Sitting of 16 October 1969

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

    Parcels and Money Orders (Charges)
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what action is to be taken on the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes as to increased charges for parcels and money orders.
    The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. John Stonehouse): The N.B.P.I. saw no grounds for denying the increases proposed, but said that the timing was primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of the Post Office. I have accepted that, and the action to be taken is thus a matter for the Board of the new Post Office, which has it currently under consideration.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister not recall that last year parcels lost £2 million and postal money orders £3 million? What action is he proposing to arrest these losses? When he talks about timing, does lie mean that he is going to screw up his pre-election courage and announce increases which are operative only after the next General Election?
    Mr. Stonehouse: It would have been possible for me as the Postmaster-General who had to make the decision to increase these charges, but, as the Corporation was due to come into effect from 1st October, it would not have been possible for this House to have prayed against the in-
    572
    creases put on in this way. I considered it wisest to leave the matter to the Post Office Board so that it could consider it along with all its other responsibilities.

    Post Office
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will publish a forecast of income and profitability for the Post Office Corporation for the next five years
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what complaints he has received of damage to publications, photographs, picture postcards and other mail due to the tying-up of post.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will institute an inquiry into the postal services on Tyneside which are unsatisfactory and deteriorating.
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what has been the number of private and business telephone subscribers on the Portsmouth Exchange in each of the past five years; what are the estimates for the current year; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stonehouse: With permission, I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. 1, 7 and 10 together.
    Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is the common denominator between Question No. 1 and Question No. 7? Chigwell is a long way from Tynemouth.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The connection will no doubt appear in the Answer.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had a letter from the Minister's Secretary this morning saying that he was to answer Question No. 1 with Question No. 4. Now he is to answer Question No. 1 although it has not been called as the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is not present. May I ask the Minister to honour his pledge and to answer my Question No. 4 with Question No. 1?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a long question but the Minister will answer Question No. 4 as well.
    Mr. Stonehouse: These matters are now for the Post Office, which became a public corporation on 1st October, 1969. I shall be answering Question No. 4 separately.
    Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does what my right hon. Friend has just said mean that in future the Table will be debarring us from asking Questions on points of detail about the Post Office?
    Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has stated the position correctly. Mr. Baker, to ask a supplementary question.
    Mr. Baker: May I put a point of order first? My Question refers to the very important question of forecasts of profits in the Post Office. Under Section 11(8) of the Post Office Act, which has just become law, the Minister has responsibility, not the Corporation, for the capital programme of the Post Office. One cannot determine the capital programme without knowing the forecasts of profit or loss for the next four or five years.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have long speeches. The point of order has been made.
    Mr. Stonehouse: The financial objectives are set down by the Minister and it is for the Post Office Corporation Board to decide how those financial objectives are met.
    Dame Irene Ward: In view of the Minister's statement, will he circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT exactly how this will differ from the position over Questions that we were allowed to ask of the Minister of Power when there was one and of the Minister of Transport as there still is one? We are still able to ask them whether they have inquiries into safety and all sorts of things. I find it very difficult unless the Minister will set out in detail what he proposes to do, I want to know whether nationalised corporations, or whatever they like to call themselves, will have different proce-
    574
    dures. If so, the House of Commons is entitled to be told.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am doing my best to assist the House. I think the best I can do is to refer to pages 472 to 478 of Volume II of the Select Committee Report, which gave in some detail the measures which hon. Members of this House can take to investigate the actions of authorities which have responsibility to the Ministers sponsoring them. The position will be that the Post Office will be on all fours with those.
    Mr. Bryan: Does it not put the House in an awkward position when Members table Questions which appear on the Order Paper and therefore apparently are in order and then the Minister says that he will not answer them?
    Mr. Speaker: As I have said before, the Table is governed on this issue by the behaviour of Ministers.
    Mr. Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put a supplementary question? Previously I raised a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's point of order was long enough for a supplementary question.
    Later—
    Mr. Judd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe I was present when Question No. 10 was called—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's Question was answered with Question No. 3. He cannot have been here.

    Member's Letter
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is aware that the hon. Member for West Ham, North wrote to him on 10th July concerning delays in first-class postal deliveries and that it took him until 29th July to send a reply which could have been sent within 24 hours; why this delay took place; and when the hon. Member can expect the return of the envelopes as promised in this communication.
    Mr. Stonehouse: The reply took about a fortnight, which is not an undue delay

    575
    as inquiries were required. The envelopes referred to have now been returned.
    Mr. Lewis: But the reply referred to only paraphrased the information which I submitted. I was promised the envelopes back and I had to wait until yesterday. Does it take three months for the Postmaster-General to implement a promise? That is almost the period which elapsed.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I apologise for delay in returning the envelopes, but the essential query was dealt with within two weeks, which I think was quite good.

    British Broadcasting Corporation
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now state the result of his discussions on 5th July and since with the British Broadcasting Corporation on the future of the British Broadcasting Corporation's orchestras on the lines of the British Broadcasting Corporation's plan entitled, Broadcasting in the Seventies, including the future of the Scottish Symphony Orchestra.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Subject to certain negotiations with the Musicians Union and the Arts Councils the B.B.C. has undertaken not to reduce the employment in orchestras.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that orchestral music, of which the Scottish Symphony Orchestra is a distinguished exponent, is being sadly prejudiced by the present plans of the B.B.C.? Therefore, in the interests of musical culture, will he take steps to avoid this?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am very glad that, following the discussions between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, myself and the Chairman of the B.B.C., the Corporation undertook to look again at certain aspects of its proposals and made a change in this respect.
    Mr. Bryan: As according to the Director-General of the B.B.C. the increase in the licence fee will be sufficient only to pay for the local radio stations, will the right hon. Gentleman say where the money is coming from to pay for the orchestras?
    Mr. Stonehouse: There is another Question down on that point. It might be more satisfactory to deal with it when the Question is reached.
    Mr. Bryanasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what progress he has made in his talks with the British Broadcasting Corporation on the implications of their plans for broadcasting in the seventies.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I refer the hon. Member to my announcement on 14th August, of which I have placed a copy in the library.
    Mr. Bryan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman concerned that a group of people as distinguished and respected, and indeed as well informed, as those behind the campaign for better broadcasting should feel sufficiently strongly that the B.B.C. is abdicating its responsibility for serious music and serious programmes that they feel driven to starting a campaign of this sort?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure, having had very long discussions with the B.B.C. myself about all its proposals and being satisfied with the great degree of care which the B.B.C. takes to ensure that it is doing what is in the public interest, it will take note of the various points made to it in casting its programmes within its financial responsibilities.
    Mr. Shinwell: On the question of future broadcasting, can my right hon. Friend say whether he is in any way responsible for political broadcasting? If so, will he bring this farce to an end? Is he aware that the public no longer regard it as either entertainment or useful propaganda? Is there any purpose in absorbing television time any longer on this nonsense?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The House is always very interested to hear my right hon. Friend's views, but I must disclaim responsibility for policital broadcasts.
    Dr. Winstanley: In connection with "Broadcasting in the Seventies", can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will commence the long, cool look at the whole system of broadcasting in this country which the Postmaster-General three Postmaster-Generals ago announced would commence in the spring of 1969?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I have already commenced a long, cool look, and I should be grateful if any hon. Members with ideas about the way in which we should deal with this very important problem, which will affect the structure and quality of broadcasting for at least 20 years from 1976, would write to me about their ideas.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the Minister aware that many people are very appreciative of the B.B.C.'s good sense in deciding to bow to public opinion and retain the Music Programme after all?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I think that the B.B.C. also took note of the observations made in the debate in the House on 22nd July.
    Mr. Mawby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made by the Chairman of the B.B.C. that he wanted more medium wave reinforcement for local radio? As this is contrary to all the answers which I have received from the Post Office over the past few months, will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter serious consideration?
    Mr. Stonehouse: It is not in any way contrary to the advice that I have given the House on this subject. We have been concerned to ensure that the scarce number of medium wave frequencies available to us are used in the best way.

    ESTIMATED OPENINGS OF COLOUR TELEVISION STATIONS

    Duplicated Services

    BBC-2 Stations

    BBC-1

    ITV

    Opening Date

    1969

    1969

    Crystal Palace

    Crystal Palace

    Bilsdale West Moor

    Sutton Coldfield

    Sutton Coldfield

    Mendip

    Winter Hill

    Winter Hill

    Emley Moor

    Emley Moor

    Black Hill

    Black Hill

    Rowridge

    Dover

    1970

    1970

    Rowridge

    (In service)

    Hampshire

    Dover

    (In service)

    Heathfield

    Waltham

    Waltham

    Limavady

    Wenvoe

    Wenvoe

    Blaen Plwyf

    Mendip

    Mendip

    Rosemarkie

    Oxford

    Oxford

    Redruth

    Pontop Pike

    Pontop Pike

    Divis

    Divis

    Tacolneston

    Tacolneston

    Bilsdale

    Sudbury

    Sandy Heath

    Caradon Hill

    Colour Television Priorities
    Mr. Speaker: Dame Irene Ward.
    Dame Irene Ward: Question No. 6—band I hope that this is in order.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will set out the priorities which have been established with the dates for the introduction of colour television in the regions which are still without it.
    Mr. Stonehouse: As the Answer is rather long, I will, with permission, publish the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Dame Irene Ward: That is a very nice get-out. What I want to know is the position concerning colour television on the North-East Coast—and I want it stated now so that I can say whether I approve or not.
    Mr. Stonehouse: The list will show that certain services from Emley Moor will come into service this year, and in 1970 a further long list of stations will be established. Therefore, by 1971 most of the region will be dealt with.
    Following is the information:

    Duplicated Services

    BBC-2 Stations

    BBC-1

    ITV

    Opening Date

    1971

    1971

    Sudbury

    (In service)

    Caldbeck

    (In service)

    Bilsdale

    Carmarthenshire

    (In service)

    Sandy Heath

    Stockland Hill

    (In service)

    Caradon Hill

    Belmont

    Belmont

    Redruth

    Redruth

    Durris

    Durris

    Craigkelly

    Craigkelly

    Hannington

    Hannington

    Caldbeck

    Caldbeck

    East Sussex

    1972

    1972

    Selkirk

    East Sussex

    Ayrshire

    Selkirk

    North Kent

    Ridge Hill

    Selkirk

    1973

    1973

    Dumbartonshire

    Presely

    South Devon

    West Sussex

    The opening date of the Shropshire BBC-2 station is still unknown.

    Radio and Television Licence Fee
    Mr. Bryanasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when the combined radio and television licence fee is to be increased.
    Mr. Stonehouse: On 1st April, 1971.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the Director-General of the B.B.C., the Corporation will be in the red to the tune of £7 million by that date? Will he say why he is postponing the raising of the licence fee until after the next General Election?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The B.B.C.'s finances were discussed in great detail with the Chairman and the Director-General of the B.B.C., and the arrangement which I announced on 14th August was made with their full agreement and will certainly meet their financial obligations, including the obligations which I have placed on the B.B.C. regarding local radio developments and music, which it accepts. It must be borne in mind that the total income of the B.B.C. is expected to be well over £500 million in the next five years. Therefore, the amount to which the Director-General referred in the Press release is very small.
    Dr. Winstanley: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the Is. concessionary television licence fee for old-age pensioners living in hostels to all old-age pensioners who live alone or in houses exclusively occupied by old-age pensioners, thus removing a very undesirable anomaly?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I realise that this is considered to be an anomaly, but if we grant a concession we have to draw the line somewhere. I have looked into this proposal with very great care, but I am satisfied that it would not be reasonable to extend concessions in kind in the way suggested.
    Mr. George Jeger: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that this is a great hardship on old-age pensioners living alone who have only their small pension with which to pay all their expenses? If he has any difficulty in identifying these people, the Ministry of Social Services can help him.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I repeat that I have gone into this matter with great care, together with my colleagues most directly concerned. The television licence payment is taken into account in the supplementary arrangements made for anybody in need, and I think that that is the best way of dealing with it.

    Radio and Television Reception and Postal Services (North-East Scotland)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will state the progress made under his jurisdiction for improving radio and television reception and postal services in and to North-East Scotland during the last six months to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Stonehouse: As to radio and television reception, there has been no change in transmission arrangements during the last six months. But the I.T.A. expects to open its new station at Aviemore this winter.
    Detailed responsibility for the postal services has passed to the Post Office Corporation.
    Mr. Hughes: Would my right hon. Friend make further inquiries and openly confess why North-East Scotland, especially Aberdeen, is singled out for this adverse treatment? Is it a Sassenach prejudice against the Scots?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure that that is not the case. The I.T.A. is doing its best to improve reception in this part of Scotland.

  EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

    Industrial Disputes (Days Lost)
    Mr. Speedasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state the total number of stoppages and working days lost this year due to industrial disputes including and excluding mining and quarrying.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): It is provisionally estimated that for the period 1st January to 31st August, 1969, 3,594,000 working days were lost in all industries and services as a result of stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom. The number of stoppages beginning in this period and which came to the notice of my Department was 1,868. Excluding mining and quarrying
    582
    the corresponding figures were 3,552,000 and 1,736.
    Mr. Speed: Does the Minister not agree that these very serious figures show that, excluding mining and quarrying, there are likely to be this year even more strikes than the record figure of last year? Second, do not the figures also show that there has been no reduction in the number of working days lost through the incidence of strikes since the Government four months ago abandoned the Industrial Relations Bill?
    Mr. Walker: I disagree with the hon. Member in the latter part of his supplementary question. There is a later Question on this specific point. In relation to the first part of the supplementary question, in terms of working days lost, last year was far from a record and was surpassed by the figures of working days lost in 1959 and 1962. If one looks at the last ten years, the period referred to in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question compares favourably with the two years to which I have made reference, 1959 and 1962.
    Mr. William Hamilton: To get this matter into perspective, will my hon. Friend give the figures for the number of working days lost due to sickness and industrial accidents?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot give those figures without notice.

    Blast Furnacemen's Strike (Port Talbot)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the inquiry into the strike of blast furnacemen at Port Talbot; and whether she will cause this inquiry additionally to investigate why Members of Parliament are kept waiting for more than a month for substantive replies when raising matters connected with industrial disputes.
    Mr. Walker: The recommendations of the court of inquiry, which reported on 20th August, were accepted by the British Steel Corporation and the National Union of Blastfurnacemen, and work was resumed on 24th August. I am not aware

    583
    of any undue delay in replying to questions arising on industrial disputes.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the Under-Secretary of State check up with the correspondence which I have had with his Department and with the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation? If Members of Parliament have to wait for one or two months for replies to letters, is it any wonder that workers get fed up trying to get their disputes solved and come out on strike? It is my experience that one has to wait as long as that for replies from Lord Melchett.
    Mr. Walker: My Department is not responsible for correspondence between my hon. Friend and the British Steel Corporation. I have instituted my own investigation into this allegation, and the average interval of time elapsing between the dispatch of letters by hon. Members and the dispatch of replies from my Department is about 17 days.
    Mr. Heffer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the report of the inquiry is ample proof that no legislation containing penal clauses could in any way have helped towards the settlement of the dispute? Is not it clear that the way in which we are now proceeding on industrial relations is much more sensible than some proposals we have had in the past and some proposals that we are having from the other side of the House?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think the House will want me to comment on the conclusions of Professor Robertson and his colleagues on the outcome of this dispute.
    Mr. R. Carr: Will the hon. Gentleman say why, in view of the entirely unsatisfactory state of industrial relations in the steel industry disclosed by the Robertson Report, the whole subject is not being actively referred to the C.I.R.?
    Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Department has under consideration a list of possible references to the C.I.R. about which it is consulting the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.

    Unemployed Persons, South Shields (Training Courses)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will give further
    584
    consideration to proposals for special training and retraining courses for unemployed young unskilled and older men, as proposed to her Department by the hon. Member for South Shields, in view of the continuing heavy unemployment in the area.
    Mr. Walker: Government training facilities are being greatly expanded in the Northern Region, and direct Government grants are also available to assist employers with the cost of training workers for new jobs. I am always ready, however, to consider proposals for new training facilities which would be likely to reduce unemployment.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend aware that in South Shields there are more than 400 young people under the age of 24 who are out of work, of whom more than 100 have been out of work for over six months? Is not it necessary to take into account the possibility of using the special facility of the Marine and Technical College for the general training of these young men, most of whom are unskilled?
    Mr. Walker: Although industrial training can make an important contribution to helping people find new jobs, I do not think that this is the whole answer to the problem of unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency. The Northern Region now has 1,062 training places in G.T.C.s, compared with 400 in October 1964, and 309 were unoccupied as recently as 8th September 1969.

    Dustmen's Strike (London)
    Mr. John Pageasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the London dustmen's strike.
    Mr. Walker: The unofficial strike of London refuse collectors began on 23rd September in support of a claim for an increase in the basic London rate from £15 9s. Od. per week to £20 per week. A settlement in respect of all local authority manual workers in Scotland, England and Wales was reached at a meeting of the National Joint Council on 9th October. This provided, among other things, for an increase of £2 10s. 0d. per week to refuse collectors in the London area. Following this settlement, the trade unions, which are members of the

    585
    council, recommended a return to work. I understand that in about half of the London boroughs normal working is now in operation. Efforts are being made by officials of the trade unions concerned to get a return to work in the other London boroughs. My right hon. Friend welcomes these efforts and urges those still on strike to follow the advice of their unions.
    Mr. Page: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many informed people believe that this great inconvenience to Londoners may have been caused by inter-union rivalry and militancy by one union to try to prove its point? Does the hon. Gentleman feel that this attitude is appropriate in the context of an unofficial, unconstitutional strike?
    Mr. Walker: We have no evidence whatever to support that allegation.
    Mr. Lipton: What does my hon. Friend intend to do to improve the ramshackle machinery of local government negotiations in matters of this kind? What is the sense of calling a meeting of local authorities in Edinburgh for the purpose of dealing with the London dustmen's dispute?
    Mr. Walker: It is all part of the central negotiating machine and, as such, it hardly seems of great relevance where it meets. The settlement provides for some restructuring within the wages structure and, whilst I recognise what local authorities have already done, I hope that they will pay greater attention to the recommendations contained in Report No. 29 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Higgins: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any London authority has asked his Department what limits are imposed on the offer which it may make by the prices and incomes policy of his Department and, if so, what answer he has given?
    Mr. Walker: No, advice was not sought.
    Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that he completely dissociates himself from the remark made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page)? It is the sort of re-
    586
    mark that will exacerbate the situation; it is untrue and is not a helpful contribution.
    Mr. Walker: I have always thought that there was a long-standing tradition in the House that we did nothing to exacerbate industrial relations, particularly in difficult times like this.

    Motor Industry (Unconstitutional Strikes)
    Mr. John Pageasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many days and vehicles have been lost since 25th June due to unconstitutional strikes in the motor industry; and what action the Trades Union Congress has taken under the new undertaking to reduce such strikes.
    Mr. Walker: Official statistics of stoppages of work due to industrial disputes relate to calendar months and do not differentiate between constitutional and unconstitutional action. For the period 1st July to 30th September, 1969, it is provisionally estimated that stoppages in the motor vehicle industry resulted in the loss of 131,000 working days at the establishments where the disputes occurred. Official figures are not available for the loss of production involved. In major disputes which have occurred during this period, in the motor industry and elsewhere, the T.U.C. has maintained close contact with the unions concerned and has often made a valuable contribution to a settlement.
    Mr. Page: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, since the dropping of the Industrial Relations Bill, Standard Triumph has been on strike and almost stopped for eight weeks, Vauxhalls for five weeks, Rovers for six weeks, and Girlings started a new strike yesterday? Is he aware that in the motor industry strikes are running at twice last year's record rate for days lost, and will he not accept the appeal that Lord Stokes made the day before yesterday for the Government to do something positive about unofficial strikes
    Mr. Walker: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures, but they do not tally with those provided by my Department. As a matter of fact, the number of days lost in the motor industry in the period to which the Question refers

    587
    was lower this year than in the corresponding periods of last year or the preceding year. [Interruption.] I am giving the facts: I will give the exact figures. The number of disputes in the period covered by the Question was 66 this year, 65 last year and 60 in 1967, so there is only a marginal difference.
    Mr. Ashton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, despite these stoppages, we are now seeing the opening of one of the most successful motor shows for many years, that exports are higher than they have been for many years and that this is due to the people who are making the motor cars?
    Mr. Walker: We are all prepared to pay tribute to the results being shown in the motor industry, which reflect great credit on those on both sides of the industry.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Nursery School Provision
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he now has for increasing provision of nursery schools and other educational facilities for children under the ages of five years; and what further advice he has given to local education authorities on these matters.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): The total number of children under 5 in maintained schools rose from 167,000 in 1957 to 210,000 in 1968. 10,000 additional nursery places in deprived areas have been included in the urban programme this year and some local authorities helping pre-school play groups in these areas are receiving grants of £150,000 towards their expenditure. Further progress will be made as fast as resources allow.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that we greatly appreciate the increased provision which has been made over the last two or three years? However, what increased provision will be made over, say, the next five years? Will there be an increased allocation of funds to this part of education?
    Miss Bacon: As my hon. Friend knows, we are making a start in the deprived areas where young children are more in need of nursery school provision. As he will also realise, the Government have set aside £25 million for the urban programme over four years, and some of it will be devoted to nursery education. We have not yet decided how much of next year's allocation will be devoted to nursery classes and nursery schools, but certainly a good proportion will.
    Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Will the right hon. Lady encourage or empower other local authorities to appoint play group advisers? Has her right hon. Friend yet decided to extend the grant, modest but invaluable, towards the salary of the National Play Group Adviser due to end. I think, next year?
    Miss Bacon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the responsibility for play groups is not that of my Department; it comes under the Secretary of State for Social Services. We are empowering local authorities to give grants to voluntary play groups, and they will receive 75 per cent. reimbursement. It is up to the local authorities to decide what help in these areas shall be given.
    Mr. J. T. Price: I for one would raise no objection to the development of nursery school education in the way my right hon. Friend has mentioned, but is she aware that in many parts of the country, and particularly in my part of Lancashire, the backlog for building primary schools for children between 5 and 9 is so serious that it should have the major priority in the allocation of Government funds? Will she continue to give increasing attention to the need to catch up with the backlog of primary school building?
    Miss Bacon: The amount spent on school building this year is exactly twice what was spent in 1964. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that it is possible to open a nursery class in an existing school without a great expenditure of resources, and this is what is being done.
    Mr. Ewing: Is it not the case that, because of the great need for other kinds of schooling, nursery education is often the Cinderella? While we are glad to

    589
    hear that there is an increase, is the right hon. Lady aware that a place in a nursery school, at least in my constituency, depends on ability to pay for it or on the child's mother being a working mother or a deserted wife? Cannot something be done to bring the provision of nursery education back to the top of the queue, as it is fundamental to the development of many young children?
    Miss Bacon: As the hon. Lady knows, I am not responsible for education in Scotland; that is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. This is the first major break-through in the provision of nursery schools and classes since the war and the Government are concentrating the available resources where they are most needed, and that is on the children in the poorest and the deprived areas.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Probation Services and Police Forces (Mergers)
    Mr. Speedasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the probation services and police forces that have merged since the publication of the Redcliffe-Maud Report or are at present proposed for merger.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I will, with permission, circulate the list relating to England in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Speed: In view of the Home Secretary's remarks earlier this week about proposed local government reorganisation, is it not rather odd that these mergers should be going through when they may have to be unscrambled in two or three years' time?
    Mr. Morgan: Unlike the statutory requirements relating to parliamentary boundary changes, in the law relating to these matters there is no specific mention of coincidence with local government boundaries.
    Following is the list:
    Probation and after-care areas

    1. Cheshire and Birkenhead were combined on 1st August, 1969.

    590

    2. Proposals for the combination of Warwickshire and Coventry have been suspended for the time being.

    3. There have been exploratory discussions about the possible combination of Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire.

    Police Areas
    Warwickshire and Coventry were combined on 1st October, 1969.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made in Ulster on implementing the proposals agreed on after his visit there in August.
    Mr. Roseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on his most recent visit to Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I would refer my hon. Friends to the communiqué issued on 10th October, following my latest discussions with the Northern Ireland Government, and to the account that I gave to the House on 13th October.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend make any worth-while comment on the progress being made in getting rid of the B specials and reorganising the police force? Has he in mind visiting Northern Ireland again in the not too distant future?
    Mr. Callaghan: The reorganisation of the police force is proceeding together with the resumption of policing in some areas which have remained unpoliced for a number of months, and I understand that on Friday the R.U.C. will resume joint patrols with the Army both in the Bogside and the Falls Road areas of Belfast. It has been announced that the Joint Security Committee is already considering the reorganisation of the B specials and that a representative of the District Commandant of the Ulster Special Constabulary is being co-opted to the working party. That work will proceed as speedily as possible and legislation will be laid before the House. At the moment, I have no plans for returning to Ireland.
    Captain Orr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best atmosphere in

    591
    which the implementation of the general programme of reform can take place is an atmosphere of normality and that the news that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is to return to duty in the areas mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman is welcome and that any influence which he himself has exercised to that end is also welcome?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. These things must march in step and it is important that policing should be resumed in the Bogside just as it is important that the B specials should find their new rôle acceptable to them as well as to the whole of the people of Northern Ireland.

    Gambling Clubs (Isle of Wight)
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend Schedule I of Statutory Instrument No. 1110 to include the Isle of Wight.
    Mr. Elysian Morgan: After consulting the Gaming Board, my right hon. Friend does not propose to amend the Schedule to permit clubs for gaming other than bingo, bridge or whist to be licensed in the Isle of Wight.
    Mr. Woodnutt: In this unreasonable discrimination, does not the hon. Gentleman feel that his right hon. Friend has given a most unfair competitive advantage to those few resorts which are now allowed to permit casinos? Why has he chosen Portsmouth and not the Isle of Wight, why Southampton and not South-sea? Why did he choose to lay the Order before Parliament on 11th August to be effective from 1st October when none of us had the opportunity to challenge it?
    Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman will not be unduly surprised to find that I do not agree with him. The Isle of Wight as a whole does not measure up to the criteria applied in the rest of the country.
    Mr. Woodnutt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Immigrants
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the normal practice to house entrants into Great Britain in prison during the period when the question of their right to enter is being examined; how many have been treated in this way; how many have been allowed to go to an hotel pending the authorities' decision; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Passengers detained under examination or pending departure must be removed to prison, a remand centre or a remand home after five days, and may be removed before this at the discretion of the immigration officer. I am circulating figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is causing considerable concern among international committees like that in my constituency concerned with integration? Is he aware, too, that there seems to be discrimination between white Rhodesians, who are given one sort of treatment, and coloured immigrants from the Commonwealth? Will he look at this aspect?
    Mr. Rees: I will certainly look at that last point if I am given evidence of it, but I am not aware of it. I would like to make it clear that there is no power under the law at present to release immigrants on bail. Under the new appeal system next year, the situation will be different.
    Mr. Lubbock: Does it not seem wrong to the hon. Gentleman that people who are accused of no offence in this country, such as Mr. Ashaq Hussein and Mr. Williams a few weeks ago, should be detained in prison and treated like criminals? Could not the Home Office arrange for facilities to be provided so that in an increasing number of these cases people can at least exist in comfort during their stay in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rees: Under the new legislation, we hope to deal with this situation next year. All I can say to the hon. Member is that in the one case which he has mentioned, when the matter went to the

    593
    courts it was ruled that the Home Office had acted perfectly properly. In the context of the law that is the case.
    Following are the figures:

    PASSENGERS DETAINED JANUARY TO SEPTEMBER, 1969

    Aliens

    Commonwealth citizens

    Prisons

    18

    90

    Remand homes

    —

    9

    Remand centres

    2

    20

    A passenger may sometimes be allowed to go to an hotel, but statistics are not available.

    Experiments on Living Animals
    Sir R. Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has taken no action on the recommendations of the Littlewood Committee, presented to his predecessor in April, 1965, on experiments on living animals.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Committee acknowledged that the present law has been generally effective and laid no emphasis on the urgency of the reforms it proposed; and while my right hon. Friend recognises the need to replace the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, by legislation more suited to present-day requirements, the Government cannot justify according it priority over the many other pressing demands on its legislative programme.
    Sir R. Russell: Is it not four and a half years since the report was presented and is not the number of experiments increasing every year, now reaching over 5 million a year? Does not this matter need urgently to be looked into? Will the hon. Gentleman give it some attention?
    Mr. Rees: We have discussed this many times before. I accept that there is an increase in the number of experiments, but this of itself is not the only criterion to take into account. There are many other pressing demands on the programme, and I stick by what I have said.
    Sir D. Renton: Bearing in mind that there has already been a delay of four years in implementing the report, will the hon. Gentleman say what is inhibiting its being implemented now? Is it cost? If so, how much is the cost?
    Mr. Rees: It certainly is not cost, but it would be an enormously long Bill. There is a great deal of work to do before it could be brought to the House and there are other pressing demands on the legislative programme. It is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened, under all Governments.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Without entering into the very controversial question of vivisection, which is dealt with in the Littlewood Report, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that those paragraphs which deal with the use of toxic chemicals in experiments on animals are appalling and disgust all decent people who are familiar with them? Could not his Department take emergency action to deal with that aspect of the report, on which there has been strong support by some of the most responsible biologists in this country, who are not wildcats by any means and do not make wild statements? Will my hon. Friend do something about that aspect of it?
    Mr. Rees: If my hon. Friend can give me details, I will certainly look at that precise point.

    Football Supporters (Hooliganism)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meetings he held recently with the Football Association, the railway police and the regular police about hooliganism on football special trains.
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the continuing acts of hooliganism before, at and after football matches, he will make a further statement on the steps he is taking to deal with this position.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The standing arrangements for the exchange of information between police forces about football hooligans on trains have been strengthened; a code of practice designed to encourage good behaviour by supporters is to be circulated by the Football Association to all League clubs; and there is under consideration a scheme to enable stewards, nominated by the League clubs concerned, to travel on football trains as part of the plan to

    595
    prevent disorder. Details are being worked out.
    Mr. Hastings: While those who have suffered from this menace will be glad of those measures as far as they go, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to answer three specific questions? First, has he discussed with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport the adequacy of railway police guards on these trains? Second, what progress has been made in improving the radio links between the railway police on the trains and the regular police along the route? Finally, how many clubs have so far agreed to contract with British Railways for complete trains for which they will be liable? Has the hon. Gentleman made any progress on these points?
    Mr. Rees: Concerning the radio links, there is a technical problem between the trains and the normal police, but from the discussions which have taken place I am satisfied about the contact between the two. We have had discussions with British Railways concerning the number of railway police but I hope that the hon. Member will take into account that with the number of trains on a Saturday it is not easy to cope with every possibility that might arise. The question of clubs undertaking liability for trains is one of the points about the code of behaviour to which I referred in my original Answer.
    Sir B. Janner: What special precautions has my hon. Friend advised at the football fields?
    Mr. Rees: There is a particular problem at the football fields as opposed w outside them; there is a distinction between the two. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it plain to chief constables in different parts of the country that he is very concerned with the problem of hooliganism and I assure the House that chief constables in all parts of the country are taking steps to liaise with the football clubs to stamp out these happenings which are taking place every Saturday.

