Sitting of 8 November 1966

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Sarawak
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are employed in the Deputy High Commissioner's Office in Kuching; and if the Deputy High Commissioner and his Assistant were present in Kuching during the month of September, 1966.
    The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart): The staff of the Deputy High Commissioner's Office in Kuching comprises a Deputy High Commissioner and five other diplomatic officers. Both the Deputy High Commissioner and the senior First Secretary who normally takes charge in his absence, were present in Kuching during September, 1966.
    Mr. Royle: In view of the allegations made in Kuala Lumpur accusing our High Commission staff and expatriates of involving themselves in the internal affairs of Sarawak, will he hon. Lady give an assurance that this slander on our diplomatic representatives is untrue?
    Mrs. Hart: The assurance has been given already. The High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur made a statement on 21st October to that effect. There is no evidence whatever of Mr. Spendlove having interfered in the domestic affairs of Sarawak. However, a situation has clearly arisen in which it would be difficult for him to do an effective job and, with no question of any kind of reflection upon him, he is being moved to another place and will leave Kuching at the end of this month.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he
    1120
    will make a statement on the position in Sarawak.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden): I am not clear what information my hon. Friend is seeking. The general position is that the State of Sarawak attained independence as part of Malaysia in 1963 and the affairs of the State thereby became entirely the concern of the Federal and State Governments and ceased to be in any way a matter for the British Government. As a result of Indonesia's policy of confrontation, British Armed Forces have been operating in Sarawak, at the request of the Malaysian Government and in accordance with our Defence Agreement, in order to assist the Malaysian forces to defend Malaysian territory. Following the end of confrontation in August of this year, which was a most welcome development British combat forces have now nearly all been withdrawn from Sarawak in accordance with arrangements concerted with the Malaysian Government.
    Mr. Dalyell: In that they impinge on our own obligations, can my right hon. Friend comment on the success or otherwise of the joint Malaysia-Indonesia patrol?
    Mr. Bowden: No, Sir, not without further information. I should need to study this before replying.
    Sir J. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman have very much in mind the danger of removing our military presence from that area too rapidly? Is not there sufficient evidence that there is still political subversion taking place there? Will he, in particular, have a very clear understanding of the importance of the rôle, in defending freedom in that part of the world, now carried out by the Brigade of Gurkhas, and do nothing to endorse its curtailment overnight?
    Mr. Bowden: The withdrawal of British forces from that area is being done by agreement with the Malaysian and local Governments.

    Simonstown Naval Base
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek consultations with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand

    1121
    about the continued use by Her Majesty's Government of facilities at the Simons-town naval base.
    Mr. Bowden: No, Sir.
    Mr. Blaker: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Governments of Australia and New Zealand have a legitimate interest in our plans for the continued use of the Simonstown base? Is it the intention of the Government that the frigate which we have there and the C.-in-C. be withdrawn? If so, were the Governments of Australia and New Zealand consulted before those decisions were taken?
    Mr. Bowden: I cannot go beyond saying that if any consultation were necessary between Australia and the British Government over the Simonstown base, we would consult. Up to the present moment, it has not been necessary.

    Zambia (Broadcasts)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements Her Majesty's Government have made on behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation for the relaying of programmes by Radio Zambia; for what purposes; and on what terms.
    Mrs. Hart: None, Sir.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it a fact that nothing is relayed through Radio Zambia by the B.B.C? If that is the case, why is it that so many people have the impression that the B.B.C., rightly or wrongly, is linked with incitements to violence which have been broadcast by Radio Zambia?
    Mrs. Hart: There are two issues involved. One is the extent to which Radio Zambia rebroadcasts B.B.C. programmes. In fact, it only rebroadcasts a weekly sports programme from the B.B.C. The B.B.C. broadcasts no programmes from Radio Zambia and has not done so. If there is a false impression about that, I can only suggest that it comes from the propaganda of the Rhodesian régime.

    Zambia (Assistance)
    Mr. Colin Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs
    1122
    what progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government in assisting the Government of Zambia to absorb the effect of further economic sanctions against the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
    Mrs. Hart: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs to the question by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 1st November. [Vol. 735, c. 58.]
    Mr. Jackson: In relation to aid to Zambia, can the Minister of State confirm that there is no relationship between that aid and continued membership of the Commonwealth by Zambia? Secondly, will she give us an assurance that, should conditions worsen for Zambia after the end of November and a breakdown with Smith, further aid will be forthcoming?
    Mrs. Hart: I shall use the word "assistance", rather than "aid", because there is a clear distinction between the two. This is assistance for the intensification of sanctions. The assistance which has been offered and which is at the moment under consideration would stretch on, were it accepted, until the middle of 1967 and, therefore, covers any contingencies that arise during the coming months. On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, Zambia's continued membership of the Commonwealth would be entirely for her Government to decide. Our aid is not conditional on Zambia continuing her membership, but we have to make it quite clear that if Zambia left the Commonwealth there would be a new situation which we should have to reconsider in the light of the circumstances at the time but without any commitment one way or the other.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Answers are getting a little long.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would not the hon. Lady agree that the world effect of the sanctions has been to put up the price of copper by some £40 a ton, which is having a deleterious effect on world trade? Would she not agree that to start trying to negotiate to get copper and coal supplies going again would be the most useful thing that she could do?
    Mrs. Hart: Most of the assistance that we have offered is intended to assist Zambia in developing alternative routes whereby one of the indirect outcomes would be a steadier supply of copper in the future.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Colin Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to inform the people of Rhodesia of the exact nature of Her Majesty's Government's plans for the future of the territory, in view of the illegal régime's censorship restrictions.
    Mr. Bowden: As the House will know, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I visited Rhodesia to ensure that our proposals concerning the future of Rhodesia were fully understood.
    Mr. Jackson: But my right hon. Friend will realise that this is not going over to the whole of the Rhodesian population. Can he give some assurance that, at any rate from Bechuanaland, the transmitters are being increased in strength? Secondly, could not my right hon. Friend try something a little more imaginative? This is British territory. Could not we try a little leaflet dropping?
    Mr. Bowden: During the time that my right hon. and learned Friend and I were in Rhodesia, we saw about 100 people, a pretty good cross-section, all of whom took the view that as far as possible the people of Rhodesia should be acquainted with the views of the British Government and their proposals. Taking into consideration the tight censorship, and the fact that the radio and television are controlled by the Rhodesian illegal régime, this is not quite such an easy exercise, but we shall do our best.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a fact that if anybody is censoring these proposals it is our Prime Minister? We are as anxious as anybody else to know what they are.
    Mr. Bowden: The House will be made aware of the British Government's proposals and Mr. Smith's reply in due course. I hope that it will not be very long.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will define in detail the nature
    1124
    and extent of selective mandatory sanctions which Her Majesty's Government are considering imposing on the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the imposition of mandatory sanctions on the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia.
    Mr. BowdenI have nothing to add at this stage to the final communiqué of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we are in constant touch not only with our Commonwealth friends, but our friends out-with the Commonwealth, on the nature and the degree of the selectivity of the sanctions, with a view to their making quite sure that they will be effective in bringing this Fascist régime to an end?
    Mr. Bowden: The Commonwealth countries will be well aware of the terms of the communiqué issued at the end of the Conference, and other consultations, when necessary, will take place with other interested countries.
    Mr. Hamling: Bearing in mind that the I.D.I. is nearly 12 months old, will my right hon. Friend consider that Smith is now in a stronger political situation than he was a year ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and that in order to bring down this régime stronger measures must be taken?
    Mr. Bowden: I notice the enthusiasm with which the Opposition greeted my hon. Friend's statement, which enthusiasm will not be shared in the country generally. As soon as it is possible to state clearly the British Government's proposals—after the proposals submitted to Mr. Smith have been returned to us and considered—we will of course make a further statement, but it cannot be immediately.
    Mr. Maudling: In view of the remarks about bringing down the régime, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the purpose of his discussion was to reach agreement?
    Mr. Bowden: The purpose of my discussion was to reach agreement within the six principles and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any change in the attitude of the United States Government towards mandatory sanctions from that expressed so clearly and vigorously by Mr. Mennen Williams some months ago? Unless there has been such a change, any talk of mandatory sanctions is absolute nonsense.
    Mr. Bowden: I think that we had better deal with this question when we reach it at the appropriate place.
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the amount of Rhodesian copper which has been exported to Great Britain or elsewhere by M.T.D. (Mangula) Limited and other companies during the past six months; and what steps he is taking to end this breach of the United Kingdom's sanctions.
    Mrs. Hart: We have no evidence of any Rhodesian copper being exported to Great Britain by M.T.D. (Mangula) Limited, or by any other company, nor specifically by Rhodesian companies to other countries.
    Copper has not yet been specified as a prohibited export under S.I.41.
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the amount of oil at present reaching the Smith régime through Lourenço Marques; and what steps he is taking to end this breach of the United Kingdom's sanctions.
    Mr. Bowden: With regard to the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the Answers given previously by the Prime Minister on this subject.
    On the second part, representations have been made to the Portuguese Government to put a stop to this traffic.
    Mr. Whitaker: In view of the crucial nature of oil, and the fact that it is not an indigenous product of Rhodesia, will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that stringent contingency planning is being made for mandatory sanctions for this industry, and also that pressure is being put on Portugal for trade retaliation if she does not obey these sanctions?
    Mr. Bowden: I can give an undertaking that in any future consideration of economic measures oil will play its part.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Since United Nations sanctions are illegal, why has the representation been made to the Portuguese Government?
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's constitutional proposals for Rhodesia and his exchanges with Mr. Smith's Government.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Rhodesian talks.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the result of the Rhodesian talks and the future Government of Rhodesia.
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position with regard to Rhodesia.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what reply has been received from the illegal régime in Rhodesia to the terms offered by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of his talks with Mr. Smith in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Bowden: As the House will be aware, Mr. Smith's reply to the communication which was made to him three weeks ago by Sir Morrice James was received over the weekend. This is under immediate consideration and the House will be informed of our conclusions as soon as it is possible to do so.
    Mr. Wall: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some idea when that will be, and also say whether he expects to visit Salisbury again in the near future?
    Mr. Bowden: On the first part of that supplementary question, I cannot promise a firm date but it will be as soon as possible. As for the second part, I have no immediate intention of returning to Salisbury.
    Mr. Fisher: As it appears that the time set by the Commonwealth Conference

    1127
    has now expired without noticeable progress having been made, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in the event of selective mandatory sanctions being sought against Rhodesia it is not intended that there should be an economic confrontation with South Africa which this country cannot afford?
    Mr. Bowden: That is hypothetical. We have not yet reached that stage. Nevertheless, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman is well in mind.
    Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say whether one of the terms offered by the Government was that African opinion in Rhodesia should be tested by a commission whose composition would be acceptable to the illegal régime? Is he aware that that might be acceptable to Smith but not to a large number of hon. Members on this side of the House?
    Mr. Bowden: At the appropriate moment the whole of the British proposals will be laid before the House, but I can confirm to my hon. Friend that, in accordance with the fifth principle, the test of Rhodesian opinion as a whole will be carried out, under our proposals, in a way that will be acceptable to majority opinion.
    Mr. James Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that this sordid battle with Smith will be a long haul—not weeks or months but perhaps years? In this event will Her Majesty's Government give a guarantee that we shall never give independence to Smith on the terms that he is now advancing?
    Mr. Bowden: It would be ill-advised of me to go beyond what I have already said. I would much prefer the House to await publication of the proposals and the reply.
    Mr. Maudling: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the undertaking given by the Leader of the House that as soon as the Government's proposals are made known this House will have the opportunity of discussing them?
    Mr. Bowden: Yes—that is the intention.
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the amount of
    1128
    tobacco being currently indirectly exported from Rhodesia to Great Britain.
    Mrs. Hart: We have no information to show that any infringement of our ban on the import of Rhodesian tobacco into this country has taken place.
    Mr. Judd: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are indications that, through indirect routes, tobacco is reaching this country and perhaps even the pipes and cigarettes of hon. Members? Does she agree that until we take over the control of the frontiers this traffic will not be be stopped?
    Mrs. Hart: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. We have no information to show that this is taking place. If he has any facts concerning a particular consignment I can assure him that the matter will be looked into very fully.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate a study of the feasibility of bombing the transport facilities in Rhodesia carrying oil from South Africa.
    Mr. Bowden: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say why it is not working? Would not we be within our legal rights so to bomb, in view of the fact that the régime in Rhodesia is a treacherous régime and that, to some of us at least, the operation could easily be carried out by the placing of aircraft carriers in the Mozambique Channel?
    Mr. Bowden: I can assure my hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government are well informed of all the technical problems involved in this sort of exercise, but the Prime Minister stated on 26th April that Her Majesty's Government were opposed to the use of force to bring about a constitutional settlement.
    Sir F. Bennett: If the right hon. Gentleman changes his mind, will he arrange for the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) to take the chair at any necessary committee of inquiry?
    Mr. David Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the difference between the use of force to impose a constitutional settlement and the use of force to make sanctions effective?
    Mr. Bowden: I recognise that there is a difference but, as I have said, Her Majesty's Government have already stated their position on the use of force and are not likely to move from that unless circumstances considerably change.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds Major Sutton-Pryce, a British subject, was refused the renewal of his British passport.
    Mrs. Hart: Major Sutton-Pryce's application to the British High Commission Residual Staff in Salisbury for a passport was dealt with in accordance with the policy described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) in the House on 25th January. [Vol. 723, c. 1–4.]
    Mr. Wall: Can the hon. Lady say who made this decision? In view of the fact that Major Sutton-Pryce was employed by the Rhodesian Broadcasting Corporation as an interviewer, is he considered more or less biased than his opposite numbers employed by the B.B.C.?
    Mrs. Hart: The hon. Member must genuinely fail to understand that when there is an extremely ardent and active propagandist not only for the Rhodesian régime but against Britain it is necessary that the decision which was taken and announced in this House in January should be implemented.
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the number of murders, burnings and cattle maimings attempted or committed in Rhodesia within the last 12 months by Chinese-trained terrorists infiltrating from Zambia; and, in view of his legal responsibility for Rhodesia, what protests have been made by him to the Government of Zambia.
    Mr. Bowden: There are no definite figures or evidence available to me on this matter. The British Government's abhorrence of violence is well known.
    Mr. King: Is it not a fact that it has taken place? Will the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the follies of Government—and all Governments are guilty of follies—and the murder or assault of individuals, and agree that where that takes place any country which connives at it deserves reproach?
    Mr. Bowden: I have already said that the British Government abhor violence from any quarter, and both the Zambian and British Governments have condemned violence.
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will now undertake military action against the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Bowden: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the failure of Her Majesty's Government so far to bring down the Smith régime has completely discredited the policy of sanctions, and that the only way to deal satisfactorily with this rebel régime is to go back on Her Majesty's Government's previous declaration not to use force?
    Mr. Bowden: Her Majesty's Government stand on the statement, which I have already quoted this afternoon, against the use of force to settle a constitutional problem.
    Sir G. Nabarro: In view of all these sabre-rattling questions from hon. Gentlemen opposite, would the right hon. Gentleman go so far as to confirm the view which his hon. Friends have so frequently expressed this afternoon, that sanctions so far have been a ghastly flop?
    Mr. Bowden: No, Sir.
    Mr. John Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is really no distinction to be drawn between using the Royal Navy at Beira and the use of other elements of the Armed Forces, and that military action does not necessarily involve the use of force?
    Mr. Bowden: There is a considerable difference between the two exercises which my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mr. Maudling: The Secretary of State will recall that, in answer to an earlier supplementary question, he said that he would not lightly change his policy on the matter of the use of force. Will he make it quite clear that in no circumstances—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—will the Government change the policy announced earlier by the Prime Minister, which is a very important point, that the use of force to solve this constitutional problem would not be contemplated?
    Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman will recall on reflection that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that force would be used at the request of the Governor to maintain law and order.
    Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the very fact that Her Majesty's Government have made it clear throughout that we would not use force has led us into the present very difficult situation?
    An Hon. Member: Where are the pacifists now?
    Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman said that it is not the intention of the Government to use force. Would he tell his Ministerial colleagues to stop talking about the possibility of using force in private conversations all over the place?
    Mr. Bowden: I am not aware of what happens in private conversations.
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to begin discussions with other Commonwealth countries about the implementation of the Commonwealth communiqué on Rhodesia.
    Mr. Bowden: Since the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting, the action we have taken on Rhodesia has throughout been in fulfilment of our purposes and intentions as indicated in the communiqué. We have kept in touch with our Commonwealth colleagues and will continue to do so as events may develop in the light of our consideration of Mr. Smith's reply, to which I have already referred.
    Miss Lestor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that, by supplying Rhodesia with oil, the South African Government have been largely responsible for enabling the illegal régime to continue and that, unless action is taken very soon, it will be enough for Rhodesia to build up sufficient supplies of oil to make sanctions ineffective?
    Mr. Bowden: The position on sanctions was clearly stated in the communiqué issued at the end of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting.
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs how
    1132
    many coloured British citizens awaiting execution in Rhodesia have been sentenced to death under the rebel régime's emergency regulations; and what action he proposes to take against those responsible when the executions are carried out.
    Mr. Bowden: No one has been sentenced to death under emergency regulations but a number of persons have been sentenced to death under the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act. There have been no executions and I am sure that the personal responsibility which would rest upon anyone concerned with an illegal execution is fully understood in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Ashley: Would my right hon. Friend go a little further than that and give the House a categorical assurance that, if any of these executions are carried out, those responsible will be charged with murder?
    Mr. Bowden: I think that the House will appreciate that this is really a question for the Attorney-General rather than for me. I think, however, that I should add that any person, anywhere, who signs a death warrant and has not the authority to do so would involve himself in a most serious offence.
    Mr. John Leeasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being taken to train a cadre of civil servants to administer Rhodesia in the period immediately following the overthrow of the illegal Smith régime; if he will consider employing former members of the Overseas Civil Service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bowden: We have made it clear that after the return to constitutional rule the British Government would be ready to give assistance, in the field of administration and in any other ways that might be necessary.
    Mr. Lee: Would my right hon. Friend go a little further than this? Is it not likely that the Civil Service serving the illegal Smith régime will be tainted with the racialism of its masters and that it will be necessary to find a more reliable Civil Service to take its place when the illegal régime has been overthrown?
    Mr. Bowden: My hon. Friend may have forgotten that 12 months ago, when I.D.I. was declared, on 11th November,

    1133
    the Queen's Governor indicated at once that he thought that the Civil Service should stand by and serve Rhodesia, which many of them have done. It is not right to assume that those civil servants who are working there are all in support of the illegal régime.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that Rhodesia has been administered by Rhodesian civil servants since 1923 and that that practice is likely to continue?
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the transcripts of all Broadcasts by the Rhodesian Radio which have been monitored on his instructions.
    Mr. Bowden: Copies of the B.B.C.'s daily "Summary of World Broadcasts" are already available in the Library. Part 4 of this summary includes a selection of items broadcast by the Rhodesian radio.
    Mr. Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it would be useful for hon. Members to read some of the broadcasts? Would he not agree that it is a disgraceful position for a British Member of Parliament to go on the Rhodesia radio and criticise a Rhodesian newspaper for being——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to reflect on an individual Member of Parliament, he must do it by Motion and not at Question Time.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Dickens: Can my right hon. Friend, none the less, take steps to provide for the House, in the Library, copies of the transcripts of those speeches made by Members of the Opposition in Salisbury in recent months, as a matter of information?
    Mr. Bowden: I am not sure that I have in mind or have read all of the broadcasts to which my hon. Friend refers, but, if he will take the trouble to look at Part 4 of the "Summary of World Broadcasts" in the Library, he will see part of them contained there.
    Mr. John Leeasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will institute proceedings for misprision of treason against any citizen of Great
    1134
    Britain who participates in unofficial visits to Rhodesia and has any dealings with the illegal Smith régime.
    Mr. Bowden: Any question of prosecution would be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who would no doubt consult my right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General; and I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by him to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) on 16th February.—[Vol. 724, c. 1317.]
    Mr. Lee: Is it not a fact that the visits of various people, in an unofficial capacity, including distinguished hon. Members of this House, does amount to a misprision of treason and——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to reflect critically on hon. Members he must do so by way of a Motion and not by way of a supplementary question.

    Zambia (Petrol Airlift)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many tons of petrol have been transported by air or other means to Zambia under the special arrangements made by Her Majesty's Government; and what has been the total cost of purchasing and transporting the petrol;
    (2) what contribution Zambia has made towards the cost of the petrol supplied to it under the special arrangements made by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the withdrawal of the Royal Air Force from Zambia.
    Mrs. Hart: The R.A.F. airlift into Zambia came to an end, with the agreement of the Zambian Government, on 31st October, and R.A.F. personnel in Zambia are now being withdrawn. The R.A.F. airlift and the British civil airlift, which operated from Dar es Salaam from January to May of this year, together transported about 22,000 tons of oil into Zambia. The cost of these airlifts to Her Majesty's Government has been nearly £6 million. The cost of the oil itself,

    1135
    except that used by the R.A.F., has been met by the Zambian Government.
    The airlifts organised by Her Majesty's Government have made a valuable contribution to Zambia's oil supplies, and the Zambian Government have expressed their gratitude for them. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to all the British civilian and Services personnel involved in the exercise for the high degree of skill and efficiency with which they carried out a very important task.
    Mr. Taylor: Would the hon. Lady agree that the cost of this exercise was equivalent to over £1 per gallon? Secondly, can she say where the oil is coming from into Zambia, and whether the supplies of oil in Zambia are adequate?
    Mrs. Hart: The cost of transporting oil via the airlift was a necessary cost following the action of Rhodesia after the I.D.I. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there are in fact alternative routes now developed in Zambia by which enough P.O.L. is coming in to meet Zambian needs. I think that that answers all three of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Manuel: Can my hon. Friend tell the House the amount of petrol or fuel oil which has been stolen en route into Zambia, and what steps have been taken to combat the loss of supplies?
    Mrs. Hart: If my hon. Friend has evidence to this effect, perhaps he will let me know, but we have not received evidence of any large-scale amount of oil going missing in this way.
    Mr. Biffen: Why is the hon. Lady so reluctant to reveal the total cost of purchasing and transporting all this oil?
    Mrs. Hart: I have given the figure. The cost of the two airlifts, civil and Royal Air Force, was £6 million. The Zambian Government have paid the actual cost of the oil involved.
    Mr. Paget: Will my hon. Friend tell us why she says that the shortage of oil in Zambia was the result of the action of the Rhodesian régime? Has not the Rhodesian régime offered to refine and convey to Zambia all the oil that she requires, and is not that offer still open?
    Mrs. Hart: I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend is suggesting that the British Government ought not to have applied the oil sanctions which they did, and which were supported by both sides of the House at the time. The oil sanctions arose from the declaration of U.D.I, and Zambia's difficulties arose from that.
    Mr. Maudling: The question was about the offer made by the Rhodesian régime. Will the hon. Lady answer that question?
    Mrs. Hart: Indeed. If the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend are suggesting that one way out of this situation is for Zambia to avail herself of oil, despite the sanctions applied by the British Government and the Commonwealth, of course this would be possible, but I do not think that it would be advisable.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle.

    Nigeria (Refugees)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what assistance was offered by Her Majesty's Government to the Nigerian Government for the movement of refugees during recent disturbances there.
    Mr. Bowden: None, Sir. As my noble Friend Lord Beswick said in another place on 20th October, the welfare and rehabilitation of these refugees is a domestic problem for the Nigerian authorities and one in which other Governments can participate only at the express request of the Nigerian Government. No such request has been received by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the Government's commendable concern with human life on the African Continent we could, in a spirit of partnership, have offered assistance in this tragic situation to another member of the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Bowden: My hon. Friend ought not to assume that assistance was not offered. Furthermore, a great deal of work was done by British expatriates in Nigeria to assist with the Nigerian problem.

    Australia (Big Brother Scheme)
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs how many young people from this country have gone to Australia under the Big Brother scheme; and if he will make it a condition of the grant to this scheme that the young people concerned should be warned before they leave that they will be liable to conscription in Australia.
    Mrs. Hart: Since the scheme was founded in 1925, 6,755 youths have gone to Australia, of whom 4,744 have left since 1947. Before they leave Britain both the young people concerned and their guardians are given full information by the London office of the Big Brother Movement about the applicants' liability for military service.
    Mr. Moonman: I thank my hon. Friend for that statement, but may I urge her to make representations to the Australian Government asking them to release from national registration in that country those boys who are elegible for call-up and have been sent to Vietnam? The warning was issued only on Wednesday, 10th August.
    Mrs. Hart: I think that my hon. Friend will know that the warning has been made very clear to all who would have been likely to have been affected by this. The rest of the supplementary question raises a rather different point, which is one for my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Can the hon. Lady say why, in the Government's opinion, more people have emigrated this year than ever before in our history—including emigration to Australia?
    Mrs. Hart: The House will agree that that is certainly a different question.

    Remembrance Day Ceremony (Rhodesia)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are being made, as in the past, for a wreath to be laid at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day in commemoration of the Rhodesians of all races who fell in the two world wars.
    Mr. Bowden: I will lay a wreath, on behalf of Rhodesia, in remembrance of
    1138
    all Commonwealth dead of the two world wars.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that mean that there will be no wreath for Rhodesia on the Cenotaph, as in the past? Is it not desirable that an appropriate Rhodesian personality should do this? Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything possible to speed a settlement so that, next year, a wreath may be laid by the High Commissioner of independent Rhodesia?
    Mr. Bowden: I have already said that I myself will lay a wreath on Sunday next on behalf of Rhodesia in commemoration of the world dead, of the dead of all nations who died in the last war. I will lay this wreath on behalf of Rhodesia myself. I took this decision three or four weeks ago.
    Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House about the circumstances in which the pipe band of the Scots Guards was apparently forbidden to undertake an engagement which it had made with the Anglo-Rhodesian Society on Remembrance Day?
    Mr. Bowden: The use of the band for this or for any other purpose is a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence and not for me, but there has been a Commonwealth interest in this and I ought to point out that it is against Queen's Regulations for an Army band to be used on behalf of an organisation for any purpose which has a political objective.

    Self-Governing Territories (Assistance)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what facilities are made available by his Department to assist self-governing territories in improving the machinery of democratic institutions in their territories; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bowden: I am not sure just what my hon. Friend has in mind. Any request from another member country of the Commonwealth for assistance in the matters referred to is naturally given most sympathetic consideration by my Department, in consultation as appropriate with other Departments.
    Mr. Dempsey: Yes, but can my right hon. Friend say what active assistance

    1139
    he is giving to Commonwealth units where the threat of a one-party State emerges with its consequence of acts of oppression? Would he state that his offices are being used to the best of his ability to develop the democratic techniques of the Commonwealth organisation?
    Mr. Bowden: The problem, of course, is that, once a country is independent, it is independent. Any advice or help which the Commonwealth Affairs Office could give would, I am sure, be offered.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that Her Majesty's Government's first priority should be to improve the machinery of democratic institutions somewhat nearer home?

  HONG KONG

    Secretary of State's Visit
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Hong Kong.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Hong Kong;
    (2) if he will make a statement on constitutional development in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Luardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are his proposals for constitutional reform in Hong Kong.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Frederick Lee): With permission, I will answer Questions No. 35, 37, 38 and 41 together.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. May I ask my right hon. Friend to note that Question No. 38 is quite different from the other three and should, therefore, be answered separately?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Member should not waste the time of the House.
    Mr. Lee: The purpose of my visit was to see something of the outstanding social and economic progress which has been achieved in recent years and to discuss plans for future development.
    1140
    It was not my purpose to look into constitutional development. However, I heard many views on the subject, and I remain in no doubt that progress towards self-government or independence is not possible, for reasons which are generally understood in the Colony. Where I feel that there may be scope for change is in the field of urban and municipal affairs. The possibilities are being studied.
    In the course of my visit I initiated discussions with the Hong Kong Government about possible economies in the garrison and the Colony's contribution to its cost, in the context of our balance of payments problem. Detailed consideration of these matters is in progress.
    Mr. Royle: In view of the agitation for constitutional development by many of his hon. Friends, will the right hon. Gentleman stress the dangers, bearing in mind Hong Kong's geographical position? Will he also underline the impressive work which has been done in the social, housing and education spheres by the Hong Kong Government?
    Mr. Lee: I thought that I had done the latter in my Answer. With regard to independence or self-government, I just do not see it as a possibility, and constitutional development would make sense only if self-government were to be the goal.
    Mr. Rankin: Did my right hon. Friend discover that there is no such thing as free public education in Hong Kong? Will he note that and consider what should be done about it? On the economic side, was he not impressed by the abundant wealth of Hong Kong on the one hand and the extreme poverty that exists on the other? What suggestions did he make to the Governor to try to iron out that discrepancy?
    Mr. Lee: I should have thought that in the last few years some very great advances indeed have been made for the elimination of these two peaks. I certainly discussed with the Governor the future economic progress of Hong Kong, given the circumstances of which all hon. Members are aware. I believe that the Hong Kong Government have made outstanding progress in the last 10 years.
    Mr. Rankin: But my second question——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Luard.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. My second question——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The fact that the hon. Member's question may not have been answered does not raise a point of order for me. Mr. Luard.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to accept my Ruling.
    Mr. Rankin: But, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is precious. Mr. Luard.
    Mr. Rankin: Do not abuse it.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Luard: If there is to be more development of urban and other forms of local government, as my right hon. Friend just suggested, will he consider the possibility of appointing nominated members from among representatives of these local institutions for the Legislative Council in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Lee: As I told the House, we are examining the possibilities of an extension of powers for local government. There is a possibility that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend will be looked at.

  E.E.C. AND E.F.T.A. (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister what are the responsibilities of the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the First Secretary of State, respectively, for British political and economic relations with member countries of the Common Market and the European Free Trade Association; and whether any other Ministers have specific responsibilities for such relations.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The responsibilities of my right hon. Friends remain as set out in my speech during the debate on the Address on 21st April last. Others of my right hon. Friends, for example my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of
  1142
  Trade, are responsible for matters falling within their Departmental duties.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the Prime Minister tell us who is in charge of this somewhat ill-assorted team? Is it the First Secretary or the Foreign Secretary? Would he not agree that it is rather undesirable that the President of the Board of Trade should be involved in negotiations with Europe, in view of his well-known hostility to any question of British membership of the Common Market.
  Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. How does that come under your previous Ruling about reflections on hon. Members of this House?
  Mr. Speaker: It is in order to criticise a Minister in respect of his Ministerial responsibilities.
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether or not the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) had completed his supplementary question. The position is, of course, that my right hon. Friends—as I explained in April-are entrusted severally with the duties involved in probings and discussions, not only with the Common Market countries but with E.F.T.A. The policy on which they have been basing these discussions is laid down by the Government as a whole.
  Mr. Grimond: Did not the present Foreign Secretary make a statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in Scandinavia last summer which was accepted throughout Europe as a definite declaration of intent to enter the Common Market, and is that still the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: The statement made by my right hon. Friend in Stockholm was certainly the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and still is our policy. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to await a further statement which I hope to be making in the near future.
  Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that so far the House has received no account of the discussions which these Ministers have been having with European Governments? Would he, therefore, perhaps, by way of a White Paper, give the House this information, if not specifically Government by Government,

  1143
  then at least the details of the points raised by the Ministers and the general replies given in answer to them?
  The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider that suggestion, although I am not sure that a White Paper would be appropriate. When I make the statement which I hope to make in the near future, we will be able to deal with all these questions.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leader of the House has so far promised only a two-day debate for foreign affairs between now and Christmas? Will he make sure that when he makes his statement on Europe we will have a day on which solely to debate Europe?
  The Prime Minister: That is certainly a matter which can be discussed through the usual channels. If the House feels that the statement which I hope to make, when I make it, is of a sufficiently far-ranging character to merit a debate of that kind, then I am sure that the usual channels could arrange it.

  NEWSPAPER AMALGAMATIONS
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take over the threat to the Press due to growing control of newspapers and journals by a handful of concerns.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade already has wide powers under the Monopolies and Mergers Act, 1965, to protect the public interest against possible damage arising from newspaper amalgamations. He will not hesitate to use these powers whenever appropriate.
  Mr. Winnick: Would the Prime Minister not agree that there is a great deal of concern in the country at the fact that one or two concerns are taking over so many newspapers and publications? Is there not a danger that very soon all the independent national newspapers will be squeezed out? Would my right hon. Friend consider this as a matter of urgency and consider appointing a Royal Commission on the future of the British Press?
  The Prime Minister: There was a Royal Commission on the future of the
  1144
  British Press some time ago. I think that the only case recently at national level which my hon. Friend may have in mind is the proposal for the merger of The Times and the Sunday Times. That has already been referred to the Monopolies Commission and we must await the Report of that Commission.
  Sir C. Osborne: Would the right hon. Gentleman look at another aspect of the threat to the Press and contact the editors of local newspapers, who feel that the threat to their liberty of expression in editorials is the greatest threat they face?
  The Prime Minister: I was not aware of any threat to the editors of local newspapers concerning their editorials. It is a fact that many editors of local papers find their editorials written for them in London by proprietors.

  MEMBERS' CONSTITUENCIES (MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister what directions he has given to Ministers relating to correspondence with their political supporters on official matters concerning their Departments in the constituencies of hon. Members, and as to informing hon. Members about such correspondence.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir, and I doubt whether hon. Members generally would welcome being sent copies of each and every letter sent by a Minister to a member of the public who happened to live in their constituencies, even if the expense could be justified.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—I think he is—that the Minister of Defence for the Army has been corresponding with the leader of the Labour Party on Kingston Council—he is not just a member of the public—on the future of Kingston Barracks, behind the back of the hon. Member concerned? Does the Prime Minister regard that as appropriate behaviour in view of the duty which Ministers, like other hon. Members, owe to each other?
  The Prime Minister: Some of these cases raise very great difficulties. I recognise that, and only recently I have had to reiterate the system in operation

  1145
  under the previous Government about correspondence between Ministers and prospective Parliamentary candidates where these things may be involved, particularly in regard to Service Departments. The particular case to which the right hon. Member has referred and which I have studied is a very difficult one. I think it is a case in which he had not shown very much interest in the last year or two. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If I do the right hon. Member an injustice, of course I shall withdraw, but my study of it suggests that it is one of those features. My right: hon. Friend has explained the situation to the right hon. Member. He has apologised to him if any embarrassment was caused to the right hon. Member. On another occasion, I understand, he sought out the hon. Member and gave him the first information in that particular case.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Prime Minister aware that I have pursued this particular issue with a number of Ministers for the Army, and the Army Department, from its files, must be very well aware of this? Quite apart from that issue, will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the point of courtesy as between hon. Members where a public issue is involved and correspondence with a member of one's own party without at least informing the hon. Member for the constituency concerned?
  The Prime Minister: As I said, I recognise the difficulty here. My right hon. Friend has not been able to trace any correspondence since 1962. If the right hon. Member has files later on than that, I will, of course, readily acknowledge his more recent interest. I recognise that there is a difficulty here in these matters, and I had to give a ruling recently—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am trying to answer the question. If hon. Members want to hear the answer, they will get it in a moment. There is a difficulty here, and that is one reason why I have recently given instructions again on the question of correspondence with prospective Parliamentary candidates. I think the right hon. Member will agree that it would be very difficult in every case involving councils if a copy were to have to go from the Minister to the hon. Member concerned. The Minister has
  1146
  acknowledged that more recently in correspondence with the right hon. Member.
  Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister has recognised the difficulty of this position. Will he accept that where a member of the public is concerned the question does not arise and that when dealing with a leader of a particular party on a local council the matter is normally dealt with by officials for the Minister concerned, but that where the Minister deals with it he should let the Member of Parliament know about it?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think it is right, if he is dealing with the leader of a party, particularly a minority group on the council, that it should be dealt with by an official. Most Ministers reply to letters which they get from members of the public, and in this case it seemed appropriate. I recognise that there is a difficulty here. It is difficult to know where to draw the line. I am certainly prepared to go into this further with the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot think of any general rule that could be laid down. Certainly there are cases in my own constituency where I would find it difficult to know what the rule ought to be.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister, in view of the increased urgency shown by Denmark in seeking to join the European Economic Community, what is now Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to making an application to join.
  The Prime Minister: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement I have promised to the House.
  Mr. Ridley: Is the Prime Minister aware that by dithering over this vital decision for two years he has caused our E.F.T.A. partners to lose confidence in the leadership of his Government? Will he now show some tough, purposive leadership? Otherwise we shall find ourselves going into the Common Market on the coat tails of the Danes.
  The Prime Minister: I could not hear all that the hon. Member said in his

  1147
  supplementary question, but, as I have said, I shall be making a statement in the near future. I certainly do not accept that on any matter affecting our relations with E.F.T.A. or the initiatives we have taken through E.F.T.A. with the E.E.C. we have not improved on the impetus before we came to power.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that other E.F.T.A. countries have made it very clear that they did not support the Danish proposal and are most anxious to seek full consultation before any action which might be taken?
  The Prime Minister: I discussed this matter with the Danish Prime Minister when he was here on this recent visit, and these matters were further discussed at the recent E.F.T.A. conference, but in looking to the future hon. Members had better await my statement.
  Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that when he makes his statement, if the Government decide that they wish to secure membership of the Common Market, he will state clearly those aspects of the European Economic Community which the Government accept, those on which they wish to negotiate, and those matters on which they are prepared to have future discussion?
  The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better await my statement and give his considered view of the statement when he hears it.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SPECIALIST COMMITTEES)
  Mr. Ellisasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the Government's proposals with regard to setting up specialist committees.
  The Prime Minister: I have, as yet, nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 3rd November to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 735, c. 649.]
  Mr. Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House will be very disappointed with his Answer? We looked forward when this matter was first broached with great anticipation, and we would like to know
  1148
  what is now holding up the matter at this stage.
  The Prime Minister: As I explained last week, there have been interchanges with right hon. Gentlemen opposite for quite a long time. We ourselves held it up for a time, but now the ball is back at our feet and I hope we shall have an announcement soon.

  NATIONALISATION
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister what proposals the Government now have for further nationalisation.
  The Prime Minister: So far as this Session is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the Gracious Speech made at the Opening of Parliament on 21st April. So far as this Parliament is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the manifesto on which my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself were elected to this House in the spring.
  Mr. Marten: Is the Prime Minister aware that the particular publication, the Labour Party manifesto, is a very discredited document on this side of the House? In the light of the resolution moved by the miners at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton, and carried, that something should be done about nationalisation of oil and natural gas, will the Prime Minister give as an assurance that he will do no such stupid thing?
  The Prime Minister: As I have said, so far as this Session is concerned, we shall carry through the programme announced in the Gracious Speech this Session. So far as this Parliament is concerned, we shall carry out the programme and all the programme in this document, of which I will send the hon. Member a copy.
  Mr. Atkinson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of the Plowden Report relative to the aircraft industry brings into much urgent light the whole question of public ownership of that industry? Would he like to reflect on the Answer he has given?
  The Prime Minister: That was, in fact, published before the last election and before the manifesto was issued.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Is it not a fact that any future nationalisation could take

  1149
  place through the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, bearing in mind that nationalisation is now a dirty word?
  The Prime Minister: This was very fully discussed on Second Reading of the I.R.C. Bill, and I think even those hon. Members who have the most backwoods ideas were satisfied by the statement of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Grimond: Are we to take it from the Prime Minister's earlier reply that the Labour Party manifesto is still in all respects the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, certainly, and I shall be very glad to send a copy to the right hon. Gentleman as well so that he may study it.
  Mr. Woodburn: When my right hon. Friend is considering this question, will he look at all the things which the party opposite have nationalised and see whether all the conditions were not far too extravagant when they took them over under their Government?
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure that there is a lot to learn either on the question of nationalisation or denationalisation from the record of hon. Members opposite.
  Sir T. Beamish: So far as the long-term thinking of the party opposite is concerned, is not the answer to this question to be found in Highgate Cemetery?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that I had answered that question before the hon. and gallant Gentleman put it, and I had answered it at Brighton.
  Mr. Shinwell: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that, if by any mischance we decided to go into the Common Market, we should have to ask for the consent of Bonn, Brussels and General de Gaulle before we could nationalise?
  The Prime Minister: While always recognising the very deep study which my right hon. Friend has given to these problems, on this particular issue the advice he has given the House is not correct. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome to bar or ban nationalisation.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Has the Prime Minister seen that recently in America
  1150
  his Minister of Transport committed the Government to the nationalisation of car parks?
  The Prime Minister: I have seen a lot of accounts of discussions of my right hon. Friend in America, and some of them were extremely inaccurate and twisted versions of what she said. My right hon. Friend is certainly very concerned, as her predecessors have been, about the creation of more publicly-owned car parks.
  Dr. Gray: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the taking of privately-owned water undertakings into public ownership is urgent? As an example of this, the Blofield and Flegg Rural District Council installed bathrooms and lavatories—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair must hear about this rural district council.
  Dr. Gray: As an example of this, the Blofield and Flegg Rural District Council installed bathrooms and lavatories in council houses at the village of Clippsby which are without piped water after a year?
  The Prime Minister: Unfortunately, in the noise with which the House greeted this important pronouncement, I missed the name of the particular rural district council. If my hon. Friend will give me details, I will certainly look into it. On the question of water generally, whether for the general use of the public or the more specialised use which my hon. Friend described, I have nothing either to add to or subtract from the manifesto to which I referred.

BRUNEI
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. PEELQ15. Mr. PEEL: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for altering or modifying the Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Sultan of Brunei.
Mr. BLAKERQ16. Mr. BLAKER: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for reviewing the Brunei Agreement, 1959.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): When I answered a Question

1151
by the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. A. Royle) last week I referred, in dealing with a supplementary, to Questions down for this week. These were in fact, put down, quite rightly, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. In all the circumstances it was thought right that I should take them today and therefore, with permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. Q15 and Q16.
As was explained by my right hon. Friend the then Commonwealth Secretary in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Richmond on 3rd August, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that Brunei should progressively assume full responsibility in all fields of government and this will in itself require a revision of the Brunei Agreement at the appropriate time.
Mr. Peel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that nothing will be done to alter or change the Treaty with Brunei without the full agreement of the Brunei Government?
The Prime Minister: We have no immediate plans for any change in the Treaty, although, of course, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Treaty does involve certain two-way commitments—commitments of the Government of Brunei as well as those of Her Majesty's Government. It will be necessary progressively to have discussions with the Government of Brunei on the implementation of all parts of the Treaty.
Mr. Blaker: Would not the Prime Minister agree that for Britain to give the impression that she was abrogating or modifying the Treaty unilaterally would shake the confidence of the whole area in Britain and, therefore, would be bad for stability?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that this very difficult matter, particularly after the end of confrontation, on the question of a permanent and unending commitment in that area, and, indeed, with a Government who have not been noted for democratic advance of the area, raises very great difficulties for us; but as I have said, we have no intention at this immediate time of modifying the Agreement and we hope to proceed in full agreement with the Ruler of Brunei.
Mr. Hooson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what it costs this country to fulfil its obligations under this Treaty, and what percentage of the cost is borne by the Government of Brunei, in view of the fact that it is a very wealthy State?
The Prime Minister: I would prefer that Question to be put on the Order Paper. My impression is that it costs about £1 million a year. However, I would like to have that checked. Brunei is making a contribution, but it does not cover the whole cost.
Mr. A. Royle: In view of the remark made by King Faisal about the unilateral decision of Her Majesty's Government to leave Aden, will the Prime Minister answer my hon. Friend's question and give a firm assurance to the House that there will be no unilateral decision taken to leave Brunei without agreement being reached with the Sultan?
The Prime Minister: I would certainly hope there will be agreement reached with the Sultan; but the Sultan has certain obligations to carry out to us. I think that we would like to see how these are to be discharged before I give a final answer.
Mr. Maudling: The Prime Minister's answers have been rather hedging in character. Would he make it quite clear that it is not the Government's intention unilaterally to abrogate our responsibility in this area?
The Prime Minister: I have said that we shall proceed in agreement with the Ruler of Brunei. I am getting a little tired of right hon. Gentlemen, who landed this Government, before we took office, with a whole series of apparently unending agreements to maintain troops here, there and all over the world, making no regard for changes in either the world situation or in the internal situation in the countries concerned, and who then, every time we debate finance, say that we are spending too much money.
Mr. Maudling: If the Prime Minister is getting tired of being pressed to stand up for this country's obligations and to honour them, it is entirely his own fault.
The Prime Minister: I am not sure if that was a question, but I have said a

1153
number of times that our defence commitments have to be limited to what we can afford. Right hon. Members opposite, not only in this case but in a whole series of other cases, irresponsibly entered into very long-term agreements requiring us to keep troops in particular areas, where it will be very difficult in some cases to protect them, and at a very high cost. I am sure that the House would agree that in these circumstances we are right to review, as far as possible in agreement with the Ruler concerned, an agreement of this kind. These things should have been considered when the Agreement was signed by right hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Michael Foot: Is the Prime Minister aware that the most serious of all these open-ended agreements which the Opposition entered into was that which stated that we should keep four divisions in Germany until the end of the century, and that Sir Winston Churchill——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This supplementary question has no bearing upon Brunei.

TOURIST TRADE FACILITY
3.38 p.m.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit a circus in Royal Parks at appropriate seasons.
History has shown that it is commonplace for Britain to recognise the need to change, and it is equally commonplace that we are so often dilatory in doing anything practical about it. I should have thought that—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: As I was saying, history has shown that it is commonplace for this country to recognise the need for change. It is one of our traits that we are rather dilatory in doing anything practical about it. I should have thought that by now everyone would have recognised that it is quite right that if we are to remain a solvent country, and a leading Power, we have to make use of all our talents and possessions to earn foreign currency—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is impossible to hear the hon. Member who is speaking.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: We should use all our talents and possessions to earn foreign currency to help our vital balance of payments position. For too long the only form of exports which seem to have brought forth pride in so many of our people and upon which we seem to have concentrated to the exclusion of everything else have been exports of tangible goods, such as motor cars, electronic equipment, pottery, and Scotch whisky—all excellent, and long may the sales of those commodities continue.
However, they are not the only exports. Perhaps half the nation took some pride in the earning of our invisible exports covering insurance and banking, but until comparatively recently almost everybody seems to have ignored the potential which exists in the sale of our entertainment talent. We have a group of theatres spread over the country which are unequalled in any other. We have actors and variety artistes whose talents are being sought after all over the world and whose potential for earning money which would go towards solving this country's balance of payments problem is very real.

1155
Our television programmes are now being sold to other parts of the world on a scale which is really impressive. Mr. Lew Grade, the head of one of our programme companies, has already reported that this year he has earned 10 million dollars in exporting television programmes to America. If we recognise these potentials, we could well make Britain the centre of television programmes similar to what Los Angeles became for the movie business some years ago. On top of all this, we have the scope for attracting world tourists to Britain on a scale which is unequalled by many other countries.
Far too few people are excited about developing these things to the full. It seems as though too many people in authoritative positions are oblivious to this potential, otherwise they would not have increased the burdens borne by the excellent theatre programmes we have to offer by adding the Selective Employment Tax to their costs, would not have adversely affected tourist hotels by removing the investment allowance, and would not have handicapped the production of television programmes for world export by delaying the granting of permission to all channels to develop colour television.
Having recognised that, the purpose of my proposed Bill is to draw attention to the need to remedy these things and in one small particular to make a practical contribution to doing something about it. The small section to which I refer is one which has the full support of the official Government body. Indeed, it is interesting to note the comments of the British Travel Association, in March of this year:
"International tourism is growing, but we have to face the harsh fact that Britain's share of the world tourist market is now falling. Perhaps for the very reason that it was necessary to cross the sea to reach us, visitors used to make a longer stay when they got here than they did elsewhere. But travel is now becoming so easy and cheap that there is an increasing tendency for people to keep on the move, with the object of seeing more countries in the course of a single holiday. The adverse effect inevitably affects Britain more than the Continent…
Improvement in promotions must be accompanied by an improvement in the product we aim to sell."
In support of this, a Government spokesman—the Minister of State, Board of
1156
Trade—as recently as 2nd November of this year said this:
"The revenue earned by tourism from overseas visitors makes a vital contribution to improving our balance of payments, and between 1958 and 1965 our credits on the travel account rose from £134 million to £193 million Unfortunately, however, because of 5 million holidays abroad the debit site of this account has grown at a much higher rate, and whereas in 1958 our debits for travel were £152 million, by 1965 they had risen to £290 million…
No Government of whatever complexion "——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not much time. I hope that he will tell us something about his Bill.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, my speech would have been a 10-minute speech if I had not suffered the interruptions at the beginning of it. I assure you of that.
The Minster of State, Board of Trade, went on in this way:
"No Government of whatever complexion can regard with other than concern this evergrowing deficit of what, for want of a better term, I will call the 'Balance of Tourism'. Accordingly I am equally certain that a determined drive must be made to encourage our own people to take their own holidays within Britain, and to provide them so far as is humanly possible with the facilities which they seek abroad…
London is one of the main holiday centres for visitors from overseas … a gay capital city with every type of entertainment."
Here comes the bit about the Bill, Mr. Speaker. After next Christmas, London will not have every type of entertainment. It will not have a circus. Paris has a circus; Moscow has a circus; Copenhagen has; Lisbon has; Madrid has. All European countries have, but London will not have one. This is what my Bill would seek to remedy. After next Christmas London's famous circus, Bertram Mills' Circus, will not have a home. No building capable of economically accommodating it exists in London.
However, without affecting any other amenity, the circus could be put in Hyde Park under canvas. In Hyde Park, there are three football pitches. One of these would accommodate everything required by the circus for, say, 12 weeks in the summer, when the pitches are not in use for their original purpose. The circus could produce at least £500 a week in the form of rent, and possibly more than that. This could be done without interfering in any

1157
way with the band enclosure, the walks, or the Lido enclosure. It would be a practical contribution to attracting the overseas visitor to stay and spend and it would encourage Britishers to enjoy their holidays at home. This is just what the Minister of State, Board of Trade recommended us to do.
Experience at Olympia, where Bertram Mills has been for some years, has shown that the circus would attract tens of thousands of British tourists. An estimate has been made that about 250,000 visitors from overseas would be likely to visit it in one summer.
The Bill is necessary as a consequence of the Crown Lands Act, 1829, and subsequent Measures on the same plane. The Minster of Public Building and Works has no power to lease any part of the Royal Parks. Legal opinion is that, although the Minister under these various Acts has power to close any part of the parks, he has no power to permit any other person to make an enclosure and charge for admission thereto.
The Bill, sponsored by hon. Members of all parties, is aimed at giving the Minister such power. Unfortunately, even if the House were to give me leave to introduce my Bill today, and even if the Government were to provide time for it to go through its subsequent stages, the position could not be fully legalised by next summer, when it ought to be done to maintain the continuity of the circus.
If the House shows its approval today it might be possible to make temporary arrangements, if the Minister acts upon the mood of the House. Under the Acts, outsiders cannot enclose and charge for admission, but the Minister can. So for
1158
a temporary period the circus management could act as the Minister's nominee on terms which would result in the Minister having the equivalent of the £500 a week rent I have suggested, without the Minister being involved in any way. He could be indemnified against any of the running risks.
If this materialises, it will be only a small beginning to the vital balance of payments battle which these service industries can make, but it would be a practical contribution and one which the House is in a position to make possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Harmar Nicholls, Sir Donald Kaberry, Mr. Harold Gurden, Mr. John Maginnis, Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. George Jeger, Dr. Broughton, and Mr. Russell Johnston.

