Sitting of 25 November 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.
  DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Smoke-Control Orders
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what decline in overall coverage will result from the withdrawal of smoke-control orders this winter on account of the shortage of solid smokeless fuel; what restorative measures he proposes for the future; and whether he has plans for temporary amendment to the Clean Air Act.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): The present number of premises subject to suspension is 848,413, which represents 18 per cent. of the total number included in smoke-control orders over the whole country. Since I make suspension orders only when requested by individual authorities in the light of their assessments of local prospects, I cannot forecast the position to the end of the winter.
    386
    The situation does not call for amendment of the Clean Air Acts but depends upon the shortage of solid smokeless fuel that the Government inherited. To meet this shortage the Government immediately arranged the import of smokeless fuel from abroad, the restriction of exports of smokeless fuel abroad and spent £300,000 to keep uneconomic coke plants in being and sanctioned the building of a major new smokeless fuel plant near to Doncaster.
    Sir G. Nabarro: While exonerating my right hon. Friend entirely for his deplorable inheritance in this context, might I ask whether he will now take urgent steps to collaborate with the responsible Ministers in assuring an adequate supply of solid smokeless fuel in future during this Tory Administration, without which the Clean Air Statute cannot be made fully operational?
    Mr. Walker: The appropriate consultations have already taken place. I know how much my hon. Friend regrets the first set-back in the smokeless fuel policy for which he himself had so much personal responsibility.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to resist the blandishments of the hon. Member for "Wine-piddle" in regard to any amendment of the Act, other than the possibility of amending the Act further to encourage the backsliding authorities which do not seem to understand the need for clean air?
    Mr. Walker: There is little use in encouraging the back-sliding local authorities when the last Government left a position in which there was not enough smokeless fuel available for those who wanted it.

    Public Buildings, London (Cleaning)
    Mr. Straussasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, what further plans he has for cleaning public buildings in London.
    Mr. Peter Walker: My plans provide for completing the cleaning of Somerset House and the Old War Office Building; for further work at Buckingham Palace, the Tower of London and at Greenwich; and for starting work on other buildings as funds permit.
    Mr. Strauss: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he will proceed with cleaning other buildings, but will he use all the influence he can to bring about the early cleaning of the home of the Royal Academy, Burlington House, in Piccadilly, which is the most shamefully dirty building in London?
    Mr. Walker: I will certainly see that that suggestion is properly considered. Our programme involves about half as much again as the cost of recent annual programmes.
    Mr. Lane: As the economic situation improves through wise Conservative policies, will my right hon. Friend try to make an early start on cleaning the exterior of the Palace of Westminster?
    Mr. Walker: I will certainly bear that remark in mind.

    Royal Parks (Admission Fee)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his plans for charging an admission fee to the Royal Parks.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): No charge has ever been made for admission to the Royal Parks as such and my right hon. Friend has no plans for introducing such a charge. Charges are made for certain sports facilities in the Royal Parks and for admission to the Serpentine Lido. These charges are reviewed annually.
    Mr. Spearing: In view of the unexpected and ill-founded policy of charging admission to public museums and galleries, and the promise that we have had of a changing social revolution, can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will neither contemplate this policy nor indeed implement it?
    Mr. Channon: I have a feeling that the hon. Member did not listen to my original answer.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will be warmly welcomed in constituencies close to Royal Parks?
    Mr. Channon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Anything that I can do to help him in the better management of Bushey Park I shall be glad to do.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Member aware that no charge has ever been made, during the last 220 years, since its foundation, to visitors to the British Museum, and that the only plausible argument for charging visitors to museums and galleries now appears to be that people will enjoy the exhibits there more? Does not that apply equally to the parks'?
    Mr. Channon: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should be arguing in favour of charges in the Royal Parks.

    Planning Issues (Decisions)
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for shortening the time taken by his Department in reaching decisions on planning issues.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have recently transferred further classes of appeal for decision by inspectors. Some 60 per cent. will in future be decided in this way with a consequent shortening of the time taken. I am also considering how I can improve further the handling of all appeals and planning matters coming to me for decision.
    Mr. Lane: While I am grateful for that Answer, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is longstanding exasperation in Cambridge at the delays which occur in Whitehall concerning development proposals and traffic management schemes? If he can speed up the tempo, my constituents will be very grateful to him.
    Mr. Walker: We will certainly do all that is possible in that direction.
    Mr. John Silkin: While agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that the 1968 Act is working reasonably well with regard to final determination by inspectors—it is, as he knows, only a very limited class affecting, I think, only areas of 10 residential dwellings at a time—may I ask him to consider widening the powers of inspectors so that they have a larger area to consider on final determination?
    Mr. Walker: We have already made a considerable widening by increasing the percentage of appeals which go to inspectors from about 40 per cent. to 60 per cent., which represents a quite substantial increase. Certainly, this matter will be

    389
    kept continually under review, because we want to enjoy the maximum speed that can be obtained as a result of the basic principles of the 1968 Act.

  TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES

    Road Traffic Act, 1960 (Prosecutions)
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will amend the Road Traffic Act, 1960 so that a notice of intended prosecution sent by post shall only be deemed to have been served when it can be shown that the letter was delivered in the ordinary course of post.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): No, Sir.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that in these modern times, apart from postal deliveries being delayed, there is some doubt whether on occasion these letters arrive? Would it not be appropriate in these circumstances, in order that justice may be seen to be done, to utilise the recorded delivery service?
    Mr. Griffiths: We are not aware of any general criticism that the present arrangements cause injustice. Essentially, the difficulty is that it would be wrong if an offender could escape prosecution by avoiding delivery of the post.

    Vehicles (Exhaust Systems)
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to enable the police to deal with the problem of noise created by exhaust systems of cars and motor-cycles made so that they can exaggerate exhaust noise.
    The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): There are already powers to deal with this problem.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Powers may be in existence but enormous trouble is caused by this additional pollution of the atmosphere which takes place day in and day out. At a time when people are able to walk on the moon, is it not odd that it is not possible yet to measure
    390
    the troublesome noise created by these vehicles?
    Mr. Peyton: I entirely agree with the view expressed so reasonably by my hon. Friend and of course we shall take them into account. But, as I have said, the powers do exist. I hope that the authorities responsible for enforcement will note what my hon. Friend said.

    Airports (Rail Links)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many airports in the United Kingdom have rail links for the convenience of passengers; and where they are situated.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Gatwick and Southampton, Sir.
    Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Government are concerned to assist private aircraft companies. Could not consideration be given for a change to the comfort of the passengers, for instance, by providing as many rail links as possible and by increasing creature comforts? May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman starts by considering again Turnhouse Airport at Edinburgh?
    Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman seems to be asking three completely different questions about three completely different subjects, none of which he understands. It is for British Rail to put forward a proposal; it has not yet done so. It is for British Rail to agree with the British Airports Authority. When it has done so, I am certain that my right hon. Friend will gladly look at any proposals which are made.
    Sir Clive Bossom: Can my hon. Friend give any details of the new hovertrains to airports which have just been announced?
    Mr. Griffiths: These details are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. My right hon. Friend is certainly conscious of the possibilities of hovertrains and when he has an announcement to make, I am sure that he will let my hon. Friend know.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the Channel Tunnel.
    Mr. Peyton: I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member on 4th November.—[Vol. 805, c. 1073–4.]
    Mr. Sheldon: Since the right hon. Gentleman will accept that these proposals were produced eight years ago and that technology in these matters does not stand still, and since we have discussed these proposals for the last seven years, surely it is about time to reconsider the whole matter and end the nonsense of a Channel Tunnel built on the proposals of such a long time ago.
    Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member will recall that the Government that he supported were in power for about six years. The present Government have not been in office for six months yet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I can understand the relief of hon. Members no longer to have responsibility for what they left behind them. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that two Governments are involved with this, as well as a substantial international group. We are dealing with complicated proposals and we will make progress as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Crouch: May I put it to my hon. Friend that I hope that he will soon put the House out of its agony of waiting for a decision for which we have waited so many years, which in my county of Kent has put a complete blight on the development of roads to the Channel ports? Would he remember that, at the moment, until this decision is made, the M2 stops 20 miles short of Britain's busiest port, Dover? We hope that he will soon put us out of our agony and tell us that we are not to go ahead with this proposition.
    Mr. Peyton: I learn with a good deal of pain that my hon. Friend is in agony. Of course I would do anything I could to relieve such a very undesirable situation.
    Mr. Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the injustice to constituents who are trying to sell houses in the blighted area? Will he take the opportunity of reading the letter which I wrote to his Department today, and get some decision on this?
    Mr. Peyton: I realise entirely what both my hon. Friends are saying—that considerable hardship is involved as a
    392
    result of prolonged uncertainty. The Government will do their best to relieve this as soon as possible.

    Reflective Strips
    Mr. Danceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to introduce legislation to make it compulsory for lorries over a specified length, and particularly articulated lorries, to have reflective strips along the sides.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dance: Is my hon. Friend aware that on country roads at night long lorries, particularly articulated lorries, turning off the main road present an impossible problem? One cannot see any lights at all. Will my hon. Friend reconsider this matter?
    Mr. Griffiths: I think that my hon. Friend has spotlighted a real problem, but I must tell him that legislation already requires vehicles over 8 metres long and trailers over 5 metres long to be fitted with two amber reflectors on each side. Most vehicles of those sizes already have them, and they require to be fitted by the end of this year.
    Mr. Danceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to make it compulsory for pedal bicycles to have reflective strips over the entire length of their rear mudguards.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dance: I wish that my hon. Friend would think again about this matter. I have in mind bicyclists generally and road safety as a whole. Bicycles on country roads frequently have a very small red light which is sometimes obscured by dirt. It would be a good idea if reflective strips were fitted. The cost of such strips is negligible—under a shilling, I am told.
    Mr. Griffiths: While accepting and sharing my hon. Friend's concern for the safety of pedal cyclists, I must point out that my Department has got there before him. An improved standard of cycle rear lamp has been required since 1st November, 1969, and new cycles have had to be fitted with an improved quality rear reflector from 1st July this year.
    Mr. Dempsey: As one who has cycled for many years, may I say that the fitting of reflective strips on cycles might be an improvement, but a great deal of the problem arises because the motorist is speeding so fast that he is on the cyclist before he realises it. Will the Minister bear that in mind?
    Mr. Griffiths: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a Question about the speed of cars.

    Road Accidents
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of road accidents in the past year attributable to badly loaded or overloaded lorries.
    Mr. Peyton: In 1969 302 lorries were involved in accidents resulting in personal injury where a defective load was considered to have been a contributory factor.
    Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this rather sad chapter of accidents is even more intensive near the major ports. Will he look into the whole problem of the overloading of open lorries?
    Mr. Peyton: I shall be only too glad to look into the matter with great care. It is easier to pose the problem than to solve it.

    National Freight Corporation
    Mr. Matherasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to modify the rôle of the National Freight Corporation.
    Mr. Peyton: I have recently announced the appointment of a new chairman and will expect him to formulate a sound commercial policy for the corporation.
    Mr. Mather: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he satisfied with the transfer of freight liner business from British Railways to the National Freight Corporation in view of the fact that this was one of British Railways most profitable businesses and an issue on which a former chairman of British Railways resigned? Further, will my right hon. Friend agree not to implement Section 48 of the Transport Act allowing the State to manufacture, repair and supply?
    Mr. Peyton: The answer to the last part of the supplementary question concerning Section 48 is, "Yes, Sir". I can give that undertaking. As for the other part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, he can be assured that this important corporation will be conducted by the new chairman in the national interest.
    Mr. Mulley: Does the Minister's statement on Section 48 relate only to the National Freight Corporation? He must be aware of the enormous improvement in employment and prosperity that has gone on in British Railways' workshops as a result of the operation of Section 48. Will he give an assurance that he will not interfere with them?
    Mr. Peyton: I have answered the Question that my hon. Friend asked. If the right hon. Gentleman would care to put down a Question on the lines of the one he has just asked I shall be glad to meet him on it.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Will the hon. Member guarantee—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member—[Interruption.] It is difficult to distinguish between Ministers. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that this man will not be sacked if he stands on his own feet?
    Mr. Peyton: I would do almost anything to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but I feel it quite unnecessary to give him an undertaking on that point when I have just appointed the chairman myself. I regard him as an excellent choice, and I have no doubt that he will serve the corporation and the national interest admirably.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon Friend bear in mind, in the context of his last reply, that he conducted with me, in 1957, a long and successful campaign demonstrating the anathema of the Tory Party to the giving of additional powers of manufacture to nationalised industries?
    Mr. Peyton: I recollect my collaboration with my hon. Friend with pleasure and pride, and I shall not forget what we then said.

    Vehicle Corrosion
    Sir Clive Bossomasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made by the Road

    395
    Research Laboratory in its work on preventing vehicle corrosion, for example, by the aluminising of steel and the production of a cheap alternative to road salt.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Road Research Laboratory is not involved in work on the aluminising of steel, which is a matter for the Motor Industries Research Association. The R.R.L. is testing the effectiveness of inhibitors for reducing corrosion caused by salt. I know of no alternative as cheap or effective as salt for improving road surface conditions in icy weather.
    Sir Clive Bossom: Will my hon. Friend continue to press on with this much-needed research? It is now estimated that corrosion is costing £14 million a year on silencers and approximately £50 million a year on vehicles.
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes. I can tell my hon. Friend that seven new saloon cars are currently carrying out tests but in view of the need to test conditions both this winter and next, I do not expect that there will be results to report until 1972.

    Drivers (Hours of Work)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is aware of the harmful effects on the business of seaside resorts caused by the regulations on drivers' hours introduced under the Transport Act, 1968; and if he will take action to remove them.
    Mr. Peyton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on 11th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 183–4.]
    Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for the careful consideration which, I know, he is giving to this problem? Would he not agree that a distinction should be drawn between a long-distance lorry driver, who may very well have a long period of driving during his normal working day, and a coach driver on an outing to the seaside, who may be driving for only a relatively short time?
    Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the kind way in which he started his supplementary question. I am very conscious of the difficulty of
    396
    this problem and of the problem which is set for operators. I shall continue to give them very careful consideration.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Minister aware, however, of the harmful effects that the previous driving system had not only upon the men employed, but upon their families? Will he, therefore, take steps to ensure that the present helpful legislation remains in existence?
    Mr. Peyton: Like other things, what the hon. Member describes as helpful legislation has advantages and disadvantages.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

    Proposed Property Developments
    Mr. Tugendhatasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now take steps to introduce new regulations requiring local authorities to inform the public about applications for proposed property developments.
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that members of the public are adequately informed of planning proposals likely to affect their amenities or property.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Local planning authorities are already under a legal obligation to give publicity to proposed substantial departures from the development plan; to certain specified developments which could have a particularly adverse effect on neighbours; and to development affecting a conservation area.
    For the other 400,000 planning applications a year, where it is for the local planning authority to exercise its discretion on whether publicity should be given, I now have the views of local authority associations and other representative bodies on the draft of a new circular. I also have under review the reconciliation of people's wishes to know what is being planned with the need to prevent unnecessary "blight" to property and unnecessary delays in planning.
    Mr. Tugendhat: I realise from that reply that my right hon. Friend is aware

    397
    that this matter is of deep concern to London and, I believe, other areas. Would it be possible for the Ministry to bring forward legislation on this matter in the near future, or, if not, perhaps to support the Private Member's Bill standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman) which has, I believe, bipartisan support?
    Mr. Page: I should like to bring forward legislation on this as soon as the legislative programme allows, but I want to see what comes out of the review which is now being carried on.
    Dr. Miller: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that delays in planning permission are often the cause of a reduction in house-building? Will he ensure that there are no undue delays when planning permission is sought, in particular for the building of houses?
    Mr. Page: Yes, but one always has to balance the rights of individual property owners to object with the desire to streamline planning.
    Mr. Dennis Howell: When will the right hon. Gentleman produce a Green Paper or White Paper on the subject of the Government's thinking on blight and injurious affection and related matters?
    Mr. Page: I cannot give a timetable, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is almost in draft.

    Public Transport (Rural and Semi-rural Areas)
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up a departmental committee to inquire into the problems of public transport in rural and semi-rural areas.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he now has to help the growing problem of rural public service facilities; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): We have already set up two pilot studies to take a fresh look at rural transport. Through their findings we shall be able to advise on how these problems can best be tackled generally.
    Mr. Clark: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply so far as it goes. However, is he not aware that there is a strong feeling that there should be an immediate and thorough inquiry into public transport, not only in the rural but in the intermediate areas and that there is some scepticism about whether the solutions for areas in Devon and West Suffolk will be applicable to the industrial Pennines, for instance, or the Welsh valleys?
    Mr. Heseltine: I fully accept that. We have already announced that we are looking at the twilight areas as well.
    Mr. Mulley: I welcome the Government's decision to have these further inquiries. Will the Under-Secretary undertake that this time, unlike what happened with the Report of the Jack Committee, which was set up by a previous Conservative Administration, the Government will act on the recommendations and not totally ignore them?
    Mr. Heseltine: It must depend on what the recommendations and findings of any inquiry are. The right hon. Gentleman had ample opportunity to act on any decisions when he held responsibility.
    Sir Clive Bossom: May I make a special plea for Herefordshire to be included in the pilot scheme, as it is one of the most rural counties in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Heseltine: I accept what my hon. Friend says about other counties. We had to decide where to start and we hope that the lessons we shall learn from Devon and West Suffolk will be of general application. However, I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no question of the rural problems which he and many other hon. Members have being ignored because we have not been able to look at the particular difficulties of his own home territory.

    Concessionary Fares
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a decision on his discussions with local authority and bus operator associations concerning the issuing of a formula for guidance in calculating the cost of reimbursing concessionary fares.
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in consulting the local authorities and the transport undertakings so as to produce a formula for concessionary bus fares for elderly and handicapped people; and when he expects to make a definite statement.
    Mr. Graham Page: I have nothing yet to add to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South West (Mr. Tom Boardman) on 28th October.—[Vol. 805, c. 198]
    Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the winter is approaching and that many elderly people who live on the Midland Red bus routes but who get no concessionary fares will be more or less housebound? Would he not undertake to speed up his discussions, in the circumstances?
    Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend has power under a Section of the Act only to order a certain formula. He has sent out circulars to local authorities on this subject. The majority of them are against the order being made, and my right hon. Friend will be reluctant to make an order in those circumstances.
    Mr. Boardman: Is not the real problem that the fares structure on the nationalised bus undertakings is very high in relation to those of the efficient—which are usually the Conservative-controlled—local authority transport undertakings, and may not the solution lie in reintroducing more private enterprise into the transport system?
    Mr. Page: I would prefer to leave this to the decision of the local authorities, in making these concessions if they see fit.
    Mr. Mulley: While I understand the difficulties of getting agreement to this very complicated matter, surely some guidance as to the principle involved—namely, that it is only the additional costs and not the full fares which should be reimbursed—is important? As well as the local authorities, is it not important that some guidance should be given to the Traffic Commissioners, because this is a factor which is taken into account when new fares applications are before them?
    Mr. Page: Guidance has been given in this circular, but it should be on the
    400
    basis of net loss of revenue to the operator. But the local authorities and the operators would prefer it in this form of guidance rather than an order.

    Private Land (Fencing)
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Association of Municipal Corporations with regard to the right of local authorities to fence private land which constitutes a danger to the public.
    Mr. Graham Page: The association has recently submitted proposals which my right hon. Friend is considering.
    Mr. Davidson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I understand the complexities of this matter, but is he aware that every now and then there is a serious accident and a child is killed or drowned because the local authority does not have the legal powers to provide the necessary fencing or safeguards? Will he give an assurance that he is well aware of the problem and will seek a way of solving it?
    Mr. Page: I am only too conscious of the tragedies which happen. We are talking here only of fencing land away from the highway. Local authorities already have power to fence land along the highway where danger may arise. This is a question of entering on to private land, and it is a difficult and complex legal problem.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in his consultations on the reform of local government; and whether he will now make a further statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I shall make a further statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Lane: I am glad to hear that. Will my right hon. Friend agree that the need for radical reform of local government is urgent? Will he pay special attention to the wise proposals recently published by the Association of Municipal Corporations and to the importance of bringing town and country closer together and not pushing them further apart?
    Mr. Walker: The matter is urgent, and it is very complicated. I shall eventually

    401
    be consulting all local authority associations, including the A.M.C. and the County Councils Association.
    Mr. Crosland: Is the Secretary of State aware of the acute anxiety, not only in the A.M.C. but in all municipalities, at the reports in the Press that we are to have a two-tier system based on a county and county district system? Will he assure us that he has not closed his mind on the form which reorganisation will take and will listen to further representations?
    Mr. Walker: There will be a period of consultation when I shall consider further representations. But our election manifesto committed us to a two-tier system of local government.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: In his inquiry, will my right hon. Friend look into the system of rating as a means of raising revenue for local government expenditure, since many of us believe that the rating system has come almost to the end of its useful life as a means of raising revenue for local government expenditure and that other methods must be devised?
    Mr. Walker: Consideration is being given to the financing of local government, and a Green Paper on local government financing will be published.
    Mr. Marks: When there appears to be general agreement on a suitable type of local government for a local area, as in South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire, will the Secretary of State introduce legislation to reorganise local government in that area, as the previous Conservative Government did for London?
    Mr. Walker: From correspondence which I have had from Cheshire, I was not aware that there was agreement in North-East Cheshire. It is, however, important to undertake the whole of local government reform at one time because of the uncertainties that otherwise would be created.

    Humber Bridge
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the estimated cost for the Humber Bridge; and how it will be financed.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what communication he has received from the Humber Bridge Board regarding the terms of financing the construction of the Humber Bridge; and what reply he has given.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Humber Bridge Board estimates the cost to be £20 million at 1970 prices. We are in touch with the board, which wrote to my Department on 16th November about financing the bridge, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Wall: Have the Government closed their mind to a Government grant for the bridge, or will it receive loan sanction? Can he say whether the dates originally set are likely to be kept?
    Mr. Heseltine: The question of Government grant must depend upon decisions on the financing of the bridge. It would still be possible, if the bridge were to go ahead, for it to be completed according to the original timetable.
    Mr. James Johnson: Since the Minister mystified me and the Hull City Council a few days ago on a former Question, will he come clean and tell us that we shall be given a Government loan at a rate of interest less than the public market outside in order to build our bridge?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry that the hon. Member should have been under any doubt as to what I said. I do not think that my answer was capable of causing any doubt. We did not say that there was a decision on this matter, and I believe that the local authorities are fully aware of the situation, because they are in constant touch with the Department.

    Gatwick Airport (River Mole Drainage System)
    Mr. Matherasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is aware that the building of a new runway at Gatwick Airport will affect the drainage system of the River Mole; and if he will take this into consideration before approving the construction of the runway.
    Mr. Graham Page: Although I am aware of the proposal for a second runway at Gatwick contained in the British Airports Authority's publication of a draft

    403
    land use plan, no planning application has been made for that new runway. The only current planning application is one for a short extension to the existing runway. If any planning application is made for a new runway it will be decided in light of all relevant factors, including land drainage, upon which the Thames Conservancy would be consulted.
    Mr. Mather: Is the Minister aware of the growing concern in my constituency about the recurrence of the disastrous floods of December, 1968? When such application comes before him, will he consult the Thames Conservancy on the question of this catchment area and the River Mole?
    Mr. Page: Yes, Sir. I said so in answer to the Question. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Thames Conservancy will be consulted and will be given the opportunity to appear at any public inquiry.

    Local Authorities (Expenditure of Sixpenny Rate)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to permit local authorities freedom to spend as they wish the product of a sixpenny rate.
    Mr. Graham Page: Local authorities already have power to spend up to the product of a penny rate in the interests of their area or its inhabitants. The question of a greater freedom for them to spend money is being considered in the context of the reorganisation of local government.
    Mr. Dormand: In giving a cautious welcome to that reply, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the local authority associations would welcome such legislation? Would he not agree that to do this would be in keeping with the Government's philosophy of freeing the local authorities, particularly when they were so quick to withdraw Circular 10/65, from the Department of Education and Science concerning comprehensive education, under the guise of freeing local authorities?
    Mr. Page: Yes. I think that there is a case for considering again this freedom
    404
    to spend a penny and, perhaps, increase the sum. We are certainly looking into this.

  HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION

    Housing Completions
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he now makes of likely housing completions for next year as a consequence of his recent announcement on housing subsidies.
    Mr. Channon: The number of public sector housing completions in 1971 will be determined almost entirely by schemes already put to contract or under construction. The recent statement on housing finance will not affect it.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the announcement about housing cuts in Scotland and all over the rest of the United Kingdom has created much anxiety about future housing completions? Will housing completions diminish or increase as a result of Government policy?
    Mr. Channon: It is a little unreasonable of the hon. Member to expect me to answer a question about Scotland. Scottish matters are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask about housing in Scotland, he should ask my right hon. Friend.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said on repeated occasions, he is about to enter negotiations with the local authority associations. When they are completed, the House will know the result.
    Mr. Marsh: If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer questions about Scotland, can he answer them about England, for which he has responsibility?
    Mr. Channon: I have already said that we are about to enter negotiations with the local authority associations. When those negotiations are completed, the House and the country will be in a better position to judge the results.

    Housing Finance
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he intends to apply in order to determine which local authorities with problems of slum clearance, overcrowding and obsolescent housing will qualify for special Government assistance as outlined in his statement on housing finance; and if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those local authorities that will qualify for the full weight of Government assistance.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): Our plans will need to be discussed with the local authority associations before detailed criteria can be decided and the effect on individual authorities assessed.
    Mr. Barnes: As the Secretary of State has given the impression that the Government can both save money and improve the housing situation, what will be the position in boroughs with long waiting lists if they are not designated for Government assistance? Will they not stop building altogether?
    Mr. Amery: We estimate that our proposals will help those authorities whose costs are very high, or where the rise in costs is very fast, because of slum clearance or building programmes designed to deal with serious overcrowding or obsolescence.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that his proposals will not penalise local authorities with good house-building records by taking from them subsidies and low rates of interest already guaranteed to them?
    Mr. Amery: I do not think that any local authority will suffer seriously from this. Housing revenues will be increased by the move towards fair rents and there will be increased help for those faced with with high rises in costs, or slum clearance programmes.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has now had with local authorities on housing finance; and what proposals he has made for their consideration.
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities since 3rd November in relation to his new policy concerning housing subsidies; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the London Boroughs Association about his proposals for the review of housing subsidies.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations have taken place with local authorities regarding cuts in housing subsidies.
    Mr. Amery: I have received no representations from local authorities, but I shall shortly begin consultations with their associations.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Why cannot a more detailed statement be made to the House in view of the great importance of this whole subject? Why do we have to wait until the whole matter has been considered for many months?
    Mr. Amery: We thought it right to make a broad statement of intention to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, but it would be wrong to come back to the House until we have had an opportunity to test the opinions of the locally elected representatives of the people.
    Mr. Julius Silverman: Does this mean that the Government's proposals will be put to the local authorities without any prior discussion in the House? Is not that treating the House with contempt?
    Mr. Amery: On the contrary, I think that it is treating the House with great respect by not taking up the time of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen until we are able to put something rather more detailed before them. Our broad statement of intent would be an inadequate basis for a good debate.
    Mr. Crosland: The Government have already announced that the object of these proposals is to save between £100 million and £200 million by the mid-1970s. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the local authority associations not merely what effect this will have on their average rents, which will be very large,

    407
    but what effect a cut of this kind will have on local house-building programmes?
    Mr. Amery: We shall be discussing all relevant considerations with them.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: Having a late Question on the Order Paper does not automatically give the right to be called to ask a supplementary question.

    House-Building Programmes
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the house-building programmes in the public and private sectors, respectively; and what is his estimate of the approximate rise or fall in the numbers started in each sector in 1971 and 1972.
    Mr. Amery: Measures already taken by the Government to help the building industry and to reform housing finance should benefit both the public and private sectors. But I am not prepared to make even approximate quantitative forecasts.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night the Chancellor, in a written reply, told me that he would not relax restrictions on bank loans to private builders? Does not this inevitably mean further closure of such firms and a further serious reduction in the number of houses built for sale?
    Mr. Amery: It is a fact that, already, the graph of house building in the private sector is rising fairly steeply, but I am sure that hon. Members on both sides—particularly in the Labour Party—will appreciate the great risk which attends an attempt to set any targets.
    Mr. Marsh: How long will the right hon. Gentleman go on saying that he can give this House no estimates, however approximate? Is it not now becoming obvious that the Tory Party used this as a political issue in the election and that in fact they have no proposals at all?
    Mr. Amery: With some experience of pilgrimages in the political wilderness, may I take this first opportunity that I have had to welcome the return of the right hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench?
    408
    I should have thought, after the experience which his party and the Front Bench, which he had then left, had over predictions of 500,000 houses, that he would surely chide me as being very rash if I were to make any equivalent comparison.

