, African and European, for whom we had responsibility and for whom we must still have responsibility. We cannot avoid that responsibility simply by running away from the question. It is there with us; we must live with it, and we must remember that it is a matter of our national honour.
How can we act to reduce the tension that exists at present, and promote, in effect, a wider peace throughout the whole of Southern Africa? That is the problem that faces us. I do not believe that the point of view so ably put forward now and on other occasions by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is going to achieve that aim. We certainly could bring about a settlement with Mr. Smith and his colleagues without any great difficulty. But the great danger is that by so doing we should be putting at risk our own interests and the interests of those for whom we are responsible in Rhodesia and in the much wider area of Southern Africa. In order for a settlement with Rhodesia to be of lasting value, to achieve those objectives that we need for our own national wellbeing and honour, they must have the prospect of being acceptable to other countries also who are directly concerned, and this includes the countries to the South and to the North, the Congo, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Angola, Mozambique and South Africa. They are all concerned and cannot be left out.
I do not agree with those noble Lords, and others, who have asserted that sanctions have failed. Sanctions have not achieved anything like the most optimistic supporters of them thought they would achieve, or that we all hoped would be achieved. Undoubtedly sanctions have had an effect on the economy of Rhodesia. If we believe what we read in the newspapers and what people who have been there tell us, we know that although material conditions for a minority of people are comfortable, although as I believe we heard to-day on the B.B.C., or perhaps read in one of the newspapers—there are large numbers of swimming pools in the houses of the
760
citizens of Salisbury, and although there are a large number of two-car families (and there are more of them now than before sanctions started), the economy is not advancing as it should. The investments in that country, the infrastructure, are all suffering and there is a grave crisis on foreign exchange. Those are the basic, important matters—far more important than two cars and a swimming pool—and they are due to the success of sanctions. It is only because of that success that Mr. Smith is now prepared to consider further talks. It is only if that pressure is shown to be a permanent one, and an increasing one, that the talks will have any chance of success along the lines which the present Government have laid down, as did the past Government.
It is true—and again I quote the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who I think was quoting his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary—that the rift between Britain and Rhodesia is tragic. A rift between Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth would be infinitely more tragic. When we are concentrating on a settlement with Rhodesia—and it is right that we should do this—we must not forget what is at risk with the rest of the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. I hope that the Government may succeed in their talks with Rhodesia, that they may bring about a settlement, but I would far rather see no settlement at all than a settlement which runs away from our obligations of honour, and which is of a kind that arouses the enmity, increases the mistrust of those who are our friends and fellow members of the Commonwealth, throughout the whole of Africa.
Not only shall we thereby be putting at risk one of the greatest international assets that we have helped to create, and which we now enjoy, but we shall be fertilising the seeds which already exist of a racial conflict in Southern Africa. That is what the Government must always have in the forefront of their mind in these negotiations. If they put those things first, and they still achieve a settlement, then they will have earned the gratitude of us all. If they achieve a settlement without having put those things first, they will deserve the blame and condemnation of all right-minded people.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE: ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE
4.8 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I much regret interrupting this most interesting debate again, and for the moment preventing my noble friend Lord Barnby from making what I know will be a first-class contribution. However, with the permission of the House, I should like now to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services about how the Government propose to spend the English share of the extra £110 million which they have planned to make available to the National Health Service over the next four years. The Statement is as follows:
"For the next year (1971–72) the resources available for the hospital and local health and welfare services will now be about £75 million more (at constant prices) than during the present financial year, an increase of 6 per cent. overall, compared with 4·7 per cent. envisaged in the plans of the previous Administration; and with an increase of 4·3 per cent. during 1969–70. This means that it will be possible not only to continue the normal development of the services—building programmes, improved treatment and diagnostic services, more staff, in hospitals and the community—but also to speed progress in vulnerable sectors such as the care of the mentally handicapped, mentally ill and the elderly.
"Hospital and local authorities are expected to spend at least £100 million over the next four years on improved services for the mentally handicapped over and above present running expenditure. Of this about £40 million will come from the £110 million.
"Another area for expansion is the improvement of hospital and local authority services for old people and for the mentally ill. Nearly £300 million additional to present running expenditure will be spent over the next four years on improved services, of which about £40 million will be new money from the £110 million.
762
"I hope to make a statement soon of the Government's intentions in respect of family planning.
"We need to improve the accident and emergency services. A review of what should be done is under way, and when it is complete I shall be issuing further guidance. Meanwhile boards will be expected to aim at faster progress out of the increased allocations. I am setting aside an extra £3 million over the next four years for special units for the young chronic sick, and an extra £2 million to improve facilities and counsel for alcoholics. The whole problem of alcoholism is to be reviewed.
"The Government will encourage high quality national voluntary services. About half a million pounds will be available next year in support of voluntary effort—roughly twice as much as this year.
"Further anouncements will be made from time to time about developments in other special areas of the Service."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.12 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for repeating that Statement, the more so as we have awaited with great anxiety further information about how the Government proposals are going to work out. I should like, if I may, to put to him three questions. In the first place, I wonder whether he could explain the arithmetic a little more clearly. Are we right, for instance, in assuming that the so-called extra £110 million comes from the savings made on welfare food and school meals and prescription charges? If so, of course, we shall have to consider the priorities of the question. Could he equally make a little more clear the arithmetic about having saved about £40 million for the mentally handicapped? Where is the further £60 million coming from; and on the mentally ill and old people, £40 million again comes from the original £110 million. Where is the rest of the £260 million (I think it is) coming from?
Secondly, while of course we warmly welcome the Government's intention to carry out the previous Administration's

763
plans for the handicapped and the old people, may I ask whether the noble Lord is convinced that £3 million is enough to take the young chronically sick out of Part III accommodation? And over all these estimable plans we should like to know how the Government propose to increase the nursing staff, without whom none of these proposals can really be put into action.
There is one more slightly smaller question that I should like to ask the noble Lord. We see from the Statement that the boards—I imagine they are the hospital boards and so on:
"will be expected to aim at faster progress out of the increased allocations".
Well, I hope that they are increased allocations, but we should like to know whether the money will be actually there when the boards arrange to spend it. If they plan immediately to spend it, will the money be immediately there? And may we be assured that, if they can only spend it later than the period for which they have made their plans, they will not lose the money at the end of that particular financial year but will be able to use it later on?
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Baroness in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I do not want to follow the noble Baroness in her questions—although I think they were most cogent—but I am pleased to say that the plans proposed seem really to deal with those people who need them most—the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly. I very much hope that the services provided by local authorities for the elderly will work in the way the Minister has said, because it has long been one of the real difficulties about getting proper services going for the elderly that the local authority services, apart from some of the domiciliary services, have been far behind what has been done on the hospital side. We trust now that something may be done to encourage local authorities to keep up.
I am pleased to see, too, that the young chronic sick are to get some special care for themselves. I am interested to see what the proposals are and whether the sum of money allocated will go as far as we hope it will. The number
764
of young chronic sick is not very large. One wonders what provision will be made for their care, whether it is going to be in large homes or little homes. I am pleased to see that something at last has been done for the care and treatment of alcoholics, which is a much bigger problem than people think, and has been neglected by the Health Service for a very long time. I am also pleased that the Government are to encourage voluntary service. That will take some of the burden off the non-voluntary services in getting the job done. I shall be very interested to see how it works, and I hope that the Government will do as much as it would appear from the Statement of the noble Lord they will.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask a question? In view of the shortage of staff and the time it takes to build new hospitals, I attach great importance to the domiciliary service, and I would ask the noble Lord to elaborate that a little. He has referred to the chronic sick and to the old people, and all of these could receive attention if there were an enlarged domiciliary service. I would ask him how much of this money is going to be devoted to that.
4.17 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful indeed to all noble Lords and Ladies who have welcomed this Statement. If I may take the points in the order in which they were raised, I would congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, on having mastered the arithmetic, which I found quite complicated. She is quite correct in saying that we have been enabled to find this extra money for the services as a result of the other reductions in public expenditure which were recently announced. I have no doubt we shall be going into this subject next week, and so she will not wish me to comment further on it to-day.
So far as the arithmetic on the extra money for the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill and the elderly is concerned—both of which will receive £40 million extra over the four years—the additional £60 million for the mentally handicapped and the £260 million for the mentally ill and the elderly are increases which were already planned