  GIBRALTAR
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the further consultations between the head
  596
  of the Spanish Government and himself on Gibraltar.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): There have been no consultations between myself and General Franco over Gibraltar. On the Government's policy I would refer to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in reply to Questions last Monday.—[Vol. 788, c. 9–12.]
  Mr. Molloy: May I take this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the fifth anniversary of the great electoral victory to which he led my party in 1964 and on assuming the Premiership of Britain, and may I wish him many happy returns of the day on these two occasions? Can my right hon. Friend now tell me whether he has—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be put succinctly.
  Mr. Molloy: Can my right hon. Friend now tell me whether there has been any reply to the British Note to the Spanish Government of June last?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the preamble to his question, which I thought was very succinct. I would like to thank him for what he has said. On his second question, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on Monday last about contacts with the Spanish Government.
  Mr. George Jeger: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the reply given by one of the Ministers of Defence yesterday when he was trying to draw a distinction between the military and the political effects of activities on the Rock? Will he ensure that all activities by all Government Departments in future take into account the effect upon the morale and the interests of the civilians of Gibraltar?
  The Prime Minister: I am, of course, aware of the answer given by my hon. Friend yesterday. My hon. Friend can be assured that there is the fullest co-ordination of all activities on and around the Rock. He will, of course, know that the present Commander-in Chief, a former Chief of the Naval Staff here, has overriding responsibility in all these matters.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on his negotiations with the Trades Union Congress on industrial relations.
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will convene and preside over another meeting with the Trades Union Congress to discuss industrial relations.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State will be continuing consultations on these matters with the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the other organisations concerned.
  Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend contemplate holding discussions with the T.U.C., particularly having regard to the new machinery of government and especially since the T.U.C. has co-operated so successfully and helpfully in resolving industrial disputes?
  The Prime Minister: As the House knows, I shall be having a meeting with the General Council of the T.U.C. next Wednesday to discuss a number of questions in relation to economic organisation, and, of course, as occasion requires I shall always be ready to discuss with it any problem of industrial relations where it is felt it could intervene successfully to deal with a dispute.
  Mr. Marten: In view of the situation in the motor industry, with unofficial strikes producing what was described last Tuesday by the Society of Motor Manufacturers as a state of near-anarchy, and of the situation in the coal mining industry, is the Prime Minister satisfied that the solemn and binding undertaking given by the T.U.C. is working as effectively as he hoped, and if not, why not?
  The Prime Minister: I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the motor industry. It has been a continuing problem for many years. The problem of militancy in relation to often quite small groups of men is one that the House has been concerned with on a number of occasions. There has been successful intervention by the T.U.C. in some of these cases but it has not been successful in others; nor would any other solution I am aware of deal with some of these problems. Certainly the T.U.C. will be
  598
  pressed by all of us to do everything it can when it can usefully intervene. On the coal mining industry point, again I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said in answer to a Question on Tuesday.
  Mr. Eadie: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that in carrying out any negotiations with the T.U.C. he will be in a much stronger position than if he were to do it with the C. B.I., which has recently become known as an organisation for ambitious Tory Party candidates?
  The Prime Minister: I would not go so far as to say that. Was it not the C.B.I. or the Institute of Directors which had some pointed criticism to make of the Conservative Party recently?
  Mr. R. Carr: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the very strong words he used about duty in this House in June when interpreting the binding commitment? He said the duty of trade unions was to use their rule books against members who continued with unofficial strikes. We made clear our dislike of that policy, but it was a policy on which he was depending.
  The Prime Minister: The T.U.C. takes this undertaking extremely seriously. We cannot go over the whole debate again. As I understand it, the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, which we consider totally unworkable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—would involve exactly what the T.U.C. undertaking involves at the end of the day, in that they place on the unions the responsibility to use their rule books and the rest for dealing with their members. This has already been done, very toughly indeed, since June in two or three cases. In the motor industry, as I have said, this is of uniquely special difficulty and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, like us, in his recent speech emphasised some of the things that have to be done to improve the atmosphere in industry, apart from coercing the men.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mr. McNamaraasked the Prime Minister what further discussions he has

  599
  had with the Northern Ireland Government.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to what I said in reply to Questions last Tuesday.—[Vol. 788, c. 199–205.]
  Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people on both sides of the House, following the publication of the Hunt Report and its acceptance by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, are glad that there is now to be policing of the Falls Road and Bogside again? Because of the interest of hon. Members in this matter and because of our financial responsibility can my right hon. Friend arrange for the financial details, about where the money is to be spent in Northern Ireland, to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The Prime Minister: The House will have taken further satisfaction since we debated this matter on Monday in that real efforts are now being made to get law and order re-established in areas where they have been strangers for several weeks.
  As to the question of cost, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will keep the House informed as soon as he is able to do so on all these matters. There will be a series of financial negotiations, arising not only out of the point raised by my hon. Friend but from many other questions. There is the problem of the new reserves which featured in the Hunt Report. My right hon. Friend and the Stormont Government have been too concerned with other questions until now to get down to these financial matters.
  Mr. McMaster: Is the Prime Minister aware that all reasonable people in Northern Ireland welcome the return of policing to all parts of Northern Ireland, and that they welcome the Hunt Report? Will he make it clear that the Government and the whole House hope that all sections of the community will now join with the police and play their part in keeping law and order in Northern Ireland?
  The Prime Minister: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is absolutely right that all reasonable people in Northern Ireland welcome the Hunt Report. As the Home Secretary told the House, a large proportion of the Royal
  600
  Ulster Constabulary welcome it too, especially many of their younger people, who now see a chance for real police functions.
  Miss Devlin: Is the Prime Minister aware of certain discrepancies between the interpretation which the Ulster Government puts on the Hunt Report and its suggestions and that put upon it by this Government? Is he aware of recent statements from the Northern Ireland Cabinet Security Committee which indicates that persons currently members of the Ulster Special Constabulary may automatically become members of the new auxiliary police force? Can he assure us that the criteria for enrolment will be in the hands of the General Officer Commanding the Army?
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any discrepancies between what has been said in Northern Ireland and what was said by my right hon. Friend in this House, on Monday, or in other statements made by him. If the hon. Lady feels that there are discrepancies or that anything needs clearing up, I am sure that she will bring these statements to the attention of my right hon. Friend. At any rate there need be no doubt in her mind or that of anyone else that control of this new reserve will be clearly under the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, who in turn is clearly under the Secretary of State for Defence, who is answerable to this House.

  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  Mr. Juddasked the Prime Minister on what date he proposes that the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting should take place.
  The Prime Minister: At the last Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting held in London last January it was generally felt that the next meeting should be in 1970. I have no doubt that the Commonwealth Secretary-General whose duty it is to consult Heads of Government about a suitable date will follow this up at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Judd: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, would he not agree that, because of our renewed

  601
  efforts to join the E.E.C., and continuing international crises in South-East Asia, the Middle East and West and Southern Africa, on which the collective deliberation of the Commonwealth would be valuable, an early date would be better than a late one for the next meeting?
  The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we had a very successful meeting earlier this year. The Secretary-General has a huge problem to get 28 Heads of Government, all of whom have to attend to their own parliamentary timetables, budgets and the rest, to assemble in one Commonwealth capital at one time. An undertaking has been given that there will be consultation with the Commonwealth about any matter involving entry into the E.E.C. I have already had the opportunity of discussions on that kind of problem with Prime Ministers who have visited London since the conference.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Would the Prime Minister take into account the problem of dates? With the possibility of a General Election next year it might even clash with the meeting. Could he clear this matter up?
  The Prime Minister: In our democratic Commonwealth there are General Elections going on nearly every year. I will study what plans my various Commonwealth Prime Minister colleagues have in mind before settling a date.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister what further consultations he is having with the Prime Ministers of the European Economic Community countries regarding British application to join the European Economic Community.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in reply to Questions by the hon. Members for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), Banbury (Mr. Marten), and Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) last Monday.—[Vol. 788, c. 3–9.]
  Mr. Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is only at the nego-
  602
  tiating table, if negotiations do start again, that we shall be in a position to judge whether the conditions of entry are such that we should join? Would he also agree that if we again apply or reactivate our present application and it does not get anywhere, it may well be the last time for many years that we shall try to enter the Six? We cannot keep on trying to enter a community that does not want us.
  The Prime Minister: It is certainly true that it is only when negotiations begin that the Government and this House and the British people can see whether the kind of terms that are likely to develop from those negotiations are acceptable. That is the position understood by all parties in this House, including those who are enthusiastic for entry and those who are less enthusiastic.
  There is no question of reactivating the application. The application is on the table. There has so far been no common response by the Six to say that they are prepared to enter into negotiations. When they state that they are ready we shall be ready too. I agree with my hon. Friend that the final judgment cannot be made until we see the kind of terms made.
  Mr. Heath: Can the Prime Minister tell us when he will present a White Paper to the House giving the result of the new calculations which he revealed recently he commissioned some weeks ago, and which he successfully disguised from the House?
  The Prime Minister: That is very pathetic. The House was not meeting when this instruction was given for these figures to be prepared. I did not think it worth while calling the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen back here specially to announce that fact. However, I see that he shares my enthusiasm for the fact that it was the right thing to do. As soon as the figures are ready in a meaningful form, I will make them available to the House.
  Hon. Members: When?
  The Prime Minister: I will come to "when" in a moment. I have not said that it will be one White Paper. It may be several. It will be issued in whatever is the most convenient way—[Interruption.] Yes, or a debate.. We have done

  603
  it in various ways in the past. As I say, it will be done in whatever is the most convenient way from the point of view of the House, but it will be done.
  As to when, it will take a few weeks. I hope that it will be before the House breaks up for the Christmas Recess.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the Prime Minister seen the recent official statement that one of the conditions would be that we should have to share our atomic secrets? If that is the case, would it mean that Germany would be included? Does he feel that would be welcome to the people of this country?
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure that my hon. Friend read the obiter dictum by the Commission on the question of nuclear affairs. It was talking about civil nuclear matters, not military nuclear matters, because of an exchange with Euratom. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome, and there is nothing in the treaty governing Euratom, to say that this is required. We do not accept that there is any obligation of that kind. On the other hand, joining a community which will become increasingly technological, we shall expect to exchange some of our technological ideas with Europe in return for theirs. That is what the whole matter is about. It does not mean any automatic implication in nuclear policy.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that, whatever the effects of entry in Europe, for Wales to enter while she is still a part of England and without a Government of her own—[Laughter.] The House has never taken Wales seriously. For Wales to enter while she is still part of England, without a Government of her own, would be economically disastrous because of the consequences of the movement to the east of the island's centre of economic gravity. Is he aware that this move will be strongly resisted in Wales?
  The Prime Minister: It would be economically disastrous for Wales to attempt to stand on her own either inside or outside the Common Market. None knows this better than the hon. Member when he really applies his mind to the matter.
  If negotiations disclose conditions for entry which appear satisfactory to the
  604
  Government and this House, they will be satisfactory for Wales as for other areas represented in this House. If they are considered satisfactory by the House, we shall go in with or without the hon. Member.
  Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister recognise that from his recent statement the House had been led to expect a survey of statistics and calculations in regard to agricultural prices, balance of payments, cost of living, sterling, and so on, which is much more than can be included in a statement to the House or a statement made during a debate. The House expects from the Government at least a White Paper setting out the matter in full which we can study before any debate.
  The Prime Minister: All I have said is that this has not been decided. If the House wants a White Paper, or a series of White Papers, then we shall be ready to meet the wishes of the House. On the last occasion we discussed this, I said that I was not sure what form it would take. A lot of information was given in the three-day debate; we have produced four White Papers as well. If it is convenient to the House, it will be done in one White Paper or more than one. It will be done.
  Mr. Shinwell: In those moments of meditation which are available to my right hon. Friend, does he ever reflect on the unwisdom of pressing forward with this matter before the next General Election, in defiance of a large section of public opinion, thereby incurring a risk of defeat?
  The Prime Minister: I do have a fair amount of time for reflection about this matter and other matters which at various times have exercised the mind of my right hon. Friend. What we are faced with here is the question of negotiations. I have heard very few suggestions, either in the House or in any of the gatherings held on the South Coast recently, that there should be no attempt to go forward with negotiations. In all those three gatherings some said "Be very careful what you do when you get there, and do not accept terms which would involve this, that or the other." My right hon. Friend will realise that what we are talking about is entering

  605
  into negotiations. We are ready to enter them as soon as those who are concerned are ready. As to the outcome and timing of the negotiations, this will depend on a large number of matters outside our own control, in the sense that we shall be negotiating with six other countries.
  Mr. Thorpe: I share the view that the fullest possible information should be given to the public, but in order to protect the Prime Minister from giving a promise which he might find difficult to fulfil, may I ask him to say how any figures could be meaningful until after the completion of the first phase of the Treaty of Rome, which will be at the end of this year, and after the renegotiation of the agricultural policy, which may not be until the middle of next year?
  The Prime Minister: This was the problem to which both my right hon. Friend and I referred in the House before the Recess. If one reads the statement issued by the Commission—I believe it appeared in the Press only yesterday—the Commission said that there would have to be some changes in agricultural policy, and also laid down, on its own responsibility, certain views about what could or could not be expected of Britain in relation to agricultural obligations. No White Paper or other statement could possibly prejudge or forecast what will happen in the Six on agriculture. That is why I have asked the studies which I have commissioned to be based on a number of different possible assumptions about what may happen to agricultural prices, because they will affect not only the balance of payments but also Britain's budgetary contribution and other matters. There are various assumptions about that, just as different assumptions have to be made in the matter of capital movements and trade.

  QUESTION TO THE PRIME MINISTER
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Heath. Business Question.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister sought your permission to answer Question No. Q 12? I put forward this point of view for a serious
  606
  reason since the Paymaster-General has often been responsible for the co-ordination of Government information services. We have read in the Evening Standard, in an article from a most responsible source, that not only have 164 extra Press relations officers with strong Socialist views been appointed, but—
  Hon. Members: Sit down!
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must resume his seat when Mr. Speaker stands. I was seized of the point of order at the beginning. It developed into a supplementary question that he might have asked had the Question been answered by the Prime Minister. I had called the Leader of the Opposition for the Business Question, which indicates that the Prime Minister had not asked me whether he might answer Question No. Q 12.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing—
  Hon. Members: Cheat.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: My motive, Sir, was in order that the anxieties of the House could be set at rest at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Speaker: Nobody in the House ever questions any other hon. Member's motive. I am simply dealing with the point of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: Would the Leader of the House kindly state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 20TH OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords.]
Consideration of the Codes of Recommendation for the Welfare of Livestock.
Prayer on the Meat Sterilisation Regulations, 1969.
TUESDAY, 21ST OCTOBER—A debate on Procedure, linked to the First and Second Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure, which it is hoped

607
to disposed of by about eight o'clock, in order to allow longer debate on the Motion on the Minister of Technology Order, 1969, which is to follow.
Consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received to Government Bills.
WEDNESDAY, 22ND OCTOBER—The House will meet at 2.30 p.m. for Prorogation.
In respect of tomorrow's business, it is proposed to add at the end, consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Bill.
Mr. Heath: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is unsatisfactory to take the Ministry of Technology Order as the second business on Tuesday? Obviously, the changes in the Ministry are of great importance. Could not the order of the relevant debates be reversed so that we might take the debate on procedure after the Transfer of Functions Order?
Mr. Peart: I thought that if we had a short debate on procedure I would open the debate—and I assure the House that I will be brief. I believe that the time which has been allocated for the Order is quite satisfactory. I have looked at the precedents and feel that we have provided adequate time.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would point out that there is an important debate ahead. I hope that we will restrict our natural desire to ask business questions.
Dame Irene Ward: Can the Leader of the House say when we are likely to have an announcement about the duties of the Paymaster-General and, indeed, about who is to be Paymaster-General? It may be that it will be made in the procedure debate, but it is rather important to know.
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is to happen to my two Motions on the Order Paper?
[That this House, noting the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Tynemouth on 13th March saying that nothing would give him personally more pleasure than that she should have
608
a hand in arranging his visit in July, urges him to hold a conference with the responsible authorities on the declining position of the port of the Tyne with a view to ensuring fair treatment for the Tyne compared with Teesside; to examine the continuing unemployment on Tyneside and in Smith's Docks; in particular, to arrange the necessary finance for a new additional dry dock to take the type of large tanker recently launched by H.R.H. Princess Anne; to drive down the new coast road of Newcastle-on-Tyne to Tynemouth and observe the advantage of the new road built by Wimpey for Tynemouth and opened over three years ago and compare it both financially and in time taken by the use of direct labour by Newcastleon-Tyne and Wallsend compared with private enterprise; to ponder on the difficulties experienced in the efficient running of the Newcastle Central Station after the amalgamation of the Great Northern and Great Eastern Railways had resulted in headquarter control from York instead of Newcastle-on-Tyne; to visit Tynemouth to see how the beauty of this old place would be spoilt by the coal distribution depot suggested by British Railways; to examine the had effects the selective employment tax is having on Whitley Bay and Tynemouth; and to redeem his pleasant reference to the hon. Member's request to assist in planning his programme by inviting her to show him the disturbing problems which have to be solved for a prosperous Tyneside.]
[That, in the opinion of this House, the failure of the Treasury, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Security as well as the Home Office to co-ordinate the affairs of a woman constituent of the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth has resulted in what amounts to persecution by the Treasury and the unnecessary forced payment by Social Security at the taxpayers' expense to the hon. Member's constituent, and that this House requires a senior civil servant with power to ensure justice to a woman who has divorced her husband to deal with the case.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. One business question from one hon. Member.
Mr. Peart: On the first matter, that is not the business for next week.

609
I have looked at the Motions in the hon. Lady's name. But we cannot debate them next week.
Mr. Ellis: On Monday's debate, on the Brambell Report, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is a very difficult matter which to some extent involves the consciences of individual hon. Members? In view of that, would he consider making representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that hon. Members should be allowed a free vote on this important issue?
Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that, in the formation of Amendments that we are allowed to table, many of us would like to be able to get round the procedure in some way so as to bring up the standards to what is recommended in that Report?
Mr. Peart: I know that many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, have consciences about livestock and many other matters. But, after all, this is a recommendation flowing from the Brambell Committee, which I personally looked into in my former Ministerial post. I believe that the record of our farmers and the Ministry on this is an example to the world. I hope that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will carefully weigh the speeches in the debate. But there could not be a free vote.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the Leader of the House aware that some confusion has arisen from yesterday's Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence? On three occasions, he misled us in his Answers about the exercise to be held in Malaysia, about the state of our strategic reserves in this country, and about the commitment of paratroops to Northern Ireland. Could the Leader of the House make sure that the position is cleared up by a statement from his right hon. Friend before we rise on Wednesday?
Mr. Peart: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not deliberately mislead the House. I will look into tins and have a word with him. I will contact the hon. Gentleman immediately afterwards.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will resist the suggestion made by the
610
Leader of the Opposition about reversing the order of business on Tuesday? Many of us regard the debate on procedure as extremely important. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the debate will be wide enough to cover all aspects of the two Reports in question?
Mr. Peart: I agree that: this Report is important. It is a very good one. I hope to provide time later in the new Session on this subject, because I think that we shall have to come back to it. I will introduce on Tuesday recommendations touching on only a part of the Report. Let us hope that we have a brief debate.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the Motion before us will be on which the procedure debate is to take place?
Mr. Peart: It will be on the Order Paper in good time.
Mr. Rankin: Reverting to Monday's debate on the Brambell Report, which will take place on the codes of recommendations, my right hon. Friend has said already that there will not be a free vote, but that, like the animals, we will be kept prisoner and not allowed our freedom. Can he assure us that we will be able to discuss fully the Amendments which now plaster the Order Notice Paper and that there will be no restriction on speaking, at least?
Mr. Peart: That is a matter not for the Leader of the House, but for Mr. Speaker. It is for him to make his selection of Amendments and decide how the debate should be conducted. I think that there will be ample opportunity for hon. Members to express their points of view. The question of whipping is one for my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip.
Mr. Biffen: Does the Leader of the House hope to assure us next week that there will be sufficient copies available to hon. Members of the vitally important report by the European Commission on British membership of the Common Market, and that they will be in English and not in French as at present?
Mr. Peart: I would have thought that a document from the European Commission was not my responsibility, but I will look into the matter.
Mr. Dickens: In view of the need to attract people of high calibre to serve on local authorities, will my hon. Friend give early consideration to a debate on unpaid and under-paid public servants?
Mr. Peart: Yes, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that I am dealing with next week's business. I think that we should wait till next Session.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: As the Minister of Technology is now responsible for so many aspects of government, and the Leader of the House has taken away one of his Question days next week, will the right hon. Gentleman consider revising the rota so that his right hon. Friend is not always so submerged by agriculture on Wednesdays?
Mr. Peart: I do not know that that is exactly the case. I am advised that it is not.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether he cannot do the opposite of what the Leader of the Opposition suggests and give us more time for this procedure debate on Tuesday? Procedure deals with the whole control of public expenditure and is one of the most vital questions that the House could possibly consider. To have only two or three hours for non-Front Bench speakers on this important matter would be a great blow to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Peart: If my hon. Friend had been listening carefully earlier, he would know that I said that next Session I hope that we shall have time in which to debate the Reports more fully.
Mr. Heath: Does the Leader of the House realise that if the House is to keep the debate on Procedure going all day on Tuesday, it is thoroughly unsatisfactory to have a major change in Government organisation and structure debated for only one and a half hours and not started until 10 o'clock at night? If the Government want their changes to be authorised early, surely the right thing to do is to take it as the first Order, with procedure being debated later, Alternatively, if they feel that procedure and the control of finance should be debated at an early date, the Transfer of Functions Order should he kept until next Session. It is not possible to have full debates on both in one day.
Mr. Peart: I have indicated my view on this. I hope that there will be a short debate on procedure. I have promised my hon. Friends that we shall have a major debate when we return.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In view of the fact that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications' agreement with the B.B.C. was made during the Recess and that the B.B.C. is understood to be implementing the full and disastrous consequences of its programme "Broadcasting in the Seventies", can my right hon. Friend provide time for a short debate before the end of the present Session?
Mr. Peart: No, I cannot, but I will convey my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. Friend.
Dr. Winstanley: Will next week's business include a statement about the implementation of the Services Committee's recommendations concerning hon. Members' secretaries?
Mr. Peart: No. I am still considering this and having discussions.
Mr. John Mendelson: Reverting to an earlier question concerning an English text of the European Commission's Report, is my right hon. Friend aware that it contains very serious suggestions about the future of our publicly-owned steel industry which, if accepted by the Government, would have a damaging effect and break up the cohesion of that industry? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only important for hon. Members to have an English text before them, but equally important for our constituents? There was a similar situation when the Treaty of Rome was available only in—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into the merits of what he is seeking.
Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that the need for a translation of the Treaty of Rome was urged upon the Government by hon. Members and subsequently undertaken? Will he follow the same procedure?
Mr. Peart: I will look into this carefully and I will see that it is done, if possible. I have read this important Report with great interest. It should be read by all hon. Members.
Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Will the Leader of the House confirm that next Wednesday there will be no Questions under any circumstances—not even his own Questions.
Mr. Peart: That is correct.
Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman has indicated his views about Tuesday's debates. Has he not hoisted in the fact that those views are totally unacceptable to the House? The Government are trying to confuse counsel and muddy the issues, as they always do. Both subjects are important. Can we not have a proper debate on separate days on both?
Mr. Peart: I have given my reply.
Mr. Peyton: I do not want that.
Mr. Peart: I think that the time allocated is satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I should only be repeating myself if I replied further.
Mr. Younger: Will the Leader of the House impress upon the Minister of Defence that it is absolutely essential that he should make a full statement next week about the deployment of British forces because what he was maintaining yesterday, that no troops assigned to N.A.T.O. were in Northern Ireland, is a flat contradiction of the statement made by the late Minister of Defence for Administration in May last year?
Mr. Peart: I have already said that I will have a word with my right hon. Friend on this matter.
Mr. James Davidson: Can the Leader of the House say when the order of Questions for the next Session will be available?
Mr. Peart: I cannot be specific on the actual time, but as soon as possible.
Mr. Emery: Will the Leader of the House reconsider next Tuesday's debates? I know that he is trying to be helpful. But will he give an undertaking that if the procedure debate ran until 10 o'clock he would not proceed with the Transfer of Functions Order?
Mr. Peart: I cannot give that assurance. But I am prepared to look into the matter.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA
3.52 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th October, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know how long the House wishes the debate to last. If it proceeds to seven o'clock it will be interrupted by private business and then we shall have to return to it.
There are a fair number of hon. Members wishing to speak in the debate. In any case, brief speeches will help.
Mr. Stewart: The effect of the Motion will be to continue in force Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965. That section enables Her Majesty in Council to take any action concerning events in Rhodesia. To fail to keep that section in force, therefore, would, in effect, be a denial of Her Majesty's sovereignty over Southern Rhodesia, so I do not think that anyone would wish to oppose the Motion unless he wants to give full support to the Rhodesian rebellion.
The form and text and the legal effect of the Motion are clear enough. But I am sure that it is right., even in what may be a half-day debate, if the House wishes—and I understand that this is its wish—to take the opportunity of the legal necessity to pass this Order, to look at the substance of the whole Rhodesian matter.
The last time that we debated Rhodesian affairs was very nearly a year ago—22nd October, 1968. Since then the House has been kept fully informed. There have been several Ministerial statements, there have been abundant Answers to Questions, there has been the White Paper, Cmnd. No. 4065, and there has been made available to the House the communique of the conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers at which conference Rhodesia was fully discussed.
If we ask what most notably has been made plain since that last debate nearly a year ago, the answer is that what has been made plain beyond doubt to anybody is the real nature of Mr. Ian Smith's philosophy and policy. Many hon. Members might have felt that we knew it

615
earlier, but it has been made plain, I think, beyond anybody's questioning, in the events of the last 12 months.
I have in mind particularly the visit of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in November last year. This followed the discussions in Her Majesty's ship "Fearless" and was an endeavour to see whether there was any way in which the differences that remained could in fact be bridged.
I know that many people ask us and ask themselves the question: why do the Government go to all this trouble; not only the talks on board the "Fearless", but the further conversations in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster took part?
In our judgment, the answer was that it was important to make clear to everyone in this country and throughout the world, first, that we stood by the six principles, but, secondly and equally, that, provided the six principles could be secured, we were ready to be flexible and reasonable on anything consistent with that.
On 21st May, in a suplementary answer to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), I said:
"…we have been prepared, and are prepared, to he flexible on details, on form, and even, within reason, on timing. But there is one matter that is not susceptible to compromise. Any settlement, to be acceptable, I would have thought, to anyone in this House, must be a settlement which would mean unimpeded progress within a reasonable time towards majority rule."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 445.]
I emphasised in that answer our readiness, subject to that essential, to be as flexible as we possibly could.
Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that there is any chance of reaching a settlement on the basis of that principle, or on any of the other five principles?
Mr. Stewart: That question has to be put to Salisbury as much as to me. I am certain that it would be totally wrong to reach a settlement that contravened that principle, or, indeed, any of the six principles. I will perhaps give a fuller answer to the right hon. Gentleman in what I later have to say. But I say now that it would be totally wrong to try
616
to reach a settlement that contravened those principles.
It was perhaps the more necessary to undertake the exercise of negotiation in the visit of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because Mr. Smith had previously asserted that a settlement with Britain was something that he regarded as a first prize. In the light of that statement it could have been argued that the British Government must make every effort, consistent with the principles, to achieve that prize. That effort we did in fact make, but Mr. Smith has made very clear since, that, despite his allegation that he regarded a setttlement with us as a first prize, he none the less completely rejected the six principles and the concept of majority rule, not only now or in the near future, but in any foreseeable time.
One other thing that has happened since we last debated Rhodesia has been the proclamation of what the illegal régime calls its constitution. It is worth while looking at this constitution and remembering, when we look at any part of it, that this is supposed to be a constitution for a country in which there are 19 people of African origin for every one of European origin. In a country so constituted, it is proposed that there should be a Legislature, one House of which should be a Senate containing 10 Europeans, 10 African chiefs paid by the Government, and three appointed members irrespective of race.
These proportions have to be seen against the proportions of 19 or 20 to 1 in the numbers of the two races in the total population. This composition of the Senate has especial importance because the Senate is supposed to be the guardian of the Declaration of Rights. One of the matters claimed for the constitution is that it contains a Declaration of Rights.
But this is not something like certain declarations of principle in the United States constitution, of which the courts are guardians. It is for the Senate to decide whether any particular piece of legislation contravenes the declaration of rights—a Senate composed of 10 Europeans, 10 paid chiefs and three others. In the Lower House there will be 50 Europeans, eight chiefs, and eight elected African members. This, again, has to be set against the proportions of the races in the population.

617
I want to try to deal with this as fairly and patiently as I can and to see if there is any way in which a case can be made for a constitution of this kind. It could be said, indeed it has been said, that although this is the composition of the two Houses at the outset, it is capable of alteration—that as Africans get more educated, get more prosperous and pay more taxes they will be entitled to greater representation. But there is not to be equal representation of the two races until the total amount of income tax paid by the whole African community is equal to the total amount of income tax paid by the whole European community.
One may notice, in passing, that nothing is said about the burden of indirect taxation on the African community. Suppose the African community were to decide that they would undertake this heroic task of so increasing their wealth that the total amount of income tax paid by them equalled the total amount paid by Europeans. It would be quite a long road because at present the European community pays about 200 times the amount of income tax that the African community does. So it would take a long time on any analysis. I suppose that some would say that the moral of this clearly is that the Africans must work, improve their education, and get themselves into a position to pay more income tax. Indeed, unless one says that, one cannot justify this constitution at all.
I can accept that it is possible in some kinds of community to establish the position where one can say, for the present we give exceptional voting rights to a particular section of the community by virtue of wealth or education; but it seems to me that one can justify that view—if one can justify it in any circumstances—only if the régime which promulgates such a constitution makes it overwhelmingly clear that it is giving to the less privileged community every possible opportunity to improve its education, to become more prosperous, whether as farmers, as professional men, or as trades people.
Let us look at what is happening. At the moment ten times as much is spent —[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members who interrupt will have an opportunity to speak later. At the moment, ten times as much is spent on the education
618
of a European child as on the education of an African child. If we look at the extent to which children move from primary to secondary schools, among Europeans it is about 11 per cent. and among Africans 1 per cent. If we look at the ownership of land, the 230,000 Europeans, in round figures, will own rather more land than the 4,800,000 Africans. It is true that there is said to be a scheme to improve this, but the recent eviction from their homeland of the Tangwena tribe makes fairly clear what the real nature of the régime's policy is.
If the African happens to advance to the position where he may increase his wealth and voting rights in a town, we find the redefinition of areas in the town is such as to operate solidly to the disadvantage of the African who seeks either to be a shopkeeper or a professional man. What we have got, then, is a constitution which at the very best and on the most favourable interpretation nobody could say is not really racial; it is related to education and income, and so on, and, at the same time, makes it impossible for the less privileged race to advance in education and income.
It is not possible to escape the conclusion that by the publication and attempted enforcement of this constitution the Smith régime is making it quite clear that it rejects majority rule, not merely now but permanently; and that there is no way of reconciling the Smith régime's attitude, unless there were a complete change of heart and mind, with the six principles.
I make this point because of the suggestion that it might be right to enter yet further negotiations with the Smith régime. I can see three bases on which that might be done. One would be that there was a complete change of heart and mind in Salisbury and that everything which is represented by and embodied in this racialist constitution were thrown aside. If that were to happen, if that were an unmistakable indication of a complete change of heart and mind in Salisbury, then I do not think that anyone would object to reopening discussions with such a very different version of what we now have in Salisbury.
Failing that, what are the other bases on which one could enter into negotiation? One could do it on the basis of

619
saying that this country still stands by the six principles but we are entering into negotiations because we believe that the things which divide us from Salisbury are not matters of principle but merely procedural difficulties which the greater wisdom of some people might be able to iron out. It might just have been possible to argue that before the "Fearless" talks. It might just have been possible before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy went and continued conversations there, but every procedural aspect has been gone over.
Even on the difficult matter of the second safeguard, we put forward proposals which would have meant a safeguard both beginning and ending its operation inside Rhodesia itself. I do not think that anyone who has acquainted himself with the course of the negotiations could argue that what divides us from Salisbury are mere procedural differences.
There is, of course, a third basis on which negotiations could be opened. That is the basis that this country has abandoned the six principles. I very much hope that what we have heard about proposals to reopen negotiations does not mean that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We must notice this. Unless there is a clear and unmistakable indication of a change of heart and mind in Salisbury, to talk about reopening negotiations will have the practical effect of encouraging the Smith régime to believe that what this country has in mind is the abandonment of the six principles.
I can understand and would fully agree with anyone who said, "When we get a new régime or a real change in Salisbury, negotiate". I can understand, but I could not agree with, someone who said, "Let us go and negotiate so that we can wriggle ourselves out of the six principles". It seems to me quite untenable in logic to say that we stick by the six principles and that, in face of the present régime and its present mind in Salisbury, we will pretend that we can negotiate. There is a real danger in doing so because it will give the impression that the six principles themselves are in question.
I have argued that it is vital for us to stand by the principles. I know that
620
the question will be raised then, "When and in what circumstances do you see that change of heart and mind which is necessary if an honourable settlement is to be reached?" We have held, and still hold, the view that we must proceed with the rigorous application of the policy of sanctions ourselves and that we must use our best endeavours throughout the world to ensure that other nations do the same.
Recognising our own special responsibility, we have taken particular care in my Department to watch all over the world for potential breaches of sanctions, to take them up with the Governments concerned, and where necessary to report them to the United Nations Sanctions Committee. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) or anyone else who doubts this had better ask this question. I thought that the Conservative Party's view was that it would reopen negotiations with Ian Smith. I have given reasons why I do not think that that would be a good thing. But to say "Open negotiations with Smith and, what is more, in order to put him in an absolutely impregnable position in negotiations, say in advance that we shall get rid of sanctions" is not so much immoral; it is nonsensical.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: Since the right hon. Gentleman says that we have been active ourselves—and I accept that—in making sanctions work and have reported only alleged infringements to the United Nations, could he say how many prosecutions have been instituted by these other nations against alleged infringements by companies within their own territories?
Mr. Stewart: I could not give a figure offhand. I shall endeavour to ascertain the answer. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this has resulted in a more stringent application, but I agree that there is still room for improvement. It would be reasonable if some of the voices in the United Nations which continually criticise Britain would criticise countries which are less particular in this matter than we are.
I shall not pretend that the application of sanctions is an easy task or is anything like as complete as we should desire