    Council House Waiting Lists
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the approximate number of families on council house waiting lists at the latest available dates; and if he will name them.
    Mr. Amery: This information is not available within the Department.
    Mr. Allaun: Well, it ought to be, because I can provide it. Since the Government have announced that they will cut subsidies by between £100 million and £200 million a year of what they would be in 1974, does that not inevitably mean such high rent increases for most working-class families that they will not be able to take up the houses and consequently there will be an acceleration of the fall in public house-building?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman began by commenting that the information ought to be available. Certainly Lord Greenwood and his predecessor did not think that this was necessary. On his second point, he will find that those who can afford to pay increased rents will be paying them, while those who are in need will benefit from the rebate, and there will be extra funds available for slum clearance and other emergency problems.
    Mr. Marsh: But the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there are estimates around the country, and that, in London alone, it is estimated that there are about 195,000 families in need of accommodation. How can the Conservative Party begin to draw up a housing policy if they have no idea of the size of the problem?
    Mr. Amery: We have been only a fairly short time in power. It is interesting that, over the six years that the right hon. Gentleman's Party were in power, they never attempted to collect these figures.

    Selective Employment Tax (Construction Industry)
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much he anticipates the yield of selective employment tax will be from the construction industry during the financial year 1970–71.
    Mr. Amery: About £135 million.
    Mr. Tebbit: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this tax, which is a tax on homes and was imposed by people who are always hawking their consciences about the homeless, should have gone by now? Should he not lean on some of his hon. Friends to help the industry?
    Mr. Amery: Certainly the impact of the tax on the construction industry is very heavy and represents about a fifth of the total amount collected in S.E.T.
    Mr. Loughlin: Will the Minister indicate that in the event of S.E.T. on the building industry being eliminated, the building industry will agree to reduce the price of houses?
    Mr. Amery: It is not for me to say what the industry will do. That is a hypothetical question. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), who was Minister of Public Building and Works in the last Government, explained that the impact of selective employment tax on the construction industry was very serious.

    Building Firms (Bankruptcies)
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many building firms went bankrupt in 1969; and what were the general reasons for their failure.
    Mr. Amery: The number of bankruptcies in the construction industries in England and Wales in 1969 was 957.
    There were 831 bankruptcies in 1968 compared with 599 in 1964.
    The House may agree with me that a main reason for this striking increase was the mismanagement of the economy by the previous Administration.
    Mr. Tebbit: Would my right hon. Friend announce shortly some measures to assist other firms which are on the edge of bankruptcy?
    Hon. Members: Lame ducks.
    Mr. Amery: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the marginal cases. In addition to the bankruptcies, there were 295 compulsory liquidations and 355 voluntary liquidations of construction companies in England and Wales during 1969, the first year for which figures are available. We look to the improvement in the management of the economy by the Government to remedy this situation.
    Mr. Crosland: I think that the Minister was surprised by the answer which had been provided for him—or at least by the last sentence of it. However, as he has referred to the relationship between bankruptcies and the management of the economy—and the Government's management does not receive very wide admiration in large parts of the country—would he comment on the fact that the Government have stated that it may be necessary in the interest of carrying out their policy to have more, and not fewer, bankruptcies?
    Mr. Amery: I was neither surprised nor astonished at the figures. They reflected the judgment which I had made before I saw the statistics of the management of the last Administration. I do not think that there will be an increased number of bankruptcies. But I make this present to the right hon. Gentleman: it will be for him to come back with a suitable Question next year if I am proved wrong.

    Building Contractors (Departmental Forms)
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will review the number of departmental forms sent to building contractors asking for statistical information with the intention of reducing the number.
    Mr. Channon: This matter is under continual review, and the National Consultative Council has this year set up a Standing Consultative Committee on Statistics, which will deal with this matter, among others. This body met for the first time this week.
    Mr. Rost: I welcome the Minister's reply that progress appears to have been made, but will he agree that there is not only a surplus of irrelevant compulsory

    411
    form filling but even a duplication between Ministries? Has not the building industry been lumbered with enough problems by the previous Administration without also having to do surplus form-filling?
    Mr. Channon: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, and I shall await with interest the report of the National Consultative Council.

    Housebuilding Output
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Environment what was the value at constant prices of housebuilding output in each of the past three years; and what estimate he has made of the value of housebuilding output in 1970.
    Mr. Amery: The value of output at constant prices in new housebuilding in the last three years was £1,112 million in 1967, £1,154 million in 1968 and £1,028 million in 1969. The figure for 1970 is expected to be lower than in 1969, but I would rather await the actual out-turn than give an estimate.
    Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend be surprised when he discovers that the figures for 1970 are likely to show a decline in house-building of at least 10 per cent.? Will not that be further evidence of the previous Government's dismal and disgraceful failure in housing? How soon can we expect the present Administration to reverse this trend?
    Mr. Amery: I am not surprised, because I note that the former Minister for Public Building and Works in the last Administration forecast that the total value of work done in 1970 is likely to be less than in 1969 but that a rise in the level of activity would follow a rise in the level of completions in the private sector. There is an improvement in the private sector. I hope that this will help to correct the fall that we inherited in the public sector under the previous Administration.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Will the Minister get his head out of the sand and look a little further than 1970—to 1974, when, if he looks at the evidence produced, he will see that the numbers will fall still further because almost 80 Tory-controlled local authorities will have stopped building by then? What will he do about that situation?
    Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friends and I look forward to 1974 or 1975 with complete confidence.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take further steps to encourage local authorities to sell council houses to their tenants.
    Mr. Amery: Local authorities are already well aware of my concern to promote council house sales to the maximum extent consistent with their duty to meet the needs of the homeless and badly houses.
    I will be keeping progress in sales continually under review.
    Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend consider circulating to local authorities a list of some of the advantages to be derived from the sale of council houses, including the fact that it is a source of ready finance for the commencement of new council building projects which are urgently needed?
    Mr. Amery: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The circular issued by my right hon. Friend soon after he took office has made our policy quite clear, but I will take every step in my power to re-emphasise what he has already said.
    Mr. Marsh: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the price obtained for second-hand council houses when they are sold is considerably less than the cost of building a new council house? Is not the effect of this policy to place a financial burden upon local authorities and reduce the number of houses available?
    Mr. Amery: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the Greater London Council and the Birmingham City Council—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be put to Ministers, not by Ministers?
    Mr. Amery: Then may I put it in the form of a straight reply? Many authorities, including the Greater London Council and Birmingham, have found the opposite to be the case.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many council tenants are not prepared to leave their neighbourhood and friends but would be prepared and glad to buy their own houses, and thus generate funds for further house building?
    Mr. Amery: I entirely agree. As my hon. Friend knows, local authorities are permitted to sell at reduced prices subject to a covenant covering three or five years.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister issue instructions forbidding the Conservative council in Manchester to sell any more council houses until such time as my 154 cinstituents in the slum clearance area of West Gorton, who have been left alone, who are mainly old people and who are having to live in conditions of dampness, lack of water supply and rat infestation, have had their rehousing completed, since on the present showing they will have to stay in their present accommodation until the end of the winter?
    Mr. Amery: I share the hon. Gentleman's distress that such conditions should prevail in Manchester after the six years that his party were in power. I accept the seriousness of the situation. In so far as local authorities sell their houses, they will have extra funds, or, if tenants move into the private sector, they will have extra accommodation for those in distress.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Since the Minister has mentioned both the Greater London Council and Birmingham in placing importance on the funds that will accrue, will he kindly tell the House what is the average income of those authorities in selling a three-bedroom house and how much it costs to replace it at present-day prices?
    Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question, I will do my best to answer.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that it is healthy and right that a man should own the house in which he lives and that any means which brings this about can only be good?
    Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend and I have always been dedicated to the proposition of a property-owning democracy.

    Slum Clearance, Hull
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the number of slums at present in Hull and the present estimated rate of clearance; and what rate of slum clearance he has estimated as a result of his proposals for housing subsidies;
    (2) what estimate he has made in the years from 1970–71 to 1975–76 in the yearly increase in grants to be paid to Hull Corporation for slum clearance following his refashioning of housing subsidies.
    Mr. Channon: Information on the number of slums and the present rate of clearance can be obtained from the city council. My right hon. Friend's plans for the reform of housing finance need to be discussed in detail with the local authority associations before their effect on individual authorities can be assessed.
    Mr. McNamara: I was very interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. I, too, have been able to obtain the figures from the Hull City Council, but I thought that the Minister might have wanted them to formulate a policy. Is he aware that every statement that we have had from his Department today indicates that he and his colleagues do not know where they are going and how much money they will have to spend, and that many of my constituents will be living in miserable slums a lot longer before they go into more expensive housing as a result of the Government's policies?
    Mr. Channon: What the hon. Member says is entirely untrue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sure that the hon. Member believes it to be true. The effects of what he says are entirely fallacious. The result of my right hon. Friend's housing finance policy will be to direct more help to the areas with special problems.
    Mr. James Johnson: Does not the Minister know that the question of houses is a special case for Hull? In our city we are almost like Amsterdam—built over a swamp. If the Minister put a spade into my garden he would find the water table was less than 6 feet below the surface. The city is in a shocking condition, especially in the area near the

    415
    Fish Dock, and needs special consideration in this context.
    Mr. Channon: I agree that Hull has a serious problem and I understand the concern of both hon. Members about conditions in the city. I repeat that under my right hon. Friend's proposals the areas with special problems will be the areas that get most help.
    Mr. Crosland: Is the Minister seriously maintaining that the cut in subsidies in the mid-1970s which the Chancellor has already foreshadowed will have no serious and damaging effect on the level of rents or upon public house-building programmes?
    Mr. Channon: It seems difficult to make this clear to the right hon. Gentleman; it is not for the want of trying on my part. I am saying that my right hon. Friend's proposals will direct most help to those areas most in need and to those people most in need—which is what the last Government failed to do.

POST OFFICE CORPORATION (CHAIRMAN)
Mr. Richard(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement upon the dismissal of the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation.
The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): Having concluded that it is in the best interests of the Post Office and public, I have asked Lord Hall to relinquish his post as Chairman of the Corporation. He has agreed to do so. There have been no major disagreements between Lord Hall and myself on matters of policy. Lord Hall is leaving forthwith and will receive compensation for loss of office. Mr. Ryland, Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive of the Post Office, will act as Chairman pending the appointment of a successor to Lord Hall.
Mr. Richard: Is the Minister aware that this dismissal and the extraordinarily ham-fisted way in which it has been announced are bound to have a serious effect on morale inside the Post Office? Does he know, for example, that both the major Post Office unions have condemned his action? Is he also aware that
416
there are still strong rumours of major political differences in principle existing between himself and the former Chairman, for example, over the possible closing down of the Giro, over amending the Post Office Act so as to remove from the Post Office the right to manufacture its own equipment and over the possible sale to private enterprise of some of the more profitable parts of the Post Office activities?
Is the Minister further aware that there is widespread belief that the truth behind this dismissal is that he and the Government want a more pliant and politically more acceptable Chairman than Lord Hall proved to be?
I ask the Minister three specific points. First, have there been serious political differences between him and Lord Hall? Secondly, will he give an assurance that he does not intend either to close down the Giro or to remove its management from the Post Office? Thirdly, will he give an assurance that the Government do not intend to amend or repeal the Post Office Act so as to remove the right of manufacture from the Post Office?
Finally, if the Government are proposing to sell off some of the more profitable parts of the Post Office activity, and if this piece of political skullduggery is to be repeated in other nationalised industries, the Government can expect and will get the sustained and bitter opposition of this side of the House and the whole of the Labour movement.
Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of policy questions in relation to the Post Office. I have made it clear that there were no policy disagreements, and I would not come down to the House and say that there were no major policy disagreements if that were not the truth. I have made it absolutely clear that this decision has been taken solely because I believe that it is in the interests of the Post Office and the public.—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We will get along much better by parliamentary questions and not by noise.
Mr. Richard: If the right hon. Gentleman has come to that conclusion in the public interest, why?
Mr. Chataway: Neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else will lead me to

417
make critical remarks about the qualities of leadership of the former Chairman of the Post Office. I do not believe that would set a happy precedent. I have made it absolutely clear that the decision has been taken in the interests of the management of the Post Office.
Mr. Mawby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the change which was brought about by the Post Office Act meant that there could no longer be a political leader of one of the largest commercial organisations in the country? Does he agree that the Minister should be able to decide whether the incumbent is capable of managing the largest commercial organisation in this country and should have freedom to make this decision without it being alleged that it is made for political reasons?
Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly do not regard this as a political appointment. As my hon. Friend says. I have a responsibility under the Post Office Act in relation to the efficient management of the Post Office, and it is in the discharge of that duty that I have come to the conclusion I have.
Mr. Faulds: He could not run a whelk-stall!
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would not come to the House and say whatever it was he was not going to say. Is he aware that it was reported this morning, presumably on information from his Department, that he would not come to the House at all, that he was due to be in the North today, and that this announcement would have been put out by the Post Office without the Minister reporting to the House had it not been for my hon. Friend's Private Notice Question? Will he say whether or not that is so?
Secondly, will he say what canvassing has been undertaken by the Government, either within the Post Office Board or within management, and, if there was canvassing to reach this conclusion, what consultation he had with the trade unions concerned?
Mr. Chataway: We do not in this Administration canvass the opinion of employees of a nationalised industry—[Interruption.]—before coming to a decision about the Chairman—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must here listen to what we disagree with.
Mr. Chataway: —before coming to a decision which is solely that of the Minister concerned. In reply to the Prime Minister's first question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I should have said the Leader of the Opposition. There was firmly fixed in my mind the instance of the right hon. Lady in similar circumstances and the way in which that matter was conducted at the time the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister. In reply to the first question, what I made clear was that I would not come to the House to make a statement to the effect that there had not been major policy differences if that were not the truth.
Mr. Marples: May I ask my right hon. Friend to spell out what he calls—
Mr. Faulds: Go and judge the Miss World competition.
Mr. Marples: If only you shaved, you would be much better. Leaving aside any political differences—
Mr. Orme: You must be kidding!
Mr. Marples: —may I ask my right hon. Friend to say what he considers are his reasons for saying that they are in the best interests?
Mr. Chataway: I have made it clear that I have a responsibility to the House for the efficient management of the postal services. It is in the belief that it is essential to have a change in the management of the Post Office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] My right hon. Friend is inviting me to make criticisms of individuals.
Mr. Marples: No.
Mr. Chataway:—and that I do not feel inclined to do. It would, of course, be easy enough for any Minister in these circumstances to do that, but I believe it would be an unhappy precedent and that it would be unfair for me to do so. I have made it absolutely clear that in my view this change is necessary for the efficent management of the postal services.
Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not clear that the Minister has been less than fair and frank with the House? Is it not a fact that the Chairman of the Post Office

419
Corporation was showing obstinate disagreement with the Minister in the right hon. Gentleman's intention to close down the Giro service? [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman now give a specific assurance that he does not intend to close down Giro?
Sir G. Nabarro rose—
Mr. Heffer: Get back in the cage.
Mr. Stonehouse: I had not finished my supplementary question. Is it not a fact that Lord Hall and the Post Office Board were negotiating to take over a major American supplier of Post Office equipment so that they could ensure that they would be able to obtain Post Office supplies at reasonable prices? Was not this extension of public ownership one of the reasons why the Minister decided to dismiss Lord Hall?
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Chataway: None of the issues which the right hon. Gentleman raises have any bearing on the decision that has been taken.
Mr. Stonehouse: Then what issues have?
Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in recent years—concerning, for example, B.O.A.C. and British Railways—chairmen have been dismissed by the appropriate Ministers? However, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great importance with a public corporation such as the Post Office of having as a successor to Lord Hall a person who is a first-class manager with experience of operating a very large sector of industry?
Mr. Chataway: I certainly recall the instances which my hon. Friend calls to mind. In none of those did the Minister concerned pass criticism on the individual involved. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says about a successor.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that within the ranks of my union, within the ranks of the Post Office staff side generally, and certainly among thousands of postal workers who are queueing outside the Palace of Westminster this afternoon, there has been very high regard for the
420
independence of mind which has been demonstrated by Viscount Hall during his term as Chairman of the Post Office Corporation?
Will the Minister accept as a fact that this decision was taken by a political junta comprising the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself last Saturday morning?—[Interruption.] Will he confirm that his decision does not arise from any differences which he may have had—
Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. Is there not a limit to the time which an hon. Member may occupy when asking a supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: The Chair will call an hon. Member to order when he is out of order
Mr. Morris: Will the Minister confirm that this decision does not arise from any conflict of opinion which he might have had with the former Chairman of the Post Office Corporation in regard to the impending Post Office workers' pay claim and the staff side superannuation scheme?
Mr. Chataway: I accept, of course, that Lord Hall has the considerable qualities which the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Mr. Faulds: Then why sack him?
Mr. Chataway: There is absolutely no truth whatever in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about juntas and so on.
Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at Ipswich on 10th September and at Malvern on 17th September I called on him, on grounds of grave incompetence, to get rid of these Socialist panjandrums and replace them with competent business men of tried and proven ability?
Mr. Chataway: I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks, though I do not have in mind off the cuff the particular speeches to which he refers.
Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the members of the trade unions, including the members of the Post Office Engineering Union, consider that Lord Hall has qualities of leadership which are of paramount importance in an industry which employs so many people?

421
Is he unaware that among the rank and file workers there is a feeling that Lord Hall has been replaced to make way for a puppet politician chairman who will jump to the demands of the Minister when he is trying to make an example of Post Office workers on pay matters and who will abide by any request made by the Minister to hive off profitable parts of the Post Office to the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite in private industry?
Mr. Chataway: There are no grounds whatever for the fears of the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that this decision, which has been arrived at only after considerable thought and care, would not have been reached had I not been convinced that it was essential for the good management of the Post Office.
Hon. Members: Explain.
Mr. Tilney: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he wrote to me on 27th August saying that he had asked Lord Hall to explain why the Post Office had lost so many cheques from the public to the Winston Churchill statue memorial, the number being now no fewer than 50? Is he aware that only after I wrote to Lord Hall in October did that gentleman reply to me—on 16th November? Will he see that his successor answers his correspondence more quickly?
Mr. Chataway: That is really a management matter for the Post Office.
Mr. Pentland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who have had dealings with his Department have reached the conclusion that this is a truly disgraceful, politically-motivated decision? Does he know that our experience was that Lord Hall was dedicated to bringing about the success of every aspect—and I emphasise "every aspect"—of the Board's operations and that we found excellent qualities of leadership in him, with both the trade union movement and the members of his staff? Will the right hon. Gentleman now come clean with the House and explain in explicit terms the real reasons behind this decision?
Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have made it absolutely clear that I will not spell out here the individual circumstances—[Interruption.]—nor do I intend to break previous
422
precedent by criticising the individual concerned. I have made it clear, however, that I believe it to be absolutely essential for the effective management of the Post Office.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Montgomery.
Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order. The Minister was asked earlier if there was any connection between this unexplained sacking and the pay claim. The Minister did not answer that question. Can he be required to come clean with the House and give the answer, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: There is no power in any Speaker to compel a Minister to answer a question.
Mr. Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the country with the general services of the Post Office? Is it not, therefore, quite sensible to make a change at the top in order to get what are much needed improvements?
Mr. Chataway: I believe that there is dissatisfaction. I believe that this is a very demanding job indeed. I believe that the changes which I have announced today will be in the best interests of the Post Office.
Hon. Members: Why?
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has now refused for over a quarter of an hour to give his reasons for this action, and in so doing he has cast an unjustified slur—[Interruption.]—on the individual concerned. Since Lord Hall has said publicly today that he spent an hour, I think it was, with the Minister yesterday and that no reason was given to him, will the Minister tell us whether that is so? Did he give any reason to Lord Hall why he was doing this?
Mr. Chataway: In a long interview yesterday and the day before I explained to Lord Hall why he had lost my confidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but neither in this case nor in the case in which the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend was involved is it appropriate to make public criticisms of the individual?
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate

423
that the innuendoes behind the supplementary questions asked from the Front Bench opposite can only be damaging to Lord Hall; and will he resist being tempted down that road? Does he not agree that the nation expects that a Government which have the power to hire shall also have the power to fire and, provided that proper terms of compensation are arranged, there is no damage to the reputation of the individual? What would be damaging would be if people who were appointed to these positions felt that once appointed they were sacrosanct whatever they did.
Mr. Chataway: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the Leader of the Opposition in the name of protecting Lord Hall's good name to try to lure me into making public criticism.
Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that whether or not he has good reasons for his decision, and he may have, his failure to give a satisfactory explanation this afternoon must lead reasonable men to conclude that politics played a major part in his decision? Does he realise that he is in danger of setting an unhappy precedent that, whenever we have a General Election, heads in the public service will roll? In order to clear the air, will he ensure that whoever he appoints to this job in a permanent capacity has had no connection, either financially or politically, openly with the Conservative Party?
Mr. Chataway: I do not believe that reasonable people will be led to any of the conclusions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. When he considers the range of public appointments for which the Government are responsible, he will probably reconsider what he is suggesting. As I have made clear, the decision has been made in the interests of effective management—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and the fact that I am not prepared to set a new precedent by making public criticisms will certainly not lead to any of the disadvantages the hon. Member has mentioned.
Mr. Tapsell: May I put it to my right hon. Friend, with the greatest respect to Lord Hall, whose personal qualities and devotion to his duties we all respect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that there is
424
very deep and widespread anxiety in the country about the declining standards of the postal and telephone services; and that when these circumstances arise, whether they be in the public or the private sector of the economy, it is right that a change should be made in the leadership of the undertaking concerned?
Mr. Chataway: I believe that there are anxieties and that there will be real benefits, as I have said, from the change that has been made.
Mr. Michael Stewart: My hon. Friends the Members for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) have asked the Minister whether he would make a statement about the future of the Giro and the right of the Post Office to manufacture equipment. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered either question. Will he do so now? In particular, since he has told us that there were no political differences between Lord Hall and himself, can we assume that his opinion on this matter is the same as Lord Hall's?
Mr. Chataway: If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question—[Interruption.]—I will answer it. But I have made it absolutely clear that there is no connection between the future of the Giro and the matter which is now under discussion.
Sir T. Brinton: Has the Minister observed the report in the Evening Standard, which purports to be a verbal report of what Lord Hall said—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot quote in a supplementary question. He can give the sense of what was said.
Sir T. Brinton: It is reported that Lord Hall said that he hoped to God that whatever action the Government took in the future would be in the interests of the Corporation. May we hope that any future appointee will pay more attention to the convenience of the public who are fed up with increasing postal charges and an ever-deteriorating quality of service?
Mr. Chataway: I will bear my hon. Friend's views in mind.
Mr. Sheldon: If our public servants are to do their jobs properly, independent of whatever party is in power, it is

425
essential that they should be confident that party politics will not be among the reasons for their being sacked. Is the Minister aware that the disquiet that there might be amongst public servants as a result of this present action might spread amongst many other public servants? Will he realise that he cannot sack a major public servant without giving the House a proper explanation?
Mr. Chataway: I have set no new precedent whatsoever. Indeed, I have been extremely anxious not to set a precedent which I believe would be very damaging.
Mr. Hastings: Is it not remarkable that not one supplementary question coming from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite has had anything to do with the customers' interests? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is not this the basic difference between us, and is it not about time that those interests were considered?
Mr. Chataway: I agree with my hon. Friend. The action I have taken has nothing to do with party politics, as has been suggested, but solely to do with the service available to the public.
Mr. Heffer: As the Minister has said that his decision to eliminate, if that is the word to use, Lord Hall from his job has nothing to do with the future of the Giro, and as a considerable number of Giro workers live in my constituency, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance now that the Giro will continue, that there will not be any redundancies, and that we can look forward to a very happy future for it?
Mr. Chataway: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows. I have taken a keen interest in the Giro; indeed, I have recently visited it. There is nothing I would like better than to have a debate on its future. But that does not arise on this issue today, nor does any other major matter of Post Office policy.
Mr. Farr: Is not the Minister's action good evidence that the Government are determined to take firm steps to control this large and critically important enterprise, and should not the Government therefore be fully supported by the House?
Mr. Chataway: The Government have a responsibility for the effective manage-
426
ment of the Post Office, and it is in the discharge of that responsibility that this action has been taken.
Mr. Edward Short: The Minister has twice said that he has a responsibility to the House under the Post Office Corporation Act. Has he not under our constitution a duty to explain his actions to the House? Has he not treated the House with an arrogance and a contempt which is unusual even for that Government?
Mr. Chataway: I believe that I would have been serving the House extremely poorly if I had been lured into criticism of an individual on an occasion such as this.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of these supplementary questions and answers it has only just been brought to my attention that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, is challenging the legality of the action that has been taken by the Minister. If that be the case, ought this not now to be regarded as a matter which is sub judice?
Mr. Speaker: The Table will correct me if I am wrong. The sub judice rule comes into effect the moment the judicial process starts.
Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order. Will the Minister say whether Lord Hall has the right of appeal?
Mr. Chataway: This does not arise, because Lord Hall and I have agreed to the terms of the statement that was issued in the early hours of this morning, and the decision that Lord Hall should relinquish his post has been agreed between him and me.
Mr. Tom Boardman: Does it not amount to this—that it is the Government's duty to ensure that the Post Office is efficiently managed? Should not the Government have the support of all parts of the House when they reach the very difficult conclusion that a change in chairmanship is in the interests of the efficient management of this great enterprise?
Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend correctly states the constitutional position.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Precedent in such a case would suggest that an hon. or right hon. Member would move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 so that this matter could be debated. However, I am sure the House will agree that if this were done and you followed precedent and granted it, it might not be to the convenience of the House, because it would have to take place tomorrow in the middle of a debate which we all want—we certainly want it and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members oposite do. Therefore, to make the position clear, may I make it plain that we certainly intend that this matter shall be debated, that it should be debated in Government time, and that a Motion of censure will be down to that effect.
Mr. W. Baxter: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, as this has a bearing on Scotland as well as on England, may I ask why no Scottish Member caught your eye to ask a supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: It is very difficult for every hon. Member who is seeking to catch Mr. Speaker's eye not to be disappointed when he fails. I tried to take a cross-section of the House. I am sorry that I omitted the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bidwell: As this action has caused constituents of mine to present themselves at the House today in numbers such that I cannot remember happening before—an instantaneous lobby—is it right that a Minister should come to the House ostensibly to give an explanation and yet waste the time of the House for so many minutes in non-explanation of his action?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It might have been a good supplementary if the hon. Gentleman had got in.
Hon. Members: Resign!

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House I should like to make a statement on developments concerning the negotiations for British membership of the European Communities since I last made a statement to the House on 29th October.
Since then I have had the pleasure of representing the United Kingdom for the first time at a Ministerial meeting of the E.F.T.A. Council. I am glad to say that the Council welcomed the progress being made in negotiations with the European Communites.
I have also visited Paris for discussions with members of the French Government, and have had meetings with the New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister, the Norwegian Minister of Commerce, the Pakistan Minister of Commerce and the Governor of Hong Kong.
Two meetings have taken place at the Deputies' level in Brussels.
Their proceedings included discussions on the British request that tariff quotas might be established on a number of raw materials of importance to British industry, on transitional measures, on certain Commonwealth problems and on the European Investment Bank.
The Community transmitted to our Conference of Seven the Commission's observations on the factual papers earlier submitted by the British delegation on Community finance and on sugar; and the British delegation submitted proposals to deal with the problems of New Zealand's exports of dairy products and exports of sugar by members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
Since my last statement, our fellow applicants for membership—the Irish Republic, Denmark and Norway—have had further meetings with the Community. The remaining five members of E.F.T.A. and the associate member—Finland—have also opened discussions with the Community: Sweden, Switzerland and Austria on 10th November; Portugal, Iceland and Finland yesterday. Things are thus moving forward on a broad front.