765
by the previous Administration. We are continuing the development of the services that were planned previously, and are adding the further £40 million over and above that.
The noble Baroness asked about the allocation of £3 million for the young chronic sick. We believe it will enable us to make a start on the help which is very much needed for the young chronic sick, and, if I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, at the same time, it is particularly for providing special hospital units for them. This is a start, and if it is not enough we hope we may find more. Not all the £110 million has yet been allocated.
As to nursing staff, I fully appreciate that it is not only a matter of money. We are looking into this question very carefully and will do our utmost to recruit more nurses. Finally, the noble Baroness asked about Regional Hospital Boards. Their allocation will be phased over the years and they will spend the full amount over the four years.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who takes such an interest in the provision for elderly people, raised a number of points. I can assure him that one of our major concerns is to see that there are better services for the elderly in the community and especially (in relation to what the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, said) domiciliary services. We attach extreme importance to providing home service, health visitors, home nurses and so forth, because, as I am sure the noble Baroness would agree, the more we can keep people in their homes, the better for them and the more economic for the community.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for answering my questions so carefully and in such detail, may I ask whether we are not right in thinking that there is no increased allocation beyond what the previous Administration proposed, except for the money taken from the increased charges and welfare foods and school-children's meals?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I thought I answered that point. The fact is that by cutting public expenditure we have been able to provide more money where we think it is better used.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain to the House how he can reconcile this policy? He is prepared to undermine the health of the school-children for the sake of the elderly. It is a little difficult to understand this thinking.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I would not agree that we are undermining the health of the school-children. We believe we are providing all that is necessary at the right ages for those who require it, and we are not in fact expecting any cut in the total resources. There will be an increase in the resources devoted to health and welfare. But I think we had better go into this next week.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I know that I speak for all interested in the hospital services, and especially the mentally handicapped, in thanking Her Majesty's Government and my noble friend for this Statement. Would my noble friend look with favour on the expenditure of some of this money on hostels, in hospital grounds where applicable, so that a great number of high-grade patients could be discharged from mental hospitals and beds thus be released for more urgent cases, relieving many families of great distress?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Grenfell. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is hoping to give some guidance very shortly about how we intend to spend the extra money allocated for the mentally handicapped, and I know that the sort of project my noble friend has in mind is one with which he will have great sympathy.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question on the rather tantalising little trailer he gave us about the Government's making a statement soon on family planning. As chairman of the Health Education Council I may say that that is of great interest to us. Could we have an indication as to how soon is "soon"? In view of the fact that out of about 200 local authorities only one third provide a full service, less than a half partial facilities and the others very little at all, is the idea being contemplated of giving money locally, or of integrating contraception into the National Health Service? May I put to

767
the Government the cost benefit of a scheme of this sort? Are they also thinking in terms of increased expenditure on health education if facilities are to be increased?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am well aware of the interest of the noble Baroness in this subject. I can only say that "soon" is soon, and I am afraid I cannot anticipate what my right honourable friend is hoping to say.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether within this new scheme, which we all very much welcome, new accident hospitals will be given top priority? Is my noble friend aware that there are quite a large number of fairly large hospitals where, at weekends particularly, accident services are most inadequate owing to shortage of staff, and will he do all he can to see that this is improved?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am well aware of the difficulties of accident and emergency departments. My noble friend mentioned new accident hospitals, but these services are departments in hospitals and are often in need of help, especially at weekends. We are going into this subject very thoroughly now and will see whether there is a chance of improvement by use of some of this additional money.

ROLLS ROYCE RB.211-22 ENGINE
4.25 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation Supply, about Rolls Royce.
"In 1968, the previous Administration made arrangements to provide launching aid up to £47 million to Rolls Royce Limited for their RB.211-22 engine, which had been ordered for the Lockheed Trijet aircraft. The aid was intended to cover (after certain adjustments) 70 per cent. of the estimated launching cost of £65 million. This figure was later revised to £75 million without any increase in launching aid.
768
"Her Majesty's Government has now been informed that the cost of launching the engine is estimated to have risen to £135 million.
"Recognising the magnitude and importance of this programme, the Government has decided to join with the company and its bankers in meeting the increased cost. For its part, the Government will make further provision for launching aid at the existing rate of 70 per cent. Subject to a further check of the figures by independent accountants, to satisfactory contractual arrangements, and to limitation for a period of any distribution on the company's ordinary share capital, the additional launching aid will be 70 per cent. of the increased cost over £75 million up to a maximum of £42 million, thus making a total of up to £89 million towards the cost of launching this engine. Rolls Royce will pay my Department an appropriate levy on all engine sales. The banks for their part will be making a further £18 million available. No further assistance will be provided by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation beyond the £10 million which was committed by them under the previous Administration.
"Rolls Royce are themselves making their half-yearly statement to-day in which they are announcing changes in the company's management.
"The House will join me in expressing the hope that this important development programme can now be successfully completed."
That is the end of the Statement.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating that Statement, and we are still more grateful, if I may say so, for this immediate break in the political ideology which, as I understand it, was to treat anybody who was not currently making profits as "lame ducks" and allow them to sink. It is a very good augury indeed for a possible change of mind.
I have four quite concrete questions. First, are the Government providing guarantees for the £18 million which the banks, I understand, are lending? Secondly, are the management changes mentioned in the Statement conditional