TOURIST TRADE FACILITY

  TOURIST TRADE FACILITY
  Bill to permit a circus in Royal Parks at appropriate seasons, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 3rd March and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the House has approved that Motion, can you tell us whether it affects the Royal Prerogative, since it concerns the Royal Parks, and, if it does, whether consent has been obtained?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may not be aware that that point arose in connection with a similar Bill last week. The Queen's Consent is required at a certain stage, but not at the stage of asking leave to introduce the Bill. This would have to come up at the Second Reading stage.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of section 3 of the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act 1959 and Part I of, and Schedule I to, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 till the end of December 1967, and of Part VII of the Licensing Act 1964 till the end of March 1968, being expenses which under any Act are to be paid out of such moneys.
  Resolution agreed to.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

    Clause 1.—(CONTINUANCE OF CERTAIN EXPIRING ENACTMENTS.)
    3.52 p.m.
    Mr. W. T. Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, to leave out subsection (2).
    The effect of the Amendment would be to repeal Part VII of the 1964 Licensing Act. This is the part of the Act that perpetuates the licensing planning committees established under the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, to last for one year. We have been renewing that Act ever since. Under it, liquor licences in war-damaged areas were to be granted only following an inquiry by committees whose duty it was to have regard to planning considerations so that the number and distribution of licensed premises in war-damaged areas met with local requirements and particularly had regard to possible future development.
    There is an irony in the fact that it has fallen to me to move the Amendment, for my interest in the matter is very limited. If the sellers of intoxicants relied on me, they would not worry very much about getting licences, because if they depended on my trade they could all close their doors, save their Selective
    1160
    Employment Tax, and go into industry. But I have the interest—which I should, perhaps, declare immediately, though I expect that it is familiar to most hon. Members—that I have the honour from time to time to represent the point of view of the Co-operative movement. The movement has some interest in this matter, though it affects very many more than purely Co-operative interests.
    The position now is that the areas that may be deemed to be the war-damaged areas considered under the Act when it was first introduced in 1945 depend on a fiction. In all the 18 remaining areas that are designated war-damaged areas for this purpose the amount of war damage is relatively little, and the Act proceeds substantially as a weeding-out of applicants before they go to brewster sessions. To obtain either an on-licence or an off-licence in these areas applicants must first go to the planning committee, which consists substantially of the same magistrates as those who make up the later brewster sessions.
    For the most part, the arguments deployed and the considerations that weigh are the same as those which are deployed before the brewster sessions, if permission is given by the licensing planning committee. Successive Home Secretaries have recognised that in very many areas the committees have outlived their usefulness and have taken advantage of the power they possess under Section 55 of the Licensing Act, 1953, which has been carried into Section 120 of the 1964 Act, to revoke orders constituting licensing planning committees in certain areas because they recognised that it was expedient that the area should no longer be treated in this special way.
    Although the Home Secretary has in the past used his power to abolish the planning committee, there still remain 18 areas to which the Act applies, although even in those areas it is generally recognised—indeed, Government spokesmen have recognised the fiction in the past—that there are no areas to which the conditions are still relevant that justified the passing of the Act in the first instance.
    This is the fourth time that I have proposed that these committees should now be brought to an end. There was a time when present Ministers acclaimed me when I spoke on this matter, and, more important, even supported me by

    1161
    arguments of greater skill and force than I could command. However, times change and so do Governments, and the very Ministers who, in former years, spoke with such eloquence on the folly of the persistence of these committees now stand to defend them with equal eloquence.
    However, the Government have promised—the debate was answered last year by my hon. Friend who is now Minister of State. Welsh Office—that they will carefully consider a claim for a review. Of course, they relied on the fact that there was a Departmental Committee to consider licensing planning and said that as soon as that Committee reported they would be in a position to make up their mind as to what to do about the licensing committees. The Departmental Committee reported in July last year, just too late to enable my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) to tell me what the Government thought about it. I gave him an opportunity last December, but the Government had not then been able to make up their mind. Bearing in mind the Committee's report, I am not surprised at that, for while apparently coming to the conclusion that the present planning licensing committees have outlived their usefulness, the Committee proposes to spawn the monstrosity still further by considering it not only in war-damaged areas, but in all parts of the country.
    In practice, the simplest and easiest way to deal with committees that depend for their existence on a fiction is to let them wither away. The Home Secretary can do this, if he wishes, by exercising his power under Section 120(4) of the 1964 Act, for all that is really happening is that people who now hold licences in the planning area have a monopoly and are entitled to preserve it by preventing the incursions of those who would be their potential competitors. It is extraordinary that the Departmental Committee under Mr. Ramsay Willis, as he then was, did not recognise this, as it is so apparent.
    If the Home Secretary followed the advice of the present President of the Board of Trade, as he put it when he stood in my place and made a similar speech, he could protect the interests of the public by sacrificing for once the vested interests of the brewing industry.
    1162
    4.0 p.m.
    However, if the Government are not disposed, for esoteric reasons of which I know nothing and which I cannot imagine, to let these planning committees wither away, and if they, like all Governments, are so pressed down with legislation that they have not the time or the inclination to use Government time to introduce yet another licensing Measure to deal with these anomalies, may I mention one particular anomaly which has persisted under the 1964 Act, apparently in the face of what Parliament originally intended? This raises the question of off-licences in the designated areas.
    I have read the debates on the Second Reading of the 1953 Bill, which was the beginning of this matter, and on that occasion Lord Kilmuir, as he now is, dealing with the objects of the Bill, spoke specifically of licensed premises, and the definitive Clause to which he referred—Clause 56 of that Bill, now Section 119(2) of the 1964 Act—lays down that
    "It shall be the duty of every licensing planning committee to review the circumstances of its area and to try to secure … that the number, nature and distribution of licensed premises in the area, the accommodation provided in them and the facilities given in them for obtaining food, accord with local requirements …"
    On the face of it, and in the light of the debates with which the Clause was introduced, it appears that Parliament intended the Act to have relation only to what are called "on-licences" under which spirits, beers and the like are consumed on the premises. It has been held since, possibly rightly, that that is too narrow an interpretation, and the courts have strictly construed the expression "licence" to include off-licences as well.
    Whether or not there is an arguable case that off-licences were never intended to be included—I think that there is—there is no doubt that later licensing legislation has given a greater permissiveness in respect of off-licences than that governing on-licences. Now, therefore, in the light of the 1964 Act, there is a considerable conflict between the intention of the Government in the matter of off-licences and the strictly construed interpretation of the provisions of the 1953 Act applying to them in the 18 war-damaged areas.

    1163
    To correct the anomaly, that is, to give greater freedom for the opening of off-licensed premises in these areas, and to give parity of treatment between different areas, would require the merest baby of a law. There is the possibility—I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this—that the most anomalous feature of this legislation relating to off-licences could be simply and easily cured without making too great a demand on the Government's time. If she is able to do that, to correct a little even if she will not remove the whole, then I shall feel that at long last my inadequate forensic appeal, unsuccessful for so long, has achieved a little good.
    Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I support the case so ably put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams). Like him, I declare my interest in that I, too, am privileged from time to time to put forward a case on behalf of cooperative societies, or the Co-operative movement. Unlike him, I do not claim the same lack of interest in the goods sold from off-licensed premises or dispensed in on-licensed premises. It must have been quite an occasion last year when my hon. Friend who is now Minister of State, Welsh Office, replied to the debate, he being one of the best-known teetotallers in the House.
    When the Government appoint a Departmental Committee, and that Committee reports as long ago as July, 1955, it is debasing the currency of such committees to allow so long a period to elapse before its recommendations are put into effect. I reinforce the plea made by my hon. and learned Friend that something should be done in this case.
    Special consideration should be given to off-licences. It seems to me that the relevant provisions of the Act cover two distinct and separate functions. We have now reached the stage, 21 years after the end of the war and the time when these war-damaged areas were designated, when we should at least start to free this sector of the trade. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will hold out a little hope that we shall not have to have a similar debate next year.
    I realise that all Departments are pressed for time when they seek to put legislation through Parliament. I realise,
    1164
    also, that this is a minor matter. But there are quite a number of these minor matters which it should be possible to find time for in the House in order to correct anomalies and improve parts of our legislation which are now long out of date.
    The Minister of State, Home Department (Miss Alice Bacon): I pay a tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) who, while having no interest in the liquor trade, has raised this question in four successive years. I have some sympathy with what I believe to be his aim and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). Nevertheless, I feel sure that, when they have heard what I have to say about the wider issues of licensing planning and about the real effect of the Amendment if it were accepted, my hon. Friends will be content to pursue other methods to achieve their aim.
    Licensing planning is an arrangement by which, in areas of serious war damage, the redistribution of licensed premises is co-ordinated by joint committees of the licensing justices and the local planning authority. Because the system was set up immediately after the war with reference to areas of serious war damage, the legislation providing for it is subject to annual review by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance procedure. The original postwar legislation of 1945 and 1946 is now incorporated in Part VII of the Licensing Act, 1964, which continues to be subject to annual renewal.
    Originally, there were 33 licensing planning areas with licensing planning committees set up by the Home Secretary. They may be brought to an end by the Home Secretary in an area in which he is satisfied that they have served their purpose. By the early 1960s, 15 of these committees had completed their task and had been brought to an end.
    Because of criticisms made of the continued existence of licensing planning and of methods of operation somewhat removed from the original objective of restoring war damage, the then Home Secretary in April, 1964, appointed a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. J. Ramsay Willis, Q.C., as he then was.

    1165
    Its principal findings were: (1) that licensing planning should continue, although in a modified form; (2) that it should no longer relate to areas of war damage but should be applicable to any area of development; (3) that it should apply only to on-licences where the licensing justices had discretion and where the planning authority had jurisdiction. The organisations most affected by the Committee's recommendations were asked for their views. Their comments have been received during the course of the last year and were, in the main, favourable.
    The next step, however—to formulate policy in the light of the Committee's recommendations and the reactions to them, and to translate that policy into an Act of Parliament—is not so easy. First of all, as my hon. and learned Friend has anticipated, it has not been possible to allot a place for legislation on this topic in the already crowded programme for this Session, and at this stage I cannot anticipate the content of the programme for the following Session.
    Secondly, the matter is by no means that straightforward, as my hon. and learned Friend recognised. One member of the Ramsay Willis Committee—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin)—put in a minority report. His main objection was to the quasi-voluntary and non-executive character of the proposed machinery. And our consultations, as I say, although revealing considerable support with the Committee's recommendations, have also shown some support for the minority views. There are thus difficult questions to resolve and opposing views to reconcile.
    At present, as has been said, there still exist 18 of the original 33 licensing planning areas. I can assure hon. Members on both sides that my colleagues and I do not like this annual renewal procedure for licensing planning any more than they do. But with the working of the present arrangements in practice there is, I understand, no great dissatisfaction either in areas which have licensing planning committees or in areas which have not—except the dissatisfaction caused by the retention of off-licences within the scope of licensing planning.
    Pending the solving of the difficulties of policy I have outlined, it seems to us
    1166
    that the necessary planning of adequate facilities for public houses and fully licensed hotels can best proceed under the three methods I have described. It is certainly the view of the authorities concerned in the two statutory methods of planning that they should be allowed to continue so to operate; and I am sure that the Committee will agree that, in the light of the Ramsay Willis Report, it is sensible to enable them to continue to do so.
    I now turn to what I understand may well be the main concern of the mover and supporter of the Amendment—the fact that under the present law the justices in a licensing planning area cannot issue an off-licence without a certificate of non objection from the licensing planning committee. If I am right—and if it had been legally possible to do so—I am sure that my hon. Friends might—instead of putting down an Amendment to prevent renewal of Part VII of the Act of 1964 as a whole—have limited themselves to an Amendment to exclude off-licences from the jurisdiction of the remaining 18 licensing planning committees.
    4.15 p.m.
    In the Bill now being considered, that is not possible. The courses open to the Committee today are to renew or not to renew. Separate legislation would be necessary to exclude off-licences from the scope of Part VII, and on this matter the Ramsay Willis Committee's recommendation may well be right in principle. The local planning authority under planning legislation is not concerned directly in the use to which shop premises are to be put. It has no power to say that there shall be one butcher, one baker, or one candlestick maker in a particular row of shops, and there is, perhaps, no reason why it should concern itself either with the question whether a grocer should sell beer as well as tea or wine as well as coffee. The number and location of outlets for off-sales of intoxicating liquor are matters of licensing law rather than of planning law.
    It may be that in the light of what I have said one of my hon. Friends may feel disposed to introduce a Private Member's Bill to achieve the relatively limited end of excluding the grant of off-licences from the scope of the planning committees. If that were to happen, I can assure

    1167
    the Committee that we would at the time give careful consideration to the attitude which Government should adopt towards such a Measure.
    Clearly, in ideal conditions it would be better not to try to deal with these matters piecemeal, but I am fully aware of the concern of which my hon. Friends have spoken and I will certainly undertake that the Government will take into account the views expressed. If my reading of the situation is correct, this Amendment would go further than my hon. Friends wished, and although, as I have indicated, Government legislation to bring about what they want is not possible in this Session, I hope that in the light of my explanation they will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. W. T. Williams: With a lively sense of favours to come, Sir Eric, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule.—(ACTS CONTINUED TILL END OF DECEMBER 1967)
    Sir David Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, to leave out lines 7 and 8.
    It may be convenient, Sir Eric, if, with this Amendment, we were to discuss the Amendment following it, in page 2, to leave out lines 16 and 17.
    The Chairman: This question was raised last year, when it was pointed out that these two Acts raised distinct points. There is the possibility of some confusion, but if it is the unanimous wish of the Committee that the two Amendments be discussed together, they can be so discussed.
    Hon. Members: Agreed.
    Sir D. Renton: I am much obliged, Sir Eric.
    I have discussed this with hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and I think that we shall have a more fruitful and a better ordered debate if the two Amendments are discussed together. After all, it is one
    1168
    immigration service for which one right hon. Gentleman is responsible. I thought that it was a very good idea to have one Under-Secretary of State responsible to the Home Secretary for the administration of immigration control and for dealing with naturalisation and the important work of race relations. I extend my best wishes to the Under-Secretary in this important work.
    Every country now has some form or degree of immigration control but we need it, perhaps, more than any other country, for three reasons. The first reason is that ours is one of the most densely populated and over-urbanised countries, and would certainly become more so even were immigration stopped altogether and emigration were doubled. Secondly, our standard of living and way of life, whatever may be the Government in power, seems to be attractive to millions of people, who would rather live here than in their own countries, and who would do so if we let them in. The third reason is that if more people were to come here we could not hope to maintain and improve our own high standards either for newcomers or for those already here.
    Immigration controls are rather difficult to administer, especially when we have thousands of people pouring through in one day, as we have, for example, pouring through London Airport. I would, therefore, pay a warm tribute to the immigration officers. They do a difficult job with tact, discretion, fairness and firmness, and with great linguistic ability. They are tested a great deal, and it should be mentioned in this House what a debt the country owes them.
    On four occasions in the past, when replying on behalf of the Administration to the annual debates on the Aliens Order, I agreed that, in principle, it should be embodied in permanent legislation. But I explained why we did not do it and I assure the House that I was sincere about the reasons I gave at the time and that, looking back, I have no reason to regret what I said. Of course, with every year that passes, those reasons become less valid.
    I wish to ask a question knowing well what the answer will be. Why are we not having permanent legislation at this moment instead of once more using this

    1169
    Bill for the extension of the Aliens Order? The answer is that the Wilson Committee is considering the matter.
    In my opinion, it was unnecessary to appoint that Committee to do what the Home Office could have done quite well. It was a stalling operation. Tomorrow will be the first anniversary of the Prime Minister's announcement that the Committee was to be appointed and I suggest that it has, therefore, already had more than enough time to do its job. We did some of the work for it by embodying parts of the Aliens Order in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962. I ask, however, when the Committee will report, when its report will be published and when legislation based upon it will be introduced.
    As one who had to bear a good many kicks from right hon. and hon. Members opposite while the 1962 Act was going through the House, I am delighted to find that the Government have not only paid us the compliment of keeping it in force from year to year, but have to some extent already—and I am glad they have—tightened up the control under the Act and, in their White Paper, published in August last year, undertaken to legislate to strengthen it more fundamentally.
    This I find very encouraging when I reflect that the Prime Minister in 1963 and 1964 frequently referred to the Act as being based on a colour bar. It never was, of course, and presumably the Home Secretary does not think so, for otherwise he would not ask us to renew it. However, we are accustomed to the Prime Minister saying one thing and doing another and it is reassuring to know that, in this matter as in others, he has not the slightest intention of practising what he preaches.
    The proposals in the Government White Paper overlap considerably with the proposals put forward in the Conservative election manifesto last March—and I shall refer again to the manifesto. This reveals a growing understanding between the Front Benches of the need for a more stringent control, however much we may regret it. I think that there is also, if I may presume to say so, a growing understanding between hon. Members on both sides, as there has been in the country for a long time, about two
    1170
    things which I believe to be basically true and essential for us to accept.
    The first is that the United Kingdom has become, or is becoming, seriously overpopulated. Anyone who doubts that should read the presidential address given at the British Association meeting at the end of last August. The second consideration is that we have already got as many people from the new countries of the Commonwealth as we can absorb socially and economically.
    When replying to a debate in the House in December, 1958—I think that it was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne)—I said that 210,000 people from the new Commonwealth had settled here. In last year's debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, Lord Stow Hill said that there were 1 million. Presumably that figure was based on information available on 30th September, 1965. During the 12 months since then—the period ended 30th September, 1966—there has, I estimate, been a further net increase from the new Commonwealth of 45,000. If I am wrong I stand to be corrected.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to the "new" Commonwealth. Could he be more precise? My impression is that the figure was for the whole Commonwealth.
    Sir D. Renton: No. My figure for the whole of the Commonwealth is substantially higher. The number of people from the new Commonwealth has, therefore, increased fivefold in the past eight years—from 210,000 to over 1 million.
    That is a formidable addition to this highly populated land of ours, especially when we reflect that, throughout this time, there has been a shortage of homes, schools and hospital beds, that our own population has increased pretty fast, and that, let us note, we have absorbed a considerable extra number of people from the old Commonwealth and the Continent of Europe each year. I do not think that any other country in the Commonwealth, except Australia, would have accepted an increase of population of any kind on the scale that we have done over the last eight years.
    There are those economists, Professor Kaldor among them, who believe that the

    1171
    faster we increase our numbers here the easier it is to beat inflation. But there are others who argue the opposite and I agree with the latter view. I am only a lawyer, but it seems to me that the argument that immigrants are needed for our economy overlooks the effort required to house and feed and clothe them and their families, educate their children, provide hospital and maternity services for them and enable them to send money home.
    In the excellent and balanced speech he made on this subject in our debate on 23rd March last year, Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, who did so much to help us all reach balanced conclusions in this matter, said, in speaking of the economic argument:
    "To try to get ourselves out of our short-term difficulties by the soft option of a continuous inflow of new workers from these poor areas of the world and pay the price of what undoubtedly will be a long-term social problem of major magnitude is something which any Government ought to pause a very long time before undertaking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March. 1965; Vol. 709, c. 341.] I have never known that wise statement seriously challenged since then.
    However, I do not think that we need to get stuck in an intellectual quagmire on the economics of the matter for it seems to be accepted by the Government, as it is by the Opposition Front Bench, that we cannot hope to improve our standard of living fast enough if the demands for houses, schools and hospitals are greatly increased by substantial annual increases in immigration.
    But what about those who are already here? About them, I am happy to say that we all agree that everything feasible should be done to improve race relations and help the million or so immigrants to live happily among us—not, on our part, being arrogant about forcing integration upon them, but helping them to adapt themselves to our ways so far as they wish to do but preserving their own religions, cultures and customs.
    4.30 p.m.
    I pay my sincere tribute to all those engaged in this work, from the Archbishop of Canterbury, as Chairman of the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, down to the social workers of all races who are devoting their daily lives to this vital task. Many of these social workers are the first to say that their task would be made easier if the
    1172
    numbers of immigrants did not so greatly increase by immigration each year, as they are doing still.
    Judging by the Minister of Labour's speeches last year, and Lord Stonham's candid speech in another place last week, I think that the Government appreciate the need for a drastic reduction in the annual increase in the numbers of those settling here, but it is one thing to say that there should be a drastic reduction and another to decide how it is to be achieved. I shall, therefore, ask the Committee to bear with me while I consider in some detail how a drastic reduction might be achieved. I hope to make some constructive suggestions and I shall try to avoid differentiating between the old and the new Commonwealth.
    First, as to vouchers. Last year, the Government wisely reduced the number of voucher holders admitted from the 1964 figure of 14,700 to 12,800 in 1965. They then announced that for 1966 the number would not exceed 8,500, including 1,000 from Malta. In fact, during the first nine months of this year the number of voucher holders admitted was 4,285, so that there has been a very substantial reduction. The published figures do not divide men and women, but I assume that out of the 4,285, about 3,000 were men. Of course, nearly all of those 3,000 men, sooner or later, will bring in their wives and children, as they have a right to do.
    Do we need to issue anything like as many as 8,000 vouchers in a year, or 4,285 in nine months? Do we need to issue any A vouchers at all—those are the vouchers issued to those who have a job to come to? We now have nearly 500,000 unemployed and the Government feel that our services are over-manned—all the services except the Civil Service—and that is why we have the Selective Employment Tax. Obviously, we need the nurses and transport workers who are already here, but I suggest that we should try to avoid getting any more, and I doubt the need for any more.
    As for B vouchers, vouchers issued to those with special skills, doctors, for example, nearly all of these people are desperately needed in their own countries, where they are needed even more than we need them here. Are we not being plain selfish as a nation in having them here instead of in their own countries?
    Mr. Stanley Orme: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman like to explain to the Committee what would be the state of our own National Health Service if all these admirable nurses and doctors were repatriated?
    Sir D. Renten: I have not so far suggested that all these admirable doctors and nurses should be repatriated. If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have understood that. Perhaps I did not speak distinctly enough. If he reads HANSARD tomorrow, he will read that I said that we obviously needed the transport workers and nurses already here. I suggested that we did not need to have any more.
    I stand by what I said about doctors. We are short of doctors. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been to India or South-East Asia, where I was this time last year, but if he has he will know that the shortage of doctors there is something which we have not experiend here, I should have thought, for 200 years.
    I turn to the subject of evasion of control. It is clear from the figures and was admitted by Lord Stonham, that evasion is still taking place on a large scale. During the first nine months of this year, the net inward balance from all countries of the Commonwealth was nearly 52,000 people. That, of course, is a permanent increase in our population of 52,000 in nine months. Eleven thousand were men. It is rather strange that there should be a net increase of 11,000 men while only 3,000 men were admitted as voucher holders. It seems that nearly 8,000 more men settled here than had permission to do so, all of them entitled to bring in their families, unless their evasion is detected, when they can be sent home, which does not mean that they will be.
    It is also clear that evasions are taking place not only among men, but among women and children. The net increase during the first nine months of women and children from all countries of the Commonwealth at 40,500 was nearly four times the net increase of men. Even if many dependants came to join men who arrived here before this year, the proportion of women and children in the net increase seems to be rather high, and is a
    1174
    further indication that evasion is taking place.
    I refer to a speech I made, and which caused a certain amount of merriment among the then Opposition, when the Act was going through. I referred to our proposed definition of "wives". I said that common law wives would be admitted, but it is my recollection—I am ashamed to say that I have not checked it—that only one wife was to be admitted. However, we were told by Lord Stonham the other day that there have been a number of cases of two wives being admitted, but no case of three wives. I should have thought that one wife was enough for any man especially bearing in mind our bigamy laws. This is a matter of detail to which the Government could well give their attention.
    In paragraph 24 of the White Paper last year, with a view to checking evasion and also preventing long-term settlement, the Government proposed a general power to impose conditions of admission, that is to say, the admission of any Commonwealth citizen would be subject to control. The Conservative Party manifesto also advocated that. There is already a fairly wide power under the present Act to impose conditions as to the length of the visit, and we have been assured that that power is being used as widely as possible. Why is it, therefore, that evasions continue on such a large scale? I think that the answer must be that the conditions are not being enforced.
    The reason for the lack of enforcement is the lack of administrative machinery of the kind which makes aliens control so surprisingly effective and successful. Having had four years' experience of the administration of aliens control I can assure the Committee that it would be very difficult to enforce conditions over the length of stay effectively without requiring people to notify their addresses and changes of address.
    The easiest way to do this is to make them register with the police as aliens have had to do for years, with very little trouble. There is another way of doing it and that is to get the immigrants to notify local authorities of their addresses and changes of address. Incidentally, notifying local authorities would have the further advantage that the local authority would be able to get a better assessment

    1175
    of its housing problem. Local authorities where immigrants tend to congregate are having to carry out a great deal of work in connection with them and I would have thought that we could achieve both of these purposes by having the local authority as the body to which immigrants should give their addresses and changes of address.
    Then the local authority could keep in touch with the immigration department of the Home Office and its card index—which was always kept for aliens and I presume is being kept for immigrants—can be checked against the index of the Home Office.
    Mr. David Winnick: A few moments ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the need for integration. Would he not agree that this suggestion would make Commonwealth immigrants in Britain second and third class citizens and that this is most undesirable?
    Sir D. Renton: I could not accept that. I have said specifically that it would apply to people from the old Commonwealth as well as from the new. If I was able to carry the hon. Gentleman in my preliminary observations, at the beginning of what is becoming, I am afraid, an unnecessarily long speech, I would hope that he would agree that immigrants would consider that it is a privilege to be allowed to come to this overcrowded island, and that it is not asking too much for them to go to the length of notifying their addresses. That does not make them second-class citizens.
    Mr. Chapman Mr. Chapman rose——
    Sir D. Renton: I have given way too much. If I may now get on with my speech, it would be to the advantage of the Committee.
    This problem of evasion is fundamental, and I hope that the Government will say when they are going to deal with it in a fundamental manner. They have reduced the net intake a good deal already, but nothing like enough.
    I want to turn to another proposal put forward in the Conservative election manifesto earlier this year. It recommended that we should
    "Help immigrants already here to rejoin their families in their countries of origin, or
    1176
    to return with their families to those countries, if they wish."
    That is a practical proposal, inspired by a sense of humanity. It is a sad fact that many immigrants do not settle down here, and never will in spite of the strenuous efforts made to help them. They may not like our climate, our food or our customs, at work or leisure; inability to speak the language may frustrate them.
    The National Assistance Board already repatriates a few at public expense if they have become too continuous a charge upon the Exchequer and seem likely to remain so. Much more could and should be done. Although someone else, for good or bad reasons, may have advanced money for the fares here in the first place, many cannot raise the money for the return fare when they would like to go home. If people want to return to their native land it is wrong to keep them here against their will. We should do everything that we can to facilitate their return.
    4.45 p.m.
    There are two ways to achieve this. First, for those already here or those admitted in the future, we could substantially increase the number repatriated at public expense, and secondly, in the future we could make people coming here produce return tickets or a deposit to cover the fare. This is the usual practice under the Aliens Order. The immigration officer, before allowing people in, has to be assured either that they are entitled to come for permanent settlement or that they intend to leave when their time limit expires and have the means to do so. That means having a return ticket, or depositing the fare. There is nothing new or difficult about this and I hope that the Government will consider applying it to Commonwealth visitors.
    The Conservative manifesto also advocated better health checks. I know that there are practical difficulties about this, but they could be overcome by having much more done, especially in the case of those travelling by air, by way of medical examination before they ever leave their own countries.
    Immigration is the most serious social problem of this century. We owe it to our constituents, including the million or so people in our midst from the new Commonwealth, to do all that we can to

    1177
    solve it. We can do it in two ways, by kindness, practical help, and real understanding shown towards those already here and secondly by a firm, realistic and courageous policy of immigration control.
    Frank discussion is essential. A conspiracy of silence by politicians or the Press can only make matters worse and would leave the way clear for extremists. If both sides agree, so much the better. I hope that the Government will not delay for much longer the further measures which they promised 15 months ago, and that when those measures come they will be bold enough to prevent the problem from becoming a crisis.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Maurice Foley): The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has spoken in very measured terms. With a great deal of what he has said I could agree. There are, however, one or two contentious elements and this emphasises, particularly when we are talking about the plight of those who have come from overseas and living in our midst, the dangers and the narrow path that we tread. We do not want to give credence to rumour and innuendo and yet, at the same time, we do not want to ignore the real, urgent and pressing need.
    I would like to run through the existing laws and regulations relating to both alien and Commonwealth matters than to deal, in particular, with the statistics on alien and Commonwealth persons in the last 12 months. The first Amendments which we are considering relate to the laws governing aliens. The Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, authorised the making of Orders in Council imposing restrictions on aliens in war time, imminent national danger, or great emergency.
    Although these powers were taken with the circumstances of the First World War in mind, the Government did not feel able to abandon them after the war, and Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, allowed the powers to be exercised also in peacetime but for one year only. They have since been renewed annually by successive Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. In the absence of such renewal, the powers in the 1914 Act could be used only in time of national emergency. There are no
    1178
    other powers for controlling either the entry of foreigners into the United Kingdom or their activities after admission.
    Prior to 1914, the Measure controlling the entry of aliens was the Aliens Act, 1905, which applied only to steerage passengers on ships. The main Order under which the present control over foreigners is exercised is the Aliens Order, 1953, which consolidated and replaced previous Orders. It has been amended by the Aliens Order, 1957, which eased the requirement regarding registration at hotels; the Aliens Order, 1960, which exempted resident aliens from police registration; and the Aliens Order, 1964, which contained certain provisions relating to aliens enjoying diplomatic immunities and privileges and to aliens entering the United Kingdom via the Republic of Ireland.
    All four Orders were made under the 1914 Act as extended by Section 1 of the 1919 Act. They provide in particular for the examination of foreigners entering and leaving the United Kingdom, the control over their employment or occupation here, the registration of addresses and personal particulars and the deportation of undesirables.
    As has been indicated, the Government accept the view that the time is long overdue for placing on a permanent footing the laws relating to the control of immigration. The present Measures have been criticised often enough in the annual debates on Expiring Laws Continuance Bills, mainly because of the extent of the powers granted to the Home Secretary and to his immigration officers without any formal right of appeal against their decisions.
    As the Prime Minister said during the debate on the reply to the Address on 9th November, 1965, we want to get this legislation right. To this end, an independent Committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Sir Roy Wilson, the President of the Industrial Court, with the following terms of reference:
    "To consider whether any, and if so what, rights of appeal or other remedies should be available to aliens and to Commonwealth citizens who are refused admission to. or are required to leave, the country".
    This Committee has now been at work for several months. Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I, too, am anxious to see its findings. I understand that it has received a large volume of

    1179
    written evidence. Its members have been to see for themselves the working of immigration controls at the ports in this country; and, indeed, the chairman and the secretary went to North America to study at first hand the systems of control in the United States and Canada. These, as hon. Members will know, make provision for the hearing of formal appeals against exclusion and deportation, the kind which some Members have been advocating in the House for a number of years.
    We have set no time limit on the Committee's inquiry. I cannot accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that the Committee was not necessary, that the information was available within the Home Office. Speaking as a junior Minister, albeit in the Home Office, I welcome the fact that there is an independent examination. The House has had its annual debates on the subject, but it has not been explored seriously outside the House and the framework of the Home Office for the last 50 years. The Committee has a complex and difficult task to do.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked when the Committee would report, whether its report would be published and when the Government would act. I can assure him that we hope to receive its report in the first half of next year. It will be published as soon as possible. The report will prepare the way for permanent legislation. It is impossible at this stage to earmark Parliamentary time for the new legislation, but the Government accept the need for it and will proceed with it as soon as possible after the Wilson Committee's submissions and as soon as their other commitments allow.
    Mr. John Hall: Does not that mean that we cannot have any legislation until 1968?
    Mr. Foley: Not necessarily. It means that there will be no legislation on this subject during the present Session of Parliament.
    The reason is that we want to get the legislation right. We want it to be effective. We do not want to deal with the matter piecemeal. We do not want to have to carry out a re-examination after one or two years as a result of finding
    1180
    loopholes. For this reason, we have not been breathing down the Committee's neck and saying that we want the report next week or the week after. We want to convey a sense of urgency and yet at the same time give the Committee ample opportunity to investigate and study and to consider experience elsewhere and for people to make representations.
    I turn to the operation of the controls at ports of entry. Foreigners wishing to enter the United Kingdom must obtain leave to land from an immigration officer. These officers, who work under instructions from the Home Secretary, are empowered to attach to the grant of leave to land conditions governing a foreigner's length of stay and his freedom to take work here. They can also turn back the comparatively few whom, for one reason or another, we are not prepared to admit.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman paid tribute to the work of the immigration officers and the immigration service. I have had the opportunity in recent months to see this work at first hand at London Airport and at Dover and Folkestone. I, too, would like to add my tribute to the officers who perform a very difficult and valuable task, often in trying circumstances. They carry out their duties with sympathy and understanding, and I know that they apply their instructions with all possible fairness.
    More people than ever are now moving in and out of ports of entry in the United Kingdom. Total arrivals and departures during the last 12 months increased from over 17½ million to over 20 million—a rise of 12½ per cent. Included in this latter figure were over three million foreigners granted leave to land. This is over 300,000, or 12·9 per cent. more than in the corresponding period of 1964–65.
    Between 1st October, 1965, and 30th September, 1966, 4,706 foreigners were refused leave to land at United Kingdom ports. This figure may be seen in its true perspective when it is compared with the overall total of nearly 3,030,000 foreigners who entered the United Kingdom during the same period. It represents a mere 0·12 per cent. of arrivals, or one in just over 830, and is a decrease in the rate at which foreigners were refused admission last year. Of these 4,700 people, nearly 2,000—well over one-third of the total—had come here to work

    1181
    without first obtaining valid labour permits.
    Eight hundred and eleven lacked sufficient means to support themselves during their proposed stay. Eighty-five were refused admission for medical reasons and there were 100 stowaways. A further 390 were travelling without a valid travel document and 130 tried to enter without a visa when a visa was required. Two hundred and two wished to live here permanently, but were not eligible to do so. Then, 702 transit passengers were refused leave to land for technical reasons, but were allowed to continue their onward journeys.
    5.0 p.m.
    Most of these were stateless aliens, and refusal of leave to land in such cases may be necessary, even though this country is not their final destination, because an alien has been deported from some other country and is passing through the United Kingdom on his way home, or because he is holding a travel document of restricted validity. Then there were 58 foreigners with criminal records or criminal propensities, 10 who were attempting to return here in contravention of deportation orders, and 61 seamen who had come to seek sea employment without the necessary contracts. The remaining 170 odd defy subdivision into categories since the reasons for refusing them admission were so varied.
    One ought to say that there is a fallacy which supposes that an immigration officer is the sole arbiter of the destiny of a foreigner who is refused leave to land. Article 30(2) of the Aliens Order, 1953, requires him to act in accordance with such instructions as may be given by the Secretary of State. These instructions specify that no foreigner is to be sent back without the most painstaking and sympathetic consideration being given to each case. A decision to refuse leave to land must be confirmed by the immigration officer's immediate superior.
    Difficult cases are referred to the headquarters staff at the Home Office and to Ministers for a final decision. A foreigner who is subject to such a refusal to land is allowed to get in touch with friends or relatives or any other person whom he thinks may be able to assist him, and any representations on his behalf are always considered carefully.
    1182
    I have read closely similar debates of recent years, and it has been argued that the foreigner who is refused leave to land invariably should be told the reason for the decision. In a few cases where, for example, the foreigner is refused on grounds of security or mental health, disclosure would hardly be appropriate. In general, however, the reason for refusal is made quite clear to the foreigner. For example, if someone comes here to work without a valid labour permit, which is the commonest reason for refusal, it is made quite clear to him why he has been refused admission. Home Office staff have been instructed to give a clear explanation wherever possible to friends or representatives of a foreigner refused leave to land or to any other person with a legitimate interest in the case who asks reason for the decision.
    Mr. John Wells: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the figures about refusals to enter at the ports, could he give any figure of the number of prospective immigrants who have been refused permission even to leave their own countries by Ministerial exchange? I have a case in mind where a constituent of mine has a Russian brother who was refused leave even to begin his journey. If the Minister has no figure available, perhaps we could have it later.
    Mr. Foley: I have no figure available at the moment. I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers to people coming from countries where a visa is required. That applies to the Iron Curtain countries, and so on. It would not apply to countries in Western Europe and other parts of the world which are non-visa countries, and there would be no grounds for refusing a person leave to start his journey. I have no figure available. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, I will be glad to look into it.
    I want to turn now to an aspect of control which is distasteful but which nevertheless is inevitable and an essential part in logic of any immigration control system. Wherever immigration control exists, it is ineffective without some power of deportation. That sanction must be available against those who have abused our responsibility, for example, by failure or refusal to comply with the conditions on which they were admitted to this country. In addition, the power must be available against those who have been

    1183
    recommended for deportation by the criminal courts. However, deportation is used rarely and usually as a last resort. The average number of foreigners deported in recent years has been slightly less than 90 a year, and in 1965 the total was 65. During the first nine months of this year, 42 deportations were carried out.
    Mr. Harold Gurden: Could the hon. Gentleman give us a figure of the number of deportations recommended by the courts, to set against the actual figure carried out?
    Mr. Foley: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about Commonwealth or alien immigrants. I am talking at the moment about aliens. Is it in that field that the hon. Gentleman wants the information?
    Mr. Gurden: Both.
    Mr. Foley: I am coming in a moment to the deportations recommended by the courts and the right of appeal to the Chief Magistrate, which indicate the kind of field about which the hon. Gentleman wishes to know.
    Except in security cases or where a recommendation to deport has been made by a criminal court, a foreigner who has been here for two years is permitted to make representations, with legal advice if he wishes, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bow Street. Since 1956, when the practice was instituted, 121 people have been eligible to make representations, but only 69 have availed themselves of the opportunity. In 46 of the 64 cases which he has considered, the Chief Magistrate has agreed that deportation would be justified. Although the Chief Magistrate's opinion is only advisory and not binding on the Home Secretary, no deportation has yet been carried out where the Chief Magistrate did not agree with the Home Secretary's proposal to deport.
    I appreciate that I am not answering the precise point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). I will look it up and answer it later in the debate for him.
    The number of deportations is an extremely small proportion of the total number of foreigners in this country at any one time. This is always well over
    1184
    400,000 and probably exceeds comfortably half a million during the holiday season.
    All relevant factors are taken into account before a deportation order is made. Points in favour of clemency may be the foreigner's long residence here, marriage to a British subject, or a good employment record. All such mitigating circumstances are balanced carefully against the offence or offences for which he has come to adverse notice, not only by those hearing representations but also by the Home Secretary, who himself signs every order.
    The deportation order requires a man merely to leave and stay out of the country and does not specify a country to which he must be deported. In practice, however, a deportee has to return to a country of which he is a national unless some third country is willing to take him.
    I turn now to the question of Commonwealth immigration, to take up some of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and answer some of the questions that may be in his mind and those of other hon. Members. We are now in a position to survey the immigration control after the first full year of the various changes of policy announced during the course of 1965. They began with the Home Secretary's statement of 4th February, though most of them are set out in Part II of the White Paper entitled "Immigration from the Commonwealth", published in August, 1965. The changes were brought into force as and when they were announced, and the Committee will find them incorporated in the new edition of "Instructions to Immigration Officers", which was published on 10th August last.
    The question has been asked: what effect have these changes had on the immigration control? As the Committee will be aware, statistics of commonwealth immigration are published annually. The latest for the year 1965, was published last May. Monthly figures are placed in the Library as they become available. It may be convenient to the Committee if I draw attention to some of the more significant statistics. I should say that the points raised in relation to vouchers and some of the other issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

    1185
    In addition, I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will participate in the debate and answer further some of the questions which have been raised.
    The most noticeable change has resulted from the reduction in August, 1965, in the rate at which Ministry of Labour vouchers have been issued. Previously, the rate was 20,000 a year. Since the White Paper, it has been reduced to 8,500 a year. This did not have any immediate effect on the number of voucher holders admitted, for a voucher is valid for six months, and many of those who arrived after the reduction was announced will have received their vouchers earlier. Nevertheless, the number of voucher holders admitted has fallen markedly. In 1964, it was 14,705. In 1965 it was 12,880, and in the first nine months of this year it was 4,285, which is less than half the number admitted during the corresponding period in the previous year.
    The other main changes in the control were designed to reduce evasion. Immigration officers were instructed to look more closely at claims by Commonwealth citizens to be admitted to the United Kingdom, and to use their powers to impose conditions more fully. This has, inevitably, led to a few more people being refused admission at our ports, but, in the context of about 300,000 Commonwealth citizens admitted during the first nine months of 1965, 1,060 were refused entry, and the number has fallen during the first nine months of this year to 864.
    It is now the practice to admit all Commonwealth citizens who come here as students or as visitors, subject to the condition that they leave within a specified period. This has meant an enormous increase in the number subject to conditions. Whereas in February, 1965, it could be measured in hundreds, now there are hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth citizens who are admitted, with a formal limit, usually of six or 12 months, in terms of their stay in this country.
    There is, of course, a follow-up on all these, and they are reminded a month before their time expires of the conditions under which they were admitted. Most of them automatically observe the conditions and leave. Nevertheless, there will
    1186
    be a minority who will want to stay on, and who will want, if possible, to be in breach of their conditions, or to have their conditions altered. Clearly, this will be an evasion of the whole voucher system. In the last resort, enforcement of these conditions is necessary. It is cumbersome, and it may even be distasteful. It involves a police prosecution for those who are in breach of their conditions, and it means eventual deportation.
    Sir D. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is giving us a very full and clear picture, but can he say to what extent the information available to him shows that people are evading simply by breach of the conditions?
    Mr. Foley: This is a very difficult matter to try to determine. We have not evolved a fool-proof system. Equally, people who come here as bona fide students, and as bona fide visitors have nothing to fear, and are welcome. It is a question of trying to devise a system by imposing a condition. If, for one reason or another, a student wants to study further, or someone engaged in business wants to carry on for a little longer, he can apply for his conditions to be extended for another year. He has this means of extending his stay.
    5.15 p.m.
    It is difficult to determine the extent of potential evasion, or real evasion. I am inclined to believe that the measures which we have taken will, in time, reflect and show that we are dealing reasonably effectively with evasion. While not being complacent, I am not one of those who are haunted or mesmerised by figures, and 1 certainly would never accept the notion that thousands are evading our controls, weekly, monthly, or annually. This is not the case.
    Sir Cyril Osborne: Has the hon. Gentleman encountered any difficulties with the home countries to which immigrants were to be deported? Have any of them said that they do not want them back?
    Mr. Foley: In one or two instances people have claimed political asylum in this country from some parts of the troubled world, and although not the country which should give them asylum, we have done so. I cannot think of any case where a country has refused to take a deported person. I might not be

    1187
    correct about this, but I shall examine the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong.
    Perhaps I might give the Committee the figures for the first nine months of this year for the whole of the Commonwealth. The figure for visitors was more than 200,000, a considerable increase over 1965. For students it was more than 11,000, rather fewer than in 1965. For voucher holders the figure was 4,285, less than half the number in the equivalent period in 1965. Others admitted for settlement, mainly dependants, numbered nearly 33,000, which was roughly the same as in 1965. The net balance for the first nine months of 1966 was more than 50,000. The net balance, that is the total number admitted last year less the total number who embarked, was more than 50,000, which is about 12,000 less than in 1965.
    I imagine that there are some hon. Members who expect me to go a little further in defining these figures, and to talk about the newer Commonwealth and the old Commonwealth. If this is the case, and I noted the question which was asked earlier, the position is that the net balance from the newer Commonwealth is 41,663, a decrease of 8,782 on the figures for the equivalent period last year.
    Mr. John Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman give the Committee figures, if he has them, of the numbers who have entered the country under certain conditions which limit the period of stay here, and those who have evaded those conditions and are still here illegally?
    Mr. Foley: The figures are not at hand. I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures which I mentioned for visitors and students. Since the introduction of the White Paper last August, visitors and students have been on a time condition. Most of them are on a time condition of six months to one year; and towards the end of this year, and early next year, we shall be reminding them that their time limit is up. If they can show that they are bona fide students, or visitors, they should send in their passports and these will be renewed automatically for another 12 months. If they do not send them in, they will be chased up as to why, and how, and so on. It is too early to give
    1188
    figures in relation to the time condition system which was imposed as a result of the White Paper.
    I come, finally, to the question of those who come here to live. I was grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for his comments in this respect. The Committee will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary now has the responsibility for positive action to promote integration, as well as the negative duties of immigration control. On this question of our responsibility, we ought to be quite clear, and we should be determined to ensure, that there shall be no discrimination on grounds of race or colour in any part of our national life.
    To my mind there is no room for further argument on this fundamental issue; nor do I believe that any reputable body of opinion, inside or outside the House of Commons, would oppose the Government's view as I have just enunciated it. There is ample room for debate about the best way to achieve our purpose. This can be healthy if it shows the most efficient methods to employ in making a success of our multi-racial society.
    Mr. Duncan Sandys: I do not wish to resist the renewal of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, but I feel that this is an opportunity to examine our whole attitude towards this question and the problems which it raises. In particular, I want frankly to discuss what is perhaps the most delicate aspect of the question, namely, the racial aspect.
    I probably have more African and Asian friends than most hon. Members. I have no sympathy whatsoever with Europeans who adopt an attitude of superiority towards people of other races. But that does not mean that we should ignore the racial aspect of the immigration problem. We talk about the new Commonwealth and the old Commonwealth. We all know what we mean. It is as well frankly to recognise that, generally speaking, the immigration problem is one of race and numbers.
    People say that it is a question of assimilation, but that is just a roundabout way of saying the same thing. If the numbers are small, immigrants of all races can be assimiliated without any great difficulty, but when numbers are

    1189
    large the racial aspect of the problem becomes important. It is much easier to assimilate immigrants from Australia and New Zealand than from India and Jamaica.
    On a recent visit to the United States I was painfully impressed with the extent of the violence, bitterness and misery caused in that country through the tensions between white and coloured citizens. But it would be quite wrong to suggest that this is an issue between the white and coloured races. These same difficulties have arisen between Africans and Asians in East Africa, Malays and Chinese in Malaysia, Indians and Negroes in Guyana, and Fijians and Indians in Fiji, and in many other countries with mixed populations. But the difference between us and these other countries is that they, for the most part, inherited this problem from the past, whereas we are creating it today. Despite the unhappy experience elsewhere we are deliberately building up trouble for ourselves in the future.
    This is not a party issue; Governments of both parties bear their share of responsibility. The fact is that, during the last few years we have admitted many more immigrants of non-European stock than we have been able to assimiliate, and there are at least another half million dependants who, under present regulations, are entitled to settle here whenever they choose. Everyone agrees that we do not wish to create two classes of citizen. Nor do we wish to create a nation within a nation. But that is precisely what we are doing.
    African and Asian immigrants have come here in such numbers and at such a rate that it is quite impossible to integrate them properly into the life of the nation. Many of them, particularly from India and Pakistan, show very little desire to be integrated. Whether from preference or necessity, then tend to congregate in certain areas, where they live in more or less separate communities.
    A large proportion of these immigrants perform unskilled and lower-paid work, and this tends to create a certain class distinction between them and their fellow citizens. When differences in occupation, earnings and national habits coincide with differences of colour we are a long way
    1190
    towards building two nations. During recent years many of the old barriers of class and prejudice among our own people have, happily, disappeared. Must we now needlessly create new divisions and new tensions of a kind which will be infinitely more difficult to remove in the future?
    Most of these immigrants are doing a very good job, but is it really true that Britain cannot manage without a continuing influx of new labour? I am not talking about those who are already here. But do we really need, year after year, a continuing intake of new labour from outside? Most people would agree that many of our industries and services are not using their manpower very economically. The importation of workers from overseas inevitably retards the introduction of labour-saving processes and modernisation. This is surely not in our long-term interests.
    Mr. Norman St. John Stevas: Having heard the Minister give the figure of 4,285 for the first nine months is my right hon. Friend seriously suggesting that the issue of these vouchers can have any substantial effect on our economy? The effect must be quite infinitesimal.
    Mr. Sandys: This process is going on continuously. We already have admitted many more people than we are able to assimilate. One may say that the additions are not great, but they add to the problem.
    It is true that some of these immigrants possess special skills and qualifications—such as doctors, and dentists—but I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that we must ask ourselves: is it morally right to deprive these underdeveloped countries of the services of these men, when their need is so much greater than ours? Would it not be better to try to stop the outward flow of our own skilled and professional men by making conditions more attractive here at home?
    I welcome the Government's efforts to cut down the number of vouchers, but, I consider that this is still not enough——
    Mr. R. T. Paget: I have always understood that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)

    1191
    is one of the leading supporters of the Common Market. The Common Market involves a voucher-free entry from Europe, everybody included.
    Mr. Sandys: The problem of assimilating people from the Common Market will not present altogether the same problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is true. Everybody knows that it is.
    There must, of course, be exceptions to all rules, but I suggest that, in the present situation, the Government should make a further effort to reduce to the absolute, barest minimum the issue of further vouchers until those immigrants who are already here have been fully assimilated.
    5.30 p.m.
    I am not, of course, suggesting that we should stop the entry of dependants, since this would cause untold family distress. But I think that we ought to review the categories of those who are entitled to be admitted and tighten up the safeguards against abuse.
    I have no doubt that many people who are not dependatns and are perhaps not related at all to people already here are getting in in this way, and taking on jobs in exactly the same way as people with vouchers——
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): It is important that, as far as we operate this control, as we do, we should exclude evasion as far as possible. But would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough, following up his other thought, to tell we what categories now admitted he would exclude?
    Mr. Sandys: I would not like to pursue that in my speech, but I should be very happy to discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman.
    My right hon. and learned Friend said, and I agree, that we ought also to give generous assistance to immigrants already here who wish to return to their home countries. I hope that the Government will consider that.
    To facilitate assimilation of those who are already here, we should try to find ways of reducing the over-concentration of immigrants in certain limited areas. I suggest that industry and local authorities should be asked to help by offering these people employment on good terms in other parts of the country.
    1192
    We ought also to consider whether there is any longer any real justification for retaining the distinction between Commonwealth immigrants and immigrants from other countries. Hardly any other Commonwealth country accords a preferential right of entry to Commonwealth citizens as such, without reference to their country of origin, while several of them take positive steps to keep down the numbers of immigrants of non-indigenous races, whom it would be difficult to assimilate.
    Therefore, if we were to change our procedure in this respect, I do not think that there could be any reasonable objections from other Commonwealth countries. This would, naturally, not prevent us, if we wished, from concluding special reciprocal arrangements with particular countries which regularly receive an appreciable number of immigrants from Britain. I am, of course, well aware that some may consider that my recommendations go too far. All I would say is that anything less would be just tinkering with this problem.
    Mr. Chapman: I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) not just astonishing, but astonishingly depressing. It is depressing to think that he was once Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. What did he say this afternoon? He said when he began, "I do not believe that black and white can ever live together in harmony"——
    Mr. John Wells: No.
    Mr. Chapman: Oh, yes. He said that. He said that the racial strife which one sees around the world is inevitable and that we are heading for the same trouble in this country——
    Mr. John Wells: No.
    Mr. Sandys Mr. Sandys indicated assent.
    Mr. Chapman: The right hon. Member for Streatham is nodding in agreement, so the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) is wrong.
    The right hon. Gentleman's attitude was not so far different from that of the man who says, "I do not mind black men, but I do not want my daughter to marry one." He says, "I have many black men as friends, but I could never live with them in my community." It is

    1193
    depressing that, after being Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman should come here with this defeatism.
    I am not defeatist about this. There are communities in the world which are solving this problem. The right hon. Gentleman was selective in his choice of examples. What about Jamaica, Barbados, or Trinidad? The hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) rightly hates the phrase "multi-racial society" and thinks that the phrase "non-racial society" is better. I agree. These three countries have it. Is the right hon. Member for Streatham saying that what they can do, and what other countries are trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to do, we should give up the attempt to do? This is what the right hon. Gentleman was saying in the terrible speech which he made——
    Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): No.
    Mr. Chapman: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is wrong; the right hon. Member for Streatham is nodding in agreement.
    Mr. Hogg: I was only urging the hon. Gentleman not to get so excited.
    Mr. Paget: That is advice from an expert.
    Mr. Chapman: As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) says, that is advice from an expert and should be treated seriously. I am not excited. I am deeply depressed, which is an entirely different matter.
    Another thing which the right hon. Member for Streatham said was that there is this division in our society based on the fact that the coloured population, at the moment, unfortunately, does the menial jobs in our society and that there will always be this distinction. But the answer is not to give up the ghost and say that it is inevitable. The answer is to begin to find ways—such as apprenticeships or professional acceptance in the better jobs in our society—to eradicate this sort of prejudice against the coloured fellow worker.
    One does not give up over things like that, yet, with all the power of an ex-Commonwealth Secretary, the right hon.
    1194
    Member says that these things are inevitable and that we cannot fight them. I am surprised that he has sunk to this level.
    There are ways in which improvements can be made; and the work which my right hon. Friend is doing at the Home Office is leading us to the point when we can make a great break-through on the jobs front. The right hon. Member for Streatham knows as well as I do that the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination—"C.A.R.D." as it is known—has collected a great deal of information about the problem. We know where and why it occurs. I understand that the Ministry of Labour has been looking into some of the allegations of prejudice against coloured workers in particular jobs.
    We are reaching the point when a lot of people of good will are working quietly and steadfastly—it has needed my right hon. Friend to be in office; this work is going on in the Ministry, in the Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants and elsewhere—to solve this problem. But now there must be top-level discussions between trade unions and employers on measures that can be taken specifically to introduce coloured people with the appropriate qualifications into some of the bigger jobs in our society.
    These people should be on display. It should be publicly known that they have been appointed, and appointments of this sort by the big shops and Government Departments would help the breakthrough to occur. If we decided to give up, like the right hon. Member for Streatham, none of these things would be happening. However, if we can go steadily along this road we can try to make a non-racial society in Britain and thereby show leadership to the world.
    I suppose that the right hon. Member for Streatham would also give up on the question of housing. What truth is there in this business of coloured ghettos? The right hon. Member for Streatham said that these things were inevitable. I have with me some photographs of the notorious Marshall Street, in Smethwick. Hon. Members will recall the discussions that took place some time ago about Marshall Street. It was alleged that it was becoming a coloured ghetto and that" if coloured immigrants went to live in other streets, those streets would descend to the level of Marshall Street.