429
The next stage will have to be a detailed discussion of what we see as the three main questions which require to be dealt with in the negotiations. New Zealand dairy products, sugar from developing Commonwealth countries and the British contribution to Community finance.
Members will, however, have read Press reports concerning both the Commission's comments on the British factual paper on Community financing, which has, as I say, been communicated to us, and a more recent major report by the Commission, not yet communicated to us, dealing generally with the transitional mechanisms of enlargement in which are included the three main questions I have just mentioned.
We welcome the fact that in pursuit of our common desire to make progress in the negotiations the Community is formulating ideas for the settlement of all the major problems.
No position has yet been taken by the Community on the major report by the Commission to which I have just referred. We are confident that in considering problems with which this report deals, the Community Council of Ministers will take into account not only the Commission's thoughts on the subject but also our own.
There is one important point on Community finance which is, perhaps, worth making now. For a variety of reasons Community expenditure on agriculture would hardly increase as a result of the accession of the four present applicants.
Thus the present members of the Community should benefit substantially, in terms of reductions in their own contributions, from whatever contribution we eventually might make to the Community budget.
Agricultural exporters in the Community would also, of course, benefit, over the transitional period and beyond, from increased agricultural exports to the British market.
We must of course bear in mind that the figures put forward by the Commission represent a stage in negotiation. It remains to be seen whether the Commission in its proposals has taken all the relevant factors into account.
430
We seek a fair and sound basis for the enlargement of the Community. In that spirit we are now considering the extremely important and difficult question of the British contribution to the finances of the Community.
This is crucial to the present negotiation; and I very much hope that the Community will await the proposals which we intend to put forward on this point in the near future before themselves endorsing or adopting any position as their own.
The House may wish me to add a few words on two related subjects, which are not involved in the actual negotiations. Following the report to the Government of the Six by their Foreign Ministers on new means of political consultation between them, we have been invited to take part in a meeting in Brussels on 2nd December with the Six and the other candidates to discuss co-ordination of foreign policy in certain fields.
We have gladly accepted this invitation. Her Majesty's Government will be represented by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
On the important question of economic and monetary union, the Six have not yet determined their own attitude to the proposals in the Werner Report. The policy of the Government remains the same as that of its predecessor. Nothing but good can be gained within an enlarged Community from much closer co-operation in financial matters.
Mr. Harold Lever: While welcoming the right hon. and learned Gentleman's report, which is regarded as overdue, may I ask him whether he is aware of the anxiety of the House that he should keep hon. Members continually informed and consider their views upon these matters throughout the negotiations? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that he will find the House in this respect an ultimately more rewarding, if less immediately admiring, audience than the Monday Club for the passing of information upon these matters?
Secondly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange to provide a greater flow of reliable information about what is taking place in these negotiations? Does he regard it as satisfactory that the public and the House of Commons have to rely upon Press leaks of dubious

431
authenticity but which appear to be well informed, rather than on specific information reliably given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to see that this is corrected and that either these leaks do not occur or that proper and reliable information so far as possible is given? In particular, could he possibly, after consultation with the Community, see that we have the Werner Report and the Davignon Report and some information about the discussions that have been taking place, as well as what has been said on behalf of Britain, in relation to the financial contribution?
Mr. Rippon: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of keeping this House informed. That is why I am making this statement today, in response to the proposition which was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I can assure the House that I have not been able to give anybody more information than I gave in my statement on 29th October. Subject to the wishes of the House, I shall be making a further statement after the next Ministerial meeting on 8th December.
As to the Werner Report and the Davignon Report, I think steps have already been taken for these to be made available in the Library. Where there are other public documents which are relevant I will see that they are made available in the Library. From time to time we have a little delay because we have to make the necessary translations.
As to the financial contribution, I think this is a matter for detailed negotiation. I cannot go into that matter this afternoon.
Mr. Turton: In the course of his statement today my right hon. and learned Friend referred specifically to a number of representations that he has made to the Commission in the course of the negotiations. These have been partly, and no doubt inaccurately, leaked in the Press. Surely it would be a convenience to the House to have a White Paper setting out in broad detail the representations that he has been making on our behalf?
Mr. Rippon: Naturally I will consider what my right hon. Friend has suggested.
432
When a White Paper is appropriate we will certainly bring it before the House. What I always try to do is to identify the subjects and the main terms of the proposals that we are discussing so that any Members of this House or outside bodies can make representations in good time about their points of view.
Dr. Gilbert: In the light of the address given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund, and in the light also of addresses given by his predecessor in office on the question of exchange rates so far as this country is concerned, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he has made any representations to the Six, or will he in the future, about the total undesirability from the point of view of this country of there being any narrowing of the possible margins of exchange rates for sterling?
Mr. Rippon: Those matters do not arise in the negotiations. They are, of course, matters of general interest which are being discussed by members of the Community in the light of the Werner Report. The hon. Gentleman can, of course, put questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about his point of view.
It is important to understand that, as to the Werner Report, nothing that would happen in the preliminary stages could possibly affect us before the negotiations are concluded one way or the other.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that at the meeting of the Western European Union Assembly last week among parliamentarians there was a feeling that he and the Community had gone about as far as possible in making available at this stage information on some very complicated negotiations?
Mr. Rippon: I think that certainly in one way or another a great deal of information is made available, I will certainly play my part in seeing that the House is better informed than anybody else.
Mr. Barnes: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that just as important as keeping this House informed is keeping the people in the country informed? Could he not find more ways of reporting direct to the public? Does he not agree that it is very important

433
that people should feel as involved themselves as possible in these negotiations which are taking place?
Mr. Rippon: Apart from my speech to the Monday Club, I spoke yesterday to the National Federation of Women's Institutes. One tries to avail oneself of as many opportunities as possible in making public speeches. There is a lot of talk going on about this subject at the moment.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not the Monday Club need enlightenment more than most of us?
May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the progress he has made and on his very full and frank reports to this House? Will he be able to achieve his target of a decision by mid-summer without monthly Ministerial meetings, and, if not, how does he propose to bring this about?
Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that my hon. Friend speaks with authority on matters of enlightenment.
With regard to the progress of the negotiations, I am satisfied that all the parties are making efforts to see that they are concluded as soon as possible. I do not think that one can be dogmatic about the timetable, but I am optimistic that we should be able to break the back of the negotiations by the summer of next year.
Mr. John Mendelson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that he is negotiating under a mandate from this House, given in the last Parliament, that this country should make an application? Since then a number of proposals have emerged which are now inevitably discussed among the Six, and the President of France, among others, told his Cabinet that the United Kingdom may be expected to accept everything that the Six have agreed to by the time of the conclusion of the negotiations for entry. In view of this fact, is it not necessary that there should be a further debate in this House with a full account of the new developments, so that the House may give its judgment upon them before we continue to negotiate?
Mr. Rippon: We have put forward exactly the same case as was set in hand by our predecessors. We are negotiating
434
on that basis. We must now await the outcome of the negotiations.
As to matters which change the situation while the negotiations go on, that would create a new situation and we would have to face it. I have urged upon my colleagues in the Community how important it is that they should not take any action which would create difficulties in the course of negotiations. I think they now understand this point. I may say that I made the representation with particular force after the adoption of the fisheries Regulation.
Sir T. Beamish: As successful negotiations would lead to the creation of a home market rather more than five times its present size, would my right hon. and learned Friend say something about how he sees trade relations developing between such an enlarged Community and if five members of E.F.T.A. do not apply for membership?
Mr. Rippon: We have had discussions in the E.F.T.A. Council about our respective positions. Some members of E.F.T.A. are applying for full membership. Some are seeking other sorts of arrangements such as association. We are concerned to see that in enlarging the Community and gaining the benefit of the dynamic effects referred to in the previous Government's White Paper, we should not destroy progress which has already been made in establishing free trade within the E.F.T.A. countries.
Mr. Healey: Ministers have recently rightly expressed their concern at the trade legislation before the American Congress. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he had any discussion with his colleagues in the Common Market about this problem, and whether it is intended that there should be a common approach between Britain and the Six?
Mr. Rippon: This matter came up at the morning meeting of the Community on 27th October. They indicated subsequently that they had made strong representations to the United States Government about the dangers of growing protectionism and discrimination.
Mr. Healey: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it is intended and agreed that there should be a common approach by the Common

435
Market and the applicant countries on this very important issue which affects Europe as a whole?
Mr. Rippon: There are certain things we can talk together about. But the Community is now in existence and it makes its own decisions as a Community. We shall have our opportunity, after the negotiations, assuming they are successful, when we are members. Meanwhile, as I said, there are arrangements for discussion about political matters.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Would my right hon. and learned Friend make a statement to the House when, rather than if, he realises that the terms likely to be obtained are unacceptable?
Mr. Rippon: If I felt that, of course, I should probably come and tell the House pretty quickly.
Mr. Eadie: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the situation is changing, and does he not feel handicapped in trying to carry on his negotiations while the body of opinion in this country is swelling against the Common Market? Will he give that due consideration?
Mr. Rippon: I do not accept that. On the contrary, people are now understanding that vital British interests are involved, that, as three successive Government have said, it is in the British interest to negotiate to join a large community, and, if the terms are right, it will be to our benefit and that of the whole of Western Europe.
Sir John Gilmour: On the question of sugar, as our submission does not seek preferential entry for Australia, and this will lead to a shortfall in sugar coming under preferential arrangements, is it my right hon. and learned Friend's intention that this should be met by increased production of sugar in this country or by importation from the E.E.C.?
Mr. Rippon: All that will have to be a matter for further consideration as the negotiations develop. As regards Australia, we are satisfied that the transitional period will help enormously.
Mr. Alfred Morris: May I press the Minister on the need for an urgent parlia-
436
mentary debate on this whole question? Would he agree that his own personal enthusiasm for joining the Common Market cannot be shown to reflect opinion in the House? Would it not improve his representativeness in the talks at Brussels if we had an urgent and full-ranging debate on the Common Market? Will he consult his right hon. Friend with a view to trying to arrange this?
Mr. Rippon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of the point raised
Mr. Farr: On the three main questions that my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned, no doubt the third, relating to the British contribution to the European Economic Community's finances, will be settled on a transitional basis, but will he give the House an undertaking that the first two questions, relating to the New Zealand dairy problem and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, will be settled only on the permanent basis of continued access to our markets for these products?
Mr. Rippon: In these fields of world trade there is no such thing as a permanent basis. In regard to New Zealand and sugar from the developing Commonwealth countries, we have asked for some form of continuing arrangements, subject to review, that some procedure should be devised in order that we can assess the position as we go along. I am saying nothing about the basis on which we might eventually settle our contribution to the Community budget.
Mr. Pardoe: I welcome the progress so far and the Minister's obvious determination to succeed with the negotiations, but is he aware that speed is of the essence in these negotiations? Can he transmit his own sense of urgency to his partners in the Community? Second, may I ask him about his attitude to the Werner Report and acquaint him with the fact that few of us in the House are entirely reassured or enlightened to know that the Government's policy is the same as that of its predecessor on any subject at all? Is he aware, for instance, that the Werner Report does not call for closer co-operation in financial matters, and will he state specifically that the Government accept the idea of a European currency?
Mr. Rippon: As to the first point, I am satisfied that colleagues in the Community realise that speed is important. I have certainly impressed this upon them. On the Werner Report, it is important to understand—I think that this follows from some of the questions put already—that nothing is likely to happen during the period of negotiation which would cause any concern to anybody in the House or outside. There is thereafter a second stage which the Community is itself discussing, and on which it would take no decisions until, if we were involved, we were members of the Community. There is a third stage rather far in the future which would involve amendments to the Treaty of Rome itself. There again, we should express a view before any such amendments were made.
Mr. Longden: If it be true that the American Government are becoming ever more protectionist, does not that make it even more necessary for our economic future that we should enter the European Economic Community?
Mr. Rippon: I am sure that it is in the British interest and the interest of the whole of Western Europe that these negotiations should succeed.
Mr. McBride: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman two questions? Is he aware that the Chairman of the European Commission said, on 15th September, that the purpose of the enlarged European Economic Community is political union? Taking this and the comments about foreign policy in the same context, would that mean adherence to a coherent E.E.C. foreign policy, with the abandonment of our traditional foreign policy outlook?
Second, last night, in the Palace, I listened with great concern to the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand. Diversification has enabled the New Zealanders to earn only 10 per cent. of their income from sources other than their pastoral exports, and they are faced with a grave short and long-term position. Is France implacably opposed to any special procedures for New Zealand?
Mr. Rippon: We all recognise the importance of New Zealand and the extent of the problem which she would face if there was undue disruption of her dairy industry or, for that matter, her exports of lamb. I have no reason to suppose
438
that there is any country in the Community which does not accept that this is a special problem which must be dealt with in a special way.
As regard political union, the House may have noted that President Pompidou said not so long ago at Strasbourg that the Community rested and was built upon respect for the individuality of the States which comprise it. If, in the long run, we achieve a degree of ultimate political union, it will only be after many years of working together and harmonising our policies in many fields.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Has the Minister stuck by his position that any transitional period for agriculture must be a minimum of six years? Second, does he not think it significant that the Community is prepared to consult with us on foreign affairs, which proves that there is no need to sign the Treaty of Rome in order to be able to join with Europe in settling, matters which are of mutual concern?
Third, although my right hon. and learned Friend has said that his report had been frank and full, we have had this before. It is really a lot of detail which has no bearing upon the fundamental issue as to whether this nation is ready for it, and all the indications are that the nation is not ready. Will my right hon. Friend see that he carries the nation with him before he goes back to Brussels?
Mr. Rippon: On the transitional periods, we put forward what we thought was a fair statement of our interests. We said three years for industry, six years for agriculture, one for the Coal and Steel Community and one for Euratom. We have had an argument about whether it is right or fair to have absolute parallelism or adequate parallelism, and that has been a matter for discussion. The Community has now put forward its proposals. I have always said that we shall consider its argument in the same spirit that we ask the Community to consider ours—what is right and fair? We shall do the same in relation to Community finance. The Community will put forward its position, we shall counter it, and we shall talk about it.
There is no doctrine in this. The aim must be to secure a fair balance between the interests of the existing members of the Community and those of the new

439
applicants. That is our purpose, and I think that we should succeed if the necessary political good will exists on both sides.
Mr. Moyle: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he would have been able to process the negotiations much more rapidly if the E.E.C. had been prepared to grant him more than four meetings in the first half of next year, and does not the unwillingness of the E.E.C. to do that, plus its attitude on the Werner Report on fisheries policy, indicate that the Community is not likely to go out of its way to try to accommodate us within it? What prospects are there for reasonable terms emerging?
Mr. Rippon: My first feeling was that we were not having enough Ministerial meetings. I do not take that view quite so dogmatically now. A very great deal of progress has been made by the deputies, which is as it should be, because there is good will on the part of the Commission to tackle the facts and the background. It is important that Ministers should come together when there are matters to be discussed in depth which officials cannot discuss and when there are matters to be decided. Although there is no settlement on this yet, it looks as though we shall probably have four meetings in the next half year, but we are leaving as it were, pencilled notes in the diary to keep certain other dates free, if it should become necessary. I think that that is the best way to proceed.
As regards the fisheries regulation, we have made representations and reserved our position. I think that this has illustrated how important it is that the Community should not take action during the course of the negotiations which makes our position more difficult. I think that the Community's representatives have taken that point.
Mr. Temple: Is it not clear that the Council of Ministers of the E.E.C. has made its position perfectly clear in regard to fisheries, and does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that there is extreme anxiety among the inshore fishermen of England and Wales that their livelihood would be very much threatened if the E.E.C. policy were put into effect?
Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that. I put it to the Council of Ministers that I was prepared to accept that it was something of a coincidence that they had concluded this arrangement—which they have been talking about for the past five years or so—just when we were starting negotiations. It was not helpful. We have made comments on the regulation and we have reserved our position about it. I am well aware of the anxieties which this has caused. Of course, the existing Community is entitled to regulate its affairs as it wishes, though, if it were frequently to change the basis on which we are negotiating in this way, that would certainly complicate my task.
Mr. Callaghan: May I revert to the question put by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and ask the Minister to clarify the point? Was he saying that the period of six years is negotiable if there are adequate concessions in other fields by the E.E.C. countries, or is it a fixed position by this country in the interests of agriculture?
Mr. Rippon: I think it wrong to negotiate on the basis that we put forward a demand and in no circumstances would we even consider what the other party has to say about it. If I were to adopt that attitude about decisions taken by the Community, neither this nor, for that matter, any other international negotiations would progress one yard.
Mr. Callaghan: Does that mean that the six-year period is not a fixed period but it can be lowered in certain circumstances?
Mr. Rippon: We have put forward our position, saying what we think is right, knowing that the Community will make certain counter-proposals from time to time. If we reach any agreement, that must then be reported to the House.
Dame Irene Ward: In view of the depth and width of the negotiations which have taken place, when will my right hon. Friend be able to let us know how the various industries in this country are reacting to the way the negotiations have proceeded? It is most important to people concerned with such matters in this country to know how the reaction is going industry by industry to the discussions

441
which have taken place. At what stage will they be brought in?
Mr. Rippon: I have had regular meetings with representatives of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., and I propose to continue to have those meetings. They will in their own time and in their own way represent to their members their point of view and pass on to me any representations which they themselves receive from particular industries.
Mr. Harold Lever: So as to clear up any misunderstanding which might arise from the answer to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), will the Minister make clear that what is flexible, and inevitably so, in the course of negotiations is the ultimate period agreed but that, once that has been agreed as part of the terms of entry, it will be a minimum period and cannot be reduced thereafter?
Mr. Rippon: Where we have reached agreements on certain matters, they would all be subject to the qualification of final agreement at the end of the day. So nothing is really final until we reach the end of the negotiations. But we cannot take a fixed position in the course of negotiations about particular propositions in isolation. If we get a good package arrangement, these things are negotiable. Not only is the transitional period important, but what happens within the transitional period is important, too.
Mr. Marten: As the final aim of the European movement, putting it rather generally, is a United States of Europe, could the Government come clean about their attitude to this proposal? For example, if the French Government were to change and the movement towards European unity expedite itself, what would the Government do? Will they come clean? Otherwise, no agreement is likely to get through this House.
Mr. Rippon: It is important that my hon. Friend should understand this. It will not arise for this or, probably, the next Government to determine. But if views of other Community Governments change once we are members of the Community, then the British Government will express their own view at that time. I think that it is worth understanding that
442
no major decisions of the Community are taken without unanimous agreement, and the record of the Community shows that no decision is taken which is against what any member regards as a major interest of its country.
Mr. Barnett: Could the right hon. Gentleman put the Werner Plan in its right perspective and make clear that, so far as the Six themselves are concerned, the most that is likely to happen in the foreseeable future is an acceptance of technical narrowing of the margins but nothing much more? Second, on the general question of parity, does he feel himself bound in any way by the commitment of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in no circumstances is he prepared to consider our own parity before we enter?
Mr. Rippon: Those questions really ought to go to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, dealing as they do with policy outside the negotiations. I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman has had to say about the Werner Report. It proposes very little for the first stage, and even on that, dealing with a subject as important as narrowing margins of parity, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that our views would have to be heard.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

DEFENCE (DONALDSON REPORT)
The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I would like to make a statement about the report of Lord Donaldson's Committee on Boy Entrants and Young Servicemen. The report has now been published as Command 4509 and copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government are most grateful to Lord Donaldson and his colleagues for their very valuable review of a complex and difficult subject.
The Committee accepts that the need for adequate defence forces demands a system of binding engagements. It also acknowledges the opportunities to leave that already exist for those who for various reasons change their mind about a Service career. At present about 12,000 boys and adults are allowed to leave

443
prematurely each year. Nevertheless, the Committee concludes that all who join the Services before age 17½, whether on boys' or adult engagements, should be allowed to change the terms of their engagements when they reach the age of majority.
It recommends that most boy entrants should have the right at the age of 18 to confirm their original engagements or to reduce them to three years. But it recognises that this would not give the Services a far return from apprentices who need two or more years' training. It therefore recommends that these longterm apprentices should have three options at the age of 18—to confirm their original engagements, or to complete their training and then give five years' productive service, or to leave forthwith in mid-training.
We have had to consider these recommendations against the background of the extremely serious manpower situation which we found when we took office, and we have had to weigh carefully the consequences of any relaxation of the present engagement structure for the maintenance of the strength and efficiency of the Forces. We have concluded that, on balance, it would be right to accept Lord Donaldson's main recommendations, with one modification.
While we appreciate the motives of the Committee in differentiating between apprentices undergoing long training and the majority, on balance we have concluded that in fairness we ought to treat boys in both groups alike. In some cases they live, work and train side by side. They would find it hard to understand why, when they reached 18, some could leave at once and the others only in three years' time.
In order to put the two groups on a much more equal footing, we have decided to introduce a scheme under which everyone who joins before 17½ will have the opportunity at 18 of confirming his original engagement or choosing to leave three years after his 18th birthday or completion of training, whichever is the later. There will be no option to leave at 18 for the small group of apprentices who undergo long training, but equally they will not be required to serve for as long as five years after completing their training.
444
Although the Committee's recommendations were framed in relation to the raising of the school-leaving age, which will occur in 1972–73, the Government have decided to introduce the new arrangement on 1st April, 1971. It will apply not only to those who join thereafter but also to those already serving who are still under 18.
The Government have accepted all the other recommendations of the Committee except that which recommended that the size of the defence budget should be adjusted to take account of the social and economic value to the nation of the training of boys. We regard this particular recommendation as impractical.
The Committee recognised that implementation might have to be phased. Because of the Navy's manpower shortages, this will be necessary in the case of Recommendation 3, that the period of service required before adult naval ratings and Royal Marine other ranks can apply for discharge by purchase should be brought into line with the other Services. However, we intend to make steady progress year by year, so that by 1977 at the latest the Royal Navy will be in line with the two other Services.
I am very conscious of the risks in our decision for the manning of the Services. I believe, however, that we have struck a reasonable balance between the need, which we accept, for some liberalisation of the present arrangements, and the need to provide adequate defence forces. I should like to draw attention to the tribute which Lord Donaldson has paid to many aspects of Service life and training. In his own words,
"the Services provide a form of education and training available equally to the less privileged, which is not provided elsewhere and which is of the highest value to the individuals and the country."
I am confident that with this relaxation of the engagement rules, and with the new impetus of the present Government's defence policy, increasing numbers of boys will avail themselves of these opportunities.
Mr. George Thomson: We on this side of the House join the noble Lord in his thanks to the Donaldson Committee, which had to deal with the difficult conflict between the liberty of the subject and the needs of national security. Is the Minister aware that hon. Members

445
on both sides will naturally want time to study the White Paper which has just been published? Indeed, there may be a demand to debate the issues it raises. Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that, as a preliminary view, we regard the decision as a step in the right direction, since it reduces the liability to service of young entrants by rather more than half, but that three years' notice of ending a contract is still a long time? We hope that further progress can be made along the lines of the very principle that the Donaldson Committee lays down, that a voluntary system must be voluntary. We regard the proposal on adult purchase of discharge from the Navy as being far too slow. The period up to 1977 is a very long transitional period, and we hope that the Government will be able to speed things up a good deal.
Lord Balniel: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his preliminary remarks. This is a complicated subject, which we are, of course, perfectly willing to debate. I accept that the concept of a voluntary service is that it should be truly voluntary. The House must accept that the decision is a major advance in the liberalisation of the engagement structure. This liberalisation, combined with the improved pay arrangements, makes a career in the Services one of the finest in the country.
Mr. Ramsden: My hon. Friend's statement sounds quite all right, but this is a very complicated matter and will require study by those of us who have not seen a copy of the report. Is it not rather a pity that the Government had to reject the recommendation that the defence budget should be relieved of a cost which more properly belongs to education, for the educational value of the military training given to the boys?
Lord Balniel: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's point. From the Defence Minister's point of view it is tempting to exclude all the educational work which we undertake in the defence field and place it on another budget, but it is impracticable to exclude one section of our work and place it on another Department's budget.
Mr. Driberg: Since the noble Lord said that he was very willing to debate this matter—which is complicated—will
446
he at once discuss it with the Leader of the House, so that a debate can be arranged? Second, while I of course agree that this is a considerable advance on the previous situation, the waiting period of three years after exercising the option seems unconscionably long. If a young man finds that he has made a mistake in his choice of career and wants to get out of the Services, to be told that he must wait for another three years is almost an incentive to go absent.
Lord Balniel: The question of a debate is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman points out that a continued engagement of three years is a long period. But it is a considerable improvement on a period of nine years. The Committee specifically points out that a binding engagement in the Services is a necessary feature of Service life.
Mr. Wall: I accept the compromise which my hon. Friend has announced, but can he say what effect it is likely to have on the Royal Navy, which depends overwhelmingly on boy service? Will he give immediate consideration to ending the break period after three months' training?
Lord Balniel: Two-thirds of the recruits into the Royal Navy are boys, but it has been prepared to face the risk involved. Although there is a risk in this liberalisation measure, I believe that its effect on the image of the Services will result in a greater willingness of parents, youth leaders and teachers to encourage young men to join the Services. The break period is under examination.
Mr. John Morris: Ministers in the last Government believed that the existing system actively impaired recruitment and that liberalisation was necessary; hence the Committee and the Report. We welcome the decision as a major step forward. But does it mean that those over 18 on 1st April, 1971, will not benefit from the proposals? The decision will have the greatest practical significance for the Royal Navy. Will it have to wait until the late 1970s at the earliest for reform? Cannot there be a speedier rationalisation for the Navy?
Lord Balniel: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's first remarks, which I understood to be a welcome for the

447
Report. We cannot make the change retrospective to cover all adult Servicemen who joined as boys—that would be impossible—but I have already announced to the House that I am examining the adult engagement structure.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will my hon. Friend emphasise to the country Lord Donaldson's statement that:
"The Services should be seen as a fine career which a boy is lucky to get into, not as a second best to industry."?
Will my hon. Friend recognise that the individual needs of the three Services are to some extent different in detail, and will remain so, and will he make sure that these very necessary differences are not subordinated to uniformity for uniformity's sake?
Lord Balniel: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. As I have said, I believe that a combination of a good salary in the Services and this major advance in the liberalisation of the engagement structure makes the Services one of the finest careers in the country. There will be no intention to achieve uniformity for uniformity's sake, but where rationalisation of the engagement structures can be achieved without harming the individual Services, that is desirable.
Miss Lestor: I welcome the Minister's announcement as liberalising the situation. Will he make a specific statement now or later about the position of many young men who applied to be released from the Services, were turned down, and are now adults, some of whom have absented themselves? Will there be any amnesty for them to make a new application? What exactly will their position be?
Lord Balniel: I do not think I can add to the answer I gave. If the hon. Lady puts down a specific Question about that matter, I shall try to answer it.
Mr. Nigel Fisher: No one seems adequately to have thanked my hon. Friend for his much more liberal and humane reaction to the report than we encountered among some members of the last Government.
Lord Balniel: I am very appreciative of my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the hon. Gentleman at least reconsider the proposal made by my right hon. Friend that there should be a gradual reduction of the three years after 18, because three years to a young man is such a long time? Will he agree that this recommendation was unanimous? If he wants uniformity between apprentices and non-apprentices, why should he not reduce the 21 years rather than increase the 18 years for the apprentices?
Lord Balniel: I cannot undertake to re-examine the decision we have reached on this matter. It has been reached after great thought. Considerable risks are being taken at a time when the manning position in the Services is not good. We believe this to be an advance and to be in the interests of the Services.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Since a man is deemed to be unable to make a contract until he is 18 or to get married without his parents' consent until he is 18, why make a difference in relation to entry into the Armed Services? Is it not holding a young man to an agreement which he really was not old enough to make? Does it not smack, therefore, of press-gang methods?
Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman should read the report. The point is that at the age of 18 these youngsters will have the opportunity of confirming their long-term engagement or shortening it to a period of three years. This is a reasonable compromise in a very difficult problem which I hope is acceptable to the House.
Mr. Dempsey: I welcome this advance in the liberalisation of the engagement structure. Large numbers of young people at the moment are on desertion from the Services. Some of my constituents have, unfortunately, deserted from the Royal Navy. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that these young people have obviously been misplaced, that their choice has been wrong, and that they have no intention of serving? Does he not also agree that they are therefore lost to both the Navy, to industry and to themselves and that if we could only reduce the three-year period they might be able to rehabilitate themselves in our society?
Lord Balniel: I doubt whether the facts support the hon. Gentleman's statement that large numbers are involved. But there are arrangements for those boys who are unhappy or unsuitable to be released from the Services, and we will do all we can to ensure that those who are unhappy or unsuitable are released.
Mr. Dalyell: In relation to page 40 of the report, has the hon. Gentleman been able to reflect on the suggestion of our former colleague, Alan Thompson, of Edinburgh University, who is a member of the Committee, on the issue of the ombudsman? Has he considered whether the ombudsman system can be reconciled with the needs of security and discipline in the Services? if so, would it be better to have the Swedish system of appointing a separate ombudsman for the Services or to extend our own system? What kind of Service complaints could be submitted to the ombudsman?
While I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Army, I would have liked the services of the ombudsman when looking at a recent difficult case, possibly a case of homosexuality, involving a West Lothian teenager. These homosexual cases are very difficult cases in which an ombudsman might help.
Lord Balniel: I appreciate the point but the question of extending the investigating power of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to the public services as a whole, including the Armed Forces, is already under consideration by the Government.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had three important statements today and I rather detected that at the end of the time you were anxious for us to proceed. Standing Orders say that Questions shall last an hour and that we shall then enter upon the Orders of the Day. Would you therefore consider asking the Leader of the House to discuss with you the convenience of the House when we embark upon the Orders of the Day one hour and twenty-five minutes after what was expected to be the appointed time? Could you make certain that the Government space out their very important statements, in which the House is naturally interested,
450
in such a way that hon. Members who come here expecting the business to start at the time laid down in Standing Orders shall have the opportunity of ensuring that that business is not preceded by many statements of this length?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has said. No one has been keener than I to space out statements, and I have done everything I could to space them out. I take no credit for doing so, but I have in fact spaced them out a great deal better than the previous Government spaced theirs out. I have done my best and always will. But I cannot take account—and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman may laugh at me for what I am going to say—of Private Notice Questions which may arise on a day when I did not know they were going to arise and on which statements have been planned.
I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is fair to me to point out that part of the time today has been taken up by a Private Notice Question, quite rightly and properly, which was put down by an hon. Member opposite but which I could not take account of in arranging for the statements to be made. I am sorry about this and I will do my best in future.
Mr. Speaker: This is no new problem. It has existed in the past. I appreciate the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and by the Leader of the House. The House is in some difficulty in balancing the eagerness of hon. Members who ask supplementary questions on statements and the eagerness of those hon. Members waiting in the wings for the Orders of the Day, which we have not yet reached.