621
it to be. But, in judging the effect of the policy of sanctions and of the wisdom or unwisdom of abandoning it, we should contrast what is happening in Rhodesia with what Mr. Smith claimed would happen when he made the illegal declaration of independence. He did that, I think, in the genuine belief that, as he said, once independence was established the world would recognise the independent Rhodesia and investment and migrants would pour in; there would be, as a country in Rhodesia's position should be able to expect, an expanding and vigorous economy.
What has happened? No country in the world has recognised the illegal régime. Investment from abroad has dwindled to a trickle. Export earnings have shrunk by 40 per cent. I think that alone among all countries in the world the total national product per head is less than it was four years ago. Instead of the expanding opportunities which Mr. Smith sought to achieve for his people by the illegal declaration, he has led them down a path which gets narrower and narrower as the years go by.
I see the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) looking acute and interested. I read his letter in which he said, I think, that there had been an increase of 7,000 in net European immigration per year—
Mr. Patrick Wall: In the last 18 months.
Mr. Stewart: — in the last 18 months. If he compares the census taken in 1961 and that taken earlier this year, he will find that the total increase of the European population is only 7,000 over eight years, and that takes into account the natural increase as well as immigration.
Therefore, over these years, this is not a country to which people have wanted to go, to which people want to commit their capital or in which mankind wants to express confidence.
Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): Since the right hon. Gentleman is touching on economics, would he give the gross national product for Rhodesia for 1967 and 1968 respectively—the last measured year?
Mr. Stewart: I think that I am right in saying that that was given at Question
622
Time last Monday. I have not the figure. If the hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD, he will find the answer there. I expect that the hon. Gentleman knows that one can read the next day the answers to Questions which are not reached orally.
Mr. John Biffen Mr. John Biffen(Oswestry) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister can deal with only one intervention at once.
Mr. Stewart: I am asserting quite definitely that the gross national product per head of this community has declined since illegal independence was declared. In that respect it is unique among all communities in the world. It is not what Mr. Smith led his people to expect when he embarked them on this disastrous course.
Mr. Biffen Mr. Biffen rose—
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to deal with this point later.
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman is totally misrepresenting the position.
Mr. Wall: Would the Secretary of State agree that our Prime Minister was equally wrong when he spoke about weeks rather than months?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, I would. What I want to know is: do hon. Members rejoice over that or not?
Mr. Wall: We said that sanctions were wrong and would not work.
Mr. Stewart: If he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member may be able to make clear whether he wants the Rhodesian rebellion to succeed and whether he wants this racialist constitution to be perpetuated. That is the issue, which he has so often dodged.
It is to the position of a narrowing, disappointed community that Mr. Smith's disastrous and racialist policies have brought both the white and black populations of Rhodesia. It is a denial of what a community placed like that should have been able to enjoy. As long as Rhodesia is ruled by a racialist minority, this is the position that both we and mankind must maintain.
Behind the legalities of this Order, behind statistical arguments, there looms

623
this gigantic question. Already, in certain parts of Africa there are forms of government which assert definitely and as a matter of principle that because a man has a black skin his political rights shall be diminished. It is of enormous importance to the world that that principle should not be extended. To that question—is it right to extend the principle of racial discrimination? —One must give a plain answer, "yes" or "no". The right answer is "no". That is the answer which Her Majesty's Government give and will maintain.
4.19 p.m.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: In introducing the Order, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs used certain arguments with which I could not disagree. If Mr. Smith's proposed constitution for Rhodesia was adopted, of course Britain could not be a party to it. I have said that in the House before, and it is not disputed.
I do not have to go into the details of Mr. Smith's income tax regulations or educational policy to make the point. If the constitution goes through Mr. Smith's Parliament, he will introduce two rolls—one African and one European, with no common roll—and that, as far as we know from the constitution, in perpetuity. Therefore, there is no question that our Parliament or anybody in this country could be a partner in such an enterprise.
So there would have to be a change of attitude in Salisbury if we were to have a negotiated settlement. I cannot say whether that is possible or likely, or very unlikely, but there is no need to suggest that we in this House would have to wriggle to obtain a settlement. Let me take the "Fearless" proposals, for which the right hon. Gentleman bore part of the responsibility. He and his right hon. Friend then in charge of these matters were willing to consider, for example, a second safeguard operating not from outside Rhodesia, but from inside.
That would not be a wriggle. It would be an adaptation of the "Fearless" proposals which might be acceptable. I do not know whether it would be acceptable in Salisbury, but it might, and there might be other modifica-
624
tions of the "Fearless" proposals which would be acceptable. I cannot tell, but at any rate let us be clear that on Mr. Smith's present constitution the arguments the right hon. Gentleman used would scarcely be disputed.
But the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary gave himself a much more uphill task when he tried to justify that part of the Government's policy against which we have always voted and upon which we warned him of the consequences, namely, mandatory sanctions. It was predictable, in fact it was certain, that with South Africa exempt from the sanctions net mandatory sanctions could not achieve the political results which the Prime Minister required. The right hon. Gentleman was warned what would happen and it has.
Rhodesians, even those who favour a settlement with Britain, have not been able to express their opinion inside Rhodesia without being accused of rocking the boat in a country under siege. In Rhodesia, the people who are really suffering from the economic sanctions are the Africans, and nobody can be indifferent to African unemployment.
In Rhodesia today there is for the first time in its history no voting roll which is common to the races. In other words, it is the beginning of the end of the multiracial society. Nobody can take any satisfaction in that. What is more, Rhodesia is more and more dependent on South Africa for investment and trade.
Rhodesia, it is true, has suffered an economic set-back—I think rather exaggerated by the right hon. Gentleman. Clearly, most of the tobacco growers have been made bankrupt. But there are discoveries of nickel, and with the price of nickel what it is there is a balance coming into the Rhodesian economy. At any rate, the economic pressure of sanctions is not, and cannot be so long as South Africa is outside the sanctions net, effective in bringing about the political result on which the Prime Minister's whole case rests.
These are facts of life, and they must be noted. I do not lay the blame on the British Government, but they are the results, first, of policies pursued by Mr. Smith when he took his very precipitate, action, and second, of policies pursued by the British Government, who have failed

625
to take account of the psychological effect on people of British stock of a blockade.
When the British Government handed over responsibility to the United Nations, they lost control of the situation completely. Even the right hon. Gentleman's senior colleagues are losing faith in the Government's policy. He will have read what the Secretary of State for Defence is reported to have said on 2nd October:
"I must confess after several years' experi-that I am doubtful whether, even if sanctions were as effective as possible, they would be sufficient to change the situation in itself."
Yet the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has nothing else to suggest today, except to try to stiffen the sanctions policy. It is evidently, in the mind of his colleague, a pretty forlorn chance.
But the business before the House is not a review of the whole Rhodesia policy. We have reviewed it many times. The business before us is an Order similar to one we have had before the House in previous years, and the question for the Opposition is whether to vote against it, or, as we have done before, to abstain.
I am influenced by a number of considerations. The new constitution proposed by Mr. Smith has not yet passed the Rhodesian Parliament, and timetables for constitutional reform slip. I need not remind the right hon. Gentleman of that. There is to be a General Election in Rhodesia in the spring, when the Rhodesian people will have a chance to express their opinion of the existing Rhodesian Government. [Interruption.] The Rhodesian electors on the roll will have a chance to express their opinion. That is a perfectly valid correction. They will have a chance to express their opinion, and they are the people who have been supporting Mr. Smith's Government. We shall see then whether they still support him and his policy.
The consideration that weighs with me most is the way in which this vote, if it were given today, would be interpreted in Rhodesia. Here in this House it would be a protest against policies which are rapidly becoming incredible. But it would inevitably be seen there as giving the green light to Mr. Smith to go right ahead to declare a republic and adopt his constitution, which includes separate development.
626
If the Rhodesian electors decide that they want these things, let them say so for themselves when the time comes, without an all-clear given by any section of Members of this House. It may be that when the Rhodesian parliamentary procedures are completed there will be a constitution on which a break with this country will be irreparable and formalised. But until that is done I would not like it to go out from any section of this House, let alone the Conservative side, that we want to see the final breach with Britain take place, or that we want to see the adoption of that kind of constitution for Rhodesia. I would not like either of those messages to go out from the House today.
Mr. Michael Foot: Would the right hon. Gentleman add to that a third message from the Opposition, particularly in view of their recent statements on the subject, that he reiterates the demand which he has made in the House on a number of occasions, that in any settlement majority rule in Rhodesia must be certain? Will he send out that message along with the others?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: A description I have always used on this is "uninterrupted progress". That may not be good enough for the hon. Gentleman, but "uninterrupted progress" means that one continues the process of bringing the Africans on to the common roll, but do not put a time limit to it.
My final reason for hoping that there will not be at any rate a substantial vote is this. I want to try to preserve complete freedom to the next Government of this country, whether Socialist or Conservative. Complete freedom will be necessary, because whatever Government succeeds the present Government they will have to review the policy towards Rhodesia in all its dimensions. I want us to be in a position to do this without any previous commitments which will fetter our freedom, so that we can look at this situation completely afresh. Therefore, I hope that we can abstain, as we have done before, on this Order.
In conclusion, I would say one thing to the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. At Question Time the other day one of his hon. Friends seemed to indicate that the Government might be seriously thinking that

627
the United Nations might introduce another mandatory order affecting communications with Rhodesia, and that communications with Rhodesia might be cut. I cannot conceive any more irresponsible folly, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why.
Will the Government really connive at a situation in which the only channel of communications to the Africans and to the Europeans in Rhodesia would be through South Africa? That would be total and absolute idiocy. So I hope that the Government will have no part in this. Should they do that, I have to say to the Government that, while we abstain on the Order today, we would then have to use all the parliamentary means at our disposal to oppose them in that action.
4.31 p.m.
Mr. Frank Judd: At the time of this crucial debate, as we approach the fourth anniversary of U.D.I., I think it best, as my right hon. Friend has suggested, that we try to look at the immediate situation in Rhodesia in the perspective of developments over the past year.
The first point which I think we should accept is that we have clearly failed to reach our objectives in Rhodesia. The Smith régime still rides high; police State methods are still employed; many hundreds of people are detained without trial simply because of their political beliefs. There is political manipulation of the educational content in schools and universities; apartheid, with all its ghastly implications, is about to be written into the constitutional basis of the country, and getting on for 5 million people living within Rhodesia are still denied their elementary civil and political rights, while 250,000 people alone prepare to entrench supremacy on the basis of a ruthlessly exploited majority.
Perhaps one of the most serious criticisms of the Government is that, throughout the Rhodesian crisis, they have failed to deploy effectively, in terms of the education of British public opinion, the mass of detailed evidence available of the human stories, the human tragedies, involved for the ordinary people of Rhodesia in the system which is followed by the Smith régime. It is my conviction that, if we are to maintain in Britain
628
the enlightened public attitudes which are essential to sustain the Government in their policy, we should use this information in simple terms to counter the distorted propaganda of the Anglo-Rhodesian Society and others.
We are not only faced with failure in the context of events within Rhodesia; we are also faced with a fundamental, qualitative change in the international situation. Immediately following U.D.I., it was possible to argue that, whatever the rather superficial emotional reaction of "good old Smithy" slogans among the white electorate of South Africa, there was reason to believe that the political leaders of South Africa were extremely embarrassed by Smith's declaration of independence, that the last thing which the political leaders of the Republic of South Africa wanted was to see their internal security problems strained by having to take responsibility for security in an area in which there were approaching 5 million Africans and only 250,000 Europeans.
But now, as a result of the vacuum created by our failure to deal effectively with the situation, Rhodesia finds itself, and we find Rhodesia, firmly in the South African orbit. Economically. Rhodesia is underwritten by the Republic of South Africa. Militarily, she is firmly in alliance with the Portuguese authorities and the Government of the Republic. South African security forces, we know, are operating as far up as the Zambesi. Even if, initially, it was right to attempt to handle Rhodesia on its own, it is now impossible to have a viable policy towards it separate from policy towards Southern Africa as a whole. There are different forms of action which will be necessary towards different areas within Southern Africa, but all that action, different as it may be in differing areas, is inextricably inter-related.
First, let us examine for a moment the policy of sanctions in Rhodesia. It is clear from all the evidence available that, while sanctions have punished the people of Rhodesia—and one can argue about which section of the community they have punished more than another—they have not endangered, as yet, the Smith régime. They have also in certain respects been counter-productive, in that they have encouraged, for example, the development of import substitute industries. But it

629
would be wrong, in my view, to suggest that the policy of sanctions as such has failed. What has failed has been the endeavour by the international community to apply a full-blooded policy of sanctions. We have so far seen, at best, only a half-hearted attempt.
How can we strengthen this policy of sanctions? Much more could be done. First, we could do a great deal more to focus world public opinion on sanction breaking, wherever it is located. If we focus world opinion in this way, it will acutely embarrass those involved in the operation and make their endeavours more difficult to fulfil.
Next, we should be pressing at the United Nations for an international inspectorate. It is quite clear from some of the episodes already reported in sanction breaking that Governments are reluctant to come into headlong conflict with important commercial interests within their territory if they are expected to take the initiative in locating sanction breaking. If an independent United Nations inspectorate were employed on this operation, Governments would be relieved of a great deal of their embarrassment, because they would then be following up the initiative of an objective international agency.
We should also be pressing for United Nations action to persuade member countries to make it illegal, as we have made it illegal, for ships carrying their flags to carry Rhodesian cargo. We should also press for international action to ensure that ships carrying suspect cargoes should be expected to produce evidence of where the goods were manufactured, copies of rail notes showing from where the goods were originally shipped and official certificates of origin.
We come now to the difficult question whether we should attempt to extend sanctions. I listened with great interest to the sound observations made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the extension of sanctions to communications, and I believe that the points he made are not to be dismissed lightly. What I have been sad to hear is the view expressed in this House, particularly from benches opposite, that it would somehow be inhuman to break family links between people in this country and white people living in Rhodesia. This is
630
an emotional argument and completely irrelevant. We are concerned with the rights of 5 million people, oppressed and suppressed by a mere handful of 250,000 Europeans. There is one practical step which I believe we could take in the extension of sanctions at this juncture, and that is to consider more effective ways of boycotting international airlines which are operating services to Rhodesia.
I want at this stage to say that I endorse the argument that sanctions of themselves are unlikely to secure fundamental change. At best, they will create an environment within which, sadly but inevitably, more drastic political upheaval can occur within Rhodesia itself. On the other hand, the consequences of dismantling sanctions would be disastrous. To embark upon such a policy would be a blow to the morale of enlightened liberal groups of all races within Southern Africa. It would lead inevitably to our increased economic involvement in the economic life of Rhodesia.
It would mean that we were increasingly finding ourselves with a vested interest as a nation in a political and economic system based on exploitation. It would lead inevitably to pressure, both in this country and abroad, for diplomatic recognition, and it would mean that, finally, we had become identified, and in the last resort— a sad but possible prospect—we might even be indirectly supporting a fight on the wrong side.
Meanwhile, there are much more positive things we could be doing. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in education and training for Rhodesians in exile. It is true that we have been doing a certain amount in this respect, but our efforts have been at best half-hearted. For example, one hears evidence of students who have been denied an opportunity to reach the A-level equivalent in Rhodesia, but who are perfectly able to reach that level if given an opportunity, being denied the chance to come to this country with support to get their A-levels in order to go on to higher education here. If we are committed to a programme of education and training for Rhodesians in exile, one of the things we should be considering is extending the range of educational opportunities which we are supporting within this country.

631
As I have already argued, Rhodesia cannot be seen in isolation. My conviction is that the Government, the British people and especially the House must decide whether they are opposed to racism, Fascism and exploitation or whether they are not. Prevarication and double-talk can do nothing but harm Britain's interests. If we are opposed, and if we accept our special responsibilities in Southern Africa because of Rhodesia, we must go on to recognise that in our post-imperial phase we cannot possibly envisage military engagement, at least alone, and that it would be very wrong to encourage anybody within Southern Africa to believe the contrary. This would have been possible in the case of Rhodesia immediately before or after U.D.I., but now it is too late. That does not mean that we are neutral. The main drive for political change must and will come from within the area itself. We for our part must identify with those forces of change.
A major tragedy in the story of Southern Africa is that our self-proclaimed impotence has made Communism synonymous with all the legitimate aspirations of subjected peoples. In approaching Southern Africa as a whole, one of the things which we must do is to think through the issue of our trading relationship with the Republic, because unless we do that, we cannot hope to be effective in our pressure on the Rhodesian issue itself.
The fact is that even if we cannot as of now envisage economic confrontation with the Republic, while it is one thing to accept that, it is quite another to go on to argue that we see increased trade and increasing economic relations with the Republic as a future pillar of our economic well-being. It is inevitable that if we increase our economic involvement in the Republic, we will increasingly find ourselves committed to a social and political system in the Republic which is based upon exploitation and increasingly identified with the wrong side in the context of Southern Africa as a whole.
In any case, there is no need for us always to be so passive and defensive. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said of Europe, some will say that South Africa needs us as much as we need her, but I say that South Africa needs us more than we need her.
632
Secondly, I am convinced that we must go on to exert whatever pressure is possible upon Portugal, our ally, supposedly, in N.A.T.O. and to make it absolutely plain that we cannot tolerate and allow within N.A.T.O. an ally engaged in wars of colonial repression, as is Portugal in Southern Africa.
We must also make it far more clear than we have in the past where we stand on the issue of South-West Africa. I was extremely sad to see the muted criticism which was forthcoming from the British Government at the time of the recent illegal trials of the freedom fighters in South-West Africa. We should speak more clearly on this issue.
I come now to the issue of the freedom fighters themselves. I have the most profound respect for many of my colleagues on this side of the House and for many of those in the Government who recoil from the concept of violence, from the concept of the use of force as a means of settling any dispute, but I ask horn Members on both sides of the House to consider whether there has ever been an area of the world in which passive resistance has been more patiently tried over decades than within Southern Africa. We have at least to understand and appreciate why, in absolute frustration, the political leaders of the majority are increasingly compelled to feel that there is now no alternative to violence.
I am not suggesting that as of now we should become engaged in military support for the freedom fighters, but that we have a direct responsibility for supporting civil administrations within the areas of the Portuguese territories which have been liberated by the freedom fighters.
Finally, in this programme of positive action I am certain that in the context of a debate on Rhodesia it is right to say that we cannot do enough as a nation economically to support the development of countries like Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Zambia and Tanzania. This is essential if we are to have a viable policy towards South Africa of which Rhodesia is a part. For too long debates on Southern Africa have been dominated by the crude voice of vested interest on one side as represented by the Verkramptes and the Verligtes of the party opposite, and on the other side by the

633
confused voice of well-meaning compromise. To save our self-respect, let alone our international reputation, we must decide where we stand and, having decided in the only way possible for a nation with the ideals on which we pride ourselves, we must follow consistently the policies which that decision dictates.
4.48 p.m.
Mr. Sandys: Of course, I fully agree with the Foreign Secretary and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) that we cannot in any circumstances approve the new Rhodesian constitution, which entirely contravenes the six principles which have been approved and supported by all parties and the similar principles underlying the 1961 constitution which I myself negotiated in Salisbury and for which at that time I secured the approval of representatives of all racial communities.
But condemnation of the new constitution does not of itself justify the indefinite continuance of sanctions. My first inclination was to vote against the Order as a protest against the futility of maintaining sanctions. But for the reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend, I shall content myself with abstaining.
It is time that the Government came down out of the clouds and began to recognise realities. They should recognise that their policy has totally collapsed. With the "open door" into South Africa, sanctions have, as they were bound to, proved a complete farce. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) referred to sanction-breaking. Numerous foreign countries are either circumventing sanctions or openly ignoring them. More and more of our markets in Rhodesia are being stolen in this way by our competitors. At the same time, a serious additional burden is being placed on our balance of payments, and all this for no practical purpose.
The central aim of the Government's policy was to protect the constitutional position of the African population. Yet it has produced exactly the opposite result. The fact that Rhodesia is now travelling fast along the road to apartheid is in no small measure due
634
to the Government's gross mishandling of the situation.
Hon. Members: Nonsense.
Mr. Sandys: The main responsibility for this deplorable development naturally rests with Mr. Ian Smith, who has allowed himself to be pushed by his supporters into adopting an intransigent and extremist position. But the failure to reach agreement was just as much due to the misjudgment and mistiming of the Prime Minister, who from the very start has shown himself to be hopelessly out of touch with reality. In successive negotiations with Mr. Smith, the right hon. Gentleman at each stage offered too little too late. If the Conservative Party had continued in office I am certain that—
Mr. Michael Foot: They would have given away everything the Rhodesians wanted.
Mr. Sandys: I am certain—
Mr. William Molloy: You would have ratted.
Mr. Sandys: If the Conservative Government had remained in office, I am certain that there would have been no U.D.I. and that Rhodesia would have achieved legal independence on terms no less honourable than those offered too late to Mr. Smith by the Labour Government.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister and I had already started talks with Mr. Smith about independence in the autumn of 1964, before the 1964 General Election. Had there not been a change of Government, those negotiations would not have been broken off, as they were by our successors. If we had been able to carry on, I have little doubt that after a certain amount of hard bargaining we would have offered Mr. Smith a package deal very similar to the "Fearless" proposals—but with the big difference that it would have been before U.D.I., not three years afterwards.
With all the hesitations and anxieties which Mr. Smith must have had about declaring illegal independence, I am sure that, if he had been offered anything like the "Fearless" deal, he would have jumped at it. It is hardly surprising that

635
the terms he would have accepted in 1964, before U.D.I., were no longer sufficient to satisfy him in 1968, after three years of successful rebellion. Lost opportunities cannot be recaptured and it is no good imagining that Mr. Smith, even if he wished to do so, could now retrace his steps. Nor is it any good the Government waiting hopefully for him to be overthrown by the Rhodesian electorate and to be replaced by some other more liberal-minded regimé.
The Government must adjust their policies to the realities of the situation. Sanctions were justifiable only as a means of exerting pressure on the Rhodesian Government to accept a reasonable settlement on the basis of the six principles. But now it must surely be clear that any conceivable hope of a settlement on that basis has disappeared. Sanctions have thus completely lost their purpose.
Whether we like it or not, we must face the fact that there is nothing more we can do to influence the course of events in Rhodesia, and that the sooner we draw the logical conclusions from this fact, the better it will be for the peoples of all races in Rhodesia.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. David Winnick: I suppose that the only satisfactory thing that I heard in the speech of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was the fact that he did not intend to vote against the Orders tonight. I strongly disagreed with the rest of his speech and I will try to explain why. There have always been some hon. Members opposite and some people elsewhere who have wanted us to take no action against the illegal régime since U.D.I. was declared in November, 1965.
Some have said outright and some have implied that we should recognise the illegal régime as such. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), in his letter to The Guardian today, makes the very point. He says that a Conservative Government should recognise the realities of the situation, but no Conservative Government, he added, would be able to negotiate the constitution that Britain would like to see. It is quite obvious from his letter that he would like us to draw the line, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and recognise the illegal régime.
636
My views are the very opposite. If the situation in Rhodesia was different, if it was the very opposite and we had a majority of whites who were oppressed and penalised and persecuted by a black minority, I would be just as opposed to such a régime as I am opposed to the existing Rhodesian régime. I am not anti-white nor pro-black; I am against racial persecution. What we are fighting in Rhodesia is the same type of racial evil which has existed in South Africa for so many years.
Mr. Hastings: In that case would the hon. Gentleman like to give the House his views on the Government of the Sudan and various other African régimes?
Mr. Winnick: We are debating Rhodesia. This is the whole essence of why we are continuing sanctions. We have racial persecution in the Rhodesian situation. While I recognise some of the feelings of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House, I must say that the Conservative Front Bench has been very ambiguous, to say the least.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), like his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, knows very well the type of political organisation which is the Rhodesian Front. He understands the type of people who make up the Rhodesian Front, and its leadership, yet last week, once again, at the Brighton Tory conference, we heard from the Conservative leader that a Tory Government would make another attempt to find an agreement with the illegal régime.
The impression he gave to Tory delegates was that if it was a Tory Government in power instead of the Labour Government, a solution could be found, based, I assume, on the five principles. What I find amazing, and I sometimes find myself in disagreement even with my own Government on this issue, is that people think it is possible for any agreement to be reached between Britain, based on the five or six principles, and the Rhodesian Front. The Rhodesian Front came into office in December, 1962 to maintain and extend white supremacy. It did not come into power to find a solution for a multi-racial society in Rhodesia. Indeed, it was deeply critical

637
of the Government which was in office in Rhodesia at the time. The Rhodesian Front was the extremist organisation.
Does the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire really believe that if he was doing the negotiating, if he had supreme responsibility on behalf of a Government and a country, he could find an agreement with the Rhodesian front, based on the five principles, which would lead to majority rule in due course? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is too honest a politician to believe that it is possible. If he believes otherwise, I shall gladly give way to him now.
I believe—and I have said so outside this House—that if we were to abandon the 4 million non-whites in Rhodesia it would be to Britain's lasting shame and discredit. Of course, it would be easy. Of course, it may be that it is not very popular to pursue the policies which we are pursuing. Such policies are costly. It is easy to make fun of the sanctions policy. It is easy to make such speeches, and no doubt we shall hear a number later today, but what is at stake is the very honour of our country. What is at stake is the responsibility which Britain has towards the non-whites.
Some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken about hardship to the African. I know that sanctions result in hardship to the non-whites. I am aware of that, but what the Africans are concerned about is that we shall not abdicate all our responsibilities. What the Africans are aware of is that if Britain were to recognise the illegal regime, and if we were to drop sanctions we would be well on the way to doing just that, there would be a complete break in the constitutional position between Britain and Rhodesia. There would be no hope whatsoever. Their only remaining hope in Rhodesia lies in Britain.
Some of my hon. Friends believe, and perhaps they are right, that in the final analysis the only way this problem can be solved is by fighting, by violence —and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) more or less made this point. I hope that that is not so, but, as my hon. Friend rightly said, there have been very few struggles in human history where people have won
638
their fight for freedom against oppression without resorting to arms. I should not here in Britain, where I have my democratic rights and privileges, preach to the Africans about whether they should engage in warfare. That is a matter for the Africans to decide, but if there were a final break, if we abandoned all our responsibilities towards Rhodesia, what alternative would the Africans in Rhodesia have but to resort to warfare? What alternative could there be?
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, during the last few months more and more measures have been taken by the illegal régime towards establishing in Rhodesia the type of society that exists in South Africa. Measures have been taken which discriminate not just against Africans, but against the coloured people, the people of mixed blood. Despite the segregation measures and the hardships which arise from them, there are still those who say that the British Government should try to reach an honourable solution. There is no honourable solution which can be reached between Britain and the Rhodesian Front.
It always amazes me that some hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are critical of our own immigrants, who urge repatriation in one way or another, who resent the fact that there is a coloured minority in Britain, and who have been extremely intolerant, take a different attitude towards Rhodesia. I see that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is present. He criticised the fact that we did not have an opportunity in the House for a debate on immigration. He has made remarks about Rhodesia. I hope that he will not at a later stage say outside that the House of Commons has refused to debate the Rhodesian issue. We are debating it now, and if the right hon. Gentleman has strong feelings on the subject I hope that he will exercise his right and try to take part in the debate.
What a difference there is between what has been described politically as the Powell-ite approach to our own coloured immigrants and the attitude towards the white immigrants in Rhodesia. If this was taken to its logical conclusion, some of the speeches from this side of the House would be far more extreme on behalf of the Africans than the speeches now being made.

639
We should carry on. We should not surrender. We should not abandon our responsibilities.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What in?"] My answer to that is our responsibility towards all the people of Rhodesia, and particularly towards those who have been denied their elementary rights. I wish that some hon. Gentlemen opposite would try to understand the responsibilities which Britain has towards the non-whites in Rhodesia. I wish that some of them would stop giving comfort to the illegal régime. I wish that they would recognise that it would be to our lasting shame if we were to do as they suggest and give up the fight.
I hope that we will carry on. I am in favour of extending sanctions. I hope that stronger action will be taken against the sanction busters, particularly a number of Western European countries who have a very poor record in this regard. Certainly, hon. Members on these benches fully support what my right hon. Friend has outlined, and the continuation of our sanctions policy.
5.6 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) has got his wish sooner than most of us get most of our wishes.
The House this afternoon is debating a proposal to renew the operative part of a Statute which begins with the statement that Her Majesty's Government in this country have jurisdiction in and over Southern Rhodesia, and responsibility for Southern Rhodesia. I do not believe that there can ever have been another statement on our Statute Book which is so completely unrelated to the facts of the real world.
Ever since those words received the Royal Assent, and indeed before, the Queen's writ has not run in Southern Rhodesia. We do not have jurisdiction in or over Southern Rhodesia. In relation to a Government, whatever may be the case with an individual, there is no meaning in the expression, "responsibility" where there is no power. A Government cannot be responsible for doing that which it has not the power to do; and ever since those words were put on our Statute Book, the Government of the United Kingdom have had no power in Southern Rhodesia.
640
Of course, anything which this House, together with another place, enacts and which receives the Royal Assent, is the law of the United Kingdom. Be it false in fact, be it absurd in content, it is still the law of this country so long as it remains unrepealed. Nor would I dispute that there are circumstances in which legal fictions, statements of law which do not exactly correspond with the realities of the world, can be useful and even salutary. I do not believe that the case we are discussing this afternoon is one of those.
Those words were enacted nearly four years ago in order to initiate a policy of sanctions, to bring duress to bear upon the rebellion, upon the illegal régime, in Southern Rhodesia. A number of people from the very beginning believed and predicted that the consequence of this attempt to exert pressure by sanctions would be as futile as previous attempts.
But if it appeared so to many, even at the outset, how plain is that today, after four years. It really is the ultimate in self-deception for the right hon. Gentleman to try to persuade the House that there is any real prospect of the duress of sanctions succeeding. He admitted with great candour that the Government's own expectations—expectations voiced almost four years ago—had been signally defeated. I doubt whether anyone in this House or in this country really believes that sanctions will put an end to the rebellion or to the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia.
It is on a different ground that my hon. and right hon. Friends, with increasing reluctance, have hitherto supported the renewal of this legislation. They have done it on the ground that they believed that there was—or that there might be—a possibility of a settlement between the United Kingdom and those who have the actual power in Southern Rhodesia. Let me say what I mean by the word "settlement". I mean an agreement which would result in this House legalising the Government in Southern Rhodesia. I mean an agreement to which effect would be given by legislation passed through this House.
That is a different and much more reasonable motive for supporting the Act, which is to be renewed or not, as the vote may decide. Yet, when we look at the realities, even from the beginning,

641
what chance was there? I will not follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) into the "might-have-beens", which I would gladly share with him. If any man in the world could bring these two irreconcilables together—I am anticipating in using the word "irreconcilables"—it is my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home).
The hon. Member for Croydon, South invited me to say in this House what I have said on the subject outside the House. I shall say something that I have said emphatically over and over again outside the House, and which has often not been to the liking of my hearers. It is that in my place in this House I could not vote for any legislation which would legalise a constitution for Southern Rhodesia under which there would not be evident and relatively early advance to majority rule. I would not quibble with the formula of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). The reality is quite plain, with whatever words we may seek to clothe it. I do not believe that it could be to the honour, or consistent with the principles, of this House to legislate for any constitution which did not do that.
But I also do not believe that there is the possibility of an agreement upon such a constitution between any Government in this country and any foreseeable future Government in Southern Rhodesia. Therefore, the idea—even before this year —that there could be a settlement that any of us would accept was barely conceivable. But what possibility there was, has sunk below the horizon in the last 12 months.
During the last 12 months, overwhelmingly, those who have power in Southern Rhodesia have resolved upon declaring themselves a republic. They, too, in a way, have come to terms with the reality of their act. For long they tried to think that they were loyal to the Queen. This, too, was a self-deception. There is no such thing as loyalty to the Queen as a person. When we speak about loyalty to the Queen we mean loyalty to the Queen and the Queen's law—to the Queen as the maker and upholder of the law. It is impossible to say "I break the law, but I am loyal to the Queen."
642
That impossibility the Rhodesians have at last come to recognise. They have recognised it openly; and, for good measure, as the Foreign Secretary told the House this afternoon, they are—I hope that the phrase is not too painful—within weeks rather than months of passing through their Legislature and bringing into accomplished fact a republican constitution for their country which is acceptable and tolerable to no Member of this House. Therefore, the argument that this legislation which we are asked to renew keeps open the possibility of a settlement has no reality.
There are two other grounds on which I have heard the case for it argued. They were not urged by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, although I have heard him urge them on other occasions. One is that, true though all this may be, though sanctions have failed, though settlement may be ruled out, still, by maintaining this Act upon our Statute Book and by continuing to implement sanctions—if that is what it is—we show our reprobation of the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia. I have given some indication to the House of what my feelings about that matter are; and I will go further and say that I foresee no happy future for that country on its present course, or any course that I anticipate.
But is this a reason— because we deplore, because we reprobate, from our standpoint, the way in which the internal affairs of another country are conducted —for maintaining on our Statute Book the statement that we are the Government of that country, and for continuing in action measures of duress which we recognise to be futile? The world is half full of tyrannical régimes of various kinds. Half Europe groans under a kind of tyranny which we are happy to think has nothing in common with the liberties we ourselves enjoy.
Because we would have wished that events in Czechoslovakia a year ago had been otherwise do we therefore say, "We are responsible, and we will pass an Act to say that we are responsible, and we will institute sanctions"? The world will be a far worse bedlam than it is, if nations who dislike the manner in which others nations conduct their affairs proceed to attempt to impose upon them duress which they have no ability or