    1195
    The photographs which I am holding up show some of the houses in Marshall Street and include a dozen or so houses on which the Alliance Building Society has given mortgages to coloured immigrants. The Alliance sent its surveyor to look at the houses in Marshall Street after the mortgages had been granted and after the coloured immigrants had been living there for some time. These photographs were then taken. This is no ghetto. These are not rundown houses in a disgraceful state.
    We see that these people have made the other break through, towards home ownership. They become proud of their homes and have an added incentive to adapt themselves to our society. These houses have been turned into little palaces and it is interesting to note that the Alliance Building Society's surveyor reported:
    "I am quite happy with the houses upon which we have advanced in Marshall Street and my only reason for bringing this subject to your notice is that it is of topical interest."
    He reported:
    "Looking back, I suppose we may feel some pride in not having declined an application in Marshall Street because of racial discrimination."
    He added:
    "As far as I am aware the demand for houses in Marshall Street is still as high amongst coloured immigrants … prices have appreciated not depreciated".
    I am referring to part of an area which was supposed to be an example of what coloured people do to their houses—the sort of area which the right hon Member for Streatham thinks is inevitable in our community. I urge him to stop despairing. People are trying to solve these problems, including building societies, the Ministry of Labour, trade unions and others. He has no need to be as defeatist as he is.
    Lest I be ruled out of order, I come to the main subject—the level of immigration, as controlled, into this country. I am somewhat upset about the way in which we put a ceiling on Commonwealth immigration, but do not put a ceiling on alien immigration. It is not good enough for us to advertise to the world that we have a top level of 40,000 to 50,000 Commonwealth immigrants, including dependants and, at the same time, say that we allow aliens in when there are jobs available,
    1196
    although their total number does not matter. This is a hang-over of coloured discrimination in the Home Office and is an issue which my hon. Friend must tackle.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Foley: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that if one takes like with like, in terms of settlement in this country, there are three people from the Commonwealth for every alien who settles here.
    Mr. Chapman: I was not aware of that figure and I am obliged to my hon. Friend for bringing it to my attention. Nevertheless, for political and social reasons, we are limiting the total influx, particularly from the coloured Commonwealth. The trouble is that many people ask, "Why should we be limited when a top limit is not placed on aliens?" It smells a little of colour prejudice when you put a limit on the ones who it would seem you are most afraid of in that sense. However, I accept my hon. Friend's figures and agree that they no doubt work out right in the end.
    I am concerned about the sort of pressure that may be placed on people in certain areas—the Midlands, for example—when there is a threat of growing unemployment. Without going deeply into the argument now, I will only mention the sort of pressure that is building up about the dangers of what is supposed still to be a "tidal wave of coloured immigration." Typical of this was a comment in a Birmingham newspaper a few weeks ago, when someone was reported as saying:
    "This promise to restrict immigration has, like other pre-election promises, been swept under the carpet…. At the moment, 1,250 immigrants are coming into this country every week."
    That was stated in the context of a fear of short-time working and unemployment, and it implied that the Government are allowing in 1,250 people per week.
    I have taken the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) up on a similar wild allegation which he made about a week ago in this Chamber when he complained that 60,000 people had been allowed in during September "to flood the market". That is completely untrue and is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The hon. Member for Louth

    1197
    knows it and there is a grave danger that people like him and those who make the sort of statement which I quoted from a Birmingham newspaper will quote false figures until a dangerous racial situation has occurred, particularly if unemployment grows. I beg the hon. Member for Louth to study the figures carefully.
    Commenting on some of the wild figures that are bandied about, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour stated that apart from the question of Malta
    "… over two-thirds of those admitted have professional qualifications which are in short supply in this country".
    The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) is, no doubt, aware that many of the people who come here do so to study, and to work in hospitals so that they may take the skills they have thereby gained back to their own countries.
    My right hon. Friend stated:
    "… over two-thirds of those admitted have professional qualifications which are in short supply in this country, e.g. doctors and teachers, and this shortage is not likely to be affected by the rise in unemployment"
    Then he said:
    "The remaining third amounts only to some 2,000 a year which is negligible in view of the size of the working population."
    I hope that this is one of the figures which will go out from the Committee today. I hope we shall make clear that as unemployment is unhappily rising we should not have the cry that "thousands are being admitted every week to compete with unemployed and short-time workers for jobs in various parts of the country".
    The Minister said that it is 2,000 a year. He also said that, given the present state of the labour market, most employers would take a man readily available and unemployed now rather than wait the many months which have to elapse before an employer can get a voucher for someone from abroad. If there is plenty of suitable British labour, it is certain that employers as a whole will be happy to accept it and will not wait for vouchers for Commonwealth immigrants to fill jobs.
    Finally, it is an old truth, but it needs repeating, that people outside do not realise that for two years now the Government have not issued any vouchers
    1198
    in Category C, vouchers for people with no skills and no prearranged job. There is no inflow of unskilled people simply looking for jobs.
    Sir D. Renton: Except by evasion. One must accept on the figures that there is a substantial amount, as Lord Stonham has said.
    Mr. Chapman: I am talking of the intentions of the Government, which is the main thing we are discussing: I agree that evasion must be cleared up.
    I am one who, as the Committee knows, regrets the half closing of our immigration door. I accept it now as something inevitable because we have found it impossible to get assimilation on the scale that I should like to see and hope that our country will eventually face. I accept the present restrictions as a pause. I hope that we shall move steadily, as we solve some of the social problems in areas where immigrants have mainly permeated, and as we come through to the other side of those problems we shall begin to admit more. I look forward to a multi-racial society in this country. In contrast to the right hon. Member for Streatham, I think that we can do it. I think that we can show this example to the world and I repeat my distaste for his defeatism.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), towards the end of his very moderate and restrained speech, said something what, I thought, profoundly true—that unless we are frank in discussing a subject of this kind, with its implications of race relations, we leave the door open for extremists to jump into the void which is thus created. For that reason I was also glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) made the speech he made. It is very important that we should not evade this problem by circumlocution, by using phrases which are intended to conceal the truth rather than to reveal it.
    I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). It is quite clear that on the surface of his speech—although in this Committee he perhaps tends to overstate himself a little and I might agree with him a little more outside—there could be no common ground between the

    1199
    hon. Member and myself. He said that he looked forward to the time when this will become a multi-racial country. The hon. Member accepts the Commonwealth Immigrants Act which we are proposing to renew in this Schedule only as a pause, from which I infer—indeed, I think he expressly said it—he wishes to see the pace of immigration quickened again.
    When the Commonwealth Immigrants Act intervened, immigration to this country was running at a rate—I do not accurately know any longer and probably I shall be corrected—of about 160,000 a year. Already, with the experience we have had since 1960, we have at least 1 million Commonwealth immigrants. They are from what has been called the new Commonwealth, but I prefer to call them tropical immigrants; for that is what we mean. If the policy of the hon. Member were to be pursued the number would mount very quickly indeed towards his ideal of a multi-racial society. I say at once that I am opposed to massive immigration into this country from anywhere in the world, because I see this country as one which is already grossly overcrowded. It has too many people in it already.
    I must confess that my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) woke up to this matter long before I did. Many of us were perhaps rather bemused by imperial responsibilities. What I think alerted most of us to this problem and converted us to the need for regulation was the magnitude of the influx into a country which plainly ought not to be a country of mass immigration. It is as simple as that. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham was absolutely right in saying that once we get immigration on that kind of scale the implications of race come in, because of the greater difficulty of assimilation or absorption. That, I think, is the true picture.
    Approaching it in that way, the conclusions which I reach and put before the Committee are that we have two problems. One is the rate of influx and the other is of the 1 million or more who are here now.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne) rose——
    Mr. Bell: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Member who has just walked into the Chamber. Others have been sitting here for a long time.
    The million or so who are here now are increasing—let us face it—by a natural increase of a very high rate. This raises problems to which we ought to give frank answers. The first I give is that the influx ought to be virtually stopped. There is a statutory right, of course, for wives to come in. I adhere to the definition of a wife given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire—a monogamous one. Everything else is a matter of discretion. This situation having been created in this country, I do not think it right to allow a further influx of tropical immigrants.
    I may be asked, what about dependants? We have to have exceptions to any rule and I am not proposing something of absolute rigidity, but I suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary of State that this should be looked at as an exception. Wherever possible it should be suggested to the person who wishes to be reunited with his family that that reunion could advantageously take place in his land of origin and, as was proposed in the Conservative election manifesto earlier this year, he should be invited to accept financial help to enable him to do that.
    Mr. Foley: I hope that the hon. and learned Member is aware of what he is suggesting. He is suggesting that people who came here in good faith and were told when they came, "You have the right to bring your wife and children", to a man who has saved for four or five years and established a home to which he wants to bring his wife and children, that he should be told," We were wrong. You go back to them."
    Mr. Bell: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got this slightly wrong. I am not sure whether anyone would tell them anything, but they would discover from the provisions in the Act that they are entitled to bring their wives and children.
    I think that is the legal position. It appears from the White Paper that wives are in a different statutory position from that of dependants. I was basing my remarks on the Government's White Paper. At any rate, I am describing

    1201
    what I would like to see for the future. Because of the magnitude of the problem, this is something that ought to be done. So much for dependants.
    We should also cut off the category of the so-called skilled immigrants, again with the exception of outstanding cases. It is sometimes objected that we need them here. Two of my right hon. Friends referred to the interests of the home or exporting country. I invite the Committee to look at it also from the point of view of our own interests.
    6.0 p.m.
    It cannot really be in the interests of this country, for example, in the Health Service, that so high a proportion of doctors should be immigrants. It may please the prejudices of the hon. Member for Northfield, but it cannot really be good national husbandry. The language barrier, or instance, is greatly underestimated as a rule—perhaps more so with aliens than with Commonwealth immigrants, but it does exist in both cases. The hon. Member will know that in respect of aliens it is a major medical factor.
    Secondly, the progressive replacement of indigenous British doctors in the hospitals and in the family doctor service by immigrants must be something that we should look at with real alarm. It cannot be a good thing.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would be better to have immigrant doctors than no doctors at all, which seems to be the alternative?
    Mr. Bell: That is where my hon. Friend is wrong. I will carry the argument one stage further, which I had intended not to do because of the time factor.
    No, it does not work that way. If we have a few immigrants as nurses or doctors in hospitals, I do not think that it has much effect on individual recruitment. To be frank, if we have more than a certain proportion in hospitals of immigrant personnel—horrible word—we find a diminution in recruitment either of nurses or medical staff. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no good saying "No". I have looked into this, and it is so.
    1202
    The Under-Secretary of State regards certain matters as being beyond argument. There are varying views on this matter. I do not think that it is questioned that people have different judgments upon the matter. They are entitled in a free country to have different judgments. If, in fact, one finds that something is so, it is no use pretending that it is not just because it would indicate that many people are acting upon a judgment with which one happens to disagree.
    I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that we would not have this heavy dependence, in the National Health Service, on immigrant labour if we kept their utilisation below a certain percentage. I understand that in relation to nurses the critical point is somewhere about 20 per cent., and beyond that white recruitment goes down sharply.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I do not know where the hon. and learned Gentleman gets his evidence. Surely the point which he is making is not dealing with the question of inadequacy, but with distribution.
    Mr. Bell: I was originally dealing with medical staff. The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the problems we face—I do not know whether he listened to the answer, having asked the question—in relation to medical staff is emigration. That is to say, if they do not like the conditions of their work here, they tend to go abroad—that is, the British staff. It may well be a question of distribution, but it is distribution over the globe and not inside this country.
    It is sometimes urged against what I am suggesting—namely, the total stoppage of the influx—that there is a shortage of workers in the country as a whole. That is the thesis which was put forward in a speech this week by Dr. Kaldor—or is he Professor Kaldor?—who is not unknown to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Somewhat to my horror, The Times, in its leading article, picked up this theme and said that if what Professor Kaldor said was right—that there was a shortage, that the problem of this country was a shortage of labour—then we ought to be allowing more Commonwealth immigrants into the country. It referred to the experience of the United States of America which,

    1203
    it said, would never have achieved its industrial expansion without massive immigration.
    One of my hon. Friends interrupted my right hon. and learned Friend during the course of his speech and asked whether 4,000 vouchers had any relevance to the labour situation in this country. I will give him two answers: first there is a gross immigration figure of about 75,000 a year; and, secondly, there are still influential voices in this country pressing now, last week, and on the other side of the Committee, for a resumption of mass immigration. I think my hon. Friend would probably agree with me that that would certainly have an impact on the labour situation in this country.
    Mr. Chapman: I am quite happy to accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman has to say about me, but what I said was that I was happy that the pause would end when we had solved the social problems in those areas having a concentration of immigrants. I was not pressing for mass immigration now.
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that the pause would end when problems of assimilation had been overcome, and he hoped we would press on to a multi-racial society in this country. I do not think that I have misrepresented him. I am saying there are influential voices pressing for a resumption of mass immigration in order to supply an alleged shortage of manpower in the industrial life of this country.
    I suggest that what this country is experiencing is not a shortage of manpower, but under-employment of the existing manpower. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham convincingly said that there is under-employment of existing manpower. The most urgent task that faces us is redeployment of manpower so that it is fully and usefully employed. Commonwealth immigration or any immigration is, in fact, inimical to that process. It holds it up by providing a ready-made reservoir of at first cheap labour which weakens the impulse to use better the labour which is already at our disposal.
    I turn to my second point. After stopping the influx, have we really tackled the problem? The influx, after all, has been checked, but we are left here with over 1 million tropical immigrants in this
    1204
    country. Of course, when the inflow was small and the number was small, nobody cared about it. I certainly did not. I could not even have told anyone what the number coming in was until it reached dramatic proportions.
    But now we have this vast number and they are increasing very rapidly and becoming an ever-larger proportion of our population. Even if we stop Commonwealth immigration now, I do not see how one can prevent the growth of two nations in this country. I do not think that it can be done just by stopping the influx, because they have already agglomerated into their separate communities and have begun to acquire a life of their own. Nothing that the Under-Secretary can do will stop that.
    Therefore, I come to my second conclusion, which is that we must do something about the number which is here, unless we are to acquiesce in that. The hon. Member for Northfield would find that easy; he would say that we should acquiesce in it and have a multi-racial society. I do not think that would work, partly because this is a cold and somewhat damp island off the north-west coast of Europe. I wonder if the Under-Secretary can think of anywhere else in the world where a multi-racial society is working in this kind of latitude. Indeed, is he sure that it is working at all anywhere else?
    Other countries have this problem. They inherited it. They must do the best they can with it. I am not at all sure that any other country is succeeding. I can see in South America great tragedy attending the varying solutions which have been attempted. Integration has been fully carried out there. I wish we could say that people in South America were not colour-conscious. Whereas here perhaps we are colour-conscious between black and white, there they are colour-conscious through all of the shades through black to white. Everyone knows this is true. This is the misery that haunts a country like Venezuela. I am not saying that these matters are insoluble. I am merely saying that it is much more difficult than some people seem to think.
    Because the problem is so difficult, it would surely be mad to create it in this country for the first time and pass it on to our successors. I beg hon. Members not to sweep all this aside as a question

    1205
    of prejudice or as the backwardness of some members of the community. There is a real problem here which must be faced.
    I press upon the Home Secretary that we should do everything we can to encourage and finance the voluntary return to their countries of those immigrants who do not want to stay here. This is not merely in accordance with Conservative policy, though that might not commend it to the right hon. Gentleman. It is not in the Government's White Paper, but I remind the Secretary of State that it was in a statement made from the Dispatch Box by his predecessor as Home Secretary, Sir Frank Soskice, who announced that it was the policy of the Labour Government.
    Why is it not being pressed forward? It is a constructive solution to some of this problem. I have been told that about 600 have been repatriated by the National Assistance Board on the ground of their not being assimilable.
    The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is going very wide of the Amendment to the Schedule. I do not think this is catered for in the Act. He must return to the Amendment.
    Mr. Bell: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Irving. However, the Under-Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire were allowed to base themselves on the White Paper. I understand your difficulties. I will try to weave my speech into the context of the Schedule.
    I hope I have made the point that the action I propose can be done under the Act. It is entirely compatible with the Act. It is not in the White Paper, but it has been mentioned as Government policy and it would make a contribution to solving this problem. I recognise that I must refrain from making other constructive suggestions, because the more constructive a suggestion is the more likely it is to be out of order, almost by definition. If the Secretary of State will address himself to this problem, he will find that there are constructive solutions to it which are consonant with the Act and, apparently, with the conscience of his political party.
    1206
    6.15 p.m.
    In conclusion, and resuming my point of difference with the hon. Member for Northfield, this has always seemed to me to be a basically demographic problem, not one of race, colour or even of social standards. I have always seen the problem in this way. Is not this an unanswerable argument in favour of the renewal of this Act and the carrying forward of the policy it embodies?
    These people came here under population pressure from such countries as India, Pakistan and Jamaica. We all know that this is so. The question we must ask is whether we are to allow this country, which is in the temperate zone, to be used as a relief valve to any degree for population pressures in tropical areas. We all know that the problem there is a terrible one. There have been debates on this matter in another place. There has not been nearly enough discussion of it in the House of Commons. This is the problem of the next 10 years which will overshadow every other problem.
    The question we must ask is whether we are to say that we will help these peoples in every other way we can, by spreading family planning and by making money and techniques available, but that we will not allow this country—I would go further and say the countries of the temperate zone generally—to be used as receptacles for the population surplus of tropical nations during the, I fear, extended period which will elapse before the longer term measures there can bear fruit.
    However, if we do allow this country to become such a receptacle, what shall we be doing except allowing ourselves to be swamped, because we are a highly developed people practising family limitation because we are highly developed, by more primitive peoples who are not practising family limitation precisely because they are more primitive and less highly developed? The implications of that are simply shattering in terms of the final mix of world population. It is because I know exactly where I stand, not without reluctance and sadness, in this great problem or struggle which is going on, that I so warmly support the renewal of this Act.
    Mr. Hattersley: Had it not been for conduct which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will describe as monumental Parliamentary ineptitude at the beginning of this debate, I should have objected to both Amendments being taken simultaneously. Having heard the debate, I feel even more strongly that it was very unfortunate that I did not make that objection, not simply because of debating convenience, but because, by implication on the part of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and quite openly and overtly on the part of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), constant parallels were drawn between immigration from the Commonwealth and the immigration of aliens. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Streatham went as far as to say that he and some of his hon. Friends felt that the time had come when no distinction should be drawn between these two categories.
    For my part and, I suspect, that of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, even those who are enthusiasts for British entry into Europe, there remains a total distinction between the entry into this country of citizens from the Commonwealth and the entry into this country of people who were, erstwhile, categorised as aliens.
    The distinction between the two points of view was best made by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire, when he spoke about it being a privilege to enter this overcrowded island. Let me make my point of view absolutely clear. Like him, I support limitation of number. Like him, I support stringent limitation on entry, but I do not equate it with a privilege for the few who get in. I see it as a denial of rights for those who are kept out, an inevitable denial of rights in the present circumstances.
    Mr. Gurden: On this question of the morality and the display of conscience so often held up on this matter by certain people, perhaps including the hon. Member himself, is he not now attacking this question of discrimination? If he really believes in the morality of nondiscrimination, why does he suggest that there should be a discrimination
    1208
    between Commonwealth immigrants and aliens?
    Mr. Hattersley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that if I could follow that point I would certainly answer it.
    I draw a total distinction between our attitude and our responsibilities to citizens of the Commonwealth and citizens of Europe. This must characterise the great gulf that there is still between both sides of the House on this problem even though we are now united in our belief that some form of stringent control is necessary. The great divide that still exists was very strongly represented by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire. I have heard him move so many Amendments and speak so often on this subject that I am no longer confused by his moderate tone and urbane manner. I sincerely admire both those things but there is a great gulf between him and many of my hon. Friends, not least about his reference to what he described as the "arrogant view" on integration.
    I should make clear at the outset that what he described, and what was so described 18 months ago by Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, as an arrogant view on integration is not a view which I advocate. I do not suggest that some common form of behaviour and attitude should be superimposed on immigrants. When I speak on integration, I say that we have an obligation to make sure that they know how the fruits of life in this country can be enjoyed and where the benefits of life can be obtained. We have an obligation to make sure that those fruits and benefits are as freely available to immigrants as to everybody else. This does not seem to me to be an arrogant view of integration but a fundamental necessity in a civilised society.
    I have been fortunate over the last two years in catching the eye of the Chair in three debates on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Nobody who has spoken in all three of those debates would argue with the contention that the tone of the House during the debates has completely changed. It reflects a genuine change of tone in the country and the fact that since 1964 there has been a relaxation of tension and a reduction in

    1209
    friction. The chances of conflict over immigration are now negligible.
    All of us who have an intimate and material interest in immigration politics very much welcome this. The relaxation of tension is in no small measure the result of the changing attitude of the governing party, the fact that the Government have now accepted the necessity of renewing the 1962 Act and that a year ago the Government accepted the necessity of making the control even more stringent.
    Perhaps, therefore, it might be assumed that people who, like myself, supported both those decisions would feel a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction today that the things they hoped would be brought about by those two decisions have been achieved. In some ways that satisfaction, which is real and genuine, is spoilt in part by the knowledge that many of the things which we hoped would come about when the tension was relaxed and the friction was over have not been achieved. Many of us who supported the reductions in tension which we believed would be the natural consequences of strict limitation on entry did so because we believed that they would create a climate and atmosphere in which genuine proposals for integration could be put to the population, accepted by it and implemented.
    It would be hard to argue that all our great hopes about integration have been achieved. In my arrogance after seven days in the House of Commons I announced in my maiden speech that integration was the first priority of Government, and in the same sort of arrogance I warned the Government of the trouble they would have from me and several of my hon. Friends if they did not implement all my proposals immediately. Nobody would pretend that the great hopes of those of us on this side who stood for integration in 1964 have in any way approached realisation. This is no criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) who does his extraordinarily difficult job extraordinarily well and has obtained the confidence and support of many of the immigrant population and, to a very great extent, those amongst whom they live. It is a criticism of the speed at which the Government have chosen to move, but it is not a criticism of the
    1210
    things the Government have said about immigration. They have said noble, honourable and proper things. But it is in part a criticism of the speed they have chosen to put those honourable and noble sentiments into operation.
    I wish to give two examples, both from my home town of Birmingham and both proposals for increased integration which would not cost the Government money. This is perhaps an inopportune time to propose a series of Government measures to integrate immigrants into the general community which would involve large public expenditure. There are two examples of what the Government could do, have said they would like to do, but have not yet done. Neither directly relates to the Home Office but both are things in which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich must have a personal and pertinent interest.
    Immigrants in the city of Birmingham-are required to wait on the housing list for five years before they are considered for houses. I make no comment on whether the five-year waiting period is designed specifically to make it difficult for them to be rehoused or whether it is pure coincidence. But it is a fact, whatever the reason. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, said laudable and proper things about the impropriety of such a waiting list qualification being imposed. That was a year ago, but it is still imposed and no real attempt has been made to insist that the Birmingham local authority abandon this unfortunate rule.
    A year ago, the Government White Paper of which I was a substantial and devoted supporter urged that immigrants in schools, especially non-English-speaking immigrants, should be limited to not more than 30 per cent. in a class. That appeared in Circular No. 7 1965, I think, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education said proper and laudable things about the necessity of implementing it. But there are still schools where 70, 80 and, on occasions, 90 per cent. of children are immigrants, and there are now headmasters who choose to implement the Government's White Paper unilaterally by closing their doors to additional immigrant children on the basis that this is what the Secretary of State for Education

    1211
    told them to do, and since the council is too cowardly to operate his scheme they will operate it individually and unilaterally.
    This is a totally dangerous and potentially explosive state of affairs which should have been remedied by strong and positive Government action, by insistence that the Government's educational policy so far as it affects immigration should be implemented by local authorities, including those which feel that decisions will be too painful, too dangerous and too unpopular for them to face. Having said that, and assured the House that individual criticisms of that sort exist and could be made, I reiterate that it is not intended as criticism of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich. I know very well in my constituency and in the immigrant communities in Birmingham as a whole of the respect in which he is held.
    Some of us stood two years ago, and in the time that has passed since then, for control of immigration. We stood for those controls notwithstanding the fact that in 1962 we were bitter, continual and outspoken opponents of the original Act. We ate a good deal of dirt in the House and other places, suffered a great deal of condemnation from benches below the Gangway and our constituents, but we did it because we thought it necessary and right, and because we thought that only by that limitation and that control could the atmosphere be created in which genuine integration was possible. We did not do that to make sure that another six or ten seats were not lost but to make sure that the things in which we genuinely believed should be brought about. Those of us who supported those unpopular measures during that time believe that the Government owes it to us and to our consciences, but most of all to the immigrants, to bring about the sort of integration which the controls we shall confirm today make possible.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gurden: I am sorry that my intervention was above the head of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He said that he did not understand it. I am not quite sure now, knowing him as I do, whether the hon. Gentleman
    1212
    did not understand it or did not want to understand it. I shall try to put it in simple terms. [Interruption.]
    Apparently, the Home Secretary did not understand it either, so perhaps there was some fault on my part.
    As I understood him, the hon. Gentleman was arguing that there should be a discrimination between our acceptance of aliens and our acceptance of Commonwealth immigrants into this country. I said that he was always displaying a conscience on the morality of discrimination and asked why, then, he put forward that there ought to be a discrimination in favour of Commonwealth immigrants as against aliens. That was my question, which he did not answer.
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman makes it clear now, and I am happy to answer. There are two reasons. First, I accept, as does the particular brand of Conservatism, Birmingham Imperialism, in the area from which the hon. Gentleman comes, that there is a special and peculiar bond between Great Britain and those parts of the world which were once our Colonial Empire. We have obligations and duties towards them. We have some sort of obligation arising from our omissions in the past.
    The second reason is that we are likely in the near future to come into an association with Europe which, under Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome, will require us to be a good deal more liberal about the influx of workers from the Continent of Europe. If this were to happen, I should do my best to make sure that we were equally liberal about the influx of workers from the British Commonwealth.
    Mr. Gurden: That was at least a clarification of what the hon. Gentleman was arguing. He is now saying that there ought to be discrimination because of certain home interests, and in home interests he includes the Commonwealth. He should recognise also that there are certain home interests of our own people who live here as distinct from those who do not.
    The fact that immigration causes a great problem in this country is now accepted. It is accepted by the hon. Member for Spark-brook, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman),

    1213
    who so bitterly opposed the Act when it was introduced, has accepted it also. Of course, the hon. Member for North-field has never made quite clear why he changed his mind so rapidly, but being in the next-door constituency to North-field I recognise that the heat was on pretty much at the time of the General Election.
    The hon. Member for Northfield spoke about employment. This is a very important question since the motor-car works in Northfield faces the problem of redundancy and unemployment. The hon. Gentleman presented the figures to us in a quite false way. He complained that other people had exaggerated the figures of immigration and the effect on unemployment, but he himself completely underestimated the effect of immigration on employment. He gave the Committee the figures of vouchers issued and vouchers taken up, saying that these represented employable people who would come over to take jobs—only that very small number.
    There are two points to be made on that. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that a large proportion of the total number of immigrants coming to this country come to Birmingham and compete with the unemployed in his constituency for the jobs which are available. They come under the authority of the Ministry of Labour, on vouchers issued by the Ministry, to take jobs which should go to the unemployed from the B.M.C. works. The hon. Gentleman did not take this factor into account when he told us about unemployment.
    The other point is that there are very many children brought in as dependants of immigrants who are now qualifying for those jobs, too. It is nonsense to say that the dependants do not take jobs or that the children do not grow up and take work on leaving school. These people are all competing for the jobs which are available, or not available, for the people of Birmingham.
    I shall not say very much about discrimination, and you may rule what I have to say out of order, Mr. Irving, although ether hon. Members mentioned the Acts which have been passed on the subject of discrimination. In my view, it will be very difficult to stop discrimination between aliens or Commonwealth
    1214
    immigrants and our own people. These things cannot be stopped by laws. The other day, I read a report of an incident in which a Commonwealth immigrant had taken up a gun to defend himself from someone who had thrown a firework on his doorstep. This is made publicly known in the Press, but, if it were the other way round, we should hear very little about it. Because it happened to a Commonwealth immigrant, it is called discrimination. This is the trouble. I am sure that it causes the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) as much trouble as the genuine cases for discrimination.
    Both parties in the House have accepted the need for control of immigration. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), that there ought to be a revision of the law and that these provisions ought to be replaced by an Act to prevent further immigration for at least 12 months, if only because of the unemployment figures. As I have said, vouchers are being issued by the Ministry of Labour for the taking of vacancies at our employment exchanges, when those vacancies ought in all cases go to the people who are put out of work by redundancy.
    Mr. Chapman: The number of B vouchers issued for the Midlands in the first nine months of this year is 332. Will the hon. Gentleman put that in proper perspective, in relation to the total figures about which he is talking?
    Sir C. Osborne: In relation to the unemployment which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends said would not exist.
    Mr. Gurden: If there were only half a dozen, that would be half a dozen too many if chaps are being thrown out of work in Northfield. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, according to the Ministry of Labour's figures, there are already over 9,000 immigrants on the unemployment register. Yet we are told that in total there are over 50,000 immigrants who have come in during this year, 1966.
    Mr. Paget: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that those 9,000 immigrants who are unemployed are creating employment by their needs and not taking it?
    Sir C. Osborne: And the hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer, too.
    Mr. Gurden: There are far too many dependants coming in. What are the qualifications for dependants? Are the students who are allowed in allowed to bring their dependants? What about the ages of children? I am told, and I know from experience, that it is not possible to find out the actual age of some of the children who are brought in as dependants.
    I myself have asked some of the children what their ages are. They do not know. One such person I saw was brought into the country as a dependant and sent to school as being under the age of 16. He had a very large black beard and turban and looked to be at least 30. I could not tell whether or not he was 16, and neither could the immigration officers.
    What about the wives? Mr. Thorney-croft last year asked Lord Stow Hill how many wives were to be allowed in. There was some hooting about this from the benches opposite, and Mr. Thorneycroft was derided for mentioning the fact that some immigrants might want to bring in more than one wife. Now we are told that his warning was not heeded and that more than one wife of an immigrant is allowed in. We want to know how many wives will be allowed in.
    Mr. Foley: If the hon. Gentleman wants to find out the definitions of dependants allowed into the country, I commend him to the instructions to immigration officers published on 10th August last. If he wants to go further and investigate the nature of the marital arrangements in terms of the decisions taken, he should read the debates which led to the establishment of the principles in the 1962 Act and ask his right hon. Friends, who were the Ministers responsible, what the definition of wives is.
    The hon. Gentleman can also—because there have been a number of cases recently—look at the question of how we interpret marriage in the sense of the common law marriage of the West Indies or of the proxy marriage of Nigeria. There is no doubt that, in this respect, there is very little evasion.
    1216
    The innuendoes and nuances that somehow there are all kinds of people bringing in several wives are disgraceful and dishonest. In my experience in the Home Office, I have handled hundreds of cases myself, and I can assure the Committee that I have never come across one instance——
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. The Under-Secretary of State is making a very long intervention.
    Mr. Gurden: The point is that in another place a speech was made which refutes what the Under-Secretary of State is saying.
    Mr. Foley: No.
    Mr. Gurden: Be that as it may, I ask for the figures. The hon. Gentleman says that it is a disgrace to put this forward as a problem. But what are the figures? What about the ages of the children coming in? Does he know how many of the children are over age? These are simple questions. If he promises me a reply later, I will accept it as good enough for now.
    What about health checks? Are they satisfactorily made? We hear medical officers of health and others connected with public health telling us that the checks are not efficiently made. They say that this is a serious problem, that we are importing diseases. We know that diseases have been brought into the country by immigrants, and the Government have promised many times that the matter will be followed up and efficient health checks made in the country of origin. Are the health checks satisfactory now? Are we likely to run into another patch of disease?
    My hon. Friends have mentioned evasion, which is a great problem. Lord Stow Hill told us what a serious problem it was. He did not hide the facts, and I hope that they will not be hidden tonight. Would it not be a good idea to have a better form of identification, which is also a great problem? It is a problem in towns like Birmingham, where the local authority is supposed to carry out the laws on overcrowding and multi-occupation. It cannot always identify the landlord. Would it not be better if there were fingerprint identification so that he local authorities responsible for carrying out these laws knew that they were dealing with the right persons?

    1217
    I recently had an experience which surprised me. A man telephoned me about a job and said he was an Irishman. I said, "You sound to me rather like an Indian or Pakistani by your voice. He replied, "Yes. I am an Irish Pakistani". He said that he had got into the country through Ireland and without any control operating against him at all. In fact, he had jumped the control. Whether or not anyone thinks this fair or reasonable, I suggest that this method may be one form of evading the control.
    6.45 p.m.
    What we want to know is the size of the evasion. We have never yet had a figure. If there is evasion, we should know how big the problem is. Clearly, there should be a better form of control and to have this Bill for another year is wrong. The tightening up of the number of vouchers is obviously not giving us the reduction which the Government have been seeking. If we are to have Commonwealth unity surely our own people in this country ought to be part of that unity and to like to have the company of the other people of the Commonwealth.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said that Commonwealth immigration was no problem once. It was no problem when I first entered the House. None of my constituents raised it. No Birmingham people ever objected to the number of immigrants we saw around, simply because there were so few of them and assimilation was not a problem. But assimilation will take a long time unless we reduce the numbers very drastically indeed.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I do not raise my voice to speak with any enthusiasm for the continuation of these laws for another year. But the fact that we have these proposals before us pre-supposes that there is a problem.
    I believe that, whatever the number we may impose in terms of people from the Commonwealth being allowed into this country, the problem of the second generation is the one which should occupy us most, because the first generation were only too pleased to come here and take any kind of job. It is when one gets to
    1218
    the second generation that the real problems arise.
    It is in this respect that I should like to comment on the work of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with special responsibility in these matters. First, I think that there is considerable evidence on both sides of industry of widespread discrimination, and it would appear that the better the job in terms of status the more discrimination there is. It is in this respect that my hon. Friend and also my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour can use their influence, because there is, I believe, a gleam of light.
    At the Brixton School of Building, situated in an area where there is a large number of immigrants, in the department dealing with surveyors and architects the students entered for this academic year are almost wholly composed of immigrants. This seems to be the chink of light that many of us have sought, because if we can break the barrier between unskilled and skilled jobs we are tackling the problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will take note of this and encourage other institutes of learning to follow the example set at Brixton.
    The problem arises in its most acute form with skilled workers. I am not afraid to speak out about this, but there seems to be as much reaction and prejudice among members of trade unions as was displayed by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). I believe that with an imaginative approach this prejudice could be overcome. If we are to accept restrictions on immigration, we must at the same time accept the obligation to absorb those who are already here. It is my firm belief that this can and must be done and that we need and will continue to need more people for our industry. If we require more labour as time goes on, we will have to allow more immigrants into this country. I do not accept that the present figure must stand for all time, and I hope for a suitable reaction from my right hon. Friends. I do not accept the view that this is a problem which must be assimilated and that, once assimilated, it will be ended. We must provide opportunities for immigrants to work here, and we need their skills.
    Many of the occupations, including many of the skilled occupations, which

    1219
    immigrants are now following are precisely the kind of jobs likely to disappear under the impact of technical change, so we will have the problem of training and retraining. Arising from the current figures for the motor car industry, how many immigrants to date have applied for any kind of retraining?
    Young people do not share the prejudices of their elders, and there is much evidence to show that youth organisations are very concerned about the problem of the second generation. I should like my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) to say something about this aspect of the work, because it will be easier for us to support the continuation of these restrictions for another year if we hear something about the work being done in this important respect.
    This problem is not new or peculiar to the United Kingdom. Over our thousands of years of history we have assimilated many people. Immigration is not a new problem to areas like Brixton, which over many years have absorbed people coming from many countries and running away from many different tyrannies. We have a moral as well as a self-interest responsibility eventually to allow more immigrants to come to this country, and I echo the sentiment that we have a special responsibility because this country grew rich by exploiting the countries from which these people come. We must therefore make sure that we absorb them, provided we can do so without causing immense problems, and I believe that we can.
    I reluctantly support the continuation of these regulations for another year, knowing full well that my hon. Friend is working on the positive side and that we shall be able to assimilate and integrate and allow the figure for immigrants to be reviewed perhaps next year or the year after.
    Sir C. Osborne: I should like, first, to congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) on the very moderate, responsible and wise way in which he has set about this most difficult problem. Experience has taught him, and if the members of his own Front Bench had spoken with his moderation and wisdom 10 or 12 years ago when I first raised this problem, England would not now be faced with the tragic problem which I then told hon. Members would face us.
    1220
    I congratulate the hon. Member on the moderation and wisdom with which he is now looking on the problem and I thank him for the figures which he has given and which prove that the regulations are beginning to bite and that, in spite of his starry-eyed supporters, who do not have the benefit of his official knowledge, these regulations will be tightened still further and not relaxed. He also promised a certain number of other figures later and I look forward to hearing them.
    I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) is here, because I want to defend him and then to say something against him. He was unfairly treated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who, unfortunately, is not now in his place. If there is one hon. Member whom shame should have caused to keep quiet, it is the hon. Member for Northfield, for all his vitriolic outpourings of 10 or 12 years ago have been proved to be utterly and completely wrong. If there is one hon. Member who out of sheer decency might have kept quiet, it is the hon. Member for North-field.
    The hon. Member attacked my right hon. Friend for saying that black and white could not easily mix. It is the story the whole world over, wherever one goes, that there are problems of racial hatreds, black against brown, yellow against black, black against white, white against white, black against black. As far back as 1952 in my speeches I was asking why we should bring those problems to this country. Good men and fine women of every race over the centuries have devoted their lives to tackling this problem. [Laughter.] This is not something at which Labour Members should sneer, for it happens to be true.
    7.0 p.m.
    Men and women have done their best to get races of various outlooks to live together, but so far, unhappily, not even the Quakers, fine people though they may be, have found the answer to this almost impossible problem. However, I greatly wish that my right hon. Friend had made his speech of tonight 10 years ago, when he was a distinguished member of the then Government and I was urging these considerations upon my right hon. Friends, for we would not now be faced with the problems about which he is worrying.

    1221
    The hon. Member for Northfield asked why we should limit the number of Commonweakh immigrants and not the number of aliens and he suggested that this smacked of colour prejudice by the Home Office. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that the 1 million immigrants in this country must be treated exactly the same as everybody else and have the same protection and so on, but that the number in future should be severely curtailed. I am glad that the hon. Member for Northfield has now returned to the Chamber. He ridiculed what my right hon. Friend said about 60,000 immigrants coming here in one month. Of course, the number includes children, who will not be going on to the labour market immediately. But they will when they grow up.
    Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman made another statement, nearly as stupid as that made by another of his hon. Friends. He said that Commonwealth immigrants should not be asked to do manual jobs. Who is to do them? Will he make Englishmen do them? Who will do them? Hon. Gentlemen can look at what I said 12 years ago. I said that when the children of these people grew up they would not be prepared to do menial jobs and this is proving to be true. I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the promise he made that the regulations will be tightened and not loosened, as some of his emotional friends hope—[interruption.] So this is true. After all, the House is governed by those who sit above the Gangway and not those who sit below it.
    The regulations should have been reintroduced at least eight years earlier. I feel sure that just as the Labour Party has had to change its mind over this it will have to change its mind when its responsible Ministers put on further restrictions. I would like to ask the Minister, if I may have his attention for one moment, whether he would investigate Clause 2 (2,b) which deals with families entering the country. I would make this prophecy, that if a Labour Government are here in 10 years——
    Mr. Hogg: They will not be.
    Sir C. Osborne: One never knows about acts of God. I speak in terms of an
    1222
    insurance man. If they are still here, I am warning hon. Members below the Gangway that their own Ministers will tighten up that Clause. I beg the Minister to look at it again. He cannot give an answer about it tonight, but will he please give an answer some time?
    May I ask the Committee to look at this problem in its wider context? It cannot be discussed merely as an English problem. I wish to refer hon. Members to a United Nations pamphlet. Hon. Gentlemen opposite usually accept such things without any quibbling. In the foreword it says that there are two problems facing the world. It goes on to say:
    "… world food production, according to the F.A.O.'s preliminary estimates, was no larger in 1965–66 than the year before, when there were about 70 million less people to feed."
    Except in North America production of food fell. In Africa and Asia, it fell by 2 per cent. in total and by 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. on what is called a per caput basis.
    The report goes on to say that:
    "… the world food situation is now more precarious than at any time since the period of acute shortage immediately after the second world war."
    Hon Gentlemen opposite will know quite well that immigrants come to this country—sensibly enough, I should be here like a shot if I were one of them—because there is more to eat, more wages to earn, and a higher standard of living to be enjoyed.
    The pressure of poverty and population will increase enormously over the next 20 to 50 years. Hon. Members must look at this broad picture, because it will affect our country. The food position here is about as bad as it has ever been since the end of the war. Furthermore, the pressure to come to this country comes largely from the Far East, where most of the people are rice-eaters. Page 10 of the pamphlet says:
    "Rice is the staple food of approximately half the human race…. More than half of the world harvest of 250 million tons of paddy is retained on the farms where it is grown."
    This is an important point to bear in mind.
    The report goes on:
    "This makes the task of increasing rice production more difficult, because of the low responsiveness of the farmer to monetary incentives."