769
on aid? Perhaps I put that wrongly. Are we insisting, as a consequence of giving this aid from Government sources, that management changes do take place? Thirdly, is one part of the deal an insistence on limitation of dividends by Rolls Royce? Fourthly, was the I.R.C. involved in these negotiations?
May I make a short comment on that? We on this side were very distressed indeed at the Government's decision to abolish the I.R.C., and in the light of the fact that the Government have now found themselves at so early a stage having to deal with a problem of just the sort that the I.R.C. was set up to deal with, would they—and I make this a real plea—seriously consider reversing that decision, reconsidering the matter? I and other Members of this House—and I have the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, behind me—know full well how difficult it is to deal with issues of this sort without being able to do so at arm's length through a body like the I.R.C. The fact is that Government accountants, with all respect to their ability, are not as competent at dealing with these matters as a body like the I.R.C. I do not ask for comment from the noble Lord now, but I make a very serious plea to him to reconsider the decision about the I.R.C. in the light of the experience they have had with Rolls Royce.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. While I greatly appreciate the prestige of Rolls Royce products and their value to the United Kingdom, may I ask three short questions? First, what is meant by "satisfactory contractual arrangements"? Secondly, what public accountability will be called for by the Government in return for this continued payment?—and "accountability" means something more than just checking the figures. My third question is, I think, in line with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brown: Does this Statement indicate future Government policy on subsidies to the private sector of industry?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask two brief questions of the Minister? First, will the Government appoint any representatives on the board of Rolls Royce, in view of the
770
heavy financial help they are now giving? Secondly, though the price of development has escalated, have the market prospects as regards price and quantity of sales equally escalated so that eventually we can look to commercial success for this venture?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for the points they have put. I note the point with which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, commenced his observations. I would only observe that lame ducks do not necessarily sink. He asked me, first, whether the Government are providing guarantees on the money which the banks are lending. The answer to that is, not so far as I am aware, although it may be that E.C.G.D. would come into this. But I should like to look into that matter and let the noble Lord know. Secondly, he asked, are we insisting that management changes take place? There have been discussions, but I do not think that in such discussions one could say that there was insistence in a matter of that kind. As the noble Lord may perhaps already have heard, Rolls Royce are themselves to-day announcing a change in chairmanship; but I do not think that I ought necessarily to associate that in any way with the point that the noble Lord was making.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I wonder whether I could ease the situation. What I was really asking is this: have the Government tinder the terms of this loan availed themselves of the power to insist, if they see fit, on changes which they think would be desirable?
LORD DRUMALBYN: On subsequent changes? That perhaps leads to another question, the question that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about contractual arrangements. It may be that this is something that will come into those contractual arrangements. I am afraid that is another point that I have to reserve and let the noble Lord know about. The noble Lord asked about the insistence on the limitation of dividends. I referred to that in my Statement. I said:
"Subject to … satisfactory contractual arrangements, and to limitation for a period of any distribution on the company's ordinary share capital …"
That has been agreed.

771
The noble Lord then asked, was the I.R.C. involved in these negotiations? I think he knows the answer to that question. The I.R.C. were brought in towards the end of 1969. They made a recommendation of the appointment of Mr. Ian Morrow to the board, and a convertible loan of £10 million was made by the I.R.C. earlier this year. That convertible loan will remain available to the company. Perhaps I should deal with the more general point about the I.R.C. simply by saying that this is obviously not a matter for me but I shall pass it on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry.
I think I have dealt with the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. He asked me secondly what the public accountability would be. I think the answer to that is that there will be the normal public accountability. No doubt if another place think fit they have their means of looking into these transactions through the Public Accounts Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, also, if I understood him correctly, asked about the contribution to the private sector. This particular operation is intended to further the launching aid to ensure the success of the RB.211-22 engine. This is its purpose. It will naturally help to secure the long-term prospects of the industry, with all that that implies. But I do not think the noble Lord expects me to go further than that in answer to his question.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye asked about a Government representative on the board. The answer To that is that the I.R.C. had a representative on the board, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, and that the Government will be discussing the future position with Lord Beeching and with the new chairman of the board. Finally, the noble Lord asked whether market pros pects have increased. We are here dealing with the fulfilling of a particular con tract for the Lockheed Trijet. I am afraid I cannot answer the question about the prospects for the Lockheed Trijet—
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, has the price of the engine gone up?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No. I should think that it was bound by the original contract, and this is why Government assistance is needed.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I have one further question arising out of the noble Lord's answers, for which I am grateful. This money is directed to a particular engine. Is consideration now being given by the Government to the total position of Rolls Royce, in view of its long-term future? This will need consideration. Can the noble Lord say anything at all on that score?
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that question, would he be good enough to answer two further questions? First, is he aware that I am totally vague as to what the precise commitment is that he has announced? Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for undertaking to produce the information, which apparently he finds more convenient to do at a later stage than at the same time as making the Statement. Secondly, may I ask him whether he will be good enough, when he has got the information, to give us a clear reply on the following two aspects of one main question: first, what will be the total legal commitment of the Government; secondly, what do the Government then consider their total moral commitment to be in regard to all their activities in relation to Rolls Royce?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord can have been listening very carefully to the original Statement. I thought that Statement was completely clear in itself. I am sorry to have to start in this way in answer to one with whom I have had long exchanges in the past and to whose maiden speech I listened yesterday with such attention and so much enjoyment. The position is quite clear. The aid that the Government are making available is up to a total of £89 million towards the launching of this engine, subject, as I said, to a further check of the figures by independent accountants and to satisfactory contractual arrangements. I think it is going a little far to ask me what those arrangements are going to be, when it is "subject to" them and to a "limitation for a period of any distribution of the company's ordinary share capital." Is that not clear? It seems to

773
me to answer the first of his questions. That is the legal commitment of the Government. He asked me, further, what is the moral commitment of the Government. The moral commitment of the Government is, on behalf of the nation to do their best to see that a very great asset for the nation is maintained. As I said, I hope that the action that has now been taken will ensure that that is done.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, what has happened to the philosophy of the Government? What has happened to this idea that we should all stand on our own feet, that there should be no interference by Government in industry, and that the free economy should be left to work things out in its own way? I can see that there is a case for helping industry, through organisations like the I.R.C., on a regular basis; I can see that there is a case for leaving industry completely alone and letting them stand on their own feet, if they can; I do not see that there is any case for government by exception. What is now the Government's policy on the relationship between the Government and industry?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Government's policy in relation to industry is as is stated, but surely even the Liberal Party will admit that there are exceptions to rules. In this case, of course, civil aircraft and aero-engine industries have always been regarded as a special case, and they are still considered as a special case requiring close co-operation between firms and Government because of the nature of the risk, the long periods of development and recoupment, and the scale of investment necessary.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, as the Minister was good enough to ask whether I was absolutely clear as to the content of his reply, may I ask him to clarify the matter a little further? May I ask him whether I heard him aright, when he replied to my noble friend Lord Brown, that he was not yet aware whether the Government had entered into any commitment with regard to the bank loan?—that is to say, that the Minister is not yet able to tell us the extent of the Government's legal commitment. May I ask him also, in order to clarify the
774
issue, whether, when he refers to contractual terms, it is contractual terms within a maximum liability, or whether the liability, the commitment which the Government have entered into, is openended?
Thirdly, may I ask a question with regard to the moral commitment, as I did not make myself clear? May I ask the Minister to consider that the Government have engaged their interest, engaged themselves in this company's affairs; they have discussed management with the company; and they have, as I understand it, arranged to have an animal (something I have never fully understood), which I am told is described as a "representative on the Board". I have never understood whom such a director represents, but that is the description which I understand has been given.
I also understand that the Government have restricted the freedom of the company with regard to its dividend distribution policy. Having regard to the extent to which the Government have intervened, or intend to intervene, in the affairs of this non-Government company the question I am asking the Minister to be good enough to consider and to reply to at the same time that he gives the information which my noble friend Lord Brown asked for, is to what extent the Government regard their moral liability in relation to the affairs of this company to have been increased.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, are not our rules, and the usual practice about comments on Statements, being stretched rather far? This has developed into a definite debate. Each time the Minister gets up, three more questions are asked. There is a main debate before the House, which has been held up for over an hour. I should like to ask whether, if the noble Lord who has just spoken wants to ask all these questions, it would not be better if he put down a Motion.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I put forward an alternative proposal, that when a question is put to the Minister, he answers it?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thought, with great respect, that I had answered the questions that were asked.