ESSEX UNIVERSITY STUDENTS (FIRE BRIGADE)
Mr. Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one appreciates more than I do the statement you have just made and the reaction of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. But as this appears to be a day of protest

451
and much questioning, I hope you and the House will bear with me if I raise a matter of very grave importance affecting my constituents, and I will be brief.
I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a specific and important matter which I believe should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The violent obstruction offered yesterday to the Essex Fire Brigade in the performance of their duty by students of Essex University, the consequent risk to life and property that their action caused, and the wider implications for safety against fire in the County of Essex."
My reasons for saying that this matter is of specific importance and that it is also urgent are, briefly, as follows.
You will be aware that only last night, supported by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), I raised the matter of the serious anxiety of my constituents concerning industrial fire risks on Canvey Island, in the course of which I mentioned two serious fires, one at the Shell Oil Company's refinery at Shellhaven and a later one in July, and I stressed the dangers and the strain on our fire-fighting resources. This morning, as if to ram the lesson home, a further serious fire took place at the Shell-haven refinery.
I am sure that you and the whole House would agree that at any time obstruction to firemen in the course of their duty is a matter of grave public importance, since life itself may be involved. Yesterday, protesting students lit a bonfire on the premises of Essex University. It may be without knowledge that they did so over a 10-inch gas main. Essex Fire Brigade was called, firemen were assaulted while carrying out their duties, the fire hose was turned on the firemen and the hose was slashed.
The specific and criminal obstruction offered yesterday at Essex University, at a time of acute anxiety in South Essex about fire precautions generally, given extra point today by the major fire which has broken out at the Shellhaven Refinery, the third this year, adding as it must to the burdens of our already heavily pressed county fire brigade, is, I submit, sufficient justification for my application to be granted.
Mr. Speaker: As is customary, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr.
452
Braine) has been kind enough to inform me that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thought should have urgent consideration; namely,
"The violent obstruction offered yesterday to the Essex Fire Brigade in the performance of their duty by students of Essex University, the consequent risk to life and property that their action caused, and the wider implications for safety against fire in the County of Essex."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Standing Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the hon. Member's representations, but I have to rule that his statement does not fall within the provision of the Standing Order and that I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Delargy: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: It is customary when the Chair has ruled on Standing Order No. 9 for the Ruling to be accepted.
Mr. Mather: On a new point of order. The implications for fire brigades over the whole country are so serious, Mr. Speaker, that I ask you whether you would accept a submission—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot have heard what I said. He is seeking to pursue a matter on which I have ruled. If he wishes to raise the matter in a parliamentary way, it must be in some other way; for instance, at business questions tomorrow.

BILLS PRESENTED

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Secretary Carr, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. Richard Wood, Sir John Eden, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, and Mr. Nicholas Ridley, presented a Bill to provide further finance for the National Coal Board in respect of pit closures and for the making of payments to workers in the coal industry made redundant; to increase the limit of the Board's accumulated deficit and provide for its subsequent alteration by order of the Secretary of State: to enable the Board to borrow

  453
  money otherwise than in sterling and to join in furnishing technical assistance overseas; to make further provision as to the power of the Secretary of State to give directions to the Board with respect to their activities and accounts; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

  SHOPS (WEEKDAY TRADING) BILL
  Mr. Evelyn King, supported by Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Alexander Lyon, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Rees-Davies, Mr. Bruce-Gardyne, Mr. Harold Gurden, Miss Joan Hall, Mr. Iremonger, Mr. Nicholas Scott, and Miss Joan Quennell, presented a Bill to amend the Shops Acts, 1950 to 1965, in relation to weekday closing; and to protect shop assistants in regard to their conditions of employment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 11 th December, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
  UNSOLICITED GOODS AND SERVICES BILL
  Mr. Philip Goodhart, supported by Mr. John Hall, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Dame Joan Vickers, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. James Wellbeloved, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Martin Maddan, Mr. Peter Blaker, Mr. William Rodgers. Mr. Kenneth Warren, and Mr. David Steel presented a Bill to make provision for the greater protection of persons receiving unsolicited goods or services, including unsolicited entries in directories: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th December, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
  DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Mr. Robert Hughes, supported by Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. John P. Mackintosh, Mr. Bruce Millan, and Mr. John Smith, presented a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to divorce, dissolution of marriage and judicial separation, and to the power of the court to award interim aliment; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd January, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
  LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Mr. Arthur Probert, supported by Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Edward Gardiner, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. G. Elfed Davies, Mr. Brynmor John, Mr. Richard Kelley, Mr. Daniel Awdry, Mrs. Lena Jeger, and Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, presented a Bill to extend in certain cases the time limit for bringing legal proceedings where damages are claimed which consist of or include damages for personal injuries or in respect of a person's death, and to amend accordingly the Limitation Act 1939, the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions, &c.) Act 1954, and the Limitation Act 1963; to provide that in assessing damages for widows suing under the Fatal Accident Acts, remarriage prospects shall be left out of account; to make further provision for the payment of interest on damages, and to amend accordingly the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and the Administration of Justice Act 1969; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th January and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
  MOTOR VEHICLES (PASSENGER INSURANCE) BILL
  Mr. Churchill, supported by Mr. John Hannam, Mr. David Waddington, Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Mr. Richard Marsh, and Mr. Frank Allaun, presented a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1960 so as to require users of motor vehicles to be insured in respect of liability for death or bodily injury to passengers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th February and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

  EMPLOYED PERSONS (SAFETY) BILL
  Mr. Norman Buchan, supported by Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Hugh McCartney, Mr. Harold Walker, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. Eric Heffer, and Mr. Emlyn Hooson, presented a Bill to further the making in factories and elsewhere of arrangements for persons representing employees to participate in promoting the safety of

  455
  employees, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th February and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

  NULLITY OF MARRIAGE BILL
  Mr. Alexander Lyon, supported by Mr. S. C. Silkin, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, Mr. Norman Miscampbell, Mr. Alec Jones, and Mr. Emlyn Hooson, presented a Bill to restate with certain alterations the grounds on which a marriage is void or voidable and the bars to the grant of a decree of nullity on the ground that a marriage is voidable; to alter the effect of decrees of nullity in respect of voidable marriages; and to abolish certain remaining bars to the grant of matrimonial relief: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th January and to be printed. [Bill 42.]
  TRAVEL AGENTS AND TOUR AND CHARTER OPERATORS REGISTRATION BILL
  Mr. Edward Milne, supported by Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Maurice Edelman, Mr. Fernyhough, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Will Griffiths, Mr. Ted Fletcher, Mr. George Darling, Mr. Albert Booth, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Charles Loughlin, and Mr. Alfred Morris, presented a Bill to provide for the registration of travel agents and tour and charter operators; and to introduce a code of conduct for the travel trade: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th February and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
  REPORTING OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BILL
  Mr. Keith Stainton presented a Bill to make provision for the inclusion of certain data in printed reports or publications, and radio and television transmissions which refer to particular industrial disputes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd January and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

  URBAN AND RURAL ENVIRONMENT BILL
  Mr. Chapman, supported by Mr. John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Gummer, Miss Joan Hall, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. J. R.
  456
  Kinsey, Mr. Roger Moate, Mr. Paul B. Rose, Mr. John Tilney, Mr. Peter Trew, Mr. Tugendhat, and Mr. David Watkins, presented a Bill to improve control of the environment in town and country by amending the law relating to preservation orders on trees and buildings, by facilitating repairs to certain buildings, by requiring the publication of more information about planning applications, and by extending the requirements for planning permission in certain cases; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read for the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th February and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

  MINEWORKERS' PROTECTION BILL
  Mr. Alec Jones, supported by Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Alan Beaney, Mr. G. Elfed Davies, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. George Grant, Mr. Eric G. Varley and Mr. Brynmor John, presented a Bill to amend the enactments providing for benefits out of the Industrial Injuries Fund in respect of industrial diseases; to provide additional causes of action for damages in respect of those whose employment is regulated by the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954 and are suffering from pneumoconiosis or other lung diseases; and to make further provision for the safety, health and welfare of miners and for the management and control of mines; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 19th March and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

  ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES BILL
  Sir Clive Bossom, supported by Mr. S. C. Silkin, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Hall-Davis, Mr. Tom Boardman, Mr. Daniel Awdry, and Mr. Emlyn Hooson, presented a Bill to provide for the recognition, without resealing, of certain grants of administration and confirmation throughout the United Kingdom; to allow for the inclusion of real estate in any part of the United Kingdom in the inventory of the estate of a person dying domiciled in Scotland; to amend the law with respect to the grant of administration by the High Court and resealing by that Court of administration granted outside the United Kingdom and to exempt from stamp duty guarantees given under the law so amended; to make provision with

  457
  respect to the duties and rights of personal representatives; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th February and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

  OWNER-OCCUPATION (HELP FOR PRIVATE LANDLORDS' TENANTS TO PURCHASE) BILL,
  Mr. Frank Allaun, supported by Mr. James Wellbeloved, Mr. Julius Silverman, Mr. Reginald Freeson, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Jack Dunnett, Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Stallard, Mr. Norman Atkinson, and Mr. David Stoddart, presented a Bill to give tenants of private property owners the right to purchase their dwellings at a reasonable price before the properties are taken out of their present rent control; to encourage local authorities to offer low-deposit or no-deposit mortgages at low interest rates to sitting tenants wishing to buy their homes from their landlords; and to permit local authorities to buy such dwellings at the same price if the tenant declines the opportunity to purchase: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd January, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
  ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS (No. 2) BILL
  Mr. Andrew Faulds presented a Bill to amend the law regarding attachment of earnings orders: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th March, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
  MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) BILL
  Mr. Douglas Houghton, supported by Mr. John Silkin, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Turton, and Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, presented a Bill to provide for the setting up of a permanent review body to examine and make recommendations to Parliament from time to time upon the emoluments, expenses, pensions and conditions of service of Members of the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th December, and to be printed [Bill 50].
  INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Mr. Ian MacArthur, supported by Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison, Mr. John Smith, and Mr. Russell Johnston, presented a Bill to amend the Interest on Damages (Scotland) Act 1958 by extending the power of the courts to order payment of interest on damages: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th January, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]
  PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS BILL
  Mr. S. C. Silkin, supported by Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Sir George Sinclair, Mr. W. T. Williams, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Ivor Richard, Mr. Alexander Lyon, Mr. Robert Maclennan, and Mr. Woodhouse, presented a Bill to provide for the appointment and functions of a Commission of Human Rights to promote the greater protection and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to provide the means of obtaining an effective remedy in respect of the infringement thereof; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd April and to be printed. [Bill 52.]
  DANGEROUS LITTER BILL
  Mr. Peter Mills, supported by Mr. John Wells, Mr. Ray Mawby, Mr. John Biffen, and Mr. Jerry Wiggin, presented a Bill to amend the Litter Act 1958 so as to make better provision for the abatement of dangerous litter; to empower local authorities to promote the abatement of litter by means of publicity; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd April and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

  BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL
  Mr. John Spence, supported by Sir Ronald Russell, Mr. Raymond Gower, Mr. Peter Fry, Mr. McCrindle, Mr. James Dunn, Dr. Anthony Trafford, Dr. Tom Stuttaford, and Mr. Patrick Cormack, presented a Bill to allow the conduct in or through any newspaper of the prize competition described as 'spot the ball' and by similar names: And the same was

  459
  read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th February and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

  CAB BILL
  Mr. Garrett, supported by Mr. Albert Roberts, Mr. Ray Mawby, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Mark Woodnutt, Mr. Julius Silverman and Mr. Marcus Fox, presented a Bill to prohibit the display on certain vehicles of signs or notices containing the word 'taxi' or 'cab' and signs or notices of certain other descriptions; and to restrict the issue, in connection with certain vehicles, of advertisements containing either of those words: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd April and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

ST. VINCENT (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY)
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a gift of a Parliamentary library to the House of Assembly of St. Vincent and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I also deal with the Motion relating to the gift of a mace to Mauritius.
The gift to Mauritius follows the now established tradition of the House of Commons, with which we are glad to comply, of sending a gift to the legislature of a Commonwealth country to mark the country's attainment of independence within the Commonwealth. The gift to St. Vincent is to mark that country's achievement of complete internal self-government and associated status with the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members may recall that on 12th March, 1968, in reply to a Question, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, informed the House that Her Majesty's Government would propose that the House should offer an independence gift of a mace to the Mauritius Legislative Assembly. It has fallen to the present Government to make such a proposal, and this we are pleased to do.
The House may also recall that in the same year gifts of Parliamentary Libraries were presented on its behalf to a number of former British dependencies in the Caribbean to mark their attainment in 1967 of complete internal self-government and associated status with the United Kingdom. In October, 1969, the Island of St. Vincent became an Associated State, and it is now proposed that the House should make a similar presentation to the St. Vincent House of Assembly. The Parliamentary authorities in both countries have, of course, been consulted and they welcome the proposed gifts.
For the convenience of hon. Members, it is hoped that the mace will be on display in the House between 7th and 11th

461
December. The Library of Parliamentary reference books for St. Vincent is a duplicate of the set presented to the other Associated States.
If the House accepts the Motions, arrangements will be made by Mr. Speaker for small delegations from the House to present the gifts. We understand that St. Vincent's presentation can conveniently be made in January and the Mauritius presentation in March, 1971.
I therefore commend the Motions to the House in the expectation that they will be accepted as an expression of our friendship and good will towards the legislatures of Mauritius and St. Vincent.
Question put and agreed to.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

MAURITIUS (GIFT OF A MACE)
Resolved,
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a gift of a Mace to the Legislative Assembly of Mauritius and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
    Clause 1

      ENACTMENTS CONTINUED IN FORCE
      The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I should announce to the Committee that I have selected only Amendment No. 1 in the names of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and his hon. Friends. Mr. Elystan Morgan.
      5.10 p.m.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I would only observe that Celts seem to get in everywhere.
      I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
      The purpose of the Amendment is to provide an opportunity to debate immigration. Recalling and re-reading these debates over the last five years at least, it is clear that they have been a valuable occasion for discussing one of the major issues of the day and the wider issues of immigration control for aliens and for Commonwealth citizens. The present Lord Chancellor—we shall miss him very much from these debates—observed in 1967:
      "I hope that that consensus remains. I think that great public advantage derives from the fact that, as matters stand at the moment, neither side of the Committee … feels disposed to exploit what is potentially an emotionally charged atmosphere … I shall seek to retain that consensus which, it will be remembered, depended on two propositions: first, that it was desirable to restrict immigration to this country; and, secondly, that persons lawfully within this country should be treated on the basis of the universal declaration of human rights, that one person should be treated in the same way as another in respect of dignity and human rights".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 441.]
      This is the spirit in which we approach immigration and race relations in opposition.

      463
      We believed then, as we do now, that this does not mean sweeping problems under the carpet or running a muted discussion. There are real social problems arising from immigration which are not due just to immigration but which, because of conditions here in this country as well, we should be very foolish to ignore. In any event, leadership cannot come out of muted discussion. In this respect I applaud the statement of the Prime Minister, reported in the July, 1970 Bulletin of the Runnymede Trust:
      "The aim of our policies on immigration and race relations is full equality for the immigrant in the life of Britain."
      That statement of the Prime Minister should not be muted.
      Since last year, it is not just that there has been a change of Government but also that the new Government have promised a new Immigration Bill. Much depends on its extent and depth, but I presume from the Press discussion—which is sometimes wrong in detail, but rarely persistently so—that a new long Immigration Bill is on the stocks and that soon, possibly in the New Year, we shall see it in its full form.
      Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to hear the Government's thoughts on the Bill today. Surely, at this stage, first thoughts is not too much to ask. In any event, as was suggested in the last issue of the Sunday Times:
      "It is a measure which would greatly benefit from public discussion before the prestige of the Government is committed to every detail of it."
      It went on to suggest a prior White or even Green Paper. I ask the Government seriously to consider this suggestion, because discussion in this field is vital.
      I make a further suggestion to the Government, that the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration be brought into the discussion—not to replace the Executive or to do the job of the Government, but to join in the discussion and comment on the White or Green Paper which would be issued. The Select Committee considered immigration control last Session, but, because of the General Election, did not complete its work. But the minutes of evidence at least have been invaluable, and the analysis and summary made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middles-
      464
      brough, East (Mr. Bottomley) and the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), where the information was used and analysis made, has been of great value.
      In brief, I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should consider publishing a White or Green Paper for public discussion and using the Select Committee as part of this public discussion. At the least, the Government will have realised, since 18th June, the complexity of the detail of immigration control and the danger of ill-thought-out proposals.
      The Conservative policy generally was set out in the party manifesto "A Better Tomorrow", the major part of which stated:
      "We will establish a new single system of control over immigration from overseas. …. We believe it right to allow any existing Commonwealth immigrant who is already here to bring his wife and young children to join him in this country. But for the future, work permits will not carry the right of permanent settlement for the holder or his dependents. Such permits as are issued will be limited to a specific job in a specific area for a fixed period, normally twelve months. There will of course be no restrictions on travel. These policies mean that future immigration will be allowed only in strictly defined special cases. There will be no further large scale permanent immigration."
      This theme of the existence of large-scale immigration was echoed in the Home Secretary's speech in the debate on the Address in July, when he said:
      "… we believe that any further large scale immigration will be bad for everyone here.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 210]
      This itself only echoed the all-pervading spirit of the speech made at York by the Prime Minister on 20th September, 1968, when he said:
      "What therefore we need is not a complete ban on all immigration but a strict limitation and effective control."
      Certainly, at that time in particular a popular view would have had it that large numbers of Commonwealth citizens were flooding into this country, but political mythology is no basis for thought and action on such a complex matter.
      The key to the rate of Commonwealth immigration is the number admitted on employment vouchers, which are different from work permits. The relevant figures, which have been published from time to time in HANSARD, show that in 1963 there were 30,000-odd employment

      465
      voucher holders admitted to this country, and that on average we have found since that approximately—it can be no more than approximate—each employment voucher holder from the Commonwealth brings in three dependants with him.
      But the 30,000 figure has fallen to about 4,000 and has been about that number since 1966—for the last four years. That is a great fall in the number of employment voucher holders. Following that, this scheme is obviously the regulator of the number of dependants who are admitted here under the terms of the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act. The figures published by the right hon. Gentleman's Department show that the number of dependants rose from 1963 to a maximum of nearly 53,000 in 1967. They fell by 10,000 and by 15,000, and they are down to about 20,000 this year. There must be a further fall next year because they follow the fall in employment vouchers but at a time period of about four or five years.
      It would have been easy at the time of the Prime Minister's York speech—the keynote speech, as it was said to be, on immigration policy of a future Conservative Government—in view of the bulge in the number of dependants, to have stopped further immigration of dependants of people already here. The then Government set their face against this and were supported by the then Leader of the Opposition, and it is in the manifesto. My first question is: is this still the policy of the new Administration? There is no large-scale immigration, and it is not out of control, and I am sure that the Government, having looked at the books, must realise that. I have looked very carefully at the Government's proposals as a whole. How do the Government view them now?
      In the past the Government have put some weight on the need to place immigration control on a permanent basis, both for aliens and for Commonwealth citizens, and to get away from what is an admittedly unsatisfactory system of annual parliamentary control. There is no difference between the parties on this point. What matters is, when and on what basis? However, when we have legislation which will not have to be renewed annually, I hope that some means will be found between the parties
      466
      whereby immigration and race relations will be discussed every year.
      The Government have stated that they wish to treat Commonwealth citizens as aliens. In my view, this overlooks a fundamental difference between the two types of entry. Basically it overlooks the fact that historically we have always treated people from the Commonwealth in a different way from people from a foreign country and have given them certain privileges. Commonwealth citizens come here for settlement. Aliens predominantly come here for temporary purposes. In recent years between 40,000 and 50,000 alien workers have been admitted annually on work permits. I want to return to this difference between work permits and employment vouchers.
      In 1969 nearly 48,000 aliens came here on work permits. Over half of aliens on work permits leave within a year, and of the remainder, at the end of four years, about 10,000 only remain here in permanent employment. Those figures are readily available from information provided from the Home Office. Together with their dependants, the total number of aliens admitted to permanent settlement here had recently been about 20,000 a year. That is all that remains permanently from a total inward traffic which last year amounted to 4½ million people coming in for different purposes.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: A great deal of anxiety arises, not so much from the worker who comes here, but from the dependent relatives he is likely to bring here. In my hon. Friend's period of office, did the policy of the Home Office make any fundamental difference to family unity in the case of alien workers?
      Mr. Rees: That is an important point. Perhaps I can deal with it at what I consider to be a more relevant stage.
      By contrast, Commonwealth workers come here seeking permanent settlement and, although fewer workers are admitted, the total number settling each year, including dependants, has been between 50,000 and 60,000 out of a total inward traffic of less than 500,000. The two different systems of control reflect their different characters. The main difference between the work permit for aliens and the employment voucher for Commonwealth citizens is that the permit is firmly regulated by the needs of the labour

      467
      market and the voucher is issued only when it can be proved that there is no local labour available. But it is also basically a form of control of numbers coming here for settlement. That is implicit in the 1962 Act. Otherwise the numbers of Commonwealth citizens would be much larger because the numbers of aliens are, to a large extent, determined by the influences in the home market. Re-reading the reports of the discussions which took place in 1962, when I was not a Member, it seems to me that one of the arguments between the parties was whether it should be left to economic forces to iron out the situation over the years.
      A simple change from vouchers to permits would mean either a great increase in the number of Commonwealth citizens entering the country or a great decrease in the number of aliens. There is no justification for this. As the Government seek closer relations with the European Economic Community, this projected course needs to be thought out far more carefully. Are the Government able to give us their view on what would be the effect on aliens with their permits or Commonwealth citizens with their vouchers if we went into the Common Market, and, in particular, what about the complication that E.E.C. nationals should have priority in jobs under Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome?
      The proposed equation of Commonwealth employment vouchers with alien work permits will mean the limitation of the former to a specific job, employer, and place. But about 50 per cent. of employment vouchers are in category B, which are in respect of a particular skill rather than a job—such as doctors and teachers—where interview precedes appointment. Therefore, the alien registration system would bite only on category A vouchers for manufacturing industry, amounting to under 2,000 vouchers per annum, compared with 47,000 alien workers admitted subject to employment control. In view of the Government's own arguments about numbers, the change would not be worthwhile. Therefore, what case is there for making it?
      In the Conservative Party manifesto the categorical statement was made that for the future work permits would not
      468
      carry the right of permanent settlement for the holder or his dependants. But work permits do not carry that right now. Aliens bring their families if they wish to do so, and they come in large numbers. In practice, there is no difference between the two. If there was an error in the Conservative Party manifesto and the word "permit" should be altered to "voucher", then, given the ease with which aliens bring in their dependants now, the same will apply to Commonwealth citizens. What, then, is the purpose of the proposed change?
      Do right hon. and hon. Members opposite recall the statement made by the Prime Minister in his York speech that:
      "… to prevent a man's wife and children from joining him in this country leads to social problems in the community which place the burden of maintaining unwanted children on the local authorities. This, too, the city and borough councils recognise. The only way to prevent this is to allow the family to be reunited. After all, it is only common humanity to do so."
      Numbers would not be affected by this change. What would be affected would be people's right to bring in their dependants.
      If the 12-month rule were introduced for Commonwealth citizens, it would raise many practical difficulties. It may work for aliens but, as the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) will recall writing,
      "aliens are less mobile and easier to trace than a Commonwealth immigrant. The latter can become a needle in a haystack."
      Certainly, on my experience, given the fundamental urge of Commonwealth citizens to settle, which I fully understand, I would not relish the resulting court cases and evictions which would occur at the end of 12 months or any longer period which is given. Given also the steps that have been taken quietly by the police over the years, the liaison committees in the provinces and the special Race Relations Branch at New Scotland Yard, the aim of which is to work with the new communities in this country, if the police are given other immigration control work to do of that nature, the slow community relations steps will be effectively halted.
      The confusion of permits with vouchers—and they are different—occurs again in the York speech, when the Prime Minister said:
      "Permits for those who come to work in Britain will have to be obtained from the

      469
      British Representative in the country of origin."
      That is the case now for Commonwealth A vouchers, the manufacturing vouchers. It is true in most cases for the B vouchers. Work permits for aliens are sometimes issued in this country if aliens have entered as visitors with no denial to the immigration officer of their intention to work. Would this right be given to Commonwealth citizens or, alternatively, if there is an equation, would it be taken away from the alien?
      Health checks, so the Prime Minister said,
      "may be demanded before such permits"—
      I presume that he meant vouchers—
      "are issued."
      That is already done for voucher holders. The more one looks at the statements which have been made in the past, well-intentioned though they may be, the more one is led to ask the Government that when their full proposals are ready, we should have a chance to discuss them.
      There is concern about the concentration of immigrants in certain parts of the country. When we debated this matter on 3rd July, I said that this could not be dealt with easily. My view, which I still hold, is that dispersal will be a pipe dream for a very long time.
      The Prime Minister believes that the proposals of his party, when in opposition, will enable entry to be refused to any who propose to settle in the already congested areas of our great cities. The number of new arrivals on work vouchers in any one area is very small. In 1968, for example, the last year for which I have been able to obtain figures, 194 employment voucher holders entered for work in the whole of the West Midlands. What now matters more and more—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) feels this; we have discussed it—is not the new arrivals. It is the movements from, perhaps, the West Midlands to Slough, or from Slough to the West Midlands. There is a movement often in search of marginally higher pay, particularly when residence in an area has been relatively short and there is not the strength of staying in an area that there is with people in, perhaps, the more affluent West. What matters is the internal movement of those who are already here.
      470
      Again, in considering this proposal, the right hon. Member for Ashford said:
      "In theory (but not in practice) it would steer new arrivals away from concentration areas."
      In opposition, it is possible to be theoretical. In government, one needs to consider reality.
      Another proposal was the registration of students and visitors. I found that liaison with schools and colleges was good I was never made aware of any large-scale abuse. There was abuse in some private institutions, and most of those cases are in the hands of the police, but the Select Committee reported that the great majority of visitors and students were genuine and did not settle here illegally. That was certainly the advice that was given to me when I had a responsibility.
      In general, the Government's proposals are misconceived. It may be that some of them are to dropped. Since the new Government came to power, I have sought to ascertain their policy. Before the election, the Prime Minister could say that
      "it remains an important part of our policy that those Commonwealth immigrants who wish to return to their countries of origin will be able to receive assisted passages from public funds. This should not be limited as at present to those who are destitute"
      Early in the life of the Government, on 23rd July, I asked the Prime Minister
      "which Government Department is responsible for the repatriation of Commonwealth citizens."
      The reply came:
      "No such responsibility exists. Financial assistance to those who wish to return to their country of origin may be made available in special cases of need by the Supplementary Benefits Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1970; Vol. 84, c. 230.]
      No change. In any event, the question of citizenship comes in on repatriation whether under the Supplementary Benefits Commission or not. I understand that under the existing citizenship law, anyone who has been here over five years may not have registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If such people were to take money to go out of the country, they could come back on the next boat because, as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, they would have every right to do so. Any children who were born here would have that right. I ask the Government, because