    1223
    I hope that I am not going out of order.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member is now getting very wide of the Amendment under discussion.
    Sir C. Osborne: It is these shortages which are causing people to come to this country and which have made necessary these regulations. It is this pressure of food, population and poverty—and I have said this so many times that I can almost say it in my sleep—which make these regulations necessary. If these world forces were not operating then they would be quite unnecessary. I think that that brings me in order.
    The pamphlet says that the world population increased by 70 million last year. Most of the immigrants wanting to come to this country are from India and Pakistan. At present, in certain States of India there is terrible famine. Hundreds of thousands or millions of people are suffering from starvation, and this will increase the pressure to emigrate to this country. It is against this background that the regulations are necessary and stricter regulations will become necessary.
    The F.A.O. estimates that by the end of the century the world's population will be more than double today's figure of 3·3 thousand million. It will have risen to over 7,000 million. To give even the most moderate standard of living world food production has to increase five-fold. During recent years it has fallen and the pressure on immigrants to come here because of hunger will increase. Sterner regulations will become necessary. Whichever Government are in power, this Bill will be increased enormously in its severity. Let us stop fooling ourselves in the face of the facts.
    Let me now turn to the employment aspect. The hon. Member for Northfield, who seems to buzz in and out of the Chamber, talked about jobs. Today, there are over ½ million people unemployed. By the end of February I feel in my bones that there will be 1 million. The Prime Minister said to the T.U.C. that if the incomes and prices policy was not successful, the figure could rise to 2 million. It is surely crazy to issue even a single work permit when there is this
    1224
    kind of Government-organised unemployment. It is the height of madness to allow men with their families to enter the country. It is no good saying that they are only youngsters, because if they are not going to work they would be a burden on our social services and if they are going to work they would be competing with 1 million of our people who would be unemployed.
    The income per capita in our country is estimated by the U.N. at 1,688 American dollars a year. In India, it is 89 and in Pakistan it is 76. This is what makes this country the honeypot. This is the magnet which draws them here and which will continue to draw them here until there is hardly standing room. The hon. Member shakes his head, but some years ago a distinguished Member of the Opposition who has since died pleaded that we could afford a proportion of 1 per cent. of immigrants in our country. We now have 2 per cent.
    May I ask the Home Secretary what figure of Commonwealth citizens he estimates this country can comfortably contain? What is the maximum number? He is a reasonable man when we put facts to him. If the rate of immigration were unlimited and the growth in immigrant population were greater than ours, the actuaries in the City of London will give him the date by which there will be more coloured people than white people in this country. Some hon. Members may want that. I do not. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman does, either.
    Therefore, there must be some absolute restriction at some time. The greater the number of Commonwealth immigrants who settle here, the more difficult it will be to impose further restraints because they will have more relatives they can legitimately drag in under the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] It is not nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman goes to the City of London, and gets a good actuary to work it out, he will tell him when we shall reach the limit.
    Ten years ago, when this matter was first discussed, had I said that there would be over 1 million immigrants in this country by now, I should have been greeted with cries of "Nonsense."
    Mr. John Wells: I am following my hon. Friend's argument closely, but I

    1225
    think that he and the Committee must bear in mind that even the most distinguished actuaries tend to go wrong on this matter of population statistics. It is not more than 30 years since they said that we should be in a declining population, not an increasing population. I think that it is perhaps foolish for my hon. Friend to call actuaries in aid.
    Sir C. Osborne: I am much obliged for that intervention. Like all human beings, actuaries are liable to make mistakes—like the gentleman who drew up the National Plan, who assumed that there would be 200,000 more jobs than people to fill them.
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Amendment.
    Sir C. Osborne: I was provoked to say that, Sir Myer. I will now conclude. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not before time."] The hon. Gentleman says "Not before time." That was said to me 10 years ago, when people would not listen to me. Had I been listened to ten years ago——
    Mr. W. S. Hilton Mr. W. S. Hilton (Bethnal Green) rose——
    Sir C. Osborne: No. The hon. Member was not here then.
    I beg the Home Secretary not to give way to what I call the softies who sit behind him and who want him to promise that he will relax these controls in a year's time. He will have to increase them, not relax them. I therefore reluctantly support the continuance of the Act, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Section to which I referred him and see whether something can be done about it.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to intervene now for a short time, although let me make it clear that my intervention is in no way intended to suggest that the debate should end before its natural term. We have provided three Government spokesmen for this debate and were perhaps prepared, from previous experience, for a bigger onslaught than has been mounted. Therefore, it might be useful if I were now to say a few words. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry
    1226
    of Labour, a Department intimately concerned in these matters, will reply to other points at the end of the debate.
    I think that everyone who has spoken is agreed on the need to continue these two Acts and not to press the Amendments. As my object is to secure the rejection of the Amendments, that is gratifying, but there has been a great variety of sentiment leading to that conclusion expressed in different ways by right hon. and hon. Members. I will deal with some of the points made and give my views as I go along.
    I should like to begin factually, and therefore I hope neutrally, and describe the position in relation to Commonwealth immigrants from the new Commonwealth, since this is what arouses most concern and interest, as it has developed since the publication of the White Paper. Net immigration between 1st August, 1964, and 31st July, 1965, was approximately 63,000. Between 1st August, 1965, and 31st July, 1966, the comparable figure was approximately 45,000. That was a substantial, although not perhaps overwhelmingly, reduction.
    I believe that the real rate of inflow may have been reduced somewhat more substantially because, for a reason which it is not entirely easy to explain, as between these two periods the number of returning residents who were of Commonwealth origin increased by 9,000. This is a change which could occur from time to time and therefore I do not press the point more strongly, but I think it more likely than not that the reduction from 63,000 to 45,000 rather understates the underlying change in the position.
    Sir D. Renton: What significance does the right hon. Gentleman attach to the net increase—I am giving the comparable figure—of 51,600 or so in the first nine months of this year, which is much higher than the increase of 45,000 in the 12 months ended 31st July?
    Mr. Jenkins: I think that I can fairly quickly, and I hope satisfactorily, clear up the right hon. and learned Gentleman's doubts. I was coming immediately to the figures for the first nine months of this year compared with the first nine months of last year.
    For the first nine months of last year, the net figure was 53,000. For the first nine months of this year, it was 41,000

    1227
    for the new Commonwealth. The right hon. and learned Gentleman arrives at the figure of 51,000 by adding 10,000 for the old Commonwealth, as it is commonly called. None the less, 41,000 looks big for nine months in relation to the 45,000 which I gave for 12 months. But there appears quite strongly to be a seasonal pattern in these matters—it was so in 1965, and it appears to be so in 1966—in which, broadly speaking, the net figure for the whole year has been more or less attained by the end of the third quarter and in the last quarter there is no net change. I think that that deals precisely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
    I turn to one of the underlying issues of the debate, the question of whether in present circumstances we should restrict further the rate of inflow. The hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) and Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell)—I am not sure about the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)—certainly thought that we should restrict further. What would be involved? First, numerically, the overwhelmingly more important aspect relates to dependants and not to voucher holders.
    Therefore, were we to make a further substantial restriction we should have to go back on the policy which has been accepted by both parties and which, I noticed, was accepted explicitly by Lord Brooke, an ex-Home Secretary, speaking in the House of Lords last week, who said that it would be wrong to go back on this policy.
    It would be extremely undesirable on social and other grounds to say that people who are here should not be allowed to bring their families here. It has been suggested by some people—certainly in one speech in another place, but I am not sure whether it has been suggested this afternoon—that, although that position should be accepted in relation to immigrants already here, it should not be accepted in relation to new entrants who come in under vouchers. I cannot see any argument in logic or morals for that. If it is right on broad social grounds that those already here should be allowed to bring their dependants with them, I cannot see why a
    1228
    distinction should be introduced for those whom we decide, as a result of a system of control, should come here in the future.
    Mr. John Wells: Could the right hon. Gentleman remind the House whether an applicant for a voucher has to state on his application what dependants he has?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes, I think that he has to do that. But that is not of great significance, because it would not be right to judge whether an applicant should or should not come here according to whether he had dependants or otherwise. I do not think that it would be desirable to encourage applicants to make false statements in that way and possibly give rise to difficulties in the future. There is not a great deal in the point, though I believe that factually the position is that he has still to make such statements, though should I be wrong on that I will let the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) know.
    Hon. Members must face up to the fact that the only substantial impact which could be made would be by going back on policies regarding dependants. That would have the most damaging social consequences and would work against having an immigrant community which is assimilable, reasonably free from crime, and which broadly fits into the life of the country.
    I come, then, to the point about voucher holders. At present, vouchers are being taken up, which is the significant factor, at the rate of about 6,000 a year or perhaps a little under; that is about 400 a month. Two-thirds of those are Category B vouchers which go to doctors, nurses, teachers, scientists and technologists. I am aware of the argument that this is a sort of brain drain in reverse and that there may be some disadvantages about that export of people from the point of view of developing countries. One cannot dismiss that argument entirely.
    It is also important to remember, as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) pointed out, that many of the people who come here under Category B vouchers gain valuable training here and perhaps do not stay indefinitely but take the results of such training back to their own countries. Even if that

    1229
    point be left aside, it would not be right for us to take up the position of an open door in regard to our outward brain drain but a closed door in regard to our inward brain attraction.
    Nor do I think that it follows that if many of the highly qualified people who wish to leave their own countries were not allowed to come here, they would necessarily stay at home or go to another developing country to work. It is more likely that they would find their way to another highly developed country, and we should have a kind of double brain drain, being by-passed by the people who now come here.
    The remaining one-third are the Category A voucher holders. The number taken up amounts to about 2,000 a year, or 160 a month. They are all people who are coming here for specific jobs. Vouchers are not applied for and they do not get them until specific jobs are made available to them. A substantial proportion of them are jobs for which they are peculiarly qualified. Given the fact that we now have an immigrant community, they are jobs which are specifically suitable for immigrants to come and do. It might be a case of working in a retail business run by nationals of the country from which the man is coming. In any case, the important issue is that this is really a minute number. As I say, the figure is running at about 160 a month, and were the employment situation to change so that such jobs were not available, it would fall well before that. No one could possibly argue that a figure of 160 a month is having a substantial or worthwhile impact upon the employment situation.
    Mr. Gurden: Would it not be better to offer these jobs to the 9,000 immigrants already here and unemployed?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, because they might not be suitable in all cases. The hon. Gentleman must not assume that all immigrants are easily transferable from one job to another, any more than all natives of this country are. That is an extremely facile assumption on his part. Broadly, the position is that the numbers are minimal, but, unless there are overwhelming reasons for it, it is desirable that we should not turn off this tap entirely.
    1230
    In the course of a number of interesting remarks, the right hon. Member for Streatham said that he was very anxious to avoid creating two classes of citizen and a nation within a nation in this country. However, if one takes a particular ethnic group and says to them, "You will be different from anyone else; you will be different from the aliens"—and the right hon. Gentleman is an old supporter of the Common Market; almost as old as I am——
    Mr. Hogg: And more consistent.
    Mr. Jenkins:—"you will be different from anyone else here because you will be in an isolated garrison in the sense that no more of your kind will be allowed to come here and do jobs", that is very much creating a nation within a nation and two classes of citizen. To say, "No one else is ever to be allowed to come; here we stand, and no further can we go", is doing the very thing which the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to avoid.
    The first point to bear in mind is that the consequential effects of past immigration are numerically the more important, and I doubt if we ought to react quickly to a short-term change in the employment situation. We should judge it on the basis of the longer-term social considerations about our capacity to absorb, rather than deal with this very small number on the basis of shorter-term considerations.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has interrupted several times and spoken about this. He says that, if there is any unemployment there should be no immigration. But there are very few hon. Members who would say that if we get into a situation where we have 100,000 more vacancies than unemployed we ought to increase the voucher list to that substantial number. It is more important to take a broader view and judge it on the important longer-term considerations than on the very short-term economic considerations.
    There has been a good deal of talk about the problem of evasion and how much it amounts to. By its very nature, it is difficult to make an accurate estimate of it. It falls into two categories. First of all, there is evasion which takes place by people claiming that they are dependants when they are not. There is bound

    1231
    to be that sort of evasion, though we try our hardest and shall continue to try to keep it to the very minimum. Immigration officers are doing a very difficult job extremely well. If they make a mistake by saying to someone that he is not a dependant when he is, often a great deal of trouble arises for them, for the Home Office, sometimes for me, and sometimes for Members of Parliament.
    It is not possible to operate the control fairly without some element of error. But this element of error in people getting past controls by saying that they are dependants when they are not is, by its very nature, something which is not statistically measurable. If we could measure it, we could stop it. It is as simple as that.
    7.30 p.m.
    There is the second category of evasion, the people who come in with certain conditions, perhaps a limitation of stay, and who do not observe the conditions, who do not go when they ought to go. It is somewhat more possible to measure this. We can measure it in a slightly rough and ready way, and a slightly long-term way, by comparing the number legally admitted for settlement on the one hand with, on the other, the total number admitted, minus the total number who left over a given period. It is necessary to have a fairly long period for these statistics to mean anything.
    For what it is worth, the statistics as measured in the latter form show that in 1965 there was an evasion of minus 233 from the new Commonwealth, though from the old Commonwealth there was a substantially larger figure. But I do not take the view that these figures have great significance, because they are essentially residual figures. They have validity only in the long-term, and provided that there are fairly stable conditions.
    Sir D. Renton: I think that it is very important, if the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to do so, for him to explain how it is that in the first nine months of this year the number of men increased by 11,000, when only 3,000 of them came in with vouchers.
    Mr. Jenkins: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the point, I thought that probably in dealing with his
    1232
    figures he was a little confused by not separating the two groups of Commonwealth figures. Secondly, I thought that the figure of 3,000 which he gave was not based on published figures but was an assumption about a split between men and women which he had worked out for himself. Thirdly, it is not the case that we cannot have men coming in quite legitimately as dependants, because people settled here are entitled to have their aged parents with them, and that includes aged fathers. There may, therefore, be a substantial number of them, but I would not like to say that that produces arithmetical accuracy, because that is not easy to obtain.
    The right hon. Member for Streatham knows how much I dislike getting involved in an argument with him, but he made one or two points on which I should like to comment. He spoke very strongly against the whole principle of immigration. I thought that he slightly confused the social argument, which he said quite bluntly applied to coloured immigrants only—he dismissed it when one of my hon. Friends put the European point to him—and the economic argument, which necessarily, if it is true, is of much broader validity.
    On the economic front the right hon. Gentleman took up a straightforward position that immigration is bound to be economically bad for a country, that it is bound to retard its development with regard to the careful use of labour and labour-saving devices. I would not wish to take up a dogmatic position about the economic effects of immigration, but it seems to me that it is possible to argue this, and to argue it with some force, from both points of view. The right hon. Gentleman took up a dogmatic position against immigration, and I find it difficult to think of a shred of supporting evidence, in either history or geography, for the extraordinary proposition which he put forward.
    I find it difficult to believe that those countries which have been most successful in developing a vast store of capital equipment, and which have used labour most skilfully—shall we say the United States in the past and Western Germany in recent decades?—have been those which have been protected from immigration, or that those countries which have had no immigration, but, on the contrary,

    1233
    have had a shrinking population—shall we say Ireland in the second half of the 19th century?—have been particularly successful in these vast technological advances and in the powerful use of machinery as opposed to labour. I find the right hon. Gentleman's argument very surprising.
    Sir C. Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman cited America. For the last 40 years America has had the most stringent restrictions on immigration, and it is during these 40 years that technological advance has beer so great, which proves my right hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Jenkins: There are two points about that, though I do not want to get involved in too detailed an argument about American experience. First, the most rapid rate of American economic growth was during the earlier period when America was wide open to immigration from almost anywhere. Secondly, it would be very easy to exaggerate the intense nature of American anti-immigration control. Nearly as many Puerto Ricans have gone into New York City alone in the past decades as we have had immigrants of any sort into this country. The hon. Gentleman must get his premises right before he tries to erect false conclusions on them.
    My approach to this matter is that we are certainly bound to be governed by the capacity of this country to absorb immigrants, and to absorb them in a civilised way. We should not try to introduce a larger number than it is possible to do. It would be a mistake to have a larger number than makes that possible. Equally, it would be a mistake to have a number so small as to produce a sense of apartness among the immigrant community, which may be extremely damaging to any hope of a good policy of assimilation, or integration, or whatever word we use.
    In my view, integration is rather a loose word, because I do not regard it—and I hope the House as a whole does not regard it—as meaning the loss by immigrants of their national characteristics and culture. I do not think that we need, or want, in this country a sort of melting pot which will turn everybody out in a common mould as one of a series of carbon copies of someone's misplaced idea of the stereotyped Englishman.
    1234
    It would be bad enough if this were to happen to the few people in this country who happen to have pure or almost pure Anglo-Saxon blood in their veins. If it were to happen to the rest of us, to the Welsh like myself, to the Scots, to the Irish, to the Jews, to the mid-Europeans, and to the still more recent arrivals, it would be little short of a national disaster. It would deprive us of most of the positive advantages of immigration, which I want to develop in a moment, and which I think can be great. I would therefore define integration, not as a flattening process of assimilation, but as equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.
    Mr. Sandys: I raised the point about integration. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unfortunate that these immigrants tend to concentrate, I think to an undue extent, in certain areas, and does he think that something should be done to try, not to split them up as he suggested, but at any rate to disperse them rather more throughout the country?
    Mr. Jenkins: Up to a point I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that in his speech he rather made this a special charge against coloured immigrants, that they were doing this, and this therefore showed that they were necessarily unsuitable to be part of our community. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was putting the point quite wrongly, because I think that all immigrants necessarily tend to congregate. This applies not only to immigrants. All sorts of groups tend to congregate. Conservative Members congregate in Belgravia. This does not mean that they are unassimilable—at any rate I hope not—by the rest of the community.
    I do, however, take the right hon. Gentleman's point that there are concentrations in certain areas which are greater than is desirable from a social point of view. I think that there is a duty on the Government, and on all those concerned, to encourage a wider and more even spread of immigrants, but I do not regard the fact that this concentration has happened as being a charge against those who have come, because, in the absence of positive measures to control it, it is a natural, and indeed inevitable, thing to happen.
    Sir C. Osborne: In Hampstead, too?
    Mr. Jenkins: There may be a certain concentration in Hampstead, but I do not know where the hon. Gentleman lives.
    Sir C. Osborne: Are we to understand that the famous Sunday morning sherry parties are no longer being held there?
    Mr. Jenkins: There is one reason why they would not be held there, if they ever were held there. I will leave the hon. Member's point, at any rate.
    I said that I wished to say something about the positive advantages of immigration as they appear to me. There are some people, not all of them illiberal, who believe that if everybody would only stay at home in their own countries the world would be a much easier and better place to live in. From this view, however, I beg formally to dissent. Easier the world might conceivably be in those circumstances, but certainly not better or more civilised, or more innovating. For centuries past this and every other country that has played a part in the mainstream of world events has benefited immensely from its immigrants. Some came in much more aggressive ways than those we are discussing today, but at least from the Norman Conquest to the wave of German, Austrian and Czechoslovakian refugees of the 1930s we have been constantly stimulated and jolted out of our natural island lethargy by a whole series of immigrations. Those who have come were always made unwelcome by some people, but they have rarely failed to make a contribution out of proportion to their numbers.
    If anyone doubts that, let him look at British business today and at the phenomenal extent to which the more successful companies have either been founded or rejuvenated by those whose origins were outside these islands. But it is not purely a matter of business. Where in the world is there a university which could preserve its fame, or a cultural centre which would keep its eminence, or a metropolis which could hold its drawing power, if it were to turn inwards and serve only its own hinterland and its own racial group?
    To live apart, for a person, a city or a country, is to lead a life of declining intellectual stimulation. Nor should we underestimate the special contribution
    1236
    which has been made by the recent immigrants from the West Indies, India and Pakistan, and from other Commonwealth countries. Some are highly gifted, with outstanding talents in a wide variety of human activities. They and many others are making a major contribution to our national welfare and prosperity. They work in our hospitals as doctors and nurses, they build houses and run transport services in our cities. They help to fill the many labour shortages, particular in urban areas and in vital but undermanned public services. Let there be no suggestion, therefore, that immigration, in reasonable numbers, is a cross that we have to bear, and no pretence that if only those who have come could find jobs back at home our problems would be at an end.
    Far from this being the case, our doctor shortage would become still more chronic; many of our hospitals and institutions—especially those performing tasks like the care of the aged, which are medically unglamorous but socially essential—would have to close down, and our urban public transport systems would be reduced to skeleton services, with mounting public inconvenience and a disastrous effect upon private car road congestion.
    There is, therefore, no overall rational basis for resentment of the coloured immigrant population in our midst. Far from hindering our successful national development, they in many ways positively help it.
    7.45 p.m.
    But it does not follow that we can absorb them without limit. We have to strike a balance. That is what we are trying to do and I feel that we have been reasonably successful in recent months. We cannot lay down absolute numerical quantities, but I think that we have struck a reasonable balance and also that in the past year we have made substantial progress towards producing a healthier atmosphere, in terms of integration, on both sides—amongst both the indigenous and the immigrant community. The Race Relations Board has made a good start, and a great deal of work has been done by the Archbishop's Committee.
    I am glad that my hon. Friend has been transferred to the Home Office, because the Home Office has the distasteful

    1237
    responsibility of operating the negative aspects of this policy, and it is therefore right and desirable that it should also deal with the positive and constructive aspects. Since the debate a year ago we have made good progress in this field and I hope that we can continue to make good progress and need not have our debate on this question in this form indefinitely. I hope that we may soon be able to introduce permanent legislation, but I also hope that next year we can make as good progress as we have made in the past.
    Sir George Sinclair: I am sorry to see the empty Liberal benches on a day when a subject so dear to Liberal hearts is being debated.
    I followed the Home Secretary's arguments with great attention, and with the broad sweep of his approach to the problem I find myself in general agreement. There are, however, one or two matters which I should like to take up with the right hon. Gentleman and those who may succeed him on the Government Front Bench.
    The Minister stated that we should not base our immigration controls on our short-term economic needs, but should give more weight to social reasons. He also stated that countries which had used immigrant labour skilfully had made rapid economic growth. I ask him whether he thinks that this country is making skilful use of its labour today. I shall hope to develop this argument. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to stay I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will be able to answer this point.
    On the first point, I want to draw the Home Secretary's attention to a restatement of Government policy on the control of immigration set out only last week in another place. The Government spokesman there said: that the Government's policy was
    "to control immigration for permanent residence at a level related both to economic need and to our capacity to absorb the newcomers into the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd November, 1966; Vol. 277. c. 718.]
    That is the very basis of the controls as explained in another place by a Government spokesman.
    1238
    I agree that immigration controls should be based on our manpower needs. But what are those needs? The National Plan projected a shortfall of 200,000 in our manpower by 1970, but that Plan is already discredited. Its author, now the Foreign Secretary, in March, 1965, wanted to import limitless reinforcements from outside. He said:
    "It is absolutely mad to talk about limiting immigration when Britain needs an expanding labour force".
    I wonder what he says today, in the midst of our mounting numbers of unemployed. Does he still want limitless reinforcements, whether from the Commonwealth or from outside it? Surely his idea was nonsense in 1965, as it is today.
    What are the basic facts about our manpower needs? During the weekend hon. Members may have read an article in the Sunday Times, by William Allen, the consultant who set up the Fawley manpower agreements. He says that our economy is grossly overmanned and that it could, with proper capital investment in equipment and power, produce as much as it does today with half the manpower. Our labour force is twice as fat as it should be. This is a very gross condition.
    This assessment is, I believe, far nearer the truth than the ideas now interned with the National Plan. This country could, during a period of stripping, meet from its own wasted resources all the manpower needs of our growth industries. We could begin at once, without waiting for the results of increasing investment which this Government's actions have greatly discouraged. We could begin by dealing with restrictive practices and overmanning of existing equipment.
    By failing to deal with these problems, by failing to secure the co-operation of organised labour for the better use of manpower, the Government are helping to produce the entirely artificial shortages of labour which Dr. Kaldor so disastrously tried to solve with the Selective Employment Tax. The Government should take a fresh look at our own hidden manpower reserves. They should re-assess our needs for reinforcement from outside, and revise their immigration control measures accordingly. This should mean that we should admit as workers only those with special contributions to

    1239
    make to our economy. These are styled Category B.
    Let us consider B vouchers, with which roughly 4,000 or 5,000 Commonwealth immigrants are now coming in annually. Here there is another important factor, which has already been mentioned several times, in this debate—a factor which the Government have neglected. That is the desperate need of developing countries, of which I have some personal experience, for all kinds of highly trained manpower. In one area in which I served there was one doctor for half a million people. The whole object of our considerable effort in technical assistance is to help meet these needs.
    What justification have we in this country for accepting 1,541 doctors from India in 1965 and another 1,160 in the first nine months of this year, when the rural areas of India are so desperately short? I think that the Indian Government themselves are feeling uneasy about this and are wondering what measures they can take to retain more of their trained medical strength.
    What right have we to accept 700 technological graduates" from India in the first nine months of this year? If these doctors and technologists are here merely to gain further experience or higher qualifications our policy should be to welcome them, just as we do students. But we should not set them against the quota for permanent citizens. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to consider this suggestion. This would be a proper contribution to our technical assistance programme. In an effort to increase our technical assistance to developing countries, I would welcome far greater numbers than we have at the moment if our universities and our medical schools could absorb them with fairness to our own people.
    In 1965, we accepted from India and Pakistan 1,750 teachers and this year, so far, 600. If they are fully trained, they are desperately needed in the rural areas of their own countries. Hon. Members should consider the literacy figures. But I fear that many are being wrongly admitted to this country as teachers. Most have degrees, but many have no training and no teaching experience and little ability to communicate in English and so are unable to
    1240
    take teaching jobs in this country. So, many go into other employment. I would ask the Home Secretary to look again at the criteria by which his representatives in India and Pakistan classify such applicants as teachers, "having special skills required in this country" and so worthy of B vouchers.
    One other main factor underlying the Government's policy for the control of immigration is this country's absorptive capacity. This was one of the two criteria cited by the Government's spokesman in another place last week. On this, in general, we are not doing nearly enough. In this I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The present Government are not doing not nearly enough nearly fast enough to help the immigrant communities to adjust to life in this country and make the best use of their talents.
    We are faced with the problem of how best we can adjust ourselves and our social services to the arrival, over a few years, of many newcomers with great differences of background, custom, religion, language and colour and their formation into dense groups in the poorer parts of our main industrial cities. This, as we all know, has put a considerable strain on our social services, such as health and education and even on community life. The strains have been intensified by language barriers.
    By far the greatest and the most explosive problem is housing. The central government must accept a direct responsibility for dealing as a matter of priority, with the overcrowded twilight areas in the old urban centres, where there is overcrowding and dense immigrant settlements—areas which could become what I think is called self-segregating. I do not believe that this task can be left entirely to local authorities. The only real solution here is for the Government to make funds available to local authorities, if necessary on a regional basis, to rehouse, to clear and to rebuild. This would be a major step towards absorbing our newcomers and providing them with a proper basis for family life, work and happiness. I hope that the Home Secretary will give this suggestion careful consideration.
    I hear that one local authority—Lambeth—has taken over such a twilight

    1241
    area across the river, not far from this House. It has abandoned its plan to clear and rebuild and instead is embarking on a programme of "patching up" and improving the houses. Further, it is beginning to reduce the overcrowding. When tenant families move out, the rooms released are not filled by new tenants, but are used to give more room to those who remain. In such twilight areas, this could be a useful interim measure.
    Perhaps local authorities, with their powers of control can manage this problem better than private landlords. But many such areas are long overdue for redevelopment. I hope, as I have said, that the Government will give special grants to help local authorities to clear and rebuild.
    I should like to deal briefly with controls. We are, in my view, rightly committed to allowing Commonwealth immigrants already here to bring in their families. In spite of all the difficulties which I have mentioned, I should not like to see any Government go back on that policy. As the Government admitted last week in another place, there are serious evasions. If these are properly checked, the Home Secretary could afford to deal more generously with the genuine family hardship cases, examples of which are known to many of us.
    Families must be the basis of adjustment if our new citizens are to make their full contribution to our community and to live full and happy lives. Reports from the Lumb Lane area of Bradford, which has given a fine lead in helping immigrants, show that when Pakistanis living in male hostels succeed in having their wives and families brought into the country, they leave these overcrowded areas and disperse of their own accord.
    8.0 p.m.
    My reports are that, as family units, they have found little difficulty in settling into their new neighbourhoods. Housing and voluntary dispersal are two important keys to adjustment and absorption. Until we have made progress in dealing with this problem, the shortage of decent housing should be a real factor in limiting the inflow of Commonwealth immigrants.
    We have a tremendous task ahead of us to help our newly arrived immigrants and their families to adjust to life here,
    1242
    to make the best use of their talents and to make their full contribution to our economy and to the variety of our life. Great efforts have already been made and I join the tributes that have been paid to the Race Relations Board, the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the many others who are working on this problem. They have made real progress, but the Government are not putting enough initiative behind these efforts. They are leaving it to others. This is particularly so in the sphere of housing, where the most explosive problem remains to be solved. I believe that the Government have not yet begun to tackle this.
    Mr. Orme: I propose to raise a matter relating directly to the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, and not to deal with the question of immigration generally. I regret that a representative of the Home Office is not on the Government Front Bench, because although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is in her place, I do not believe that her Department is primarily concerned with the case I propose to raise.
    On a day when Parliament is discussing in some detail the question of Commonwealth immigration, it is right that, at the same time, the Committee should be prepared, while dealing with the broader issues, to consider the plight of one man and his family. On a number of occasions the case of Mr. Bert Bensen and his wife has been raised in Parliament. Mr. Bensen is now a prohibited alien. He is an American citizen receiving a war pension from the United States. While living in this country some time ago he became involved in some activity which brought him into conflict with the police. That activity was in relation to anti-nuclear demonstrations and particularly the Committee of 100. This led to Mr. Bensen being summonsed and, foolishly, he went underground and tried to elude the police.
    Later, after the case had been tried, Mr. Bensen was declared a prohibited alien and was not allowed back into this country. At the time when Mr. Bensen was involved in those activities, his wife, an English girl, was employed at the Foreign Office. She left this country with her husband and, with their child, the

    1243
    Bensens now live in Frankfurt, West Germany.
    Mr. Bensen was excluded on security grounds and was considered not a suitable person to be readmitted. Because of family difficulties, relating to his wife, he was allowed back for a short visit after being declared a prohibited alien, although he had to leave the country again. This matter has been raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman). When in Frankfurt last year I met Mr. Bensen and his wife and discussed the case with them. I have no axe to grind, apart from my feeling that an injustice has been done and that it is causing great hardship to this family.
    Mr. Bensen has given every assurance about his future behaviour and is not asking to be given leave to return to this country permanently. He is merely asking for the right to visit, with his wife and child, his wife's parents who live in Britain. I am raising this matter now as I did 12 months ago; to ask the Home Office to allow this family to return to Britain at Christmas time to pay a visit to Mrs. Bensen's parents. The Home Office could then see what develops and, if the visit is successful, the Department might consider further visits, although at the moment I am appealing for the family to be allowed to come here merely during the Christmas period.
    Mr. Bensen probably acted most indiscreetly in the past and perhaps foolishly in relation to the activity on which he was then embarked. Because of that, he may have angered the security services. However, I do not believe that there is any security risk in Mr. Bensen, other than the fact that he may have been a nuisance. It is not in line with British justice to carry a grievance indefinitely.
    I submit that the Government could now allow Mr. Bensen and his wife and child to visit Britain during Christmas. Having recently had a further communication from Mrs. Bensen, who feels keenly about this matter, and having met the family, I submit that it would be to the advantage of the Bensens if they were allowed back to Britain this coming Christmas.
    1244
    I trust that the Home Office will give sympathetic consideration to this case and allow the Bensens to return for a short stay over Christmas, which might be the start of future communications. Tonight, I am merely asking for this one visit.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am glad to have caught your eye on this occasion, Sir Myer, although that is not, perhaps, surprising since I appear to be the only hon. Member on this side of the Committee who is attempting to do so.
    Mr. Hogg: Oh?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: At any rate, at the moment.
    In some respects one must feel pleased that today's debate has not been so well attended as some of its three predecessors, in which I took part, for it is an indication that the emotional issue has rather subsided. At the same time, it would be sad if this poor attendance were an indication that people are no longer concerned with this vitally important problem at the crucial stage which it has reached.
    I suppose that one should not complain about a lack of audience. As St. Francis de Sales said, one soul is diocese enough for a bishop. I suppose that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is audience enough for a Conservative hon. Member, not to mention the dignitaries assembled on the benches opposite.
    Certainly there is no more important subject than this which is before us. It has an unique quality in that many of the problems with which we are faced today are either insoluble in themselves or they are problems about which we can do very little. This problem has the unique advantage that it is very much within our powers to put forward constructive and effective solutions. I attach the highest importance to the preservation of the national consensus on this issue which has emerged since 1964. The first part of that concensus is that there should be strict control of immigration to Britain but at the same time the door should be kept ajar and the principle of some entry to Britain from the Commonwealth should be preserved. I was very glad to hear the Home Secretary in a passage in his speech lift the debate on to a higher level of principle when he spoke about the value to the world of preserving as

    1245
    much free movement of peoples as is possible.
    The second ingredient of our national consensus is the determination to preserve family unity. I was glad to find that that part of the consensus was accepted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). The third part of the consensus is the determination to treat all citizens, including immigrants equally once they have arrived here, a concession of equality of rights and also equality of duties. It would be quite out of accord with the spirit of that last part of the consensus to be pressing upon immigrants all the time return passages for them to go back to their own countries. That would be a very dangerous policy to adopt and it would be a very insulting and degrading policy as well.
    To preserve this consensus, tolerance and restraint are necessary on all sides. They are all the more necessary at this time when we are facing a very serious economic recession. Those who exaggerate the number of immigrants coming to this country, who create alarms and arouse fears and prejudices in the minds of those who perhaps do not follow this question very closely, are doing no service to this country. They are in fact doing the country a grave disservice. Everyone in the House should be grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary at the Home Office for the very full figures he gave the Committee in his speech which enable us to put this problem in some kind of statistical perspective.
    The number of vouchers issued for the first nine months, we are told, was 4,285, considerably less than in the equivalent period of last year. The number of dependants coming into the country, far from rising alarmingly, is much the same as it was in the same period of last year, 33,000. It does not help the discussion further to produce the figure of 500,000 potential dependants waiting to descend on this country. That is an academic distortion of the issue because the effective figure to look at is the figure of the actual number of dependants coming in.
    8.15 p.m.
    If we look at these figures and the way in which the number of vouchers have been reduced how can one possibly argue that there can be a further drastic reduction in the number of immigrants to
    1246
    Britain? How can one say that and at the same time preserve the consensus which has emerged? We can have a drastic reduction only in two ways. One is to cut out the issue of vouchers altogether and the other to deny to immigrants the ordinary rights of family life. There is no other way of bringing about a drastic reduction in the number of immigrants in the present situation. Both those solutions would be quite unacceptable, particularly the latter, in a domestic country like Britain. Furthermore, it would be a policy of almost incredible social folly to deny ordinary family life to immigrants coming here. It would make a mockery of the whole ideal of equal treatment upon which we are allegedly all agreed.
    The number of those who can be admitted to the country is directly related to what is being done for those immigrants who are already here. We cannot separate the two; one is dependent upon the other. The most important thing to ensure, both for those coming to us and for those already here, is equality of opportunity in employment and in education. That is vital if we are to preserve civil peace in future. We are at a crucial stage now because attitudes are being formed which will determine attitudes of generations which are to come.
    By 1980 we shall have well over 1½ million coloured immigrants in Britain. That is 2·75 per cent. of the enlarged population. It will be infinitely more difficult to tackle the problem successfully if we wait until that moment to do so. Today the problem is comparatively small and it is manageable. Our task is to set patterns of behaviour and attitudes now which will carry on into the future. I pay tribute to the courage and humanity of the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) for what he has done, but I think much more could be done. Having paid tribute, I am afraid I shall rather spoil it by saying I think the Government could have done very much more in this direction. I do not share the complacency which I detected in the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) spoke at some length about housing. I want to deal in similar

    1247
    detail with the problem of employment. First I want to deal with the issue of unemployment because that is very relevant to the issue of entry and control. Unemployment is not being felt sharply as yet among immigrants. That is because not many immigrants are employed in those industries which are feeling and bearing the brunt of the recession, such as the car industry, but, as the squeeze becomes more intense, so the problem is likely to grow. It is essential to establish now absolute fairness in the criterion which is applied for dismissals in industry. The ordinary rule of industrial practice must be fairly carried out—last in, first out. That must apply to everyone irrespective of racial origin.
    There are considerable dangers here because of the pattern of employment which has already emerged in certain parts of the country. Let me give one example of what I mean. This is a problem which has arisen particularly in the West Riding of Yorkshire, but it is also found in certain firms in London where night shifts are almost entirely composed of coloured immigrants. The temptation in the present situation would be simply to discontinue the night shift. I do hope that employers will resist that temptation, because it would be unjust in itself and would cause explosive discontent and sharp tension.
    This sort of practical problem underlines the importance of not segregating immigrant workers and so disturbing the ordinary pattern of employment.
    The second part of the issue concerns the employment of school leavers. At present only a small percentage of school leavers are, in fact, coloured immigrants. The average is about 2 per cent. But the significant point about the figure is that it is increasing all the time. Within the last 12 months, in places such as Oxford, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of coloured pupils, and in Birmingham, in the late seventies, the proportion of school leavers who are liable to be immigrants will probably be about 17 per cent.
    We should remember, when considering this problem, that the immigrant population is on the whole a very young population, with about a quarter probably either at school now or under 5. Whereas at the moment many coloured
    1248
    schoolchildren have had only about two years at an English school, in future we shall have very many children who will have passed right through the school system from beginning to end. We have to plan now to deal with the problem which will reach its most intense point in ten years' time.
    There is some cause for hope in industry, and there is also some reason for alarm. It is true that one does not see a great deal of prejudice or discrimination in manufacturing industry as a whole, although there has been some difficulty in coloured immigrants getting apprenticeships. In this respect the trade unions could have been of much more help than they have been hitherto.
    I should like to make two points. First, there is a duty on the part of industrialists and managers in industry to avoid building up patterns in industry where the heavy, unpleasant work is done exclusively by immigrants, because this creates undesirable associations in the minds of the non-coloured majority. Secondly, immigrants who deserve it should certainly be promoted. That is good for immigrants, obviously, but it is also good for others. To put it in its crudest terms, it is important that there should be some bosses who are black.
    I think of London Transport in this respect. It has a very good record of employing people, but its record of promoting people to the rank of inspector, etc., is not so good. A very different picture from that in the manufacturing industries emerges in the service industries. Here we have every reason to be depressed, because we are not dealing adequately with the people who are here, let alone those who are coming in. First, in all those occupations which take people into the home, from painters to electricians, it is extremely difficult for immigrants to get employment. This is important, not only in itself, but from the point of view of creating contacts and breaking down personal prejudices.
    Again, very few coloured immigrants are employed in the sphere of retail distribution. The reason given is that the customers would not like it. There is no proof of this statement. The opening up of this sphere of employment to immigrants is of great importance because of the contact with the public which the retail trade affords.

    1249
    I hope that the Under-Secretary will appeal to the big employers to do their bit in opening up the trade to coloured employees. I certainly appeal to them now. There are some firms which have set an example—firms such as Sainsbury's, John Lewis, and Tesco Stores; but there are others which could do a great deal more.
    My third cause for anxiety over the employment situation is the grave difficulties which the more talented, the more gifted, and the more ambitious immigrants are finding in achieving their legitimate ambitions. Their paths are continually being blocked. May I give one example, namely, the situation in the banks, where the record is very bad indeed. It is said that customers do not like money to be dealt with by black hands. That, I think, is a libel on customers; yet that is the excuse which is put forward by the banks for falling down on their duty in this respect.
    If the situation is bad in the banks, it is equally bad in insurance companies and building societies. There is very little opportunity for a coloured girl to get a good secretarial job and very excellent secretaries are forced to go into factories because there is no alternative.
    Mr. Chapman: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's information. Is it his information that the big five banks have put up a ban in this way? Has he information on this point?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: My information on the attitude of the banks is gained partly from private sources and partly from observation. Of course, the big banks have made no formal declaration to the effect that it is because their customers would not like it that they have not employed coloured employees; but from my researches, and from conversations I have had, there seems little doubt that that is the reasoning which determines their attitude. There are certain exceptions, but they stand out. The only exception I know of is the Camden Town branch of Barclays Bank, where I think hon. Members may find a coloured employee; but, alas, that is an exception which does prove the rule.
    I turn briefly to the teaching profession. Here again, opportunities are limited. Here the situation is, in fact, being made worse by the Ministry of
    1250
    Labour. I hope the hon. Lady will tear herself away from her conversation with her colleague and will listen to this indictment of her rule. Very often the Ministry of Labour will issue vouchers to teachers. Then the Ministry of Education finds out that it cannot confirm those teachers in teaching posts, or cannot find a post for them; and in many cases the Ministry of Education is justified in its attitude because the vouchers were issued by the Ministry of Labour to those who are, in fact, below standard. I would ask the hon. Lady if she could not establish some form of closer cooperation with the Minister of Education in this respect.
    I have sketched out the general situation in employment as I see it. We must now ask what can be done? Ultimately, it is the attitude of employers that counts. But the Government can help in a whole variety of ways. First, they themselves can set an example. I believe that the Civil Service Commission, for example, is fairly colour blind. I also believe that greater initiative could be taken by the Home Office with regard to the police. After all, there are only a handful of coloured policemen in the whole of England. I believe that there is one in Coventry and there is one in Birmingham.
    Sir D. Renton: There is one in Liverpool.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate that the Home Secretary has no direct power over police forces outside London, but he has power and influence with the Metropolitan Police. Why are there no coloured policemen in the Metropolitan Police? We are entitled to an answer to that question.
    The record of the nationalised industries is very bad. For example, in the Midlands many corporation bus services employ coloured immigrants, but hardly an immigrant is employed in the nationalised regional services. Apparently immigrants are not trusted to run buses on long distance routes. Why is this?
    8.30 p.m.
    Besides setting an example, the Government can actively promote the interest of employers and industrialists in this problem. The Government can create an industrial and commercial public

    1251
    opinion on the issue. Why does not the Under-Secretary follow the example of the Prime Minister over the question of productivity and call a public conference so that there can be the fullest and frankest discussion of these issues and an arousing of interest, both in industry and outside it, in these problems and how they are to be solved?
    The third thing that the Government can do—I merely touch on this in passing—is to amend the Race Relations Act to cover the question of fair employment. This is desirable not only to discourage the prejudiced employer, but to strengthen the hand of the unprejudiced employer as well.
    The fourth way in which the Government can help is in education. One of the great difficulties which immigrants face when they apply for employment lies in their poor or inadequate English, their extremely limited vocabulary, and their very low level of comprehension, which is not immediately obvious. They have basically the same difficulties as the working class child, but in the immigrants they are intensified.
    Here co-operation is needed between State and voluntary organisations to ensure that their level of comprehension and their level of capability in English is raised. A very interesting experiment is now going on in Huddersfield. It is a variant of the old Sunday school. Mothers are going to school to learn English, and the children are going to learn Urdu. In this way there is both an integration into the community by the learning of another language and the preservation of the immigrant's own culture, which the Home Secretary so rightly stressed earlier today.
    The final way in which the Government can help—in this matter I appeal to both the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour—is by providing information. If effective action is to be taken, it is essential that the facts are known. We need statistics which are both comprehensive and reliable.
    I fully appreciate the arguments springing from equality against collecting statistics about the coloured population; but the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour must rid themselves of the notion that somehow it is discriminatory to know
    1252
    the facts. It is not. Ignorance in this sphere is very much less than bliss. I put this in very concrete terms to the Parliamentary Secretary. Will she publish three-monthly figures of unemployment in industry of immigrants and nonimmigrants so that we may know what is going on? I know that these figures are kept by the local employment exchanges, but it would be useful if they were made generally available.
    The racial problem in Britain is a serious one, but it is by no means unmanageable, nor is it insoluble. We are right to reject any pessimistic forecast to the contrary. I cannot believe that there is anything absolute in colour prejudice, that it is a question of pigmentation of the skin. Rather, I believe that it is a matter of association, it is what people connect with colour. If colour in Britain comes to mean poverty, bad housing, and unskilled occupations, under-privilege and all its associations, we shall have lost the battle. But there is no reason why this should come about if we take resolute, intelligent and adequate action now.
    If we look across the Atlantic, we see the baleful example of a society whose whole fabric is being threatened not only by the scale of the problem but also by the cumulative effect of long years of neglect. Let us not be Bourbons, at least in this respect, and let us learn cheaply and vicariously from the experience of others. We must take action now for the securing not only of racial justice but also for the preservation of civil peace and concord, which is at once the prerequisite and one of the highest achievements of a civilised society.
    Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I shall not detain the committee very long, but as most hon. Members know I have a special constituency interest in the immigration problem and thereby in the colour problem. I warmly endorse the tenor of the speech by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). I could not help thinking that I might prompt my local Conservative association to invite the hon. Member to come to the constituency to enlighten it on this difficult problem, which we have there. I found myself underscoring and saying "Hear, hear" to most of what he said.
    Immigration is a running problem and, therefore, a transient problem. I do not

    1253
    think that a once-a-year discussion on the problem is too frequent. One cannot write into Acts of Parliament permanent restrictions on the movement of human beings. We live in a country that is privileged from a living standard point of view, although that will not always be so. I happen to know something of the philosophy which makes the hon. Member for Chelmsford tick, and I believe that he, too, would think in terms of a world of equal national standards, where people did not feel driven to move across the world in search of something to eat. The problem must, therefore, be transient, but it is a very difficult human problem.
    I believe that in Southall we have the biggest concentration of immigrants. But one sometimes wonders what that term means these days, because quite a number of children now going to school in my constituency were born there, and it is erroneous for the reactionary people in our locality to talk of immigrant children, although they may be children of immigrant parents.
    There is, of course, a very difficult housing problem. Because of the deficiencies of privately-owned houses where one has a large concentration of old terraced property, the Indian people—they are substantially Indian people and not of another nationality—are inevitably concentrated, bringing considerable problems and apprehension.
    I should have been remiss had I not taken part in the debate even at this late stage to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we would anticipate continuous assistance being given to the local authority, which is now the Greater London Borough of Ealing, in the manifold problems it still has in fighting to preserve the present relatively peaceful and harmonious situation.
    Hon. Members will know that I have been involved, unfortunately and distressingly, in the first case under the Race Relations Act, 1965. I shall not dwell on it. It was a distressing experience, which I hope will not be repeated, but, as a result of loose coverage in some sections of the national Press, I have had letters of abuse, erroneously based, though I am proud to say very few from my own constituents who, of course, thoroughly understand my attitude to
    1254
    these problems and the facts of life in Southall.
    Changes are taking place in Southall all the time. I have seen some of our aboriginal population, so to call them, some of our older working people who treated the coming of immigrants with such hostility a few years ago, now making a great fuss of the children. This is their way of life. Humanity must come together. We are going through this experience, and I am proud to be able to say these things in the House of Commons.
    I found it rather distressing to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). I shall not dwell on it, as he is not present, but I can well understand that his hon. Friends took little notice of him 10 years ago, as he does not make a constructive contribution to the solution of the problem.
    I take the point—I shall not detain the Committee by repeating arguments which have been adduced—that if we move at all towards a system of segregation, whether on the basis of nationality or of colour, which tends to drive the Commonwealth entrant or the coloured person into a second-class job, into a second-class position as a citizen, as a home dweller and as a job seeker, we shall tend to create second-class behaviour. On the other hand, in so far as we live together and we stick firmly to the principles of absolute equality in this democratic society of ours of which we are so proud, we shall develop a harmonious situation. Because of natural in-built prejudices and because of the nature of my constituency, it is possible that there could be consolidation of a ghetto system in Southall, and this I shall do all I can to prevent because it cannot make for harmonious circumstances.
    When I think of some of the speeches in the debate which have shown that there are those who seem horrified at the idea of mixed marriages, I think of the many happy couples, coloured and white, in my constituency who have come together as a result of their living experience and who are living in harmony together. When I think of the racialist propaganda in the country, and then look at our children, my children, playing happily together in the streets, I feel

    1255
    myself wishing to indulge in some of the violence which is the habitual characteristic of the racialists.
    I think back to my experience in fighting the election in Southall, a difficult constituency. A great deal of speculation attended upon the outcome in Southall, Smethwick and Slough. I am proud of the results which were achieved, because the normal pattern, the normal economic laws providing the political results, went to work as they had hitherto.
    I think back to the occasion when I saw a white child and a coloured child on the street corner and I handed a pictorial leaflet to the white child. She put her arm round the coloured child and said, "Do not leave my friend out of it". That is a suitable note on which to close.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Hogg: As the Amendment which we have been discussing most of the day stands, technically, in my name, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I intervene at this stage of the debate. Perhaps I should first explain, though it will be quite unnecessary for hon. Members now present, that the last thing any of us wish is that the Amendment should be passed. It is a procedural device quite properly adopted in order to secure discussion of an important subject. When the Minister has replied, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) may seek leave to withdraw it without offence to anyone, because the last thing we would wish to see in any ordinary sense is the omission of these Acts from the Bill.
    Unlike the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I am glad that we are discussing these two subjects together, because there is one sense in which I would wish to see that the Amendment could be realised. That is to say, I share the view of those right hon. and hon. Members who think that it is a minor scandal that an Act passed so long ago as 1919 should still continue to find its place in the Schedule of an annual Bill. It should be supplanted by permanent legislation. I feel that the same is true of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
    1256
    While strictly on the technicalities of the Amendment and before I embark upon discussion of the more substantial issues underlying our debate, may I say that, although I would not have approached the subject from the same angle as my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), there is a great deal more in his suggestion that the two blocks of law relating to aliens and Commonwealth citizens should be brought together than appeared simply from the argument he adduced in support of it.
    The thing which appals me the more I think about the law is its complexity and the difficulty anyone has in finding his way about it. Since I was called to the Bar 34 years ago, the complexity has increased in nearly every aspect. It is a jungle, and I cannot believe that it is really satisfactory to have two separate blocks of legislation, dealing with two separate blocks of people not British citizens, so closely resembling one another and yet differing in so many points of detail.
    This has been true of the two Acts in the Schedule. I would not be in order in extending the scope of what I am saying, but I would point out that exactly the same problem has arisen in relation to the legislation under the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Act, and exactly the same problem arose under the law of nationality. I cannot but believe that the time has come to codify the whole complex.
    I am far from thinking, as does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), that this would operate to the disadvantage of Commonwealth immigrants. Let us take the problem of employment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was talking about. I believe that it is easier, under the aliens legislation, for an alien to get employment than it is for a Commonwealth immigrant. Let us take as an example employment as a cook in a Pakistani or Indian curry restaurant or a Chinese restaurant. If the employer is taking on an alien he has only to establish what is not difficult in this context—that it is not a job suitable for an Englishman and that an Englishman is not really available to fulfil it. But if he

    1257
    wants to employ a Commonwealth immigrant he has to go through the whole business of getting a voucher at source. The point I am seeking to make is that it is not necessarily to the advantage of Commonwealth immigrants in this respect to have separate legislation. There is great virtue in simplicity in legislation and, quite apart from the arguments which my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham adduced and which I do not necessarily endorse, I hope that his suggestion that the whole complex of law should be brought into harmony in a single piece of comprehensive and permanent legislation will be seriously examined by the Government.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire moved the Amendment deliberately from the back benches. This was designed to take the emotional steam out of much of the debate. I am very gratified to notice that the Ministerial team has taken almost exactly the opposite tactic. We are to have not one, not two, but on this occasion three Ministers taking part in our discussions, and we treat this as a compliment. We think that it shows a growing respect for the House of Commons which we are very glad to welcome on the Government Front Bench, and we think that it shows that the Government take the subject matter of the debate seriously.
    We do not think that it would have been suitable on this occasion to adopt a strict party attitude. Almost every subject of importance is, or inevitably becomes from time to time, a matter of party controversy, and perhaps it is in the nature of things that this should be so in a Parliamentary democracy. Obviously, at any given time, faced with the responsibility for carrying on the business of the country, any Government are bound to have a defined policy, and an Opposition who respect themselves need to put forward a definite programme at an election. We did so, and the more I reflect upon the debate, the more convinced I am that the two points in this respect which we selected, namely, a provisional period of stay for immigrants to be prolonged into indefinite stay and a statement about dependants, were valid.
    But during the course of a Parliament on the whole, it is much more beneficial as far as possible to discuss subjects
    1258
    objectively. It would be both hypocritical and undesirable to pretend that every hon. Member on these benches thinks exactly the same about these issues, and I very much doubt whether every hon. Member opposite thinks the same about them. The less we adopt monolithic party attitudes on matters not necessarily involving party principles, the more we shall enhance the dignity of Parliament.
    Several hon. Members have stressed the gradual loss of emotional steam which this subject has elicited. The first to do so was the hon. Member for Sparkbrook. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) did so, too. He claimed to be the man who had been right all along, at any rate for ten years. I must say that he is one of my favourite colleagues. I have the warmest affection for him, as have nearly all his hon. Friends. I am not sure that he did not slightly overstate his case. There is a tendency to over-simplify matters in which he sometimes indulges, but I think that he was right to point out that the steam went out of this subject originally when the Labour Government accepted the Conservative policy.
    After all, it is true that a few years ago the Labour Party, then in opposition, spoke in the most violent terms against the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. They voted against it 48 times, I am told, at one time or another, and they heaped upon my colleagues, and in another place myself, the most violent terms of contumely.
    They even trundled out the Archbishop of Canterbury to do me damage in the House of Lords, so that now I find myself facing them, when they are putting the Commonwealth Immigrants Act into the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill for another year, and I am bound to say that I feel that they might have been a little more generous about the origin of this particular legislation.
    All the same I would accept and welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, that there has developed, since the acceptance by the Labour Government of the Conservative Party's policy, a kind of consensus between the two Front Benches on the subject which we have been discussing. I would accept what I assume to be my hon. Friend's main contention, that this consensus stands on two legs.