775
I quite understand the noble Lord's asking for further explanations, which is a different matter. I am sure that the House will take note of what my noble friend has said, and that they will want to get on with the debate. However, I do not want to avoid, or appear to avoid, the questions which the noble Lord has asked.
As to the bank guarantee, I think the answer is clearly, "No". That is what I said, but I said that it was subject to my confirming that there is no Government guarantee to the bank. This is a transaction between the company and the bank. As to the representative on the Board, I thought I had made this quite clear. There is a representative of the I.R.C. who is on the Board, and I said that the Government would consider that situation, and of course it has to be considered with that person. Surely, that is quite clear. Thirdly, there is the question of the dividend distribution policy. When Government money is being advanced—and nobody knows this better than the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—certain points that are in the general public interest are very carefully considered, and this was one of them. Finally, I am bound to say that I thought I had dealt fully with the moral responsibility. We may have different conceptions of where moral responsibility is taken in any particular matter, but we are here dealing with launcher aid in order to enable a contract to be carried out, and this is the purpose of this exercise.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I have a part in the main debate of the day, but I should still like to ask two more questions. Have the Government made an assessment of the minimal amount of the levy that they will recover on their engine sales, based on a projection of the amount of engine sales? Secondly, do they consider that Rolls Royce has a future for long as an independent national manufacturer of aeroplane engines?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the answer to the first question is that that would be pure speculation; it would depend entirely on sales. I am sorry, I have forgotten the second question.
LORD REAY: Whether the Government consider that Rolls Royce has a
776
future as an independent national manufacturer of aeroplane engines.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the whole purpose of this is to ensure that, so far as can possibly be done, it has.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA ACT 1965 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1970
4.47 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the anomalous procedure of the House has separated me by quite a long time from the conclusion of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, but now I do not propose to follow him in his philosophical, analytical review of the misfortunes, or advantages, that might come from a further attempt to solve this intractable problem which has, over the years, in this House aroused emotion and passion, that I feel have often clouded the realities of the facts in Rhodesia itself. It is regrettable that so much has been poured out over these years with regard to Rhodesia—and the same might apply to Southern Africa as a whole—by many who, if they have been there at all, know only relatively little about the area.
My noble friend Lord Lothian, in moving the Order, reminded us of negotiations, or discussions, which may quickly begin. Therefore, I realise that moderation and care are appropriate in what one says to-day. I should like at once to express my gratitude for the courage and candour with which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, put to the House the reality of this problem—which is, of course, whether or not this Order, which is so controversial, should be extended. I think that the Order is not constructive; it is destructive. It makes me think of the trustees of a large estate which is being reorganised, who apply for a development order on a portion of the estate which has already been disposed of. That is what moves me to-day to record my view. I ask for the indulgence of the House when I give three reasons why I feel strongly about it.
First, it would seem that Rhodesia has had substantive independence since 1923, when she paid £2 million for it as an earnest which was accepted by the

777
Treasury. Secondly, it can be said that under the Charter sanctions have doubtful validity in law. That was fully explained by the noble Marquess on December 8, 1966. They have effect only from "usage", as was accepted by the noble and learned Lord then on the Woolsack. Further, Rhodesia was denied opportunity to put her case. Thirdly, the British Government defaulted on their undertaking given at the establishment of the Federation, that the Federation would be dissolved only by the agreement of the four contracting parties. In fact, there was unilateral action.
Sanctions were imposed because of an alleged threat to peace. There has been perfect order in Rhodesia ever since. The only threat to peace comes from the terrorists launched from neighbouring countries with whom Rhodesia has maintained the utmost correctness. The procedure of those terrorists infringes the Charter, so it is those other countries who are disturbers of the peace. As has been said by several speakers, the main sufferers are the black Africans, and that must be so if foreign capital is prevented from going in to build up the infrastructure which alone can give more employment to the expanding African population.
Externally, it is British trade which suffers most. It is nonsense to suggest that we risk the loss of substantial trade with the black African dictatorships. Quality, value and service would always ensure that the trade came to us. Sanctions are being progressively eroded, and that means a loss of prestige to Britain. Can the commander of any ship or regiment maintain authority if he is denied the force of Queen's Regulations? Assistance in peril, the sacrifice of lives in battle, and then the subsequent withholding of trust is something that I simply cannot understand.
I turn to the gracious Speech at the Opening of this Parliament. Five principles were mentioned, but why not "certain" principles? Can any diplomatic conference succeed if in advance it is demanded that all the points at issue shall be accepted? That is not practical, realistic negotiation. I express my perplexity at the "Fearless" proposals in Cmnd. 3793, which for greater accuracy
778
I shall quote. Paragraph 8 on page 9 states:
"Where the Constitutional Council has not made an adverse report, any person who is a citizen of Rhodesia may, within a specified time, ask for a certificate from the Constitutional Council that there is a case for consideration by the Judicial Committee."
If English means anything, that means that Rhodesia would then be placed for a period under the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Whitehall. Can it really be expected that the constitutional Republic of Rhodesia will now surrender its independence, except by force?
To the Government I submit that recognition of the unobtainable and the exercise of forgiveness are not infrequently the highest acts of statesmanship. To my friends on this side of the House who may still think that punishment is necessary, whereas forgiveness would be more appropriate, I would recall the words of that great American Patriot, Daniel Webster, in his historic appeal to the then American colonies to break with the Crown:
"Why put off longer the Declaration of Independence? The nations then will treat with us, which they can never do while we acknowledge ourselves subjects in arms against our Sovereign.
"Nay, I maintain that England herself will sooner treat for settlement with us on the footing of Independence, than consent by repealing her Acts, to acknowledge that her whole conduct towards us has been a course of injustice and oppression".
My Lords, this Order seeks to destroy the course of history. I record my dissent from it.
5.1 p.m.
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships long and I shall certainly try not to repeat what your Lordships have already heard on this subject. I say only that I agree entirely with all that was said by my noble friends Lord Salisbury, Lord Winchester and Lord Barnby. But there is one aspect which I think should be stressed, especially after last Saturday, when I saw on television a most atrocious, bigoted and untruthful presentation of Rhodesia. I suppose it was composed by some very Left-wing employee. Anyhow, what I should like to stress is the enormous good that the European Rhodesian has done towards the African Rhodesian. First,