643
power to carry through to a successful issue.
Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman makes a comparison with Czechoslovakia. We all deplore what happened in Czechoslovakia, but can he, with his logical mind, see no difference between the tyrannies of Eastern or Western Europe and the tyranny in Rhodesia? Have we no responsibility in Rhodesia at all?
Mr. Powell: I have pointed out that there is no meaning in responsibility where there is no power—that we cannot be responsible for doing what we cannot do. There may be a responsibility—I find it more difficult to decide —for individuals to express an opinion, and I know that the hon. Member feels a strong responsibility to express his reprobation. I would not wish to dispute that right—perhaps that duty—with him.
Of course, he is right in saying that tyranny comes in many forms. But what I do say is that it is nonsense to claim that because we reprobate a régime, that justifies us in maintaining this Act in our law and doing what we are doing under this Act.
I come, finally, to what is perhaps the most difficult argument to answer. There are those who say, "But we are now mandated by the United Nations. We have to maintain this Act in vigour because we are obliged by the United Nations to carry on the actions which Section 2 of that Act authorises". I believe that here we have to go to fundamentals. We have to decide where responsibility for the governance of this country lies. If it be true that a mandate of the United Nations is in that sense binding upon this nation, binding to oblige this nation to maintain on its Statute Book an evident absurdity, to oblige this nation to engage in actions which are futile and in any view damaging, then responsible government is lost. We can no longer call to account who-every sits on the Government Front Bench and say, "Why have you brought us to this pass? Render account of your policies".
The right hon. Gentleman did not use this argument this afternoon; but I believe that it has to be faced. I do not believe that any Government could or would come to this House and say, "You
644
cannot criticise, you cannot discuss what we are doing because we are mandated". We cannot take refuge behind the United Nations. We have to take, one way or the other, the decision for ourselves. This decision must be ours.
I say that to maintain any longer this farce—a legal farce and a practical farce —is not to the credit of this House; it is not for the welfare of this country; and it can do not a particle of good to anyone anywhere in the world. On the contrary, the only result is to enable us to practise self-deception and to deceive those anywhere else who are prepared to be deceived. It should go, and it should go now.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who has, indeed, spoken in more moderate terms than people might imagine from his peroration, and I would seek, first of all, to underline the moderate aspect of his speech.
I might say to him in passing that I think it is highly desirable in the conduct of democracy in this country that he should state in this House strong views that he may have on particular subjects. Every one of us who has the honour to be a Member of this House, particularly when he wishes to state opinions of a highly controversial nature, should seek to state them in this House because it is in this House that such opinions can be best examined. I am glad that he has, at any rate, stated this view on this subject in the House and I hope that he will follow this practice on the other subjects on which he has such pertinent opinions.
I underline, first of all, the moderate aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech so that it shall not be mistaken. It is quite clear from what he said that he would he no party to recognising any settlement with the régime in Southern Rhodesia which did not accept the certainty of majority rule.
Mr. Powell indicated assent.
Mr. Foot: I see that the right hon. Gentleman nods his head. When I used that phrase earlier, interrupting the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas Home), I was

645
quoting his words exactly as well. He made a slight qualification of them, but it is not necessary for us to quarrel about those words. The right hon. Gentleman has also said that he would not accept an agreement unless there was certainty of majority rule. I believe that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite owe a further obligation to the House and the country in that respect, because if that is their view, that it is absolutely impossible to have a settlement which does not make certain majority rule there, I think they should have stated that opinion more clearly at the recent conference in Brighton. If they had emphasised that point as strongly as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West did at the beginning of his speech, it would put a different complex on the speech. It would certainly put a different complexion on it in Rhodesia.
They have no intention whatsoever, as we have seen from experience as well as from their statements, of accepting a situation in which majority rule would be certain; and particularly when the right hon. Gentleman is upbraiding this House for engaging in self-deception and for making propositions which are more fictitious than real he should not in the same speech give an indication that there might be a possibility of an agreement, at the same time underlining that he would not be a party to any agreement without its guaranteeing certainty of majority rule.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that he made no suggestion of any such negotiation. In other words, if that be the case, he is proposing that we should abandon the proposals that lay in this Order, that we should wipe this fictitious proposition from the Statute Book and that we should then proceed to a fresh policy from that point. Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us whether he intends to vote against the proposition—[Interruption.] I understand that he is going to. I do not know whether he will carry his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) with him, but we shall watch the vote with great interest. I think it would have been impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to have delivered a speech of that nature and then not have led his friends, such as there may be, into the Lobby. I think that clears up that aspect of the matter.
646
The right hon. Gentleman, however, in the rest of his speech was not as logical as he purported to be. He says that we must take this action of wiping this proposition from the Statute Book because it has no effect, because we have not the power and we must not pretend any longer to assume responsibility. I understand that point of the argument. But he does not follow through the consequences of adopting the course which he advocates.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire has shown some hesitation, and one of the reasons why he showed hesitation and was not prepared to vote against the Government's proposition today was perfectly reasonable. I do not think he carried that far enough, but it was a reasonable argument. He said that it would be taken partly as meaning that his party was possibly approving the constitution which has been accepted by the Government in Southern Rhodesia. That is what the right hon. Gentleman argued. He said that one of the reasons why he did not propose to follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West into the Lobby was that he believed it would be interpreted in Southern Rhodesia as in some sense support for this action which the Southern Rhodesian régime has taken since we met on the last occasion. I think he is quite right.
But the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West does not seem to worry about those consequences. He does not seem to care that the result of the action he advocates would be to give a great victory to the Smith régime. That is one of the reasons why I sought to underline at the beginning of my remarks the moderate part of his speech, because the parts which will be reported in Southern Rhodesia tomorrow will not be the moderate parts of his speech. They will be the immoderate parts. It will be the parts which carry the implication involved in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire. But at least it is better for the country that the split in the Conservative Party on this subject, as on some others, should be underlined in the Division Lobbies tonight, and that is what is to occur.
I should myself draw a different conclusion from the events of the last two

647
or three years and the way in which the sanctions policy on which this Government and the country embarked has not achieved the results which we should have desired. There may be a few hon. Members opposite, those whom we used to describe as members of the "Aid and Comfort Committee", who rejoice at the failure of sanctions; but for the rest, many hon. Members opposite, Liberal Members and others, and all hon. Members on this side, they are genuinely disappointed that this policy has failed or has not achieved the results which we had hoped for at the beginning. [An HON. MEMBER: "Failed.") In some respects, failed. It would be foolish for us to deny that. Certainly, what we have to face is that those policies have not fulfilled the expectations which were expressed by the Government and the hopes which all of us on this side held.
It is right that, in accepting the Measure before us tonight, we should recognise what has failed. In my opinion, the failure has been different from that delineated by hon. Members opposite. They have suggested that sanctions have failed and the policy has partly failed because they have bolstered the resistance of people in Southern Rhodesia. In some respects, that has been the result, but it is not the fundamental reason for the failure. The fundamental reason for the failure is that the Government and this country at large have not yet recognised what the situation is in Southern Africa, what are the fundamentals of the situation, and what was the purpose of the Rhodesia Front.
The Rhodesia Front came into being in order to sustain white power in Southern Rhodesia. That was its purpose. That is what it worked for, what it manoeuvred for and what it negotiated for. That is why many of us held the view that, if the "Tiger" settlement had been accepted, that would have been an even worse defeat than what confronts us now. If the "Fearless" terms had been accepted, that would have been an even worse defeat than what faces us now. Why?—because they would have made majority rule very far from certain. All the examinations which we could make of the "Tiger" terms and the "Fear-
648
less" terms illustrate that the white minority would have been able to retain their power in Southern Rhodesia for as long as we could estimate.
Therefore, the fundamental reason for the failure of the Government's policy, or, rather, Parliament's policy, because Parliament accepted the proposal, is that we have misunderstood the nature of the problem in Southern Africa and the nature of the problem in Southern Rhodesia. We have underestimated what we are up against. We have underestimated the power and determination and the devilish machinery which lies in the hands of those who are determined to maintain white supremacy in Southern Africa. We have tried to dodge the issue of which side we are on. We have imagined that there is some sort of compromise which can besmirch the issue.
I think I know on which side the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West would come down. When he says that he would not agree to a settlement which denied majority rule, I accept the word when he says it, but the tone of his speech and the result of his action tonight, if he carries it through, will be to help to fortify the forces of white supremacy in Southern Africa. That is the way it will be interpreted, and certainly the way it would be interpreted if the Opposition Front Bench were to follow his course, if not on this occasion then on some future occasion, as they sometimes do.
The House must recognise the true nature of the situation which we face in Southern Africa. No one can underestimate its significance. We have suffered a defeat. We suffer a defeat as long as the 4 million people to whom the Foreign Secretary referred suffer the oppression from which they are now suffering, as long as their leaders are in prison without trial—a position they have been in throughout the period when we have been responsible for this state of affairs—as long as many of them have no means of expressing their views, no newspapers in which they can argue, no public meetings at which they can state their opinions. They are living in what the Leader of the Opposition once described as a police State.
Of course, it is an ignominy for this House to have to sit under that state

649
of affairs. There is no escape from it in the course advocated by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, for that would merely compound it, it would merely line up this Parliament and country on the side of a success and triumph for white supremacy in Southern Rhodesia and all over Southern Africa.
I hope that at long last Her Majesty's Government will learn some of the fundamental lessons from what we face in Southern Africa. What we face there is what the black people of Africa have to face—what they will do about a tyranny which is growing stronger and stronger, what they will do about a tyranny which is becoming fiercer and fiercer, which is extending its frontiers by every form of negotiation, compact and military arrangement, which is seeking to build across the whole of Southern Africa a great compound in which its policies are maintained, with rigorous police rule on a worse scale, perhaps, even than Hitler sought to establish in some parts of the world.
The question facing us today, therefore, is whether our country will learn from these events, and whether we shall make up our mind that Britain stands on the side of freedom whatever may be the colour of the people concerned, that we stand for equal citizenship in this country, in Wolverhampton, in Southern Rhodesia, and throughout the whole of Africa. That is the way in which we must range our forces. It may mean economic sacrifice. I hope that one of the results of this country's success, which I am glad to see, in escaping from the worst of our balance of payments problems will be that we shall use the opportunity to face more boldly and squarely our responsibilities to our fellow citizens of the world in Southern Africa.
We are not discharging those responsibilities now. We should certainly not discharge them by following the course suggested by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, although I honour him for having the courage of the convictions of some others, and I wait to see at the end of the debate how many follow him into the Lobby. I hope that on this side not merely shall we repudiate his doctrines in the Lobby but we shall learn the lessons of this defeat and learn to prepare for some
650
victories for white people and coloured people all over the world in the future.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): On my reckoning at least, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was well below par this afternoon. He sought to attack the logic of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and then set out to confirm almost every conclusion which my right hon. Friend reached. To quote him, he said again and again that the policy had failed. That is just what my right hon. Friend said. He said that the Government here had completely misunderstood the nature of the problem, If that is not what we are trying to establish from these benches. I do not know what it is. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government had completely underestimated the power which lies on the other side.
My right hon. Friend did not say that he approved the Rhodesia Front. Even those who have been intimately connected with Rhodesia for as long as I have—that is, all my life—do not approve of everything done by the Rhodesia Front. But those are the facts of the situation, and the hon. Gentleman's speech confirmed them in almost every word.
The hon. Gentleman talked about giving comfort to the Rhodesia Front or the white Rhodesians. I can tell him what will appear on the front page of the Rhodesia Herald tomorrow morning. It is not so likely to be the words spoken from this side of the House as the insult he uttered to Rhodesia in saying that they were worse than Hitler's police State. It was a wretched, foul thing to say. They do not merit it, and he should withdraw it.
This debate has almost taken on a ritual quality by now. We have it every year. It is a pity that it should be squashed into such a brief period on a day that is otherwise non-controversial in the House, that it should be almost shamefacedly fitted in in that way.
Nobody can possibly deny—neither the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, nor the two other hon. Members opposite who have spoken—that every objective of sanctions, both the Government's objectives and those of my right hon. Friends,

651
have failed. They are illusory by now. The measure of the failure is the buoyancy of the Rhodesian economy, whether we like it or not.
It is here that I take issue with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I am sure that he did not seek to mislead the House, but the figures he adduced this afternoon and his picture of the state of Rhodesia's economy are false. It simply is not like that, and it is alarming that he should be led to believe, as he clearly does, that that is the position.
I was out there again this summer, as a number of us were, and the right hon. Gentleman should know that the domestic exports from Rhodesia have held almost to the figure of 1967, in spite of one of the worst droughts in Rhodesia's modern history. That is a disaster in Southern Africa on a scale that we in this country cannot imagine. Their imports of capital goods were allowed to rise a great deal, and that caused a very slight deficit of £1·6 million on the balance of payments. But there cannot be the slightest doubt, on the indications to date, that the figures for 1969 will show a considerable improvement, one of which in almost any circumstances Rhodesia would be proud.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman about gross domestic product, and he could not answer. He said that the question had been answered earlier in the House. It has not. Gross domestic product was up by 5·5 per cent. in 1968 over the previous record year of 1967. Output in the construction industry, which is always indicative in any country, went up by over 30 per cent., from £35·7 million to £46·8 million. Tobacco output, naturally, was down by about 40 per cent. and textiles by under 1 per cent. With those exceptions, in every sector of agriculture and industry output was up. Rhodesian iron and steel is recovering, and even sugar exports are moving. It is not surprising that in those circumstances Rhodesians are not particularly interested in discussions or negotiations of the kind envisaged in this House up to now.
It is more difficult to measure the price we are paying for all this. It is almost certainly not the cost of policing sanctions or replacing Rhodesian imports to this country that matters so
652
much. That can be put right, at least to some extent. But the losses to the sterling balances and the invisibles will never be computed. Rhodesians know—and they negotiate all over the world—something of the amount by which traditional institutional investors in London have turned away as a result of what they take, rightly or wrongly, to be the incomprehensible reaction of the British Government to a political situation. [Interruption.] Whether they judge it or not, it has cost us, so far as is definitely known, between £360 million and £370 million to the balance of payments, and that could be just a fraction of the net total. If one considers the falling off in profits at Lloyds, for insurance, it dates from the U.D.I., and the gradual rise in reinsurance in both Bonn and Switzerland from the same time. I doubt whether we shall ever know the extent of that damage.
It is difficult to argue rationally on this matter any more because there are hon. Members opposite—by no means all—who have developed a psychopathic hatred of the white Rhodesians and the South Africans. There are almost wistful references to the blood bath which is supposed to come, but does not and will not. It is as though they needed a sort of totem pole around which to dance this ritual dance. Repression undoubtedly exists in Rhodesia. Of course it does, but it exists in so many other parts of the world with which hon. Members opposite deal without a qualm and to which they make no reference in the same context as Rhodesia.
But there is a much more honest controversy between us on both sides of the House. I believe that there are a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and perhaps some of my hon. Friends, who hold it to be necessary to break white Rhodesian rule to obtain African political advance. But I at least, and I think a number of us, would argue with respect—because I know that these views are sincerely held—that they are based first, on an exaggerated notion of the merits of our political system applied in Africa. There are so many examples to prove it that I need not quote them. Second: they seek to promote the African interest in Rhodesia by risking the destruction of what has been built up instead of building further.

653
Alas, after what has happened, Rhodesia will now follow South Africa, to some extent at least. Of that there is no doubt. This cannot be avoided any more. We all most sincerely share one objective, which is the welfare of all the people there. Certainly I do, as a Rhodesian.
I say this to the House: it is not necessarily the evolution of the Bantu people of South Africa that is the most significant development for us to note; it is the evolution of the Afrikaaner people. Despite their beginnings, their qualities and their courage, the Afrikaaner people were shaped by history into a narrow, at times even morose, land-hungry frontier's people, their hand against all men. This has been a result of so much of their history, in which we, of course, have been involved. But the last 20 years of power are having their effect. I base this on two undoubted facts; first, the division within the Nationalist Party, which was referred to by one hon. Gentleman in somewhat contemptuous terms, but is of enormous significance to what we are discussing; and, second, the effect of the "outward policy", the successful contacts South Africa is making with countries north of the Zambesi, even though those contacts may not be admitted in public at this stage, for obvious political reasons.
The implication of this is clear. The barriers will in the end come down, and there have already been small but significant beginnings. This process above all should be encouraged, and a responsible Government in this country would do so. But this Government are doing the reverse.
So the logic of this matter is now beyond a peradventure. Those of us who predicted its results have nothing further to gain from supporting a policy which causes grave damage to our national interests and to the strategic interests of the free world—which are becoming more and more important in relation to Southern Africa as the months go by; a policy which attracts the contempt of our allies and so many of our friends abroad, even though they acquiesce in it; which damages the interest of those it is specifically intended to aid; and which no longer has any recognisable objective.
654
Nobody on the other side of the House, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on, has given us a single justifiable objective for the Government's policy. It has failed. So they say that we must go on with it. What nonsense that is!
So to my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends I say, "Negotiate in due course, of course we must, but not in the sense that we have up to now understood negotiations with Rhodesia in this House". For the time for argument about independence—and so long it has been—is now over. During my short visit to Rhodesia in the summer I talked to Rhodesians of every opinion from left to right, in business and on the farm, and they all confirmed, whatever their opinions of the Rhodesia Front, that negotiation on constitutional matters or about independence was no longer a possibility.
It will be our duty in the Conservative Party when we return to power to mend the bridge, and above all to put an end to this disgraceful period of internecine strife, of blindness and hyprocrisy. We can make a start this afternoon by voting against this Motion, and I propose to do so.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. William Molloy: I conceive that there is a very serious spilt in the Conservative Party on this issue. It must be fundamental. I hope that the majority of Conservative hon. Members want to be loyal to the Crown and the constitution of this land while the minority, who do not think much of the policy, wish to oppose it.
No doubt the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) will get great prominence in the Press and will be quoted all over the world. This always irritates and annoys me, because he has gained his prominence by exploitation of that terrible human weakness which makes some people feel annoyed because others have a different pigmentation of skin than they have. If this is the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's eminence it is the most disgusting basis of eminence I have ever known. It follows from that that I am suspicious of what he calls the facts of life. He has tried to say that because we in this country at the

655
moment have no control in Rhodesia we should abandon our responsibilities and, in abandoning them, we should abandon our principles. That seems a supine and loathsome policy to take because at a particular time one does not seem to be winning. I can imagine what Winston Churchill would have said about such an attitude.
When we examine the career of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West we see what a disaster he has been in his time. He was the Minister who, when he had responsibility for housing, said that he would solve our housing problem within 12 months. We have seen the "success" of that. I hope that the people of this nation will look very carefully at utterances coming from the right hon. Gentleman. I sincerely hope that the majority of his party will not accompany him into the Lobby tonight for, if that were to happen, it would not merely encourage the Fascist reactionaries in Rhodesia, but would encourage evil people all over the world.
What has grieved me in recent times is that often what is bad, evil and unjust is referred to as Hitlerism and people all over the world, yellow, brown or black, whenever they discuss politics of this country—as they have every right to do—seem to equate—they may be wrong to a degree but there is some substance in their argument—what they understand as Hitlerism with what they understand Powellism to be. I am ashamed that that should happen in my country.
Mr. Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What has this to do with the Order we are debating?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I am quite sure that the hon. Member will relate his remarks to the Order.
Mr. Molloy: I also find it irritating that Conservative hon. Members have a remarkable capacity for "dishing it out" but are not keen to take it. I shall continue on this theme for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will tell me when I am not in order, not the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). If the hon. Member has aspirations to your position, he should make them known on another occasion.
656
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West strongly asserted what he considers to be the facts of life. He quite rightly pointed out, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), and it is the gravamen of their argument, that at the moment sanctions are failing, they have not been successful and people in Rhodesia are not doing too badly. Apparently it does not matter about principle, about democracy or anything that this House of Commons stands for, commerce seems to be doing all right. It does not even matter to them, it seems, if Christianity is not doing so well, they are quite willing to acknowledge that commerce has written its title deeds on the altar cloth. They might be able to accept that, but to us on this side of the House it is totally repugnant.
When the Prime Minister embarked on this policy of sanctions I thought that because the world had gone through the most horrible war in history and we had been fighting fascism and people who do not like Catholics, Jews or people of other colours, there would be such a revulsion to this sort of behaviour that there would be whole-hearted support from those involved who could apply sanctions that would have brought down this Rhodesian régime.
There are white Rhodesians who are equally as disgusted at the behaviour of the rebels as anyone in this House. I have often said in Questions to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that I wish they would make overtures to people in Southern Rhodesia, white lawyers, white journalists and white trade unionists who wished to see a halt to what I think all of us would agree is the inexorable march to Fascism going on in Rhodesia at the moment. I hope that some cognisance will be taken of my plea to make greater efforts to encourage people in Rhodesia, irrespective of colour, to receive aid and succour from this nation to try to put decency back on the agenda in that country.
It behoves us in this nation to say quite clearly that, while it might be correct in a technical sense to say that the Government have no direct effect yet in Southern Rhodesia and that we should pack the whole thing in, if in moments of great strain and stress our fathers and forefathers had adopted a similar attitude

657
it would have been a total disaster for all mankind. We in this country have given the world lessons in democracy and decency. We have been second to none in that. It is very regrettable that those lessons have not taken root properly in Southern Rhodesia.
One of the solutions which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West might have in mind is that if the 4 million coloured people in Rhodesia should ever get power they might say to the 250,000 whites, "How much do you want us to pay for your passage back home?" That is as absurd a suggestion as the one which he makes in this country. Another dangerous thing is that, regrettably, there are black men who have now lost their patience. They have a great deal in common with the right hon. Gentleman. They might say to him, "Clear out every black man, yellow man, Jew or Irishman from the United Kingdom. We agree, and we hope that he will agree to clear out every white man from Africa, including those in Southern Rhodesia". That is the maniac policy of people who think like this. This could only end with people being at one another's throats and there would be a blood bath.
I therefore hope that our efforts in this House will encourage other Governments and Parliaments to realise the seriousness of the situation and to make sanctions a success so that a serious conflagration can be avoided. If this policy were given the earnestness which it deserves in other parts of Western Europe and Eastern Europe and the world it could be successful. Decent people in Rhodesia, black and white, could work together to build their nation into a decent nation and join the comity of decent world citizens and in this way could make their mark in contributing to the decency of mankind. It will not be possible to achieve this with the present régime.
What is much more important is that I hope that other parts of the world which have a responsibility in supporting decency and democracy will support us in our policy of making sanctions work so that decent people in Rhodesia, black and white, are encouraged to believe that one day they will be able to take charge of their own affairs and bring their country back into the British Commonwealth of Nations and to take their proper place in the comity of mankind.
6.1 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I have listened to this debate with great sadness. I paid only a very brief visit this summer to Rhodesia and South Africa. I have never spoken in the House before on South African or Rhodesian affairs, but I wonder whether the policies being adopted in this country are helping either the Africans or the Europeans. It is very difficult, amid the political strife, to assess the feelings of the people of all races.
I found it very disconcerting that the Foreign Secretary never once referred to that section of the British community in Rhodesia who desire to see practical progress made among the African communities. There is a distinct difference between the right wing of Mr. Smith's party and those who do not agree with him and who would welcome really practical progress among the African communities. The Foreign Secretary never made any reference to the people in Rhodesia who take a progressive view. He therefore gave no encouragement whatsoever to that section of the community who really wish their country to go forward in a progressive way towards establishing a community spirit, to whatever race they belong.
I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), but he obviously feels as strongly as I do that we should not rule out, as the Foreign Secretary did, everybody in Rhodesia if they do not belong to the African community. I do not call that statesmanship. I call it prejudice.
I had a Question on the Order Paper the other day for oral answer, but it was not reached, about what I think is a deplorable decision of Her Majesty's Government to influence other countries to close consulates in Rhodesia. This is a very narrow-minded decision. There are many people of all nationalities from all over the world living in Rhodesia who, like British subjects, may require advice and guidance from their consulates. If the Foreign Secretary believes that people who are not taking part in the political conflict must be deprived of the normal administrative practices which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has supported throughout the world, he must be taking leave of his senses.

659
The Written Answer to the Question which I tabled was that we were carrying out a resolution passed by the United Nations. I have always tried to support the United Nations, just as I tried to support the old League of Nations, because of the idealism on which both bodies were founded. But I am not inclined to support the attitude of the expanded United Nations in its desire that the British Government and other nations should close consulates in Rhodesia whose purpose is to support, not the political, but the ordinary commercial, family and travelling interests of hundreds of people who have nothing to do with this great conflict. The idea that the United Nations should impose an obligation of that kind on us makes me tremendously angry.
In spite of the present Government and Great Britain's difficulties in the world, I still consider that we are the greatest nation in the world, not necessarily because of what is happening today, but because of the traditions which we have fostered throughout the world. We have made a great contribution and the fact that our power is not as great does not make me any less proud of the part which our country has played. The Foreign Secretary's belief that it is right that we should ask a section of the community to forgo their rights to protection and guidance to which we have subscribed for very many years deserves the strongest condemnation.
I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) say that if the Government had any ideas of extending the withdrawal of communications from the Rhodesians we would oppose them root and branch. I think that the whole of Great Britain would oppose them root and branch.
When I was out there I saw some very well-written and knowledgeable articles in the Rhodesian Herald by a retired district officer. While we are engaged in this violent political conflict between the two sides of the House, when Conservative Party policies are under attack, it is right that we should pay a tribute to the work carried out by our Colonial Service for many years. We never even bother to mention what it has done and tried to do to help in the pro-
660
gress of the people over whom we have responsibility. It tried to operate justice and maintain order, and did so effectively.
This retired officer had a very different approach from the arguments that flow from one side of the House to another as to what the Africans really want. I could not help wondering whether the advice of this officer had been sought by the Government. Under our peculiar administrative system we do not know what advice is accepted or rejected. We would be much more competent to take decisions if we knew what people in the field, handling the problem in African countries, thought about matters. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will read these articles. I am not voting against this Order, but I do not believe that he has put it forward in the correct way.
We have introduced some very strange regulations to do with Africa, partly presumably to please the Africans, and partly to please the left wing of the Labour Party.
Mr. Roy Roebuck: Steady!
Dame Irene Ward: Why should a person not have the right to fly in whatever plane he chooses over any country? I flew out by South African Airways and a jolly good Boeing 707 it was. [Interruption.] I flew there in a VC10. I probably followed the developments of the VC10 with a great deal more detail—
Mr. Speaker: Order, we are not debating the VC10.
Dame Irene Ward: I am not debating the VC10, but I am pointing out that I flew out in a VC10 and returned in a Boeing 707. I do not believe that any Government or set of individuals have the right to decide that they will not have an aeroplane from South Africa flying over their country. The air does not belong to Nigeria, or Kenya, or Tanzania, or Zambia. The air belongs to the world. This Government have pandered to people too much and have introduced all sorts of niggardly regulations.
No country really thinks that the British Government are doing well in handling the problems of South Africa and Rhodesia. The future really depends on this country trying to support the progressive people, no matter what their

661
colour or race, in Africa. We are not giving a lead to the progressive people in Rhodesia through the Foreign Secretary's presentation of this Order. I have to support my party's decision not to vote against this Order, but I much regret that decision.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will think deeply about the way he has handled this matter. He did not say one thing about what the Rhodesians did for us during the war. It is right to point out to the African community occasionally that they probably would not be there at all but for such men as fought in the King's Royal African Rifles—there were many Africans, too, I know—who joined together to ensure that freedom should survive. It is a very regrettable situation and I am glad to have had the opportunity of seeing that in South Africa and Rhodesia there are many people who want to make progress without being involved in this frightful and devastating and political conflict.
6.18 p.m.
Mr. John Lee: I feel that I am unequal to the task of following the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), if for no other reason than that I would almost certainly be out of order if I attempted to do so. This debate has at least served one useful function in that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) has at last smoked out the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). At last we have had, very belatedly, a contribution from him on the Floor of the House relating to one of his controversial views.
I do not suppose that it would be one which will endear him to his Central Office any more than most of his contributions, but at least we know where we are with him. We know that he condemns the régime in Rhodesia and believes that there is absolutely nothing whatever that can he done about it. We do not know where the Opposition Front Bench stands. The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) told us that the next Government, and he said whether it be Conservative or Labour, would have to review the situation in the light of events.
The right hon. Gentleman went on, as did all of his colleagues, because they are
662
united on one thing if nothing else, to say that the policy of sanctions had been a failure. What we want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is what will be the purpose of the review and what is to follow? At no time have the Opposition made it clear, when they have expressed doubts about these Orders or have been tempted to vote against them, what they propose to do. They say they will attempt to negotiate. We want to know what will happen if those negotiations break down.
It is perfectly clear that the Smith régime has not the slightest intention of honouring any of the principles which have been annuciated in the House by right hon. Gentlemen opposite and by my right hon. Friends. It is perfectly clear that, with few honourable exceptions, the white Rhodesians, like the Gadarene swine and the yahoos of Shan-kill Road, move further and further to the right and it becomes less and less likely that we shall have someone with whom to negotiate. There may be this much in the argument that sanctions have made them more obdurate. I have never doubted that sanctions by themselves were inadequate, but I have always supported the use of force in Rhodesia.
Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not only condemned sanctions or doubted their efficacy, but made it perfectly clear that, like the Prime Minister, they were not prepared to use force. The House is entitled to know just what they would do. I suspect that it would be nothing more or less than abject surrender. When he was asked to settle this problem one way or another in the lifetime of this Parliament in case there should be a Conservative Government, it was rather disingenuous of the Prime Minister to say that, because the Opposition were committed to this policy, there would be continuity in these matters.
I do not think for a moment that the Opposition would honour the bipartisan policies. I believe that, after a show of protest, they would cave in. If they attempted otherwise, they would be faced with a massive revolt from their right wing, and if they get into office at the next election they will have a very large right wing, to judge from the selections which one has seen lately of candidates such as Mr. Harold Soref. We know what kind of Conservative Government it would

663
be and what kind of Conservative House of Commons it would be.
We are therefore, entitled to ask the Government, if they want to get this matter settled and to redeem our promise to the Rhodesian people as a whole, to settle this problem within the lifetime of this Parliament. I believe increasingly that the chances of a Labour Government after the next election are greater, but one cannot rely on that and it is, therefore, only right to try to settle this problem within the lifetime of the present Parliament.
My right hon. Friend has been subjected to a certain amount of ridicule about that phrase "weeks rather than months", and that is understandable. But the House is entitled to know just how long he envisages this policy going on. Will it be a matter of doing this year by year, however long the Government are in office? That could well be the prospect unless we are prepared to use other methods.
My right hon. Friend has shied away from the use of force, as have the Government as a whole, but if they want the policy to succeed within a reasonable period and do not want the situation to continue as in the last few years, with no more than a moderate measure of success secured by sanctions, what supplementary measures do they intend to take to make the policy successful?
I have some suggestions. One was anticipated earlier in the debate—the immediate extension of sanctions to communications. I should like the opinion of the Attorney-General on the legality of people like the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) visiting a country which is in a state of rebellion. They are dealing with people who have committed an act of high treason against the Crown, and I should have thought that on any interpretation of the law that would put them in peril. However, we have never had an answer on this subject and it is about time we did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has suggested on other occasions that we should be prepared to fly military aircraft over Rhodesia. This would represent a challenge to the illegal régime, to show
664
whether it was prepared to go to the length of firing on British Servicemen. Those of my hon. Friends who are somewhat inhibited from the use of force in Rhodesia have always feared that there might be difficulties if British troops were called upon to fire, but it would be very much easier if we had been fired at first, just as it will be much easier in Northern Ireland, now that a policeman has been murdered by the Paisleyite yahoos, to use military force to put down the extremists in the Orange Order, should that become necessary. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider that suggestion.
If the Government will not in any circumstances consider the use of any concerted form of military force against the illegal régime, at least internally, there is an intermediate stage between the total imposition of mandatory sanctions and the use of force. This would be to do what was done technically after the American Declaration of Independence when we declared war on the Americans. Even if it were not followed by actual military operations, this would at least put in peril anybody who was dealing with the Rhodesians. It would enable us to declare as contraband the goods of those who were trading with Rhodesia, and the policy which led to the kind of episode which occurred outside Beira not so long ago when a tanker was stopped could be followed much more systematically and those who defied it would be in much greater peril. If it reached the stage when the Navy was used to sink ships carrying goods to Rhodesia, we would have a clear position at international law.
Mr. Hastings: Does the hon. Gentleman think that aircraft carriers might be useful for this purpose? The only one available has been taken away because of barnacles on its bottom.
Mr. Lee: I would use such forces as we still have. I have never been a pacifist. I have abstained from supporting new arms for this country in defence debates because in this country we persist in manufacturing nuclear weapons, but I am certainly prepared to use all manner of conventional weapons in support of these policies.
The law of treason is perfectly clear. Whatever view may be taken of the Joyce case after the war—and many of

665
us had our doubts about its application—it is the present law. Those who persist in having dealings with Rhodesia, certainly if we were to carry out the kind of policy suggested, should have no doubt about the position in which they could be placed. As one hon. Member on this side of the House who may well be supporting the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) on capital punishment, I have no doubt as to what should be done.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: There is an attractive simplicity in the approach of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee). We look forward to the comments of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on his suggestion of a declaration of war not followed by hostilities, but presumably renewed every 12 months by an affirmative Resolution.
There are many things that one could say about this subject, but at this hour, in this debate, I conceive it to be my duty not to say them, because other hon. Members wish to speak and the time is very short. Nor, perhaps, is it useful. We have had speeches which have traversed the general state of our relations with Rhodesia. There have been faults on both sides, and the catalogue of errors did not start in 1964 on either side.
By fateful steps, however, we have arrived at our present position, in which we are frozen in a posture of menacing hostility to what was Britain's best colony, the most stable, the most modern, the most loyal and the only British territory, whether ruled directly or indirectly, which was developing without debt to Whitehall a non-racial society.
Our governing error has been to pay regard to people's declarations rather than their practice. Those who had come to Lancaster House and signed high-sounding declarations of free, universal democracy were given independence, our blessing, a mace and a presentation copy of Erskine May. What they did thereafter has seemed to trouble no one. Exclusive black nationalism in African territories causes very little stirring of conscience on the British left. A fully developed double standard is in operation.
The Foreign Secretary developed a full comparison between the social condi-
666
tions of native Africans and of white people in Rhodesia. Why did he not make the comparison between the standards enjoyed by native Africans in Rhodesia and those enjoyed by native Africans elsewhere in Africa? The answer is easy and I will give it for the right hon. Gentleman. It is because that comparison would not help his argument.
Of course, the standards are higher still in the Republic of South Africa, but the Foreign Secretary could hardly found an argument on that. Nor could anything convincingly be said about—
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the hon. and learned Member give way?
Mr. Bell: Make it brief.
Mr. Haffer: The standards, no doubt, of the Russian people are much higher than they are in most States in Africa. Does the hon. and learned Member accept that they have complete freedom?
Mr. Bell: The hon. Member has slipped into error: Russia is not actually in Africa.
Nor could anything convincingly be said about giving independence to Mr. Ian Smith. We have refused independence, on terms which are not available now, to all Mr. Smith's predecessors, from whatever part of the political spectrum they came. I must express the opinion that settlement has always been politically impossible for the Prime Minister unless he was prepared to quarrel with the left wing of his own party. He was not. He was bruising them enough with his incomes policy and could not, or would not, add a Rhodesian settlement.
After four years, therefore, we are preparing to renew sanctions for a fifth year. No one really thinks that they will do anything. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), who seemed to boggle at nothing, rather like his hon. Friend the Member for Reading, did not expect sanctions to effect any change. Nor did the hon. Member for Reading. He said that we could riot stop them, however, because that would be wicked. The Secretary of State for Defence does not think that sanctions will, or could, work. The Foreign Secretary did not seem to think that they would work, but