    1259
    The first is a fairly close control of immigration, and the other is the absolute equality of treatment for people who are legitimately here. Both of these policies must be pursued if the consensus is to continue and if we are to have popular opinion behind us. I do not accept in its entirety the three reasons which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire gave. One of them is beyond gainsay, and that is that if one deliberately sets out to acquire and maintain, as we have acquired and are determined to maintain, a higher standard of life than, in the main, other people enjoy, it is absolutely inevitable that this country will act as a magnet to the less fortunate of any colour.
    It is unfortunately true, despite the depopulation of part of this island, that we do not have great empty spaces of fertile land like the Americans of the nineteenth century, to whom the Secretary of State referred.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that it is desirable that coloured people should not be insulted by the implication that they bring to this country such things as disease and problems which have in fact existed here for many years, but which it is implied have developed only since coloured immigrants began to arrive?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly do not think that they should be insulted in any respect. I was about, at a later stage and in a different context, to mention a question of health. The fact is that if one enjoys a high standard of life and desires to maintain it, as we do, some control over immigration is necessary.
    If we are to avoid what hon. Members opposite are happy to call an economic free-for-all in other connections, I would have thought that the control of immigration was not merely an elementary right of the independent sovereignty of this country but also a salutary example of economic planning. No nation is bound to import a social problem, and no nation does so. There can be no doubt that the absorptive capacity of any community to take in people from abroad must give rise to a social problem.
    1260
    We know full well that it has done so here and elsewhere. To that extent I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham was perfectly right in reminding us that white people do not have a double dose of original sin and that these problems arise in Guyana and have arisen in India and Malaysia. Lest anyone should think that I am selecting coloured areas for choice, may I point out that they have arisen in Canada between English-speaking and French-speaking populations. This is not an easy problem. Nor is it true that we are bound to import problems by giving free rein to immigration.
    9.0 p.m.
    When hon. Members speak, as they do quite legitimately, about the relatively relaxed view of race relations which exists, for instance, in some parts of the Caribbean, they should reflect that those parts of the Caribbean have immigration policies of their own. A Member of the House of Commons who desired to go and live there permanently would not necessarily be able to do so without passing through an immigration check. Although a different situation may well exist, for all I know, in some of the countries of South America, I am not sure that I know enough about them to detain the Committee by discussing them.
    The second leg is equally important. I assure hon. Members opposite, who at times showed a little doubt about it, that there can be no question but that it is as strongly the policy of the Conservative Party as it is of the Government to ensure absolute equality of treatment of people once they are legitimately here. I say that not simply because I think that it is a matter of humanity and justice to do it, but because I believe it to be in the interests of the existing inhabitants of this island to ensure it.
    If we start to discriminate between different classes of our own society, we do not only damage the lives of those who are the unprivileged targets for discrimination; we poison the outlook of the whole population and render life ultimately intolerable for any person of any race who wishes to dwell in such a community. Precisely because of that I attach just as much importance as hon. Members opposite do to the problem of assimilation and to the importance

    1261
    of insisting on absolute equality of treatment between people of different race and colour.
    May I say in passing—and I hope that I shall not be too much out of order in saying it—that we must all recognise that there is no moral or scientific basis for believing that one race is naturally more talented than another. I suppose that if we had lived here at the time of the Romans, as no doubt the ancestors of the Secretary of State did, although I doubt whether many of mine did, a visiting centurion would have maintained that, covered with woad and driving a scythed chariot and probably committing human sacrifice on the island of Anglesey, the right hon. Gentleman's ancestor was incapable of improvement and belonged to one of the lesser races.
    But time has gone by, and I suppose that it is now the inhabitants of this island who adopt a certain attitude of arrogance towards other human beings. Of course, it is true that at one time or another one nationality or one race develops more technologically, sometimes culturally. Very largly these are the accidents of history. No man can foretell what will be the relative positions of the various races in 50 or 100 years. There is no basis for believing that we are in any way superior animals.
    I personally think that the slight outbreak of racial literature which has developed quite recently in my personal correspondence, for the first time since the war, is something which will prove to be a very passing phase in the experience of Members of Parliament.
    If I may now deal with some of the individual questions which have arisen, in the first place I agree with the Home Secretary that dependants must be allowed to come. The social consequences of having a large number of married men coming into the country and unable to bring their families behind them would be both inhumane and extremely damaging to the social fabric of this country as well as that of the country which they have left. But because the Home Secretary referred in detail to the possibility of evasion which takes place on this front, he should examine carefully the suggestion for a declaration of the identity of dependants at the time a voucher is given. I quite agree that it might be considered
    1262
    wrong to examine the number of dependants as a condition of permitting entry, but it would provide some checks two or three years later on whether a given applicant was in truth a dependant to find out if that applicant had been referred to at the time the voucher was granted. Therefore, I do not think that it is a suggestion which ought to be ignored.
    In the course of the earlier part of my speech, one hon. Member asked me about health checks. I agree with him that immigrants should not be insulted by the suggestion that they are in some way unclean; nor, as a matter of fact, this is a problem necessarily connected with immigration, but it is connected strongly with air travel of all kinds. Within a matter of hours, it is possible to move from an area of bubonic plague or smallpox to our own island. I feel that the existence of air travel emphasises the necessity for health checks, which need not necessarily be tied to immigration but which ought to be tied to the permission to land, to a very great extent. There are some extremely incapacitating diseases from which a would-be immigrant ought to be free if he is to retain a voucher for work; a far gone case of tuberculosis is a clear example. There are other diseases, not necessarily contagious ones, about which one would wish to know, and therefore the demand for health checks is not necessarily a degrading one if it is asked for with sensitivity and a due sense of awareness of the dignity of human beings.
    I think that my right hon. Friend and one or two of my hon. Friends were wrong in asking for the B Category vouchers to be curtailed severely. It is a difficult problem. The case which is made that we have no moral right to deny the country of origin their services is a plausible one, but I wonder whether it is not also a little specious. If we are going into the belief that human beings, especially educated human beings, should be free to move about the world and seek their own fortunes and advantage—after all, there is no people who have done that more consistently than the British over the last 350 years—we should be a little careful of restricting people by law. I remember that I had exactly the same kind of problem in reverse over our own scientists going to North America.

    1263
    Whereas I have always resented conscious attempts to recruit, I have always equally resisted any attempt, either on the part of ourselves or anyone else, to prevent the free movement of highly qualified and gifted people about the world. I should have thought that they were probably by far the most easily assimilable into any society and that they were performing a most useful and valuable function by coming here, although I am bound to add that I wish our system of taxation and the general incentives which the Government give to our own qualified people to stay did not give them such an easy field for recruitment, but that would not be in order in this debate. I accept the Home Secretary's view that the number of A vouchers is small, but I still believe that the amount of evasion is probably greater than he has allowed for.
    Whilst, on the whole, I see no reason whatever for a division between the two Front Benches in this debate, I end by telling the Home Secretary what I said to the House at the beginning of my speech, that I think he has to thank the Conservative Government for having passed the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, and not his own party for having opposed it.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I very much appreciated the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in winding up the argument from the Opposition benches. I shall come to a number of detailed points which were raised by him and by his hon. Friends.
    I should like to begin by giving a few additional facts about the voucher system which it is the Ministry of Labour's responsibility to administer. I think that the Committee may be interested to know the figures for applications under the A and B systems, as well as the figures for vouchers actually issued. The figure for applications for Category A vouchers has now dropped from about 300 a week up till July, to about 200 a week. This already reflects a feature of immigration which will be familiar to hon. Members on both sides, namely, that it very closely follows the economic fortunes of the country to which the immigrant intends to
    1264
    go. There are now about 200 applications a week, as against 300, for the obvious reason that there has been an increase in the number of those unemployed.
    About 60 vouchers a week are being issued at present, of which 20 are for Malta, and I think that both sides of the Committee accepted at the time of publication of the White Paper that there was a special case with regard to Malta. In Category B there are about 263 applications a week, which is being fully maintained. There is little sign of any fall in the number of B applications, of which 100 are being issued.
    I stress that point because although most hon. Members have kept the matter very much in perspective, it has perhaps got out of perspective in one or two speeches. The total number of these issues amounts to ·04 per cent. of the total people employed in this country, and, therefore, we are discussing a matter which, to say the least, is so marginal as to raise an almost infinitesimal point.
    The 15 per cent. limit on Category A applications, that is to say, a limitation of 15 per cent. on applications from any one country, has meant that there has been a considerable waiting time for some countries, amounting to many weeks, and this in itself means that many vouchers are not issued when they become due because the person to whom they were to be issued is no longer anxious or available to come to this country.
    The Committee may be interested to know that between February and July, 1966, that is six months, although 4,164 vouchers were issued, only 2,834 were taken up, rather less than three-quarters of the total. The reason why the figures were higher in earlier months was that there were many pre-White Paper applications. The figure for pre-White Paper vouchers ran at about 21,000 a year, so there is a substantial backlog, and this partly explains the length of the queue.
    9.15 p.m.
    I turn from that, which is really a description as far as possible of the voucher system to say that, in regard to the Category A people, of the 3,073 vouchers issued between 2nd August, 1965, and 2nd August, 1966, only 993 were for Malta, Maltese immigration is

    1265
    falling much more heavily in Category A than in Category B.
    I want, first, to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), who spoke shortly after my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had dealt with the earlier part of the debate. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points which I can answer directly and which, I hope, will be of assistance to him. His first point concerned manpower needs. It would not be appropriate for me in this debate to go fully into that question, but I have explained that the figures, in terms of manpower needs, are minute.
    As Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour I would not quarrel with his argument that labour can be more effectively used in this country. That is true of most industrialised countries, although it is particularly true of this country, for historical reasons. But I submit that there is at least as effective a use of immigrant manpower in this country as there is of local manpower, because of the way in which the voucher system operates.
    The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the question of teachers. It would not be the Government's desire to deny that some teachers who come to this country under Category B are not employed in the teaching profession. But the qualifications have been considerably tightened up in the past year and, whereas 2,000 vouchers were issued for teachers in 1965, only 755 were issued between January and September, 1966.
    The hon. Gentleman may also like to know that the Department of Education and Science is running full-time courses of 15 months to teach British teaching methods, and particularly the use of English, to immigrant teachers. Although it is too early to comment in detail the scheme shows every sign of being very helpful in giving teachers from Commonwealth countries the full use of their talents. There is also, at Leeds University, a project to study the use of teaching machines for immigrant children. I would point out that in the teaching of immigrant children the teacher himself or herself who knows the language of origin is often the right person to assist in the education of these children in a way that an English teacher without any knowledge of that language cannot expect to be.
    1266
    Secondly, with reference to Category B, my right hon. Friend answered this point to a great extent, but the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that we are countering this to some extent by having introduced, since April of this year, a category of industrial trainees, in respect of whom 474 applications have been granted of about 550 received. The purpose of this scheme is to enable the trainees to study in this country on the basis of a year, in the first instance—although that is extendable—before they return to their own countries. This is by way of some return for the talents that we are getting from other Commonwealth countries.
    In addition, we have a seasonal workers' scheme which applies largely to Cyprus and Malta, under which applications may be granted for eight months for those coming purely for seasonal work.
    On another point made by the hon. Gentleman, a grant will be made to local authorities under Clause 11 of the Local Government Bill under which £1½ million a year will be made available to enable staff to be recruited by local authorities to work with those of other languages and cultural background and to bring them as fully as possible into our own society. This is an attempt to assist local authorities so that they will not be penalised by the fact that they have been chosen, for one reason or another, areas of settlement by immigrants.
    The other point raised by the hon. Gentleman concerned housing. Every hon. Member agrees that this is difficult. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government recently saw a deputation from the National Council for Commonwealth Immigrants, and he promised that he would press local authorities to increase, as far as possible, their assistance to housing associations—a number of which are moving into the field of integrated housing—and have another look at the improvement grant system which is very relevant to the level of housing of immigrants and—perhaps most relevant—that he would raise with local authorities the question of the allocation of housing which came under the control of councils. To that end he is looking forward to arranging a conference with local authorities.
    I want also to deal with one or two points raised by the hon. Member for

    1267
    Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). There would not be much point in repeating what he said in less elegant language, because I agree with virtually every word. That may be embarrassing to him, but it happens to be the case.
    The point at which he admonished me for speaking to my hon. Friend was the point at which we were trying to answer one of his points. He said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was, in effect, himself a diocese. I should have thought that he was a somewhat theoretical one, in view of his past clashes with the Archbishop on the subject now before the House.
    In dealing with the points of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, I will turn, first, to those points about the existing immigrant population and the information which we have about them. He raised the fundamental question of principle as to how far it is proper for a country which has before it an objective of integration, to distinguish in its statistics between immigrants and nonimmigrants. The difficulty is the greater because such statistics as are available apply only to those who came after 1957, for obvious reasons.
    Consequently, there can never be as clear a distinction as some hon. Gentlemen would like to see between people whose skin happens to be black and those whose skin happens to be white. The only distinction which the statistics can give is between recent immigrants and those who were immigrants long enough ago to be fully part of the British population. So the best information which we are likely to get will come from the 1966 Census, which will give a good deal of information about the position of more recent immigrants. I agree with the hon. Gentleman very much about the difficulties which those who have spent only a short time in British education meet in employment.
    The best impression which we get—I stress that it is an impression and has no firm evidence—is that it is not particularly difficult for immigrant school leavers to get work in factories. It is not altogether difficult for the immigrant school leavers with higher qualifications to get apprenticeships. The real problem
    1268
    arises in the cases which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned—those of service industries, and particularly some service industries, where there are still prejudices or objections, many of which are very difficult to sustain. I would very much underline his remarks in this respect.
    I should like to mention the Government's example and that of the nationalised industries. In the first case, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Civil Service has recruited to all grades a number of immigrant people and coloured British citizens. In the case of the nationalised industries, I would point, at least in passing, to the General Post Office, which does not seem to find the same difficulty over money passing into coloured hands as the banks do, since many people who serve in the Post Office are coloured immigrants.
    I would refer also to the L.P.T.B., the National Health Service and British Railways. The record is not perfect—no one would pretend that it was—and in the case of promotion it is very much less than perfect, but it is still, I suggest, quite a reasonable record, by comparison to some areas where, as yet, there is virtually complete discrimination.
    I now turn to something else which the hon. Gentleman said, which brings me also to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. Both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the point that this country would, in effect, meet the crisis of its success or failure in the situation of race relations and the integration of immigrants in the case of the second generation, the men and women, the boys and girls, described in a recent book by Professor Davison, of the University of the West Indies, as "The Black British".
    It is worth making this point, although I regret that he is not now here, to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who said that there is a danger of two nations developing. In fact, of course, we are a multi-racial society. There is no going back on that. There is no possibility that our coloured fellow citizens—that is what they are—will return en masse to their own countries.
    Some of us would regret it, none of us would accept it and all of us would recognise that anything which made it

    1269
    possible would involve an evolution of methods and attitudes in this country of a kind which we would all deeply regret. We must, therefore, accept that we are a multi-racial society, with all that that implies. What does it imply?
    As the hon. Member for Chelmsford said, it implies equal opportunities for boys and girls who have had the same education, as most boys and girls in 10 or 15 years' time will have had. It also implies equal opportunities for promotion and for the good as well as the bad jobs. This is the crux of the issue, because if we do not succeed in achieving this it will be only a matter of time before the problems that have overtaken some other countries—close to us and similar to us in their approach to this issue—will be our problems also.
    The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone rightly said that there was a kind of consensus growing up on both sides of the Committee, not only about restrictions but the acceptance of equality. I am sure he will agree that this consensus is not yet enough, not only in the House of Commons but, probably more so, outside. A good deal of education, propaganda and persuasion needs to be done before we can say with certainty that we have established a complete consensus in Britain of the attitude that men and women are equal, regardless of colour. This involves all of us in a great obligation, since we, as hon. Members, are to a considerable extent the leaders of the community.
    I must also comment on another important topic raised by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone: the position of other countries which are related to us within the Commonwealth. It is worth remarking, to get it on the record, that many tens of thousands of British citizens live in other Commonwealth countries, often holding down very responsible jobs, and that by and large, despite the many upheavals there have been in those Commonwealth countries, they have been allowed to live in peace and in a considerable degree of amity with their fellow Commonwealth citizens there.
    The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone—and I do not blame him—made a good deal of the debates
    1270
    that preceded the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962. Looking back to those debates, I still feel that there was a certain matter of principle at stake—that we should not completely lose sight of something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell); we should recognise that restrictions on the liberty of movement of human beings is always a step back from an ideal, even though at times it may be necessary because of the pressures of housing, social services or even of population within a country.
    But perhaps the ideal was expressed a very long time ago by a right hon. Friend who is no longer with us, Ernest Bevin, when he said that one of his ideals was that passports should disappear and that men and women should be allowed to move freely as they chose about the world. This is not an ideal of which we should completely lose sight.
    Coming to what was said by my right hon. Friend who was then the Leader of the Opposition during the debates on the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, it is also fair to say that he was at that time presenting to Parliament and the country a picture which now, we may feel, was not one that could be satisfied or lived up to but which, at that time expressed the principle which most of us would deeply believe in, at least as the ultimate goal.
    In saying that, I complete my remarks by agreeing that we seem to have established a consensus; first, a consensus which does not make me happy but may be necessary—that there must be tight restrictions on immigration into this country because of the circumstances in which we find ourselves—secondly, and more important, that there is a consensus in accepting the equality of those citizens who are here; and, thirdly, I suggest that this means that we accept that we are now a multi-racial community and that, therefore, future debates will, I hope, turn increasingly to the question of integrating once and for all what will soon be our fellow black British citizens and will turn away from the subject with which we have had to deal during the last few years.
    Sir D. Renton: Since we are in Committee, I would be allowed to speak again. However, I will not inflict another

    1271
    speech on hon. Members, although I am tempted to answer the remarks of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary.
    We have had a valuable debate which has been both constructive and frank. The Amendment which I moved earlier was, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) pointed out, a purely procedural matter and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Resolution reported,
  WAYS AND MEANS

    ROAD SAFETY
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to persons driving or being in charge of motor vehicles after consuming alcohol or taking drugs and with respect to goods vehicles, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums required to be so paid by virtue of the provisions of that Act relating to goods vehicles.
    Resolution agreed to.

  ROAD SAFETY [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to persons driving or being in charge of motor vehicles after consuming alcohol or taking drugs and with respect to goods vehicles, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport under the provisions of that Act relating to goods vehicles.
  Resolution agreed to.

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS, &c.) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the giving of financial assistance towards the provision of houses in Scotland, and for matters connected with the aforesaid purposes, it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of subsidies in respect of houses, or of the cost of houses or of the cost of sites of
  1272
  houses, approved by the Secretary of State and provided by—

  (i) a local authority, or

  (ii) a development corporation, in pursuance of authorised arrangements made with a local authority or otherwise, or

  (iii) a housing association in pursuance of arrangements made with a local authority or with the Secretary of State, or

  (iv) the Scottish Special Housing Association; and

  (b) of sums in lieu of subsidies which have ceased to be payable on the transfer or lease of any houses, hostels, or other land;

  (2) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the amounts payable—

  (a) under section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950; and

  (b) by reason of the amendment of Schedules 1 and 2 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962;

  (3) such increases in the sums which may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing, or paid or repaid into the Exchequer, as may result from increasing to £145 million (or such greater sum, not exceeding £170 million, as the Secretary of State may by order specify) the limit imposed on the aggregate amount of advances which may be made to the Scottish Special Housing Association under proviso (i) to section 18(1) of the said Act of 1962, and such increases as may thus result in any sums payable under section 1 or 19 of the said Act out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  Resolution agreed to.

  PRISON SENTENCE (MR. EDWARD BRIGHT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Grey.]
  9.31 p.m.
  Sir John Eden: The Order Paper states that on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House I shall be raising the case of Mr. E. Bright. I suppose that the first question which comes to the minds of hon. Members is: who is Mr. Bright? I find that a slightly difficult question to answer. Mr. Bright is not very well known to me. I do not think that he is very well known to Bournemouth. His connection with my constituency appears to be of a somewhat tenuous nature for he has, in his own words,
  "accumulated a very thick record for a variety of misdeeds."

  1273
  Mr. Bright has, in fact, seen the inside of a number of prisons. He has become familiar with the architecture of Brixton, Pentonville, Manchester, Parkhurst, Wandsworth, Lincoln and Dartmoor Prisons—quite a record. He is now in Lancaster, serving the remainder of a five-and-a-half years' sentence for receiving and other offences.
  The second question which hon. Members might quite legitimately ask is: what claim has Mr. Bright, in these circumstances, upon the time of this House, and why should any hon. Member seek to raise his case on the Adjournment of the House? My very simple answer is that he is labouring under a deep sense of injustice and I believe it right, no matter what the circumstances of a constituent, and no matter whom he may happen to be, if the individual Member of Parliament is convinced that that sense is genuine he should do whatever lies in his power to see that the doubts are resolved and to ensure that there is no justification at all for any feeling that an injustice has occurred.
  I want at the outset to say that the Home Office has been extremely patient throughout the whole of my dealings with this case, and that I am grateful to the right hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office, to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to other Ministers in the Home Department for the care with which they have already looked into the claim of this particular gentleman.
  There are certain points which I wish to press further, and on which I would welcome an answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman. The particular episode which first gave rise to Mr. Bright's present detention occurred in 1964. Early that year he went from Bournemouth to London and stayed with a friend called Peter Solez. In March, 1964, Solez, together with another friend, arrived in a stolen car with stolen property. They then sought Bright's assistance to secure the services of a receiver in order to dispose of the stolen property.
  Bright co-operated with them and apparently said he would lead them to some way in which they could dispose of the stolen property and he went with them in the car. On the way in the car they were involved in an accident which resulted in Bright's sustaining serious injuries—in fact, he fractured his cervical vertebrae.
  1274
  In words of one syllable, he came near to breaking his neck, and was lucky not to have done so. He was within an ace of doing so. So it was that on 9th March, 1964, he found himself in Hampstead Hospital.
  I hold that every hon. Member will agree that this was an extremely serious accident; and yet less than two weeks later, on 20th March, he was brought before the Harrow Magistrates' Court, and he was there remanded in custody to the same court on 24th March. On 24th March he pleaded guilty to the charge of receiving, and later, on 6th April, he was sentenced at the Middlesex Quarter Sessions.
  It might be argued that there is no further case to be answered, that the man pleaded guilty and there was an end to it; that he received his just deserts, that he was sentenced to five and a half years, and there is no further point in discussing the matter.
  However, no one can exclude from his mind the impact of the accident, the effect and consequences of the accident. I cannot help wondering whether anyone who had been through such an experience could really be expected to have been fully in command of his faculties at the time he was confronted with the charges. It is true, of course, that Bright was discharged from hospital; but when he came before the magistrates' court, and even when he came before the subsequent Middlesex Quarter Sessions, in April, 1964, he was still wearing a neck support which restricted the movement of his head. Further, for the injuries which he then sustained he is still receiving specialist treatment, and ever since that time, early in 1964, when he suffered the accident, he has been in constant pain.
  I cannot escape the feeling that a man in such a condition, still suffering from a sense of shock from the accident itself, was in no fit state to plead one way or the other. It is said—and this has been emphasised in the correspondence I have had with Ministers of the Home Department—that Bright admitted that had there not been an accident, and he had been successful in securing some way of disposing of the goods, he would then have got a share of them. The stolen goods never changed hands. They never passed into the possession of Mr. Bright. They remained in the possession of Mr. Solez,

  1275
  who pleaded guilty to the charge of taking them.
  Mr. Speaker, I might admit that later during the course of my speech I intend to use unparliamentary language, but I do not suppose that you would now rise to your feet and rule me out of order. You would quite properly wait until I had committed the misdemeanour before calling me to order. If that is so in the ordinary course of debate, there must be a similar ruling in a court of law. I cannot believe that the fact that a man has said that, had certain circumstances arisen, he had the intention of becoming a party to a crime to the extent of receiving stolen goods is a justifiable reason for assuming that he had so done and sentencing him on that assumption. It cannot be right that a man is guilty of receiving when in fact he has received nothing.
  The prisoner, Mr. Bright, my constituent, has never denied that he was assisting those who had taken the goods. He has never denied that he is certainly an accessary, that he associated with and assisted those who committed the crime. If that is the case, the charges should have been much less than those which were in fact brought against him and he should have attracted a much less severe sentence than that which he incurred. As he himself puts it, would not two or even three years have been sufficient punishment; and, apart even from that, has he not more than paid the penalty through the pain and anguish he has suffered?
  Mr. Bright now has about one year of his sentence to go. He is currently engaged in vocational training on radio and television, which has helped him a lot. He is desperately anxious to get out. He is resolved—I have his assurance on this—never again to return to prison, or never again to be involved in circumstances which are likely to result in his being sent there.
  Hon. Members may be excused a wry smile at this point. Judging from Mr. Bright's past career, part of which I have outlined, it could be assumed that he is no paragon of virtue and that he has been an habitual criminal. It would be quite wrong if we were now to judge him in this way. It would be quite
  1276
  wrong to assume that, because of his past behaviour, there is no hope whatsoever for this man going right in the future.
  The main point of my plea is that we must judge Mr. Bright in the light of what he has been through. I am not thinking of past sentences. I am not thinking of the past years spent in prison. I am thinking of the grievous sense of injustice under which he is at present labouring and of the great pain and physical hardship which he suffered as a result of the accident. I believe and hope that these things together have taught him a lesson. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State can show some way for Mr. Bright to find a new lease of life. If he is to continue to serve out his sentence I feel that there will be no prospect for his retaining any sense of hope in the future. I may have understood him completely wrong, and the hon. and learned Gentleman may have other reports on him. I admit that I have only the correspondence by which to judge him, but we have exchanged many letters.
  I emphasise that his experiences make me feel that there is every justification, even at this late stage in a somewhat protracted criminal career, for giving him the benefit of the doubt. In these circumstances, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say at the very least that there is a possibility, or that he will examine the possibility, of giving Mr. Bright some form of extended parole, or at any rate of relaxing the severity of his detention during the remaining months that he is in gaol, so that he can be assisted to become a more useful and helpful member of the community?
  That is the sum total of the case I have to put. It is the case of a man who has not been a useful member of the community in the past; who knows the inside of a great number of prisons; who has known what it is to be punished; who has a curious sense of fairness in these matters, and who feels that when he has committed a crime and been found guilty he should pay the penalty, but who in this instance feels that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. He therefore pleads for special consideration, and it is that plea that I put before the House tonight.
  9.47 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) for raising the case in the way he has. It has always been treated as part of the job of the Home Office to consider representations by hon. Members on behalf of prisoners that they have been wrongly convicted or sentenced too heavily. Therefore, when the hon. Member took up the case of Bright with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State early last year it was examined very carefully by the Home Office, and as a result of the hon. Member's present representation we have again examined it very carefully.
  It is very important to bring before the House the main facts as we see them, some of which have already been referred to by the hon. Member. Then I can deal with the specific points which the hon. Member has raised. The facts of this case are that on the night of 8th-9th March, 1964, a tobacconist's and confectioner's shop in Harrow was broken into, and cash, cigarettes, cigars and other property worth a total of nearly £500 were taken. A stolen Vauxhall motor car was used for the escape, and it was later involved in a serious collision with a taxi cab.
  Bright and another man, Solez, were found in the wreckage, surrounded by cartons of cigarettes, the rest of the stolen property and house-breaking equipment. Both men were taken to hospital, Bright with a suspected broken neck. There was no sign of the third man who was later said by Bright to have been in the car with them, and it has been impossible to trace any such person. The other man in the car with Bright was discharged from hospital next day and charged with breaking and enterings, stealing from the shop in Harrow, being in possession of house-breaking equipment, and taking and driving away the Vauxhall car and using it without insurance. At Harrow magistrates' court on 17th March he pleaded guilty to all the charges and at Middlesex Sessions he was sentenced to Borstal training.
  As Bright was in hospital, there was delay in dealing with him, but he was discharged from hospital on 19th March and he was then charged at Harrow police station. The story he told was that he had been asleep at the home of
  1278
  the man found in the car when, early in the morning of 9th March, this man and the third person had arrived in a stolen car with a quantity of property which they had stolen, and—as the hon. Gentleman said—they had asked for his help to dispose of the goods. He said he would agree to go with them to a receiver in return for a share of the loot, but on the way he met with the accident with the taxicab.
  Bright was charged with the same offences as his companion in the car and also with receiving stolen property and allowing himself to be carried in a stolen vehicle. On 20th March at Harrow magistrates' court he was remanded in custody till 24th March, when he elected for summary trial. He pleaded not guilty to the breaking and entering and taking and driving away charges but guilty to the other four charges, including that of receiving. These pleas were all accepted. All the facts of the case and details of his previous convictions were presented to the court and he was committed for sentence to quarter sessions on the charges of receiving and being in possession of house-breaking implements, the other two charges connected with the unlawful use of the Vauxhall motor car being adjourned sine die.
  He was sentenced at Middlesex quarter sessions on 6th April to five years' imprisonment on the charge of receiving, to one year's concurrent imprisonment for possessing housebreaking implements, and in addition he was dealt with for an offence for which he had been put on probation on 27th February, for which six months' imprisonment consecutive to the five years was imposed. His earliest date of release, with continued good conduct, is 23rd November, 1967.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the following points: first, the question whether Bright was really fit enough to deal with his own case; second, whether the charge against him was incorrect because the goods were not in his possession; third, whether or not the sentence was too severe and, I gather, whether the Royal Prerogative can be used to reduce Bright's sentence; fourth, the question of parole.
  It is true that Bright had had a serious knock, but he was discharged from hospital and was not dealt with by the magistrates' court until five days after his discharge.

  1279
  He still wore a neck support which restricted movement of the head, but there was no evidence to suggest that he was not in full possession of his faculties then or, for that matter, when on 6th April he appeared before the Middlesex quarter sessions for sentence.
  Was the charge incorrect because the goods were not in Bright's possession? Quite apart from the hon. Gentleman's representations, Bright has himself made similar representations that he was merely an accessory and, therefore, the maximum sentence was two years' imprisonment only. But the difficulty from Bright's point of view is that, according to his own story, the terms on which he agreed to lead the thieves to a place where they could dispose of the stolen property were that he himself would have a share of the proceeds, and it was this fact which led to the charge of receiving being lodged against him.
  Sir J. Eden: Did he in fact share in the proceeds?
  Mr. Taverne: I am coming to that. The law on receiving is not quite as simple as, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman or laymen generally may believe. I have no authority to give a binding ruling about the application of the law to a particular case. All I can say is that there is no reason to suppose that this was a wrong conviction. The fact that the accident prevented Bright from taking his share of the proceeds and that he has, therefore, been convicted on the basis of his intentions and not his deeds does not lead to the conclusion that he was wrongly convicted. This appears to be the misconception. It seems to be the fact that Bright became a receiver the moment that he agreed to accept a share of the stolen goods, and what happened later is irrelevant.
  Was the sentence too severe? The sentence to be imposed for a particular offence is, subject to any limitation by statute, entirely a matter for the courts to determine in the light of all the circumstances of the offence and of the offender.
  The maximum sentence for receiving stolen property is 14 years' imprisonment. When Bright was sentenced in 1964, it was, as the hon. Gentleman has said, not the first occasion on which he appeared
  1280
  before the court. He had previously served two terms of imprisonment which were longer than the present term for serious offences against property, in addition to a number of shorter sentences.
  The Home Secretary has no authority to act as a further court of appeal or as a reviewing body. He can recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy or remission of sentence, but it would be right for him to do so only in the most exceptional case and only where new circumstances had come to light. There is nothing new in this case. The court passed sentence on Bright in full knowledge of the circumstances in which the offences were committed and also of the very serious injuries he had received and the condition he was in when he appeared before the court.
  The last question is whether, in the absence of special remission, perhaps there might be some provision for parole. I am afraid that the question of parole would only become possible under the new proposals which will be contained in the Criminal Justice Bill. They were outlined in the White Paper, The Adult Offender, which envisaged that prisoners not regarded as a risk to the public and likely to respond to generous treatment should be eligible for release on licence after serving one-third of their sentence or twelve months, whichever is the longer.
  Legislation is required before this proposal can be brought into effect and if it is approved by Parliament I hope that the proposal will become law during the present Session. But one cannot forecast when it would come into operation, so again I cannot say what the effect would be on this prisoner.
  In conclusion, I can only say that I can understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised this case. We have very carefully considered it on several occasions at his request and also in response to petitions from the prisoner, but I am sorry to say that there are no grounds which can be found which would justify my right hon. Friend's taking the very exceptional course of recommending any remission of Bright's sentence.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.

COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Immigrants (Medical Examination)
  Immigrants (Medical Examination)
  Zambia (British Subjects)
  Zambia (British Subjects)
  Rhodesia (Commonwealth and Foreign Representation)
  Rhodesia (Commonwealth and Foreign Representation)
SEYCHELLES
  Civil Airfield
  Civil Airfield
GIBRALTAR
  Status
  Status
  Secretary of State's Visit
  Secretary of State's Visit
  Economic Guarantees
  Economic Guarantees
  Spanish Frontier (Crossings)
  Spanish Frontier (Crossings)
  Development Plan
  Development Plan
MAURITIUS
  Demonstrations
  Demonstrations
HONG KONG
  European Civil Servants
  European Civil Servants
  Secretary of State's Visit
  Secretary of State's Visit
PACIFIC TERRITORIES
  Visit
  Visit
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Continental Shelf (Licences)
  Continental Shelf (Licences)
  Petroleum Geologists
  Petroleum Geologists
  Nuclear Power Stations (Costing)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Costing)
  European Coal and Steel Community
  European Coal and Steel Community
  Economic Section (Professional Staff)
  Economic Section (Professional Staff)
  Oil (Extraction)
  Oil (Extraction)
  Nationalised Steel Industry (Workers' Participation)
  Nationalised Steel Industry (Workers' Participation)
COAL
  Mines (Extracted Water)
  Mines (Extracted Water)
  Coke (Prices)
  Coke (Prices)
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Price Increase
  Price Increase
ELECTRICITY
  Electricity Boards (Selective Employment Tax)
  Electricity Boards (Selective Employment Tax)
  Power Stations (Natural Gas)
  Power Stations (Natural Gas)
GAS
  Natural Gas (Strikes)
  Natural Gas (Strikes)
  Steel Pipe (Imports)
  Steel Pipe (Imports)
  Scottish Gas Board (Capital Deficit)
  Scottish Gas Board (Capital Deficit)
TECHNOLOGY
  Radio and Electronic Components
  Radio and Electronic Components
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Close Companies (Finance Act 1965)
  Close Companies (Finance Act 1965)
  Welfare Services
  Welfare Services
  War Loan (Holders)
  War Loan (Holders)
  Travel Allowance
  Travel Allowance
  Pay Agreements (Negotiations)
  Pay Agreements (Negotiations)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Bank Advances
  Bank Advances
  Metal, Engineering and Allied Industries (Statistics)
  Metal, Engineering and Allied Industries (Statistics)
  Dividends (Increase Exemptions)
  Dividends (Increase Exemptions)
  Gramophone Record (Import from America)
  Gramophone Record (Import from America)
  Civil Servants (Overtime Payments)
  Civil Servants (Overtime Payments)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Hard Currency Areas (School Fees)
  Hard Currency Areas (School Fees)
  Treasury (Staff Restaurant)
  Treasury (Staff Restaurant)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  National Plan
  National Plan
HOME DEPARTMENT
  George Blake
  George Blake
  Wormwood Scrubs Prison (Security Inspection)
  Wormwood Scrubs Prison (Security Inspection)
  FRANCE (BRUSSELS TREATY)
  FRANCE (BRUSSELS TREATY)
  "S.O.E. IN FRANCE"
  "S.O.E. IN FRANCE"
  BRITISH COUNCIL AND B.B.C. (GRANTS)
  BRITISH COUNCIL AND B.B.C. (GRANTS)
  NON-NUCLEAR ZONES, EUROPE (DISCUSSIONS)
  NON-NUCLEAR ZONES, EUROPE (DISCUSSIONS)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  British Forces, Germany (Petrol Subsidies)
  British Forces, Germany (Petrol Subsidies)
  Band Establishments
  Band Establishments
  Music (Teaching)
  Music (Teaching)
  Economies
  Economies
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Libya
  Libya
  Cyprus, Libya, Malta and Gibraltar (Storemen)
  Cyprus, Libya, Malta and Gibraltar (Storemen)
  Malta
  Malta
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Dockyard, Gibraltar (Cost)
  Dockyard, Gibraltar (Cost)
  Scots Guards Pipe Band (Engagement)
  Scots Guards Pipe Band (Engagement)
  COMMISSIONERS FOR ADMINISTRATION
  COMMISSIONERS FOR ADMINISTRATION
  PACIFIC (COLONIAL SECRETARY'S VISIT)
  PACIFIC (COLONIAL SECRETARY'S VISIT)
  DEFENCE REVIEW (TALKS)
  DEFENCE REVIEW (TALKS)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  FOREIGN POLICY (SPECIALIST COMMITTEE)
  FOREIGN POLICY (SPECIALIST COMMITTEE)
  MINISTERS (OVERSEAS VISITS)
  MINISTERS (OVERSEAS VISITS)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Aberporth (Apprentices)
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Aberporth (Apprentices)
  Research and Development Establishments (Agreements)
  Research and Development Establishments (Agreements)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  General Practitioners (Numbers)
  General Practitioners (Numbers)
HOUSING
  Council Houses (Rent Increases)
  Council Houses (Rent Increases)
  Three-Bedroom Houses, London (Increased Cost)
  Three-Bedroom Houses, London (Increased Cost)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Non-Conforming Industry
  Non-Conforming Industry
  Unadopted Roads
  Unadopted Roads
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Staff Restaurant (Prices)
  Staff Restaurant (Prices)
  Mineworkers (Redundancy Payments)
  Mineworkers (Redundancy Payments)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Selective Employment Tax (Advertising Cost)
  Selective Employment Tax (Advertising Cost)
  Unemployment (West Suffolk)
  Unemployment (West Suffolk)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Telephonists (Christmas Arrangements)
  Telephonists (Christmas Arrangements)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Radio Programmes (Free Publicity)
  Radio Programmes (Free Publicity)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Unit Trusts (Managers' Shares)
  Unit Trusts (Managers' Shares)
ROADS
  Double White Lines
  Double White Lines
  Congestion (Cost)
  Congestion (Cost)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Registrations)
  Motor Vehicles (Registrations)
  Departmental Committees
  Departmental Committees
  Route Mileage
  Route Mileage
RAILWAYS
  Workshops
  Workshops
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SOUTH AFRICA AND DEFENCE
2.36 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: 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 have any statement to make about discussions with the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding the defence of "the West" and, in particular, regarding the Simonstown Naval Base.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, as discussions are still going on with the South African Government about reductions in our naval presence there, I cannot at this stage reveal details of the proposals we have made. I can, however, assure noble Lords that we are not on our side proposing any changes in the Simonstown Agreements. These, as noble Lords know, provide for co-operation between the British and South African Governments on matters relating to defence of sea routes.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for a more hopeful Answer than I had expected? Is he aware that on September 27 and 28 last the Minister of Defence in the House of Assembly in Cape Town said he hoped that the West would think again in view of the importance of the matter to the West of the Cape of Good Hope route? May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are contributing towards this process of thinking again?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am aware of the remarks to which the noble Lord refers, and I can assure him that we are thinking the whole time. "Thinking again" rather connotes that at one time we stopped thinking. That is an assertion I would not accept.

HOUSE OF LORDS' CARPET
2.38 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have put a red stripe down the carpet on each side of the House.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord has raised a matter of great importance to the business of the House. I hope the House will accept the view that a question of this type might perhaps in future be more suitably addressed to the Chairman of Committees, who is Chairman of the Administration Committee which is responsible for the area in which the House of Lords conducts its business.
I understand that there are two very clear precedents for this stripe. If we refer to the portraits which can be found in your Lordships' House, there is, for instance, in the West Front Corridor a picture by Mr. F. Sargent bearing the date 1880. From that it can be seen that there is a stripe running the full length of your Lordships' Chamber. Furthermore, I believe that in the Bishops' Corridor there is a portrait of your Lordships' House sitting during the Home Rule debate, and although the stripe is not as distinct as the one in the picture hanging in the West Front Corridor, it is quite clearly there.
The noble Lord may remember that before the recent renovations in this House there was sisal matting throughout, which contained strips of carpet with an edging of colour. The view then taken was that this represented the old stripe which was evident in those portraits. It was decided by the Administration Committee on February 8—and the noble Lord himself is a very distinguished member of that Committee—that when the new carpet was laid the stripe should be included. The House may be interested

783
to know that there is no reference in our Standing Orders to this particular stripe. Therefore, the noble Lords who sit on the Cross-Benches will not be inhibited in addresing us from their place. If I may give a personal view, I think it is a very considerable improvement.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that very long and detailed reply. I will certainly bear in mind what he said about where such questions should in future be addressed. But may I draw his attention to the painting in the Cholmondeley Room, which bears no date but which shows no stripe; and at the same time to the painting in the Bishops' Corridor which again I think does not show the stripe. Is it not possible that some mistake occurred in the painting in the Ministers' Corridor? Furthermore, is it not a fact that such a stripe is not needed in this House, where the presence of the Lords Spiritual is probably enough to curb the exuberance of the Lords Temporal?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should not wish to reduce the precedents which I have quoted, but the noble Lord will be aware that there is such a thing as artist's licence, which may have applied in the recent portrait of your Lordships' House. In regard to the Bishops, well, we know that our present Bishops are well behaved, but history records that that has not always been the case.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that the increasing use of green in the carpets and elsewhere in this House does not mark an insidious infiltration from another place?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I gather that in the past the carpets were green. I am not sure whether I am colour blind, but I have been informed that this colour is blue. However, I think that the pink breaks up the blueness—there may be no political significance in this—and makes it a little more palatable—shall I say?—to noble Lords on this side of the House.

COMPANY DIVIDENDS
2.42 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in regard to company dividends the twelve-month standstill period is intended to be the year beginning on 20th July within which any dividend payment (other than an interim dividend payment) falls, or a company's financial year; and if the latter, which financial year.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, companies should not distribute more to shareholders in respect of a financial year than in respect of the preceding financial year, and they should not pay out more to shareholders in the twelve months after July 20, 1966, than in the twelve months before that date.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether that makes it quite clear that the period of limitation is one of twelve months only, in the same way as it is for prices and also for earnings?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I say in the first instance that this restraint applies to the twelve months running from July 20. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, with his wide experience in terms of our economic situation, would agree that even after these twelve months which we are now considering we shall have to have the same form of restraint, and I think this would apply not only in terms of general incomes but also to dividends.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask further whether there is to be any difference in regard to dividends in the period of severe restraint, as compared with the period of standstill?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the request which the Government have made to directors of companies to restrict their dividends so that they do not exceed those of the previous twelve months applies for the full period of the twelve months.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to make a Business Statement to explain why I do not propose to move the Business of the House Motion, standing in my name on the Order Paper, later this afternoon. Because of the present position with regard to Southern Rhodesia, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whom we all welcome back most cordially today, has decided not to move the Motion which has until to-day stood in his name for next Thursday. The Government would be glad to find a day for a debate on Southern Rhodesia at a later date, after consultation, or (shall we say?) when there is something new to discuss. The House, therefore, will continue to have on the Order Paper the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1966, which my noble friend Lord Beswick will move, and I venture to hope that because of the present situation the House will agree that this should be debated very briefly. The time of the meeting of the House next Thursday will in the circumstances revert to 3 o'clock.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I, first of all, thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for his kind words? I hope he will still think the same way in a week or two's time. The noble Earl is quite right in saying that I do not intend to move the Motion in my name. I do not think that it would be at all useful to do so this week. Nevertheless, it may very well be, depending upon the events of the next few days, that it will be necessary that there should be a debate of that kind in your Lordships' House. I would ask the noble Earl whether he would bear that in mind and, if necessary, make time for a debate of that kind.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I will certainly do everything in my power to meet the noble Lord, who is always so reasonable on these matters.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there are some of us in the House who have taken a rather strong view on the sanctions and might, I think, wish to say a very few words on Thursday when this Order is laid before your Lordships. But I can assure the noble Earl, so far
786
as I am concerned at any rate, that my words will be very few.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am usually sorry to hear that, but not so sorry on this occasion.

TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL
2.47 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will be aware that the development of Tees-side has been stimulated in the last few years by its declaration as a development area in 1963 and by its inclusion in the North-East growth zone under the then Government's White Paper of November, 1963. Special incentives have been given to industry to foster the development of the area and to provide employment in the North-East.
This Bill, promoted by the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Board, would authorise the construction of a new, large impounding reservoir at Cow Green in Upper Teesdale. The reservoir is required to enable the Board to provide a reliable supply of water of up to 25 million gallons per day to Imperial Chemical Industries Limited for the purpose of major extensions of their chemical work sat Billingham and Wilton and for a new refinery at North Tees. A further 10 million gallons per day is required for other industries, particularly Dorman Long & Company, the Shell Refining Company and the Industrial Estates Management, together with additional provision for domestic consumers.
There is some urgency. The construction of the reservoir would take three years, and the earliest date by which it could supply water to meet these industrial and domestic demands would be the mid-1970s. If the water required for industrial use on Tees-side is not available as a reliable supply by the end of 1970, production, particularly at the I.C.I. works, would be at risk if there were a drought. A drought such as we had in 1959, which lasted for five months, could cause loss of production amounting to many millions of pounds. Loss of this magnitude in the chemical industry would affect other British industry, and also, of course, our export trade.