      471
      there is concern about it, what is their view now on repatriation?
      In general, it may be that the Government have discovered weaknesses in control which need to be dealt with urgently. I was not made aware of any in this category, but certainly the previous Home Secretary acted from time to time on certain abuses under the heading of fiancées and children under the age of 16, for example. I was responsible—my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has stated this in the House, so I am not abrogating to myself delusions of grandeur—for the institution also of compulsory entry certificates for dependants—a necessary change, not to stop abuse, but to prevent human problems at the port of entry.
      I notice that the analysis of the Select Committee stated that fears that compulsory entry certificates might prove an additional restriction had been shown to be unfounded. I can only hope that all those experts at the time who misread my motives and looked forward to the results have noted that. On the basis of declared Government intentions, no case for change has been made because of mass immigration. There is no lack of control.
      A further reason for inaction at the moment, of which I was very aware, is the current implementation of the Immigration Appeals Act, which received Royal Assent in 1969. When is that Act to be fully implemented? On 1st July, the arrangement which we had made before the election was that approximately half of that Act had been brought into being to deal with people already in this country. I ask that question because we had taken on staff for the full implementation of the Act. It is important that we should know the Government's thoughts on this. Adjudicators and Tribunal members have been appointed and accommodation has been provided. Already, decisions are being taken by the adjudicators and by the Tribunal which are beginning to make a body of administrative case law, some of which has raised problems for the Home Office. In my view, before any piecemeal changes are made in the existing system, it is important to see the full results of the working of the Act.
      472
      It is not simply a case of closing loopholes revealed by decisions, but already there has been criticism of the two updated sets of rules, Cmnd. 4295 and Cmnd. 4298. In our view, there is no need for speedy action on immigration control. The time has come to look at the background to control and to the wider aspects of immigration. Our manifesto said:
      "We now propose to review the law relating to citizenship."
      Over the almost two years that I was responsible for immigration control at the Home Office it grew on me daily that what is required is to look at the basis underlying the rules which have been built up over the years. This review of nationality and citizenship must be done on a Commonwealth basis. There must also be an investigation into the economic and—particularly—employment implications of immigration.
      I am glad to see the Minister of State for the Department of Employment here, because just as citizenship is the basis of the books of rules so employment vouchers and work permits colour the use that we make of the rules based on citizenship. The whole question of nationality and citizenship is complex, as Lord Butler observed in 1962. Legal concepts, such as "British subject", "British protected person"—there are many of those in East Africa—"British subjects without citizenship", "allegiance", and so on, are not easy to define or to understand. The philosophy behind the question of nationality changed during the period of Empire, as former Colonies achieved Dominion status, and the British Nationality Act, 1948, was an attempt to equate nationality and citizenship with Commonwealth.
      The immediate need for change was due to the nationality changes in Canada. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference of 1946 decided on an official investigation by Commonwealth experts under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Maxwell, then Permanent Under-Secretary to the Home Office. The British Nationality Act was based on that.
      What is sometimes forgotten is the fact that each independent Commonwealth country was to have its own citizenship. Citizens of this country and the residual colonies were to be classed as citizens of the United Kingdom and

      473
      Colonies, and all were to be Commonwealth citizens. As Mr. Nicholas Deakin wrote in his perceptive article in the July 1969 issue of "Race"—an article entitled
      "The British Nationality Act of 1948: Brief Study in the Political Mythology of Race Relations."—
      and this is the basis of our argument—
      "There are those who believe that this Act was the decisive event in the post-war development of the issue (immigration). The verdict on the consequences of the British Nationality Act must surely be that it neither accelerated nor delayed the introduction of control over immigration—rather, the Act determined the rather complex form that control assumed when it came."
      I accept that view. It determines the form.
      The 1948 Act introduced a new freedom of entry from the Commonwealth. It is because the Act determines the form of immigration control that there is need for another Commonwealth Conference on citizenship, and I believe that Singapore in January would be the right place and time for this.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman will agree that if the 1948 Act had not been passed and had not produced the change in our citizenship law that he has described, as each part of the former Empire became independent and republican, entrance, as it has occurred in this country, would automatically have fallen under alien legislation.
      Mr. Rees: I know the great interest of the right hon. Gentleman in this subject, but I am not convinced that that is the logic of the Act of 1948, because the situation before it was passed was not firm enough, in law, to be able to deduce a clear concept of "British subject". In the Palmerstonian sense of the term, in my view—I am not a lawyer—it was capable of a very broad interpretation.
      Mr. Powell: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way again. Surely the case of Burma is relevant. That applied before the 1948 Act. Surely that made the point fairly clear?
      Mr. Rees: In the sense that if the result had been after 1948 and all former Colonies had taken the steps that Burma took—if the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that that would have been the logic
      474
      of what would have happened, he is right. But my argument is that that is not necessarily what would have happened. I discovered that immigration control in each Commonwealth country is a matter for each Government. That view is strongly held, and any control suggestion would prevent discussion beginning. It is the question of citizenship and nationality that the Commonwealth should be asked to discuss.
      Some interesting ideas on possible changes in the law of citizenship were put forward in the valuable "Colour and Citizenship. A Report on British Race Relations", published in 1969 for the Institute of Race Relations. As far as I know, that was the first time that anyone had put his mind to this aspect of the question in recent years. I see weaknesses in the analysis made in the book, but they deserve discussion.
      The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Joyce Butler): Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not stray too far into the ramifications of the Act, because he may then become out of order.
      Mr. Rees: Yes, Mrs. Butler. I am arguing that if the Government are going to seek a basis of immigration control it should be pointed out that immigration control is determined by the laws of citizenship. In the circumstances perhaps I should say that my belief is that the time has come to consider the laws of citizenship. I am under the impression that Canada is considering changes. It was Canada that sparked off the changes in 1946.
      The other matter connected with immigration control is the question of employment vouchers for Commonwealth citizens and work permits for aliens. In my view the Government should reconsider this question from the point of view of labour needs. This evidence would be invaluable to a wider economic in vestigation. In 1965 the number of employment vouchers was reduced to 8,500, and the C voucher system ended. There are special arrangements for Malta and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
      The employment voucher scheme and the work permit scheme need to be co-ordinated with industrial training schemes. Industrial training is part of

      475
      manpower planning. Are the numbers of vouchers fully co-ordinated with the needs of industry? A claim by employers, verified by the local Department of Employment that there is a shortage of local labour, is not enough. These permits and vouchers are part and parcel of immigration control. It is not enough just to ask the simple question whether there is a shortage of local labour. There are wider questions about the amount of labour being trained here.
      Much of the evidence given on this point in the Select Committee—by London Transport, A.E.C. Ltd., Southall; and J. Lyons and Co. Ltd.—on 12th March, 1970, was of great interest in determining the number and scope of employment vouchers and work permits.
      The use of foreign labour involved here—1 million-plus people—is no different from the 1 million-plus foreign workers in France, the 1 million-plus foreign workers in Germany and the far larger numbers in Switzerland, where two-thirds of the construction workers are foreigners. In this country, or in Europe as a whole, we are all busy working the employment voucher scheme and the work permit scheme—whatever we say about it—in the light of self-interest. Is it to the advantage of this country? Is it to the advantage of the relevant country in Europe?
      Looking at the question of immigration policy, why is the B voucher scheme in this country so much more helpful to citizens from the Commonwealth? It is because we want professional and qualified persons, and are therefore bending the rules under the B voucher scheme. It would be more helpful to gear our intake to help the Commonwealth. Self-interest is very short-sighted, and the needs of rural Asia should have precedence over our needs. The terrible tragedy that has recently occurred in Asia illustrates the nature of life there. Yet we carry on milking that society of some of its best brains. There should be Commonwealth discussion on this as well.
      It is in the context of employment vouchers that lies one solution to the need to increase the number of citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies—mainly in East Africa—who come to this country. We have greater obligations to this group than to Commonwealth citizens,
      476
      although we have great obligations to citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies in dependent territories who have been under control since 1962. Such a change can be made, without increasing overall immigration, by increasing the number of employment vouchers to East Africa. The fact that the special vouchers were not special but were the only vouchers had an effect on the young. I think three employment vouchers were used in East Africa.
      There are rumours about citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies under the 1968 Act and I hope that today the Government will give us their views on this. I have also had representations about rumours that the Irish, who are neither Commonwealth citizens nor citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies, are to be brought under control, or at least that work permits—which I presume is the correct title since the Irish are aliens in law—are to be introduced for them. The whole question of employment vouchers and work permits needs to be reconsidered and not just reshuffled. Only when we have done that on the side of citizenship and on the side of vouchers can we get immigration control right.
      When we do this, I hope that we shall be able to concentrate on what matters far more, namely, race relations in this country. From our side we offer co-operation and consensus and we hope that the Government in their new Bill will not reject this offer. I would like to think of us building on what happened in the last Parliament, and working together to get an immigration control system that meets the spirit of the words of President Kennedy, speaking in another context:
      "Immigration policy should be generous: it should be fair: it should be flexible."
      I hope that the Bill from the new Government will meet that criterion.
      5.54 p.m.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has made a most interesting speech covering a wide range. I cannot say that I necessarily agree with all he has said by a long way, but I appreciate the spirit in which he spoke. I share entirely what he said at the end of his speech about the need for everyone to work for the improvement of

      477
      community relations. I regard immigration policy as secondary to community relations; it is a facet of dealing with a serious problem that exists.
      This debate is traditional in its form but differs from all the debates that have gone before because it is the last of the series, and that makes a great difference to our discussions today. Until now succeeding Governments and succeeding Home Secretaries have said that it would be a fine thing to get away from the annual renewal of Acts dating back to 1919 and to put the whole law about entry and settlement from other countries on a new, simple, unified, statutory basis. This is precisely what we intend to do, as we said we would. I shall, therefore, be presenting to the House of Commons within a few weeks comprehensive proposals to cover the whole question of entry and residence. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is right to do so and to get away from this annual situation which is not satisfactory. The Bill we are discussing today will have only a limited life. It merely holds the position until the implementation of our new comprehensive Bill which is based on the propositions in our election manifesto to which the hon. Gentleman very fairly referred.
      It is not sensible for me to comment in detail on what the Bill will contain when it appears, for two reasons. First, it is more satisfactory for the House of Commons to await the actual proposals before debating them. Secondly, the proposals must be seen as a whole. They will be a balanced whole, designed for a permanent structure, and they should be looked at on that basis. To pick out particular aspects and discuss them now would only give rise to confusion. As the hon. Gentleman says, this is a complex subject and therefore I think it should be treated in the round and not piecemeal.
      The hon. Gentleman said that because the subject was complex we should consider the possibility of a White Paper or a Green Paper. I do not think that this would be right. We have made absolutely clear what our proposals are in principle. We put them before the country at the election and they were accepted. The right procedure is to go ahead in the normal way with the Second Reading and to give plenty of time in
      478
      Committee to discuss this large and complex Bill. That is the most practical way for us to proceed.
      The proposals will be based upon the passages from our manifesto which the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to read out. I confirm that this is what we stand by, this is what we intend to do, and we certainly stand by and regard as fundamental the sentence which he referred to about the right of a Commonwealth immigrant already here to bring his wife and young children to join him in this country.
      I would like to say a word or two about the principles on which our policy should be based, and on which the Bill should be based when we lay it before Parliament. When considering the whole question of the admission of people from other countries, whether temporarily or permanently, our first concern must be for our own people and the health of our own society. That is not, of course, our only concern. We have moral obligations going far beyond this country, but we must look first to what is needed for the health of our own society. It would be no good to anyone in this country, including above all the immigrant population already here, if racial tension were allowed to grow. We have a very fine record of which we can be proud both in the matter of the admission of people from other countries and in our community relations. We must keep it so, and one of the conditions for keeping it so is to give people, particularly those in areas where immigrants are very numerous, confidence that the system of control works in practice. That is why I attach so much importance to the proposals in our Bill being seen in the round.
      We have also a fine tradition of liberality in the admission of aliens generally, not merely Commonwealth citizens. This I am sure has been of benefit to this country over the years and has certainly been of benefit to the people who have come here. I want to see that tradition maintained, and I want to see the tradition of political asylum maintained, but we must at the same time recognise our obligations to our own people. Our own country, which is so attractive as a haven to many people from other lands, must be safeguarded and protected against the social tensions which are such a

      479
      sadly frequent feature of modern life in many countries. Those are the principles on which our legislation will be introduced. It would not be right or sensible for me this afternoon to discuss or argue about the proposals in the Bill which we have not yet presented. However, I wish to deal with some of the practical facts which may be of interest to the Committee in considering the practical problems of immigration control today.
      In the last 12 months there has been an enormous increase in the number of people entering and leaving this country. I find the figures surprising. From 1st October, 1969, to 1st October, 1970, there were about 29½ million arrivals and departures, an increase of 16 per cent. on the previous year. This shows what a remarkable task the immigration services have to perform.
      In the short time that I have been at the Home Office, I have been enormously impressed by the work they do, faced with a volume of traffic of this magnitude. Occasionally they make a mistake, but considering that they are handling 29½, million cases, it is not surprising that a mistake will occasionally occur. In any event, the appeals machinery is picking these up.
      I pay tribute to the patience, understanding and sensible work of the immigration services in handling a problem which is growing in volume. This is particularly so with the arrival of people aboard, for example, Jumbo jets, which means that it is also growing in intensity.
      The appeals system was introduced in the last 12 months, and although it has not been operating to its full extent, it is in being to a large extent. I think my predecessor was wise not to push ahead too fast with this system, simply because of the numbers, to which I have referred. We should, therefore, proceed as we have been going so that we have an opportunity of seeing how the system is working.
      I have an opportunity, which I am taking in the course of preparing the Bill which I shall be presenting to Parliament, to look at the way in which the appeals system has been working. Hon. Members will, I am sure, take the opportunity when discussing this Measure to consider the working of the appeals machinery.
      480
      In coming to the question of Commonwealth entry, I am able to give the Committee the latest figures, and they are of some interest. The numbers of Commonwealth citizens admitted for settlement, excluding United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa, were down in 1969 to 36,000 from 53,000 the year before, a drop of 31 per cent. Dependants accounted for about 80 per cent. of those figures, and the decline in the number of dependants was greater—about 33 per cent.
      We have the figures for the first nine months of this year, and they show that the total has fallen to 22,000 compared with 29,000 last year. The figure for voucher holders has remained about the same, but the figures for dependants has been reduced in the first nine months of this year compared with 1969 by about 27 per cent.
      An interesting feature among the number of people using the employment vouchers is the increasing proportion of them being taken up by the old Commonwealth—Australia and New Zealand, for example—and the figures in this sector have roughly doubled between 1969 and 1970. There is this clear trend, but I do not know what the reasons are.
      There seem to be three main factors and it is difficult to work out the relative importance of each. There is, first, the continuing effect of the marked reduction in the level of vouchers. Secondly, there is the result of the decision in 1969 to make entry certificates mandatory for dependants. This is having a continuing effect. The third is the question of the number of certificates issued which do not seem to have been taken up.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to mandatory entry certificates for dependants and said—and I agree—that they were designed to facilitate the entry of people who are authorised to enter and not to create a new barrier. It has been working out very much as he said. The system of compulsory entry certificates is also working well.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Is my right hon. Friend able to complete the figures for 1969 and the first nine months of 1970 by giving the statistics relating to East Africans, whom he expressly excluded?
      Mr. Maudling: I have the figures, and the numbers are running at about the same consistent rate. The number of United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa was 732 in the first nine months of 1970. There were 16 employment voucher holders, 131 special voucher holders, 497 dependants and 88 others. Taking the absolute figures, I do not think that they are particularly large. As for compulsory entry certificates, we believe that this system is working well, and evidence of this is given by the fact that the number of people who have had to be refused entry is very much lower than it was.
      There is a mystery which puzzled the Select Committee and which puzzles me. It is the fact that 38,000 entry certificates have been issued and that only 23,000 of them have so far been used. This is a problem which has baffled me, but since it also baffled the Select Committee, I have a good excuse for saying that I do not myself understand the reason for this trend.
      I join the hon. Member for Leeds, South in saying how valuable it is to have the publication of the evidence which was given to the Select Committee and the analysis which has been done as a result of that evidence. Both the evidence and the analysis are of tremendous value to us in considering this whole matter.
      I do not think the hon. Gentleman referred to a point which is of considerable importance on the social side, and that is the question of illegal entry or evasion. Obviously, if people enter illegally they will make our problem of community relations all the more difficult to solve. Some wild figures of illegal immigration have been bandied about recently. Naturally, I cannot give a figure of the number of people who have entered this country without my knowing. By definition, that would be difficult, to say the least. However, I do not believe that the numbers are anything like those that are often supposed.
      Our means for dealing with illegal immigrants—those who come in in small boats or who slip through unnoticed—are, first, through the activities of the police, in co-operation with the Customs and coast guards and with the authorities of other countries. Secondly, we operate
      482
      through the machinery of the law; and I intend in the forthcoming Bill to deal with the question of penalties in this sphere of illegal immigration, particularly in respect of those who are making a profit out of trafficking in illegal immigrants, often at the cost of considerable human misery.
      The third category is that of control, and here we have the problem of those who come to this country on one basis and then slip away unnoticed, such as the person who comes as a student and then disappears, never to be found again by our authorities. It is, of course, difficult to give an exact figure for this category of people, but if one compares over the period 1962 to 1969 the number of Commonwealth citizens admitted here for all purposes with the number who re-embarked, together with the number admitted for settlement, plus the few who had their conditions revoked, the totals, of about 3 million in both cases, are nearly the same, and this is the best evidence that I can give today.
      It suggests that although there is a good deal of evasion of conditions of entry, the scale is nothing like what is sometimes suggested. Naturally, people who stay here in breach of their conditions are simply cheating on their colleagues. In other words, if they jump the queue by staying here, they are doing something which another person from their country of origin who follows the rules is not able to do.
      We are, therefore, right, for the general maintenance of the credibility of immigration control, to ensure that those who stay here in evasion of their conditions of entry are dealt with suitably and are required to leave the country.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to United Kingdom passport holders. I ask him not to believe rumours, even in the most respectable newspapers—especially in relation to Ireland. I have learned that already. I agree that there have been some rumours about United Kingdom passport holders, but I have no announcement of policy to make on this subject today.
      I have told the House previously that I am considering this very serious problem. In this connection, I will do what I rarely do in the House, which is to quote from my own speeches However, in

      483
      1968, during the passage of the immigration Bill of that year dealing with the question of United Kingdom passport holders—it was my view then and it is my view now—I said.
      "There is no doubt about the rights which these people possess. When they were given these rights, it was our intention that they should be able to come to this country when they wanted to do so. We knew it at the time. They knew it, and in many cases they have acted and taken decisions on this knowledge. I am certain that there can be no going back on those simple facts. Equally, there can be no doubt about the problems that can, and will, be created if the rate of immigration goes ahead too rapidly, a problem just as serious for the immigrant communities as for the rest of us. I believe that this country has handled the racial problem well … but even here there is bound to be a flashpoint. Let us make no mistake about that. There is bound to be a flashpoint somewhere, and if the flash occurs everyone will be burned, and probably seriously burned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1345.]
      That was how I saw the problem then and that is how I see it now. Hon. Members on both sides will realise the complex factors. This is a tragedy in the true sense of a clash not of right and wrong but of right and right.
      Mr. Bidwell: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that when we look at the British Commonwealth as a whole some very special considerations apply to the East African States. Therefore, should not one of the earliest items of business of the new Select Committee be to look at this aspect and come to a considered judgment, perhaps even sending a sub-committee, as was done in the case of Pakistan, Cyprus, India and the West Indies, to appreciate the realities of Africanisation and to make consequential recommendations on that basis?
      Mr. Maudling: I shall not now comment on that proposal, interesting though it is, but I may tell the Committee that I welcome wholeheartedly any helpful advice on this very difficult problem.
      Mr. John Hunt: My right hon. Friend commented on the fact that so many existing vouchers are not being taken up. Would he not accept that this state of affairs gives him some flexibility in dealing with the very special problem of the East African Asians to whom we have this very special obligation?
      Mr. Maudling: I have heard that interesting argument advanced, but the concern here is the actual and not the possible rate of arrival. Incidentally, the figure I gave of United Kingdom passport holders was for September, not for the year.
      I think that I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised by the hon. Member, save with his argument about what was wrong with proposals we have not yet produced—
      Mr. Norman St John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend alluded en passant to citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Are we to take it that the right of entry to the United Kingdom of citizens of the Republic of Ireland will not be affected by forthcoming legislation?
      Mr. Maudling: It is difficult to deal with that matter now because we are dealing with a Bill of very short duration indeed. I have resisted the temptation to argue about the provisions of the Bill before it comes forward, but I know that when it does come forward it will be considered in an atmosphere designed to help towards a solution of the problem of community relations of which that subject is a necessary adjunct.
      6.13 p.m.
      Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Although the right hon. Gentleman stressed the importance of immigration control I was disappointed to hear him put community relations in the second position. Both are equally important, as I hope, on reflection, he will agree. He has told us that the Government intend to introduce legislation, so we now have an opportunity to comment on how the present controls are working and to consider whether changes are needed.
      British immigration policy and practice has been the subject of much criticism in recent years. Some people believe that the controls are too restricted, and cause hardship to genuine applicants. Some have suggested that they are enforced harshly, unfairly and inefficiently. On the other hand, there are those who believe that too many Commonwealth immigrants are being

      485
      allowed in, that the controls are too liberal and that there is too much evasion of them.
      The Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration sought to examine these criticisms and to ascertain the facts. As a result, more facts are now available than in previous years. The Committee studied all aspects of immigration control, and we regretted that it was not possible, because of the General Election, to produce a full and considered report. However, reference has been made to the publication to which the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and I contributed. The thanks of the Committee are due to the Runnymede Trust, which asked us to prepare this analysis and summary of evidence.
      I want also to thank the officials of the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Employment and Productivity, and other witnesses who came before the Committee for their very willing help. It is pleasing to see present now so many who were members of the Select Committee. I am personally grateful to them for the way in which they applied themselves to our work. It was one of the best committees with which I have had the pleasure to work in what is now a long parliamentary experience. I know that the Committee would wish me also to thank the Clerk of the Committee: we could not have had better assistance than we had from him.
      Our inquiry enabled us to get both the home and the overseas facts, and I now have an opportunity to give some personal views. Immigration controls should be fair and efficient to ensure that those who have a right of entry face as little difficulty as possible on entering; and that there is no evasion. Fair and efficient controls ensure the confidence of both immigrants and the indigenous population, thus making for good race relations.
      In any future policy there is need to preserve three features of the present policy, and this should present no difficulty as the three main parties have already accepted them. The first concerns the right of entry of a certain number of Commonwealth citizens for settlement here. Second, once they are admitted they should have the same rights and responsibilities as other Common-
      486
      wealth citizens. Third, those who are admitted have a right to send for their families.
      At present we limit, by the employment voucher system, the number of Commonwealth citizens coming in. Because the numbers wishing to come here exceeded the number of vouchers, a rationing system became necessary. The present rationing system is based on possession of valuable skills, those of professional people, such as doctors, whose services we want. We give priority to those who have jobs waiting for them. We thought that the system seemed to be working both fairly and efficiently: fairly, because it gave equal treatment to all Commonwealth citizens of all races; efficiently, because we found that the waiting lists and delays had been considerably reduced.
      The immigrants possess a very wide range of skills; they are by no means all unskilled peasants. Many of us know this from what we see in our constituencies and in the country. Many hospital services would break down and many of our transport services would be badly manned without these immigrants. We found little complaint from employers about immigrants. On the contrary, in the main we found satisfaction. If there was a complaint from employers it was about the working of the employment voucher system. The main complaint was that the stricter controls meant that only about half of the 8,500 vouchers a year that are available are used.
      Perhaps the Home Secretary, in his consideration of this matter, is contemplating a re-allocation of unused vouchers. If so, let it be remembered that the United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa are British citizens to whom we owe a special duty. By issuing them with United Kingdom passports we promised them that they could come to Britain. In any reallocation of vouchers the claims of these British subjects should be considered.
      Consideration should be given to the claims of those from the Commonwealth who have traditionally looked to Britain as their home. In this category I think especially of the West Indians.
      Any proposal that immigrants with employment vouchers should be restricted to certain jobs and certain places for a period is neither fair or efficient. It is not fair because some would be allowed

      487
      to stay and others would be forced to return to their country of origin. There is a danger of discrimination here. As British subjects, they all ought to have equal rights. They should not be treated as aliens. New immigrants would be uncertain of their future. They would not know whether to bring their families or leave them behind. It would cause difficulties, anxieties and untold trouble.
      It would be inefficient to restrict immigrants to certain jobs for a given period, because economically it would not be to our advantage. Economically we want mobility of labour to get the best service possible. It would be costly to check that immigrants did not change jobs without permission. It would require an elaborate system of registration and inspection. Anyhow, this would be alien to Britain and could be a dangerous precedent.
      There would be the difficulty of identifying new immigrants and distinguishing them from earlier immigrants. Earlier immigrants would be allowed to change jobs without permission. All of this would encourage the evasion of controls, to say nothing of the difficulties of finding and deporting those who were not allowed to settle here. The Home Office witnesses before the Select Committee said that to try to restrict immigrants to certain jobs for a given period would be costly to enforce and, even then, likely to be ineffective or would be harmful to community relations.
      The present system for the control of entry and settlement of adult workers appears to work reasonably well. The numbers now entering are small. For these reasons, I think it better not to change the system. I have no doubt that a change would upset the Commonwealth and it would upset the confidence of the immigrants here; and all for no good reason.
      In the earlier debate the Select Committee which was then in being was asked to consider the entry certificate system. The Select Committee thought—I think I can speak for all my colleagues who are present—that this system had been justified. Much depends upon the appointment of sufficient good entry certificate officers overseas.
      We saw some entry certificate officers at work in overseas countries. We
      488
      watched them interview applicants. Where there were good officers, the system was both efficient and fair. The entry certificate system has eliminated the tragic and damaging practice of turning away women and children on arrival at British ports. Once an entry certificate is granted, dependants can come to Britain without difficulty. The result has been far fewer detentions at London Airport.
      By far the largest number of immigrants coming to Britain today are dependants. The original reason for these immigrants coming here was that employers wanted them to do particular jobs. Many of these men came over with the knowledge that they could get employment and get some security and then bring their wives, children or other dependants to join them. It would be wrong to deny men who have made a contribution to our economic development the opportunity of having their families join them.
      Ninety per cent. of applications by dependants are granted. That is a very good thing and shows that there is not fraudulent behaviour on the part of the majority and that the entry certificate system has not proved a further restriction on the rights of dependants. For those who have not been successful in entering there is an appeal system which affords them some protection. I repeat that the system is efficient because cases are more carefully considered by men on the spot rather than at London Airport.
      We were told that the vetting of applications overseas is also a more effective way of detecting bogus dependants, but both fairness and efficiency depend upon having a sufficient number of entry certificate officers of the right quality, of the right attitude, and with the right training and experience. On our visits we found that some entry certificate officers appeared to have insufficient understanding and inadequate knowledge of the customs, conventions and family patterns in the countries in which they had been called upon to work. There is a need for better training to ensure sympathy and understanding as well as skill in handling cases.
      We recognise the speed with which the entry certificate officers had to be recruited and the pressures there are upon them. There is a need for more staff in