779
there has been the bringing of law and order to the country. They can all now sleep safely in their beds. This was primarily due to the Rhodesian Front Government. Then there is the building of Salisbury, which is to my mind the most beautiful city in the world, with magnificent roads; and health centres are now all over the country. One even came to my farm, and I went there only about a fortnight ago. There was an excellent white lady discoursing to the Africans on birth control; and when your Lordships realise that the average number of children in a family is, I believe, over eleven, you will see that that is a subject that is very important.
Last, but not least, there is the training of Africans in the tribal trust areas. This is being undertaken by an organisation—they call it "Tilcor"—of capable and dedicated Europeans. I went over many of those areas teaching the Africans to grow tea—that was new—early tobacco, maize and beans, and the Africans were pretty responsive. They certainly liked being lent tractors, et cetera, and they liked growing the crops. The only trouble was that, having grown them, if one fellow grew a bit more maize than he wanted to eat himself he just did not bother about it. They were not yet what one might call commercially minded. The only difficulty in these tribal trust areas is that training costs a lot. This is where sanctions rear their ugly head. There are, I believe, vast sums of money, under the Beit Trust, ear-marked for the advancement of the Africans. Those funds are frozen in London, so they are a lot of use! I do not know whether it would be possible to have some amendment of the sanctions which might "unfreeze" some of these amounts of money which are specifically for the use of our African friends.
There is one other point which I should like the noble Marquess if possible to clarify. Several of my friends out there have Rhodesian passports. They cannot get British passports because their fathers were born in India, or for some reason like that. They say they do not come to England because if they do they might be sent home—and, of course, that would be a very expensive trip for nothing. Whether that is true or not, it would be very useful to have the position clarified.
780
If it is not true and a man will not be sent back merely because he has a Rhodesian passport, perhaps that fact could be publicised.
That is all I have to say, my Lords, except that, as has been said by other speakers, if these "talks about talks" do not come off—and when I read the paper this morning I felt rather encouraged to see that Mr. Smith had definitely said at a Press conference that he was prepared to alter his Constitution in return for British concessions; I thought that was going quite a long way—I hope we shall not leave sanctions in existence until the 21st century, or perhaps until the advent of another Labour Government, who, let us say, might enjoy renewing their spite.
5.7 p.m.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, may I first add my warm congratulations to my noble friend Lord Winchester on his very interesting maiden speech. It is surely most encouraging that the noble Marquess should come all this way from Salisbury to London to be able to give us his views at first-hand. I very much hope we shall hear him again, many times, in the future.
My Lords, as some of your Lordships know, I visited Rhodesia earlier this year. At the conclusion of my trip, having had the opportunity to meet Rhodesians from all walks of life, both white and black, I put it to Mr. Smith that I was reluctantly forced to the conclusion that it was now too late for our two countries to reach a negotiated settlement based upon the Five Principles, and he agreed with me. His reply at that time was that he agreed with my conclusion in this matter. "Henceforth", he said, "the world will have to accept us on the basis of our new Constitution". But he then added an expression of hope that at some future date negotiations would take place with regard to resuming normal relations.
I think it is right that no one should be under any illusion as to the magnitude of the difficulties we are now faced with regarding a settlement. Many noble Lords from all sides of the House will doubtless agree with the words of my right honourable friend Mr. Enoch Powell when the day before yesterday in another place he said that the prospects of a settlement on the only terms that the House could talk about beggared the

781
imagination, and that the Foreign Secretary knew that the chances of a settlement were negligible. Nevertheless, of course it is right that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary should make one more approach; and if the previous Administration had not hoisted us on to the hook of the United Nations, I believe his task would have been very much easier. In this respect I am encouraged to see the firm line which we took in the Security Council yesterday, making it clear that we shall not be dictated to from outside. However, be that as it may, if we are honest with ourselves we all know that sanctions will not topple the Smith Government. While I agree, with some reluctance, not to oppose this Order this afternoon, I must express the hope that that ludicrous waste of our money, our manpower and our warships—namely, the Beira Patrol—be discontinued at the earliest opportunity.
My Lords, I beg Her Majesty's Government to conduct their forthcoming discussions with the Rhodesian Government, if there are any, in the utmost secrecy. This, of course, applies equally to the Rhodesian side. Let us return to a form of diplomacy which was practised by our forebears some hundred years ago, and which was singularly more effective than that of recent years, when every move is featured in a blaze of publicity. When the talks have either failed finally or have succeeded, as we all hope they will, then the world can be told the facts.
What of the Commonwealth? This obviously is an important factor. In my view, there is nothing mystical about the Commonwealth. It is in the main a collection of countries who over the years were developed, educated and guided by us and who ultimately were brought to independence by us. Many of them belong to the Commonwealth, if the truth be told, because of what they can get out of their membership and not because of what they contribute towards it. Should we be successful in reaching settlement with Rhodesia and should certain of our Commonwealth partners decide to leave the Commonwealth, then so be it! What matters, as Her Majesty's Government stressed clearly over the issue of the possible export of arms for external defence to South Africa, is that they will
782
do what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
My Lords, hope springs eternal; and I believe that the Foreign Secretary will carry with him the best wishes of the vast majority in this country if he enters into actual negotiations; but we must be prepared to give and take on both sides. I repeat my earlier plea for a total security blackout with no inspired or uninspired leaks until the matter has been decided one way or the other.
5.12 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is not going to divide the House. It is obvious that we are going to approve this Order whatever happens; but I should like to say a few words on this occasion.
I think it is unfortunate that to some degree both Front Benches have got themselves so committed to the policy which we are following and I can quite see that it is embarrassing for them. My noble friend Lord Salisbury and I have a good many painful memories in common because we were both associated with the episode when we tried to stop the Italians invading Abyssinia with the aid of economic sanctions only. Those measures, I recall, were completely ineffective. In the end the League of Nations and the British Government, who had led the League of Nations, had to give way.
I believe it is time to recognise that a solution is imperative to both sides in this very embarrassing question and that we should try to reach it before the situation in Africa deteriorates any further. I should really like to see a "trade union" of Back Benchers on both sides to press our Front Benches, and the Government in particular, to go forward to see what solution can be arrived at—and, above all, that we do not get ourselves out on a limb any further.
I do not much like the Cartesian approach to this question, with five sacred Principles which absolutely have to be sanctified. It is really very difficult to negotiate—and I speak as a diplomat with 38 years' experience—on a basis like that. Although I think that the Five Principles are very good in themselves, I should like to say that there are a good many other