787
May I now turn to consultation with other interests prior to the promotion of the Bill? I.C.I. informed the Water Board of their need for an additional supply in July, 1964. The Board instructed their engineers, and from the autumn of 1964 there have been extensive discussions between the Board, their engineers, the Nature Conservancy, the North Umbrian River Authority and many other interested bodies, including, of course, the local planning authorities.
My Lords, to a scheme of this magnitude there are almost bound to be some objections, and it is the duty of the promoters to meet those objections so far as is humanly possible. I would claim that that has been done in this instance. There is an objection to this Bill by certain botanists. I think it only fair to point out that when consulted in 1964 the Nature Conservancy encouraged the Water Board to think that the Cow Green site would be acceptable, and as I understand it this was still the case in October, 1966. However, they now feel that they have cause for reservations.
LORD CHORLEY: October, 1966—thisyear?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords, this year; in fact when the Bill was before a Select Committee of the House of Commons.
It would be foolish not to admit that there are not alternative sites. To the engineer, given enough money, almost anything is possible. There are three practical possibilities: first, the Cow Green site now proposed; second, a much larger reservoir near Middleton-in-Teesdale; and, third, a reservoir higher up Cow Green Valley. There are, of course, arguments for and against all these sites. The Water Resources Board concluded that the site at Cow Green was to be preferred, for the reason that development of either the Upper Cow Green site or the Middleton site would involve considerable extra cost in money, labour and materials, and that neither of the two alternatives could be completed by the time the additional water is required.
Your Lordships may have received a statement issued by the National Farmers' Union, but in case there are those who have not had it I should like, with your
788
Lordships' permission, to read one or two extracts from it.
"The National Farmers' Union recognise that the need for and urgency of a further reservoir in Teesdale has been clearly established, both in the Report of the Water Resources Board and in evidence to the Commons Select Committee. Because of this, and for the reasons mentioned below, the Union is in the rather unusual position of advocating the construction of a reservoir on agricultural land—but land of low agricultural value—at the Cow Green site as proposed in the Bill".
They go on later to say:
"If it is proper to consider the botanical arguments related to a small sector of the proposed site, it is surely also pertinent to consider the main human and farming implications of the siting of a reservoir at Cow Green by comparison to one at Middleton-in-Teesdale. This latter site is perhaps most often cited as the most suitable alternative, but in any case it provides a fairly representative example of the kind of damage which would be caused on the alternative sites generally."
My Lords, the Union also say in this statement:
"In terms of hardship to families, a reservoir at Middleton would affect 39 agricultural holdings, of which 34 are full-time and 5 part-time. Of these, 30 would virtually lose their whole identity and 20 families would have their homes submerged. The homes of 10 families would be just clear of the top water level but it is doubtful, because of the drastically reduced acreages, whether these families could continue to live and farm there. By contrast, no homes at all would be submerged by Cow Green".
This statement concluded:
"In terms of human disruption and hardship, and the permanent and unnecessary waste of the valuable natural resource of agricultural land, it is, therefore, clear that the most likely alternative to the Cow Green site is highly objectionable. It is accordingly hoped that members of the House of Lords will feel able to support the reservoir site as proposed in this Bill".
In addition, the Bill is supported by the Durham County Council, the West-morland County Council, the North-East Development Council and the North Umbrian River Authority. And, my Lords, since arriving here to-day I have had five letters from urban district councils in the area all urging support for the Bill. I understand, too, that the Bill has the support of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and of the Board of Trade. I would also call attention to the fact that, after a hearing lasting thirteen days, the Bill was approved by a Select Committee of the House of Commons.
My Lords, I have tried briefly, and I am afraid inadequately, to set out the purpose of the Bill. Few of us are skilled

789
advocates, and in the time available, whether we are for or against the Bill, we cannot assimilate and develop all the arguments and facts. This can be done only by a Select Committee. I urge your Lordships, therefore, to give a Second Reading to the Bill, for it is only before the Select Committee that the promoters of the Bill can make their case and be challenged on it, and it is only before the Select Committee that the objectors can fully make their case and be questioned on it. Your Lordships will have seen that there is on the Order Paper a Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for an Instruction to the Committee. On behalf of the promoters of this Bill, I gladly accept that Instruction to the Committee. We take pride in the quality of our Select Committees; they provide the proper place for ascertaining the facts, and the House will be able to judge the future course of this Bill on their Report. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lindgren.)
2.58 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON had given Notice of his intention to move, in the event of the Bill being read a second time, That in view of the scientific and amenity importance of the site proposed to be submerged, it be an Instruction to the Select Committee that they give special consideration to—

(a) the need to provide a supply of water which will meet the foreseeable needs of Teesside for at least the next twenty years; and

(b) other sites for reservoirs, and other methods of supplying water to meet the needs of the more immediate future,

and whether in the light of those considerations the proposals in the Bill provide the best solution to the problem of water supplies in the area.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill has been good enough to say that he is prepared to accept the Instruction standing in my name, which I shall move on behalf of a number of my noble friends. After consulting the authorities of the House, I understand that it might be convenient for us to have the general debate upon this large and important issue upon the Second Reading of the Bill, and so I propose to move the Instruction formally
790
after the Second Reading has been carried. I would ask your Lordships' permission to reply briefly at the end of the debate as an alternative to my recapitulating the general arguments in favour of the Instruction, which would be unnecessary. I would prefer to reply to the general debate on the Second Reading, and merely to move the Instruction formally; and I am very glad that the noble Lord has indicated that he would be glad to accept it.
My Lords, we are not opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. We are in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, that it is most desirable that a Bill of this great importance and wide extent should be fully probed by a Select Committee upstairs. The investigation that took place in another place could not be described as entirely adequate. There were a number of matters that were raised upon which the promoters of the Bill were not able at that time to give a final answer, and I hope that by the time the Bill has been considered by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House a good deal will have been discovered about the effect of this Bill. It is, of course, noteworthy that in another place, of the four Members who sat upon the Select Committee, one came out strongly against the Bill. So strong, indeed, was the feeling in another place that what occurred on that occasion was not customary and the Third Reading of the Bill was opposed. A large number of Labour Members, despite their anxious concern about employment on Tees-side, were among the 82 Members of that place who voted against the Bill, as compared with the 112 who supported it.
The proposals in this Bill are that Cow Green should be submerged under a reservoir. This area is a site of special scientific interest. I am not going to develop the argument about its unique botanical interest and importance; I shall leave that to my noble friend Lord Hurcomb. I would only say that it is clear that there must be great substance in the botanical arguments that have been put forward, for this reason. I.C.I. have offered a grant of £100,000 for what is called "a crash programme of research" into the unique botanical specimens growing there before that site, if this Bill

791
be carried, is submerged under water. I.C.I. are not only a great industrial concern but have on their board and among their employees men of the greatest scientific distinction. If I.C.I. are prepared to vote £100,000 of their shareholders' money for "a crash programme of scientific research" that surely is conclusive proof that what is going to be submerged is of great scientific value.
In the second place, it is among the unspoiled wild scenery of Upper Teasdale, just above Caldron Snout which is generally admitted to be one of the two finest waterfalls in the United Kingdom. Also, the Pennine Way—that attractive and rather romantic track along the Pennines which was completed only last year—would have to be diverted. If I may be permitted a personal note, I may say that it leads from my late constituency to the village in Scotland where I live at the present time. The main argument against these proposals is once more that they are a short-time expedient to deal with a need which was not foreseen. When the Balder head Reservoir Scheme obtained Parliamentary approval in 1959 an assurance was given by the Tees-side Water Board that it would meet their requirements up to 1980. After it has been completed, Cow Green will meet the requirements of Tees-side for only from four to ten years.
I should like to quote what was said by the chief engineer of the Water Board on this subject. It is a clear indication that the Tees-side Water Board have not taken a long view of the future, that they are going on from hand to mouth. He said (Page 23 of the evidence):
"The allowance we are making for future industrial use is quite modest in respect of industrial demands and nothing at all for I.C.I."
It has long been the accepted policy of both political Parties to have a national water policy in which all the water resources of this country are surveyed and made available where and when they are required. As one of the Labour speakers in the House of Commons pointed out in the debate, that is why the Labour Party have for long fought for nationalisation of water supplies. They believe that is the only way in which there can be a national long-term water policy.
The late Conservative Government did not advocate nationalisation; but they also were anxious that there should be a national water policy. It was largely as a result of the initiative of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when Minister of Housing and Local Government, that the Water Resources Act was passed and that we now have the Water Resources Board. They were asked to look at this problem, but because of the short-term way in which it has been dealt with they did not have time to make any proper survey. Further, when the Minister of Land and Natural Resources was recommending this Bill to the House of Commons—as he did in what perhaps was one of the most apologetic speeches I can remember reading on the part of a sponsoring Minister—he said:
"I realise that in this case the advice I have to give to the House is partial and hurried because we have been working against time and all that the Board has been able to do is to give the best advice it could in the time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 732 (No. 64), Commons, col. 2018; 28/7/66.]
My Lords, here we are being invited at short notice to authorise the building of a reservoir, which is going to do great harm to scientific and amenity interests, in order to deal with the short-term requirements of I.C.I. and, to a very much smaller extent, of Dorman Long. The time-table in this is a matter of great interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, admitted, it was not until July, 1964, that I.C.I. indicated to the Tees-side Water Board that in the fairly near future, by 1969, if possible, they required an extra 25 million gallons of water a day. They had, in fact the previous January placed the orders for the plant which would require this water. Therefore they had gone ahead with their plans without making certain that the water they required would be available. There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, indicated, alternative possibilities for the resorvoir. It is not my purpose to-day necessarily to say which is the right scheme to adopt. That is what my Instruction instructs the Select Committee to go into very carefully.
But here we have this proposal for Cow Green which, on the admission of the Water Resources Board, in the hurried investigation that they have been able to make, supported by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, would not be likely to meet the total requirements of

793
Tees-side for more than four to a maximum of ten years after the completion of that reservoir. Surely, it would be far better to wait for the promised report of the Water Resources Board; and it may well be that they would recommend the Middleton reservoir in place of the Cow Green reservoir. It might take longer to build—it probably would. It might cost more—it probably would. But it would make available to Tees-side twice the volume of water that will be available from Cow Green; and there is really no reason why Imperial Chemical Industries should not be prepared to pay a reasonably economic price for the water that they and other dwellers on Tees-side require.
The great attraction of this reservoir from their point of view is that it is estimated that the cost of the water will be 1s. 1d. per 1,000 gallons, compared with an average price of industrial water throughout this country of 3s. per 1,000 gallons. There is clearly in that margin ample opportunity for I.C.I. to pay a higher price for the water in order to preserve amenities and to ensure that an adequate supply of water is provided for the future.
There is another reason why the policy of the Tees-side Water Board has been a hand-to-mouth one. They have come to Parliament three times in twelve years for authority to build a new reservoir, and all the indications are that they will have to come again in the fairly near future. The policy of the Tees-side Water Board has been to obtain advances of capital from the large industrial water consumers so as to avoid their having to incur a heavy capital debt for that planned large-scale and comprehensive development of the water resources of Tees-side which is what is required. Again I quote from the speech of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources upon this subject. He said of the Water Resources Board:
"It is now conducting a survey of the North, and I hope to get at any rate an interim report by the end of the year."
The Minister goes on to say, as regards the future:
"We must see that we have proper information so that, in future."—
and he is contrasting the future with this Bill before us now—
794
"we find ourselves less and less forced into making ad hoc decisions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 732 (No. 64), col. 2018, 28/7/66.]
My Lords, I would conclude by summarising my argument. We should not allow ourselves to be hustled into submerging for all time a site of unique scientific value and of unspoiled loveliness, simply to avert a danger, if there were three or four dry summers between 1970 and 1975, of the temporary stoppage of industrial plant ordered before any request had been made to the Water Board for the water that would be needed. It is very important to realise exactly what is the risk against which this Bill is intended to provide. I quote again from the Minister:
"There would be a grave risk if there were a succession of three or four dry summers."
My Lords, can those of us who have lived through the last few summers really feel that there is any great danger of three or four successive dry summers in the near future? In preference to this panic measure, which will do so much harm, we should, in my submission, invite the Select Committee to go into the matter and we should await the promised assessment by the Water Resources Board of the estimated needs of Tees-side, including I.C.I., over the next twenty years, taking into account factors relating to preservation, water policy, industry and finance.
3.17 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I think that it might be for the convenience of the House were I to intervene at this stage in the debate, very briefly, in order to indicate to your Lordships certain procedural considerations in relation both to the Bill and to the Instruction which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, proposes to move if this Bill is given a Second Reading. As in the case of certain other Private Bills over which controversy has arisen, I feel that it might be an advantage to the House, and in particular to those of your Lordships who are not normally much concerned with Private Bills, were I to mention as briefly as possible certain procedural considerations which affect this Bill.
I should like first to emphasise that in giving a Second Reading to a Private Bill the House does not, as in the case

795
of a Public Bill, affirm the principle of the Bill. The normal practice in the present century is that the House contents itself with giving a formal Second Reading to a Private Bill, for there are few issues on Private Bills which the House can properly decide without the benefit of hearing parties and witnesses: the promoters, the petitioners and any witnesses whom they may wish to call to evidence on their behalf. It is therefore accepted practice by your Lordships to leave the consideration of, and the effective adjudication on, opposed Private Bills to Select Committees set up for the purpose.
I will come now, if I may, to the Instruction standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. I should like to start by saying that in my view its terms are unobjectionable and would not unduly influence or fetter in any way the Committee to which the Bill may be committed by your Lordships. Therefore, from the procedural point of view, the Motion would be acceptable to the House. However, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that all the matters raised in the Instruction will be considered by the Select Committee on the Bill in the normal course of events.
There are two petitions against the Bill, presented by a number of societies interested in nature conservation and the preservation of amenities; and without going into any detail, I can say that both of them specifically refer to the necessity to find a long-term solution to the problem of the water supply of Tees-side rather than, as they submit, the short-term solution contained in the provisions of the Bill. This covers the first part of the Instruction. Both petitions also contend that if, in default of any other solution, a reservoir has ultimately to be built, the site proposed in the Bill is not the most suitable, and the necessary reservoir should be constructed elsewhere and of sufficient capacity to meet the future demands of the area. This, I think your Lordships will agree, covers the second part of the Instruction.
In view of what I have said, I think it will be apparent to the House that the attention of the Committee will be drawn by the petitions to all the matters referred to in the Instruction. However, I should like to point out to your Lordships that whereas the Select Committee of this
796
House on Private Bills do not normally set out in their Report the considerations and reasons which have led to their recommendations, in cases where an Instruction to the Select Committee has been passed by the House the Committee usually makes a special report dealing with the points raised in the Instruction. I think I have dealt with the main procedural points arising out of the Bill and the Instruction.
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, as I am a native of North Yorkshire and know all this area very well, and as I have been at considerable pains to try to ascertain all the major facts about this proposal, I should like to intervene for a few moments because I think that I may be able to give some assistance to the House. I believe that we shall all agree that in order to form a right judgment on any proposal it is the facts that matter and must weigh with us. Fortunately, here nearly all the important facts are not in dispute. Of course, there can be a difference of opinion as to what are the right conclusions to be drawn from those facts, but I think I shall be able, as briefly as I can, to satisfy your Lordships that there really is no dispute about the main facts.
The need for a large supply of water in Tees-side is urgent. For many years this has been a great, developing industrial area. It is fortunate it has been, because we have all been gravely anxious about unemployment on the North-East Coast, and to-day in addition to the great developments which have already taken place vast new industrial enterprises are under construction. It was said by my noble friend Lord Molson, rather pontifically, if he will forgive my saying so, that I.C.I. had no business to engage in those great enterprises until they had made sure that the water would be available. Well, I.C.I. are not only a great company, but also a generous employer. And, knowing Tees-side as I do, I cannot think that it was wrong to go ahead with these vast schemes, which will give employment to thousands of men on Tees-side.
To give your Lordships some idea of the size of these new enterprises—which, it is said, should not have been undertaken—I.C.I. alone (and there are other industries also involved) have invested

797
over £300 million of new capital in this area. This should increase the already great production of I.C.I. in the area from £230 million a year to over £400 million. And for this and other developments (the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, referred to Dorman Long, among others) at least 35 million gallons a day extra will be required by 1970. Unless new extra supplies are forthcoming before that date, the new undertakings, it is almost certain, will be unable to work to capacity. If they were not able to work to capacity, that would have the most damaging effect, not only on the economy of Tees-side, in itself very important, but also on the nation-wide production of a vast variety of industries which draws essential supplies from Tees-side. It would also have—and how important this is going to be for us, not only now but in the years to come!—a grave and damaging effect upon an already great and what should be a growing export trade; and thousands of men who should find work would be unemployed. Of course, it is for the Committee to go into all this, and promoters must always prove their case.
It has been said that we need not worry, because it would require a succession of dry years before serious difficulties would arise. My information is different from that. I know that my noble friend Lord Molson based himself on something which was said by a Minister, but even Ministers, to whichever side they belong, are not necessarily always right. I am advised that even if we had as unpleasant and wet year as this year has been, although we had water pouring down the hills all the time, even if there were enough to maintain the level of the other reservoirs which serve Tees-side, there would still be a grave risk that there would not be enough water unless this reservoir was constructed.
We certainly, please God! cannot count on having the sort of awful year we have had this year. My mind goes back only a few years to one dry summer, when the great Leeds reservoir, which is on my home—and which, I may say, has added greatly to the beauty and amenity of a part of the country, I think not less beautiful than the upper lines of Tees-side—fell 80 feet. It was practically dry. And that was the summer in which Leeds had been more foreseeing
798
than others and had several reservoirs to draw upon. Noble Lords who come from Yorkshire will remember that the strictest and most painful rationing had to be imposed in many of the Yorkshire towns. So I do not think that we can lightly say that it is only if we have a succession of dry years that difficulties will arise.
Not only the interests of the North-East coast but also the national interest will be affected by what we do to-day. If it is right to construct a reservoir, and if this water is necessary and nobody really disputes that—time is of the essence of the contract. It is said that the promoters ought to have started on this scheme earlier and ought to have been more foreseeing. That may be so; and I am not concerned to deny it. But if that be so, is it not all the more reason for going full steam ahead with this plan to-day?
What is unquestionable, and unquestioned, is that, if it is necessary to have this water by 1970, then there is no other site except Cow Green which can give the water within the time. Apart from enormously increased cost (and I am in favour of people paying the right price for water), alternative sites would take years longer. None of these facts is in dispute. It is true that there is an alternative site—in fact, there is more than one. There is an alternative site a good deal to the North, but again this would not only be more expensive, but take years longer to construct. There is also the alternative to which my noble friend appears to be greatly attached, and which was advocated by opponents when the Bill was in Committee in another place; that is, a reservoir in Middleton-in-Teesdale. I know the farming of all this area pretty well. It does not quite march with me, but it is the same sort of land, and not far from me.
If a reservoir were to be constructed at Middleton-in-Teesdale it would ruin a very prosperous agricultural community. There is no doubt about this. Twenty farms, all of them doing well, would be wholly and completely submerged. Another nineteen farms would be injuriously affected, so much so that a number of them, if not all, would cease to be viable or economic holdings. If Cow Green is used there is no agricultural interest involved: or, rather—I must

799
be accurate—there is a gate, as we call it in Yorkshire, a run for 500 moor sheep on the moor; but that is all the agricultural interest there is at Cow Green. And do let us remember, my Lords, that Cow Green is the only place which can supply the water in time.
The opposition to the Bill, as we have heard to-day—and I do not underrate it—comes from some, but by no means all, the botanists who know the area. Here again, just as on the industrial side, it is equally important to get our facts right. I know well and greatly enjoy—I visit the area every year—the Upper Teesdale waters, and I enjoy these fields of gentian, trollius, primula and bog violet: they are perfectly lovely. When I heard the outcry, I thought that these lovely areas must be going to be destroyed. But nothing of the sort. On going into the matter, I found that nothing is going to be touched—not a flower. These Elysian Fields we like so much lie much further down the river and will be entirely unaffected.
However, in addition to the flowers that so many of us know and love (I fully admit this), there are a number of small, insignificant flowers and grasses which are not of interest to the ordinary, unintelligent visitor like myself, who just loves beauty, but are of considerable botanical and scientific interest. The flora in this area, whether great or small, exist and flourish because of the nature of the limestone and soil. I speak here in this way as a layman. But, happily, this soil and this rock are of vast extent. One would think, to hear the speech of the noble Lord, that the whole of this was going to be jeopardised or destroyed.
Let us get the facts right. There are four major botanical areas in Teesdale, totalling about 5,000 acres. Of this great acreage some 17 acres will be submerged by the reservoir on Cow Green. Special importance is attached, and rightly so, to the species of rock called sugar limestone. The 17 acres which will be submerged by the reservoir is one-fifth of the sugar limestone area on Widdybank Fell. I am assured (and this was not denied, I understand, when evidence was given in Committee) that all the rare small plants which grow in the area to be submerged grow also in the sugar limestone
800
on the remaining four-fifths of Widdybank Fell. But the sugar limestone story does not end there. There is another great area of sugar limestone, a long way from the proposed reservoir, further down the river on the right bank, a place called Cronkley Fell. I understand that Cronkley Fell, which will not be affected at all, is from the point of view of botanical and scientific interest much more important than Widdybank Fell.
There is one other factor on the botanical side which I ought to mention. When the Bill was in Committee—and I agree that some evidence was then incomplete—great anxiety was expressed as to what grouting might be necessary in the construction of this reservoir, and what effect that might have. In this connection, importance was rightly attached to a series of boreholes which were being sunk to make the necessary tests of the rock. I have been at pains to ascertain the latest information about this. The result of these boreholes is now available and is entirely satisfactory. It shows that from the point of view of constructing a reservoir the rock is admirable and that the only grouting which will be necessary will be the ordinary grouting which always takes place in the construction of a reservoir, back in the whinstone at the base, which is not on this sugar limestone area at all. That, of course, could not affect any botanical interest.
It will, of course, be up to the promoters to establish these facts to the full satisfaction of the Select Committee of this House. They will be subject to examination and cross-examination, and we shall see whether the final report of the Committee bears out what I have said to-day. But I have done my best to make an impartial investigation. I have no interest in this except the national interest and my interest in Yorkshire and Tees-side. Unfortunately, I do not hold—I wish I did—a single share in I.C.I. or in Dorman Long, because I gather that under nationalisation I should make some money.
I have tried to get and to state the botanical facts as fairly as I have stated the industrial facts. I know that your Lordships, as you always do, will look at this problem without prejudice, in true perspective, and weigh fully and fairly the national interests involved. That is what

801
I have tried to do, and I trust that what I have said to-day may have been of some help to your Lordships in arriving at the right conclusion.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, before the noble Earl resumes his seat, would he mind me putting a question to him? Did he say 17 acres out of 3,000?
A NOBLE LORD: Three hundred.
LORD CHORLEY: I am sorry, I was not quite sure what the figure was.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: The area affected? Of the sugar limestone in Widdybank Fell, 17 acres, that is, one-fifth of the total amount, will be affected because it will be submerged. None of the sugar limestone in Cronkley Fell—that is, about 130 acres—can be affected at all.
LORD CHORLEY: It sounded as though the noble Earl said 17 out of 3,000 acres. I am not quite sure whether that is what he said.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I did not say 17 out of 3,000. The total botanical area in the nature reserve is about 5,000 acres. What will be affected, and the area on which interest was concentrated by the botanists and scientists, is the sugar limestone, and therefore we have to go particularly into that aspect. Of the sugar limestone—if the noble Lord knows what that is—17 acres, that is one-fifth of the total amount in Widdybank Fell, will be affected. In addition to that, there are 130 acres of sugar limestone in Cronkley Fell which will not be affected. I hope I have made that clear.
3.43 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I am not going to be rash enough to embark upon controversy with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, but I am sure that even his authority and his skill in advocacy will not have persuaded your Lordships that he has made an impartial or anything except an ex parte statement of the scientific case against the choice of this site. With regard to one or two of the points the noble Earl made, I think it was fair to say that I.C.I. had some good reason for going ahead with their plans. But what they said was that it was reasonable to assume, knowing the water resources of the whole of this area, that they would be able to get authority to use a
802
sufficiency of them. What they did not say was that they would demand this particular site, and then, some three years later, come along and say, "This site, and this only, we must have or else we shall be embarrassed". If there is any controversy on this point, I think it is for that reason.
There is one other point which perhaps I might get out of the way. I think in a way this is the strongest in the promoters' argument. They say that if there were a succession of droughts in the early 1970s they would be in difficulty if they did not get the particular source of supply for which they were asking. There is at the disposal of the Government the best meteorological and climatological advice in the world from our own Meteorological Office, and a statement from that organisation, rather than evidence before the Committee from this witness or from that, would be much more satisfying to those who feel doubts on that point.
Your Lordships must have been wondering why there is so strong an opposition to this Bill. The opposition arises, first, from the quite exceptional scientific importance of the site proposed for submergence and, secondly, from the unwillingness of the objectors to accept the easy argument that there is no practicable alternative. I am bound to take a little time in emphasising the scientific importance of the site. In the course of controversy the promoters, naturally enough, have gone too far in attempting to write off that importance. They say that the scientific importance is "much exaggerated" by "certain" botanists. Of course I should be the first to acquit I.C.I. of brushing aside scientific opinion or, at any rate, brushing it aside lightly. As one would expect, a body in which such distinguished men of science as Lord Fleck are influential is anxious not to appear to do that and in some respects, which I will mention later, they have offered to be helpful.
The issue is not that of a few flowers—lichens and dandelions as they were miscalled in another place—against water supplies so vital for industry and employment. The scientific case is very different from that, and language of that sort is merely the appeal of ignorance to prejudice. Naturalists are not opposed to, and do not wish to obstruct, the choice of another site which, we are convinced,

803
could be found in Teesdale itself. But the Teesdale assemblage of rare plants is unique. It is made up of a remarkable mixture of diverse elements, some Alpine, some Arctic, others still widespread in parts of North and Central Europe. It is indeed a relict flora surviving from an ancient type of vegetation, now very largely obliterated from temperate Europe.
This precarious assemblage is irreplaceable. That is a point to which I shall have to refer. If, on the other hand, it is allowed to survive, scientists believe that we can still learn something from these plants about evolution on the small scale and that some of those researches in time may even have practical value. But the effects of any such research must be cumulative, and can be secured only over decades or even centuries of observation. The Teesdale flora represents, as Professor Godwin of Cambridge has said:
"a stock of scientific capital the destruction of which would be a quite irreparable loss."
Three other areas, one in Cornwall, one in Scotland and one in the West of Ireland, contain some of these features, but I am assured that all these three areas differ from Upper Teesdale in significant respects, and that the value of the continued possibility of comparison and contrast between them is in itself an enhancement of their scientific value. All this, as the noble Lord said, can be established before a Select Committee if the Bill goes to one, though I hope that Parliamentary time will not be spent in disputing too long what is really beyond dispute.
There is no British botanist of repute, academic or amateur, who does not agree as to the uniqueness of the Teesdale flora, not taking one plant here and another plant there, but as an association of plants in an "unparalleled conjunction of circumstances". In that last phrase I am quoting from Professor Clapham of Sheffield, a most distinguished botanist who knows the area very well, and I regret that the promoters should have seen fit to suggest that he was not opposed to their scheme because he had not given evidence against it. His letter to The Times a few days ago made it clear that he is wholeheartedly opposed.
804
But scientific opposition is not confined to this country. In Lucerne last July at a meeting of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources I met many of the leading botanists and ecologists of Europe and from other countries further a field. They were all dismayed at this proposal. I have just received from their president a copy of a resolution which they passed and which I will venture to read to your Lordships. It runs as follows:
"Scientists of undoubted international reputation are unanimous in attesting to the extreme importance of the relict communities of plants on the threatened site; an important part of these communities will be completely destroyed, and a much larger area damaged or destroyed by secondary, consequential changes if the reservoir were constructed. Britain has played a most important role in the development of international concern for the intelligent conservation of natural resources. The short-sighted destruction of such a unique site for a short-term economic gain would seriously set back the world movement for the conservation of nature and natural resources."
And the Council decided to urge the members of this House of the British Parliament to reject the Bill on these grounds.
Further than that, most of your Lordships will have seen the appeal from Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, President of the World Wild Life Fund, urging for the same reasons the preservation of this site and urging that the reputation of this country of ours for having led the movement for conservation will be seriously damaged if we lightly obliterate this particular site. It is in that sense a test case, and scientists all over the world are wondering whether, if a stand cannot be made against this particular proposal and some alternative found, the views of Her Majesty's Government and of all Parties in the State in regard to preserving our countryside can any longer be taken seriously.
I shall say nothing about amenity, with which other speakers will deal. In their case, to my amazement, the promoters dismiss as a mere "desolate stretch of moorland and bog" the Cow Green valley. When I have had the good fortune to enter that valley it has always struck me as a magnificient and invigorating stretch of unviolated countryside with an entrancing river running through it. I

805
hope sincerely that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, does not share the views of the promotors on this particular point at any rate, and if he does, Leisure in the Countryside has a poor outlook before it.
The promotors again—and here I am in no way criticising the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, because I thought his statement was very moderate and very fair—questioned whether the National Parks Commission support the objection to this submergence. Not content with having insinuated that Professor Clapham did not support it, they are insinuating also that the National Parks Commission do not support the objections to the submergence of the Cow Green site. On that I think they will find themselves undeceived. I understand that the National Parks Commission do support the objections, and support them very strongly, and indeed are much in favour of using a site lower down the valley at Middleton.
That brings me to my second point. Is there no practicable alternative to the Cow Green site? There may be some additional cost, even some delay, but surely it is impossible to accept the argument that there is no practicable alternative. I agree with my noble friend Lord Molson that it is not for the petitioners themselves to find or to attempt to dictate that alternative site, and the suggestion of Upper Cow Green, which has been made, may very well not be the best. One reason for the suggestion of that site some eighteen months ago was that higher up the valley the geological foundations are good. The dam would be on the whinstone and not on the fissured limestone, and some people have doubted (and indeed still doubt) whether this enormous weight of water put on a bed of fissured limestone is going to be safe from leakage. But the promoters may be right in contending that there will be no leakage, and they may be right that in any case it could be cured by grouting; but, contrary to what has been said, grouting might, and perhaps would, have serious effects on the drainage of the surrounding areas and, again, upset the ecology. Also, if grouting proved necessary it would add to the cost and alter the comparison between the cost of Cow Green and other sites.
Then there is the site at Middleton. A reservoir at this point would be accept-
806
able to the Nature Conservancy, and, though I know the difficulty in which my noble friend Lord Howick is placed when people make statements about the Nature Conservancy which he is not free under our Rules to debate, I cannot think for one moment that the suggestion that the Nature Conservancy concurred, or failed to maintain its objections to the Cow Green site only last month, can be correct. However that may be, a site at Middleton would be acceptable to the Nature Conservancy. It would provide a much larger storage of water—double the capacity, as the promoters themselves admit—and it would provide great opportunities for new recreational uses and in this way would increase the business and the life of the attractive town of Middleton. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, recently pointed out, we have reached a stage where great reservoirs can no longer be constructed without detriment to some interest or other, and at Middleton there would admittedly be some loss of agricultural land. For this, compensation can be found by developing other areas, and compensation can be paid, though I recognise that cash is not always complete compensation. But have not far greater agricultural sacrifices of far more valuable land been demanded of agricultural communities recently in Wales and elsewhere in the interests of water supply? We are convinced that if the promoters are denied Cow Green they will find an alternative, and a satisfactory alternative, site.
May I touch very briefly on two other points? At the moment desalination is no doubt costly and requires some time yet for development. But is it not becoming clearer every year that we must have recourse to desalination in the next few years?—and, I think, sooner than most people imagine. Our chemists and our engineers have led the way in discovering the know-how. I ask Her Majesty's Government whether our industry on its part is able to supply the steel and other materials required if the process of desalination is to be resorted to. Unless great industrial concerns like I.C.I. and Dorman Long are compelled now to face the fact that they will have to desalinate, is there not the great risk that we shall find ourselves in the position of having to go abroad, where the problem is already being faced, to import much of the material required?

807
The other expedient is to draw on underground sources, and the Water Resources Board themselves consider that such exploitation would be a most useful step in augmenting water resources in the lower Tees Valley. Indeed, this is a step with which the Board are said to be currently proceeding. Is this not at least part of the answer to the apprehension, which I realise is a serious one, that drought conditions in the early 'seventies may be "disastrous", to use the promoters' own word. I should like to ask the noble Lord who will reply for the Government whether this useful exploitation of underground water resources is being pressed forward as a matter of great urgency.
The Water Resources Board have also said that the Cow Green reservoir is the next logical step in the development of the water resources of the Tees Valley. What is the next logical step after that? I ask that question very seriously of Her Majesty's Government. If the answer is, or is likely to be, Middleton, why not go there now? Logic proceeds by looking more than one step ahead, and I think the House is entitled to know what is the chain of reservoirs in the Upper Teesdale valley with which we must be prepared to deal in the course of the next few years.
May I conclude by summarising my points in this way? The scientific damage which will result from use of the Cow Green site is very great. It is quite irreparable and it is incapable of being compensated by cession of land elsewhere or by payment of money. I.C.I. have helpfully agreed to minimise any damage caused by access roads or other temporary interference during construction if they are granted their powers, and they have offered, as has been said, to finance research during that period. I appreciate the genuine motives which have led to their making that offer, but it goes no way at all to meeting the real scientific requirements, any more than does the argument that only 17 acres of really highest importance are involved. It is much as if the owner of some masterpiece of mural painting desired to deface it in the course of alterations to a building and were to plead that he merely proposed to remove the faces of a few of the principal persons depicted and was
808
willing to pay for a good photograph of them before they were removed.
As to the alternatives, as has been said more than once, there is at least one—possibly there are more—at which the reservoir could be constructed in Teesdale which would not be open to scientific objection, where any damage could be largely compensated by money and where, if Middleton at least were selected, a bigger storage capacity to meet the needs over a much longer period ahead could be secured and where new and conveniently placed facilities for public sport and recreation could be provided. I hope if the Bill goes to a Committee it will be rejected there on all these grounds. But if not and if it comes back to this House, as the Lord Chairman has pointed out, the House will still be free to consider it as an issue of policy and principle. In an ordinary case of a Bill which goes to a Select Committee the issues are perhaps disputes between parties, sometimes on clauses rather than on the principle of the Bill, and I agree that in those cases the practice of your Lordships' House in accepting automatically the views of the Select Committee is the right one. But this is a very different case indeed, and though I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, say that he did not propose to resist the Instruction moved by my noble friend, Lord Molson, I think those for whom I am speaking would like to make it clear that they hold themselves completely free to offer the most strenuous opposition to the Bill if it emerges in its present form.
4.8 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Molson, made a strong attack on the Bill in his most vehement style. But my noble friend Lord Swinton, if I may say so, was in unparalleled form and every one of those arguments was refuted in its turn; and in fact my noble friend refuted a great many of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, before he ever made them. I think if Lord Hurcomb had had the opportunity of hearing Lord Swinton's speech before he wrote his, he would have made a different one. Most of the botanical arguments were refuted. I should like to refer to the final one, where I think Lord Hurcomb was speaking more from his heart than from his head, when he likened the taking of a few

809
acres out of this area with the cutting out of a great masterpiece painting. I think that is overstating one's case.
In our debate in October on future water supplies we came to the conclusion that in the South-East, at any rate, we were going to require to double our supplies by the end of the century. In the rest of the country great increases were also expected, but surveys had not yet been completed. Here in Tees-side the need has come to a crisis in advance of the general survey, on account of the industrial expansion there of I.C.I., which is completely in line with the national policy. In fact, if I remember rightly the Conservative Government sent either Lord Hailsham or Mr. Hogg—I cannot remember which—up there on a special mission to try to do precisely what Lord Beeching and his friends are doing at this very moment to rehabilitate Tees-side. The fact that they have chosen to do it in a way that requires a great deal of water is not relevant except to this particular policy. It might have been some chemical which did not require great water supplies, though most do nowadays. But to compete in world markets one requires cheap water for industry. My noble friend Lord Molson seemed to think it wrong that water should be cheap. The cheaper the water is the lower your prices and the bigger your market can be, so it is a great advantage to have cheap water.
The Cow Green site to produce 30 million gallons a day is, I would point out, equal to only about one-third of the annual increase expected to be required in England over the next quarter of a century; and the methods of obtaining it at Cow Green are in accordance with the latest thinking; that is, to try to hold up the water near the top of the river, to hold up the winter floods, and regulate its flow throughout the summer. The Middleton scheme lower down is much more like the old-fashioned scheme, where the consumption reservoirs were nearer the consuming point lower down and you did not get the regulation of the flow. So the scheme, as a water scheme, is considered a good one. The capital works are not large, which means that they can be carried out in a reasonable time, and the land to be flooded is of remarkably low value. This means
810
that the water will become available soon and, moreover, it can be cheap.
Everyman-made lake always arouses the most intense opposition from someone. This time it is the botanists, some of whom make great claims, though I have been told that their presence in that area was not particularly noticeable before this scheme came to be talked about. But we cannot really evaluate botanical evidence here. That we must leave to our Select Committee. But I sometimes wonder whether we are not in danger of becoming a little bemused by science. After all, what is science? Science is knowledge, and knowledge is all very well—we all like knowledge; we want to acquire knowledge the whole time—but whether the national interest is served by that knowledge depends whether it conduces to the health and happiness of the human race. Judged on that particular standard, I should have thought that some of the scientific case here looks a little thin.
No plant is going to be wiped out; only an area of combination of plants is going to be wiped out. But the same combination is freely available elsewhere. I wonder what message was sent to Geneva. After all, if you send an alarmist message to a body of scientists you may be quite certain that you will get a twice-as-alarmist resolution back again. One must not pay too much heed to that unless one hears what they would like to tell. Various amenity societies are objecting, too. That is to be expected. They rarely agree to any change of the landscape without putting up a fight. I personally like walking, and I like coming upon sheets of water when I am walking; I think it greatly improves the landscape. My noble friend Lord Swinton seems to think the same. I personally regret that my modest subscription to one of these amenity societies is being used to try to thwart this Bill. I wish people would take a little less negative attitude towards this scheme. We in this country shall be needing something like the equivalent of three Cow Greens a year for the next 33 years if we are to provide the water which increasing standards of living and increasing industrial consumption require.
There may be some alleviation, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said, by the greater use of underground water. But if you pump out the underground water

811
heavily in the summer, as it is proposed to do in some places, and replace it by winter rains, not only do you get problems at the replacement end, but you are also going to inflict a certain amount of hardship on the people who rely on the water level in those summer sources. So that method is not free from possible objectors. Then, if you are going to resort in the long term to big barrages, which will take a great many years to survey and complete, again I am quite certain there will be strong objections when the plans come before Parliament.
I cannot really accept the idea that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, put forward, that in this well-watered country we should resort to the absurd and expensive solution of distilling our water from the sea. Apart from the problem of putting distilled water into the existing circulation of pipes, in which they wreak a certain amount of havoc, there is also the grave objection that will be taken by every amenity society in the land to the siting of the atomic power stations which have to provide the necessary heat to do the distillation. So that that solution is not free from objections.
Cannot we accept the fact that we have got to turn a great many of our valleys into lakes, and try to see that the minimum of disturbance is done to the people living there, that we use the best landscaping techniques and ensure that, so far as we possibly can, the lakes provide amenities such as sailing, fishing, bathing and the like? For instance, Cow Green, as a special protégé of I.C.I., might well become a wonderful experimental ground for fish growing, and within a generation we might go there as a source of monster trout. This would be a more positive approach to all these problems than the purely negative one which always says, "Not here; further up the line". One of the reasons why I think Britain tends to lag and everything happens so slowly is that our national motto has become, "You can't do that there 'ere", and there are a hundred-and-one societies to see that you cannot.
4.18 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, as a former Chairman of the National Parks Commission, I support the various objec-
812
tions that have been expressed to this Bill in the course of the debate. I am in full agreement with what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Molson and Lord Hurcomb, and I will not take up your Lordships' time by repeating the case which they have made. As the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said, I think this is a test case, and the question is whether, for the sake of what would appear to be a temporary and a partial, short-term solution of an industrial water problem, it is necessary to do permanent damage to a remote landscape and to destroy forever a unique botanical heritage from the long-distant past which holds the promise of practical research results for the future. I hope that when your Lordships' Select Committee have concluded their examination of this matter your Lordships will be able to give a clear answer to that question, and I hope the answer will be, No.
There is, however, one matter to which I should like to draw attention. In April last, when I was Chairman of the National Parks Commission, the Commission addressed a memorandum to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government stating their objections to the Bill now before your Lordships' House. The Commission wrote to the Ministry in the expectation that the text of their memorandum would, in accordance with established practice, be communicated to the Select Committee of the other place, as an annex to the Report on the Bill which the Minister would make to the Select Committee. The Commission's memorandum was passed, I understand, by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. By an oversight in that Ministry, the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, for which oversight the Minister very kindly expressed regret, the Commission's memorandum was not communicated to the Select Committtee, and to that extent the views of the National Parks Commission went by default.
This omission was the more serious in that the Minister's own Report was, on the whole, favourable to the Bill. The result was that the Bill went through all its stages in another place without the views of the National Parks Commission being known. Had the Commission's

813
memorandum gone to the Select Committee, it would long ago have become a public document. It is, I understand, to be published in full in the forthcoming Annual Report of the Commission next month. That being so, it seems to me to be right, and I hope not objectionable, that your Lordships' House should not at this important stage in the consideration of the Bill be denied acquaintance with the purport of the Commission's memorandum. I propose, therefore, to make this known. I will not read the text of the memorandum, but I will refer to the salient passages.
The Commission started off by stating that there was a growing realisation, not only in this country, but world-wide, of the danger of industrial man destroying his environment for purely material needs. Then they went on to say that, although there was much poor and uncultivated land in England and Wales, there was little where the walker could find himself out of sight and sound of industry and the motor car, and that what remained free of such reminders of man was an important reserve for the enjoyment of recreation of an adventuring kind. They stressed that such reserves should so far as possible be kept in their present state in order to provide for appropriate use and public enjoyment compatible with protection and conservation of the natural environment. They then explained that in giving advice to the Minister on the Bill they had therefore to balance the claims of maximum extraction of water against the claims of beauty and enjoyment by the public. In the result, they had decided that they must advise the Minister that the proposed reservoir at Cow Green was not acceptable.
They then gave their reasons for reaching that conclusion. In the first place, they said that the area of the North Pennines that included Upper Teesdale and Cross Fell was one of the largest and most remote areas of upland Britain. Its qualities, they said, would justify it as a National Park, and the Commission had had in mind for some years its possible designation as such when administrative problems could be overcome. They went on to say that in a rough rectangle of about 100 square miles the only inhabited houses were the Nature Conservancy's research station at Moor House and the Air Ministry's radio station
814
at Great Dun Fell. There was, they insisted, no other such area in England. The making of a reservoir would, they argued, introduce civilisation and artificiality into an essentially wild area.
They then turned to the scientific side. They explained that the flora of Upper Teesdale had been famous since the 17th century. It was not only of interest to the ordinary amateur botanist for its rarities, but important for the study of changes in the ecology and climates of Britain since the Ice Age. As a place where Artic plants grew in temperate latitudes and relatively low altitudes it was unique not only in Britain but in Europe. The Commission therefore accepted the advice of the Nature Conservancy that the construction of the reservoir would damage the unique flora; and they supported the Conservancy in opposing such construction on these grounds.
Finally, they had something to say about waterfalls. Observing that Great Britain is poorly supplied by nature with waterfalls, they pointed out that two of the largest and best known were at Caldron Snout and High Force, where the Tees falls over the Whin Sill. Here, they said, were some of the most outstanding natural features of the landscape of Great Britain. Since both these falls were below the proposed reservoir, which was essentially for maintaining a steady flow of the river, its construction would mean that the falls would seldom or never be at their natural maximum volume and they would thus lose their untamed character.
That is what the Commission said in their memorandum. Your Lordships will note that the Commission have placed the weight of their representations upon those aspects of the question which fall more specifically within their competence under the Act of 1949, namely the invasion of a remote and wild area by industrial development. This does not mean that they did not support other objections to the Bill stated from the scientific and other points of view. They did indeed share these views, as their memorandum shows.
I understand that the present National Parks Commission, our successors, are of one mind with the old Commission on this Bill. I gather that they have recently addressed a memorandum to the Ministry reaffirming their predecessors'views—our views—with some supplementary

815
observations, in the hope that this time the memorandum will reach the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, if the Bill receives a Second Reading to-day. That concludes my remarks. It remains for me to say that I am not intending to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. If the Bill receives a Second Reading, I will support Lord Molson's Motion for an Instruction. For the rest, we must wait and see what the Select Committee reports. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I reserve the liberty to oppose the Bill if it returns to this House from the Select Committee, which, let me say, I hope it will not.
4.29 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, as one who has lived in the North-East all my life and who resides in the County of Durham, through which the River Tees flows, I rise to support this Bill. For many years in the North-East we have pleaded for new industries; we have asked for our economy to be diversified so as to make us less dependent upon the heavy industries which has been our lot in the past. We in the North-East have had more than our share of unemployment, particularly when a slump has occurred in heavy industry. I look on this Bill as being essential to ensure the jobs of our people in the future, and also to give facilities to new employers to bring new industries into our area.
The Bill will authorize the construction of a large impounding reservoir of 9,000 million gallons at Cow Green, in Upper Teesdale, and it will be operated in conjunction with the existing reservoirs of the Board. It has been necessary for the Water Board to come to Parliament for powers to construct, because part of the site includes certain lands which are subject to common able rights. The reservoir is required to ensure a water supply to I.C.I. I am not here to present a Bill for big business, but I agree that I.C.I. were entitled to plan ahead, with a view to getting this water, because large units in the chemical world cannot be built inside five, six or seven months; it takes a long time.
The major extensions are to be at Billingham and Wilton, and there is to be a new refinery at North Tees connected with these works. The water will also be needed for other industrial
816
consumers, particularly Dorman Long and the Shell Refinery, and to meet the estimated needs of the domestic consumers in the future. In order to achieve this expansion which we want in our area, it is essential that the construction of this reservoir should begin in May of next year. The water required has to be available by the end of 1970 or, as the noble Earl said, the production of the I.C.I. will be at risk. In any year drought may occur, and it is no good trying to cast the question aside, because we had a drought in 1949 and again in 1959. If this happened, it is estimated that the loss to I.C.I. would be around £45 million. Production losses of this order in the chemical industry in any year would affect other industries, and the export trade not only of I.C.I. but of other industries as well.
Why is this Bill necessary? Between 1960 and 1964 a major advance was made in the chemical industry. I.C.I. discovered, and successfully developed, an entirely new process for manufacturing the gases needed for ammonia, menthol and hydrogen production from oil. This process, the naphtha steam reforming process, provided I.C.I. with the opportunity to convert and expand their traditional production processes at Billingham, in the county of Durham, and to put the operation of these works on a basis on which they could compete in international markets. This new process also enables the works at Billingham and Wilton-on-Tees to expand, and this expansion is being done rather than developing these processes overseas. The production of ammonia at Billingham is to be increased, and three of the world's largest plants are being built at Billingham in County Durham.
This ammonia provides for the much-needed production of fertilisers, for which there is a demand both here and abroad, and also of raw materials for plastics, much of which is used for the manufacture of goods for the export market. The production of the works at Wilton is to be increased by one-and-a-half times, and the works will make the necessary polymers for nylon, Terylene and other petrochemicals. Through the expansion of these works, this water is expected to give us in the North-East the opportunity of diversifying our economy after many years. The Shell Company is also to

817
build a major refinery on the opposite bank of the river. The port is to be deepened so as to meet the needs of all this development which is taking place. In addition, the needs of the Industrial Estates Management Committee have to be met in future years.
In 1963 the Government themselves made this a growth area for development. Special incentives were given to industry to develop the area and provide employment for our people. Therefore it is of paramount importance to the North-East that this industrial growth should continue unimpeded, not only for the benefit of the inhabitants to-day but also in the interests of our national economy. It is also essential that the migration of our people from the North-East should cease, and that work should be ensured not only for the present generation but for those who follow them.
In 1959 the Water Board came to Parliament to seek power to construct the Balder head reservoir which is now completed, and at that time it was estimated that it would provide sufficient water to meet the industrial needs for some time to come. The present expansion was not foreseen by anyone in 1959, for the reasons I have stated, and, having regard to the special factors which have induced this expansion programme, the vastly increased amount of water needed on Tees-side could not reasonably have been foreseen at that time on any rational basis of forward planning.
I should like to deal for a moment or two with the consultation which took place with the opponents of the Bill. The Water Board were informed by I.C.I. in July, 1964, of the need for this additional water. Their consultant engineers advised the Board on their additional need of 35 million gallons per day. The River Board were then consulted and they agreed. The engineers reported that a new reservoir would probably have to be in the area of the 82 square miles covering substantially the whole of the Upper Teesdale area. This was declared by the Nature Conservancy to be an area of special scientific interest, and the Conservancy were consulted in the very early stages. From the very beginning of the investigations leading to the promotion of the present Bill there have been consultations and discussions with the Board, their engineers, the Nature Conservancy
818
and the Northumbrian River Authority, as well as with the county councils and all the local planning authorities in the area.
In September and October the Board's consulting engineers had discussions with the Director General of the Nature Conservancy and showed him 17 sites. The Director General then indicated that, of the 17 sites submitted to him, 4 were to be preferred, from their point of view. Cow Green was one of them, and this is the area dealt with in this Bill. On October 23, 1964, the Director General wrote to the Board's consulting engineers and said that he had had an opportunity of sounding out opinion among the members of the Nature Conservancy who would be responsible for determining their attitude. As a result, the Director General said, in a letter to the consulting engineers (I have it here, but I shall not read it) that they could go ahead a little further and could inform the Board that he had reason to believe that, if the difficulties of the Cow Green site could be overcome, it was most unlikely that it would be objected to by the Conservancy.
This letter also indicated that if the reservoir at the Cow Green site could be used for recreational purposes, and so attract visitors who would otherwise be straying about the more scientifically vulnerable areas of Upper Teesdale, the Nature Conservancy might feel justified in actively supporting the Bill. Subsequently, the Nature Conservancy changed their mind. However, this letter of October 23, 1964, shows clearly that the Conservancy did not regard the Cow Green site as a site of particular scientific importance. On receipt of this letter, the Board authorised a £50,000 geological investigation into the site.
What has been done to protect botanical interests in this area? A reservoir could have been built at a level of 1,615 feet above the ordnance datum, this being the highest practicable level at which water could be impounded in the area. This level has been kept down to 1,603 feet in order to protect the areas of botanical interests adjoining the reservoir. For the same reasons it is also proposed that the access route for construction purposes should be built down the bed of the reservoir instead of along an existing route across the adjoining land on Widdybank Fell. This special route for construction purposes in the area which will