667
he, too, seemed to think that we had to go on because we really could not stop.
On that logic, we shall be here next autumn renewing the sanctions for a sixth year, not because anyone thinks that they will do anything, but rather on the ground which deterred some from supporting reform of the law on adult homosexuality. They thought it wrong that there should be a law against it, but that since we had one we really could not repeal it.
In this context, I can see only one course tonight. To condemn a policy as misconceived, pointless and harmful and not vote against it does not make sense to me. Three years' running I have opposed the renewal of sanctions and not voted because my party thought that a vote would be misunderstood abroad. That excuse for abstention gets thinner each year. It is now transparent. Accordingly, tonight it is my intention, with some of my hon. Friends—
Mr. John Lee: Will the hon. and learned Member give way?
Mr. Bell: I am sorry, no.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches. There are still other hon. Members who wish to speak.
Mr. Bell: For that reason, it is my intention and that of some of my hon. Friends to divide the House tonight against the Order, because I am convinced that it is high time that this nonsense was now stopped.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House wishes to take a decision before 7 o'clock, speeches will have to be brief.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: As I believe that I was one of the first Members of the House to say in public that sanctions would never work—that was at a meeting at Brighton five years ago—I take no pleasure in the present relationship between Britain and Rhodesia. I have worked for some years to try to find a compromise between our two countries. I believe that it might have been possible at the discussions in H.M.S. "Tiger", but the possibility of a compromise was lost. It was lost because the Prime Minister lost his temper and
668
then insisted on an interim Government of four months which he knew no Rhodesian politicians of any party would accept.
I then hoped that the rather more sensible suggestion made on board H.M.S. "Fearless" would be accepted and I believed that it might have been if only we had got over the difficulty of the second safeguard, the appeal to the Privy Council. I certainly did all I could to see that those suggestions were accepted. Unfortunately, they broke down, too, because of the insistence on a second safeguard.
I do not believe that a compromise is now possible. Therefore, we have to face the facts. Do we go on with sanctions or not? Do we vote for the Order or not?
I should like to give three reasons why I believe that we should not continue with sanctions. First, they do not work. That is fairly clear from the debate today and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) quoted some figures. I want briefly to quote other figures regarding the Rhodesian economy which have been given to me by a former Member of the House who has just returned from Rhodesia.
In 1967, European agricultural gross sales were £66 million. This year they are expected to be £100 million. The mineral output of Rhodesia in 1967 was valued at £33·7 million. This year it is expected to be around the £60 million mark. The manufacturing index has gone up by 12 per cent. since U.D.I. and the wholesale trade index by 20 per cent. Net European immigration during the last 18 months was three times that of the previous three years. Last year there were 23,000 visitors to Rhodesia on business and nearly a quarter of a million on holidays. These figures show how sanctions have failed to bring about the results desired by many on this side of the House—that is, to bring Mr. Smith again to the conference table—or the result desired by many on the other side of the House of bringing down the Rhodesian régime. They have failed to do so. They have lost the battle.
One of the most patent failures is the Beira blockade. Its futility is universally acknowledged. I understand that it has been recommended that it should be removed this month, but that was not done

669
because of the effect that it would have upon hon. Members below the Gangway on the benches opposite and its effect upon the United Nations.
Secondly, the blockade is hitting the Africans. I will not quote my own experience, although I have taken the trouble to see and speak to Africans in Rhodesia, which some of those who make long contributions to our debates have never done. I wish to refer to a letter which appeared in The Times from a clergyman who said that he had
"spent five months among the Mashona and found that the present policy, far from aiding them, is gradually starving them."
I am quoting from The Times of 2nd October. He went on to say:
"the missionaries also complain of their inability to get funds out for building schools, clinics and hospitals."
He concludes by saying that
"The Mashona are a happier people than the English even though we continue to persecute them."
That is the view of one person who should know.
Another letter appeared in The Times in September referring to the position of the son of the writer who wanted to work for Africans in Rhodesia. His father wrote:
"Exactly who are sanctions meant to punish? My son is going to teach Africans under the auspices of an organisation outside politics and only concerned to support the Christian missions, yet he is treated as a criminal."
These actions are a by-product of the Order which we are discussing, and I suggest that they are doing a bad service to the good name of Britain not only in Africa but in the world.
Thirdly, I am opposed to sanctions because they are against Britain's best interests. I understand the views of some hon. Members on this side of the House who have said that we must have sanctions to persuade, or force, Mr. Smith to the conference table. There have been two conference tables which have failed, and we are not likely to get another.
By continuing sanctions we are preventing the people referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), the more progressive people in Rhodesia, from forming a political party or an alternative government. We are consolidating all people,
670
black and white, behind Mr. Smith, at great cost to our trade, at great cost to ourselves and, in doing so, we are indulging in the pinpricks referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth, and visiting our indignation on for example an old man of 86 who was forced to go from Salisbury to Pretoria to collect the renewal of his passport. This is the kind of disgraceful pinprick that does our country no good in the world.
I do not like the new constitution of Rhodesia; like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) I, too, would vote against it. It is not the kind of constitution which was thought of in the "Tiger" or "Fearless" proposals and I thoroughly disapprove of it. I certainly do not want a republic. I have used what influence I can to prevent that coming about, but I can now do nothing about it and, as the Foreign Secretary knows, this House can do nothing about it.
I have said for many years that sanctions would not work. Would it be right to abstain today and let the Order go through without a vote? I do not believe that it would and, therefore, I propose also to vote against it in the hope that next year my party will follow me into the Lobby. When, after next October, if not before, we again form the Government of this country I hope that we will face up to the facts of life whether we like them or not.
6.42 p.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: May I pay a tiny compliment to the administration in connection with the machinery of sanctions. Hon. Members may have observed in today's Press reports of difficulties said to be experienced on his arrival in Ragland to attend a family funeral in Loughton, in my constituency, of Mr. Len Thompson, who is a Rhodesian diplomat and former private secretary to the Rhodesian Prime Minister. I met Mr. Thompson by chance in the House, and he has told me of the courtesy and consideration which he had received from the officials concerned with him, and he would like, and I certainly wish, that to be placed on record. This should be said, because so many distressing instances occur of petty pinpricks such as have been mentioned by my hon.

671
Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).
The Foreign Secretary did not justify his Order to the House except as an impotent gesture of superior moral rectitude. It has been admitted in this debate in all quarters that the policy of sanctions has utterly failed, even though the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) preferred to say that the policy of sanctions has not succeeded. I will not quarrel about that.
There are on the benches opposite, those who, admitting that sanctions have failed, would like to take even more stringent action against Rhodesia. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), in a blood-curdling speech, spoke of using guns and the gallows. What he did not tell us was, with what troops, with what aircraft, by what routes he would invade Rhodesia, and in the end he came down to the curious notion of a declared but bloodless war.
That is the deep division in the benches opposite. On the one hand, there is the admission of the total collapse of the Government's policy; on the other, there are hon. Members who want to involve Britain in an extension of sanctions throughout Southern Africa, whereas the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and one of the few constant factors in their disastrous policy, has been the avoidance of a confrontation with South Africa, on which they are quite right. This is the great dilemma which right hon. and hon. Members opposite must sort out for themselves.
For my part, I oppose the Order and, for reasons which have been given in full by my right hon. and hon. Friends, must vote against it. No more than my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) do I want to give a green light to this new constitution, but I am surprised that the Foreign Secretary devoted so much time to the constitution which it is proposed to introduce in Salisbury when, according to the thinking of the Government, any constitution they propose to introduce in Salisbury must be entirely illegal.
Of course, I do not like this constitution; indeed, I argued against the republic with Mr. Dupont and other
672
leaders in Rhodesia, but who am I, who are any of us, to say what shall and shall not? We have not the power to determine the constitution of Rhodesia which has been, in practice, as independent as New Zealand, since 1923, and even if we had the power, I doubt whether we retained any moral right to determine the constitution of Southern Rhodesia, after the other constituent parts of the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland had attained their independence as Malawi and Zambia respectively.
I do not like the constitution, but, when one thinks of what has happened under other multi-racial constitutions, so-called, after the application of the principle of one man, one vote in other parts of Africa, I do not say I agree, but I am not surprised that Europeans, possibly Asians and some Africans in Rhodesia prefer the principle of parity between European and Bantu to any other form of constitution.
It is best now that we consult our own interests after the total collapse of the Government's policy. It has been well brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and others that sanctions, having destroyed our trade to the benefit of our competitors, are a gross liability to the British economy which is still under stress and difficulty.
There is the strategic argument, also. The Red Fleet shows the red flag in the Red Sea, in the Atlantic, in the Indian Ocean. The Chinese, the Russians and the East Germans are in occupation of Zanzibar which has become an African Cuba within the Commonwealth. If N.A.T.O. is necessary, surely all the more necessary is a South Atlantic Pact extending into the Indian Ocean. This requires the co-operation of three countries. It requires the co-operation of the Portuguese, our allies of centuries, our allies in N.A.T.O. and partners in E.F.T.A. But the mention of Portuguese allies arouses derision on the benches opposite. It requires the co-operation of the Republic of South Africa. It requires the co-operation of Rhodesia. The only ports in Africa which would certainly be at the disposal of the Western world in the event of hostilities happen to be either South Africa or Portuguese.
No wonder that even Her Majesty's present Government are determined to

673
avoid a confrontation with South Africa. I am convinced that they are in anguish trying to find a way out of the morass in which they have landed this country, and that they know, as this debate has brought out, that the Order is a futile folly which will make us even more the laughing-stock of our enemies and the despair of our friends.
6.49 p.m.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I wish to raise one point which has not yet been mentioned in the debate. I wish to register a protest against the immorality of sanctions. The Government, with the support of both sides of the House, have spent over £200 million
a year on economic aid to under-developed countries in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.
Naturally, I support that expenditure and would like to see it increased. But nobody from the Government benches has said where lies the morality in selecting one little country in Africa and purposely pushing down its economy, to the detriment to blacks and whites alike, in pursuit of a political objective which is quite clearly beyond our grasp.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 26.

Division No. 351.]

AYES

[6.50 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Ensor, David

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Alldritt, Walter

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Allen, Scholefield

Faulds, Andrew

Lee, John (Reading)

Anderson, Donald

Fernyhough, E.

Lestor, Miss Joan

Armstrong, Ernest

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Ashley, Jack

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Lipton, Marcus

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Loughlin, Charles

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Foley, Maurice

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

McBride, Neil

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Forrester, John

McCann, John

Barnes, Michael

Fowler, Gerry

MacColl, James

Beaney, Alan

Fraser, John (Norwood)

MacDermot, Niall

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Freeson, Reginald

Macdonald, A. H.

Bessell, Peter

Garrett, W. E.

McGuire, Michael

Bidwell, Sydney

Ginsburg, David

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Binns, John

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mackie, John

Booth, Albert

Gregory, Arnold

Mackintosh, John P.

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Maclennan, Robert

Boyden, James

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

MacPherson, Malcolm

Buchan, Norman

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Harper, Joseph

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Cant, R. B.

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

Carmichael, Neil

Hattersley, Roy

Marks, Kenneth

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hazell, Bert

Marquand, David

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Heffer, Eric S.

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Concannon, J. D,

Hilton, W. S.

Maxwell, Robert

Crawshaw, Richard

Hobden, Dennis

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Cronin, John

Horner, John

Mendelson, John

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mikardo, Ian

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Millan, Bruce

Davidson,James(Aberdeenshine,W.)

Howie, W.

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Molloy, William

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hunter, Adam

Moonman, Eric

Delargy, H. J.

Hynd, John

Morgan, Elystar (Cardiganshire)

Dell, Edmund

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Devlin, Miss Bernadette

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Dewar, Donald

Janner, Sir Barnett

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Dickens, James

Jeger, George (Goole)

Moyle, Roland

Dobson, Ray

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Murray, Albert

Doig, Peter

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Newens, Stan

Driberg, Tom

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Norwood, Christopher

Dunnett, Jack

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

O'Malley, Brian

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Judd, Frank

Oram, Albert E.

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Kelley, Richard

Orbach, Maurice

Eadie, Alex

Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

Oswald, Thomas

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth, Central)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Ellis, John

Lawson, George

Padley, Walter

English, Michael

Leadbitter, Ted

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Ryan, John

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Pardoe, John

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Wellbeloved, James

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Sheldon, Robert

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Whitaker, Ben

Pavitt, Laurence

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

White, Mrs. Eirene

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Whitlock, William

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Silverman, Julius

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Skeffington, Arthur

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Small, William

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Spriggs, Leslie

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Rankin, John

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Rees Merlyn

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Richard, Ivor

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Swain, Thomas

Winnick, David

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Woof, Robert

Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)

Tomney, Frank

Roebuck, Roy

Tuck, Raphael

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Urwin, T. W.

Mr. William Hamling and Mr. loan L. Evans.

Rose, Paul

Varley, Eric G.

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

NOES

Biffen, John

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Smith, John (London & W' minster)

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Wall, Patrick

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Montgomery, Fergus

Wiggin, A. W.

Donnelly, Desmond

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Woodnutt, Mark

Goodhew, Victor

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Gurden, Harold

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hastings, Stephen

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Mr. Ronald Bell and Mr. John Biggs-Davison.

Hay, John

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Resolved,
That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th October, be approved.

BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered.
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have not selected the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). That does not affect the debate in any way. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is free to say what he thinks in the debate.
7.1 p.m.
Mr. Peter Blaker: I rise to support the Bill, and I hope that the House will approve it.
This is a General Powers Bill. In addition to some of the matters to which my hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt refer, and which have been causing concern to his constituents, the Bill also contains powers of the kind so often found in Measures of this nature, for example, to manage markets, to regulate sales on the promenade, to borrow, and to deal with lost property.
If I may mention briefly the history of the Bill, it was introduced in another place in January. It was considered by a Select Committee in that place over four days. The Committee heard evidence and allowed the Bill to proceed with some Amendments which were accepted by the promoters. A similar course occurred in this House, where it was considered over four days by a Select Committee and some small Amendments were made, all of which were verbal except one minor Amendment to Clause 9 into which I need not go.
The most useful course for me would be to come straight to the points which I think are causing concern to my hon. and gallant Friend. The Borough of Lytham St. Annes, which is in his constituency, opposed certain Clauses in the Bill because they would authorise the Blackpool Corporation to exercise powers outside its own boundaries. In particular, these are Clause 4, dealing with zoos and botanical gardens, Clause 5, dealing with golf courses, Clause 6, dealing with roller skating rinks, Clause 9,
678
dealing with the provision of entertainments in parks, and Clause 24 which enables the Corporation to construct a hoverport.
Objections to these Clauses were made on behalf of the Lytham St. Annes Corporation in the Committees in both Houses, and evidence was taken on these points, but the Committees felt that the Bill should go forward. I should add that, since the Bill was first promoted, the normal negotiations which occur between interested parties in such cases have taken place, but, since they were without prejudice and were, unfortunately, unsuccessful, it would not be proper for me to go into the details of them.
At first sight, it might seem odd that a Bill should give powers to one corporation to act in the territory of another. But nowadays it is not unusual for that to be done, and the reasons are not difficult to find. The local government boundary map has not been adjusted for a considerable time, and the responsibilities of local authorities everywhere are more complex and wider than they used to be. As a result, one finds that in general Acts of Parliament giving enabling powers to local authorities, for example, the right of local authorities to acquire land is not limited to their own borders.
Another example which is relevant here is the Southampton Corporation Act, 1960, Section 96 of which gives to the corporation extensive powers to do works in Southampton Water regardless of whether those works are inside or outside the boundaries of that authority. If we take the case of zoos and botanical gardens, the Bournemouth Corporation Act, 1960, gives that corporation power to set up zoos and botanical gardens inside or outside its own boundaries.
As for golf courses, Clause 5 of the Bill is a model Clause which has been adopted in many Private Bills. For roller skating, there is a precedent in the Worcester Corporation Act, 1951. In this Session of Parliament there have been five Acts which are already on the Statute Book and which, in one way or another, give local authorities powers which they can exercise outside their own territories.
Coming closer to the matter in hand, the Blackpool Corporation Act, 1935,

679
gives the corporation power to conduct entertainments outside its own boundaries and power to acquire land for the purpose of an airport. While I do not think the former has been exercised, the power to acquire land for the purpose of an airport was exercised, and there has been a very busy airport at Squiresgate for a long time. Although the airport is on the territory of Lytham St. Annes just outside the Blackpool boundary, it is I believe undisputed that it is of benefit to both communities.
The powers in the Bill to act outside the boundaries of Blackpool are not particularly directed at Lytham St. Annes. They are general. Lytham St. Annes happens to be one neighbour of Blackpool. There are five or six others.
The powers are limited to land held by Blackpool. There are two significant areas of land owned by the Blackpool Corporation in the borough of Lytham St. Annes, and these two areas are specially relevant to this debate. They are both immediately next to the Blackpool borough boundaries. One of them is the airport land with one or two adjacent pieces of land outside the airport proper which I think were acquired as part of the same package a good many years ago.
The other area is one of about 40 acres on the sand dunes, again immediately adjacent to the Blackpool boundary and within a few yards of the airport. Almost all of these two areas was proposed by the Local Government Commission in 1965 to be transferred to the Borough of Blackpool, but, of course, that Commission was wound up before any action one way or the other could be taken on that recommendation.
Another feature of them is that they are situated in an area which I understand the Borough of Lytham St. Annes, to which planning authority has been delegated by the Lancashire County Council, would like to keep as a relatively open area. It cannot be entirely an open area because, between the airport and the site on which the hoverport would be built if the Bill were approved, already there is a substantial holiday camp.
Taking the two areas in turn, any use of the airport for the purposes which I have been describing would presuppose
680
that it had ceased to be used as an airport. That is a possibility which has not been considered by the Blackpool Corporation and it can be regarded as extremely hypothetical. As for the sand dunes, it is intended that, if the Bill is approved, this is where the hoverport would be situated, between the airport and the sea. I will return later to the relevance of that situation.
In my view, the anxieties of Lytham St. Annes are not justified. I fully respect and understand its concern, but I believe that it goes too far. What is more, there will be safeguards about the exercise of any of these powers.
The first reason I should like to mention is geography. Not only is the site for the hoverport right against the Blackpool boundary, but it is quite a long way from any substantial residential area of Lytham St. Annes. It is at least 1,000 yards from any such area, apart from a small number of inhabitants in a block of flats who, admittedly, would be fairly close to the hoverport site. But even this block of flats, and one or two houses adjacent to it, is close to the airport. A busy main road runs between the flats and houses and the site for the hoverport; and the beach at this point is fairly sharply sloping, so that will give them a good deal of protection.
The second safeguard is that before any of these developments could be undertaken, planning permission would be required, and the planning authority, for practical purposes, is the Borough of Lytham St. Annes.
The third point, which I think is important, is that the Bill gives to Blackpool Corporation no greater powers than an individual or a company already naturally possess. The House knows well that local authorities have no powers except those given to them by Statute. That is the distinction between local authorities and an individual or a company. Resulting from this situation, it would be possible, if Blackpool was denied the powers in the Bill, for the corporation to let the land in question to an individual or to a company and that individual or company, provided that planning permission could be obtained, would be able to do the things which Blackpool Corporation would be denied the powers to do.
I think that the hoverport particularly is causing concern to my hon. and gallant

681
Friend. There are two questions. First, is it needed? There have been discussions between the Blackpool Corporation and a number of other corporations along the coast and the Isle of Man about the possibility of having a hovercraft service. Those discussions have not been followed up, because at the time—a few years ago—the costs of operation of hovercraft were higher and the technical features not so advanced as now or, indeed, so advanced as they will no doubt be in a few years.
Within the last year a number of companies have approached the Blackpool Corporation with a view to seeing whether a hovercraft service could be started. British Railways want to start a hovercraft service in 1970, so there is clearly a need for a hoverport.
My hon. and gallant Friend may ask why the hoverport should be on this piece of land and not in the territory of Blackpool. There are two reasons why this is the most suitable situation. First, it is close to the airport. Looking to the future of transport, this is an important advantage, because passengers or freight can easily be transferred from one means of transport to another.
Secondly, within the Borough of Blackpool, for the whole length of the coast, there is a high sea wall. At high tide, for four hours, the sea is right up to the sea wall—indeed, at many parts of the sea wall to a considerable depth. While it would be technically possible to cope with that problem by building ramps, and so on, it would be extremely expensive and there would be serious problems of erosion if, for example, a hoverport was built, as it were, on the promenade.
Of course, the closer it is to the centre of the town the more crowded the beaches tend to be. So that whereas hovercraft could be brought on to the beach at low tide, which would be well out from the promenade, the promenade would not be suitable for a park or maintenance area on which hovercraft could rest on a hard standing.
Hon. Members should understand that a hoverport is not enormous. Last year I went to Southsea to take the hovercraft to the Isle of Wight. I had great difficulty in finding the hoverport. I was looking for something fairly large, but
682
what I found was a small square of concrete about 30 yards by 30 yards and one small building.
The hoverport that we have in mind would no doubt he a bit larger than that. But I understand that it would not be more than 100 yards square and it would need only facilities for fuel and maintenance, so it is not a vast edifice.
Apart from the hoverport, I believe that Lytham St. Annes regards the other matters with less concern. The zoo and botanical gardens, according to the present ideas of the Blackpool Corporation, would be developed on land not in Lytham St. Annes, but on the east side of the town. Part of it is outside Blackpool. This is why the relevant Clause is framed so that the powers would be exercisable whether inside or outside the Blackpool boundary.
For the golf course, the area that I have just mentioned has been considered as the possible site for that.
Concerning the roller skating, I understand that the Blackpool Corporation has nothing in mind at present, but it regards it desirable to have the powers to do this in this Bill. The Bill simply gives the corporation power to set aside part of a park, which would have a maximum area of one acre for this purpose.
Concerning the power to provide entertainments in the parks, the Bill simply enables the corporation to enclose not more than one acre for certain classes of entertainment or to close a park for fireworks at night.
For those reasons, I hope that the House will approve the Bill. The most powerful point that I have mentioned is that if Blackpool Corporation is denied the powers it seeks, then it would be able to let the land in question to an individual or to a company and, subject to planning permission, the enterprises to which I have referred could be put under way.
Lytham St. Annes and Blackpool have many mutual interests. Many of my constituents work in Lytham St. Annes, many people who work in Blackpool live in Lytham St. Annes and they share many common services. I have already mentioned the airport.
When some of these enterprises are built, I believe that both Lytham St. Annes and Blackpool will find them an advantage. I fully recognise and respect the desire of

683
Lytham St. Annes to preserve its separate character and its peace and quiet. But even if all the powers given to the corporation by the Bill were exercised, I do not believe that this separate character would be prejudiced.
7.19 p.m.
Colonel C. G. Lancaster: I rise to oppose the Bill. I am not insensitive to what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) has said, but I was puzzled to discover why he should feel that Lytham St. Annes was being so unreasonable and why it was opposing the Bill.
Before I enumerate the various Clauses to which my hon. Friend referred, and, in particular, to Clause 24, I should say something about the different character of the two communities. In the realm of entertainment, Blackpool is known throughout the length and breadth of the country. It appeals to a great mass of people who go there every year to have a good time, and I have no doubt that they do. Lytham St. Annes, on the other hand, is a residential area. Many people have gone there to retire in the quiet and pleasant surroundings of the town and foreshore.
Although many people go there during the holiday season, they do so because it is quiet and pleasant, and because it provides the kind of amenities that they like. If the Lytham St. Annes Corporation felt that it needed the type of entertainment which is provided on such a massive scale in Blackpool, I have no doubt that it would do what it could to provide it. The corporation has recognised the charm of the area and its quietness and pleasantness, and it does not want to spoil that.
That is not to say that a great deal is not provided there. I am sure that my hon. Friend is familiar with the Fylde rugby ground, one of the best in the country. Some years ago I was at the opening of the tennis club, and we arranged for an exhibition match between Rosewall and Laver. No doubt my hon. Friend knows that we have no fewer than four golf clubs, I doubt whether he will be elected to that club after his speech.
Lytham St. Annes has always been jealous of retaining the character of its foreshore. It stretches from one end of
684
Lytham to the boundary of Blackpool, and the corporation has been jealous never to allow anything to be done to the foreshore which would affect its character.
It may be, as my hon. Friend said, that several of these Clauses will not be implemented. The main cause of concern to Lytham St. Annes Corporation is the suggestion about hovercraft being operated at the northern extremity of, not the corporation's property, but the property which lies within its municipal area. For many years Blackpool Corporation has been acquiring property within the area of the Lytham St. Annes Corporation, and it is in this regard that the corporation is particularly concerned. The corporation feels that if a hoverport is built there it will spoil the character of that part of the foreshore. It will be noisy. It will attract a number of people, and also many cars.
One thing which my hon. Friend did not mention is the effect that such a hoverport will have on sand yachting. The Fylde International Sand Yacht Club is the centre of all sand yachting in the country. However, the corporation thinks less about that than about the fact that the hoverport will be a noisy intervention, and it does not like the idea of that, and in that I support the corporation.
There have been suggestions that the other Clauses are unlikely to be implemented. The Town Clerk of Blackpool has gone so far as to say that he does not think they will be, but town clerks come and go, and Lytham St. Annes Corporation is not anxious to be left under a continual threat if the powers set out in the Bill are granted to Blackpool Corporation.
Lytham St. Annes does not wish to be fractious, or to be thought of as not wanting to help its neighbour. We want to be on the most friendly terms with Blackpool, but the corporation feels that the principle of the Bill is one which it must oppose. Lytham St. Annes takes the view that one authority should not exercise powers in the area of another authority. If the Bill were passed, it would mean that Blackpool Corporation would be able to exercise power within the municipality of Lytham St. Annes.
The principle of these matters is that the case has to be proved. My hon. Friend has been industrious in arranging

685
his case, and in putting it forward so eloquently, but I do not think that he has proved it, and I therefore have no option but to oppose it.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. Tom Driberg: I shall intervene for only a few moments in a debate which is of much more direct interest to hon. Members from the North. I have to go to Blackpool every other year or two for a conference. Although the corporation and the people of Blackpool are renowned, and rightly so, for their most generous hospitality, there is one matter about which I should like to ask the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker).
Zoos and botanical gardens are admirable institutions, but is there any power in the Bill, or has the corporation already got power, perhaps under one of the more general phrases such as "and other attractions", to do anything about the hotels in Blackpool? They are simply terrible. Collectively, they are among the worst hotels of any seaside resort in the world. I end by quoting an aphorism of Mr. Bernard Levin: that the hotels in Blackpool go far to disprove a proposition of Euclid, since it is possible to show that each of them is worse than all the others.
7.26 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): I think that it might be helpful if I intervene on one or two matters. As the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) said, Clause 24 contains an enabling power for the provision of hovercraft terminals. It does not authorise the erection of one on any particular site. I understand that Blackpool Corporation has under consideration the possibility of establishing such a terminal, which would probably be on land owned by the corporation in the Borough of Lytham St. Annes just to the south of the Blackpool boundary.
If the corporation wishes to exercise the power contained in that Clause it will be necessary for it to obtain planning permission in the normal way. The House will appreciate that it would be improper for me to express a view on behalf of the Government about the merits of any specific proposal, not only because a planning application could
686
lead to an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but also because any proposal to develop harbour facilities estimated to cost more than £½ million would require the consent of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport under the Harbours Act, 1964.
In respect of Clause 4, which deals with the provision of zoological and botanical gardens, Clause 5, which deals with golf-courses, Clause 6, which deals with roller-skating rinks and Clause 9, which deals with the provision of entertainment in parks, and so on, it would similarly be necessary for Blackpool Corporation to obtain planning permission, with the attendant right of appeal in the event of a refusal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I rise to support the Bill. Before turning to its main provisions, perhaps I might deal with the request made by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). I could not disagree more with him about the quality of the Blackpool hotels. A number of us in the House, particularly myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), have been trying to help those hotels, and I can think of no one who could help more in that fight than the hon. Gentleman could. The tax system, including S.E.T., needs revising to help us.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not dealing with a public Bill, but with a very private one.
Mr. Miscampbell: I appreciate that. I was simply helping the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) to see his way forward to helping us with our hotel problems.
I appreciate and fully understand the views expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), representing Lytham St. Annes, which is a charming and wonderful residential area, and it would be strange indeed if that borough was not concerned about the prospect of a change in its environment.
Perhaps at its most extreme the fear and worry expressed in Lytham St. Annes

687
has been put in a letter in the Gazette, in which the writer said:
"The common danger facing all small local authorities such as Blackpool and Lytham St. Annes is the big grab, and the big lie technique of Big Brother in all his forms."
If in the few moments that I intend to address the House tonight, and in the few remarks I make, I can dispel that sort of fear, what I have to say will be worth while. Fortunately, judging from the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, it is clear that I do not need to dispel any such fear in his mind.
We have heard talk of our powers to build golf courses. Indeed, the threat has even been made that we will not be able to obtain admission to the famous golf courses of Lytham St. Annes if we support the Bill. If the Bill goes through we can build our own golf courses in Lytham St. Annes, if the need arises. But golf courses are covered by a Clause that is in no way unique. Fourteen boroughs in the last ten years have included such a Clause. The provision of zoos, botanical gardens and roller skating all have good precedents—not merely in law but, because of the surrounding boundaries of most of our towns, good precedents in good sense. It is necessary, for good planning reasons, to give boroughs powers and rights to have their amenities in the land of their neighbours.
The factor that concerns my hon. and gallant Friend most is the hovercraft. It is not surprising that should be so. There is no direct precedent for the provision of a hovercraft at this moment, although I suspect that this question will be raised on occasions in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South has already pointed out, there is a near precedent in the Southampton Corporation Act 1960, in Section 96, which gives the corporation power to provide boating facilities with hards and hard standing for the boats and to provide for the maintenance of slipways, jetties, moorings and other works which may be necessary. The Bill goes further, in enabling the corporation virtually to change the nature of Southampton Water. Blackpool has not yet become so ambitious, but the works provided for in that Bill are of a similar nature to those for which we are asking in this Bill.
688
We are rightly asked, "Is there a need?" The first and easy answer—perhaps it is a lawyer's answer, in that it is convincing to some—is that this need has been argued in front of Committees in the House of Lords and the House of Commons and those Committees have both accepted the need. There was rigorous cross-examination and inquiry into those points.
I need not go any further than to say that while imagination at the moment may envisage hovercraft being used for trips up and down the coast, or up and down to Southport and other towns, or to the lakeland coast, the future must envisage the prospect of hovercraft needing to go to the Isle of Man. Already more than 100,000 people fly from our airport every year, and the transport of mail and persons to the island will have to be given more consideration by those who run such transport facilities.
It has been emphasised that we ask for nothing more than that which an ordinary private individual could have. If the land were let tomorrow to an entrepreneur who wished to build a hoverport, subject to the careful provision already emphasised by the Minister he would, it he could get planning permission, be allowed to run it. Lytham St. Anne's is asking the House to say, "What is all right for the private person—the person who hires the land from Blackpool and then puts in for planning permission—would not be all right for Blackpool itself." I cannot follow that argument or understand the logic of that situation.
I understand clearly the worry of the borough about noise and disturbance. I shall pass over the question briefly, because my hon. and gallant Friend has already dealt with it in some detail, by simply reminding the House that the area proposed is immediately adjacent to our boundary. It is in an area where there are few people and where the hinterland is made up entirely of Blackpool airfield.
A new objection, to me at any rate, is that sand yachting would be interfered with. That could be serious, and it is an important aspect of the matter. I believe that there are only one or two areas in the country which are suitable for sand yachting. I think that Lytham is one and I believe that there is another in the North of Scotland. I do not think