783
questions which ought to be considered. There is the question of access to jobs; there is the question of access to education and equality of opportunity. All these are questions which could be held to be vaguely covered by the Five Principles; but when it comes down to it what is going to be the effect on the African and European population? These are questions of purely practical government which have to be settled in a practical way.
It seems to me that the important thing now is the machinery which is going to be used for reaching a sensible settlement. I only hope that the Government will not get into a meeting at Prime Ministerial level without the most careful and elaborate preparation. Really, I do not like the idea of Prime Ministerial meetings which are in effect a desperate throw of the dice. I do not think that it has paid before and I do not believe that it will pay again.
It may be asked, "What are we now to do?". What strikes me as deplorable is that we took away our diplomatic representation from Salisbury and we do not now have any very good means of talking to these people. I think that we ought to recognise that we must have a good channel of communications. I should like to see a really first-class young diplomat with a good knowledge of both black and white Africa and a good sense of negotiation, sent to Salisbury to open a mission again. It would be a mission of sorts; it could not be quite the ordinary sort of mission; but a formula could be found. The ground for a settlement could be prepared by somebody who can find solutions for difficulties. We do not want the sort of diplomat who has "a difficulty for every solution". If that could be done I think that in the long run we should come to see that some sort of practical solution might be possible. Probably we cannot get complete satisfaction; I agree with what has been said about that on both sides of this House. Probably we shall have to put up with something not very satisfactory; but I believe that it is time to recognise that a solution really ought to be found.
5.17 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I hesitate to take part in this debate but the time
784
is early yet and I feel that it is fair to reinforce what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and in some measure to protest at the length of time taken over the Statements in the middle of a debate. The result was that a large number of noble Lords here cannot have heard the first part of the debate and a large number of those who did must have forgotten it. I hope that noble Lords opposite realise that the House extended a good deal of "law" over our rules in the length of time employed, particularly since one of the longest questions came from a noble Lord who made his maiden speech only yesterday.
That being the case, I should like to hark back to the admirable maiden speech by the noble Marquess, Lord Winchester, which contained a point that I had at the back of my mind to make in regard to sanctions. I have no connection with Rhodesia, I have never been there—although I hope to go there at the first opportunity, because I have many friends and ties of different sorts—and the only visible suffering I have endured from the present situation has been the disbursing of 1s. 2d. in order to receive a photograph of a horse winning a race. However, the postal arrangements have been adjusted since then.
In this debate no mention has been made of the position of the Church, and the absence of the Bishops from their Bench is striking. Long before I became a Member of this House, I remember saying in another Assembly connected with the Church exactly what the noble Marquess said earlier in the debate. To clerics whom I regarded as being most injudicious, practically crazy, in their recommendations in regard to the situation in Central Africa, I said, "Look out! You will be driving Rhodesia into the arms of South Africa." I will not say that that is happening, but it is something that might very easily happen.
But we are debating sanctions, and I go back to the noble Marquess's speech in which he pointed out—and the point was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Forester—that it is the poor people, the poor Africans, who are really suffering, who are feeling the pinch of these sanctions. Both the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Forester, mentioned

785
agriculture and the fact that expenditure on agriculture has had to be curtailed due to the pinch, such as it is, of the sanctions. But I believe I am right in saying that the very first curtailment, the first expenditure to be cut as a result of the economic situation brought about by sanctions, was in primary education. This is what I regard as a prime point of the nonsense of the policy of the previous Government. They said that there must be majority rule. They knew that without developed education, secondary and university education, the number of Africans capable of taking a share in the government of the country must be limited. They knew that it is no use expanding secondary education unless there are pupils from the primary schools to come up to the secondary schools. In other words, we are talking of the policy a generation ahead. Yet the policy of sanctions is cutting out, right at the base, the necessary and essential growth if the whole of the people of Rhodesia are to be represented fairly in a Legislature.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I wonder whether he could elaborate a little his explanation of how sanctions are preventing education which, so far as I know, requires no foreign exchange to implement but only a transfer of internal resources.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I speak from memory and "off the cuff". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, or the noble Marquess will be able to confirm or deny what I say; which is that one of the first actions of the Smith Government on the application of sanctions was to cut down expenditure on education; and it began with primary education. If I am wrong I shall be only too glad to be told so.
I would add only one other word, my Lords. I agree with the noble Marquess in his hope that there will be no Division on this matter. If there is I shall abstain. I would add to the hope expressed by another noble Lord that this will be the last occasion on which an Order regarding sanctions against Rhodesia comes before your Lordships.
5.23 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships
786
for rising, not having put down my name beforehand, and I shall not detain you for more than a few moments. Perhaps I may be forgiven, being one who has taken part, I think, in every debate on Rhodesia, and as one who has seen the story unfold exactly as he prognosticated that it would. I was struck by something said by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. He said that the present attitude is one based on pretence and not on reality. I do not think I shall be misquoting him if I say that he made some appeal that we should get away from pretence and back to reality. I should like to reinforce that appeal to the Government. I hope that when they go in for these negotiations there will be introduced a certain amount of flexibility which may help in getting back to reality.
I was very much struck by what was said by my noble friend Lord Salisbury about the position, the unhappy position, in which we in this country find ourselves over this matter. I believe (though I do not want to say anything at the moment to harm in any way the millionth prospect there may be of some success coming out of the talks) that my noble friend gave the House something to consider when he said that a way out of this difficulty might well be to grant de facto recognition rather than de jure recognition. I hope some notice will be taken of that suggestion. I could say a great deal more, my Lords, and I should have liked to vote against these sanctions which I have opposed throughout. But, for the reason that it would be a futile exercise, and because I do not want at this moment to do anything which might destroy the millionth last chance of something coming out of the negotiations, if there be a Division I shall abstain.
5.25 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, reminded us of the many debates we have had in your Lordships' House on this subject. I think it is certainly five years since I sat on the Benches opposite and defended the then Government against the same noble Lords whose voices we have heard this afternoon. I therefore must extend my genuine sympathy to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, because it seems to me that to-day the Government are adopting the identical posture