      489
      some places to reduce delays and facilitate more training. It is invidious to pick out anyone in particular, but we were all agreed that some officers, judged by any standards, were outstanding.
      The Home Office itself appeared to be responsible for some of the delays in considering the granting of entry certificates. Whatever the reason, there is certainly a need for a speedier consideration of cases which are referred from overseas territories to London.
      However fairly and efficiently the scheme is administered, some genuine dependants will still have difficulties. Some do not have the necessary documents. They have to undergo an oral examination. It must be acknowledged that there are many bogus relatives. We saw families being examined at length and in detail about their private affairs, and children being examined without their parents being present. Many were clearly genuine, but they were puzzled, frightened and dismayed by their experience. We concluded that this had to be done because of attempted evasion, and, as so often happens, the innocent as well as the guilty had to suffer.
      There are some problems arising on the rules governing the issue of entry certificates. I want to draw attention to one or two which struck me particularly. The two-parent rule is hard on West Indian mothers. They want their children to join them. There appeared to be many cases of real hardship. A general direction to entry certificate officers that they should deal with these cases most sympathetically would be useful.
      Then there is the system of arranged marriages in Pakistan and India. This, too, causes problems. I suggest that genuine fiancées might be admitted a little more freely, either for marriage or for settlement—in the case of settlement by granting an employment voucher.
      The entry certificate system for controlling the entry of dependants operates fairly and efficiently in most of the places which we visited. It could be made to do so everywhere. There must be the right staff in sufficient numbers to achieve this. They have a difficult and delicate task. The Home Office staff generally deserve our thanks for their humane and sympathetic handling of the most difficult problems of immigration.
      490
      We ought not to be panicked by Commonwealth immigration. We have a long tradition of absorbing strangers. That is how our nation has been built. If we maintain fair, efficient and flexible controls, if we work hard to improve community relations among all who are now here, I think we have nothing to fear.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has reminded the Committee that this is the last of these annual debates which will be taking place. As so often happens with a temporary institution, it has proved to have a substantial value—as an opportunity for survey in many directions, of which already in this debate all who have taken part have availed themselves.
      Indeed, it would be absurd if we were to conduct this debate in the light simply of the events and the figures of the previous 12 months, since these are dwarfed by the past and even more by the prospective future, and since it must be in the light of that prospective future that we judge what is happening now and form our views on policies for the future.
      Nevertheless, I want to begin by looking at what has actually been happening in the last few years. The impression has been widely given and frequently reiterated that there has been a steady and rapid decline in immigration from the New Commonwealth. This is not so. I accept, of course, the importance and interest of the figures of voucher holders and their dependants, which have been referred to already by right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches; but for the future of our population and our society to which my right hon. Friend referred the significant figure is net immigration from the New Commonwealth.
      This, of course, would not be so if net immigration were somtimes positive and sometimes negative; but in the actual situation, in which net immigration is constantly and substantially positive, it must be the figures of net immigration year by year which are of the long-term significance. I need not labour this point, because the authorities themselves, the late Government, and I dare say their present successors, in contemplating the future size of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population, have always

      491
      used net immigration as the relevant factor.
      Net immigration this year, despite the impression which was given month by month by announcements and articles in the earlier part of the year, will not be down on 1969. In fact, I can tell my right hon. Friend—breaking the rule about never using the future tense—that net immigration in 1970 will exceed net immigration—from the New Commonwealth of course—in 1969. By August—my right hon. Friend has the benefit, which I have not, of the September figures—the net immigration total had already almost reached that for the same point in the year in 1969, and it was, as he well knows, in the latter part of 1969 that the fall-off in that year took place.
      What we are seeing this year, as last year, is a net immigration of between 40,000 and 50,000. It is true this is lower than the very much higher figure, including United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa, of 75,000 or thereabouts in 1967 and 1968. But it is a reversion to the approximate levels of the mid-1960s.
      The true picture, therefore, is that net immigration from the new Commonwealth ran during the middle 1960s around 50,000 a year on average it jumped in 1967 and 1968 to a much higher figure; and it has fallen back last year and this year to the approximate level of the middle of the last decade.
      I have no doubt that the legislation which my right hon. Friend will introduce will substantially further reduce net immigration, but the immediate point which I want to emphasise is that there is no such large, continuing, downward trend in the figures of net immigration as would justify us in loosening control, and, indeed, that we shall look to the new legislation to achieve a sharp reduction in what hitherto has been the normal level of net immigration under the previous legislation.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. If this figure of net New Commonwealth immigration—which I think is the precise point—differs, as the right hon. Gentleman says, from the figures which have been given from the two Front Benches referring to the vouchers and to the dependants, and his figures are therefore greater,
      492
      would he help me by explaining what groups of people make up this difference?
      Mr. Powell: Yes. Naturally, what is happening for the most part is that those admitted initially as students, visitors or in other ways eventually remain in this country, as well as those who are initially admitted for permanent settlement. Therefore, I repeat, while the figures of those initially admitted for permanent settlement are interesting and significant, it is the net figure—in minus out—year by year which builds up the future population and to which we should look when we pay attention to the future.
      Each year that we have this debate one can measure the change in outlook, and even more the change in information, which has taken place during the previous 12 months. There have been striking changes in information during these last twelve months. We have learnt what we did not know 12 months ago—how the official estimates of the rate of natural increase of the coloured population compare with the facts.
      May I pause here for a moment to say that I am using the word "coloured" purely for brevity, as a circumlocution for a definition consistently used in these statistics by the authorities and by the Government namely, persons born in the New Commonwealth, not of European descent, and children, born here, one or both of whose parents was such a person born in the New Commonwealth. I think the Committee will appreciate the necessity for having some brief expression for so complex, though I believe agreed, definition.
      Mr. Bidwell: There is also the person born in the New Commonwealth area who, in fact, is white and who came here to settle, although by the right hon. Gentleman's definition we call him coloured because he came from the New Commonwealth.
      Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) was not listening. From this definition, which I am using exactly as it is used by the authorities in computing the future population, there are excluded what are sometimes called "White Indians", that is to say, persons of European descent who were themselves born in the New Commonwealth. These figures exclude, or endeavour to exclude,

      493
      those persons and their children born here.
      We were able, as it so happened, to compare the previous Government's estimate of the rate of natural increase of that coloured population with the facts in the year 1969. There is no question here of projections of the future. We are comparing what the Government thought was happening in 1969 with what we know was actually happening in 1969. What we discovered was that the Government's belief was a gross underestimate of what was actually happening. I remember very vividly, in the corresponding debate last year, the face of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), then the Under-Secretary, when I told him that their figure was an underestimate. But I confess that when I told him that I had no idea how severe an underestimate the official figure was. It was believed that the net increase in the coloured population in 1969 was 30,000, obtained by deducting 5,000 deaths from 35,000 births. In March 1970, we learned from the publication by the Registrar-General of the figures for the two middle quarters of 1969, that the true figure for births was at least 50 per cent. greater than the Government had believed.
      Since then, two further pieces of information have become available. We have the Scottish figures—for it was a Great Britain estimate—for the first quarter of 1970, which throw some light upon the figure for Scotland. We also have some facts—the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was good enough to supply me with them—for deaths, which indicate that the estimate for deaths was substantially too high, that probably the relevant deaths were something like two-thirds of what had been assumed in the official estimate. These adjustments bring the figure up not to 50 per cent. but to 66⅔ per cent. above what the Government at the time believed.
      But that is not all, because the calculations themselves embodied a number of underestimates; in particular, they certainly underestimated the coloured element in illegitimate births. I need not trouble the Committee at length with the calculations which underlie that conclusion because I laid them in a paper before the Institute of Population Registration in May of this year, and that paper is
      494
      available in the Library of the House. But we have now, as we had not hitherto, the fact that the coloured population of this country is increasing much faster than had been officially believed. It is increasing at a rate something like 75 per cent.—that is a modest assessment—faster than was believed.
      This is an immensely significant figure. There are three factors in any such assessment. The first is the rate of net immigration. There, there is no difficulty, because the facts are available year by year. The second is the base figure which was taken in arriving at the 1969 estimate. The third is the rate of natural increase. It follows that hitherto either the base figure—the number of coloured persons already in this country at some previous date—or the rate of natural increase, or both, have been severely underestimated. It follows by the same token that all official projections for future years have to be revised, have to be revised drastically, and have to be revised upwards.
      I should be the first to admit—here I find myself in entire agreement with the hon. Member for Leeds, South—that, large though the eventual total figures in the Kingdom may be which are implicit in the revised official estimate for current numbers and rate of growth, it is not there that the dangers, to which my right hon. Friend referred, to the future health of our own people and society primarily lie. They lie in concentration. They lie in the effects in areas where a large proportion of the total number is concentrated.
      I noted with entire agreement what the hon. Member for Leeds, South said: "Dispersal is a pipe dream". Indeed it is. Much the contrary, as the numbers increase, so far from dispersal of the coloured population occurring, what we shall see—what indeed we are seeing—will be the outward movement of the indigenous population, which will necessarily accelerate the growth in the coloured proportion, and all the consequences of concentration.
      In this debate last year I drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that it was possible, within fairly narrow limits of conjecture, to form a reliable picture of the future make-up of the population in a number of our great towns and cities. I pointed out that this could be done, without relying upon

      495
      theoretical assumptions over long future periods about intake and birth rate, because we already had in existence the facts of the size of the coloured population up to age 15, and therefore by a projection of births for a further 10 years, which only allows of a certain play and argument one way or the other, we were already in possession of the facts about the size of a whole generation of the coloured population, wherever the figures for births during the last five years and for the school population were available. I then, and subsequently in the paper which I have already mentioned, took in detail the figures for Birmingham, in order to show how much we already know about the future of these towns and cities.
      Where the first five years of the generation are concerned—the births of the last five years—the facts are available in cities like Birmingham which have kept the figures for many more years past than the last five. Unhappily, the figures for the schools have hitherto been provided in a form which for this purpose is totally misleading and, indeed, dangerous; for the definition applied in the count organised by the Department of Education and Science is such that one counts only children who arrived from the New Commonwealth within the last 10 years or children both of whose parents arrived from the New Commonwealth within the last 10 years, with the grotesque result that a school where the coloured proportion is constantly rising can appear in the statistics as one where it is constantly falling, as the 10-year rule cuts out one section of children after another, and the same children are counted one year but not the next.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is to be congratulated on having at last decided that this basis shall be altered. She tells me that from January, 1972, there will at last be instituted in the schools a true count; that is, a count on the same basis as the figures which we are, by common consent, discussing. In view of the importance of having these facts, I hope that she will impart sufficient urgency to the change to bring it about in January, 1971, so that in a year's time we shall have the actual figures of the coloured population in the schools. At
      496
      present, one is faced with the necessity of adjustment.
      Working with the Birmingham figures, I arrived at the conclusion, which I argued in detail, that eventually one-fifth of the population of Birmingham would be coloured. I have to confess that I was guilty of an error. It was not an error of fact or of calculation; my facts and calculations were accurate. It was an error of judgment. When I said that one-fifth of Birmingham would eventually be coloured, I presented a result into the calculation of which there had been built a whole series of most grotesque underestimates.
      I assumed, for example, that there would be no further immigration at all. I assumed that there would be no emigration from Birmingham or from the country as a whole. I assumed that the rate of reproduction of the coloured population would be exactly the same as that of the indigenous population, an assumption which, so far as I know, no one has seriously made when working on this question. Thus, what I was presenting was not a genuine attempt to arrive at the likely future of the City of Birmingham. It was a grotesque underestimate, by which, I confess, I sought to protect myself against being accused of exaggeration.
      I was wrong. I ought not to have given currency to a figure which so little represents what is to come. I ought to have taken my courage in both hands and told the country and the City of Birmingham what was my judgment as to the probable—not the grotesquely improbable—minimum proportion of the coloured population.
      Fortunately, my fault has been made good by others. A gentleman in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Southampton, Mr. Clifford Thomas, has studied in the Journal of Biosocial Science the future make-up of the population of this country. He did it on the basis of the figures adopted before it was known how wrong, how low, the official estimates were. He took the figures which, broadly speaking, were used in the book to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South referred, "Colour and Citizenship". Moreover, he was working on a definition of the coloured population more restrictive than the official one.

      497
      Mr. Thomas instituted a series of careful studies and calculations, on various assumptions both as to rate of increase and as to inflow, to arrive at estimates of the make-up of the population in future years. He se this estimates out from one extreme to the other, but he made clear what his own view of the probability was. He said:
      "By the year 2000 3 million to 4 million"—
      that is, of coloured population as defined by him—
      "is all that seems likely".
      In arriving at that figure for the year 2000, he was roughly in line with a number of projections and estimates which have been made by a series of academic workers on this subject. Indeed, I think it might almost be said now that 3 million to 4 million is the orthodox figure for the coloured population at the end of the century. Mr. Thomas then went on to see how, on those same assumptions, the situation in Birmingham would develop, having for Birmingham, as I have reminded the Committee, a series of birth figures which made such a calculation possible.
      The Committee will wish to know what the result was. The Committee will wish to know what was the calculated future make-up of the population of Birmingham which corresponded with, and used the same projections and assumptions as what I have ventured to describe as the orthodox estimate of 3 million to 4 million in all for this country at the end of the century.
      On that basis and in correspondence with that estimate, Mr. Thomas arrived for Birmingham at an eventual—by "eventual" I mean in the early years of the next century—at an eventual coloured population of between ½ million and ¾ million. Thus, even if the total size of the City of Birmingham is assumed to have grown by then to 1½ million, the proportion of the coloured population would be not one-fifth but two-fifths or one-half.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), in a most interesting and helpful article which was published today, concluded by imagining what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might say on this subject at the
      498
      next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in January.
      "His message to them"
      my right hon. Friend wrote, might be that,
      "having secured a relative breathing space, the United Kingdom, in its own interest and that of the Commonwealth, proposes to consolidate".
      We now know, unless we refuse to know—we now see, unless we refuse to see—what "consolidating" means for the City of Birmingham. Indeed, for the reasons which I mentioned earlier, when we talk about a Birmingham which will be one-half coloured in the early part of the next century, that is unrealistic—in the sense that, before that proportion was anywhere near reached, there would be an outflow of indigenous residents which would send the proportion up more rapidly still. That is the future of their city which the people of Birmingham face; and the calculation, the reasoning, the prospect, is a corresponding one for other towns and cities, from Inner London to—let us say—whichever town one likes to choose in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: The right hon. Gentleman paints a horrific picture but says not a word ever in his speeches, not a word in his speech tonight, about those who are here. Would he say something about community relations? Would he say how those people are to be given a message of tolerance by the people of this country?
      Mr. Powell: What does the hon. Gentleman think I am talking about but community relations? What does he think is implied in a Birmingham one-half coloured but the future of our society? What did he think my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary meant by the danger to our society in the future? This is the very essence of the matter of community relations, and those who blind themselves and blind their fellow citizens to these facts do the gravest crime—
      Mr. Phillip Whitehead rose—
      Mr. Powell: I will not give way. I will finish. Those people do the gravest crime not only to their fellow countrymen but to those immigrants in this country whose interests they profess to have at heart.

      499
      The question which has now to be asked, which cannot any longer, now that we have thus much knowledge, be burked is this. Is this the future which the people of Birmingham want for their city? Is this the future which the people of this country want for this counrty? But before that question can be asked, let alone answered, something else has first to happen.
      Mr. Whitehead rose—
      Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance in a moment.
      We can no longer pretend that we do not know. Authority can no longer pretend that it does not know. The truth must be told. The Government must tell the people the truth—they must do it themselves. The people have the right to know. They must know.
      7.4 p.m.
      Mr. David Steel: I shall make only two comments on the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). First, with the exception of his last few sentences, in response to interventions, we listened at least to a cool appraisal of what the right hon. Gentleman understood to be the situation. There were no rivers of blood running through the Chamber. That sort of language is apparently kept for the halls outside. It was a welcome change. This is a subject which we should be prepared to discuss at least on the level at which the right hon. Gentleman conducted the greater part of his speech.
      But the right hon. Gentleman's technique of building up the figures as he went through was most interesting. An assumption which was made very early on and was explained to us after the intervention of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) very quickly, a few sentences later, became an established fact. The phrase "grotesque under-estimate" was used constantly as though that had now been established by the mere assertion of the definition which the right hon. Gentleman himself used.
      If the right hon. Gentleman is to base so many of his conclusions and facts and researches on the figure of net increase in immigration, he must explain to us
      500
      why he differed so strongly from both the previous and present Administrations on the figures of immigration that they gave. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he has a duty to the House to explain and not just to make that assumption. Is he really saying that the number of students and the like who come in will settle in this country in large numbers and that the Home Office and the police forces are in grave dereliction of their duty because those are people who should not be staying here but are? Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that as a significant factor in the immigration figure, or is he merely picking out from the statistics the fact that we have a large and possibly growing number of people coming here from the New Commonwealth for higher education?
      If that is the fact that he is asserting, then of course no one will contradict him. It is self-evident that with the development of independent nationhood in the New Commonwealth throughout the 1960s, and particularly with the increased demand for higher education facilities, it may well be the case that the number of people wanting to come here from the New Commonwealth for higher education of all kinds will be on the increase. But it is wholly wrong to include that figure in the figure of immigration for settlement and then build up a series of hypotheses on that.
      Mr. Powell: Then why did the Registrar-General choose to use that figure for making his calculations for the future? Why did he not use the figures of those admitted for settlement? Why did he use net immigration?
      Mr. Steel: I shall leave the Government, who are responsible for the Registrar-General, to answer that. What I am saying is that the right hon. Gentleman cannot simply take a figure for students and the like and assume—that is the basic assumption which he has made—that they must be included as part of the permanent population, a permanent part of the scene. That is where the fundamental disagreement lies between the right hon. Gentleman and successive Home Secretaries.
      Mr. John Biffen: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on this? It is not a question of the argument that my

      501
      right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) might have with successive Home Secretaries. It would seem to be an argument between those like the hon. Gentleman—and presumably he is not implying that the Front Benches agree with him—and the Registrar-General, because it is the Registrar-General that is taking the figure of net immigration. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Registrar-General is guilty in making his projections?
      Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman is a faithful disciple of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He has just made precisely the same point as the right hon. Gentleman made in his intervention a moment ago.
      Mr. Biffen: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question?
      Mr. Steel: I have not answered it. I did not answer when the right hon. Gentleman asked. I am not here to defend the Registrar-General. I am questioning the assumption made by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to make the comment that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in his logical way has put his mind to the figures, and now the right hon. Gentleman's friends are suggesting that the projections which he is using for 20 to 30 years' time are those of the Registrar-General, whatever process the Registrar-General uses? I recall very clearly that after the changes that were made on the new assumption of fertility rate during last year the disagreement between the right hon. Gentleman's projections and those of the Registrar-General was still very great, so that although the right hon. Gentleman points out an error it would not be right to say that the Registrar-General's projections are those of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was arguing this, but I think that his hon. Friend was.
      Mr. Steel: I want to move on to the general matter of the debate and to return to a point made very early on by the hon. Member for Leeds, South on how we are to conduct the debate on
      502
      the new legislation which the Government promise. I should like the Home Office Ministers to reconsider very carefully whether or not we should have a White Paper or a Green Paper in advance of the Bill. The debate has got off to a very good start, and I hope that we might continue the debate in this spirit when we discuss the legislation. But it is not good enough to expect other bodies, whether other political parties or bodies outside the House interested in community relations and immigration to submit a critique of what should be the new Government's policy based simply on a few paragraphs in the Conservative Party manifesto. My party would very much like to have in advance of the actual legislation a much clearer statement of intent in detail on the very complicated problems which we face in immigration.
      The Home Secretary said that it will be a large Bill. It is almost bound to be, and I make no criticism of that. All the more reason, therefore, why we should have an authoritative Government publication in advance. Although I accept the generosity of the Home Secretary's remarks about Amendments in Committee, I think that the Government always feel themselves to a certain extent to be restricted once they have actually produced a Bill based on their own thinking. It is much easier to make representations to the Government in advance of a Bill being published.
      I want to turn to a particular aspect and not discuss immigration in general. Only passing reference has been made to citizens of United Kingdom origin. Nothing has been mentioned at all so far in the debate about the problem of dual nationality—of the people throughout the world, estimated at possibly 3 million, who have citizenship of this country and citizenship of another as well. I have lone, regarded this as an anachronism and I presume that it will disappear under the new legislation. But I raise it in the context of the future of United Kingdom citizenship because the whole subject of dual nationality bedevilled the question of what we should do with the United Kingdom passport holders in territories overseas.
      The House will remember the agonising debates of 1968, when the then Home Secretary talked about 1 million people

      503
      who had the right under previous legislation to come to this country. By the time the then Bill went to another place that number had been inflated to about 2 million. It is essential to have a clear statement of what is to happen to the status of dual nationality and whether the problem is to be tackled.
      Then we come to those who do not have dual nationality but have our citizenship for historical reasons, good or bad. We cannot rewrite history. This applies particularly in the East African territories, and the latest figures we have are that there are 150,000 of them—90,000 in Kenya, 40,000 in Uganda and 20,000 in Tanzania, while no doubt there are some in other territories.
      How many of these are waiting for applications under the terms of the 1968 Act for the 1,500 annual vouchers? The figure was given in evidence to the Select Committee on Race Relations in May this year of 7,000 people waiting in the queue for vouchers. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham gave a figure of 9,000 last month. Assuming that these are 9,000 individuals applying for vouchers, in terms of the numbers in families, then presumably about 36,000 people are waiting in the queue to get vouchers to exercise their rights of citizenship to come to this country. Despite the fact that I am talking about numbers in the queue, the queue is defined as being composed of those who have been called for interview at the British High Commissions and there may well be others who have made application or who wish to apply but do not appear in the official figures of those who are at present waiting for vouchers.
      Mr. David Waddington: Surely the important matter is not so much how many people are in the queue but how long one has to wait. Can the hon. Gentleman give any guidance as to how long a time normally elapses between a Kenya Asian applying for a work permit and his being admitted to this country? In my experience, only a few months elapse.
      Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman may well be right in some cases. I understand that a quota is given out more or less monthly. In some cases, it may indeed be a very short time. The criterion is
      504
      need and not length of time in the waiting list. It must be a very difficult decision to make. I understand that some people are lucky and have to wait only a few months. But the hon. Gentleman is wrong in trying to suggest that that is typical of the picture, because unfortunately many have waited a very long time—not months but years, if I may warp a now emotive saying in the House.
      I have seen in letters, which have been widely made known, circulars from the High Commissions in the territories concerned stating, last June, that the application has been considered but the High Commission is not yet able to give a voucher. The same circular has gone out to the same individual in November. So the average wait is not just a question of a few months.
      This brings me to the problem that separates citizens of United Kingdom origin from the other citizens of the new Commonwealth or anywhere else. I am devoting my speech to this problem because it is important not to lose sight of this distinction in the legislation to come. I was a little disappointed because, although our hopes had been perhaps unwittingly built up outside, the Home Secretary had no announcement to make on that question.
      The main reason why some of us are still concerned with the matter is precisely the wait to get here and the hardship this causes. These people are applying for vouchers to come here because they have been deprived of their right to work in the territory in which they are living. It may be possible to criticise the Governments concerned for the speed with which they produced their internal legislation which has had this side effect, but it is not really possible to criticise them in principle because they are doing what we have always done—that is, regulating the employment of non-citizens and the amount of time during which they may occupy positions in those territories. In developing economies it is understandable that this policy has been pursued, although it is possible to criticise the rate at which it has been brought into being.
      The result is that these people are deprived of their right to trade or of their appointments and are left resident in those countries with no income and no means of subsistence except the capital they have accumulated. Some of them

      505
      were fairly well off. Some were quite wealthy traders. I remember well the particular sections of the city of Nairobi where very substantial homes and properties have been built by this affluent section of the community. But that was a minority.
      The great majority were ordinary wage earners or small business men who have been severely afflicted by the fact that they have had their means of subsistence removed but have not been able to get out of the territory and exercise their right of citizenship to come to this country.
      The basic reason why I ask for this matter to be treated separately is the direct personal hardship caused to people to whom we have an obligation as a result of the 1968 Act. If hon. Members wish further details, there is an excellent report produced by the Rev. David Mason of a recent visit to Uganda. I saw the beginnings of this hardship myself when I visited Nairobi and went among the community concerned eighteen months ago. It has accelerated greatly since then. In one or two cases not only has destitution resulted but people have been sent to gaol because they had ignored instructions to leave the country. But they were unable to leave the country because no voucher had been given. This is a matter for the conscience of the House. It is a separate question from the general one of immigration as a whole.
      The previous Home Secretary used to tell us that he hoped that no one would encourage persons in that situation to jump the queue. No one would, but let us be honest about it. If we were placed in that position ourselves, with our means of livelihood taken away, and saw our bank balances drop and drop and ourselves dependent on the charities which exist and which have done a great deal to help, would we not be tempted to leave the country, as we would be legally entitled to do, and enter the shuttlecock process? I understand that since the 1968 Act more than 1,000 people have endured the shuttlecock process of being moved over to this country and then back to and round the airports of the world.
      Mr. Ernie Money: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the gravest risks is the rising tide of bitterness among the young, who are
      506
      losing their chances of education because of the decreasing assets of their families, who will eventually become citizens of this country as of right, but who will come here in the most bitter mood?
      Mr. Steel: That is true. There is not only bitterness of mood, but if eventually we are to take these people in any case it is preferable that they should be able to bring with them at least the minimum amount of money to establish themselves in the community here, so that we do not have to take into our community thousands of paupers whom we have created paupers.
      Not only have we caused this hardship to these individuals, but we have damaged some of our relationships with other countries who have been involved in the shuttlecock process—the Swiss, the Dutch, the Germans and the French, who have all been involved in having these people sitting around at airports. We have entered an obligation with India which has been most helpful in agreeing to take numbers of these United Kingdom citizens into its territory on the understanding that they will be allowed to come to Britain if they later wish to do so. I understand that that agreement has not always been honoured in the letter as it should have been, and the result of that has been some friction between ourselves and the Government of India, as well as with European Governments.
      A further reason for reconsidering the whole matter is that what some of us predicted in 1968 has happened and we have been found to be in breach of the Declaration on Human Rights, of which we are a signatory. We have lately been before the Human Rights Commission and I understand that the case has been referred to the courts. It has been clearly declared, as some of us said it would be, that our legislation of 1968 runs completely counter to the basic right of the citizen and as such is not defensible. The hon. Member for Leeds, South uttered a sentence which I wrote down. He said that citizenship must be the basis of our law. I could not agree more. The trouble is that we ran counter to that principle when we passed the 1968 legislation.
      I hope very much that in the immediate future the Government will agree to an increase in the 1,500 vouchers which are now allowed. But not even such an