819
be flooded by the reservoir adds £75,000 to the cost, and this course is being adopted by the Board to avoid heavy traffic passing over those areas of Widdybank Fell which are of great botanical interest.
The Board has also given an undertaking to the Nature Conservancy to provide fences around the whole of the construction site in order to prevent damage to adjoining areas, and to pay the cost of a nature warden during the period of construction to watch botanical interests. Furthermore, the Board is at present discussing with the Nature Conservancy means by which scientific investigation of the small area of botanical interest to be inundated can be facilitated during the period of construction. On top of this, as the noble Lord has said, I.C.I. have offered to finance botanical research in the area affected by the reservoir. So it cannot be said in this House that the botanical interests have not been looked after.
The Water Resources Board were then brought in, and they reported. The gist of their report was that they concluded that the site at Cow Green was to be preferred, for the reason that the development of either the Upper Cow Green site or the Middleton-in-Teesdale site would involve considerable cost in money, labour and materials which could be otherwise used elsewhere, and that neither of the two alternatives could be completed by the time at which the additional water would be required. They also stated that the Cow Green site was the next logical step in the development of the Tees-side catchment area. The other two sites would take good agricultural land, as has been stated, and would displace farmers, whereas no one would be affected at Cow Green.
As to the alternative sites that have been suggested, I will not go into them at any length but will merely say that if the reservoir were built at either of the other two sites it would cost £9 million, as against the cost at Cow Green of £2½ million. That means a saving of £6½ million. The Middleton-in-Teesdale site would be half a mile above the town of Middleton, and would make available a quantity of water twice that available at the Cow Green reservoir; but the National Farmers' Union would strenuously oppose the construction of
820
any reservoir there. As your Lordships have been told, 39 families would be displaced and good arable would be flooded, as well as good bottom land used in the winter by the sheep which run on the moors in the summer. Therefore, even the Middleton-in-Teesdale site, which has been argued for to-day by those opposing the Bill, would meet terrific opposition from the National Farmers' Union.
As to the Cow Green site, I wish some of your Lordships could see this area which we are discussing. It is the most desolate place you ever saw. It is where the lead mines used to be, and there is nothing there except dilapidated buildings left over from the days of those old lead mines—days which are now gone. The Cow Green site proposed in the Bill is an area in the Upper Tees where the river flows through bog and marshland, bordered by the open moorland of Dufton Fell to the West and the heather-covered slopes of Widdybank Fell to the East. It is remote from human habitation, and, as I have already said, is subject to erosion, due to the mine workings that have taken place in days which have gone. I am somewhat surprised to find that this Bill is supported by the local farming community and by the Parish Council of Forest and Frith, one of the councils concerned in the area in which the reservoir is to be built. Therefore, it seems to me to make good sense to develop the cheaper site at Cow Green now—it is £6½ million cheaper—in preference to the more expensive sites that have been urged upon your Lordships this afternoon.
I should like now to say a word or two about the botanists' objection to this Bill. The principal objection is from botanists and certain scientists whose interests are in the study of wild flowers and other plants. They claim that the reservoir would destroy plant communities of international importance. I feel, however, that this is a gross exaggeration. The principal effect of the reservoir, so far as botany is concerned, is that it would flood a small area of a particular sugar limestone formation on which certain communities, comprising some of the lesser known Tees-side plants, are to be found. This area of sugar limestone, as a previous speaker has told the House, amounts to 17 acres out of a total of 300 acres. The limestone stretches along Cronkley Fell and Widdybank Fell right

821
across this valley. There are certain areas of active blanket bog in the reservoir site, but the same kind of bog can be found elsewhere in Upper Teesdale. The total area in Upper Teesdale of special interest to botanical science amounts to 5,000 acres and the proposed reservoir area would cover only a small portion of it. The Upper Teesdale area of special scientific interest declared by the Nature Conservancy comprises 82 square miles.
In the Committee of the House of Commons it was established that there are no plants growing below the top water level of the proposed reservoir which are not found elsewhere in Upper Teesdale. The pamphlets issued by the Upper Teesdale Defence Committee and the letters written by botanists all seem to give the impression that the whole of the Upper Teesdale is threatened by this reservoir. This, not unnaturally, has aroused the concern of persons not familiar with the area or with the facts of the case. The objections of the botanists seem to me to be mainly emotional, and this is understandable if opportunities for botanical study are regarded as an amenity. But it seems more questionable to assert a scientific basis for the objections as expressed.
I can say to the House that as a part of our national heritage Cow Green received scant attention before the proposals of this Bill were made known. Upper Teesdale as a whole is certainly an area of international importance to botanical scientists, but there is considerable doubt as to whether an argument based on this point can carry any weight in relation to the very small area which would be affected by the reservoir. Again, when the Nature Conservancy recently fixed the boundaries for their reserve these 17 acres were not shown on their map; they did not regard them at that time as of any international importance. The boundary was later adjusted to include this area, but this was done at the instance of a landowner to conform to his boundary.
My Lords, if this small area affected was recognised as being of such importance as is now claimed for it, it is inconceivable that the Nature Conservancy should have given the Board early encouragement to proceed with this scheme, or that they should subsequently have excluded the main part of this area
822
from their proposed nature reserve. I concede that the land to be flooded includes a very small area of scientific interest to botanists. It is, however, an area that is seriously affected by mining and erosion. Whether or not the plants grown in this area, in the place in which they are now found, are relics of the Ice Age seems to many scientists open to doubt; but if they are then there are also other comparable relics of the Ice Age grown in other parts of Teesdale, in the Craven area in the Yorkshire Pennines, in the Burren district of Ireland and at Ben Lowers in Scotland.
A knowledge of the factors which determine the constitution of natural vegetation could be gained from work on many different plant communities in many different parts of England and elsewhere; it is not necessary for this purpose to preserve these 17 acres of sugar limestone at Cow Green. The botanists say that if the reservoir is constructed it will destroy a unique open-air laboratory. It is possibly true that the reservoir may slightly inhibit the possibilities for teaching botany at the local universities, but the research potential of the Cow Green area is very limited. The area is scarred by mineral workings. The fact that it is also relatively accessible to students, to amateur botanists and to the general public limits its value very much as a laboratory. From this point of view, Cronkley Fell, which is not so disturbed by mineral workings and which can be reached only after a two-mile walk, is very much better. The destruction of interesting plant communities in this small area of Cow Green is regrettable, but it cannot be shown to be of outstanding practical significance to the science of botany. While benefits to agriculture certainly arise from the pursuit of pure research in the whole field of botany, it is unrealistic to argue that such benefits may arise from research on a particular small community of plants. To me, such an argument is akin to a gross exaggeration of the case.
My Lords, what is the economic case for the people of the North-East on this reservoir? All Parties in this House have accepted that increased production is essential for the nation and for the full employment of our people. Tees-side was declared a growth area, and that is the policy of the present Government. We

823
cannot have industrial growth if we deny to industrialists who are in the North-East and to those who are to be encouraged to go there the water their industries will need. In the North-East area mining is rapidly declining—especially so in Durham, my own county—and the extension of the works at Billingham in the years that lie ahead will provide an outlet for the miners in need of work in the South of the county.
Over the years I have seen my people migrate and come to the South for work. Any proposal that comes before your Lordships' House that will keep my people in the North-East and give them employment will have my support. For years we have been neglected in relation to new industries. Now that we have the opportunity, I ask your Lordships not to spoil it by throwing out this Bill. Who supports the Bill? We have been told about the preservation of the countryside, and about the scientists and the botanists, so I should tell your Lordships about who supports this Bill. It is supported by the two county councils, Durham and Westmorland, and they are both concerned as planning authorities also. There are no local authorities in the area opposed to the Bill, and many of them support it. The National Farmers' Union supports the Bill; the North-East Development Council supports the Bill. The Bill was passed in the Commons and was investigated for thirteen days by a Select Committee. It was then given a Third Reading in the House of Commons, and is supported by the Government Departments concerned and by the Government.
My Lords, I have received this letter—which to me is the most important matter—from the trade unionists of the North-East. It is dated Friday, October 28, 1966, and headed "The Cow Green Reservoir":
"A meeting of trade union officials representative of the members in every major industry in the Tees-side development area was held to-day to consider the above project. It was resolved that every effort be made to bring this project to a successful conclusion. The meeting had regard to the fact that if our present industries are to expand and new industries be attracted, the prerequisite is an adequate water supply. Apart from this, the needs of the domestic consumers continue to rise, and these requirements far outweigh other factors."
824
The sting is in the tail.
"In modern society jobs are dependent on the availability of water, and given a choice of expanding employment or preserving the flora and fauna, work-people will opt for employment."
This letter is signed by the Amalgamated Engineering Union; the Amalgamated Society of Boilermakers, Shipwrights, Blacksmiths and Structural Workers; the Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators; the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers; the Transport Workers' Union; the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives and the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers. That is the letter they have sent to me and the resolution they have passed. I wish to say that the resolution expresses entirely my sentiments and my attitude to this Bill. I therefore conclude by asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
5.3 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, go too far in suggesting that there is very great dispute about the scientific value of Cow Green. I do not think that is the issue to-day; and it would not even be fair to the promotors—it certainly would not be fair to I.C.I.—to suggest that there is a great deal of dispute about the scientific matter here. I.C.I. are themselves scientists, and I think the point really is—and it was never challenged very seriously before the Select Committee in the House of Commons—that what you are going to lose here is a living genetic laboratory. This is the sort of thing that will disappear irrevocably if you take away Cow Green.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said it was rather odd that it was recently that scientists, botanists, ecologists and biologists had started to take note of this. That is not true. I think it was in 1905 that my father, who was a chemist, and the father of the present noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who was a biologist, listed Cow Green as something of paramount importance from this particular aspect: that is, the genetic aspect. It was not a matter of one or two rare plants, but a whole complex of rare plants which had grown up over 20,000 years, and if you want to go on studying what the

825
biological significance of this is you destroy such a thing at your peril. I do not believe there is any dispute as to the great scientific value of Cow Green and the most unfortunate consequences that would come from destroying it. This is not in dispute; the real issue is, can we afford to preserve it, and if so how much?
Secondly, what are the alternatives, and have they really been considered? This is the central point of the whole case, or so it seems to me: that they have not really been considered with the close attention to detail that they ought to have been. We all know that the viability of Tees-side and of I.C.I. is of paramount importance, not only all the time but here and now. After all, I.C.I. is one of the most important companies, one of the most forward-looking and one of the greatest moneymakers. This applies to Tees-side as well, so again it is not in dispute that what happens to Tees-side is of vital importance to us all.
But I think that too much has been made—I felt this during the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and again during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton—of how much this particular issue would damage Tees-side. I do not really believe that this is true. Tees-side as a whole is not going to be seriously injured; thousands of men are not going to be thrown out of work as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, suggested; millions of pounds of money are not going to be wasted. All that I see is going to happen there is that I.C.I., and one or two other companies, will be put to slightly greater expense and a certain amount of inconvenience. That, on the face of it, is what it looks like to me, and that is why I feel that, despite thirteen days' consideration by the Select Committee in another place, this matter has not been examined properly.
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, to say it is quite right for I.C.I. to want to have their water cheaply. I entirely agree. But there is a very great difference between despoiling something of great scientific value in order to have water at 1s. 1d., and paying—shall we say?—something nearer the average cost of water in this country, which is somewhere between 2s. and 3s. a thousand gallons. Even if I.C.I. were to be made to take the most expensive alternative at
826
present before them, it seems to me that they would still be paying less for their water than the average price over the whole country. What I and a great many of those who think like me feel about this, is that it has come about through short-term thinking and bad water planning. Again this is not in dispute. One of the most interesting and curious things about the evidence before the Select Committee was the way in which the evidence produced by the Cleveland Water Board was not always in agreement with the propositions, suggestions and estimates put forward by the new Water Resources Board. I think that this is partly due to the fact that the Water Resources Board has only just come into being and this problem was rather thrust at it at the last minute. It may well be that it has not yet produced the answer itself.
Again, in connection with bad planning not nearly enough has been made of the way in which I.C.I. started this operation six months before going to the water authority and suggesting that they would need another 25 million gallons of water a day. All this, it seems to me, adds up to the fact of bad planning, short-term planning, and improper consideration of the evidence; and what we are being asked to do in this Bill is to accept a short-term measure to get I.C.I. out of a hole, or alternatively to cause them some inconvenience and expense. It is not an alternative between ruination, depression and gloom on Tees-side and the cost of saving the county. This is not so at all. The alternative before us is to make I.C.I. pay a more realistic figure for their water, put them to some inconvenience and save this site of unique value.
I, and those noble Lords who think like me, have been persuaded not to vote against this Bill on Second Reading, for the reasons which have been put before the House. It is possible that enough noble Lords might have been persuaded to throw the Bill out on Second Reading on the ground that it was bad in principle, but we have been persuaded against it, partly because it has been suggested that the principle of Private Bills does not really arise on Second Reading, which is normally formal, and partly that this is the sort of thing that can only be considered in Committee, with proper evidence adduced, which I think is justifiable.

827
But suppose we dislike the views of the Select Committee and feel that again they have arrived at a wrong conclusion, I hope that it will not be said that there is no principle at issue because it has been before the Select Committee and passed. Because there is a slight danger here, in not trying to throw the Bill out on Second Reading on the ground that it must be properly examined in Committee, that afterwards, on Third Reading, although we might still think, in spite of the details argued in Committee, that the principle was bad, it might be said that there was no principle here as it had already been agreed in the Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, touched upon this point, but I want to make it clear that we regard this Bill as bad in principle, because it is short-term and bad planning. We object strongly; but we are letting it go through without dividing the House and we are supporting the Instruction to the Committee to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because we think that this is the right thing to do. But in the view of many of us, this Bill is an example of what comes about if we do not think for a long time ahead in terms of water.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord has constantly used the words "we" and "us". Do they mean the Liberal Party?
LORD HENLEY: No, indeed, my Lords. This is not a Party issue in any shape or form. I am sorry I did not make myself clear. What I meant was, "I and other noble Lords on both sides of the House who think like me".
5.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT SLIM: My Lords, I must first declare a personal interest in some of the matters affected by this Bill. Until recently I was a Director of I.C.I. and still have a connection with and interest in that company. This perhaps has not altogether been a disadvantage to me, because it has enabled me to take some interest in the North East of England and to learn something about the matters which are affected by this Bill. I hope that it will not detract from the value of anything I say to your Lordships.
Anybody who has followed over the last ten years or so developments in the
828
North East of England must realise, as I am sure every noble Lord does realise, that it is essential that the water supply in Teesdale and on Tees-side should be increased, and that it should also be increased within a few years. A number of noble Lords who are objecting to this measure have, I think rather lightly, brushed aside the timing factor and, in doing that, have overlooked how this country lives—what makes it tick. We earn our living, not by admiring or even studying botanical specimens, but by keeping ahead of our competitors in the struggle—and it is a hard struggle, getting much more difficult to keep ahead in—for production and new methods of production.
On Tees-side, we have an example of how that should be done. We have had the scientists of I.C.I. and of other companies engaged in devising and perfecting new techniques for the production of a great many essential commodities, and we have had technicians who have been able to translate these into industrial production. This is exactly what this country wants. And if I.C.I. has taken a risk and gone ratherahead—well, for the love of Mike! that is worth having. What we want in this country is somebody prepared to back his opinion and take a risk. I.C.I. have done that and so have several of the other companies on Tees-side.
Nobody can deny that water is wanted. We can discuss how water is obtained. All suggestions of desalting sea water by nuclear means are in the future. Even the protagonists of this method will not suggest that we can do it to-morrow on an economic and large scale. The same applies to the borehole water, which has also been suggested. I agree that that is an admirable supplement, but even its most enthusiastic supporters do not suggest that it can produce the amount of water required, quite apart from the fact that borehole water, as I have discovered in other parts of the world, is liable to flow back on itself.
In fact, it is essential that we should go back to the older methods of water conservation—which means reservoirs. We are not really arguing about whether we want a reservoir for Tees-side. That is agreed. What we are arguing about is where it should be. The suggestion in the Bill is that it should go into a part of the moorland called Cow Green. There

829
are objections to that. I do not think that we ought to brush aside these objections. Least of all, should we expect anybody from I.C.I. to disregard scientific considerations; because I.C.I. live on them. I.C.I. do more, I think, than almost any other organisation to support scientific research, without any tags attached to it.
The objections to the site of this reservoir come under three heads. The first is that it will destroy the natural beauties and amenities of an open space. The second is that there are suitable alternative sites, which should be, at any rate, explored. The last one is that this reservoir will inflict grave damage on scientific research. I have a great deal of sympathy with the scenic objection. The area of moorland in the summer—I would not recommend it in the winter—is most attractive, especially if you like walking or rambling. I have done a good bit of walking in my time, but I must confess that a lot of it was not with pleasure.
Before we go off at half cock about how much the amenities and the scenery will be destroyed, I think we ought to consider exactly what it means—and if I am repeating what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said I hope your Lordships will forgive me. The whole area of open moorland is 5,000 acres. The proposed lake to be constructed comprises something under 800 acres. This leaves 4,200 acres untouched for recreation. I do not think the loss of 800 acres over which to walk will be very noticeable to the ramblers. If you went up in an aeroplane and looked down on it, I do not think you would be able to tell the difference between 5,000 and 4,200 acres. Therefore I do not consider that this is a very serious objection.
Then there is the lake. I have seen these artificial lakes made in a good many places, and I have never yet seen one that did not improve the scenery and amenities. I lived on the banks of a river in a very nice valley for several years, and it was proposed to flood the valley. I opposed the flooding, largely, I think, because I was fond of the valley and I loved the view, and I was rather sentimental about it. I went away, and eight or nine years later, after the lake had been made, I returned, and I had to eat my own words. It vastly improved the whole area, both in scenery
830
and in amenities. So I do not think the claim that this is an outrage against open air amenities and scenery can be maintained.
The second objection, that there are alternative sites, has been dealt with quite often. There are only two that I feel could be seriously considered. One of them is Upper Cow Green. If you put a lake there it would be a much bigger lake; it would have a much greater effect on the scenery, if you do not like lakes; and the dam would have to be much higher, much bigger and more conspicuous. Therefore, so far as the scenery is concerned, there is no advantage. It has, also, the disadvantage that it would cost about £6 million more, as an estimate—and estimates in my experience are always underestimates—and it would take three to four years longer to build. This is the most serious of all the objections, because if you are going to delay by three or four years the putting on the international market of a new project made in a new way, you are going to lose your market. In these days you cannot afford to mark time. That is why I object so strongly when people say: "What does it matter? I.C.I. may have to spend a little more money, and they may have a little inconvenience". But it is not just inconvenience if you put several thousand men out of work. It is necessary that the water should be produced in a reasonable time, and a reasonable time is something under four years.
The other alternative has been dealt with. It means the flooding of good agricultural land and the dispossessing and turning away of a whole agricultural community. I think this is a more serious objection than destroying even the most interesting plants. The third objection is a scientific one. We need to keep rather an objective view of this. There are 5,000 acres of moorland, of which the lake takes 700. But in that 5,000 acres there are the four particularly valuable botanical plants. Only one of those is in any way affected by the lake, and of the area in which it grows only one-fifth—17 acres actually, out of 5,000—will be submerged. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who shed tears at the submersion of this 17 acres, but not because it contains these plants. These plants, while they are rare, are

831
not unique. They grow in several other places. They grow on the 4,200 acres that are left; they grow in other places in the Pennines and at other sites in England and Scotland, and they grow a great deal in Northern Europe. But the objection, I think—and I hope that my botanist friends and my noble friend Lord Hurcomb will agree withme—is that we have here, growing together, a remarkable collection of plants which, though not unique, is rare, and it is a great pity to submerge them.
The question for decision is whether we are prepared to let that community of plants go (and it has been there, I am told, since the Stone Age, and has been under botanical research for 200 years), in the hope that we get some compensation. If I.C.I. provide the money for a "blitz" on this problem—and they can provide some pretty good botanists and scientists to help—it seems to me that we may learn as much in the four years available as has been learned in a long time before. And I would recommend that this should be done.
It is also worth inquiring what is the scientific effort that is being put into this study at present. I do not know how many qualified scientists—not students—are engaged in this research, and how many of them are full-time. I do not think there are many; in fact, I am fairly sure that it is quite a small number. I know very well that results of scientific research do not depend so much on the numbers employed as on the quality of those employed, and I have no hesitation in accepting that the quality of these botanists is of the highest. But it is not a very great scientific effort.
Let us now look at the other side of this scientific medal that is being flickered about before our very eyes. Here are these scientists, the botanists, none of whom will have to give up botany or give up their researches. The most that will happen to them is that they will be retarded a little, and inconvenienced; but not seriously. On the other side of the medal are literally many times the number of scientists—qualified scientists of the highest type—who are employed in Billingham and Wilton and elsewhere in the area. I think we might have a little thought for them. They are
832
equally good scientists, and I think it would be a very bold man who said their researches had not produced results as equally valuable as those of the botanists on this seventeen acres. They are working there now, but if the water they now have fails (because it is all very well to brush on one side the likelihood of water failing, but it does fail; it very largely failed in 1949 and again in 1959, and the Meteorological Office cannot tell us whether it will fail in 1969; that is the decision of the Almighty alone), many of these scientists, unlike the botanists who depend on these plants, will run a pretty good risk of losing their jobs, and that means much more than being inconvenienced. If we do not get the extra water that is required within time, we can say goodbye to all ideas of further development, prosperity and the standard of living, and the increase in population in a very important part of this country whose prosperity Governments of both complexions have urged people to do everything they can to forward.
Although one might not think it from what we have heard to-day, I think the scientific argument, the weight of science and productive scientific effort, is immeasurably on the side of the Bill. I hope, and I am confident, that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, and that it will go before the Select Committee. I have no fear about its going before the Select Committee, where, with a little less sentiment and emotion than we have sometimes heard, all the expert evidence can be considered and weighed.
I would ask your Lordships to remember what we are holding in the balance. It is not the beauty of our countryside, because I do not think that will be affected; we are holding in the balance the convenience—because it is convenience—of a certain small number of scientists, eminent as they may be, against many more scientists. But this is not an argument between scientists. The people most concerned are the 40,000 people who now directly earn their living in the industry of the district. There are 40,000 of them now, in addition to 6,000 or 7,000 contractors' labourers employed, upon whom depends the whole community, the shopkeepers, the local government officials, the transport workers. I suppose they number

833
100,000 more. We should take into consideration their prospects of improvement and of a better standard of living—and it is now a pretty good standard of living for those employed in those works. I think we should have a commonsense balance when we consider those two aspects. With that, I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, and let it go to the Select Committee.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, after that powerful speech of the noble and gallant Viscount, may I ask him, and also his noble friend who is to follow, whether he also accepts the Instruction to the Select Committee of my noble friend Lord Molson, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, when he moved the Second Reading? I believe many of your Lordships will be interested to know that.
VISCOUNT SLIM: My Lords, to be perfectly honest, I was not here when the terms of the Motion were proposed, but I am quite prepared for the Bill to go to the Select Committee and to be considered by them, because I think that as Englishmen and sensible people they cannot fail to come down on the side of the 100,000 people who will depend upon it.
5.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I believe I am the thirteenth speaker on the list. That is a fortunate number for your Lordships and not an unfortunate one, because I shall be very brief. All the relevant points in this matter have been exhaustively debated and will be continued to be so after I have made the few remarks that I have to make. Principally I wish to bring in the support of Scotland to those who oppose this Bill. The Scottish Wild Life Trust are wholeheartedly opposed to this Bill, and they have asked me to rise in your Lordships' House and say so. After all, we are all equally conservationists (if that is the correct word: I hope it is), and we feel sure that if a similar threat arose to such an important research site in Scotland, the English Trust would interest themselves in our problem just as we are interesting ourselves in theirs.
I do not believe that we can conscientiously allow such a scheme just because a reservoir can be built more
834
cheaply and more quickly on this site; that we can allow it to destroy, perhaps in a few days, and certainly for all time and for ever more, what has survived for 15,000 years and which still holds who knows what scientific interest for the world to come. Is it wise planning to throw away, for immediate utility, this unique heritage of research? I wonder what not only the scientists but all the world will think of us if we do a thing like that? To my mind, it is not a question of flora versus employment, as the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, said, because there are alternatives which have been clearly stated. We are not going to put forward alternatives—that is for the Select Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has so clearly stated.
Now just a word about the amenity aspect, because I think that is hardly less important. The noble and gallant Viscount who has just spoken said, I think, that he has never seen a loch or a sheet of water which did not improve the scenery. Sometimes that is so, because nobody likes looking at a great big concrete dam instead of the beautiful waterfall which is there at present—a "snout," I believe it is called. Our lovely countryside has suffered grievously at the hands of industry. It is shrinking every day, sometimes imperceptibly, but fewer and fewer areas of real landscape value are being left for mankind to enjoy and to uplift his soul and spirit.
Much of the harm done has been unavoidable with the expansion of industry, but a little more forethought in planning, a little more patience, a little more sense of our national responsibility and the spending of more money—and we cannot escape that—might have avoided it. Must the cost always be the deciding factor as to whether a great national heritage is saved or lost? I believe that until each and every one of the avenues has been explored—and of course they will be explored by this Select Committee—the promoters should not have free rein for their proposals as they stand. I align myself with those noble Lords who think that the wisest course is that your Lordships should agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, but I warmly support the Instruction to the Select Committee which has been indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Molson.
5.41 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Molson spoke this afternoon I thought he spoke rather contemptuously of this Bill. He described it as a "panic measure"; a "short-term expedient the need for which was not foreseen". The noble Lord, Lord Henley, described it as bad planning. The truth is a long way from that. The I.C.I. has been engaged in research upon a new process, the purpose of which is to manufacture by artificial means the gas which is used in the making of ammonia. The research of the company was not complete until 1963 or 1964 and it was not until then that they realised that they would require this very large amount of additional water.
The spur of competition has worked in this matter, too. The I.C.I. is manufacturing ammonia in competition with manufacturers in the United States, in the Netherlands, in Japan, in the Middle East and in various parts of Africa. In all these places a supply of natural gas is available which can be used for the manufacture of ammonia. The I.C.I., if it is to maintain its place in overseas markets, must compete with these countries in which one of the essential ingredients is provided by nature. It is for that reason that the time factor is of so much importance. Three or four years, which some of your Lordships have spoken of lightly, is a very important interval if you are working in competition with an active foreign competitor, as the I.C.I. is doing. The naphtha steam reforming process, which is, I think, the right name for this particular process, is an important factor in the development of the business at Middles rough. I think it would be a most unfortunate result if, by anything that was done in your Lordships' House, the necessary water that was required for the success of this process should not be forthcoming.
The issue of this Bill will ultimately be determined by the answer to the question, "Is there a suitable alternative site?" A letter appeared yesterday in The Times from a gentleman who is, I think, the chairman of the Teesdale Defence Committee, Mr. Lousley. In the course of that letter he said:
"Alternative short-term means exist of satisfying the immediate water needs of I.C.I. and other industries,"
836
and then he went on to say that these alternative means were more reliable than what he calls
"the hazardous Cow Green procedure".
I think that part of Mr. Lousley's letter is a little misleading. It suggests that some satisfactory alternative site is available. A number of alternative sites have been mentioned and I think it would help your Lordships if, for a moment, I were to enumerate the sites which have been suggested. There is a site at a place called Upper Cow Green. At Upper Cow Green the period of construction would be six years, as against three years at Cow Green. To give the same yield as the Cow Green reservoir the top water level would require to be 1,750 feet and the dam would be twice as high and three times as long. A reservoir at Upper Cow Green would cost £9 million as against the £2½ million for the reservoir at Cow Green. My Lords, the promoters and the public would be paying pretty handsomely for this exceptionally rare plant, and to justify such expenditure this plant would have to be very rare indeed.
The next site which has been proposed is one at Middleton. A reservoir at Middleton would take about as long to construct as the reservoir at Upper Cow Green and the cost would be comparable with the cost of the Upper Cow Green reservoir. But this reservoir at Middleton would involve a serious disturbance of the agriculture in the district. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, dealt with this point, and I need not trouble your Lordships with it at very great length. It means an important and substantial loss of valuable agricultural land. What I think is more important still is the disturbance which the construction of a reservoir at Middleton would cause to the local population. Thirty-nine holdings would be affected, and 30 of those holdings would lose their identity altogether as agricultural holdings. Twenty families would have their homes submerged. Part of the village of Newbiggin would be entirely submerged under the reservoir. When I heard that, my thoughts went back to the days when the Manchester Corporation were proposing to submerge the village of Mardale by their works at Ullswater, and all the ignominy and abuse which was heaped upon them for that proposal. Here I am bound to say this proposal to submerge

837
half the village of Newbiggin seems to me to have been very readily accepted by the petitioners against this Bill.
The next proposal was one made, I think, in the Committee stage of the Bill by the engineer advising the petitioners. His proposal was to sink about 40 boreholes in the lower Tees valley, and from those boreholes it was suggested that water could be pumped into the river during the dry periods. The estimated yield of that process was about 18 million gallons a day. That scheme would involve, of course, the construction of a reservoir at Cow Gate, not perhaps so large a reservoir as is proposed but it would involve construction of a reservoir at Cow Gate which might very well submerge these plants. The engineer who made this proposal described it during the hearing in another place as "speculative". I would venture to say that it appears to me, speaking perhaps without technical knowledge, to be very speculative indeed. Indeed, it appears so speculative that we have not heard very much about it this afternoon.
The fourth proposal was for a reservoir at a place called Clow Beck. That reservoir would be a small storage reservoir and it would be used in conjunction with the river-regulating scheme based on the reservoir at Cow Green. So that that proposal would involve construction of a reservoir at Cow Green. When all had been done, two reservoirs had been built, the output from the Clow Beck reservoir would be no more than 4 million gallons a day.
Then other proposals have been suggested. The proposed barrage at Morecambe Bay, the barrage at Solway, and desalination have all been suggested. Desalination may be a practical proposition some day, but it is not a practical proposition at present. The Water Research Organisation at Medmenham has been experimenting for some time in order to find a way of desalination which would not involve the costs of all the present known methods. The cost of desalinating water in Teesdale would be about 8s. or 9s. per 1,000 gallons. Some of your Lordships think that I.C.I. are a very big company and can be called upon to meet any expenditure. I do not think your Lordships would regard it as a practical proposition to offer them water at a cost of 8s. or 9s. per 1,000 gallons.
838
So far as the barrages are concerned, we have not heard much about them this afternoon, because I think the barrages are really too far off. They have been referred to in the newspapers, and one or two gentlemen I know who are interested in these matters have written to me urging that the barrage at Morecambe Bay might be the alternative to the reservoir at Cow Green. It may be that these schemes will some day be practicable. At present, the feasibility survey taking place at Morecambe and Solway has not been completed and no one yet knows what the feasibility committee are going to report. It may be that some day it will be possible—indeed, I think it will—to supplement the natural water resources of this country from these barrage schemes; and it may even be possible to find a means of passing the water over the watershed of the Pennines into Teesdale.
The reservoir which is proposed in this Bill will meet the immediate needs of this district until it is known whether an adequate supply can be obtained from these other sources. In my judgment, based on a good many years' experience of this industry, all water undertakers in this country to-day are underestimating the increased demand on their resources which is coming in the next half-century. Of course with the improvement of conditions domestic demand will increase. But it is not the domestic demand that the water undertakers will find it difficult to meet; it is the enormous demand on water for new industries. New industries all seem to possess this common characteristic; that they require very large quantities of high-grade water. I think that anybody who has had experience of this matter knows that new industries go quite regularly to water undertakers and demand very large quantities of water which the undertaker is not, as a rule, able to supply without new works.
I believe that in this next half-century the demand for water in this country will increase immensely. I think that our natural resources are sufficient to meet it, and, augmented with supplies from the barrages at Morecambe Bay and on the Solway, and perhaps elsewhere, I think we shall be able to meet the requirements of growing modern industry. I am quite certain that that means that we shall be obliged to make use of all

839
our natural resources, including all these resources on the River Tees, which we have been discussing this afternoon.
5.58 p.m.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, turning over and over in my mind how to say a few words to your Lordships this afternoon was an appalling problem. It is no less difficult now, having heard so many notable speeches. I cannot pretend to judge between the experts on either side, but one thing seems to me to be quite clear, that this particular cheap water scheme (as it has been called) can be only a temporary measure and sooner or later a larger reservoir will have to be built. Therefore, I wonder whether it is really necessary to build this one now, as it is only going to hold sufficient water for the needs for the next, I think it is said, four to ten years. Surely, if the need really is so great sufficient money could be found and the building of a dam on some other site could be speeded up, so that one dam is made instead of more than one which otherwise would obviously be required in the near future.
As I have already said, I am not expert in any way. The only reason why I speak is that my old home is two valleys North; it is sandwiched in between Wear-dale and the Tyne Valley, and over the past forty years odd I have had the good fortune to try to catch the wily trout in various reaches of the Tees above High Force. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, does not seem to enjoy the valley. I call it a dale. It is a lovely one. It is quite beautiful. It is wild, and it is lonely. Apart from the shepherd and his sheep, on the way up to where the proposed dam is to be the only occupants are the cattle, with the bulls running with the cows and looking rather fiercely at you sometimes if you should be a strange intruder. Apart from this there are just the walkers on the Pennine Way. I think this is something really to be treasured, because there are so few places in this land of ours where you can really go out for the day and see practically no one. I might add that in the business of trying to catch the wily trout, both on the Tees and on my own river in the North, the Derwent, the most expert people have always been the clever miners. I have learned a great deal from them. They have always caught far the largest fish.
840
On this particular site, and on Upper Teesdale, seldom do you find, for instance, old bottles, dirty cigarette papers and sweet-papers, or food paper lying about. The folk who walk in this part of the country leave it as they find it. They come there because they want the peace of the countryside, and not the noisy enjoyment of the herd instinct that is so prevalent among those who come out in cars and leave all their litter behind them. Once there is a dam there must be a road, and once there is a road there must be cars; and the majority of those people who come in cars are not really the country lovers. They do not come to the country to enjoy it; they come there merely because it is somewhere to go. They could not possibly hear the call of the curlew or the chatter of the odd grouse, because all that would be drowned by the noise of car radios, transistors and the general happy pandemonium.
May I say a few words about the damage during and after the construction of the proposed dam? Part of my homeland has just gone under water, and with the flooding of the upper part of the Derwent Valley in County Durham it has made a great change. It so happens that I was there last Whit sun Bank Holiday, which was the first time that the dam had been filled. I was able to see what happens. On the Bank Holiday the motorists came, hundreds of them, nose to tail. They climbed over the stone walls, they left the gates open, they sat in the middle of the hayfields, they put up their chairs and tables, played ball, and walked down to have a look at the water. In the meanwhile, the children naturally picked flowers, and during the course of the afternoon the flowers had withered so that they just left them behind. I know that on the Cow Green site there are no hayfields; it is just a fell where the sheep live. But those of your Lordships who know the country will know that on your way up there from Langdon Beck, along a track which has cattle grids, the cattle are of course just loose, as also are the sheep. It has occurred to me—and I should like to ask whether your Lordships do not think this—that with the invasion of a large number of tourists such as there obviously would be if this were a new beauty spot there might not be the added danger of spreading a nearby outbreak of

841
foot-and-mouth disease. The tourists will go all over the fell, and their cars can go, too. I do not know the answer to that question, but I hope that somebody else perhaps may.
In case there are any noble Lords who have not seen—I was going to say the chaos that accompanies the construction of a reservoir, I may say that, as it occurred with my home, I happen to have been fortunate—or unfortunate, however you like to look at it—to see this. Of course, from the moment that they decide to begin, bulldozers arrive by the hundred; great large earth-shifting machines come along, and the site of the proposed dam is levelled out. Where it is high it is laid low; where it is low, it is filled up. If it is not going to hold water they do not grout; they bring soil from somewhere else and put it in. In order to do this, all these great heavy machines have to get there.
We have heard about the community of plants. It is not an isolated plant in which anybody is interested, but the community of plants which grow especially in this particular place. I wonder how these plants can possibly survive all these great giant engines travelling about all over the ground. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, that I.C.I. are prepared to take special care about this. But to anyone who has seen all this happening it is difficult to see how special care can be taken when mud and sludge are being carted about every time these great engines move around.
The beauty of dams, as opposed to natural lakes, is, of course, debatable. We have heard from the noble Viscount and other noble Lords this afternoon different views about this. My own view is that lakes are alive and dams are dead. I do not think anybody would argue with the fact that when the reservoirs are extremely low they are quite ugly; and as this particular valley or dale, or whatever you care to call it, is not very steep I do not think anybody could suppose that any proposed dam over and above Caldron Snout could be anything but extremely ugly.
Finally, I have read with great interest the Manchester Corporation Bill. I regret that in some ways history seems
842
to be repeating itself. Little or no progress seems to have been made since 1962 in looking for other ways of getting and conserving water, other than by destroying land of which we in this small island are already so short. Therefore, I shall oppose this Bill, but I support the Instruction in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molson.
6.10 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, your Lordships' House is a House of Parliament, one of the two Houses which look after and cherish the democracy of our country. This House is the last refuge of any aggrieved citizen of this country. In this particular case several bodies of citizens believe that they are aggrieved They are aggrieved by a great industrial concern, I.C.I., together with the Water Board of their area of Teesdale, and various other local authorities concerned. When confronted with such a situation, there is very little that an ordinary individual can do. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, has spoken most gracefully and forcefully of exactly one of such people.
These people have recourse to your Lordships' House, and in a case involving such great technicality, a little of which we heard from my noble friend Lord Ilford (and when we hear a brilliant speech such as we had this afternoon from the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Slim, in which evidence was given with such force, it is often the case that other evidence is apt to take a back seat), it is impossible for us to come to a judgment. Therefore a Select Committee of your Lordships' House is appointed to go into all the evidence, both for and against, as explained by the noble Earl the Lord Chairman. Provided that the Instruction of my noble friend Lord Molson is approved by your Lordships, if the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and his friends (who are supporting this Bill, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said in the simple and charming way in which he put over this big measure) will accept, as Lord Lindgren did, this Instruction, we shall then hear, by specific demand of your Lordships, the pros and cons of these alternatives, which I do not believe have been fully investigated, in spite of the difficulties and the advantages in the scheme which Lord Slim put to us.

843
I want only to add that there is one possible alternative which has not yet been mentioned in this interesting debate. Very late in the day in the Select Committee sittings in another place, the Central Elecricity Generating Board announced that by 1974 they will put up one of their new atomic power stations of the latest pattern. I understand that these power stations, if the "go" is given to them, are capable of producing a fantastic quantity of desalinated water—at what cost I know not. My noble friend has said that it would be 8s per 1,000 gallons. We are arguing at a commercial price just to feed the cows at 2s. 6d. per 1,000 gallons. I do not know the difference in the time factor in relation to 1974 for these new stations. Whatever else will happen, one thing we do know is that the price to feed the cows will have gone up. I should especially like to hear as a result of this Instruction, whether Yes or No, desalination will be possible from this newly proposed power station, discussion of which has had so little time either in another place or in your Lordships' House, or even in the multitude of briefs which have been distributed.
I believe that your Lordships have to-day in this interesting debate given a great service in the cause of democracy and in defence of the small man, the sort of individual mentioned by the noble Baroness. We shall be able to hear from a Select Committee the pros and cons as to the alternatives put forward by my noble friend. If, as the noble Lord said, all those who are commending this Bill to your Lordships will accept this Instruction, I shall certainly be in favour of giving this Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have given your reasons for being opposed to the proposal contained in this Bill have done so so amply, so clearly and so convincingly that at this hour I propose merely to say that I agree with them, and shall not trespass further on your Lordships' time.
6.16 p.m.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, there are, as I see it, three quite distinct facets to this issue: the human one, the amenity one, and the botanical-cum-scientific one,
844
about which we have heard so much this afternoon. The first two are obviously linked. The amenities of the Pennines, the Derbyshire Peak District, the Lake District in relation to our large industrial centres cannot be over-estimated. Debate in the other place has brought out this facet, and it has again been brought out in this House this afternoon. The particular site we are considering is a very important part of the Pennines, with two of the finest waterfalls in Great Britain, and a grandeur of wild, heather-covered mountains—at least, they look like mountains when there is a slight rain cloud passing by—which is extremely impressive. To put a dam just above Caldron Snout some 80 feet high, which would entirely ruin the landscape when seen from below, suggests an artistic perception particularly lacking in those who plan it. I cannot see how the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, looking from Caldron Snout at this great wall 80 feet high, cannot understand that this would entirely ruin the landscape.
As regards the third factor, the botanical side of the question, we are told by botanists and ecologists that the area to be submerged is one of unique interest and importance. That has been repeated ad nauseam this afternoon, and we know that if it is destroyed it would be a loss which could not be replaced. No other types of plant communities—which is the important factor, not the species but the communities—of this particular kind exist elsewhere in Western Europe. They are not only interesting ecologically; their study has a practical value, as it is by research into such things that discoveries of far-reaching importance have been made in the past. It is reasonable to suppose that research work in the future may well lead to striking results, such, for instance, as crop-plant breeding. To illustrate my point, on a recent visit to this site I was somewhat surprised to find thrift growing on Widdybank Fell at 1,800 feet. One expects to see it near to the sea rather than high on a peak. That is the sort of thing which this particular site illustrates, and it cannot be dismissed as unimportant. Furthermore, it should be realised that this area is much used by students of all ages, particularly students from Durham University.

845
Nobody doubts that water must be provided, and it is not Parliament's fault that there may be a delay if another site is agreed upon. There are, as we know, alternative sites which have been mentioned this afternoon and which, in the long run, would probably be preferable as providing reservoirs of greater capacity than one at Widdybank Fell. I was surprised also to see in the evidence in the other place that I.C.I. said they did not realise that this matter had to go before Parliament. They thought that the Minister's decision was sufficient. Well, really ! I.C.I. ought to know better than that. This was given in evidence; I am not making it up.
We should take note of what we have heard in the debates in both Houses, and the sooner we get on to a national water scheme the better for everybody concerned. Matters of this sort will be less likely to crop up once we get going in that direction, and I hope it will not be long before we do. I was very interested to hear the suppressed evidence of the National Parks Commission this afternoon. I understand that that will now go before the Select Committee if the Bill is passed. I shall certainly vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am strongly in favour of its going before the Select Committee.
6.21 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I am the chairman of a county trust for nature conservation. I am also a director of a waterworks company, and I am in a state of some embarrassment because the next speaker is the chairman of that waterworks company. I believe that he is going to speak in a contrary sense to that in which I shall speak. But I am glad that we have agreed a good House of Lords' principle, to give this Bill a Second Reading, and I am also glad that we shall send an Instruction to the Select Committee. Select Committees are not so knowledgeable that they can do without instructions, and it will not do them any harm, although certain lawyers might say it was otiose. I think they should have this Instruction, but we must reserve our position about what we shall do if and when (I say "if" advisedly) this Bill comes back to us again, as I for one do not like it at all.
846
One case for the Bill is expediency, and that has been pretty brutally put by some speakers this afternoon. The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Slim, did not mince his words. He made the point about expediency pretty brutally. The I.C.I., the authorities, the Establishment, had looked at probably a dozen sites and rejected them out of hand as too costly, or as taking too much time, or because some farmland would be destroyed, land which was mentioned in the N.F.U. brief as being almost ploughable.
Apart from the case of expediency for this Bill, the other case—and I really do not want to be too conceited here—is a pure and honest lack of comprehension. It is extremely difficult for people to understand these two opposites. It is extremely difficult for commercial businessmen, financiers and waterworks engineers to comprehend that it is possible to weigh botany in the same scales as material advantage. If I may put it another way, the disciples of St. Jeremy Bentham and St. Adam Smith would really find it extremely difficult to talk to the disciples of St. Thomas à Becket; and I am sure that in his racy way the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, like Henry II, would have said that St. Thomas à Becket was a bloody nuisance. I feel he could not deal with this so dissimilar type of thought. If such people stopped to think about the phrase of the days when they used to go to chapel, "The noble army of martyrs", what they would say is, "I do not think they are noble at all; they are very antisocial." This is the difficulty we are in.
Of course, this trouble is aggravated by the fact that here we have the classical case of David and Goliath. Here we have the mighty I.C.I., the Establishment, local government, the Ministries and Government Departments, with their organisation and their long purse, on the one side, and on the other side we have David, the shepherd boy. But the man with the biggest bomb, the organisation with the longest purse, is not always right. Therefore, I support the Second Reading of this Bill and I reserve my position when and if this Bill comes back again.
I would venture to suggest that the case against this Bill is not one of amenity—whether or not you like lakes

847
—but the principle of nature conservation. It is the principle that very occasionally an industrial development must be held up, must be automatically ruled out, as the Board would say. There must be this delay, this extra cost, this other damage to almost plough able farmland, if a tribunal is to be given time to consider the matter properly. I believe that this is the uniqueness of the Cow Green site—the irreversibility of development here and the final and irreparable damage that would be done. In my view, this makes it one of the very few cases when conservation should have priority over industrial development.
If this small, unique survival of the Ice Age, surviving for 10,000or 15,000 years, is not worth preserving, then nothing of this nature is worth preserving. One feels inclined to ask the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim (neither of whom is in his place at the moment) what sort of cases they would think worth preserving. If we feel there is no case here then we should be honest about it and repeal conservation legislation and abandon the whole idea.
I should like to quote from the Teesdale Defence Committee's paper. Many of your Lordships have probably received this, but one cannot better its words. I quote from paragraph 30:
"What the scientific and conservation bodies are asking is that this unique area should be preserved from destructive development. If this cannot be accepted by Parliament and by the nation, it is tantamount to saying that a case for scientific conservation must not expect to succeed against more immediately obvious competing demands. Certainly there are no other areas for which a stronger scientific case could be advanced. Scientists are impelled, therefore, to regard Cow Green as a test case and a precedent."
That is what I think it is: a test case and a precedent. This matter is internationally important. We should remember Sir Julian Huxley's recent words:
"Countries much less well endowed than ours are looking to us for a lead."
My Lords, let us give them that lead.
6.29 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I must start by confirming the interest attributed to me by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave who has just sat down. That interest might be presumed to inspire in me a fellow feeling for the pro-
848
moters of this Bill. I think there is perhaps a little of that in it, but I can assure your Lordships that it would not make me support this Bill regardless of other considerations. I think I can say that the same is obviously true of my noble friend Lord Waldegrave. I hope I have a real concern for the preservation of the countryside and its amenity, but, as this debate has already shown, the weight of the opposition rests primarily on what I might call the scientific arguments—botanical and biological arguments—rather than on amenity.
I frankly confess to your Lordships that I find it exceedingly difficult to evaluate these scientific arguments. There are some things upon which I am perfectly clear. The first is that, regarding this proposition as a water supply proposition, the site chosen is unquestionably the right one. I.C.I.'s needs are not in dispute. What I think is less clear from this debate, if I may say so, is the extent to which, as has been assumed, this is necessarily only a temporary measure. I should like to invite attention to the Appendix to the document which was submitted before the Committee in another place on this matter of the needs of water in the Tees district. On the estimates of the Water Board and the river authorities, the yield of the proposed reservoir at Cow Green, on top of the existing supply, was calculated to be sufficient to meet the foreseen industrial needs—that is, the I.C.I. needs, and the anticipated needs of South Durham, Dorman Long, et cetera—and a normal growth of domestic consumption up to the year 1990.
The Water Resources Board, believing, as they have some cause to believe, that water suppliers frequently underestimate future requirements (this is not always so, my Lords, but it is not uncommon), attached at the bottom of this Appendix a further table which shows that if the industrial requirements were to increase after 1971 at the rate they were estimated to increase between 1969 and 1971—which, of course, includes the period during which I.C.I. are beginning to draw their water—then the requirements would be such that the yield of the Cow Green reservoir would be insufficient within ten years; and this is where the statement about four to ten years arises.