787
adopted by the previous Labour Government with regard to Rhodesia. I will return to that because I think it an honourable stance.
My Lords, before dealing with the debate as a whole I would join noble Lords who have complimented the noble Marquess, Lord Winchester, on his maiden speech. A maiden speech is always difficult, and I can well understand that for the noble Marquess, moving as he has done to this free, democratic Assembly at Westminster, it was a particularly heavy ordeal.
I should like now to turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I do not know to what extent the noble Lord has any connection with the Commonwealth. I, fortunately, have had wide connections over many years. If I may use the phrase, I have lived as a "white immigrant" in a British Commonwealth country and when I was in Singapore or Malaysia I was not particularly conscious that colour was a problem. There was from time to time a problem about religion, but not about colour. In fact, my first real involvement in the question of colour occurred when I was sailing home from Singapore and, as a consequence of the Suez crisis, the ship was diverted to Cape Town. I had with me my Chinese amah, the Chinese lady who had been looking after my eldest boy since he was four days old. As I went down the gangplank with my Chinese amah a very kindly official of Thomas Cook's said to me, "This is all right, but, you know, you must not take your amah into the hotel; she is coloured." That was the first shock I received over race and colour, and it is a shock I shall never forget. And I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Forester, that it is one I shall never forgive.
The world, my Lords, is a small place and with the passing of the years it grows smaller. We have to live together whether we are black, white, yellow, pink, blue, or whatever colour it may be. Therefore I say to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that the importance of the Commonwealth is that it is a loose group of countries which represents 700 million people, of every race, religion and class. It represents all aspects of men and women who live in this world. The noble Lord suggested that it would be a good thing to allow this organisation to break up. To me it
788
would be the most disastrous thing, not only for this country but also for the world. I believe that the Commonwealth, because of its very nature, can be a bridge within the United Nations and throughout the world. I do not believe that there are many who could have agreed with the comments of the noble Lord on the Commonwealth this afternoon.
I should like now, since the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is present, to say something about the debate and the interventions on Statements this afternoon. First of all, this debate should have taken place last night. It was only as a consequence of the sensible suggestion that this important measure should not be taken late last night that it was decided to move it this afternoon. The fact that this debate is taking place now has meant that the debate on metrication, to which we on this side attach great importance, has been moved to another day. So those who complain about having this debate this afternoon must recognise that the House has gone out of its way—and when I say "House" I mean both sides—to ensure that this debate takes place at the right time.
So far as the interventions are concerned, I think it is unfortunate that there were three Statements, but we on this side have no responsibility for the number of Statements. I can assure the noble Earl that when Statements are made in this House we intend to ask questions and to continue to ask them. What is the purpose of Parliament? I have been a Minister and I know the situation. If the House is going to protect the Minister by saying that a question should not be pursued too far, all the Minister needs to do is to "fluff" the first two or three questions and he is home and dry. But that is not treating the House as a Parliament. It is essential that we should be reasonable about this. Questions on Statements should not go too far, but from time to time, from the very nature of a Statement, questions continue longer than usual. I have sat on the Front Bench opposite and had to answer a series of questions on a Statement of much greater length than that we have had this afternoon, taking the three Statements as a whole.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if the noble Lord is addressing his remarks to

789
me, perhaps he is quite correct; but I should like to point out that I was not suggesting that questions should nor. be asked. I was simply supporting what the noble Marquess had said—and, after all, he was the Leader of the House for many years—that our rules were being stretched beyond all reason by the number of questions which were asked.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word because I intervened on this question. Of course nobody has any objection to comments on Statements—it is a normal practice of this House and always goes on—but I felt this afternoon that the comments had reached a point when they were approaching a debate and I thought that was a pity. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had been on the other side, he would have taken rather the same attitude himself.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my experience does not go so far as that of the noble Marquess, but I think we can agree that the division between what are supplementary questions and making a debating speech is a very narrow one. I will not develop that matter any further but leave it as it is.
I do not wish to go into the arguments that noble Lords have deployed, but I would ask one question. We have heard a great deal about the balance of relationship between white and coloured in Rhodesia. Is it not a fact that the land is the most valuable asset in Africa? It is the one commodity by which the people can live. And perhaps the noble Marquess will confirm that under the Land Tenure Act, of the land in Rhodesia to be divided individually in a population with a ratio of one white to five coloured Africans, only 4 per cent. is to go to the Africans while 40 per cent. is to go to the whites. Perhaps the noble Marquess can say whether I am right or wrong and, if I am wrong, perhaps he may give us the figures.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean the total area of Rhodesia? Because most of the facts we read suggest that there is very nearly a balance between the two.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am referring to the consequences of the Land Tenure Act. I realise that much of the
790
African land is going over to nature reserves and the land which is left is being divided. This is being done on the basis of the percentages I have just given and I ask for confirmation.
Her Majesty's Government have decided that they should make one last effort to negotiate with the régime in Rhodesia. I do not oppose the Government in this. They made it clear in the Election that this would be their intention. It may be that new faces may produce different results. I do not think the House will say, when we consider the sincerity, the skill and the generosity in argument of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner and of my right honourable friends Mr. George Thomson and Mr. Michael Stewart, that their characteristics would in any way have prevented a settlement if personality in itself counted; but it may be that new faces negotiating may produce a change.
But have the Government a new policy? Sir Alec Douglas-Home has made it clear that he stands by the Five Principles. We have heard from noble Lords opposite disagreement about those Principles. These Principles were not inherited by the Government from the Labour Government. They were inherited by the Labour Government from the previous Conservative Government, which in 1964 made it perfectly clear that in no circumstances could independence be granted to Rhodesia under the existing Constitution unless it fell within the Five Principles. Therefore I cannot see how the Government intend to seek a settlement outside the Five Principles.
Whether success is possible I do not know, but. I should like to say to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, on behalf of the Opposition, that we wish the Government well in their negotiations, and if they succeed in achieving an honourable settlement within the Five Principles, we on this side of the House will be the first to applaud them, because we are deeply conscious of what this settlement would mean to the 4½ million British citizens in Rhodesia. I often feel, when listening to noble Lords opposite speaking on Rhodesia, that they are thinking of one section and one section alone.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I must ask the noble Lord what makes him say that. All of us

791
have said that sanctions damage black and white alike. There has been no differentiation at all. I regard that as a slur on us. I should like him to withdraw it.
LORD SHEPHERD: I intended no slur. The noble Marquess has made it quite clear on many occasions that sanctions hurt the African more than the white man. I was merely giving my personal view that noble Lords who speak in support of Rhodesia speak of the white Rhodesians—the kith and kin argument—and not of Rhodesians as a whole. This is a personal view that I am entitled to hold.
I am not certain to what extent sanctions have affected the economy of Rhodesia. Certainly the Minister of State in another place the day before yesterday, when moving this Order, alluded to the serious balance of payment difficulties of Rhodesia. I have seen in responsible newspapers that the economic circumstances in Rhodesia may well have created a new climate of opinion, and a new desire by the régime to negotiate. We shall not know. I am absolutely convinced that if the British Government intend to go into negotiations on the Five Principles they must make it quite clear that if there is not an honourable settlement then sanctions must continue.
I wonder whether the noble Marquess, who was a very experienced Minister in the Foreign Office, really thought that he was helping the Government in their difficult negotiations with the régime, and in obtaining an honourable settlement, when he said that he would ask his noble friend Lord Lothian to say that if agreement was not reached Her Majesty's Government would recognise Rhodesia de facto.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not quite say that. What I said was that I hoped he would not rule it out. That is not the same thing at all.
LORD SHEPHERD: Clearly the noble Marquess has been in the Foreign Office. If the Government are to negotiate, then they must have a bargaining counter. To be asked at this moment to give up sanctions if we fail clearly invites failure at this conference, with all the consequences to the Rhodesians as a whole.
792
I must say that I have some concern about the position of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, but if I read Mr. Godber aright, then sanctions by this Order will continue for twelve months; and it may be that the Government do not wish to prejudice their position in having to come to Parliament for a renewal. But I hope that the Government will make it quite clear to the Rhodesian authorities that it is they, Her Majesty's Government, who negotiate from strength.
If a settlement is achieved, then we on this side of the House will applaud the Government. But let me warn the noble Marquess and noble Lords opposite of the consequences (to use a crude phrase) of a "sell out". If there is an agreement, it must be a water-tight agreement. It must be an agreement that will meet the requirements of both Houses of Parliament. I suggest that it will need to be an agreement that will be broadly acceptable to the Commonwealth and broadly acceptable to the United Nations. I say to the noble Marquess that this is important in the interests of Rhodesia, because if a settlement is reached and Rhodesia becomes independent it could not be in the interests of Rhodesia or of Africa as a whole for Rhodesia to be out of the comity of nations. Therefore, in my view it is essential that this agreement should be a water-tight agreement and one that is acceptable to these three groups in particular.
I think this is important in the relationship of this country with Africa as a whole. We have heard a great deal about British interests. I do not think that this is a political point. I believe that industrialists, commercial men and organisations who have anything to do with Africa—Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, and all the other African States that are emerging who feel passionately on this race problem—agree that if we do make a decision which runs counter to the general philosophy of Africa we shall do it to the disadvantage of this country.
5.47 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am particularly grateful, if I may say so without sounding