689
that the number of hovercraft coming in and going out are likely to make much difference to sand yachting races, or to sand yachting exercises. It would be optimistic to imagine that any hoverport would be used to such an extent that it became impossible to use the land in front of it for the usual purpose of land yachting, as at the moment.
The first of the most important points in this matter is that we are asking for no more, as a public authority, than what the private person can have. The other most important point is that one that has already been made by the Minister, namely, that if Blackpool seeks to run hovercraft from this site the very first people they must ask permission from is Lytham St. Annes, which is the delegated planning authority, and which has the right—and no doubt it would exercise it—to say "No".
Colonel Lancaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Lancashire County Council is also in agreement with Lytham St. Annes Corporation that the area on which it is proposed to run these hovercraft should be retained as a green wedge between the two municipalities?
Mr. Miscampbell: I am quite prepared to accept that. It reinforces my point. All such objections—the objection of the Lancashire County Council and of Lytham and all other interested parties—
690
would be fully aired at the inquiry run by the Ministry. If Blackpool were to get the right to run the hovercraft it would simply be a permission to ask for permission. That is all that Blackpool is asking for today. It is asking for the right to say to the planning authorities, "The time has come for us seriously to consider running a hovercraft. We have our proposals before our committees. We are ready to go. May we do it?". Then the whole planning position would be considered, first by Lytham and then—anticipating its refusal—by the Minister. What greater assurance of security can Lytham have than that? For that reason and the many others than have been urged, I support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill considered accordingly.
Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eight o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Prices
  Prices
  Company Directors (Payments)
  Company Directors (Payments)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Royal Society (European Countries)
  Royal Society (European Countries)
  Authors (Public Lending Right)
  Authors (Public Lending Right)
  Sex Education
  Sex Education
  Secondary School Pupils (Travel Allowance)
  Secondary School Pupils (Travel Allowance)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  House of Lords (Delaying Powers)
  House of Lords (Delaying Powers)
  Category A Prisoners (Security)
  Category A Prisoners (Security)
  Mid-Anglia Police Force
  Mid-Anglia Police Force
  Police Officers (Defamatory Letters)
  Police Officers (Defamatory Letters)
  C.S. Devices
  C.S. Devices
  Police Investigations (Juvenile Crime)
  Police Investigations (Juvenile Crime)
  Handcuffs
  Handcuffs
  Mr. Nikita Venizelos
  Mr. Nikita Venizelos
  C.S. Gas Masks
  C.S. Gas Masks
  Motor Vehicles (Spot Checks)
  Motor Vehicles (Spot Checks)
  Northern Ireland (Home Secretary's Visit)
  Northern Ireland (Home Secretary's Visit)
  Victims of Crime (Reparation)
  Victims of Crime (Reparation)
  Polythene Bags
  Polythene Bags
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesian Passports
  Rhodesian Passports
  Rhodesia (Sanctions)
  Rhodesia (Sanctions)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
AVIATION
  Internal Airlines (Development)
  Internal Airlines (Development)
SHIPPING
  Shipping Industry (Committee)
  Shipping Industry (Committee)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Cardiff Office Staff (Welsh Language)
  Cardiff Office Staff (Welsh Language)
  Talcum Powder (Prices)
  Talcum Powder (Prices)
  Balance of Trade (Figures)
  Balance of Trade (Figures)
SCOTLAND
  Severely Disabled Persons (Survey)
  Severely Disabled Persons (Survey)
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Red Deer
  Red Deer
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Police (C.S. Devices)
  Police (C.S. Devices)
  Primary Schools, Kirkcolm and Drummore
  Primary Schools, Kirkcolm and Drummore
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Planning Document
  Planning Document
  Privately-owned Wealth
  Privately-owned Wealth
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Blind Persons (Allowance)
  Blind Persons (Allowance)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE DELEGATION (SERVICES COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE DELEGATION (SERVICES COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
TECHNOLOGY
  Development Areas (Investment Incentives)
  Development Areas (Investment Incentives)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Departmental Responsibility)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Departmental Responsibility)
  Nuclear Power Building Programme
  Nuclear Power Building Programme
  Magnox Nuclear Power Station
  Magnox Nuclear Power Station
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING
  Hunt Committee's Report
  Hunt Committee's Report
  Yorkshire and Hurnberside
  Yorkshire and Hurnberside
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  South East Economic Planning Council
  South East Economic Planning Council
ROADS
  Trunk Road Proposals
  Trunk Road Proposals
  ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
  ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  EXPORTS AND IMPORT SAVING
  EXPORTS AND IMPORT SAVING
  NORTHERN REGION
  NORTHERN REGION
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
  EUROPEAN FEDERATION (MINISTERIAL PARTICIPATION)
  EUROPEAN FEDERATION (MINISTERIAL PARTICIPATION)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  INDIAN OCEAN (US.S.R. FLEETS)
  INDIAN OCEAN (US.S.R. FLEETS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Salmon Finshing (North Atlantic)
  Salmon Finshing (North Atlantic)
DEFENCE
  H.M.S. "Eagle", "Ark Royal" and "Hermes" (Refits)
  H.M.S. "Eagle", "Ark Royal" and "Hermes" (Refits)
  Lloyd's Shipping Register
  Lloyd's Shipping Register
  Royal Naval Auxiliary Service
  Royal Naval Auxiliary Service
HOUSING
  Rent Increases
  Rent Increases
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Manual Workers' Wages (Rate Support Grant)
  Manual Workers' Wages (Rate Support Grant)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Mail
  Mail
HOSPITALS
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  Carlton Hayes Hospital (Fire)
  Carlton Hayes Hospital (Fire)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Prescription Claim Forms (Manchester)
  Prescription Claim Forms (Manchester)
WALES
  Public Inquiry Inspectors (Welsh Language)
  Public Inquiry Inspectors (Welsh Language)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

BERLIN: FOUR-POWER DISCUSSIONS
3.5 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions have taken place between the United Kingdom, the U.S.A. and France and the Soviet Union on problems arising from the division of Berlin.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government, together with the French and United States Governments, made an approach to the Soviet Government through their Embassies in Moscow at the beginning of August, to explore the possibilities of improving the situation in and around Berlin and between the two parts of Germany. On September 12, the Soviet Government made a statement to the Embassies of the United Kingdom, United States and France in Moscow in response to this approach, which is now being examined by the Three Powers in consultation with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I welcome the initiative which has been taken in this matter, but in view of the fact that the Soviet Foreign Secretary, Mr. Gromyko, has indicated that the Soviet Government is prepared to exchange opinions on this subject, could my noble friend say whether the Foreign Secretary had the opportunity while he was in New York to discuss with Mr. Gromyko the chances of pursuing this very hopeful development?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not aware that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this matter with Mr. Gromyko. He had the opportunity for discussions with the Soviet delegation in New York. If as a result there has been any further development I will let my noble friend know.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend, may I ask whether, if these discussions about Berlin proceed, it will be possible to have some consultation, unofficially if not officially, with the German Democratic Republic, which is so much involved?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, we do not recognise the D.D.R. and have no direct diplomatic relations with them. I think it will be difficult in the circumstances to engage in consultations with them. Our role here is to maintain our links with the Federal Republic of Germany. I think we can safely leave it to the Soviet Union to consult with the East Germans.

BERLIN RESIDENTS AND WEST GERMAN CONSCRIPTION LAW
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they have taken, in cooperation with the Allied Commandments, to prevent the extradition of young men resident in Berlin who decline military service under the redefined conscription law of West Germany.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the Allied Kommandatura, acting on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the United States, and France, reviewed the situation earlier this year and sent a letter to the Berlin Senate defining the position of persons in Berlin in relation to the Federal Conscription Law. Permanent residents of Berlin are exempt from military service with the Federal Armed Forces, and the Allied action ensures that persons taking up residence in Berlin are similarly exempt.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, did I hear my noble friend correctly in understanding him to say that those who more recently have taken up permanent residence are exempt from this deportation?
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords, that was the effect of my Answer. The action the Allies have now taken ensures that persons subsequently taking up permanent residence in Berlin are exempt from the Federal conscription laws.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I very much welcome that statement? In view of the fact that our own Government extradite only persons who are deserters and does not extradite persons who have refused draft calls, may I ask whether this principle could not also be applied in West Berlin?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords. Under Federal German law, which is what we are dealing with, a resident of the Federal German Republic becomes a deserter if he has received notice of induction and fails to report. That is their definition of "deserter". When these deserters go to Berlin they do, in our view, become inconsistent with the de-militarised status of the city of Berlin. We therefore take action to remove them.

COMMONWEALTH AND BRITAIN: CITIZENS' VOTING RIGHTS
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows
To ask Her Majesty's Government what residential or other qualifications are required to enable citizens of Commonwealth countries and the Irish Republic to vote in British national or local elections, and which Commonwealth countries or the Republic of Ireland grant reciprocal facilities to citizens of the United Kingdom.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, Commonwealth citizens are British subjects and no qualifications are required of them additional to those required of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Nor are any
1540
additional qualifications required of citizens of the Irish Republic. As regards the second part of the Question, British subjects resident in the Irish Republic can vote at local elections. In Commonwealth countries the electoral position of non-citizens (including citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) varies and is often governed by complex legislation. Detailed information is not immediately available but I will send it to the noble Lord as soon as possible.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Is it not a fact that in many—I do not say in most, but in many—Commonwealth countries, United Kingdom citizens either cannot vote or can vote only if they have been resident for a very long time? While I think no one would have any objection, or has an objection, to Commonwealth and Irish citizens voting in this country, is there not a very strong case for Her Majesty's Government to approach all Commonwealth Governments and the Government of Ireland with a view to establishing full reciprocity in these matters?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I cannot say whether many or most Commonwealth countries have these arrangements, but I do know—and I have promised to send the detailed information to the noble Lord—that there are a number who for their own reasons have felt it necessary to confine voting rights in their countries to their own citizens. As regards the noble Lord's second point, this is a matter for the Commonwealth countries concerned and the Government of the Irish Republic.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, all I am asking the noble Baroness is whether Her Majesty's Government will make an approach.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I think that that is really a different question, but I will convey the noble Lord's point to my right honourable friend. I am sure that the House would not wish me to go further on this subject to-day.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness say whether it is true, as has been reported in various quarters, that in the Bahamas the voting rights of Commonwealth citizens of United Kingdom origin resident there have recently been curtailed and

1541
even, it is said in some quarters, actually abolished altogether?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I think that that question should be addressed to my noble friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, so far as the Republic of Ireland is concerned, may I ask the Minister three short questions? Is it not the absolute right of a country to decide which of its citizens shall be permitted to vote at general and at local elections? Secondly, should not Parliament have been aware, after the passage of the Parliament Act 1949, when it established the franchise or accorded the franchise to Irish citizens in this country, that in the Republic of Ireland voting at general and presidential elections is confined to Irish citizens? Thirdly, is my noble friend aware that in one part of the United Kingdom there are many United Kingdom citizens who have no vote at all at local elections and many others who have several votes—I refer to Northern Ireland—and does she condemn this policy?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords the answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question is, "Yes". To the second question, the right of Irish citizens to vote at British elections is consequential on Parliament's decision in the 1949 Ireland Act. I find the third question extremely interesting, but would prefer not to comment.

ARMS SUPPLIES TO ISRAEL AND ARAB STATES
3.12 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what armaments including aircraft, transport, telecommunications and other military equipment, have been supplied from Britain to Israel and to individual Arab States respectively since the 1967 June war.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, it is the established practice, followed by successive Govern-
1542
ments, not to disclose details about the supply of arms and military equipment to individual countries.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I am afraid that I regard that as a most unsatisfactory reply, and I must ask two supplementary questions of the noble Lord. While I am sure that we are all most anxious to see a just settlement of this tragic conflict, is it not most inequitable that modern armaments, such as Chieftain tanks, should be supplied to some of the Arab countries, which we know is a fact, and be denied to Israel? The second question is this: Is it not wholly wrong that Britain should have recently agreed to sell Lightning jet fighters and Red Top guided missiles to Iraq who, quite apart from any attacks they may be making on Israel, are at present engaged in aggressive action against Iran, which is an ally of ours in the CENTO Pact?
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, although I can understand clearly the noble Lord's interest in these problems, which of course interest us all, nevertheless if we are to supply defensive equipment abroad at all what is of interest to this House is a matter of security to the individual nations who purchase from us. For this reason I simply cannot—Her Majesty's Government cannot—give detailed information about arms supplied to individual countries. This is a long-established practice.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? We all know the general rule about not giving particulars of arms supplied, but how is Parliament to keep any control over the supply of arms either to Israel or to Arab States if the Government refuse to give information as to what amount of arms have been supplied to either one or the other? If the Government refuse to give that information, then surely Parliament, which ought to control, is absolutely impotent in the matter.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Earl is dealing with a very important subject. Since we are in the very near future to have a number of days' debate on the Queen's Speech, may I suggest that that might provide an occasion to probe this subject very thoroughly; but not at Question Time to-day.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LAW OF PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to, and certain others disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement: the said Amendments and Reason to be printed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL
3.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, in rising on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House to move that the Commons Amendments and the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered, I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if, with your Lordships' leave, we were to take in one Motion both the Commons Amendments and the Lords Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. This would obviate what would otherwise be a very complicated way of proceeding and would mean that there would be only one question before the House. If that be the wish of the House, then I beg to move.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reason be now considered.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL
[References are to Bill (140) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Reason and Amendments are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after "Act" insert "in the present session of Parliament".
Leave out Schedule 1.
Leave out Schedule 2.
In the Title, line 4, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 10 and insert "not later than 31st March 1970, to relieve the Secretary of State of liability for breach of statutory duty".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
The Commons disagreed to the amendment in Clause 1 because time should be allowed, as proposed by the amendments made by the Commons, for the re-organisation of local government: and the Commons disagreed to the other amendments because they are inconsistent witth the amendments made by the Commons to Clause 1.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from "1969" to end of line 2 on page 3 and insert—
"(1A) Subject to subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State, on or before 31st March 1970, shall, in respect of each report of a Boundary Commission submitted under section 2 (1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969, lay before Parliament the draft Order in Council required by section 2 (5) of that Act.
(1B) On compliance with subsection (1A) above in relation to any report of a Boundary Commission the Secretary of State shall be relieved of any penalties imposed on him in respect of his breach, in respect of that report, of the duty imposed by section 2 (5) of that Act to lay a draft Order in Council before Parliament at the same time as he laid the report, and to do so as soon as may be after the report was submitted to him.
(1C) Where subsection (1B) above has effect in relation to a report, any proceedings pending against the Secretary of State in the Supreme Court of Judicature, the Court of Session, the High Court in Northern Ireland or the House of Lords shall, so far as they relate to breaches of duty by the Secretary of State in respect of that report, be treated as stayed.
(1D) Nothing in this section shall affect any order for costs made against the Secretary of State at any previous time, or the power to make any order for costs at any future time.'"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu:—
Page, 1 line 9, leave out from "1969" to end of line 2 on page 3 and insert—
"; but, unless effect is given under and in accordance with the following provisions of this Act to the report so submitted by a Boundary Commission—

(a) subsections (2) to (6) below shall apply for the acceleration of their next general report under section 2 (1) of that Act; and

(b) subject to the provisions of this Act relating to Greater London, no report shall be submitted by them under section 2 (3) of that Act before the submission of their next general report.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in section 2 (1) of the 1958 Act, a Boundary Commission shall proceed forthwith to take into consideration the making of their next general report if Her Majesty by Order in Council so directs, and the report shall be submitted to the Secretary of State within four years after the coming into force of the Order or within such reduced period as effect is so given to it, the provision made by this Act for the acceleration of their next general report and for precluding the submission by them of reports under section 2 (3) of that Act shall not apply.
(8) The Secretary of State may at any time before the end of March 1970 lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report so submitted by the Boundary Commission for Scotland or for Northern Ireland, if it appears to him reasonable so to do notwithstanding any proposals for local government reorganisation in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
(9) Subject to the provisions of this Act relating to Greater London, the Secretary of State shall before the end of March 1972 lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report so submitted by the Boundary Commission for any part of the United Kingdom (other than a report to which effect has been given by virtue of the last foregoing subsection), if it appears to him that, by reason of the continuing prospect of local government reorganisation, it is not practicable to accelerate in accordance with this Act the next general report of that Commission.
(10) Section 3 (2) to (6) of the Redistribution of Seats Act shall apply as if a draft Order in Council laid before Parliament under either of the two foregoing subsections were laid under section 2 (5) of that Act".
The Commons proposed the following consequential Amendments to the Bill:
To divide Clause 1 into two Clauses, the first to consist of subsections (1) to (6) inclusive, and the second to consist of subsections (7) to (10) inclusive.
Clause 4, page 4, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) Any reference in this Act to local government reorganisation shall be construed as
1546
a reference to the introduction for any part of the United Kingdom of new arrangements for local government."

LORDS AMENDMENT
Leave out Clause 2.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill:
Page 3, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) Section 2 of this Act, in so jar as it provides for giving effect to the report made by the Boundary Commission for England, shall not apply to so much of that report as relates to Greater London, and references in this Act to giving effect to that report under that section shall be construed accordingly; but in subsection (4) above the reference to an Order in Council made under section 3 of the Redistribution of Seats Act includes, in relation to areas outside Greater London, on order made by virtue of section 2 of this Act."

LORDS AMENDMENT
Leave out Clause 3.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert—
"(3) This section shall not effect the operation of section 2 of this Act in relation to the constituencies named in Schedule 2, and any Order in Council made in relation to any of them by virtue of section 2 shall supersede any Order so made by virtue of this section."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments and doth not insist on the Lords Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.
I move this Motion with a deep personal sense of sadness. My noble friend Lord Stonham, who bore the full brunt in your Lordships' House on this controversial measure, has now left the Government, with universal praise for his hard work, for his skill in high office, which he has held since 1964, and for his transparent integrity. I find it hard to believe that the compliments which have been paid him were not genuine, yet he and his colleagues in the Home Office have of late been criticised in another place and in the Press for having lowered the standards of public life. We, who know my noble friend and my right honourable friends in another place, know that this is a transparent he. I hope, with confidence, that the aspersions which were cast in another place will not be repeated to-day.

1547
In the two major debates on this Bill which we had before the Summer Recess, the different attitudes to the problem which the Bill seeks to solve were put forward with much force and with great sincerity. I have no doubt that our debate to-day will be of the same high quality, but I hope very much that on this occasion your Lordships will not insist on the Amendments made during the Committee stage in this House. The Commons have agreed to our first Amendment. They have disagreed to certain other Amendments and have made Amendments to one other of our Amendments.
In view of the time which has elapsed since we last debated this Bill, I propose first of all to go over the ground which led the Government to introduce the measure which was passed in another place. In accordance with the statutory timetable in Section 2 (1) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1958, the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland submitted their second periodical general review reports in the spring of this year. Each of those reports provided for a radical alteration of constituency boundaries in accordance with the redistribution rules—that is, based on existing local government boundaries.
At about the same time, the Royal Commission on Local Government in England published their Report. The Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland was then awaited. It has since been published, on September 25. In Wales, the Government had published a White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation and were in consultation with the interested organisations, and in Northern Ireland, the Government there published, on July 2, a White Paper on The Reshaping of Local Government. All these recommendations, both Parliamentary and local government, were major in character. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. It was the duty of the Government to consider the implications of the proposals for local government on the recommendations for constituency boundaries. To have disregarded the local government proposals would have been
1548
a gross neglect of the responsibility of government.
During the debates on the Bill, the Government have indicated the extent of the divergences between the recommended constituencies for England and Wales and the local government proposals for those countries. I invite your Lordships to keep this very much in mind to-day. I hope that the House will examine carefully the scales upon which the decision should rest and that to-day we can do so free from the artificial, emotive atmosphere that surrounded us in July.
In England, the Boundary Commission recommend 271 major constituency changes. Of the recommended constituencies, 94 will be divided between two or more main local authority units proposed by the Redcliffe-Maud Commission and many more recommended constituences would need consequential adjustments to accommodate the 94 constituencies entirely within the area of a proposed main authority. In Wales, major changes were proposed in seven constituencies and minor changes of boundaries in another four constituencies. If these changes were to be implemented the total effect would be that 19 constituencies in Wales would contain a part of more than one proposed new county district.
The Report of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland recommended major changes in 37 constituencies and minor alterations in a further 9 constituencies. In Northern Ireland the Commission recommended major alteration of 7 constituencies. In all, therefore, the Commissions recommended changes in no fewer than 410 out of the 630 existing constituencies in the United Kingdom. That then was the exent of the recommendations for constituency changes, based—and, as I have said, quite properly based—on existing local government boundaries. Nevertheless, the constituency boundary changes were recommended at a time when the prospect of radical reorganisation of local government was upon us.
It has been said that in considering these circumstances the Government have assessed the situation on what, at the present stage, are no more than recommendations for local government reorganisation. What the Government have

1549
accepted is the principle that a major rationalisation of local government is called for but the details of the proposed local government boundaries are matters for consultation. There is, however no doubt that alteration of local government boundaries to the extent envisaged in the various proposals would certainly mean that another major review of constituency boundaries would be needed in a few years time, as soon as new local government boundaries have been settled. The view of the Government is that two major upheavals of the constituency map should be avoided.
On this let me give an example of the upheaval which would be caused if the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions were to be implemented now. Take the parishes of Bramshill, Eversley, Hartley Wintney, Winchfield, Dogmersfield, Odiham, Long Sutton and South Warnborough, in the rural district of Hartley Wintney. These parishes are at present in the Aldershot constituency, along with the rest of Hartley Wintney rural district, Aldershot, Fleet and Farnborough. If the Boundary Commission's recommendations were to be implemented these parishes would be transferred to the Basingstoke constituency. Local government reorganisation would subsequently come along and the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations would include the parishes in the West Surrey unitary area No. 53. The Boundary Commission would then come along and would probably recommend that the parishes be included in a constituency with other areas of unitary area No. 53; that is, that they should be transferred back again into a constituency along with some of the areas of the constituency—Aldershot—of which it at present forms part.
I am confident that no one would quarrel with my argument that unnecessary alteration of constituency boundaries should be avoided. It is not only the convenience of Members of Parliament and candidates that is involved. There is also the effect on local political Parties, who in my view are the grass roots of democracy in this country, and, as has so often been said by noble Lords opposite in the past, the importance of ensuring that our people and local interests having a stable and recognised local entity. We need to balance that need with the result of the Government's proposals.
1550
It has also been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that it is unfair to have constituencies with such a wide range and number of electors, bodies affecting the value of the vote. He said that 90, 000 to 20, 000 was about five to one, and that this was intolerable. However, the noble Lord and his; Party appear to be prepared to tolerate four to one, because the Boundary Commission propose ratios of that sort. In the English Boundary Commission the range is from 83, 000 to about 30, 000, and we know that in Scotland the constituencies drop to 20, 000. The question is: do we have a mammoth upheaval twice over a short period of time by changing the ratio of five to one to four to one immediately? Reorganisation is bound to mean disturbance, but I am quite clear that we ought to minimise the amount of chopping and changing so far as possible. That is what the Government's proposals are all about.
My Lords, before I come to the solutions which the Government consider appropriate in these circumstances, I should like to deal with the point that has been expressed in some quarters that the Government ought to have taken steps to suspend the activities of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions when the Royal Commissions on Local Government were set up. I do not want to dwell on this matter too much, but the Home Secretary has made it quite clear that in 1966 the Government approached the Opposition through the usual channels, on the question of suspending the work of the Boundary Commissions, and the Opposition would not agree. This is why the problem is still with us. But I personally have no doubt, on reflection and with hindsight, that we should have legislated then. However, I would pose this question: had the Government taken action in 1966, immediately after the overwhelming Election victory, should we have heard, as we have heard repeatedly, the charge of cheating? I doubt it very much. Then why now?—except in terms of Party political gamesmanship.
The Government's solutions were embodied in the Bill in the form in which we received it from another place in July. Briefly, the Bill provided for no action to be taken on the 1969 Reports for England and Wales; for a decision on the implementation of the Reports

1551
for Scotland and Northern Ireland to be deferred until not later than the end of March, 1970; for the Boundary Commission to be reactivated as soon as the new local government boundaries have been settled for the purpose of carrying out another general review of constituencies; for the alteration—in accordance with the recommendations of the Boundary Commission—of constituencies in Greater London where local government boundaries are not likely to be substantially altered in the foreseeable future; for the 1970 Greater London Council elections to be held for single-member electoral areas based on the new Parliamentary constituencies; and for the division of certain abnormally large constituencies so as to remove the unfairness of under-representation in those constituencies until a further general review of constituencies was practicable.
I mentioned the provision in the Bill relating to the 1969 Reports of the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales. During our discussions on Committee stage on July 21 there was some misunderstanding between the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and my noble friend Lord Stonham on his remark that Clause 1 of the Bill as introduced
"suspends action completely and for all time on the recommendations which the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales have recently submitted".
I accept that this would be the legal effect of Clause 1 of the Bill as introduced, but I would again make the point that I do not regard the work of the Commissions for England and Wales as being entirely wasted. In carrying out another general review following local government reorganisation, the Commissions would be able, in preparing their provisional recommendations, to look at their 1969 recommendations and relate the considerations which were involved in making those recommendations to the new local government boundaries. It is also relevant to point out—though I will come to this question later—that the Commons Amendments to your Lordships' Amendments would provide for the implementation of the 1969 Reports for England and Wales if the Commissions are not re-activated by March 31, 1972.
My Lords, having gone through the provisions of the Bill as passed by an-
1552
other place, I am convinced that they represent the best and the most practicable way of dealing with the problem with which we are faced. Your Lordships, however, came to a different conclusion and sent the Bill back to another place in such a form that its effect from the point of view of altering constituency boundaries was little different from the law as it stands at present. Despite the prospect of local government reform on a scale never contemplated before in our lifetime, the Amendments made in your Lordships' House called upon the Secretary of State to lay by March 31, 1970, draft Orders in Council for giving effect to the 1969 Reports of the Boundary Commissions based on existing local government boundaries. These Amendments represented something quite different from the Bill passed by the House of Commons. The principle of the Bill was completely changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, explained in Committee that the object of the Amendments was to enable the Government to reconsider their action and to have time to reflect upon the debates and discussions which have taken place. The whole issue which is at stake on this Bill is one to which the Government gave the most serious consideration before they first brought their conclusions before Parliament. The matter has been debated with great fervour since then, and the decisions of the elected body in another place have on each occasion supported the views of the Government. The Government have considered most carefully what has been said in the debates on the Bill. The text of the Amendments they proposed to the Lords Amendments was available before Parliament adjourned for the Summer Recess.
The Government Amendments go a very long way towards meeting the criticism which had been made that the Bill contained no terminal date by which the Boundary Commissions should be reactivated to carry out another general review. The main effect of the Government Amendments is to fix March 31, 1972, as the date by which either a Boundary Commission has to be re-activated or the 1969 Report of the Commission has to be implemented; and a decision on which course would be appropriate has to be taken in the light of

1553
progress on local government reorganisation. The course chosen would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament, by way of approval of a draft Order in Council, either to re-activate a Commission or to give effect to its 1969 Report. The effect of the decisions on the Bill which have now been made by another place is to restore those provisions of the Bill which the Amendments made by your Lordships' House sought to delete, but the Bill is modified by fixing a terminal date of March 31, 1972, for either re-activating the Commissions or implementing the 1969 Reports.
Having given a general indication of the Government's views on the Amendments made by your Lordships' House and of the Government Amendments to those Amendments, perhaps I might explain briefly the effect of the particular decisions which have now been taken in another place. The Commons have agreed to our first Amendment, which is a matter of drafting. They have disagreed to those of our Amendments which, taken together, would mean that no proceedings on the 1969 Boundary Commission Reports could be taken in the present Session of Parliament, but that draft Orders in Council must be laid by the Secretary of State by March 31, 1970. My Lords, I have fully explained already why the Government cannot accept the proposition that draft Orders must be laid by March 31 next, and the Government's views have been endorsed by the Commons. Their disagreement with your Lordships' Amendment that draft Orders should not be laid this Session is for the reason that it is irrelevant in the general context of the Government's view that draft Orders in Council to implement the 1969 Reports are not appropriate either in the present Session or at any time while there is the prospect of drastic local government reorganisation.
The Amendments which the Commons have made to our Amendment at page 1, line 9, (No. 6 in to-day's list) represent a modification of the Bill as originally passed by them. The effect is to provide a new Clause 1 to the Bill which is then divided into two clauses. All the main provisions of the original Clause 1 are preserved, but modifications have been made so as to fix the latest date—March 31, 1972—by which a Commission must be re-activated if by that date the
1554
1969 Report of a Commission his not been implemented. The new provision would operate in the following way. By March 31, 1972, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament for approval the draft of an Order in Council for the purpose of re-activating a Commission, and he is to do so earlier if it appears to him that it would not by reason of the prospect of local government reorganisation be premature. But if by reason of the continuing prospect of local government reorganisation reactivation of a Commission is not practicable, then the Secretary of State must lay a draft Order for the approval of Parliament to implement the 1969 Report of the Commission except the report of the English Commission in so far as it relates to Greater London. This is the effect of the Government Amendment to insert a new Section 2 (5) at line 31 on page 3).
As I have indicated, if an Order reactivating a Commission is laid, it must be laid before March 31, 1972, and a Commission will be required to submit another general review within four years of the date on which the Order comes into force. The Order can, however, provide for a reduction in the period of four years if the Secretary of State is satisfied, after consulting a Boundary Commission, that they could submit their Report within a shorter period from the coming into force of the Order, and in this event provision is made for a postponement of the coming into force of the Order by a period no greater than the reduction. For example, if a Commission indicated that they could submit their Report within three years of new local government boundaries being settled, a re-activating order made at the beginning of 1972 could take this into account, but its coming into force could not be postponed for more than one year.
I think, from what I have said, that the House will agree that the Government have gone a long way towards meeting points which were made in this House and in another place. In saying that, I have particularly in mind the speech made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, when he said the Bill gave the Government a blank cheque on the period of suspension of constituency alterations. My noble friend Lord Champion made the same point. I also have it in mind that the Opposition in another place moved an Amendment to place a

1555
terminal date of May 1, 1972, for reactivating a Boundary Commission if the 1969 Report had not been implemented. It was said during the debate in another place that the Amendment was looked upon as a test of the good faith of the Government. The Amendment now made by another place demonstrates the Government's sincerity, and the date which has been chosen is one which seems the most appropriate having regard to the likely progress on local government reorganisation. Local government reorganisation is a matter to which the Government are giving urgent consideration. The Home Secretary indicated in Committee in the House of Commons on July 14, that he thought it would be possible for the Boundary Commission for England to publish new provisional recommendations in 1973, and before that they would be working out what their provisional recommendations should be.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington indicated in Committee that the effect of inserting a terminal date for implementing the Boundary Commissions' Reports could bring the alteration of constituencies nearer to the implementation of Redcliffe-Maud than would be the case if constituency boundaries were now altered. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, but the Government—as they were invited to do by your Lordships' House—have considered all that has been said on the debates on this Bill and have reached the conclusion that the pleas for the insertion in the Bill of a terminal date are not unreasonable. Their hope is, however, that the Boundary Commissions would be able to be re-activated by March 31, 1972, to carry out a further general review. The Amendment to divide Clause 1 of the Bill into two clauses is for drafting purposes, and the proposed additional subsection (3) to Clause 4 is consequential on it.
The Commons disagree with your Lordships Amendment to leave out Clause 2 of the Bill dealing with constituencies in London. I think it is accepted on all sides that since there is no prospect of substantial alteration of local government boundaries in Greater London in the foreseeable future, the recommendations of the Boundary Commission should be implemented there.
1556
The difference between the two Houses up to the present time has been that your Lordships consider that the recommendations for Greater London should be implemented along with all the other recommendations for England whereas the Commons have decided that Greater London should be implemented on its own. My Lords, I would earnestly hope that you will take a different view today. To insist upon your Amendment to the Bill as originally introduced will prolong the uncertainty about the basis on which elections to the Greater London Council are to be held next April. As we all appreciate, those are important elections and, as I understand it, there is no difference between us about the desirability of conducting these elections on the basis of single-member electoral areas. The prospect of that happening in 1970 if your Lordships insist on your own Amendments will become more doubtful.
The additional subsection (5) to Clause 2 is consequential on the provision which provides for the 1969 Report to be implemented by March 31, 1972, if the Boundary Commission for England has not been re-activated by then. The new subsection takes account of the fact that Orders in Council made in 1972 implementing the 1969 Report would not need to implement the recommendations of that Report for Greater London because they would have been implemented already by the Bill; but power is taken for the draft Orders in Council to alter the constituencies on the border of Greater London as determined by the Bill—for example, Epping, Chigwell, Sevenoaks and South East Hertfordshire—so as to deal with them in accordance with the 1969 recommendations.
The Commons disagree to the Amendment made by this House to delete Clause 3 of the Bill which makes provision for the division of abnormally large constituencies. Your Lordships deleted this clause because it was unnecessary in the light of the Amendments you made to Clause 1 of the Bill. On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Stonham explained very fully the reason for the inclusion of Clause 3. The Government are anxious to go some way towards removing the unfairness of under-representation in the very large constituencies which would remain outside Greater London,

1557
but it was necessary to keep the number of those constituencies to a minimum so as to avoid, so far as possible, causing a double upheaval within a few years. I invite your Lordships to agree that the clause should be restored to the Bill.
I also invite you to agree to the consequential Amendment to add a new subsection (3) to Clause 3 of the Bill. Its purpose is to enable an Order in Council dividing the abnormally large constituencies to be superseded by an Order in Council which might be made at a later date giving effect to the 1969 Report of the Commission for England under subsection (9) of the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment. The Commons Amendments to restore Schedule 1 (which is complementary to Clause 2) and Schedule 2 (which is complementary to Clause 3) are consequential.
My Lords, I apologise for the length of my speech on this occasion but I considered it necessary to go over the whole of the ground again, not only to show that the Government have devoted much time to considering what the right solution should be in the light of the circumstances in which the Boundary Commissions have made their Reports, but also because of the importance of the decision which we must reach in this House to-day. The action of the Government has been compared with the action taken in 1954 when the Commissions submitted their first periodical Reports. My Lords, there can be no disagreement that the sort of circumstances which prevail on the present occasion were never considered in 1954. The Government have done their duty in considering what should be the right solution to bring before Parliament on this occasion.
Earlier in my speech I sought to weigh up the balances, the advantages and disadvantages, of the Government proposals. The Government take a contrary view to that of noble Lords opposite, who seek to change in some way the value of votes from live to one to four to one immediately, yet are prepared to see major changes, very major changes, in some 322 constituencies, and minor changes in some 88—a total of 410—and are then prepared, to get this slight difference between five to one to four to one, to be confronted with yet another major political upheaval in a few years' time.
1558
I do not believe that this is right when one considers the basic fabric of democracy in this country. The basic fabric, in my view, is the activities not of the national Parties but of the local political Parties. The Government and the elected Chamber do not agree with the Opposition. The Government, who have the responsibility, will not be frustrated by this House. We have, as we have always done, given deep consideration to the views of your Lordships' House. We have recognised some of the major fears and have sought to meet them in substantial part. But, my Lords, the Government have a responsibility and have the support of the elected Chamber; and in the end it is for the elected Chamber to decide.
It is for this reason that the Home Secretary explained what would be the position if this House rejected the Commons decision. The Home Secretary will, either at the end of this Session or at the beginning of the next, lay before Parliament Draft Orders relating to the recommendations of the 1969 Reports in the manner provided by Section 2 (5) of the 1949 Act. The Home Secretary has told the Commons, however, that this would not mean that the Government were withdrawing their position in relation to these Reports established by that House, and that he will not be able to advise the House of Commons to approve the Orders. So if the Commons were to accept the Home Secretary's advice the position would then be that no changes could be made in constituencies as a whole, because the Orders had not been given effect, and no changes could be made, even in London and in large constituencies, because your Lordships' House would have rejected the Bill which would have made changes possible. Therefore, the next Election would be fought on the constituencies that now exist, which in my view would be a matter of very great regret.
My Lords, I ask the House to weigh up the circumstances of this Bill; to accept the view which the Government hold, that we should not change boundaries unnecessarily. This Bill gives us an opportunity of dealing with a difficult situation properly, calmly and practically; and for that reason I very much hope that your Lordships' House will not insist upon its Amendments.