      507
      increase will be adequate when the Bill comes forward. Even an increase from 1,500 to 2,500 will enable only a slight alleviation of the hardship which we have created. The Home Secretary said that the numbers of immigrants had fallen from 53,000 in 1968 to a figure which I have projected from nine months of 1970 to the whole of 1970 at approximately 29,000, a reduction of some 24,000 in the two years. With that sort of reduction there is scope for a considerable review of the policy which has been pursued since 1968.
      The figure of 150,000 is the total conceivable commitment, not all at once but over a period. It must be remembered that many of these people will continue to live and work in East African territories because, as with our immigrant population here, they hold jobs which are valuable to the territories. There is therefore no question of their having their livelihoods removed, and of those who remain many have expressed the desire to go to other countries, such as India, and they are prevented from doing so because no other Government is prepared to accept them into its territories so long as we do not acknowledge their basic right to come to his country.
      My last plea, therefore, is that in considering the Bill the Government will pay special attention to the problems of these United Kingdom citizens, problems which we have ourselves created.
      7.25 p.m.
      Mr. W. F. Deedes: I shall comment later on what the hon Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said about the Kenyan Asians, but I should like first to revert to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
      We now have three matter before us—the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which is a mere device by which we practise the debate; the Bill which will shortly be forthcoming and on which the Home Secretary was very reserved; and the projections offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
      I will say of my right hon. Friend's calculations and projections that I have the greatest respect for my right hon.
      508
      Friend as a statistician and I respect the calculations which he makes. As he did me the honour of quoting one passage from something I wrote on the subject, I hope that he will also acknowledge that in the same article I agreed with him that the books were not what they appeared to be. That is an important fact.
      Mr. Powell: Yes.
      Mr. Deedes: The accounting system, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) knows as well as I do, is deficient. Unless the new Bill can provide us with a more satisfactory basis for accounting for those who are here, those who are coming and those who are going, leaving out those who may be here in the year 2,000, the Bill will be on a false basis.
      I accept that, as some of us on the Select Committee discovered more than a year ago the change in calculating the number of immigrant school children in the country was inexcusable. There is never an excuse for obscuring from ourselves the facts of the case. Put at its lowest, these figures are needed to provide the authorities particularly concerned with the problem with the materials upon which they can ask for the requisite resources. If we for our own reasons, and not very good reasons, obscure the true figures, leaving aside the calculations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, we directly harm the authorities carrying most responsibility. Unless the new Bill incorporates some better way in which to calculate these figures, the truth will be obscured and policy will be vitiated. In that sense, I entirely accept the tone in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West spoke.
      I appreciate the Home Secretary's view that there was not much which he could say before the prospective Bill appeared. On the other hand, there is a certain amount which hon. Members can usefully say before this prospective legislation is finally drafted. We are not to have a White Paper, perhaps understandably, and therefore this is the last rehearsal before the Bill appears, and before the final touches are given to it we should make one or two comments.
      I wish my right hon. Friend the best of luck with the new Bill if we are to

      509
      fulfil our undertakings. Some evidence came to us—and this is now recorded and I am therefore entitled to quote what was said to the Select Committee—that my right hon. Friend's own officials saw great disadvantages and difficulties in the proposals. They were reserved about the advantages, but rather more explicit about the disadvantages. They may have changed their minds, but it would be foolish to conceal from ourselves some of the difficulties which the proposed scheme entails.
      The longer I work in this subject, the more I become convinced that the gap between theory and practice is wider than with most other aspects of public policy. Between what may be hoped and what is actually attained there is often an alarming difference.
      Let me take one practical example. The effective control of all aliens and immigrants entering the country resides at Princetown House. There we have a central traffic index and all the landing and embarkation cards, amounting to 5½ million each year with half a million Commonwealth immigrants. The cards are tiled and matched. We have been trying for six years to get this enormous register on some sort of computer, but I am informed that we have failed. We shall have to do better. No single system of control with the numbers involved will be feasible with manual methods such as those which are now employed.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: The right hon. Gentleman is right—no doubt he was involved in this in the Administration before last—but it is not just a question of finding a computer which will take the information: it would need a regiment of civil servants to prepare the forms to feed into it, at which the mind would boggle. So it is more than techniques; it is bodies as well.
      Mr. Deedes: I know about the difficulties, but if, as I believe, implicit in this policy is the need for more exact accounting, the difficulties must be overcome. We cannot lie down and say that we cannot account for this. Somehow, we must.
      There is another difficulty which our unified proposals may offer. It is readily, I think wrongly, assumed that under a single system of control we shall have the effect of tightening up on Commonwealth immigrants, because the control on aliens
      510
      is more rigid. But this is not necessarily so. The conditions may be more stringent, but the categories in many instances are less stringent for aliens than for Commonwealth citizens.
      For example, children of aliens are admitted up to 18, children of Commonwealth citizens up to 16. But parents of aliens are admitted up to 60, parents of Commonwealth citizens up to 65. So there are areas in which unifying the system will confront us with the need either to tighten up on aliens or to relax on Commonwealth citizens. That should be clearly understood before we accept the premise that a unified system necessarily means stricter control of entry.
      If we accept that, then we are going in for a series of very difficult differentials. We must have at least four differentials—aliens and Commonwealth immigrants of the past, up to vesting day of the Bill, aliens and Commonwealth citizens of the future, when the Bill comes into operation, which will present certain difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dwelt on the weight of numbers and the weight of traffic, and referred to these 29½ million people, including our own citizens, who move in and out of this island every year. I am sure he is right to weigh that heavily in our new proposals.
      I have come to the general view that our present system of external control, even with the entry certificate—with the introduction of which the hon. Member for Leeds, South had a lot to do—has a limited life. Some of us have seen this system working in the countries of origin. I would follow the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) in paying tribute to the many officials whom we have abroad who are now trying to make the entry certificate system work. Their numbers are also formidable. The machinery which is needed in the various countries to implement this proposal, although it is an improvement, is pretty ponderous. It may be said that the weight of this machinery may taper off as numbers fall, as they may, if, say, fewer dependants come and need entry certificates.
      If we check the figures of Commonwealth entry for 1969—this matter has not yet been referred to today—we find that one sort of movement is being replaced by another. The long-term traffic

      511
      for entry may or may not be in decline—it may be equal to 1969 or just below or just above it—but the short-term traffic for entry for periods of up to six months is increasing rapidly. This is hardly surprising, since if we have 1 million,1¼ million or 1½ million immigrants here, their links with their country of origin mean that this traffic must increase. We must accept that funds will be available for such movement.
      In India last year, for example, short-term visits were double the total number of voucher holders and dependants from that continent. It was 22,000 visits of under three months, compared with just under 10,000 from all India. That figure bears very close inspection for more than one reason. We shall find it increasingly hard to run a viable system, which means a just system, on the present lines. The people of this country would resent and resist a means of internal control such as other countries use, which would involve identifying everyone. I am not dwelling on this, but such an internal system carries at least one advantage; the immigrants know that it is universal and that it cannot conceivably be discriminatory.
      It is also arguable, of course, that the real distinction between immigrants is not whether they are aliens or Commonwealth citizens, whether they are black or white, but whether they have come for temporary or permanent residence. Here, I would take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, because my findings on visiting the countries that these people come from are that the intention varies very widely with the country under discussion. For example, the intention to settle is much stronger in India than in Pakistan. The hon. Member for Leeds, South and I have had some experience of this. The number of male breadwinners from Pakistan greatly exceeds the number of those from India, and many of these intend to have a temporary stay here, to win what fortune they may, and then perhaps to return. This is a very difficult future to predict; yet it is one which is most relevant to any calculations for the future such as my right hon. Friend undertook today.
      512
      I understand that it is our intention to make some distinction of this kind, because our policy says that for the future work permits will not carry the right of permanent settlement for older or dependants. So we shall have two classes of immigrants—those who are here and those who are to come. The old will be free and the new will be tied. That may present certain difficulties. Without very elaborate machinery, the concept of the tied immigrant will present us with considerable difficulties. Some say it works for aliens. It does, because, with small exceptions, they do not concentrate as Commonwealth citizens do, and they are much easier to trace. However, that is for the future.
      Bluntly, I am convinced that the A voucher in its present form must go. There is nothing to be said for a system which brings in indiscriminately unskilled labour, unable to speak our language, often unable to read or write. Small though the numbers may be, this is not conducive to good race relations, and those who know most about it in this field accept that tacitly, even if they do not declare it publicly.
      On the other side of the coin, we shall have to revise priorities for whatever the equivalent may be of the B voucher. I will not rehearse the muddle about the doctors, but there has been a muddle. From 2,000 doctors a year from India—a matter on which some of us protested a year or two ago: my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) certainly made a speech on this not long ago—we have dropped in the first eight months of this year to the astonishing figure of 350. That, of course, is because—I believe rightly—the former Secretary of State for the Social Services put a stopper on it, but his stopper was at 2,000, and we have fallen to 350. That is why many of our hospitals are suffering unexpected difficulties.
      For the future, of course, we can limit the period of training here, but what we cannot do is determine that these immigrants, when trained, return to their country of origin. The loss to India will still be as great even if we limit their time here for training, because they may well move elsewhere. No immigrant training here can be tied to returning to his country of origin. I doubt whether these conditions could be met.

      513
      I do not want to rehearse the arguments about Kenya Asians, only to ask two questions. Have we formed an impression of what the effect will be if we raise the quota on the internal policy of the African countries concerned—Kenya, Uganda, Zambia and Tanzania? Would any concession here be followed by an intensification of Africanisation policy? It is very difficult to quantify, but it is a crucial question in the context of our debate. We are dealing with a very large number of people in terms of any policy which might be intensified against them. That is something which the Committee must bear in mind.
      A most esoteric point is this: does the undertaking which we gave to India to accept residual responsibility for these British citizens in return for India's readiness to take British citizens of Indian origin forced out of Asia still stand? That undertaking is an important integral part of the bargain we are discussing. The Committee would like to have, if possible, an up-to-date account of how matters stand with India.
      I am sure—and here I differ from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—that the Government, in their new Bill, will have to take increasing cognisance of the pattern of settlement here. The situation is disturbing and, I believe, dangerous. We are talking not of ghettoes to come but of ghettoes which already exist in some areas. By that I mean the intense concentration of Commonwealth citizens in an area with no one else there at all. It is not simply a matter of housing programmes; it is a matter of industrial dispersal. I take issue with my right hon. Friend here. I do not share the view that industrial dispersal is a pipedream. Dispersal of people is, but, as we have found since the war, it is industry which holds the whip hand. Industry determines where people move. People will go to places where jobs are to be had. This has been proved by our own well-intentioned and often thoroughly defeated town and country planning policy.
      If there is to be dispersal, it must be industrially oriented. That is the only chance. It cannot be controlled by legislation. A great industrial effort will be needed if it is to happen. That means that discussions must be held with employers and the T.U.C. about what contribution they can make.
      514
      Are we ready to think on these lines? To me, dispersal is the key to racial peace. We have totally neglected this subject since the movement began. If we neglect it any longer we shall have cause bitterly to regret it.
      7.43 p.m.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: It is always a pleasure to follow in debate the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) whose knowledge of and work on this subject, particularly in the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, are well understood. His words of wisdom tonight should be heeded by those on the Government Front Bench.
      I have already expressed in an intervention in the Home Secretary's speech my concern about the East African Asian problem, and some of us put our names to an Amendment to the Bill which, if accepted, would have meant that we would have had a separate discussion on the 1968 Act. I understand why the Amendment was not called.
      This problem has caused widespread anxiety throughout the country. There is a great spirit of fair play in Britain, particularly among the indigenous working class population, as I suggested in my speech on this Bill last year. This is a section of the population which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) does not really understand. If he did understand it he could not present this problem as a simple equation of black and white. I have never met an intelligent worker—not the occasional writer of obscene anonymous letters which we get from various parts of the country, although very seldom from people in our own constituencies—who simplifies the problem as being one of the pigmentation of the skin. This is the fundamental error in the calculations of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
      Mr. Powell: I have repeatedly said that if we were facing a similar growth in an alien population which was not coloured the problems would be as great and might even be greater.
      Mr. Bidwell: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the indigenous population is not conscious of immigration save in small pockets. It is a question of

      515
      an identification of colour and immigration. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is the way in which most people think. As with all system of logistics, which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is very skilled in presenting in this Chamber on this and other matters, there must be some truth in what one is saying in order to gain a hearing, otherwise one is simply laughed to scorn. I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman on economic matters and military conjecture and I find that his system of logistics makes a great deal of sense up to a point. But his calculations on this subject reduce the matter to an absolute absurdity.
      The concern is not about colour at all; it is about social squalor. The average working class person is concerned about a reduction in his standard of living, over-crowding of houses, and pressure on the social services in certain parts of the country.
      Changes are taking place, and it is right to draw attention to the changes in content of population. There is a totality of concern about the changing nature and composition of the nation. But we must be concerned not only about people who come here to work to gain a livelihood, from wherever they come, but about people who want to leave this country and make a livelihood. There cannot be an absolute ban on people coming here if we value our kind of society, and there can never be an absolute ban on people leaving the country. That is attempted in some countries, but they are not societies of the kind which we admire or hope to sustain in this country.
      The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has it wrong. He has spoken of his great concern about the numbers of coloured people in this country, which are tending to recede. With regard to the impact which he had in the sensation-seeking speeches which he made outside the House of Commons, my score sheet in participating in debates on this admitted problem and the question of immigration and community relations is better than his. If he starts off on the wrong foot, he is not likely to travel the right road.
      In the areas of coloured immigration concentration there is a continuing
      516
      anxiety, as, of course, there must be. I have asked Questions in the House, and I have exhibited that anxiety that equal opportunities should present themselves to a great number of my constituents who are doing lowly-paid jobs—which determine how and where they live—that they should have opportunities to go into new town areas and opportunities consistent with their abilities and the skills that they acquire in this country. I wanted them to get a fair crack of the whip.
      That was why the Race Relations Act, 1968, was passed and why, when I first came to the House, not thinking that we needed it, because of the stories of gross discrimination against coloured people which, I thought, were extremely dangerous, I ended up by supporting that gentle enactment of conciliation, because I wanted to see a development by which we moved away from the ghetto.
      I must say to the right hon. Member for Ashford that "ghetto" is really the wrong term. I wrote a letter to The Times. I left school at 14, and in so far as I have had education, it has been in the trade union movement. I looked up the word "ghetto" because it was used so frequently and in a colour context. People would speak of coloured ghettoes. I can think of more white ghettoes than coloured ghettoes in Britain. Strictly, of course, the word "ghetto" stems from "borghetto", which was a Jewish concentration in Italy centuries ago. As many of my hon. Friends on both sides who are Jews will know, Jewish ghettoes were wards or parts of cities which people could not leave. They were not only a concentration of people of similar religion and ethnic origin; they were areas from which people could not get out. Strictly speaking, that is not the position at which we have arrived in Britain.
      If this is the great concern of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I am equally concerned. No less concerned am I about this problem, because Southall is my birthplace and the man who has no feeling about his birthplace has no soul. In my constituency, the indigenous population are still numerically greater than the people of Asian origin, although the right hon. Gentleman drew attention some time ago to the position in the old Southall borough, which is not the whole of my constituency. There

      517
      is no Southall borough today; it is part of the London Borough of Ealing, which, in percentage terms, has fewer coloured immigrants than other boroughs. However, most of the immigrants of the London Borough of Ealing are concentrated in my constituency. They are still a minority. They are still a minority of the voters and a minority of the Labour voters. Obviously, I was astride a bridge, as it were, during the 1966 General Election campaign, and during my membership of this House I have necessarily been up to my eyes and ears in the problem the whole time.
      I do not see the future and the general consequences in the light in which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West sees them. I heard him become fervent and passionate in seeking to chop down my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) in a most indignant way, but he soon lost that frenzied part of his characteristics.
      The right hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the problem has been seen to be absolutely false. If one asks children about colours in classes at school, they are unconscious of the colour or the pigmentation of the skin of the children next to them. They are conscious of whether other children have a long nose or other physical features. They are sometimes conscious of cultural attributes and the like.
      We cannot drive a thin line between immigration and community relations problems. They are tremendously intertwined. If, however, we are to discuss the problem intelligently, we have not only to identify statistically as the Department of Employment and other inevitably must. As I said reluctantly before the Race Relations Select Committee, if we are anxious about where coloured people are in this country, where they are working, where they are educated and whether they are receiving their fair share, one must have certain labelling in order to do it, and I do not know how one can have statistics without labelling. I agree with the Chairman of the Race Relations Board that statistics are neutral. It is the way in which they may be used that makes the difference. This is an inevitability, because we have the identification of social squalor and
      518
      second-class citizenship with colour. Already there are signs that it is fading.
      I have described the general problem. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and his many friends who dote on the problem should pay attention to some of these words. They must agree that I know something about the problem. I describe it as a moving escalator. It is very slow moving, but it is moving in an upward direction because so many people have got used to each other.
      As I said a year ago, I do not know how one can have this obsession of like or dislike on the basis of the colour of a person's skin. It is right to identify correctly population trends and the movement of people in and out of this country, and in that sense the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has stimulated much closer attention to the problem and, to some extent, a much greater degre of accuracy. He then goes on, however, to speculate.
      Figures do not only reveal: they also conceal. There is an old story of Southall, that years ago, before there was a coloured face in the place, there was a burst of population because in the summertime the engine drivers had to blow their whistles when passing through Southall station. I was a railway worker at one time. They would blow their whistles, often early in the morning, and wake up everybody round about. The suggestion was that on summer mornings parents were woken very early and this led to a serious increase in the population of the district. I cannot tell whether that still applies and how far the Asian and the few West Indian and Pakistani people in my constituency are likely to multiply. I cannot put a figure to that. I would suggest that parents usually come round to the conclusion that a family is nice to have but a big family is not, and it seems that the general social habits concerning family size usually prevail. Consistent with the ages of parents, however, there must obviously be a bigger ratio among immigrants, and it is, therefore, correct that 60 per cent. of the children now born in the old Southall borough are coloured.
      I am not concerned about the colour of those children. Some Indian people are near white and others are of different hues. I am concerned about their health

      519
      and whether they will get a decent opportunity in our country. Some of their parents still wear turbans and saris, but the children are Cockneys. If one asks them whether they are British or Indian, they sometimes say both. Some say that they have no desire to go to India. Others ask me what India is like, because I have been to India in recent years and I know more about it than they do. I am able to tell them what the countries of origin of their parents look like.
      I now move on to the realities of the immigration control system. The Home Secretary has necessarily not been very forthcoming because he has not yet presented the new Bill on immigration. It means a movement in the system of Commonwealth immigration control towards the system of alien control. I share many of the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Ashford. It is no accident that my arguments run along lines similar to those put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), who was Chairman of the former Select Committee, and the right hon. Member for Ashford, who was vice-chairman of that Committee.
      I ask the Government to pay particular heed to this consensus because I thoroughly endorse the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that this is a matter not for consensus politics or consensus party politics but for national consensus. There is no better place to achieve that than in discussions of this kind, in such a debate as this and in the proceedings of the Select Committee which is endeavouring to discover the facts. As I hinted in a speech on procedure in the presence of the Leader of the House, the Select Committee found that the C.B.I., the T.U.C., the officials from the Home Office and those from other Government Departments had no enthusiasm for the kind of change that proferred in the Queen's Speech and in the Tory General Election programme.
      I ask the Government to think seriously whether we can have a system of virtual direction of labour based on colour. There will be no citizens' rights as in the case of aliens, because only after four or five years will full citizenship be achieved. When these matters were brought up
      520
      before I recollect my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asking, "If you had had a worker here under the new arrangements, I assume that you would not wish his family and his children not to join him. I assume that you agree that family unity should be preserved. If, after 12 months—or even six months—that man's employer said that he did not want him any longer, would you ship him out with his family?"
      In all the circumstances the Government should delay bringing in their proposed Measure. It seems that they are delaying it in any case—that the sheer logic of events is tending to delay its introduction. Although many Tories at the General Election said that this was a matter of great urgency we are apparently not to have it until after Christmas.
      I believe in unification, provided it is on a liberalistic basis. We have not yet wound up the Commonwealth. If we enter the Common Market it could happen that Continental workers could enter this country more freely than Commonwealth citizens, because we would not be able to impose restrictions on them. We obviously do not want to end up in a position—because we would have to give equal treatment to white Commonwealth citizens as to black Commonwealth citizens—in which we were restricting New Zealanders, Australians and Canadians much more than workers from the Continent.
      I do not apologise for the time that I have taken. This is a question of work pattern and employment opportunity. Everything else stems from those factors. We have to get this right, including the possibility of more people coming from Kenya. In a debate in 1968 I said that this could prove a blessing in disguise, because there are now generally higher educational attainments, greater skills and a greater degree of capital ownership—although perhaps the last has faded drastically, as suggested earlier by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). Perhaps we should have done more about that. We ought to have been able to do it within the compass of the 8,500 vouchers. That is why I did not vote for the 1968 Act.
      I do not know whether immigration and community relations go together. The Minister in charge of immigration is a

      521
      member of another place. I have met him and I have a great respect for him. I have a greater respect than previously because I have discovered that he was in the minority in the other place who voted against the 1968 Act. I hope that the Government will heed the words I have used tonight and those which I have used in an article which will appear in the Race Relations Institute Journal in December, which will accuse the Government of putting the cart before the horse by their proposals to make a fundamental change in the law on immigration before allowing the Select Committee to make an expert examination of the situation and perhaps make recommendations for the future.
      I am concerned about immigration movements. I am concerned about social squalor. I am not concerned about colour. I have many coloured friends and I have many white friends. If I lived in Birmingham and had two coloured friends and people bandied about the sort of figures that we have heard today I might get three coloured friends out of it, or perhaps even four. But if I did not get any white friends out of it I should be seriously worried. I hope that we can work this out. I believe we shall do so, because I have tremendous faith in the ability of the British people.
      8.8 p.m.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: Perhaps it would be wise to recognise, first, that there is a close relationship between immigration policy and race relations. Only when the public feel that the immigration question is settled will they accept the need for more effective race relations policies.
      That point has been recognised by successive Governments. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) told the Select Committee on Race Relations that part of the improvement that had taken place was due to the recognition by people that the numbers of immigrants were more under control. If that point is accepted, the control of immigration is a question that assumes crucial importance. It should persuade us to take seriously any alleged defects in the system or in the enforcement of the system and to look carefully at the kind of immigration which is permitted.
      522
      I know no more than anyone else about the extent of illegal immigration. All the publicity goes to the boats that are bringing their loads of would-be immigrants to the shores of the South Coast, but the chief danger must come from the bogus visitors or students coming to the airports or seaports. Our defences against illegal immigration are centred upon the point of entry, the airport and the seaport. This places a very heavy responsibility on the immigration service. I have looked at the immigration service at London Airport and I add my tribute to the efficient and humane way in which that service works. But no one pretends that this system is foolproof. The trouble with having defences on the border is that the checks inside are fewer, and this certainly happens in Britain. One trouble is that there is no problem in an illegal immigrant finding a job.
      This raises large questions which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) touched upon. The changes that he was discussing would require the deepest consideration, but one thing which could be done would be to extend the time limit on prosecution, which stands at six months. I see no logical reason why someone who has successfully evaded the police for six months should be immune from prosecution although he would not be immune from deportation. I welcome what the Home Secretary said about putting teeth into the new Bill to deal with illegal immigration. On whatever scale illegal immigration occurs it does a great deal of damage to community relations, it arouses suspicions and it is extremely unfair to people who have entered the country legally.
      The number of A and B vouchers has now fallen to 4,000 a year, although it should be remembered that the entitlement that goes with these vouchers brings up the number to between 15,000 and 20,000 a year. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I have the greatest doubt about the value of this immigration, particularly the immigration on A vouchers.
      The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said in his evidence to the Select Committee on Race Relations:
      "In some ways the A voucher is a hangover from the days when there was free entry. I do not think we are trying to do positively

      523
      anything very much in this field. There are some territories where the A voucher has a significance, for example in Barbados, but in relation to such problems as the need for employment for India it is clearly a drop in the bucket and is meaningless."
      I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman did not go on from there to argue that the A voucher should be abolished, but that argument could be put with a great deal of force. The only value of A vouchers is that they act as a symbol, but I cannot see much meaning in them in practical employment terms. It is reasonable to wait to see what are the Government's proposals and how they affect this point.
      A rather disturbing memorandum was put to the Select Committee on Race Relations by the British Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay. This showed that out of 100 who came to Britain on A vouchers in 1969 half could not speak any English. Admittedly, one is dealing with a small number there, but this raises a serious problem of race relations. Although it is small in a national sense, it has important local effects, and I urge my hon. Friend in winding up to pay attention to that point.
      There is one issue regarding the law in practice which might have an effect upon race relations, and that concerns the police. In view of the criticism that has been made of the police, it is worth saying that anyone who has studied this matter will agree that the police are making an outstanding contribution. They are doing so mainly by their traditional function of impartial enforcement of the law, and they are doing so at times in spite of considerable sniping from the flanks.
      I will give an example which received a great deal of publicity. On 6th August concern was expressed about relations between the police and the coloured people in London. In particular, a statement was made by Mr. Jeff Crawford, a well-known West Indian leader, which received extremely wide publicity. Mr. Crawford said that unless something was done it was possible that a policeman or policemen might be killed. He added, according to The Times of that date:
      "It is the training a copper gets that makes him behave the way he does. He becomes a kind of human robot."
      This remark again received a great deal of attention. It is no exaggeration to
      524
      say that it aroused concern and indignation because of the way in which it was said. What is so extraordinary is that only a year before, in April, 1969, Mr. Crawford had said something entirely different to the Select Committee on Race Relations:
      "One area in which a lot of progress has been made in the field of police/immigrant relationships.… In my opinion the Metropolitan Police are the most progressive section of the white community in this country in the field of race relations. Not only have they been listening, they have been learning, they have been implementing."
      This is a most extraordinary turnabout. Even if one accepted that there were differences between areas of London, this quite patently has nothing to do with training, because the training of Metropolitan Police is exactly the same for all areas. Such statements are not only irresponsible; they are unfair to the police. We should recognise that the police have a very important part to play in community relations, and it is vital that no gulf should develop between coloured people and policemen. This places a responsibility on immigrant leaders and on the Home Office in what it asks of the police.
      I am concerned about the capability of an immigrant already here to maintain some dependants who want to come, and whether the right kind of accommodation is available. I understand that what are called home circumstance inquiries are still carried out mainly by policemen. This is a job which is inappropriate for policemen and, quite unnecessarily, brings them into potential conflict with immigrants. In view of their other responsibilities and importance in community relations, I should have thought that this job could have been removed from them. I appreciate that there are difficulties in finding others to do the job, but the Select Committee had evidence before it to indicate that the immigration service had set up local offices and that local authorities were considering taking over this work. What progress has there been in relieving the police of this job?
      I conclude as I began, by emphasising that the policies on immigration and race relations are closely related and that, therefore, the scope and effectiveness of the immigration controls should be the subject of very serious study indeed.
      8.20 p.m.
      Miss Joan Lestor: I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) that race relations and immigration control are closely connected and that the sort of policies we have on immigration control will determine the type of race relations we build up.
      I noted with interest the Home Secretary's remarks about race relations now being one of the central issues of community relations. I was disappointed therefore to read a Written Answer today in which the right hon. Gentleman said that no extra money would be allocated to the Community Relations Commission for the United Nations year against racial discrimination in 1971. I hope that hon. Members who wish to see good race relations established will press the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind.
      The Home Secretary and others have said that we will have an opportunity, either later this year or early next year, to debate the Government's proposals for an overall immigration policy. It is difficult to comment at this stage about what is likely to flow from that policy, although a remarkable amount of information has already appeared in the Press.
      I have said consistently that one of the biggest tragedies in this country began with the 1962 Act, because whenever we have discussed immigration we have tended to talk of it almost entirely in the context of colour. This has been a mistake. It has led to the unfortunate situation in which most people in Britain believe that every coloured person is an immigrant and that every immigrant is coloured.
      The Government are taking on a task of monumental proportions in trying to work out a unified immigration policy. Naturally, we must wait for their proposals. However, I thought that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) put his finger on it in his interesting speech. When this matter was discussed during the last General Election it was not said, certainly in my constituency, that the Tories might be liberalising our immigration policy towards Commonwealth immigrants. The right hon. Member for Ashford rightly pointed out that many of the conditions applying to the entry of aliens are more liberal than those
      526
      applying to some people from the Commonwealth.
      For example, aliens' dependent elderly relatives may come in five years younger than their counterparts from Commonwealth countries, although those from Commonwealth countries have an expectation of life which is usually shorter than that of aliens. There are also somewhat easier rules applying to settlement for dependent children, dependent fiancées and so on. However, Commonwealth immigrants have an overriding advantage in respect of permanent settlement.
      Exactly what was said during the last election? Were we told that there would be a new policy which would reduce the number of coloured immigrants coming in? That was certainly the impression given in my constituency. However, if one is to have an overall policy, one must remove the ceiling applicable to the number of people who may come in from the Commonwealth. And if the ceiling is removed, that could mean an increase in the number of coloured immigrants.
      If that is the intention—and I do not think for a moment that it is—we can consider the matter further. But if it is not, and if the ceiling is to be kept on, it cannot be an overall policy. I appreciate, however, that we must await the announcement of the policy. My only comment at this stage is that, considering the history covering alien and Commonwealth entry, it will be extremely difficult to arrive at a policy which brings a degree of equality to all.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) spoke of the work voucher system and said that it could not be controlled from the point of view of sending people to work in certain areas. The idea that immigrants could be channelled to certain areas was put in my constituency by my Conservative opponent, who I am glad to say was not successful. It is said that if one could stop people taking jobs on work vouchers in towns which already have a high percentage of immigrants one would stop the flow of immigrants identifiable by their colour to those areas.
      In my constituency we have a large number of immigrants who are identifiable by colour, plus a large number who are not known to be immigrants because they cannot be identified by