793
condescending or patronising, for the moderate tone of the speeches that have been made, and in many cases for their brevity. I should like to start by underlining the compliments that have already been paid to my noble friend Lord Winchester on what I thought was an excellent maiden speech. As one noble Lord said, one knows how hard it always is to make a maiden speech, but when you have to come the distance that my noble friend has come in order to do so I think it is extremely creditable. I should like to think that we may have the pleasure of hearing my noble friend again frequently in this House.
I have listened with great care, and I hope attention, to the speeches that have been made this afternoon. I will try to pick up some of the points that have been made, and if any are missed I hope noble Lords will not feel that this is out of discourtesy, but merely because I have omitted something in my notes. In that event, I will of course undertake to communicate with noble Lords afterwards.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned in his speech the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and I do not want to add very much to what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, and myself would differ about the Commonwealth, and there it is. I was rather surprised to hear him take the view that Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Rhodesia (and here I suspect that I may speak also for the Members on the opposite Front Bench) had been in some way dictated by Commonwealth pressure. That simply is not true. Our Government's policy, and I suspect the late Government's policy, was dictated entirely by what we conceive to be our own national duty and interests. I feel that I should make that point now.
There have been, as is usual on these occasions, a great many speeches on this side of the House, critical of sanctions, and I do not for one moment object to that. I am grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the other hand, for saying that he will not divide the House to-night. I am grateful for two reasons. In the first place, I think it would be a waste of time; but, more important than that, as we hope that we are going into negotiations with the régime in Salisbury it is desirable that we
794
do so as a united Parliament in this country.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will not expect me to have agreed with everything that he said; I doubt whether, on this particular subject, he and I will ever be able to convince each other about many points that were raised. With regard to this question, I feel that we have a strong moral responsibility towards the inhabitants of Rhodesia, from whatever race they may come. I cannot feel that, in the words of the noble Marquess, "Rhodesia is a foreign country". I hope that he is wrong about this. My own feelings about this—and I think that in saying this I speak for my Government—are that we still have not only a legal obligation but a very strong moral obligation to make an attempt to see whether we can get a final agreement on the basis of the Principles that have been laid down.
There are one or two points that have been raised during the debate. My noble friend Lord Forester asked a question about trust funds. I should like to write to him on this point because I am not absolutely clear to which funds he was referring. I can say that if they are funds that are going to be used for any educational purposes then they will be fully remittable from this country. If he would like to get in touch with me at some other time about the particular funds he has in mind, I shall be glad to have a word with him.
The noble Lord also made the point about Rhodesian passport holders. I know that what he said with regard to this sounds hard and sad. I do not think anybody will deny that there can be cases of hardship and difficulties. The Rhodesian passport has no validity, in that it was issued by officials of the illegal régime. If one of these passports is presented to an immigration officer, and the holder cannot present any legal travel document, he is not normally allowed to come into this country. But exceptions are being made on humanitarian grounds, and we are always prepared to give sympathetic consideration to requests from people in Rhodesia who, for one reason or another, are not entitled to British passports.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, asked me about the position concerning the

795
Church schools, I think. I should like to let him know about this, as I am afraid that I have not the answer to hand at the moment. But I will be in touch with him on this matter. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, for his most interesting and helpful suggestions concerning the actual conduct of negotiations. I will certainly take note of what he said in this regard. While I am picking up one or two points which have been made, may I echo the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Napier and Ettrick as to the importance of secrecy and confidentiality in any negotiations that may be undertaken in the future. This is absolutely essential, and I hope that similar regard will be taken of the same point by the authorities in Rhodesia.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his most interesting speech, raised one or two important matters. He asked me a question about the division of land under the Land Tenure Act, and I understand that the position is that under that Act all land is divided into areas, and that about 6 per cent. of it is set aside for National Parks, et cetera. The rest is allocated to Europeans and Africans in such a way that the Africans, who out number the Europeans by about twenty To one, have very marginally less of the remainder than the Europeans. I am not certain whether the noble Lord can work that' out percentage-wise—perhaps his computer-like mind will be able to do so, but I am not sure whether mine can—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Marquess sends a "carrier pigeon" to a certain quarter to find the answer. It would be interesting if we could know the details.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will try to find out the details for the noble Lord. If I cannot get them to-night I will let him have them in due course. The noble Lord also made the point that the settlement that we hope to achieve must be watertight and that there should be no "sell out"—I think he used that word. Of course, Her Majesty's Government entirely accept that position. If there is no settlement—and it would be wrong to go into the negotiations thinking that there will not be a settlement—then personally I think a new
796
situation will obviously have arisen, and a new look will have to be taken at the whole position. That is something that should be faced if and when—and we hope it will not have to be faced—it should arise. I should like to thank the noble Lord also for his good wishes to Her Majesty's Government in their present attempt at negotiation.
My Lords, I have really come to the end of what I wanted to say, for I did not want to keep your Lordships too long to-night. However, I should refer To the suggestion of the noble Marquess regarding the possibility of a de facto recognition of the régime should the present negotiations not come to any thing. I will take note of what he said, but my own feeling is that we should try To bring Rhodesia back to legality by negotiation in the way that we are hoping to do there—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I was quite satisfied with what the noble Marquess said; but if these negotiations unhappily fail a new situation will be created, and I imagine that in that situation nothing would be altogether ruled out. I should be quite happy with that.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess. To conclude, we must all agree that we have reached a pretty crucial point in these negotiations. There is hope that they may succeed, and we must act on that basis. There are a great many difficulties in front of us, but what matters, to my mind, and I am sure to the minds of all noble Lords in the House, is that a settlement is achieved that is honourable, fair and just to all the peoples of Rhodesia.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEST END BAPTIST CHURCH, HAMMERSMITH BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

PORT OF TYNE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at six o'clock.