1559
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments and doth not insist on the Lords Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Shepherd.)
3.56 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, no, this will not do. Your Lordships made it perfectly clear by an overwhelming majority on July 21 last that the all-Party agreement dating from 1944 must not be set aside unilaterally by one Party. It is not a question of whether Odiham and Hartley Wintney will mind being moved out of the Basingstoke constituency if by 1972 they have, probably against their will, been shifted by Parliament from Hampshire into Surrey. It is a question of whether the British people will approve of rules being broken by one side after they have been agreed by all sides. In this matter it appears that your Lordships' House has to fight the battle for the British people.
The possibility of legislation by 1972 on the Maud Report—the possibility that there might need to be two revisions of Parliamentary boundaries within five or six years—these weigh as nothing against the overriding importance of keeping the electoral system at General Elections fair. Justice must prevail over convenience. The Lords Amendments to this Bill will secure that object. The actions of the Government majority in another place on these Amendments would frustrate it.
Parliamentary constituencies must be revised regularly to take account of population changes. Hitherto that has been unanimously agreed by all Parties. Otherwise, General Elections will become unfair, because the size of constituencies in relation to one another will be unfair and unjust. The present constituencies were fixed 15 years ago on the basis of recommendations of the impartial Boundary Commissions, which had before them the population figures of 1953, 16 years ago. These Commissions presented fresh Reports this year, in 1969, according to their duty; and these Reports prove, whatever the noble Lord may say, that the present arrangement of constituencies has become grossly unfair.
The law says this—and I quote from the 1949 Act:
"As soon as may be after a Boundary Commission have submitted a report to the Secretary of State under this Act, he shall lay the
1560
report before Parliament together … with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report."
The Home Secretary has not yet complied with that requirement of the law. He admits it. The Lords Amendments were designed to give him time for fresh consideration. They extended the time until March 31, 1970, for him to comply with the law. This we now learn is unacceptable to the Labour majority in another place.
This Commons Message, if we were to accept it, would render the 1969 Reports of the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales, at any rate, null and void so far as the next General Election is concerned. I am not prepared to connive at that. It would postpone the restoration of fairness to the constituency system until some time between 1972 and 1976. That is not what the people of this country want: they want the next General Election to be on a fair basis—and may the best side win! Your Lordships, each of you, will wish to consider most carefully the position for himself. But for the reasons I have just given we seem to me to have a duty towards the British people to insist on our Amendments.
4.1 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, because I must say that the actions of the Government on the Boundary Commission get curiouser and curiouser. They start out by selecting those parts of the Boundary Commission's proposals which definitely appear to us on balance to be more advantageous to them, and to disregard the ones which obviously would give an advantage to the Opposition. This is how it appears to us and to many other people. When we say that this looks like gerrymandering and it is voted down by the House of Lords, they come up with a proposal which they call a "compromise". The compromise is that they set a date for the re-activation of the Boundary Commission, which in effect is a device for making sure that the Boundary Commission's 1969 proposals are not put into effect for the coming General Election.
This is not a Party matter; it is a matter of political principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor,

1561
said, this is a matter of fair dealing between the Parties. I have no desire to see more Conservatives in any Administration—far from it—but there is a principle at stake here and it seems to me that it is one that this House must uphold.
It occurred to me as the weeks went by that the overriding motivation of the Government is the desire to avoid changing any boundaries before the coming General Election, and it seems to me that it is not only their unwillingness to implement the full proposals, but under the compromise solution it does not look as if there is to be any change whatsoever. This seems to me to be very much in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said in different ways. They are both patently honest people, who gave the game away. On the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said:
"The simple fact is that if the Conservative Party had introduced this Bill—and they might just as well have done so because they have never been behind hand in pursuing their own interests … ".—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 548.]
I think that was true. It was an honest statement, and I think it was confirmed by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who went into more detail when he said:
"The real difficulty is that, out of a number of plausible, or defensible, possibilities, the Government of the day, whatever their complexion … left to themselves"—
and we are not leaving them to themselves—
"tend to choose the one that suits their own interests".
He then went on to say:
"This Government are doing much the same sort of thing as the Tories have always done and believe to be absolutely right, which throws them open to a lot of criticism. That is my view."
He went on:
"I am sorry, as a citizen and as a member of the Labour Party, because we claim to stand for higher standards, and it is depressing if we have persuaded ourselves that it is all right because the Tories have always done the same."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 505.]
That is what the real argument on political principle is about, and those are statements by two people of the highest possible integrity. I do not like this attitude to electoral problems, and I think the House of Lords, if it is to do its
1562
duty, must reject these various devices by the Government. This is a matter of principle on which a House of Lords, reformed or unreformed, would still be invited by my side of the House to take the same position.
On the merits of the case, I simply do not understand how the Government can be so absolutely certain, in the light of the experienced views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and others, that the Maud proposals for local government can be enacted by 1972. When we had the example of Aldershot, I could only think that the whole of the Maud boundaries must by now have been accepted by the Government. I thought the idea was that we were going to have consultation; that we were going to have a chance of expressing our views on this matter. But no, we are not. Apparently the Government are accepting the Maud proposals without any amendment at all. If that is so, they might just be able to squeeze something in by 1972, but I do not believe that is democratic and I do not believe that any Government would be allowed to get away with it. But even if they got the whole of the local government boundary situation agreed by 1972, it is bound to take about three years at least for the Boundary Commission, reactivated, rested, alert, to get on with the job and complete it, and ii the Government have to lay—as is the alternative in their proposal—the 1969 Orders in 1971-72 because they cannot see the future of the local government boundaries clear by March 31, 1972, there will be an even shorter period between those two great upheavals than there would if we accepted the full arrangement to-day It is much more likely, especially if there is another Government, that this reorganisation will not be in final form until at the very earliest 1974, 1975 or even 1976.
One must remember that the Boundary Commission really cannot start work again until the local government boundaries have been agreed and the local government plan properly drawn up. This could well mean that the next full-scale reorganisation of Parliamentary constituencies would be delayed until 1977 or 1978—that is 22 or 23 years since the last redistribution in 1955. That is a terrible length of time to contemplate for any Parliament.
It seems to me the Government have only one thing in mind. It is to use all

1563
the means they have to secure Party advantages for this coming General Election, and it is our duty to say "enough is enough". In my view, the Government have made the situation worse by the announcement that they will in fact carry out their plan by this ludicrous method of the Home Secretary coming down, laying the Orders, and then saying, "I hope you will not have the temerity to pass these". Apart from anything else, it is a terrible waste of paper and a terrible waste of time. I really think that that is an affront to the dignity of Parliament itself.
I feel that the Government should, at this late stage, think again and introduce the Boundary Commission's proposals in full. I should be very surprised indeed if the next major redistribution is earlier than 1976 or 1977, when the new local government boundaries are properly established. If the Government are not prepared to do this I can only tell them that they remind me of an experience I had in 1937, just before the war. In those days I was running in international athletics matches. I was competing in the 400 metres hurdles in Brussels against five other countries. There was a good deal of international tension in the air and very little one could do if anything went wrong. As we came up to the starter to draw lots for the different lanes, the Italian competitor marched forward, opened the bag, took out all the discs, selected No. 1, which was the inside lane and put the rest back, leaving us to take our choice of the other lanes. I feel very much in the same position to-day with the Government. I should perhaps tell the Government that the Italian fell flat on his face at the eighth hurdle!
4.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT BOYD OF MERTON: My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes. My brevity is due in part to the fact that I should not wish to weary your Lordships by going over again the many arguments with which you are already familiar, and partly to a personal reason to which I shall refer at the close of my slender observations. However, having been unable to take part in the earlier debate on this matter I am anxious to register my own personal and emphatic protest
1564
at what seems to be one of the most distasteful uses of political power which I have seen in nearly forty years during which I have sat in one or other of the Houses of Parliament.
The original Government proposals seemed to be a clear contempt of the Constitution. These new ones, which at the best mean that we may have more up-to-date constituency boundaries by 1976 at the latest, rather than by 1983 at the latest, in no way purge that contempt. Indeed I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in his racy and moving speech that the position is, if anything, more disgraceful now than it was before, for we have now had spelt out to us in some detail the unworthy intention of the Government, which is that if this House to-day carries out its constitutional duty the Home Secretary will lay a number of Orders and then command his flock in another place that these Orders shall be defeated. Members of both Houses are rightly indignant at some of the goings-on in certain Parliaments in Africa, where, hypocritically in the name of democracy, Governments have brought democracy into disrepute. Having personally, with a long association, followed these developments with what has become, I fear, a slightly resigned interest, I do not remember a case where even those ingenious people have dreamed up this particular form of outrageous abuse of power.
I am sure that many Government supporters in both Houses must be most unhappy at the dishonourable course into which they have been manœuvred by their leaders. To refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, I am sure that these people would infinitely have preferred to have what he called—and I think he exaggerated greatly—two massive upheavals rather than have to swallow the humiliations which they must find dishonourable and very distasteful. They have been moved into this position by a Government who are constantly reminding us of the need to preserve the highest standards in this the oldest of the great Parliaments of the world, the need, to use the modern jargon, never to damage the public image of Parliament or to add to the public's growing disillusion with it. I would not envy any Minister of the present Government who may be called upon to preside over a

1565
constitutional conference of one of the remaining dependent overseas territories and to urge them, as I have done and they have done, to set up boundary commissions whose reports should be adopted without modification or delay.
Finally, the Amendments which we are considering seem to me to be based on an utter illusion about the likely rate of progress of local government reform. Few, if any, of us can have met people actively engaged in local administration who accept the Government's whimsical speculation about this, devised by people who are living in a dream world—unless, of course, as was hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, they have in their own mind already completed their consultation with the local authorities and now intend crudely to curtail further consultation and then to come out with an inevitably ill-thought-out Bill. I hope no Parliament will accept a hastily devised new structure of local government, involving, as one distinguished Liberal member said in another place two days ago, enormous proposals which, if hastily prepared and forced swiftly through, face the certainty of active opposition by thousands of people who will have to work them, including the representatives of many local authorities.
May I end on a personal note?—and for this I must crave the indulgence of the House. I said I had a second reason for being very brief and it is this. I must apologise to the House if after sitting down, or soon after, I leave it. Many months ago I promised to preside this afternoon in the Haberdashers' Hall—and I hope the advertising will be forgiven—at the launching of the 21st birthday appeal of the University of the West Indies. There I must go, and may I express the hope that some members of the House on all sides who are friends of the University and of the West Indies will, after the Commons Amendments have been thoroughly defeated, come and support me there.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, since he will not be here, will not object to replies being given in the same sort of language that he has used.
VISCOUNT BOYD OF MERTON: My Lords, not in the least, and if it is pos-
1566
sible to get back from the launching I will come back and hear them with interest, but with dubiety.
4.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, said that there were many Labour members perhaps, in this House and in the other place, who had been persuaded to a dishonourable course into which they had been manœuvred. I was the Minister who introduced the Bill into this House, and I can assure your Lordships that I myself was not manoeuvred. I do not think we are pursuing a dishonourable course, and to those of your Lordships who really want to discuss and consider the issues I propose to say why. First, however, I want to make the point that I am speaking now entirely freely, and your Lordships will find in the months ahead that I shall continue to speak freely and vote exactly as I please. What I am saying now, which I have not prepared at all except as I have been sitting here, I firmly believe to be the case.
May I also say to the noble Viscount, who said that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place would "command his flock", that this is the largest flock I have seen on the Opposition Benches since last we discussed this issue. I will forbear from suggesting that any noble Lord here is at command—I am sure it is quite untrue. Every noble Lord who votes against the Government on the issue will vote according to his conviction or conscience, as I am quite sure Members will do in another place. But it does seem to me that we have an unusually large number of noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, and I can only remember similar numbers when we discussed Rhodesia and when we last discussed this subject. So do not let us worry too much about commanding.
When I moved the Second Reading of this Bill allegations had been made by certain Members in another place. For example, Mr. Heath said that the Government were Party political tricksters and that the Bill was a squalid Parliamentary manœuvre. I dealt with those charges and said that if I felt there was any dishonesty in this Bill I would not move the Second Reading; and that is my position now. I would also say to your Lordships that I was very glad that

1567
in that debate after I had spoken those charges were not made. They were not made in your Lordships' House. I very much regret that, as it were, they have been revived. I noticed, for example, in another place—and I am quoting from The Times in case anyone should think I am out of order—that Mr. Quintin Hogg said that Mr. Callaghan, having decided originally
"to cheat at the next election and then to take out a blank cheque on cheating thereafter, … had come forward with a compromise which would allow him to cheat at the next election but not to take out a blank cheque".
I stand here, and your Lordships can think of me what you like, but I am not a cheat and my noble friends are not cheats. So I hope that that unworthy suggestion will not be made or even applied again on this Bill in this House. They can say what they like in another place, and they can say what they like outside, but we must have regard to the reputation of your Lordships' House and those who have the privilege of sitting here. I say even to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I noticed some remarks of his, some rather fruity remarks, I thought, at the Conservative Party Conference. I thought then, "Well, that is a different atmosphere; he is not using the rapier of his wit that he applies in this House, but using a bludgeon". I am not suggesting that the extraordinary large numbers here to-day are going to be used as a blunt instrument, but I want this issue to be settled on its merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that the Lords Amendments—that is, the Opposition Amendments—would secure that the elections would be fair. I submit to you, my Lords, that the Opposition Amendments in practice were designed to wreck the Bill. I am not going back over the old arguments we discussed on Second Reading and in Committee, going back to 1954 and so on, because they do not matter. We have to consider this one issue; namely, whether or not the Government are right in thinking that it would be a national disservice to the people as a whole to apply the Boundary Commission's recommendations now rather than wait until the Redcliffe-Maud Report has been considered. That is the only issue. There is no other issue. It is not a question of calculations of six seats here or 15 seats
1568
there. It is, which is the right process. I said that your Lordships' Amendments were wrecking Amendments, and I would add that our role here in this House is to build and not to destroy. We here are, or should be, engaged on construction and not destruction; and no amount of sophistry, no amount of clever speeches, harking back and quoting figures can alter the fact of what your Lordships' Amendments were designed to do; namely, to wreck the Bill. I said yesterday in another context that a Government must govern, and no one in your Lordships' House could believe that, having taken their decision in principle, the Government would go back on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, said that the position now was even more complicated or foolish than it was before. I am not surprised that the noble Lord should have said that, because in our previous discussions he and other noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, and a number of Peers on the Cross-Benches, notably Lord Helsby, made a most important point about a terminal date. Now the Government have produced that terminal date, March, 1972; a date by which the Boundary Commission can be reactivated; if not, the 1969 Boundary Commission recommendations have to be put into operation.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, what does the noble Lord say to the point I made that if they do that in 1971-72 we are going to get a shorter gap between two upheavals?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am aware of that point. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition, made that point last time. I felt then that it was most obscure. It was put in the speech again and the obscurity continued, so I asked for an explanation of what precisely it meant—not the noble Lord's speech, but the speech that I would have made but did not. But I do not think there is much in that particular point. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, is here, but certainly he made with great clarity the point that the weakness of the Government's position—and I thought it was a valid point—was that there was no guarantee of a date when, the Redcliffe-Maud proposals having been considered (I gave estimates of the time), the Boundary Commission

1569
could be re-activated. I think that that difficulty has been overcome by the Amendments which we are now considering.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the noble Lord has overcome the problem of the terminal date, but he has not explained the mathematics. If in fact this has to be put off until 1975 and therefore one has to go in for laying the Orders for the 1969 proposals in 1971, then the period between 1971 and 1975 will be shorter than that between 1969 and 1975.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, what I am saying—and I am still referring to the previous debate—is that we now have a terminal date, for which I was asked and about which a great deal was made in our previous discussion. The noble Lord has continued from that and has made his own assumptions about 1976 which I am not in a position to contradict. I think they are an overestimate, because a great deal of work has been done already.
The position, however, is this: we are asked to say that the Government are wrong not to have this operation twice. My noble friend Lord Shepherd has given just one example of acute difficulties which would occur in a constituency and which, in greater or less degree, will be multiplied 400 times over. That is why I say that if noble Lords persist in their Amendments they are voting for chaos; and I should like to see that point answered. I am suggesting that if the Government's proposals are accepted, while not implementing all the Boundary Commission's proposals they do or would implement some valuable ones, such as those relating to the Greater London Council; all the 100, 000 or 100, 000-plus constituencies would be divided, and large adjoining constituencies would also be rationally redistributed. That, indeed, would be a great gain, and I think it would be wrong to lose that gain, as noble Lords will lose it if they persist.
If your Lordships refuse the request of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, we shall then be in the position, the Government having to pursue their policy, that we shall not in practice get any of the Boundary Commission's recommendations activated or on the Statute Book. That means that we shall fight the next
1570
Election on the present constituency boundaries with the present over-large constituencies, none of them altered. Is that what your Lordships want? Because that is what you will achieve by the course of action which it now appears likely that your Lordships will follow. But if the Opposition do not persist in this course, then we shall at least get some quite substantial advantage, particularly in Greater London.
My Lords, it seemed to me that there were just the two points: first, the allegation of dishonesty, which does not stand up and I think should be rejected; and secondly, that if you vote against the Government on this issue your vote will be a vote for electoral chaos; and, on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made, I do not think that the people will support the Opposition in that. I believe that the people outside will consider what is common sense. That is what the Government propose, and not merely something that was said at the Conservative Party Conference and which now has to be stood up to.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, before the noble Lords sits down I wonder whether he can clarify one point for me? I have listened with interest to his argument that two major upheavals would be disastrous to this country. I understand that argument. On one side you have the Boundary Commission Report and on the other side you have the possible changes in local government, if they come into force. How have the Government worked out the priority that the local government changes should come ahead of the Boundary Commission? I can see that to have both is wrong. But why have the Government come to this decision that the Boundary Commission proposals should not come into operation first?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, noble Lords will probably feel that that question answers itself. If we activate the Boundary Commission proposals now we shall have a set of changes which will involve some 400 constituencies. If, fairly shortly after that, we then have the Redcliffe-Maud proposals considered by Parliament, agreed to and acted upon, there will be 400 more changes, affecting in most cases the same constituencies in

1571
very short order; and we had the Boundary Commission Report before we had the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: But surely the alteration—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
4.30 p.m.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, in nearly forty years in another place and in this House, I do not think—and I speak in all sincerity—that I have ever felt so sad, and even so bewildered, at any action by any Government as at the action this Government have taken over this electoral affair. Only yesterday in this House all speakers from all parts of the House were calling for social justice and true democracy in Ulster. I could not help feeling at the time that we were at risk of the charge of self-righteousness in view of the situation over these electoral boundaries where the action of the Government, whatever else it is, is by no means true democracy.
The Government, after all the debates in this House last summer, when there was almost complete unanimity among those who are not diehard supporters of the Labour Party in condemnation of the steps they wished to take, seemed to continue on almost the same course. They had opportunities honourably to withdraw their proposals and to take the action that the law lays down that they should. But no, they still maintained their position, and some 410 constituencies which, in the view of the independent Boundary Commission urgently required alteration, are left. This should be done now. They refuse to do this before the next General Election, and then they call this democracy.
I do not propose to argue the timetable of the Maud local government reports for England, or the schemes for Wales, or the alternative schemes for Scotland; to me that is not the point at all, but rather some red herring designed to divert attention from the enormity of what they are proposing to do. Many of us in this House will remember the sense of relief when the Electoral Act was passed and the Boundary Commission set up by the Labour Government after the war, and we all agreed in Parliament what a good thing is was that constituency boundary ques-
1572
tions should be removed for good from Party politics. All the Back-Benchers were agreed, and in a powerful letter to The Times to-day the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, makes the point that all the Labour Government were agreed on this fact also.
I have been thinking of the great leaders of the '30s and of war time, with many of whom we were privileged to work closely in the Coalition Government: Arthur Henderson; Anthony Greenwood; Clement Attlee; Ernest Bevin and others; men of the highest integrity. Would they have lent their support to the action the Government are at present taking? Mr. Ernest Bevin, with whom I was privileged to work most intimately, constantly reiterated to me the necessity of the strictest adherence to the honouring of contracts and agreements in the industrial world. What would he have thought about his Party's tactics now?
I have spent the whole of my life in industry and in politics. In the world of industry, in big firms or small firms, this sort of action would not be tolerated, and they would go to the wall; and it is a sad day for Parliamentary democracy when a great Party, forming the Government of the country, descends to such tricks as these. My Lords, I, for one, bitterly regret it.
4.34 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, as a Cross-Bencher I should like to inject for a few moments one or two completely non-Party points. As the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, said just now, if ever there was a subject that ought to be outside Party politics this is it, and so I do not hesitate to make one or two remarks. The problem in front of us is representation of the people, and as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said in a previous debate in July, it is to the electorate that we are responsible in these debates. So I am thinking about the electorate.
On the question of delay, I was very impressed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said in July, that from a practical point of view—and she has had a very great deal of experience in these matters—she did not expect the aligning of new constituency boundaries to any new local government areas which may be decided upon as a result of the Redcliffe-Maud Report to be implemented until 1976 or 1977. That is a

1573
long way ahead. If, as a result of this recent suggestion, there is no action possible until that date, it will be 22 years, and the constituencies will be even more distorted than they are now 15 years after the last redrawing of boundaries. As the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said—he was quoted in an earlier debate—"The weight of a citizen's vote cannot depend on where he lives". But this is exactly what will happen if we leave it that long, and so I am very much against the delay involved in the present proposals.
On the contrary, I should like to suggest that there is need for speed. We have a General Election in front of us—we do not know the exact date, but I should have thought that the overriding requirement at the present juncture was to get the boundaries redrawn as quickly as possible. If that is not done, the House of Commons will be elected on a false basis, and at a time when they are going to consider for the first time for about a hundred years the rearrangement of local government areas. If it is administratively complicated to do this in two bites, then I am quite sure about my choice in the matter of administrative complexity against fairness, and I think I also know which the great British public will choose. I therefore have no hesitation in voting against the present suggestions.
4.37 p.m.
LORD RITCH1E-CALDER: My Lords, for the first time, I think, since I came to this House I find myself in a great deal of difficulty, in this sense. Over the few years that I have been here, I have found this House extremely objective, extremely fair, and extraordinarily tolerant. To-day, I think we have seen the limit of sanctimonious humbug. It really is the limit of sanctimonious humbug, because here we are throwing words around which I think we should look at pretty hard, because some of them carry very profound implications against people whom I think we pretend to honour. I honour them; others pretend.
Now this is nonsense. If anyone can dare to suggest that the Government, for a Party reason, are trying to manipulate the boundaries in this instance, just think of what in fact is the case. This is a Government and a Home Secretary who are giving the vote to 2½ million young
1574
people who are absolutely and completely unpredictable as political entities. How on earth can you say about any Government prepared to take that risk that for one moment they are going to manipulate wards or boundaries in order to get political advantage?
In any event, this is the point I want to make. There is no psephologist in this country or any other country, and certainly no Party manager, who can possibly estimate what in fact the next Election is going to produce, because, as I say, we have introduced—because we believe it to be right and proper in terms of the representation of the people—into this complex situation 2½ million young people whose votes neither this side nor that side can possibly measure. Where does the manipulation come in here? It is ridiculous to suggest that there is in fact gerrymandering in any circumstances in this case.
I am very sorry to say so, so very rarely do I disagree with the noble Lord. Lord Byers, but it is not true; it cannot be true. We may argue on many other points, but one thing you cannot argue is that the Government are doing this for Party advantage. It is not true, it cannot be true; and as I have never been redistributed myself, I have no sensitivity about the realignment of boundaries. But I do know that you have here a situation which is an actual situation, to be examined in terms of strict reality between now and the next Election, et cetera, and you will find, if you examine it in those terms, that what is now being proposed is in fact the only common sense thing which can possibly be done.
4.40 p.m.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, I think that when this Bill first came before your Lordships' House some of us felt that it carried a taint of constitutional impropriety, in that it asked for a postponement but failed to say how long the postponement was to be. We all knew that it was a matter of principle in this country—unwritten, perhaps, but none the less firm—that when it came to matters of representation of the people Parliament did not give discretion without limit to any Government. It keeps within its own hands the prescribing of the detailed arrangements for representation of the people, including the timing. Some of us, therefore, begged of

1575
the Government, if they wished to pursue the case for a postponement, to say how much postponement they wanted, in order that we might judge on practical grounds whether what they proposed was reasonable. Now they have done that. They have said how much postponement they propose, and I submit that this puts the matter outside the field of constitutional principle and into the realm of practical judgment, and that it is in that light that we should approach the issue.
If that be our line of thought, there are perhaps three factors which we ought to have especially in mind. The first factor is that it is agreed on all hands that too rapid successive changes in constituency boundaries must be harmful to the political fabric of this country. Upheavals of that sort can be damaging if they come too quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that he would contemplate with equanimity successive changes five or six years apart. I think perhaps he was right. But I suggest—and I shall give my reasons for this in a moment—that what we are here confronted with is the question whether successive changes three or four years apart would be tolerable. I feel that that is very gravely doubtful and would cause a great disturbance in constituencies, which would be undesirable.
Secondly, we have to consider the Redcliffe-Maud Report and how quickly we may contemplate action on it, because this governs the timing and must affect the issue which I have raised. Let us bear in mind that the Redcliffe-Maud Report is not the response to some academic question. The Redcliffe-Maud Commission was not set up to look into theories of local government; it was set up to consider deficiencies, difficulties of working, which, to all of us, have been a cause of anxiety for some years. I submit that we cannot afford to allow those deficiencies and difficulties of working to continue very much longer, if we value our local government system. It is already creaking and groaning in many parts of the country. Moreover, the longer the discussion lasts about the remedies that are to be introduced into our local government system, the more the smaller councils, the very councils about which there is now most cause for anxiety, will be deflected from the work
1576
they ought to be doing; the more they will be preoccupied by the struggle for their own survival, and the worse, I suggest, will be the state of local government in this country. I believe, therefore, that the Government are certainly right in believing that we should not allow discussion and consultation on the Redcliffe-Maud Report to go on too long.
What is a reasonable time? How much consultation should there be? We have only one recent precedent before us; namely, what happened in London. The lapse of time between the production of the Report of the Committee headed by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and the introduction of a Bill into Parliament giving effect to proposals based on that Report was, I believe, two years and three months. Much of the administrative work that was done then is relevant to what will have to be done now, and the experience will not be wasted. I think it is fair to say, as one who has some experience of these administrative problems, that it should be possible to do the job a little more quickly now than it was then. Even in the drafting of the Bill, some problems were tackled which will make progress more easy now.
I do not think that two and a half years is at all out of the way, or that it would give inadequate time for democratic processes of consultation. I remember—and reference has been made to the point—that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to a somewhat longer timetable in July, but I have quoted the timetable which she practised in London, and I do not think that was unreasonable. The plain fact is that the timetable of administrative processes of this kind is very largely governed by what one wants to happen.
Lastly, let us consider the timetable in relation to the constituency boundaries and the work of the Boundary Commission. It is true that the longest period provided under the Government's Amendments to this Bill could be five years plus. On the other hand, it is quite clear that, with reasonable expedition in the administrative matter of giving effect to Redcliffe-Maud, the Commission should be activated a good deal earlier than the maximum time provides. I personally think it is reasonable

1577
to rely on the good faith of the Government in that matter, and that, on the balance of practical judgment of what is best in practical terms for this country, the Amendments proposed by the Government are reasonable and should be supported.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask this of the noble Lord, who has unique knowledge in these matters and who is probably about the best administrator we have ever had in the public service? One would quite accept that he could make up his mind in a couple of years on what to do about Redcliffe-Maud. But does he really know—if he has any knowledge of what people are thinking about outside—how long it is going to take to have real consultation with all the local electors throughout the country? If there is to be consultation, and if we are to find out what people want in regard to the enormous reforms which are proposed, then I wonder whether the noble Lord will take it from someone who has also had a pretty long experience of administration and of politics that it will take years and not months.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, I think that what matters here is what the Government of the day wish to happen. I am quite sure that the job can be done in a reasonably short time, given the will to do it. If one is prepared to allow local councils, who are anxious to fight for their own survival, to go on arguing as long as they wish to argue, then it may take a very long time. But I myself would regard that as very sad, from the point of view of government in this country, because our local government is, after all, part of the fabric of our society.
4.50 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, speaking from this Bench, may I first of all try to clear up one point? In another place yesterday a Member spoke of "how the Bishop of Southwark had let the Government down". Although I have never disguised the fact that I am a member of the Labour Party, when I speak from this Bench I speak as a private individual and not as a member of a Party. Never once have the Government brought any pressure to bear on me—invited me to any meeting, written me a letter or done any-
1578
thing whatsoever to get my support. The only occasion on which one might possibly say they tried to influence me was when they very kindly asked me to a party at the beginning of a Session—and that is an invitation which I hope one day will come from the Opposition. I say this as I think it is an important point to make and because I feel, in justice to the Government, that I should make it clear.
Nevertheless, although I speak completely independently, without any sort of Whip, on the last occasion I made it clear that I regretted very much the line that the Government were taking—and I regret that as much to-day as I did then. I regret it for two reasons especially at the present moment. First of all, the Government have put up a very strong case, which has won the approval and, I would have said, the enthusiastic support of all Parties in both Houses, with regard to electoral justice in Northern Ireland. It is conceivable that within a few days when we come to discuss sanctions on Rhodesia the Government will be urging electoral justice there, and I shall be enthusiastic to support them. All the more reason, then, if one wants electoral justice in Ireland and Rhodesia, that we should be careful to demand electoral justice in our own country. It is for that reason that I feel compelled to vote against the Government to day. That is one reason.
The second reason why I regret very much what the Government are doing is that, being a convinced member of the Labour Party (although, as I say, I speak independently to-day) I should like the Government to go to the electorate at the next Election on their own record and on nothing else. I believe—unlike, perhaps, noble Lords opposite—that the Government have a good record of which they can be proud, and I believe they can win the next Election without any sort of gerrymandering. That is why I very much regret what they are seeking to do to-day. Let them stand on their own record, without fear or favour.
I would say this to members of the Government—I know this may hurt Members on this side, and I hasten to add that one of the difficulties of speaking from the Bishops' Bench is that we on this side of the House are always; on the side of the Government, and people