849
Now with such knowledge and such experience as I have of these matters—and I have some—it seems to me that that latter basis is really unrealistic. I think that the probable truth lies somewhere between the two, and I should myself suppose that on any reasonable hypothesis the yield of the proposed Cow Green site would be sufficient to meet the requirements for at least ten to fifteen years after 1970; and quite possibly for twenty years after 1970. That would be my judgment on the facts as we know them and on the anticipations of growth that we have seen quoted.
My Lords, that brings me to a point which I hope my noble friend Lord Molson will not mind my referring to now, and that is that a strict reading of the word "foreseeable" in the direction which he will, I hope, shortly be moving could be interpreted in a very narrow and restrictive sense. In other words, if "foreseeable" were to mean all the demands that anyone could conceive as possibly arising in the period of twenty years, and if the Select Committee, in their wisdom, decided that that was a reasonable direction and worked accordingly, then I am afraid they could not recommend any proposal (at least anything that is visible over the horizon now) which would give I.C.I. the water they need in time. I think this is a factor which might be borne in mind. I do not suggest at this late hour (because I think it would be entirely improper to do so) that we should seek to discuss an amendment to the Instruction which my noble friend Lord Molson is proposing, but I hope that, if it is approved, and if the House does decide to give this Bill a Second Reading and to refer it to a Select Committee with such a direction as is suggested, then the point I have tried to make now will be borne in mind.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment?
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: Certainly.
LORD MOLSON: In the evidence to which the noble Lord has referred, there were different estimates made by the Water Board and by the Water Resources Board. The Water Resources Board said that they had not had time to make a full survey, but in the provisional opinion
850
they gave they tried to estimate for very greatly increased consumption on Tees-side. The Water Board, on the contrary (this is what was said by the Chief Engineer of the Water Board, and I think, without being offensive, it shows how short-sighted they are), said:
"The allowance we are making for future industrial use is quite modest in respect of industrial demands, and nothing at all for I.C.I.".
It is on that statement that I largely base my argument that this is a very short-term policy, and that if we agree to this we shall be asked before very long for something more.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I thank my noble friend very much. That, of course, will be one of the factors which the Select Committee will take into account. I think the quotations that my noble friend Lord Molson has read merely confirm what I said: that quite possibly the truth may lie in between these two extremes.
My Lords, I do not propose to go over the various aspects of this scheme, as I had originally proposed to do, because the ground has been covered so very thoroughly; and, if I may say so, on most points I agree almost entirely with what my noble friend Lord Swinton said in his admirable speech. There are two points on the amenity aspect to which I might perhaps be allowed to refer briefly. The first concerns the Caldron Snout falls. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, is not here, but I do not believe there is any good reason for assuming that those falls will be materially harmed by the existence of a dam some distance above them. The flow from the river will be sufficient to ensure a very satisfactory fall. Secondly, the dam was referred to by (I think it was) the noble Earl, Lord Haddington. In this particular case, as has been said, the dam itself is only 82 feet high, and it is about 600 yards long. It will be constructed partly by earth and partly by masonry and concrete. Very soon it will be covered by grass and herbage; and a landscape expert who was called in has advised. I believe, that very soon this dam will blend into the landscape. Apart from that, I am one of those who certainly subscribe to the view that a large sheet of water in such a setting as this, so far from detracting, adds to the scenic beauties and to the amenities generally.

851
On the scientific argument, as I said, I find this an extremely difficult question. First, there is the cost, in terms of scientific values, of the destruction or damage to rare plants or plant communities, and of prejudice to long-term biological research. On the other side, that cost must be weighed against the value in terms of national interest of the I.C.I. project. It may be difficult to strike a balance, but this is really the nub of the matter as I see it. That is why I am particularly glad that this whole question may be referred to a Select Committee—preferably, I should hope, without a specific direction, but if that cannot be then with this specific direction rather than that it should not be referred at all.
6.40 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, nothing in my record outside this House would suggest that I was in any way hostile to technological advance or to anything which would increase productivity or encourage I.C.I. to go on extending their plant. Indeed, nothing would suggest that I was in conflict with my noble friend Lord Blyton in his concern for employment on Tees-side. But there are issues here which I am glad are going to be considered—and I hope fully considered—by the Select Committee. The issues in this matter are perfectly straightforward; we have had them spelt out. The alternatives in every sense should be before the Select Committee and the choice should be made on evidence, which I feel has so far been lacking.
I have every sympathy with the ramblers, the cyclists, the landscape lovers; but even beyond amenities there are considerations which I should like to illumine for the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. They are scientific considerations which make it clear that if we are going to take a position on this subject it must be clearly defined, because we have been the leaders of conservation in the world. We are trying to set an example to others by precept. What we want to do now is to prove by practice.
As to the other considerations, there may be much more powerful arguments than those that have been deployed this afternoon against the bulldozer method of destroying something which is absolutely unique in the world.
852
Let us make no mistake about that. We may decide to write it off, but it is still unique. If we are prepared to sacrifice that heritage, not of this country but of the world, I think we ought to be serious in our consideration of how we do it. I do not believe the alternatives have been fully considered and I do not think that the example which will be set in this connection will be an honourable one.
I am not a Nature sentimentalist; I am a conservationist in the scientific sense of the word. I am not a Ferdinand the Bull sniffing flowers; but in this case I feel we have enormous responsibilities. I saw in last Sunday's Observer that somebody described this area as the "Westminster Abbey of Botany". It is not the Westminster Abbey of Botany. If Westminster Abbey were destroyed tomorrow it could, at least in parts, like St. Stephen's, be restored. But we cannot restore what we have destroyed irreversibly. This is something on which vie might take a decision but we must be clear about this decision.
May I say emphatically that this is not a conflict between fuzzy-duddy scientists called botanists and the powerful, systematic scientists of the I.C.I. It is not a conflict of these people. We are trying to evaluate what is in fact the interests of true science—for this is true science. May I put clearly to the noble Lord Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, that what we are saying is not trivial. I think it has not been fully brought out that we are here dealing with a community of plants, not the individual plant; not plants to be found elsewhere in Teesdale, not plants one can take into botanical gardens and re-create, nor even a system you can put in the phytotrons in which you artificially reproduce climatic and other conditions. It is not something you can put on record, because it is a living thing; once you cut it out it ceases to live. Perhaps you may decide to cut it out; but that is a decision to be taken. And it is an ecological situation and not that of any individual plant about which the botanists are concerned. Ecology is the basis of all genuine conservation. If we are to lose our sense of ecological balance, we must realise what we are in fact doing when we are doing it.
The comparison is not with the destruction of Westminster Abbey, however regrettable that might be; the comparison

853
is with tearing out the pages of the First Folio of Shakespeare and burning them. If somebody were freezing to death I would unhesitatingly burn the First Folio in order to save him, if there were no alternatives. But let us choose the alternatives before we burn this First Folio.
6.45 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I must apologise for being absent from this debate between the hours of 4 and 5.30 p.m., when I was unavoidably absent. I would also say that I am surprised to find myself rising to speak in support of Lord Molson's Instruction, because, like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I am not a preservationist. I often disappoint my preservationist friends on many issues. I respect their views, but I think preservation has to go by the board when one weighs one factor against another. For example, I wonder whether I shall find myself fighting in the last ditch to preserve St. Pancras Station. It is true that although one often wants to preserve things one must recognise that other factors are more important. There are many parts of the country dear to people which are now submerged beneath new towns; but those new towns should have been built because people must have homes. People must have priority and industry must have water.
Moreover, I would in one sense modify what my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder said about the botanical aspect. I would go so far as to say that the botanical aspect in this problem is not, so I understand from scientific friends, of absolutely first-class importance in the development of botany. It is not, for example, a subject of such immense fundamental importance as plant physiology. Nevertheless, it has a great deal of importance and I need do no more than to underline what my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder said a moment ago.
I do begin to pause when I realise and have been told that there are alternatives. These are what must be explored. It does not seem to me that these alternatives have been explored yet. I pause again when, in addition, I am told that the proposed dam and reservoir will be obsolete in four to ten years' time. I pause even longer, because if these alternatives exist then it seems to me that the claims of preservationists and of some-
854
thing one may call the quality of life should then be given their due weight, if the alternatives exist. By "due weight" I mean all those things which have been spoken of to-day so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster. These things must be given due weight. I hope, therefore, that we shall in fact have the Instruction.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, may I ask whether he is able to indicate what alternative he claims has not been fully considered?
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, both alternative sites of the dam. I think the Upper site is not nearly as far away as, for example, Manchester, which requires water, is from the Lake District.
6.49 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I have had the pleasure of listening to the whole of this very interesting debate, and I have heard views of great authority put on all sides of this difficult argument and, indeed, from all parts of this noble Chamber. Seldom have I spent an afternoon more profitably. One thing that seems clear is that, whatever conflict there may be on the various aspects of the problem, there is no doubt that there is general agreement on the first-class importance of this matter. For all the world to see, this very important matter has been threshed out here in great detail and, I think, with very great authority.
I was particularly interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who gave us such an outstanding exposition of the botanical objections to this particular proposition of a reservoir at Cow Green. Among other things the noble Lord told us that scientific opinion, both national and international, would condemn us if we lightly obliterated this site of unique botanical interest. If I may say so, I thought that was the only "loose ball" that he bowled. One thing which is absolutely sure is that your Lordships are not lightly obliterating this site. Here we have demonstrated to-day that we are all very much aware of the great issues at stake and the extremely difficult decision which eventually we have all to take.
This is, of course, only the "dress rehearsal" for the ultimate decision. I was

855
very glad to hear what I think was the general sense of both sides of the Chamber, that noble Lords wished to give the Bill a Second Reading and wished to support the Instruction, so that the matter may then go to a Select Committee and be examined again in detail and finally come for recommittal here, for us to take the ultimate decision in the light of the Select Committee's Report. I am sure that is the right way for us to deal with it. Different noble Lords have made different reservations about what notice they will take of the Select Committee Report when they get it, but of course that is a matter for individual judgment.
I think that on one thing we are all agreed: that an increased supply of water, a largely increased supply, is needed quickly in this area. This is for causes which we all welcome. I am sure that your Lordships were much impressed by the strength with which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, spoke about the industrial and employment position in the North-East. The fact is that these policies which were started in the Government of my Party have been admirably carried on by Her Majesty's Government to-day, and the North-East is now expanding instead of declining. That is something about which we are all delighted. It has coincided with the remarkable industrial break-through by I.C.I. in its manufacture of nitrogen, and that also is something which is a great delight to us all, not only for the sake of the North-East but because it will be a great help to our national economy. I felt that the contribution from my noble friend Lord Swinton on this matter was a great help to us all. The debate has shown—and here, I think, the Instruction is particularly valuable in focusing our attention—that the area of conflict and anxiety which divides noble Lords is whether the Cow Green site is the right one or whether there is an alternative which is less objectionable. The two alternatives which have been most mentioned are the Upper Cow Green site and the Middleton site.
My Lords, the intervention by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees was most helpful, at any rate to me, in enabling us to understand what the Select Committee would deal with. He told
856
us that they would deal with these issues. It has been a help to us to have our attention focused on this point. I express no personal view now on the relative merits of either of these alternatives. I intend, as I am sure most noble Lords do, to wait until we see the Select Committee's Report and know what advice they can give us. Of course, we already know a good deal. Heaven knows!, there have been enough briefs flying about, and anyone who has tackled the formidable task of reading the Report of the Select Committee in another place will certainly be well-informed, not only about the facts but about the arguments, too. So we know a good deal about the relative costs, capacities, time-tables and, indeed, objections to each of these proposals. These will, however, be studied in far greater detail by our Select Committee, and we shall have the benefit of their advice when we take our final decision.
I am sure we all recognise that the Committee can do no more than adduce the facts and put them, so far as they can, in a proper perspective. There is no absolute criteria to enable us to decide which is right in the end. I felt that when the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, was referring to the merits of the Middleton site as an alternative, he had perhaps not entirely consciously in his mind the sort of objections we should hear from the farming world, were that put forward as the official proposition. This, of course, is the dilemma: that there are very serious objections to each of these proposals. I found the lucid analysis by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Slim, of the pros and cons of each proposal very helpful; and I am bound to say that when I heard my noble friend Lord Waldegrave refer to the speech of the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Slim, as "racey" I thought that his "noble army of martyrs" showed a pretty good turn of speed down the straight, too.
The national position to-day is that all major provisions of new supplies of water will involve, inevitably, both higher cost and sacrifice. In Great Britain we have already taken all the cheap water which is easy to get, and all new schemes will involve greater cost and complexity. There is plenty of water available one way or another, but many of these schemes will take a long time to develop.

857
My noble friend Lord Ilford referred to the barrage schemes of Solway and Morecambe which are now under feasibility study. Both these schemes have an enormous potential, but I should be very surprised if we can expect any supplies from them--leaving aside the enormous costs involved—for ten years or so at the best. The other big prospect for the future which has been referred to is desalination. We may expect to see a useful contribution from the projected new nuclear generating station on the Tees-side, but again this will take some time before it appears. I should think that desalination as a by-product of nuclear generation will probably be the best bet in this connection, but I would say to my noble friend Lord Bathurst that that again cannot possibly arrive soon enough to help us in our present dilemma. These are all medium and long term solutions.
My Lords, if I may I will make one point on an aspect to which my noble friend Lord Molson and the noble Lord, Lord Henley referred. They were critical of what seems the hand-to-mouth, short-term policy of the local water company. I think that is a fair criticism. But the company has done no more than all other water companies have done. The fact is that we have only just got a national policy for water, which came in largely at the instigation of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor in the 1963 Water Resources Act. Now at last we have the river authorities, each of them making a demand/supply survey in their areas which will take them up to the end of the century; with the Water Resources Board coming in over the top, in a co-ordinating function, to make sure of the national position, and the transfer, where necessary, from one river authority area to another. So gradually we may hope to get what I think all noble Lords want, which is a far more long-term and coherent view of what demand is likely to be and where the supply is coming from. And I hope that that will save us from some of these agonising decisions which afflict us now on the kind of sacrifice we should make in order to get the immediate supplies which are obviously urgently needed.
A little was said about the possibility of ground water schemes, and of course they are most attractive, but I am afraid
858
that in this area there seems to be little prospect of finding the two factors which are essential to get really large-scale supplies from that source. These two factors are, first, that there must be a wide area of suitable geological structure which is water bearing—chalk, limestone or the like—and, secondly, that it must be relatively under-pumped before the major scheme is started. It looks to me as if these conditions do not exist on a big scale in the area, though obviously there is some and if it is taken into account it is going to be useful.
It looks to me as if these three alternatives are the three practical possibilities. I hope that the Select Committee will study them, and all aspects of this extremely difficult problem, and will bring us back a report—and, my word!, the members are going to have a formidable job to get the picture clear for us. They certainly have my best wishes. I look forward to seeing their report as a preparation for taking an ultimate decision on where this reservoir should be. I hope that your Lordships will be agreeable to giving this Bill a Second Reading.
7.2 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the proposition before us this afternoon is not that we should pass this Bill into law; it is that it is worthy of examination by a number of us carefully selected from among those best qualified to examine it. Since that is so, I think there is little that should be said on the merits of the matter by the Government spokesman in this debate. That will come later. It may help the House, though, if I give a very brief round-up of the salient facts on each side. Many of these, and many which were not salient, have already been mentioned.
The Bill is desired by a circle which goes far wider than the promoters, the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Board and their chief clients, I.C.I. This is so for the following reasons. Tees-side is a part of England which attracts the highest possible incentives for industrial development; the 40 per cent. investment grant is one measure of it. I.C.I. have pioneered a very good new way of making fertilisers out of oil, the naphtha steam reforming process, and this will justify a

859
great expansion of production. For this reason, and because they are also expanding their production of other things, they very rightly intend to build great new plants on Tees-side. The new plants will demand a certain amount of water; more than is now available. The cheapest and quickest way of getting the increase is by the Cow Green reservoir. If it has to be got from anywhere else, and if there were a drought before that alternative source were on supply which would be later than Cow Green would, I.C.I. would have to cut back production. There would be a loss of exports, and a number of the men who would by then have been taken on would be out of work for a period related to the length of the drought.
Those who favour the Bill to my knowledge—and I do not mention certain bodies referred to in the debate because they have not come to my direct knowledge—include, besides the promoters, the Water Resources Board, the Northumbrian River Authority, the Durham County Council, the National Farmers' Union and the North-East Development Council. The National Farmers' Union favour it because the least inconvenient alternative, Middleton, would flood farm land, while Cow Green would not.
By the opponents of the Bill it is argued that the reservoir would drown part of an area which sustains unique plant communities, and endanger other parts of it by the climatic and hydrological changes it might produce, and that these communities are not capable of being studied quickly, between now and then, but only over decades. It is argued that since these communities have been proved by recent quaternary studies to be isolated communities of certain Arctic species, cut off for ten thousand years from the main genetic pool of those species in the Arctic regions, their presence and their co-existence one with another on the rare geology of Cow Green make them especially important for the study of micro-evolution, and thus for the increasing practical fruits of research into plant genetics. It is also asked how we can seek to take the lead in international efforts to preserve objects of scientific study, as we do, when we destroy our own.
860
Those who oppose the Bill include the National Parks Commission, the Nature Conservancy, the National Environmental Research Council, the Teesdale Defence Committee, which is a grouping primarily of local botanical and amenity societies, and, I think it is fair to say, the great majority of botanists in this country. In mentioning the National Parks Commission, I should like to repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Strang, the apology which has already been made by my right honourable friend the Minister for Land and Natural Resources for the fact that an earlier communication from the National Parks Commission was inadvertently not appended to his report to the House of Commons.
The House will notice that I have not quoted a single figure, whether for the size of the reservoir or its alternatives, for their likely yields, for the cost of the water they would produce, for the acreage of botanical interest affected, for the possible climatic changes, for the output of the I.C.I. plants, for their cost, for their consumption of water, for their export potential, for the number of men they will employ or, if water is not assured, possibly fail to employ, nor even the dates when this or that survey was begun or completed, or when this or that project can be begun or completed. I have done this because I do not believe that we on the Floor of the House can do more in any case in one afternoon's debate than get a rough idea of the shape of the issue. The detailed figures, even when they are not disputed, must be filled in patiently and in detail before a Committee, and we must hear that Committee's report. When we try to do it here, we only confuse ourselves.
For the same reason, I would ask the forgiveness of the House for not taking up in detail many of the points which have been made in this debate. Some of them I believe to be right, some of them I am almost sure were wrong in fact, and some of them I have not the least idea about. The issue is so complicated that I am sure we are right to leave it to the Select Committee.
This is probably an irreconcilable conflict between two very strong cases. It would be irresponsible—it might seem almost criminal—to do anything which will slow down the industrial development of the North-East; it has so long

861
had such a raw economic deal. And the same would apply if it slowed down the growth of our petrochemical exports, which are growing so fast, and are capable of so much further growth, and where the competition is so hot. How could we do that? And it would be irresponsible, it might almost seem criminal, to damage a natural laboratory of plant genetics, which botanists all over the world agree is unique and irreplaceable, when that branch of science—plant genetics—is just beginning to develop so fast and to give promise of economic application in our ability to produce new strains adapted to this one or that of our agricultural needs. How could we possible do that?
The dispute between these two views has been marked, as such disputes often are, by confusion, by hasty words, by changes of position; even—and this is the most unfortunate of all—by attempts from both sides to discredit the professional competence of the other. There has been an incident where proponents of the Bill publicly implied that the absence of two of the most eminent botanists in the country from the Commons hearing was evidence that they did not support their colleagues in their opposition. The House will remember how sharply these two professors countered the allegations. There has been another incident where opponents of the Bill accused the promoters of "manipulating the facts" to suit their case.
I hope we shall be able to say later that from the moment when the Teesdale Bill went before the Lords such unseemliness ceased, and the thing was thenceforth considered calmly and on its merits.
Some opponents of the Bill have let it be seen that they fear there may not again be as favourable a moment as the present for deciding its fate. Not to put too fine a point upon it, they fear that if they let it get into Committee they might be cozened or pressed ino passing it later on by some sleight of hand or exercise of Government prerogative. This will not happen. Let me describe what will happen to the Bill from now on if we send it to a Select Committee. The Committee may find that the Bill is wholly unacceptable and so report to the House; and that will be the end of it. Or they may find it wholly acceptable and so
862
report to the House. In that case, there will, if the House wishes, be a Third Reading debate and a Division. Or the Committee may make Amendments. Then the Committee will report the Bill to the House with Amendments, and again there may be a Third Reading debate, just is in the other case. It is also possible (though this is rare) for the House to re-commit a Bill such as this to a Committee of the Whole House, so that further Amendments beyond those made by our Select Committee can be moved and debated. After that, too, there can, if the House wishes, be a Report and a debate.
I turn now to the attitude of the Government. The overall position of the Government towards this Bill remains what it was when my right honourable friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources commended it to the House of Commons at Report stage—and I quote him:
"I have considered this with my right honourable friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Education and Science and, having done so, we feel that the advice we must tender is that we should support the Bill. I do this with the greatest reluctance."
My right honourable friend's reluctance, of course, was due to the fact that because of the only recent setting up of the Water Resources Board, these decisions are still not able to be taken long enough in advance, and that the House was thus presented with no alternative but to accept the Bill.
I feel no reluctance whatever in urging this House now to give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to the Select Committee. Ordinarily, when we give a Public Bill its Second Reading we are approving it in principle, and we refer it to Committee to tidy up the details. But when we refer a Private Bill to a Select Committee, the intention is that the Committee are empowered to examine the Bill as it were from the bottom up, including its general purpose and effects, very much as we do ourselves on the Floor of the House on the Second Reading of a Public Bill. So when we are sending a Bill to Select Committee, the Second Reading simply imparts a judgment that the Bill is worth examining, both in general and in detail. This Bill has been passed by the House of

863
Commons, after thirteen days in Committee there. It is a very contentious Bill, and a highly technical one, on which the arguments of both sides are supported by a wealth of facts, figures, and reasoning, not all readily comprehensible without delving and elucidation in the presence of experts. We cannot turn the promoters of this Bill away without hearing their case, when the House of Commons found it worthy of thirteen days' attention. To do so would be quite out of keeping with our role and tradition in this House, and I do not think any noble Lord would wish that we should do so. The Government therefore urge the House without any reservation to give this Bill its Second Reading. I have already described what happens then, how it comes back to us for a free vote on Third Reading.
I turn now to the Instruction standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. The Government find no reason either to commend or refrain from commending this Instruction to the House. We have heard already from the Lord Chairman of Committees that the issues which it instructs the Committee to consider would in any case come up for consideration on the evidence which is to be laid before the Committee. That being so, it is in the Government's view a matter of only moderate importance whether or not the Instruction is passed: it will not change the effect. I am not arguing against the Instruction.
The House may wish. however, that the Select Committee will bear in mind the fact that the Water Resources Board, which has been in existence for only a very short time, is due to produce before the end of this year an Interim Report on the water supplies in the North of England, and next year to produce a Final Report on that topic. The Committee will no doubt themselves determine what are the dangers, if any, of their duplicating the work that is being done by the Water Resources Board. I know that the promoters of the Bill have accepted the Motion for the Instruction, and, in conclusion, I should like to join myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said about sending the good wishes both of the Opposition and of the Government, and I do not doubt of all Members of the House also,
864
to the Select Committee in the intensely difficult and prolonged task which awaits them.
7.18 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, if your Lordships will give me permission to speak again, I will reply quite briefly to the points which have been made in this debate, and then I shall not think it necessary to do more than formally move the Instruction. As the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has agreed to accept the Instruction, so I naturally return the compliment and agree to support the Second Reading of this Bill. As has been said several times, we, of course, reserve our position as regards what we shall do on Third Reading. The Lord Chairman of Committees has pointed out that the passing of a Private Bill on Second Reading in no way commits this House to the principles of the Bill. When the Select Committee have elucidated the facts, it will be for us then to consider the right policy to follow.
I think it would be fair to say that in this debate the main arguments of the supporters of the Bill are arguments of expediency. I think we should be a little chary of accepting arguments of expediency about the importance of new industrial development, of the export trade and of employment. I am quite sure that exactly the same arguments were put forward in mid-Victorian times to justify the building of factories all over the country, which are now cluttering up the countryside, and which are surrounded by slums—and all done without any of that necessary planning for the future which it is now the accepted policy of both political Parties.
The really alarming thing was the argument that was put forward by the Water Resources Board, who in other respects were so lukewarm in commending this Bill. They said: "This Cow Green reservoir is the next logical step". My Lords, the natural question which one feels inclined to ask is: if this is the next logical step, what will the next step be? I have very little doubt—and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, would disagree with me—that the next logical step, within four or ten years of the completion of

865
this reservoir, will be one at Middleton. My noble friend Lord Ilford had something to say about the Middleton reservoir when he pointed out that it would take much longer to build and would be much more costly. What he did not point out was that, when it was built, it would provide double the amount of water and was likely to provide all the requirements of Tees-side for the next twenty years to come.
The argument of expediency was put most persuasively by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Slim. I thought it was put most forcefully by my noble friend Lord Swinton. I should not describe his speech, as he described it, as a judicial statement of the arguments, for and against. I would say that it was very forceful advocacy. I am bound to say, in reply to his speech, that with regard to grouting, my information, which may not be correct, is contrary to his. When the Bill was before the Select Committee in the House of Commons it was admitted by the promoters that they did not know whether the geological formation of that area would require extensive grouting or not. If it did require that extensive grouting, the time taken to build it would be very much longer, the cost would be very much greater, and the area of destruction and despoilation of land would be very much greater. As I say, this is one of the matters for the Select Committee to look into. My information does not tally with that of my noble friend Lord Swinton, that the borings that have been made have now proved beyond a peradventure that grouting on a large scale will not be necessary.
My noble friend also accused me of being pontifical. I am sorry about that. He proceeded to say that he disagreed with what the Minister of Land and Natural Resources had said about what the danger was. I would say only this. It is of course true that Ministers err; Ministers make mistakes. They make mistakes now and, as my noble friend will remember, Ministers made mistakes when he was in the Government. But Mr. Willey, speaking on this Bill, said that he was speaking on technical advice. He went on:
"My advice can only be based on the technical advice available to me. That is the advice of the Water Resources Board.
866
After all, we have been asked this evening about technical advice. The advice available to me is that there is no alternative without a grave risk. There would be a grave risk if there were a succession of three or four dry summers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 732, (No. 64) col. 2018; 28/7/66.]
I prefer the advice given to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources by the Water Resources Board to the opinion of my noble friend. If I was pontifical, I would say in reply that his word is only an ipse dixit.
It has been argued, particularly, I thought, by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Slim, that the botanical argument against this Bill has been exaggerated. I was glad to notice that the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government took the contrary view. He emphasised the importance of the botanical argument. I was surprised that Lord Slim should have advanced that argument. I cannot believe that Imperial Chemical Industries would have voted from their shareholders' money £100,000 for a crash programme of research in that valley if they did not think that there was something very substantial to research into. I am no botanist, but I understand that this is not merely a matter of scientific interest. I understand that these rather rudimentary forms of vegetation grew in Teesdale at a time when the ice was receding; that research into the circumstances and causes of the growth of rudimentary vegetation as cold recedes is a form of fundamental botanical research which can be of immense importance in understanding how vegetable life comes into existence. When you have a laboratory that has been working for 15,000 years, to suggest that an adequate substitute for it is a grant of £100,000 from I.C.I. to do the work in the intervening time does not, I think, quite meet the argument that has been put.
I was not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said about the Nature Conservancy not having consistently opposed this scheme. I have been at pains to find out the position, and I understand that the Nature Conservancy is now a component body of the Natural Environmental Research Council, who set out the scientific facts showing the great damage that would be done by this reservoir; and they did so in a confidential document in 1965 that was submitted to the

867
Government. These botanical scientists have never gone back upon the position that they then adopted.
With regard to what is being proposed on behalf of Imperial Chemical Industries I would say only this. Some years ago a distinguished President of General Motors became Secretary for Defence of the United States of America, and when some highly controversial contract came up for discussion he expressed the view that what was good for General Motors was also good for the United States of America. I do not accept the argument that what is good for I.C.I. is necessarily good for the United Kingdom.
Three noble Lords, in particular my noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Hawke, and the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Slim, have said that they rather like the idea of submerging this valley, and they felt that it would add to the beauty of the countryside. I feel disposed to quote to your Lordships a remark made by Mr. Lloyd George early in his Parliamentary career, when it was proposed to submerge a Welsh valley in order to provide water for Warrington. Those who advocated it said that there was really no doubt that the appearance of this valley would be greatly improved by being put under water. Lloyd George replied: "So would Warrington look much better under water, but we are not proposing for that reason to submerge it." Having made those remarks, I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. Much of it has been repetitive, and I do not intend to add to it. I ask your Lordships to support the Second Reading and the Instruction.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I now beg to move the Instruction standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in view of the scientific and amenity importance of the site proposed to be submerged, it be an instruc-
868
tion to the Select Committee that they give special consideration to—

(a) the need to provide a supply of water which will meet the foreseeable needs of Tees-side for at least the next twenty years; and

(b) other sites for reservoirs, and other methods of supplying water to meet the needs of the more immediate future,

and whether in the light of those considerations the proposals in the Bill provide the best solution to the problem of water supplies in the area.—(Lord Molson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOLUS PETROL (No 2) ORDER 1966
7.30 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Tenth Report from the Special Orders Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
"The Committee as required by the Standing Orders of the House have considered the Order and the Petition against it of Total Oil Products (G.B.) Limited, and report:—
That, having heard the parties thereon and having considered the matters referred to in paragraph (6) (a) to (d) of Standing Order 216, they are of opinion that there ought to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee. They are further of opinion that the Order raises an important question of policy and principle, namely, the prohibition by Article 11of the Order of retail sales of petrol by the Company at filling stations acquired by the Company after the relevant date as defined by that Article."
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Solus Petrol (No. 2) Order 1966 be referred to a Select Committee.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [H.L.]
7.31 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
The EARL OF CRANBROOK The EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Limitation of exceptions to section 1 of principal Act to persons under the age of 17 years
".In section 2 of the principal Act (which creates exceptions to section 1 of that Act with respect to certain wild birds, nests and eggs) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following two subsections:—
'(4) Except in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day, a person under the age of 17 years shall not be guilty of an offence under section one of this Act by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of any common wild bird which the Secretary of State may by order made with respect to the whole or any specified part of Great Britain prescribe for the purposes of this subsection.
(4A) Except in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day a person shall not be guilty of an offence under section one of this Act—

(a) by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a wild bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act; or

(b) by reason of the taking for the purpose of human consumption or of use as food for poultry, ornamental ducks, ornamental geese or swans, otherwise than from any area which the Secretary of State may by order specify for the purposes of this paragraph, of an egg of a black-headed gull or common gull; or

(c) by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a lapwing before the fifteenth day of April in any year.' "

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I must first apologise for a pen having gone rather too far through the clause which is to be amended, with the result that the words "an egg of" which are inserted in manuscript in the Amendment as printed on the Paper which your Lordships will have found in the Printed Paper Office were not put in at the beginning. The second thing I have to apologise for is for getting up at all at this late hour when your Lordships have heard a great flood of rhetoric on the Bill we have just been discussing. My Amendment follows logically from the discussions which we had in Committee last week, when your Lordships decided, by a majority, that the existing law which allows schoolchildren to take the eggs of common birds should continue. Indeed, the whole
870
tenor of debate that day, was, I think, summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, who said that what we were discussing was whether or not young children should be subject to the mischief of the criminal law. Your Lordships decided that they should not, but in so deciding your Lordships kept in existence the existing law which permits not only young children but also adults to take the eggs of common birds. I do not think that any one of us would defend the taking of the eggs, or the forming of collections of the eggs, of British birds by adults. It is neither scientifically justified nor socially desirable, and accordingly I have put down this Amendment which is intended to ensure that the protection which your Lordships wish to give to children is not extended to adults.
I had some difficulty in deciding about the exact age, because there are a number of ages which appear in the Statutes. One cannot take a child under fourteen years of age into the bar of a public-house; that young person cannot buy a drink himself until he is eighteen years of age. It is an offence to seduce a young woman under sixteen; it is equally an offence to sell scrap metal to a boy who is under sixteen years of age. The age that I took was the age of seventeen, which is likely to be the age at which children will shortly leave school, and as I think your Lordships intended to protect school children it seemed to me appropriate to choose the age under which all children will normally be at school. I realise also that it is difficult to distinguish between the child of twelve, fourteen, sixteen, eighteen or twenty, and the law accepts that fact because, so far as I can recollect from sitting on a juvenile court bench, in any case of doubt, and where there is no other proof, the court itself may decide that the young person is under seventeen, and that young person is under seventeen so far as the law is concerned because the court has so decided. That does not so much matter here because I am not worried about the borderline cases.
What I want to do by my Amendment is to prevent the adult person from taking birds' eggs, and I think this Amendment will secure that. I gave the noble Lord notice that I was going to move this Amendment. It does not detract in any

871
way from what is said in the Bill; indeed it strengthens the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—[The Earl of Cranbrook.]
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I am not going to re-argue the merits of this question with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, at this late stage and after so long a debate to-day. The Amendment does not meet my point, which is simply that the idea of encouraging children to take birds' eggs is at least thirty years out of date as a way of interesting them in wild life. Not only that, but it makes it imposible for teachers to inculcate the desirability of conserving wild life. I should like to see the Statute Book in this respect made more intelligible and more enforceable, and for that reason I cannot agree with the noble Earl, although I quite realise the point he has in mind and I appreciate that he is trying to mitigate the effects of the decision which he induced your Lordships to take.
I submit that it is not quite correct to say that the law at present allows children, or anyone else, to take common birds' eggs. There is a power in the law as it at preesnt exists for the Home Secretary to legalise that process, if he sees fit; but three years ago the then Home Secretary (Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was) revoked those Orders and they have never been restored, so that for the last three years it has not been legal for small boys or anyone else to take common birds' eggs. As I said before, no dire results have followed from that. It has been left to the good sense of the police not to prosecute unless there was some evidence of deliberate malice or mischief. As I understood what the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, said on the last occasion, there is a presumption in favour of anyone under the age of fourteen that he has not acted with malice, and therefore children up to the age of fourteen are effectively protected by the good sense of the police from being made criminals under the existing state of affairs.
If the noble Earl had been content to choose the age of fourteen there would have been nothing for us to argue about, but I do not want—and he does want, for reasons which I will not argue again—to allow boys who are in fact no longer
872
boys, up to the age of seventeen, to collect these eggs. A further point which comes to my mind is whether it is desirable to define a new age as the dividing line between criminality and otherwise. I am putting that very badly, but that is the point I have in mind, and on that I am sure the House will wish to be guided by what the Home Secretary thinks and what is said on his behalf by the noble Lord, Lord Bowles. I would have doubted it, but I am quite incompetent to express any opinion on that matter.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was quite right in saying that it seemed last time we were discussing the taking of eggs from birds' nests, known as bird's-nesting, that there was a distinction between the young and the old. I think I was right in what I said; the presumption is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said, that a person under fourteen is presumed not to be able to have any real criminal intent unless malice is proved. That applies to children between 10 and 14. I think the position is this. When we last discussed the matter I explained that the Government were neutral about the basic issue of what the Amendment is about. Your Lordships decided on a Division that bird's-nesting should be allowed. If that view were maintained by Parliament my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would feel bound to take steps to make an order under Section 13 to deprive the eggs of certain birds of protection. I think if Parliament gives to a Secretary of State the power to make an order he may, with the advice of the advisory committee and so on, feel obliged to do so, and therefore I am not exaggerating when I say I think he would feel obliged to make an order under Section 13.
Without taking sides over the basic issue, I must say the noble Earl's clause seems to be unacceptable. However controversial the bird's-nesting provision, it at least follows a consistent line of permissible conduct. It does not say that what is right for a child to do is wrong for an adult. I find it hard to see how the noble Earl's clause would make it easier for anyone to teach respect for wild life. If bird's-nesting can be approved for young people, is it reasonable to argue that a father who really

873
knows something about bird's-nesting should be prevented from taking an egg when discussing wild life with his son?
The clause seems to be objectionable from a wider point of view. The law often distinguishes between what is permissible for adults and for young persons. The reason, however, is usually self-evident; for example, public safety or health, and physical and mental competence. Thus young people are not allowed to drive a car until they are seventeen years old. The law also distinguishes between young people and others in the development of criminal responsibility. It fixes the minimum age at ten. It regards the child between the ages of ten and fourteen as having no malicious intent to commit a criminal offence unless the contrary is shown. Since that is the general legal position, it would, in my view, be retrograde to introduce exceptional provisions in regard to bird's-nesting. If Parliament considers that common birds' eggs should be protected, the ordinary law as regards criminal responsibility should be applied, and that is the law I have been trying to explain. If not, let the removal of protection be absolute.
I should like to refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, at the Committee stage. He raised two matters. He asked first about consolidation of the present Bill and the principal Act. I can assure him that it would certainly be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to produce a consolidation measure as soon as possible if the Bill becomes law. As he will appreciate, I cannot enter into any precise commitment to-day. The noble Lord's second question was about bringing the Bill to the notice of the police if and when it is passed into law. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would propose to issue a circular about the new provisions to the police and local authorities. Similar steps were taken in 1954 to publicise the principal Act. As the noble Lord will have seen, Clause 9 of the Bill empowers local authorities to publicise this legislation, and I have no doubt this power will be used.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I apologise for detaining your Lordships, but I must. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord and to the ad-
874
vice given by the Home Office, I cannot see why we cannot do something which was clearly the wish of the House at Committee stage. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that it was abundantly clear that all noble Lords who spoke during the whole of that debate on this subject made it quite clear that the one thing they wanted to do was to ensure that school children were not prosecuted for breaking the law. That was the chief matter in our minds. I think we all feel that adults should not be allowed to do this, and I cannot conceive any reason why we should not pass this Amendment: why young children should not be allowed to do something and adults should not be protected. I cannot see it is bad law, I cannot see it is unreasonable, and that is certainly what the House intended when it discussed the Amendment I put forward at the Committee stage. I think I must stand by my Amendment.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, if I may speak again with your Lordships' permission, may I say that the new clause was carried by a majority of five; the decision was not so clear. I would advise the noble Earl that if he does stand by his new clause he is bound to find resistance from the Home Office when it gets to another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, the Question is that this Amendment be agreed to. Those in favour say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, may I ask whoever is deputising for the Leader of the House to advise me, because I do not attend your Lordships' House very often and I do not know what the custom is. I believe that if I divided the House now, quite clearly we should not have 30 votes and the Bill would have to be postponed to another day. Am I right?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Champion, would like to advise the noble Earl.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords I am bound to say first of all that the noble Earl is out of order in speaking after the Question has been put to the House. The second point is that there are difficulties. There would be a little difficulty

875
about calling a Division when clearly we do not have a quorum present. Perhaps I might suggest to the noble Earl that he does not attempt to press his Amendment at this stage. If he feels strongly, he can do so at a later stage. We are still only on Report stage on this Bill; there is yet to be the Third Reading, upon which an Amendment may be put down. I would suggest that the noble Earl might discuss it when more Members are present in the House.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE LLANGOLLEN INTERNATIONAL EISTEDDFOD
7.49 p.m.
LORD MAELOR LORD MAELOR rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the great part played by the Llangollen International Eisteddfod in the national and artistic life of Wales and beyond; and whether there is anything that Her Majesty's Government could do to be of financial assistance to this important national event. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure there is not a single noble Lord in your Lordships' House who has not heard of the Llangollen International Eisteddfod whose renown by to-day has traversed the five continents. It was inaugurated two years after the last war and sponsored by the British Council in an endeavour to reconcile and bring together representatives of those countries who had so recently been embroiled in bloody conflict. Its success was immediate, and what diplomacy had miserably failed to accomplish throughout the ages was accomplished at this Festival and has been repeated for twenty years.
The Festival binds together people of different languages and ways of life in an atmosphere of harmony engendered through song and dance. It was appropriate that this Festival should be held in Wales, which is known as "the Land of Song". Competitors from all over Europe, and beyond, have been coming over annually in their hundreds to participate in this Festival. Wherever I have travelled in Europe—in Holland, Belgium, Germany, Yugoslavia—I have met people who have been to this Festival. Last year, for instance, no fewer than
876
thirty different countries were represented there. When these people sing and dance together, and intermingle with affection and joy, it can be regarded as one of the miracles of the 20th Century.
It is still unfortunately true that much strife and bitterness prevail in this sad world; yet all of us have a vision of a better time to come. At our religious festivals, and even at our political conferences, we sing with great gusto the words of the famous hymn by John A. Symonds:
"New arts shall bloom of loftier mould,
And mightier music thrill the skies;
And every life shall be a song
When all the earth is Paradise".
I claim that the Festival of Llangollen is an earnest of that. It was Her Majesty the Queen who expressed the sentiment of this Festival in a message granting her patronage in 1948, in which she said—and I quote
"A gathering of this nature, apart from its value in the world of music, will help in every way to promote understanding and friendship between nations."
Writing about it, Sir Thomas Armstrong, Principal of the Royal Academy of Music, once said,
"Llangollen has to be seen to be believed."
The purpose of my raising this Question is to seek financial aid, and I will give my reasons before I resume my seat. In making my appeal I am up against one difficulty—curiously enough, a pleasant difficulty. This subject can claim the attention and the interest of three Government Departments, namely, the Welsh Office, the Ministry of Education and the Foreign Office. My noble friend Lord Champion when replying will please and satisfy me if this evening he can promise that he will consult not only with the Welsh Office—I am sure he has already had consultations there—but also with the Ministry of Education and, too, the Foreign Office, to see whether any of them can assist.
In the first place, this is essentially a Welsh matter in which the Welsh Office will obviously be interested. The Festival is held in the small town of Llangollen in Wales and is organised by Welsh people. I know how jealous of the good name of the Principality is my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and there is nothing I can

877
teach him about this Festival. How proud he must feel that this institution has made his small country honoured and renowned throughout the globe. It has great economic value for Wales. Over the past nineteen years over 3,500 choirs and folk-dance groups from fifty different countries have competed at this Festival. Of course, once they arrive here naturally they spend money here—they cannot live on the air. They spend their money when they come within our shores. Not only is this so, but what a boon it has been to the tourist industry, especially the tourist industry of Wales, because these people act as ambassadors and advertisers when they return to their own countries! I trust, therefore, that the Welsh Office, in spite of the financial difficulties of the country at the present moment, will use its influence in many directions and spare no effort to assist financially this great Festival.
I now leave my appeal to the Welsh Office, because knowing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as I do, I feel that any further remarks in that direction would be superfluous. This Festival certainly has an educational aspect worthy of the attention of my right honourable friend Miss Jennie Lee. She has to do with art and culture in Britain. This Festival is essentially and manifestly one of art and culture in the best sense of those two words. It should be noted that the choirs competing at the Festival are not allowed to sing pieces of their own choice. On the contrary, these choirs come together to perform the same carefully selected representative choral classics of the chief European schools of composition, which are specially made available in a number of languages; and the same stringency applies to folk dancing. The effect all this music must have on the musical life of those participating must be far-reaching indeed from the point of view of art and culture. Many of these choirs, of course, are British choirs. I hope, therefore, that my words will reach the ears of my lady friend, for I am sure that Miss Jennie Lee will readily recognise that here is propagation of art and culture at its highest level.
Lastly, there is the international aspect of the Festival, which cannot fail to command the attention of the Foreign Office. As I pointed out previously,
878
3,500 choirs from over fifty different countries have already competed. Who can measure the good will which that has created? My noble friend Lord Chalfont, Minister for Disarmament, experiencing his difficulties at Geneva, must cast an envious eye on Llangollen. I wonder whether the Foreign Office, recognising the good work performed by this Festival, and which gave it its blessing at its inception, can come to its aid. Only last night the superintendent of police in the Wrexham area was telling me that he had a letter on Saturday from a lady in South America asking him whether he would secure her a ticket for the Festival next year. She had no idea where to write. She was far away in South America; but she knew that Wrexham was near Llangollen, and she had the wisdom to contact the Chief of Police there.
I end on a sad note. Next year the Festival will be celebrating its twenty-first birthday. Unless a grant in aid of about £5,000 comes from one source or another I am afraid that next year's event will be the last. I am sorry to say it, but I have to say it. What a tragedy that would be, all for the sake of only £5,000! I use the word "only" advisedly, because so much is at stake, which cannot be measured in terms of £5,000, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree. I trust that my plea this evening will not fall on deaf ears. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is not in his place, but he found it impossible to be here. He is a Vice-President of the Festival, and would gladly have supported me in my plea this evening.
8.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, my noble friend has spoken with the hwyl that we expect of him—and if noble Lords do not happen to know what that word means, it means the difference between the oratory of the Land of Song and the oratory of the more prosaic English. What my noble friend has said has a tremendous amount of truth in it. Wales can boast of many innovations and many successes over the years, but it has nothing else which can compare with the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod. The unique flavour of this annual event arises from the fact that it

879
is this small town of Llangollen's own Festival, organised and supported by the town's people themselves, and yet from this small town in Wales it can appeal to folk dancers and choirs from over fifty countries throughout the world.
Its aim, an aim which I am sure we all support, has been
"To promote international peace and goodwill through the medium of fine arts, and in particular the art of music"
and to achieve this aim this small town of 3,000 people in the Dee Valley accommodates each year 10,000 guests, of whom 2,000 come from other countries of Europe and beyond. All competitors from overseas have their fares paid from London to Llangollen by the Eisteddfod Council and receive free board and lodging in and around the town. As well as these overseas competitors, visitors from our own country bring the number of people attending to around 180,000 each year.
We must stress that the success of the International Eisteddfod is, then, Llangollen's own success and nobody else's, except for such support as it has managed to get from outside. But this was the creation of this town, and its success, to which my noble friend has pointed, is something of which I am sure every resident of this small town in the Dee Valley is proud. Virtually all that has been achieved has been due to local enthusiasm, local hospitality and local generosity. The Arts Council have sponsored such items as evening concerts given by professional artists and they have also made—and I am pleased about this—increasing contributions over the last years. In 1964–65, for example, the Welsh Committee of the Arts Council contributed £500; in 1965–66 the sum was £1,000, and in 1966–67, the current year, the sum of £2,500 has been given to the Eisteddfod. As my noble friend knows perfectly well, to some extent this must be due to the lady whom he mentioned, Miss Jennie Lee, except for the fact that the Government place money at the disposal of the Arts Council, though they do not tell the Council how to spend it. I think this is right. They do not say to the Arts Council: "You must support this, that or the other". It leaves to that body the decision as to where the money should go. Clearly in this case the Arts
880
Council has looked at this unique festival and has said: we will step up our contribution from the £500 to the £2,500 of to-day. I sincerely hope that the Arts Council will be able to support the Eisteddfod in the same way in future years.
Again, I must stress the fact that the Eisteddfod has achieved its success through the efforts and devotion of Llangollen's own people. As time has passed, of course, they have come to realise that, despite all that has been done, much work remains. With the increasing success of the Eisteddfod the problem of organisation has grown. The present accommodation, for example, is in tents and marquees, and since, even in July, the weather in Wales is occasionally known to be wet, the lack of more permanent buildings makes itself particularly felt. More important, increased expenses have left little, if any, margin for reserves, and it is hard to avoid making a loss on each annual Eisteddfod. Because of this lack of financial reserves, an appeal for funds was launched in March, 1965, by the then Lord Mayor of Cardiff, and this has been renewed by his two successors in office. The object of the appeal is to set up a fund which will enable the organisers to have an assured income in order to meet rising costs and to budget beforehand for the programme. The two successive Secretaries of State for Wales have, in turn, been Patrons of the Appeal. The aim has been to collect £100,000, but, unfortunately, despite every effort no more than £5,788 has been raised so far.
Although I am proud of Wales, proud of this land which accepted me and which now, I think, counts me as an adopted Welshman, I am not very proud of the figure I have announced here to-night. I feel that more could have been done by means of voluntary contributions to save this unique event. I mention this, not in order that I might say that the Government ought not to do anything about it, but merely as an expression of my feeling about the collection, a fund which was set up and which has been supported by successive Secretaries of State. The Government are convinced that those responsible for the organisation of this annual Festival have followed the right course in seeking support first from the town's people, secondly from local authorities

881
within a reasonable distance of the town and, finally, from the people of Wales through the Lord Mayor of Cardiff's Appeal.
When Government assistance is referred to, it is right to point out that Government support for the arts is channelled through the Arts Council, and it is now an accepted tradition that the spending of the Council's annual Vote is not subject to detailed examination and control. What can be said, however, is that the limited funds at the disposal of the Arts Council are normally devoted primarily to the improvement of artistic standards, and the Council is therefore normally associated with professional work, and the £2,500 which it donates to this Festival is normal practice. A joint circular issued by the Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office last year pointed out that amateur work is, by definition, normally sustained by the resources of the performers and their friends and any necessary subsidy will most naturally be a local responsibility.
One source of funds which I have mentioned consists of contributions from local authorities. On this I can say that powers are available to local authorities whose areas are convenient to Llangollen to contribute to the expenses of running the International Eisteddfod. This power was widened by an Act of 1963, so that other authorities whose areas are not so convenient and are not adjoining this area but who consider that the Eisteddfod is of benefit to their area or to their residents, can contribute with the consent of the Secretary of State for Wales, and any applications for consent will receive sympathetic consideration.
So it is up to any authority in Wales which feels that it ought to contribute, to apply to the Secretary of State for Wales for permission to make a grant from the rates towards the maintenance of this unique Festival. I would point out, however—and this is just a little note of caution—that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales must this year have regard to the current economic situation when he receives those applications. I will not say any more than that I am positive that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has this Festival very much in mind, and would not like to see it die for lack of
882
the sort of support which local authorities might be able to give to it.
I would just mention, in conclusion, that the last source of funds to which I referred was the appeal which a former Lord Mayor of Cardiff was good enough to launch. It is the earnest desire of all those who cherish and admire everything that the Llangollen Eisteddfod stands for, that this appeal should receive the support it merits. My noble friend has pressed me to ask various members of the Government to do something about this Festival. I cannot go to these members of the Government and ask them separately to do something about it, for the Government are, as they ought to be, indivisible. All I can do—and I will promise to do this—is to bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales everything that my noble friend has said in this connection, and of course if my right honourable friend wishes to consult his colleagues about it it will be for him to do, and not for me to do.
This is a Festival worthy of support. I think we should all remember the motto of the Eisteddfod, which in its English rendering—I will not give the Welsh, as I am not sure that my pronunciation would stand up to it—is:
"Blessed is a world that sings, gentle are its songs".

  IMMIGRATION FROM THECOMMON WEALTH
  IMMIGRATION FROM THECOMMON WEALTH