1579
often think we are part of the Government, as though we were just providing the spiritual sanction for the status quo. But I would say this to members of the Government. When they are away from politicians, from Westminster, and from people who are interested in the sort of things in which we are quite rightly interested, I wonder whether they realise what the reactions of people are. Being Bishop of Southwark, a diocese which covers roughly the whole of London South of the Thames, I spend a great deal of my time going to youth groups and other groups of students and answering their questions, and before I came to the House to-day I was looking at one of the questions which I have to answer in Peckham next Sunday. It is a question which has been put to me several times during the past few weeks and is apropros what we are discussing to-day. This is the question:
"How can you belong to a Party which persists in political duplicity?"
Noble Lords may say that that is wrong. You may say that it is untrue, and you may be right or you may be wrong. You may say that my interpretation is wrong. All I can say is that the next Election will prove it. I believe that if the Labour Party were to stand on its own record, without resorting to this sort of duplicity, it would do infinitely better than it will do if it persists in this duplicity. Then I am told, "Look, you are really not being fair to us. In 1972 things will be put right". It reminds me of St. Augustine, who said,
"Lord, make me chaste—but not yet."
I would say to the Government, "Look, come clean! Come and put things right now".
My Lords, I said what I had to say on the last occasion, and I would not seek to elaborate my remarks. I hope that my friends on this side will know that it is not easy for me to disagree with them; and even though I disagree on this point, I hope it will not make for bad blood. Nevertheless, I have to disagree because I believe that on this particular point they are grievously wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had made a "fruity remark". Whether that is true or not I do not know, but fruit is at the bottom of this trouble. Your
1580
Lordships will remember how the serpent told Eve to advise Adam to eat the apple. The apple that the Government seem to me to be seeking is the apple of electoral victory. I say that the Government can very well do that on their own record, without resorting to subterfuges of the sort which are involved in their particular procedure to-day.
My final remark, my Lords, is this. I hope very much that the Government will think again. I believe that at this particular time, especially for the young people—and we are mindful of what has appeared in the Press to-day as regards the universities—with their interests and with their concern to participate in the political life of our country, no matter what our Party may be we must try to show that we are men of integrity. Whatever happens, we must not debase the political currency. I am going to vote against the Government because I believe that what they are asking us to do is to debase the political currency.
4.58 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, in following the right reverend Prelate, I should like to make a very brief comment. He has made exactly the same speech as he made last time, and I am not quite sure whether it was in seeking the dispensation from his own friends and supporters on this side of the House, or a pat on the back for noble Lords opposite, but we know what he has achieved.
I have never been in love with this Bill, not because I thought it was a crafty way of arranging for a greater number of seats for Labour at the next Election, for no one has given any startling figures to prove it. The case is not a clear one. There was a very intelligent and very honest article in the Financial Times at the time when the Bill was first introduced, and in that analysis it showed clearly that there were things on both sides, both for the Government and against the Government. The article in fact pointed out that the Government had a good case in not wanting two upheavals.
I was against this Bill because I knew that it would release an avalanche of accusations of gerrymandering of such self-righteousness as to be utterly nauseating and that the kind of superficial attacks

1581
about cheating were simply not worth it. It was not worth doing this to get, as I say, an avalanche of self-righteousness. I do not think that the Home Secretary had any intention of gerrymandering, for if he had then, by any analysis, it was very poor gerrymandering indeed.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords—
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. He knows that I have been trying to speak. I promise to keep it short. I agree with almost everything that was said by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. I have never in my life heard so much hypocritical bunkum as I have heard to-day from the Benches opposite. Just look at this story! In 1966, the Government saw the kind of trouble that was coming and they did the only sensible thing. They went to the Opposition and they said, "Let us talk this over and try to find a workable arrangement." The Opposition refused. How, after that, people can get up and talk about deceit, hypocrisy, fraud, gerrymandering and the rest of it, passes my comprehension.
This is, after all, a Bill about the redistribution of seats in the Commons. It was passed by the Commons; it came up here and was amended; it was sent back to the Commons and it now appears here again. Your Lordships say that you are the last guardians of democracy and that therefore you are again going to turn down the elected Chamber. That is rubbish; and a lot of noble Lords who say it must know that it is rubbish. I simply say this. I resent hearing people whom I know well and whom I have known for many years being accused of cheating and lying without a tittle of evidence to support these accusations—people who were being praised only the other day; as was the Home Secretary, and properly, for his fair and impartial conduct in Ulster.
Your Lordships can reject this Motion: there is no doubt about that. And from one point of view I feel a little glad of it; for you are only bringing your own immolation a little nearer; and you have chosen very bad ground indeed. You started on the Rhodesia Order and then you took the Order about Redistribution of Seats in the Commons—and you are
1582
expecting to get popular support for that! You will not get it. I tell you this: I believe that the people of this country will resent it as much as I do that the standards of political life should be lowered by the flinging about of the accusations that have been flung about in this matter. If that goes on, then I shall be compelled to do the like and, though respecting your Lordships as I do, I shall have to call you all "Heath's hoodlums".
5.4 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as I think that I am the only other noble Lord from North of the Border to have spoken, may I briefly say a very few words? I emphasise "North of the Border", because my understanding is that the Commission's recommendations are going to make very little difference there to the prospects of either political Party in the next General Election. Certainly this is so so far as the Conservative Party is concerned—which I think is a great pity; but there it is. The second point I want to make is that I have heard a great deal about postponing action on these recommendations because of the Redcliffe-Maud Report. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether this also applies to the Report of the Wheatley Commission on Local Government in Scotland—because I suspect that a lot of water will flow under the bridge before the recommendations in that Report are enacted.
I should like very briefly to support my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in urging the House to reject this Motion to-day and also to associate myself with other noble Lords who expressed their dislike of the Government's conduct in this matter. I have listened very carefully to the arguments which the Government speakers have put up, and I must say that I still do not find them convincing. Although I am not a racing man, it seems to me (and I suspect that on this matter the general British public think the same as I do) that the Boundary Commission, when they produced their recommendations, produced them in the same way as a handicapper does for a race, in that they were aiming to produce a final and fair result. The Government Bill, when it was first introduced, seemed to me to savour of trying to change the weights

1583
of certain horses which the Government particularly wished to win. When that was not possible, owing to the action of your Lordships' House, the Bill was amended—and the Amendments to which we are now asked to agree seem to me to want to do away with the handicapper altogether, or at any rate to postpone any form of new handicapping for a considerable time, for ten years or more. I do not really think that the British public will be taken in by that sort of thing. I urge the Government to think again about this, because it is setting a very dangerous precedent and this worries me. I agree with something that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said: that we are asking Parliament, and we are asking the British Constitution, to do something which is going to do grave harm. Therefore I hope that the Government will in this instance have second thoughts. If they do not, I earnestly hope that the Opposition in this House will wholeheartedly reject the Motion.
5.8 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships would agree that perhaps we might begin to end this debate during which we have had a very full discussion; for it was not so long ago that we had two debates on this Bill in fairly quick succession, culminating in an overwhelming defeat for the Government in the Division Lobbies. Conservatives, Liberals and Cross-Benchers united to demonstrate their disapproval of the Bill. Anyone who was here or who read through the Hansard of that last debate will know that it was not only in the Division Lobbies that the Government were defeated. No friends spoke for them except those who take their Party Whip; no arguments were produced which convinced any of your Lordships who needed convincing that the Bill had any merit whatsoever.
The issues are simple. I will remind your Lordships of them very shortly. The Boundary Commission was set up with the agreement of all Parties to make recommendations about changes necessary in constituency boundaries. The Commission was set up, under the chairmanship in England of a High Court Judge, as an impartial body to take out of Party politics the inevitable controversies which must arise as a result of boundary
1584
changes. The Act of 1949 requires the Home Secretary to implement the Boundary Commission's recommendations, with or without amendment, "as soon as may be". This year the Boundary Commission has reported and has made large numbers of far-reaching changes in constituency boundaries. These take account of population changes which have taken place in the last 15 years and restore the average size of constituencies in this country so as to give each elector roughly a vote which is comparable and the Parties a fairness among each other.
Instead of implementing these proposals, as it is their constitutional and their moral and their statutory duty to do, the Government introduced this Bill which, in its original form, postponed indefinitely any changes in electoral boundaries. To introduce so radical and far-reaching a change in the accustomed conventions of our public life would seem to require reasons of great urgency and gravity; and the Government have advanced as their sole reason for introducing this Bill their belief that the publication of the Maud Commission's proposals on local government reform and their acceptance of these proposals together with the consequent boundary changes which would follow their implementation—those things in conjunction—would mean two changes in boundaries in a very short space of time; and that this was undesirable.
Even if in itself this were a sufficient reason—and I do not believe it to be so—all expert opinion in your Lordships' House, with the exception of the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, is on record as saying that it does not believe that the Maud Commission's proposals, if they were to become effective—and I remind your Lordships that whether not they are implemented does not depend on this Parliament or this Government but upon the next Parliament and the next Government; but even if they were implemented—could possibly come into effect until the middle 1970's: in other words, about six years from now. Your Lordships decided, on hearing the debate, that there was no justification for passing a Bill which postponed for the next Election, and probably for the next Election after that, the very necessary changes to alter the boundaries of the

1585
swollen and the shrunken constituencies. Instead, your Lordships passed a series of Amendments which, in effect, though giving the Home Secretary a period of grace, obliged him at an early moment to do his duty and to put into effect the Boundary Commission's proposals.
As a result of that debate, the Government have had second thoughts. We are now faced with a series of Amendments to our Amendments. They alter radically the provisions of the Bill as it was introduced, and in the process they have removed the faintest shred of justification that there might have been for its introduction. For if these Amendments were passed, the Government could do one of two things. When it became clear to them that the introduction of local government reform was going to take longer than the Home Secretary now supposes, the Government could implement the Boundary Commission's proposals of 1969 sometime before March, 1972. That is to say, the Government could do in two or three years what, if they wished to, they could do now. And it may be noted that in two or three years the Boundary Commission's proposals will be that much less up to date than they are now. Or the Home Secretary, if he does not wish to do that—and he must do one or the other—can re-activate the Boundary Commission for a new review.
My Lords, it has taken the last Boundary Commission four years to work out its proposals; so this means that for the Boundary Commission to be reactivated by the Home Secretary, if it was reactivated, in 1972, it would be very unlikely that its proposals would be ready before the next election but one; and that is taking into account the very optimistic timetable of the Home Secretary and of the noble Lord, Lord Helsby. Both the options open to the Government in these Amendments, in my view, make things much worse than in the original Bill. The first option invalidates the only reason the Government have for introducing the Bill in the first place. I do not think that many in your Lordships' House will find these Amendments either defensible or acceptable.
Now, I have said on many occasions that I do not find it possible to accept the Government's reasons for introducing this Bill. I do not find them convinc-
1586
ing, nor did impartial expert opinion support them. Yet I know that then; are many noble Lords opposite who genuinely thought that the Government had a point; and being loyal members of their Party, they no doubt gave them the benefit of the doubt, if they had any doubt. After what happened in another place the day before yesterday and after the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about what the Government intend to do if your Lordships insist on your Amendments, I must confess that I do not envy noble Lords opposite the decision that they have to take this evening, for they are honourable men. I wonder whether those of them who decide to support the Government, when they reflect this evening or tomorrow morning on what has happened daring this afternoon, will be able to say to themselves with conviction and with a quiet conscience that what they have done has upheld the standards of public life which are accepted by all of us and expected of all of us?
My Lords, what are we on this side of the House going to do and what are the consequences of rejecting or of insisting upon our Amendments? The Government, broadly speaking, had three choices. They could drop the Bill. If they dropped it it would not have made much difference. The Boundary Commission proposals would not have been implemented, for we in this House cannot compel the Home Secretary to dc his duty—though I hope that public opinion would denounce him for so flagrantly violating the terms of an Act to which his Party gave voluntary agreement. But if they dropped the Act, it may be that a writ of mandamus could be applied for, and no doubt that is a factor which influences the Government's decision. Or, secondly, they could bring into operation the provisions of the Parliament Act. They can introduce an identical Bill next Session and it can pass through the Commons and become law in July, regardless of what your Lordships may do. But if they introduce it in the Commons it has to be the identical Bill, if the Parliament Act is to apply. Yet here this afternoon we are discussing Amendments which the Government have proposed and which, in their view, are an improvement on the Bill in its original form. Thus they have conceded that their original Bill was

1587
imperfect. To introduce a Bill which they themselves have admitted to being in need of amendment, and which would be incapable of change in either House in the next Session, would be a difficult solution to accept.
But they have a third course and this they have decided to follow. They can drop the Bill, and then lay the Orders of the Boundary Commission before both Houses of Parliament, and then vote them down. My Lords, when the Boundary Commission was set up, was it ever conceived that such a situation could arise? Here is a situation where an impartial Commission makes its recommendations to the Government of the day. and for reasons which are wholly inadequate, and which are made even more so by their own Amendments to their own Bill, the Government reject them; and reject them by laying the Orders before Parliament and then advising their supporters to vote them down. I can think of nothing more calculated to bring Parliament and its procedure and its Members into disrepute.
Consider what will happen. The Home Secretary, standing at the Government Dispatch Box, will move that the Orders which he has laid should be approved. He will then make a speech urging their rejection. There will be a Three-line Whip, of course, and, on the orders of the Executive, the Orders will be rejected. What a spectacle! A Minister carrying out the letter of the law and renouncing its spirit by using his Parliamentary majority. There cannot be many people who will feel, as they watch this grotesque pantomime, that the Home Secretary will add to his stature or the Government to their reputation for integrity.
My Lords, we have been told what the Government are going to do. I have no doubt what we should do. If we accept these Amendments, or if we abstain from voting on them, we shall be countenancing behaviour which no Government ought to be allowed to get away with. The majority in the House of Commons can nowadays always get Bills through on a Party basis just as this Bill has come to us, guillotined, half-discussed and railroaded through their House. In this House, by the accident
1588
of its composition and by the independence of thought and mind of its Members, no such thing is possible.
The main justification for a Second Chamber is to prevent a Government of the day from abusing its power and its temporary majority in the House of Commons. The House of Lords may not have very much power left. We could only delay this Act for one year, if the Government wished to force it through. We can do nothing if they pursue their present course, for we cannot make them do their duty. But one thing we can do this afternoon. We can dissociate ourselves publicly and overwhelmingly from this dishonourable Bill and from the dishonourable course which the Government are now choosing. And whatever may happen to us, and if, as a result of this sort of behaviour, the standards of our public life are brought into disrepute, we in this House at least can say that we tried to stop it, that we had no part in it and that we are ashamed of it.
5.21 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this has been one of the oddest debates I have listened to. Very little argument has been used on the other side in reply to my noble friend Lord Shepherd—indeed, practically none until we came to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. But there were some speeches to which I object very strongly. I deeply regret the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, about my right honourable friends. The noble Viscount, above all, with his experience in colonial affairs, ought not to have made that sort of remark. I regret that he is not here now but I did get up at the time, when he told us that he would not be here, and he agreed that I could reply to him.
I am also rather mystified by the speech of the right reverend Prelate. If I understand him correctly, he said that whether the Government were guilty of duplicity would be settled by the result of the next election. I am not sure that he is not confusing the General Election with Judgment Day. I would ask him to listen once again to some of the arguments, because the great difficulty we have been in all along, starting from the speech of high moral fervour of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is that extraordinary little attention has been

1589
paid to the arguments which the Government have put forward. Even the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in my view, has distorted the arguments the Government have put forward on several occasions.
I should have liked to take objection to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, but since he was responsible for one of the best jokes I have heard in your Lordships' House, I think I will waste no further time on him, beyond saying that it will be interesting to see what the Liberals are going to do. In another place they were going to support the Government, and then they went into the Lobby against them. Maybe we shall have the reverse effect to-night, though I rather doubt it.
I would appeal to noble Lords to consider the arguments that my noble friend Lord Shepherd put forward. I should like first to deal briefly with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said. Here we had the advantage of having had a preview of his speech, one no doubt inspired by all those splendid hats that we saw on television at the Conservative Party Conference, in which he talked about cheating. "Cheating" seems to be a favourite word in the Conservative Party to-day. Mr. Heath has spoken about big cheats and little cheats. But this is really not a substitute for argument. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has given us the credit that at least we have arguments and that those who are putting them forward do believe in them. My noble friend Lord Stonham again affirmed his attitude.
There is a real dilemma here, and I urge your Lordships to recognise it. The Boundary Commission recommended the biggest reform of Parliamentary boundaries since the Reform Bill. This was to come about just before, and not after, the implementation of the Maud recommendations for the most important reform of local government in the last eighty years.
A crucial argument in all this is the point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, who asked why the reform of the Parliamentary constituencies should not take place before the reform of the local government boundaries. This is a matter on which I believe that this House is not well qualified to express an opinion. It is an area in which there is the vague
1590
feeling among many Peers that all that this is about is the advantage of the present Government, and that the only price of carrying it through is the inconvenience of Members of Parliament. Some of these points have already been answered by my noble friend Lord Stonham. This attitude shows the most astonishing ignorance—an understandable ignorance among those who have never fought in an election or who have never been a Member of Parliament—of the effect of boundary changes. There are noble Lords who have been Members of another place, but it seems to be "Forty years on" for the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, and others, and I suspect that they have, forgotten all this. On a previous occasion, I described my own experience of the effect of boundary changes. I sat in another place on very marginal majorities. I remember, that in 1950, when I was elected by a small majority for Preston, South, I went into a part of my constituency where people still said to me, "You will never win in Fylde." They were not sure whether or not they were still in the Fylde constituency.
My Lords, it is crucial to the health of Parliamentary democracy that there should be the least disturbance in Parliamentary boundaries compatible with good principles of democracy. It is a question not merely of the Member of Parliament but also of his agent, his local Party and the knowledge they accumulate of the particular problems of an area. Admittedly, at election times there is liable to be a change of Party, but there is in these matters a consistency which continues over election after election.
Now we are asked to carry out changes, changes which I would say are really justified, in 400 constituencies immediately before what is bound to come about—namely, a major change in the machinery of local government. What I find so very depressing about the attitude of the Party opposite is their indifference to this question of the reform of local government. Those of us who have been particularly concerned with looking at the proposals with the very best advice we could get, regard the reform of local government, whether in this country on the Maud basis or in Scotland on the Wheatley basis, as the most important step towards improving both the

1591
efficiency and the humanity of the administration of this country. That is why the testimony of the noble Lord, Lord Helsby—and no one could be a better authority on this matter than he—is so important.
I should have liked to know what views the Tories would take if, unhappily, they won the next Election—a risk which I believe is now beginning to diminish somewhat. Is there to be no reform of local government until the Parliament after next, for another ten or fifteen years? What are their plans for this? We have heard nothing. We know that at the Conservative Party Conference, among a number of very odd things, there was a major rejection of the Maud proposals which have not even been discussed in Parliament. But there is a calm assumption that these vital proposals—and I say with all the seriousness at my command that this is one of the most important areas for reform in our national life—do not matter.
I was asked by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, what was the attitude of the Government towards the Wheatley Report and its relationship with the Parliamentary proposals for Scotland. This extremely interesting Report has only just been published. If this Bill is carried, as we still hope that it will be, the Secretary of State for Scotland will retain the option to proceed and to lay Orders specifically related to Scotland. But I think it is too early yet to come to a decision. I would recommend the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, to compare the Wheatley proposals with the Parliamentary Commission's proposals. But it is too early to say what will happen.
There are also the questions of local government reform in Wales and, indeed, in Northern Ireland. The position here is very much in a state of flux: the attack has all been on England. But what is needed is consideration of the facts, rather than the emotion that we have been having on this. Wales and England are comparable because all the facts were known when the Government introduced the Bill. But at that time we did not have the Wheatley Report or the proposals for local government changes in Northern Ireland. That is why this deferred option was put into the Bill.
1592
I think your Lordships would like very soon to come to a decision. I very much regret that it is apparent that the Opposition, in an atmosphere that I can only describe as of very high emotion, are not prepared to consider the arguments for the measure which the Government have put forward. If this House persists in its Amendments it will mean that in fact the limited proposals which could properly be carried out with regard to London (London having had its major reform on local government four years ago: the necessary adjustments on the straddled constituencies; the breaking down of some of the very largest constituencies in the country: a matter which so concerned the noble Lord, Lord Brooke) will not take place. These are all changes which in a Parliamentary sense, I would tell the noble Lord. Lord Byers, are to the disadvantage of the Government. I ask the noble Lord to accept that; I have told it to him once, and perhaps he will accept it the second time. This is, of course, if anybody can judge with any certainty in this difficult area.
I must say that I do not believe the House of Lords in this matter is following a proper course. We are confronted with the quite astonishing doctrine that when a Government, faced with a real dilemma—and one of which they showed they were aware several years ago, when they tried to postpone the operation of the Boundary Commission—take a decision, noble Lords in this House now seek not merely to stop the Government in another place from doing something but actually to compel them to do something else. It is suggested that noble Lords opposite should actually be able to enforce their will and their majority (I think the noble Lord has a bit of overkill again in his supporters on this) and compel the other place to do something which I do not believe this House has ever attempted to do; namely, to force the House of Commons to carry out something which is for that House to decide. It is not a question of breaking the law. The law places on the House of Commons the responsibility to decide how and when to enforce the Boundary Commissions' proposals.
The Government came forward, quite properly, with reasonable proposals which

1593
they have asked Parliament and the country to consider, and the Conservative Party, seeing the gain that was to be obtained by the atmosphere of anger, and indeed imputation, prefer not to consider these arguments. And, of course, the actions of your Lordships' House this evening—actions in an area in which I believe noble Lords should not intervene, because they are not properly
competent to judge these matters of constituency boundaries—will in fact achieve nothing but futility.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 229.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville-West, L.

Pargiter, L.

Archibald, L.

Hall, V.

Peddie, L.

Balogh, L.

Helsby, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Birk, Bs.

Heycock, L.

Popplewell, L.

Bowden, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Raglan, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Hilton of Upton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Royle, L.

Burden, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Inman, L.

St. Davids, V.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jacques, L.

Scrota, Bs.

Chalfont, L.

Kahn, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Citrine, L.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Collison, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sorensen, L.

Darwen, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Stonham, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Energlyn, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Tayside, L.

Faringdon, L.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Fiske, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

Maelor, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mitchison, L.

Wise, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Moyle, L.

Wright of Ashton-under-Lyne, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bourne, L.

Courtown, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Craigavon, V.

Abinger, L.

Bradford, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Brecon, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Airedale, L.

Brentford, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Albemarle, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Croft, L.

Alport, L.

Bristol, M.

Cromartie, E.

Amherst, E.

Brock, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Daventry, V.

Amory, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

De La Warr, E.

Amulree, L.

Broughshane, L.

Denham, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Buckton, L.

Deramore, L.

Atholl, D.

Byers, L.

Derwent, L.

Auckland, L.

Caccia, L.

Digby, L.

Audley, Bs.

Camoys, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Balerno, L.

Carnock, L.

Dundee, E.

Barnard, L.

Carrington, L.

Dundonald, E.

Barrington, V.

Cawley, L.

Effingham, E.

Beatty, E.

Chelmer, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Beauchamp, E.

Chesham, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Clwyd, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cole, L.

Exeter, M.

Belstead, L.

Coleraine, L.

Falkland, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Colville of Culross, V.

Falmouth, V.

Bethell, L.

Colyton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Blackford, L.

Conesford, L.

Fisher, L.

Blakenham, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Foley, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Fortescue, E.

Boston, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sackville, L.

Furness, V.

Lucan, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Gage, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Helens, L.

Garner, L.

Luke, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Gisborough, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gladwyn, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Sandford, L.

Glasgow, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Sandys, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Manton, L.

Savile, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Selkirk, E.

Gowrie, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Grantchester, L.

May, L.

Shannon, E.

Gray, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sherfield, L.

Greenway, L.

Mersey, V.

Silsoe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Milverton, L.

Simonds, V.

Gridley, L.

Monckton and Brenchley, V.

Sinclair of Cleve, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Somers, L.

Hacking, L.

Monson, L.

Southwark, L.Bp.

Hampden, V.

Morrison, L.

Spencer, E.

Hankey, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stamp, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Hastings, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Hawke, L.

Moyne, L.

Strang, L.

Hayter, L.

Newton, L.

Strange, L.

Headfort, M.

Northchurch, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Henley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L

Strathcarron, L.

Hertford, M.

Oakshott, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hood, V.

Ogmore, L.

Sudeley, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Pender, L.

Suffield, L.

Howe, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Swansea, L.

Hunt, L.

Plowden, L.

Swinton, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Rankeillour, L.

Terrington, L.

Ilford, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Teviot, L.

Inchyra, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Inglewood, L.

Rea, L.

Thurlow, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Reading, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Jessel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Killearn, L.

Redmayne, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Kilmany, L.

Remnant, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kilmarnock, L..

Rennell, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Kindersley, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Rochdale V.

Watkinson, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Rockley, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Latymer, L.

Rootes, L.

Westminster, D.

Lauderdale, E.

Rosslyn, E.

Willingdon, M.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rothermere, V.

Windlesham, L.

Lloyd, L.

Rothes, E.

Wolverton, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Rutland, D.

Yarborough, E.

Lothian, M.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
A Committee appointed to prepare a Reason for the Lords insisting on their Amendments; the Committee to meet forthwith.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (COMPULSORY INSURANCE) BILL
5.54 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Pargiter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Report received accordingly.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to the Resolution of October 15, 1969), Bill read 3a, with the Amendment.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I should like to thank the Government for the help the Department have given to the progress of this Bill, and thank the House for the way in which it has received it. I would also express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his helpful Amendment which has clarified the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Pargiter.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on getting this Bill through, and also congratulate Mr. David Watkins, the original sponsor, for having introduced it. When the case history of this Bill is looked into, I think it will be considered to be of considerable historical interest. It has been a most unusual case history, almost as unusual as the case history of the matter we have just been dealing with in this House. I am much obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and to the Department of Social Security, who have given me a great deal of help in this matter, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter. We have been able to get the Bill through in the most difficult of circumstances with considerable advantage to aft concerned, because we have been able to clarify to the public what the Bill really means. It now rests with the Government to make all the regulations.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL
5.57 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of the first of these three Private Bills I think I should point out to the House that I shall subsequently be proposing an unusually large number of Third Reading Amendments to each of them. These Amendments are set out on the Paper, which is of course available to Members of the House. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I briefly outlined at this stage how I propose to deal with these Amendments. The bulk of them are, as usual, consequential or drafting Amendments, but there are also several Amendments of substance, which I will move separately, and when I do so I will endeavour to explain their purpose to the House.
The Amendments of substance are the first of the Amendments set out on the Paper to each Bill, and the last Amendment on the second page of the Paper in respect of the West Bromwich Corporation Bill. The remaining Amendments to each Bill are consequential or drafting, and, with the leave of the House, I
1598
propose to move these Amend merits en bloc. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 19, before ("This") insert ("(1)") and at end insert:
("(2) The following provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 30th September, 1969:—

(a) Part IV (Transport) and Schedule 1;

(b) so much of section 213 (Repeal) and of Schedule 4 as provides for the repeal of enactments relating to the transport undertaking; and

(c) so much of any other provision in this Act as relates to matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection.

Provided that no proceedings shall be taken in respect of any offences created by or under the said provisions committed before the passing of this Act.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the first Amendment I am proposing to this Bill is an Amendment of substance and therefore demands some explanation, and this explanation will also apply to the similar Amendments which I shall be moving to each of the other two Bills. This Amendment is consequential on the coming into operation on October 1, 1969, of the West Midlands Passenger Transport Area (Transfer of Undertakings) Order 1969. On that day the functions of the three borough councils relating to their road passenger transport undertakings were transferred to the Passenger Transport Executive constituted by the Transport Act 1968.
The effect of the Order is, therefore, that from October 1 the statutory provisions relating to road passenger transport undertakings which the Bills repeal are amended so as to apply to the Passenger Transport Executive as before October 1 they applied to the borough councils. If the Bills were left unamended, and were to receive the Royal Assent in their present form, they would contain a Part IV which had been overtaken by events. This is because this Part would purport to preserve the powers of the borough councils in respect of passenger transport of which they were deprived by the Order which came into effect on October 1.
The Bills will also, if unamended, repeal provisions now in force in favour of the Passenger Transport Executive, without replacing them. I think it will be appreciated by your Lordships that some amendment is therefore necessary. Should any noble Lord wish for a justification of these Amendments, that of course would not be my duty. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is at present on the Government Front Bench and would be prepared to reply on behalf of the Ministry of Transport. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, all the remaining Amendments to this Bill are consequential on the coming into operation of the Post Office Act 1969 on October 1. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I will move them en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 38, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office")
Page 11, line 28, leave out from ("1888") to ("shall") in line 32 and insert:
("those provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882 to 1936, as amended by the Electricity Act 1947, and in the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899, which, as applied by the Post Office Act 1969, afford protection to the Post Office and its telegraphic lines,").
Page 17, line 16, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 17, line 41, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 30, line 16, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 30, line 27, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 30, line 34, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 30, line 37, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 30, line 42, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 31, line 4, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 31, line 7, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 31, line 12, leave out ("Posmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 31, line 13, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 31, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("Postmaster General" and insert ("Post Office")
Page 31, line 18, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 31, line 20, leave out ("he") and insert ("it").
Page 31, line 31, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 31, lines 32 and 33, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 32, line 7, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 32, line 12, leave out ("11").
Page 32, line 22, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 33, line 29, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 38, line 11, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 38, line 12, leave out ("his") and insert ("its").
Page 78, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert:
("(2) Nothing in this section shall authorise the doing of anything constituting an infringement of the exclusive privilege with respect to telecommunication conferred on the Post Office by the Post Office Act 1969").
Page 79, line 37, after ("a") insert ("Post Office").
Page 79, line 37, leave out ("provided") and leave out ("by the").
Page 79, line 38, leave out ("Postmaster General").
Page 80, line 7, at end insert ("and") and leave out lines 8 to 10.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I shall move Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. They are both Amendments of substance and they cover exactly the same ground as the one Amendment of substance which I moved to the previous Bill. The explanation I gave of that Amendment in the case of the Walsall Corporation Bill applies to the first and second Amendments to this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 43, before ("This") insert ("(1)").
Page 2, line 44 at end insert:—
("(2) The following provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 30th September, 1969:—

(a) Part IV (Transport);

(b) so much of section 168 (Repeal) and of Schedule 4 as provides for the repeal of enactments relating to the transport undertaking; and

(c) so much of any other provision in this Act as relates to matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection.

Provided that no proceedings shall be taken in respect of any offences created by or under the said provisions committed before the passing of this Act.")—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the remaining Amendments, with the exception of the last, are either consequential or drafting Amendments, and with the leave of the House I propose to move them all, except the last, en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 10, line 30, leave out from ("1888") Co ("shall") in line 34, and insert:—
("those provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882 to 1936, as amended by the Electricity Act 1947, and in the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899, which, as applied by the Post Office Act 1969, afford protection to the Post Office and its telegraphic lines,")
Page 16, line 16, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 16, line 40, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 23, line 22, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 23, line 23, leave out ("his") and insert ("its").
Page 42, lines 33 and 34, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office")
Page 42, line 36, leave out ("him") and insert ("it").
Page 57, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—
("(2) Nothing in this section shall authorise the doing of anything constituting an infringement of the exclusive privilege with respect to telecommunication conferred on the Post Office by the Post Office Act 1969")
Page 59, line 14, after ("a") insert ("Post Office"), leave out ("provided") and leave out ("by the").
Page 59, line 15, leave out ("Postmaster General").
Page 59, line 25, at end insert ("and")
Page 59, line 25, leave out lines 26 to 28.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the last Amendment is one of substance and is peculiar to this Bill. The Promoters wish to omit the clause which imposes an obligation on the returning officer to send official poll cards to electors in their local elections. They wish to give it up on the ground of the expense it would entail. I believe it would run them into a cost of several thousands of pounds. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 9, leave out clause 149.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WOLVER HAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
6.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in moving the first Amendment to this Bill may I say that the explanation I gave in respect of the first Amendment to the Walsall Corporation Bill and the first two Amendments to the West Bromwich Corporation Bill applies exactly to this Amendment. Therefore I will not repeat my explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3 at end insert—
("(3) The following provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 30th September, 1969:

(a) Part IV (Transport);

(b) so much of section 202 (Repeal) and of Schedule 6 as provides for the repeal of enactments relating to the transport undertaking; and

(c) so much of any other provision in this Act as relates to matters referred to

1603
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection.

Provided that no proceedings shall be taken in respect of any offences created by or under the said provisions committed before the passing of this Act").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, all the remaining Amendments are consequential or drafting. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I propose to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 43, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("their corporation") and insert ("the Corporation").
Page 10, line 40, leave out from ("1888") to ("shall") in line 44 and insert:—
("those provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882 to 1936, as amended by the Electricity Act 1947, and in the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899, which, as applied by the Post Office Act 1969, afford protection to the Post Office and its telegraphic lines,").
Page 16, line 16, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 24, line 18, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 24, line 19, leave out ("his") and insert ("its").
Page 47, line 3, leave out ("Postmaster General") and insert ("Post Office").
Page 47, line 5, leave out ("him") and insert ("it").
Page 47, line 10, leave out ("his") and insert ("its").
Page 63, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert ("(2) Nothing in this section shall authorise the doing of anything constituting an infringement of the exclusive privilege with respect to telecommunication conferred on the Post Office by the Post Office Act 1969.").
Page 65, line 1, after ("a") insert ("Post Office"), leave out ("provided") and leave out ("by the").
Page 65, line 2, leave out ("Postmaster General").
Page 65, line 12, at end insert ("and").
Page 65, line 12, leave out lines 13 to 15.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (No. 2) BILL
Report from the Committee of the Reason to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on their Amendments, read and agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to return the Bill, with the Reason.
DUDLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] WARLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967
  U.K. EMBASSIES AND OVERSEAS REPRESENTATION
  U.K. EMBASSIES AND OVERSEAS REPRESENTATION
  DETENTION OF MR. ROBERT WILLIAMS
  DETENTION OF MR. ROBERT WILLIAMS