      527
      colour. Indeed, only 16 people from India, Pakistan and the West Indies received work vouchers in 1969 for Slough. This proves that any policy of trying to channell people via work permits is a non starter. One cannot control the area in which people go to work because it is clear that people go to, for example, Slough, because there are jobs there for them.
      If one finds it disagreeable to have a large number of coloured people in an area—and I personally do not—then what the right hon. Member for Ashford says has some relevance, for one must persuade industry to move out, not merely because the areas in which industry is established are overcrowded, but because a number of areas could do with and would probably welcome new industry going to them. It would also help to persuade people not to live in overcrowded communities.
      The more industry moves out, the more the problem of race relations will be solved because people generally will have a higher standard of life, particularly in relation to housing. I trust that I have said enough to show that to try to control this problem by the work voucher system is a non-starter.
      What about the so-called ghettoes? I believe that hon. Members who have said that it is unlikely that we shall get dispersal to any great degree over the next few years are right. However, it is important that there are no artificial barriers to dispersal. We must not, by whatever policies we may have, prevent people moving throughout the community. Some of the areas in which there are real social difficulties suffered from them before ever the immigrants went there, and in them one needs to do something to improve the social fabric. That is why the urban aid programme, which deals with areas of social difficulty, was a step in the right direction. I hope that we shall built on it. The problem in Harlem is not that the people are black, but that they are deprived and desperate and happen to be black. That is what makes the problem there a problem connected with colour, although it is really connected with social opportunity and deprivation.
      What we have been discussing is not so much immigration as race relations. Even if we stopped immigration tomorrow
      528
      we would still have speeches of the kind we have heard from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who, I am sorry to see, is not now with us. He talks not of immigration but of the colour of the people who are here today. That is the crux of the matter.
      That is one of the tragedies of people who are hung up on this colour thing. In 1962—and in fairness to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West I must say that he was not making that sort of speech then—people said that there were too many immigrants and that their numbers must be reduced. The next thing was that they must be stopped from coming at all. The next stage was that they should be sent back—
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Did the hon Lady say that we stopped them from coming?
      Miss Lestor: No, I have just been giving the sequence. The last stage is that we say they should be sent back because they are having black babies. Black people cannot have white babies, and they will go on having black babies—
      Mr. Bell: At last the hon. Lady realises it.
      Miss Lestor: I realised it a very long time ago. People like the hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and others put up this argument about black babies and the rest, but none of us can alter the fact that in some areas large numbers of coloured people will have babies, some of whom will be black and others lighter. Incidentally, I do not know why when a black person marries a white person their baby should be considered coloured, and therefore more black than white. Nevertheless that is a fact of life.
      I want to contract out of the grotesque argument about the size of the future coloured population because it is an argument that one cannot win, nor is it worth winning. Its purpose is to instill fear in people. It is not connected with immigration but with colour. A person's colour cannot possibly be important. I will discuss with anyone problems connected with culture, language, education, and many other subjects, but I cannot follow anyone who just says, "She's going to have a black baby". What matters the colour of a baby? If we

      529
      stopped immigration tomorrow we would have to face that matter. Until people do face it and accept that it is not so bad after all, I do not think that we shall ever get out of what I believe to be a rather foolish and stupid argument. It also has a bad effect on coloured children in this country.
      The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that the people of Birmingham had a right to know what was likely to happen there in the future. Who are the people of Birmingham? I am the Member of Parliament for Slough, and I represent the people who live there. Some of them are immigrants, and I include them in my concepts of equality. They have the right to my services. They are not separate from the rest of the people in Slough. The more we divide people into immigrants and non-immigrants the nearer we get to fulfilling the right hon. Gentleman's prophecy. This is what will happen, because people will be divided and will think of the "them" and of the "us". People who are coloured and non-white and who are born here and whose children are born here will be affected by the propaganda; they will feel that they do not belong here. Speeches like that will make them feel outsiders. Thus we go on and fulfil our own prophecy.
      By all means let us have immigration policies that are sane, sensible and fair. Let us not, if we care what happens in terms of community, get ourselves into a situation where we refuse to talk about policy and start talking about the complications of the fact that people are coloured. That cannot be the problem. Many of the other matters may cause problems, but colour in itself will not be a problem unless people want to make it so.
      I was interested this afternoon in the exchanges which took place on the statement about the Common Market negotiations. Unfortunately, I was not successful in catching Mr. Speaker's eye. If we should be accepted as a member of the European Economic Community, we must consider the relationship of people from Commonwealth countries who are already in Britain qua acceptance as Community workers.
      If we create a situation—we already have it—where some are acceptable and some are not, where some are citizens of
      530
      Britain and some are not, and where some have dual citizenship—we have not cleared that one up yet; to what extent are they acceptable as Community workers?—we shall encounter grave difficulties.
      I hope that when the Government present their immigration policy they will have discussions about the relationship of any future immigration policy to the whole concept of Europe and the relationship of Community workers and mobility of labour, because this will be a problem if—I say it reluctantly—we enter Europe.
      I endorse what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said about the question of the East African Asians. One of the unfortunate ways in which Britain is now seen is that she presents people of her country who have British citizenship and no other in a way in which they are shuffled from airport to airport in a sort of obscene square dance because we, the country of which they are citizens, say that they are trying to jump the queue.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles that the question of the number of special vouchers available to East African Asians must be considered, and I hope that it will be considered in the context of a future immigration policy, because I believe that the number available is not meeting the demand, which has accelerated recently.
      We must also look afresh at the situation and see whether it is right, because I do not believe that it is right, that holders of British passports can be classified as immigrants. This is a wrong and unwise classification.
      I agree with the Home Secretary that the question of race relations is of paramount importance for the future. It is a great pity that community relations in Britain have come to mean race relations. For example, we tend to think of the Community Relations Commission in terms of dealing with problems arising from race relations rather than problems arising from community relations.
      We should serve ourselves better if we recognised that within a community people who have come from different countries to settle have special problems, but in many instances the problems affecting all people within a community are

      531
      much the same. They are the problems of living together, of housing, of education, and other local problems.
      Community relations involves much more than just race relations. If we could widen our whole concept of community relations and the Community Relations Commission and talk more about community relations than about race relations, we should take the emphasis off the question of colour and bring it to a greater extent on to the question of community.
      8.40 p.m.
      Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I hope the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) will forgive me if I do not follow her in her remarks.
      We have had a much more restrained debate today than we had at a similar time last year. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) made a very long speech today, and I hope he will forgive me if I say that it seemed to me to be about the longest speech that I have ever heard. There was a very different approach in his speech tonight compared with his speech last year.
      Perhaps the most important feature in this debate has been the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It was an extremely powerful speech. My right hon. Friend has come in for a great deal of abuse. He has been attacked by hon. Members opposite for stirring things up. My right hon. Friend said what needed to be said, and I think that is vitally important.
      Before my hon. Friend made his speech in Birmingham in 1968, many people in this country believed that somebody had to say what they themselves felt. There were many people who felt then, and perhaps still feel, that Parliament it out of touch with the people. Resentment was building up, and I think my right hon. Friend performed a public service because he took the lid off and opened up a conversation, so that people were able to talk freely about something which previously they had been frightened to discuss. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to interrupt me, let him rise to his feet and do so.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I do not think the hon. Member's speech is worth interrupting at the moment.
      Mr. Montgomery: In that case, perhaps the hon. Member will not do so.
      After my right hon. Friend had made that speech, both major parties in this country took a much tougher line on the question of immigration because they realised from the reaction of the public the strength of feeling in the country. I have been disgusted by some of the attacks that have been made by hon. Members opposite on my right hon. Friend—from people who pride themselves on being the champions of tolerance but who have no tolerance at all for any views which are not in accord with their own.
      Mr. Norman Pentland: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has attacked the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on that speech on more than one occasion—in fact, probably more than anyone else?
      Mr. Montgomery: Most of the abuse of my right hon. Friend has come from members of the party opposite. It certainly is not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who tries to prevent my right hon. Friend from speaking at meetings. That is done by supporters of the party opposite.
      Parliament now recognises that large-scale immigration in this country causes problems, and I think both major parties accept this. I cannot help reflecting on the difference between now and 1962. I remember those days, when I represented a different constituency in this House, and the number of times we were kept up night after night and had very bitter debates. Why?—because in 1962 the then Conservative Government wanted to bring in a measure of immigration control. At that time there were threats by the Labour Party, who were in opposition, that if the Commonwealth Immigrants Act went on the Statute Book they would repeal it whenever they won a General Election. They won the 1964 General Election, but when they came into office the responsibility of government made them change their mind. Never again was there a threat by the Labour Party to repeal this legislation.

      533
      This afternoon the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) talked about a consensus. I cannot help feeling that it is a great pity that we did not have a consensus in 1962. If that had been forthcoming in 1962 and if we had had a bipartisan policy on immigration, a great deal more could have been done. Today we would not have quite the same problems. I am delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the new legislation that was promised in the Conservative Party's manifesto will soon be presented.
      Unlike the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough, I believe that the new legislation will prevent further concentration of immigrants in areas which are already overcrowded. This vital point was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. From 1959 to 1964, I represented a constituency on Tyneside. We had no immigration problem there. In an electorate of about 48,000, there were about 300 Pakistanis. They were very good citizens. There was complete integration. One never received any complaints. They were buying their own homes, and everything was fine. But it is easy to integrate 300 people into an electorate of 48,000.
      Since 1967, I have represented a West Midlands constituency, and here I notice the difference, because in the West Midlands we have a concentration of immigrants, as the hon. Lady has in her constituency. There are reasons why these people move into such areas. The hon. Lady was right when she talked about jobs being available in Slough. That is why the immigrants who initially came here after the war, particularly in the 1950s, moved into certain areas of the country, not to Tyneside, Merseyside or Scotland.
      Mr. Pentland: No jobs.
      Mr. Montgomery: There are not many jobs available in Tyneside now, after five and a half years of Labour Government. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is making such a fuss about. Initially, the immigrants lived in areas of high prosperity and high employment. When their relatives and friends came to this country later, they did what was natural and moved to the areas where they had relatives and friends. That is understandable. If I were to emigrate
      534
      to another country, I should try to move to where—
      Mr. James Callaghan: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had emigrated to this country.
      Mr. Montgomery: I emigrated to this country? I am sorry, but that is too profound for my brain. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means. It is no wonder that he is sitting on the Opposition benches if he is capable of that sort of remark.
      It is understandable that immigrants moved to the areas where they had relatives and friends. But by their doing so—we have to be honest about this—problems have been created. There are problems of housing, education and hospital beds. These cause tension if nothing is done. Therefore, I hope that the Government will provide more money to spend in these areas to provide the facilities which will remove the causes of tension. It is vital also that we do whatever we can to prevent a further movement of immigrants into the areas where we already have overcrowding. I hope that that will be tackled by the new legislation.
      Figures for immigrant population have been mentioned a great deal during the debate, and I must admit to a sense of bewilderment. My right hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West and for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) both concentrated on this. Their speeches introduced a sense of realism, compared with some of the head-in-the-clouds stuff we have had from the Opposition benches. As my right hon. Friend has constantly said, numbers are the essence. When, originally, he made his projections as to what he thought the immigrant population would be, he was jeered at. But it has now been proved that the figures which he gave were an underestimate and that he had understated the situation. When my hon. Friend winds up, I shall be grateful if he gives us some idea of the total immigrant population. None of us can be sure.
      Part of the County Boroughs of Wolverhampton and Dudley are in my constituency. If I try to find out what the immigrant population is in either of those county boroughs, I am given an estimate based on the number of immigrant children in the schools. It

      535
      cannot be accurate, and it likely to be an underestimate.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched on the question of illegal immigrants. I am sorry that he did not say more about the present position. Obviously, we cannot maintain accurate figures of how many illegal immigrants there are, for it should be our job, if we know that there are illegal immigrants, to see that they are told to leave the country. However, I should be interested to know whether the Home Office has an estimate of the number of illegal immigrants. Also, I hope to hear an assurance that there will be tough penalties imposed on those who trade in bringing illegal immigrants to this country for large sums of money.
      My right hon. Friend was chided by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davies) for saying nothing, about immigrants who were already here or about community relations. I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman just did not get the message. He does not realise that to continue admitting more and more immigrants makes difficulties for the immigrants who are already here. The hon. Gentleman would be surprised if he knew how many immigrants support my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: Tell us.
      Mr. Montgomery: A very large number. Let the hon. Gentleman look up the election result in Wolverhampton, South-West on 18th June last. My right hon. Friend's constituency has the bulk of the immigrant population of Wolverhampton; it happens that they live in the South-West constituency.
      Mr. Clinton Davis rose—
      Mr. Montgomery: No. I invited the hon. Gentleman to intervene earlier, and he did not take the opportunity. I am telling him now to go and look at the figures, which showed conclusively that the people of Wolverhampton, South-West support my right hon. Friend's views. It is supposed to be one of the reasons for our being Members of Parliament that we represent the views of people in our constituencies, and the result on 18th June proved conclusively, despite all the abuse which has been
      536
      hurled at him, that my right hon. Friend represents the people of Wolverhampton, South-West.
      Mr. Pentland: Abuse by the Prime Minister.
      Mr. Montgomery: If the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) wishes to speak, he ought to rise to his feet in the proper manner.
      Mr. Pentland: I was again drawing the hon. Gentleman's attention to the facts. He talks about abuse hurled at his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West from this side, but no abuse can match the abuse hurled at him by the Prime Minister.
      Mr. Montgomery: That still does not alter my argument that—
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. I recognise that this debate must have been fairly wide-ranging, but since I assumed the Chair it has ranged rather too far.
      Mr. Montgomery: I am sorry, Miss Harvie Anderson, if I ranged too far, but I was a little taunted.
      Mr. Callaghan: Saved by the bell.
      Mr. Montgomery: I do not know whether it is right for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to you as a bell, Miss Harvie Anderson. I suppose it depends how one spells the word.
      Mr. Callaghan: Miss Harvie Anderson. I clearly meant—and it was understood by everyone except the hon. Gentleman. I am sure—that you were the "belle of the ball".
      Mr. Montgomery: Now we all know why the right hon. Gentleman was once Home Secretary.
      In the interests of the indigenous population as well as the interests of the immigrant population, it is necessary that the Government have a tough immigration policy. We have the problem of integrating the immigrants who are already here. We have a duty and responsibility in that respect. If we know the size of the problem, we can, I believe, cope with it and find a solution. If, on the other hand, the problem worsens all the time because the immigrant population in certain areas is growing rapidly all the time, the solution will be much more difficult. Therefore, I await the Government's new

      537
      legislation with interest, and I earnestly hope that it will measure up to the problem which confronts us.
      8.55 p.m.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I do not propose to deal with the somewhat trivial speech of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery), who seemed to think that this was a useful occasion to act as an apologist for the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). That seemed to be his sole contribution tonight.
      Racism is a corrosive evil which can well endanger our society. The contribution which has been made on this subject by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is not of advantage in promoting racial tolerance in this country, despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill. That is why I oppose, and will go on opposing, what he has to say.
      I think that the right hon. Gentleman has a morbid preoccupation with his desire to achieve power, but that view is mild compared with what his own Prime Minister said about him, when he referred to him as un-Christian. He uses this issue as a vehicle for promoting his desire for power and not for seeing racial tolerance practised in this country.
      Until the right hon. Gentleman spoke, a balanced view was presented by both sides of the House. The Home Secretary illustrated the present position by saying that in his view—and these were his figures—there was a drop in Commonwealth immigration. He was not alarmist about illegal immigration, and, most important, he stressed the value of building up proper community relations. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), I wish that this could be backed up with rather more financial resources, but we can at least welcome the realisation that the positive aspects of community relations are important.
      It is no use just talking about community relations in the very narrow sense of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. We must look at the matter in terms of conciliation, education and all the work being done day in and day out by community relations councils all over the country. That is
      538
      something we do not hear about from the right hon. Gentleman. He would do well to stress it from time to time.
      Why is it that community relations officers are thrown into a state of despair by what the right hon. Gentleman preaches all too often? I know from my own community relations officer in the London Borough of Hackney how appallingly difficult his task is made whenever the right hon. Gentleman preaches the sort of thing he said tonight, but perhaps even more hysterically when he addresses meetings of the Conservative Party in certain parts of the country.
      What is the right hon. Gentleman really arguing? What does he want to do about the problem? There is a problem. We know that it exists in housing, education and many other respects. What does he propose to do about those people who are here now? Does he say that those who have not got their families here should not bring them over? I do not know, because he does not spell it out.
      Mr. Powell: I have said it quite plainly.
      Mr. Davis: The right hon. Gentleman does say that?
      Mr. Powell: I have said that in speech after speech.
      Mr. Davis: More to the right hon. Gentleman's shame, because nothing could be more inhumane. I can understand quite well why his Prime Minister describes him as un-Christian, because to tear families apart in the way he wishes is totally un-Christian. It is something he should feel bitter remorse about saying, and not be proud of it.
      What does the right hon. Gentleman say about vital workers who are needed here? Are they not to come? He would put an absolute blanket ban on such immigration. He would have no more at all.
      What is much more important is the question of how we deal with those immigrants who are here. That is what the Select Committee was all about. Its members went to boroughs all over the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) came to my constituency when I was mayor. We went into the problems of industrial relations and conciliation in great depth, and I pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work he

      539
      did. I saw at first hand how he operated. My hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) was there, as were certain hon. Members opposite. That was a valuable task because it underlined what needed to be underlined—that serious politicians are concerned to treat this matter on a serious basis and to try to teach tolerance instead of despair.
      In Hackney we have a large immigrant community. In Stoke Newington and Hackney, North the figure is estimated at about 14 per cent. and in my constituency something over 10 per cent. But we have an atmosphere of tolerance. I suppose this has a good deal to do with the fact that in East London we are used to immigration on a substantial scale. We had it in the early part of the century. My own grandparents came over during that period.
      I was interested to read the debates which took place in 1905. The same sort of arguments were made then as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West makes now. They were not anti-semitic, just as he is not anti-colour. They were talking then in terms of the East London air being polluted by immigration. But I suggest that the contribution that many of those immigrants made has been of substantial value to this country.
      Hackney was in the forefront of the fight against intolerance in the 1930s which was exploited by the Fascists. That is why I believe we can still be tolerant in Hackney, and I must say to the credit of most of the Conservatives on the local council—there are a few who follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—that they have illustrated their desire to build up the work of the Community Relations Council. It receives overall party support. What it has done positively is to promote play groups and to hold educational meetings, and it has placed great emphasis on and has had great success in conciliation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East will recognise.
      The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because, as I have said before, I realise that the debate has been very wide-ranging. But I hope that he will come back to the real subject
      540
      of the Amendment, which is to deal with matters related to the Bill rather than the aspect of the matter which he has been dwelling on up to the present.
      Mr. Davis: The debate has been wide-ranging, Miss Harvie Anderson, and I think that I am the first to suffer.
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not want to restrict the hon. Gentleman more than I need. I assure him that I realise that the debate has been wide-ranging, but I think that he is just stretching it rather far, and I would be grateful if he would return to the subject of the Amendment.
      Mr. Davis: I accept your stricture. Miss Harvie Anderson.
      The rôle of the police has been mentioned, and it is a point of great substance in relation to the part which the police can play in building up a proper relationship with the immigrant community within all our boroughs and constituencies. I am proud to say that in my constituency this opportunity has been exploited magnificently. I believe that this is the way forward and not the talk of despair which we have heard from some hon. Members opposite. We have had a valuable contribution, as so often, from the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who spoke, quite properly, about questions of industrial dispersal which are so germane to everything we are discussing.
      I want to turn from this to underline the problem of the Kenya Asians. There are 9,000 on the waiting list, and we are told by the Secretary of State that he has not quite made up his mind. But these people can ill afford to wait. Their situation is dire. They are without employment and they are suffering great humiliation, hardship and deprivation. I beg the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to reconsider the situation with great rapidity. This is a matter in which the country has been humiliated by the European Commission on Human Rights, and surely we must deal with the matter with great expedition if we are to do justice to these unfortunate people.
      Hatred can only poison our society and only degrade our people. That is why I and many of my hon. Friends will take every opportunity to rebuke those who preach hatred, despair and fear.
      9.6 p.m.
      Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) for several reasons, and not least because I happen to represent a very large proportion of the Jewish people who came from Hackney and East London and who moved into the Borough of Redbridge, into Ilford. I was very interested in what he had to say. It was perfectly true. Reading the debates of the early 1900s and the Report of the Royal Commission on what even then was called immigration, it is salutary to see exactly the same arguments, the same rationalisations, the same sneaking, sly, sanctimonious justifications. What the hon. Member said is something to which the Committee should listen, and I should like to congratulate him.
      I know that the hon. Member spoke with sincerity, but had he spoken from a tactical motive I would have congratulated him on adopting a sound political tactic—"If you want to be noticed, attack someone big". He was attacking my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). There may be force in what the hon. Member says and I would say to my right hon. Friend that there is a question as to what we do with those immigrants who are already here. Whether my right hon. Friend expands on that is a matter for him.
      But the hon. Member should not underrate the value of what my right hon. Friend has done, for he has spoken in the House and outside for the feeling and the heart and the guts of the people of the country, right or wrong, in a way in which others were afraid to speak. Since he spoke, whatever view one might take of what he said, millions of people have had a renewed sense of confidence in the validity of Parliament and parliamentary representation. We should not underrate the value of my right hon. Friend's contribution.
      I do not wish to take the time of the Committee unnecessarily, but I would not like this occasion in this Committee to pass without recording that this is the first debate which the Committee has had without the present Lord Chancellor, and we are much the poorer for the loss of Quintin Hogg from this House. He
      542
      was a Member who rarely touched any subject in which he did not both make a practical contribution and raise the argument to the plane of nobility, in which hon. Members are sometimes a little deficient. I can safely say that because his scope for patronage is now sufficiently limited for me to be able to afford to voice my respect for his parliamentary memory.
      The debate gives us an opportunity to restate our position on immigration and for the Committee to say what its object is. I submit that our object should be to secure as far as we are able through the law and the Administration that the peace is maintained. I do not think that we should be too hopeful about what we can do beyond that, but it is our duty to see that the peace is maintained at the very least and to ensure that all the Queen's subjects have and are seen to have equal rights under the law and, so far as we can, to ensure decent attitudes towards strangers who are lawfully in our country and whose children will be lawfully here and whose children will not want to feel themselves strangers. There is an obstacle to that objective of maintaining peace and decent attitudes. The obstacle is fear. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has pin-pointed this fear. It is not right to pretend that it is not there. There are very real fears. There are practical fears, although most practical arguments are really only rationalisations.
      Mr. Bidwell: On the point of fear, which is perfectly valid, does the hon. Gentleman know that when we asked representatives of local authorities who came before us on the Select Committee why there seemed less fear the general reply was that people were getting used to one another?
      Mr. Iremonger: I am obliged. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman were to be making my speech he would make it much better than I. But at the risk of detaining the House, may I resume my own halting way unassisted by him?
      I was trying to say that there are real practical fears, and maybe they are declining. Anyway, I think that practical fears are rationalisations. There are fears about housing and education and resentment at the use of the social services, and the less real justification there is for them the more I am certain that they are

      543
      rationalisations of something which is much more real than anything practical. I believe that it is rooted deep in human society.
      This territorial concept is fashionable now. It is not for nothing that the tallest column in this country has Lord Nelson at its top. He is there in Trafalgar Square because he stopped the invader coming to our shores. There is a deep sense of insecurity within every community and it extends, I am sure, to the nation. I am sure that the people of our country have a deep, unconscious fear of being over-run and of losing their identity. They resent the presence of strangers and foreigners, especially those whom they can identify by their colour.
      I am not saying that this is a good thing, but I am saying that it is a reality. If we do not recognise it they do not respect our right to try to speak for them. We should not ignore it or under-rate it. The first duty of a politician is to listen. People hear nothing but what they want to hear, and many politicians do not want to hear what the people are saying to them. Our people are saying to us, "We do not like this, we are badly frightened." I think that the people of this country are more than frightened, they are in panic.
      For that reason—not because I think that it is particularly necessary for its own sake—it would be wise to go much further than I think my right hon. Friend proposes to do in any legislation that he has in mind, and—whatever the technical details may be—he should Put a total stop to future immigration for permanent settlement, except on a reciprocal basis—not because, as I say, I think that it will have an enormous practical effect, but because it would steady the nerves of people. What is more, I do not think that it would do any harm.
      Whom would it harm if we never had one more immigrant in this country for permanent settlement? If it did do harm, who could calculate it? It would be a somewhat abstract argument. So I should like to see legislation such as would absolutely stop permanent immigration. It would then very much better become us, and lie much better in our mouths, if we presumed to lecture our people in the way that many high-minded and well-meaning people do lec-
      544
      ture them. Their attitude in lecturing them is nothing but admirable.
      I should like to say one word on an aspect of this immigration policy matter which I do not think—I apologise for being obliged to be out of the Chamber for an hour or so—we have heard much about, and that is repatriation. I should like to say at the risk of incurring the displeasure of those whose pleasure I normally court that talk about repatriation is utter humbug. I love the way in which the word "voluntary" comes into it. If it is voluntary repatriation and the people are going anyway, what is the point of paying them? If it is not voluntary, how soon will we say, "We will provide urinals in the cattle trucks; it will not be as bad as all that"?
      I have even heard of "humane" repatriation from the more naïve advocates of it. Why should it be necessary to say "humane"? What is meant by "humane repatriation"? Does it mean that we shall twist their arms only halfway up their backs? Repatriation should be either voluntary, in which case we should let it take its natural course, or it should be eschewed, and people who want it should confine themselves to writing "Blacks go home" on walls. It is not worthy of the dignity of the House of Commons to consider it, and I am glad that I am the only one mentioning it.
      I should like to say a few words about the sick fringe, or the sick fringes. There are two sick fringes. One is the fringe which calls itself the patriots. I should like to know on what patriotic virtue those who oppose black people being permanently settled in this country pride themselves. I always find it a little difficult to identify with them, although I am grateful that most of them vote Conservative. But let me assure the Committee that if I had a Fascist candidate standing against me in my constituency, which I would dearly like, he would take equally people who would normally vote for me and people who would normally vote for my opponent. That is the truth, and we know it. The patriots can "dree their own weird".
      But there are mischievous sick fringe elements on the extreme of what one might call the liberal side, the criminal, paranoid, psychopathic black power kind of enthusiasts who are far more dangerous to those with liberal views than the

      545
      other sick fringe is to the saner elements in the political spectrum.
      I should like to read a letter in the national Press—the Daily Telegraph—which I thought was the first really sane and constructive contribution made to this continuing debate for many years. It appeared at the end of August this year, and it read:
      "I am an African lady, married and settled in the United Kingdom for the past five years. During that time I have found that the British people are more than willing to offer help and friendship to a foreigner, coloured or otherwise, providing that he or she in turn approaches them without surliness but with a cheerful smile and a sense of humour. Alas, that was so until recently when for the first time a stranger in the street shouted after me, 'Get out of Britain, go home, and take your mate Malcolm X with you'"—
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have been rather unsuccessful in my efforts to bring the debate within its proper scope. I hope that the hon. Member will assist me.
      Mr. Iremonger: I would not presume, Miss Harvie Anderson, to construct the elaborate argument which I could construct to demonstrate, I would hope, that my remarks were entirely within order. I will move from this point of my argument, which is simply to say that for every mischievous black power troublemaker in this country there are 100,000 decent, ordinary people who have no desire to go around calling British policemen "pigs", which is a totally "phoney" phrase brought from heaven knows where—some barbaric place across the Atlantic, where they may call their policemen "pigs". I am sure that it is a thoroughly unjustified attitude towards American policemen. It is not only an unjustified attitude towards British policemen but it is an attitude which we have never had in this country. We have never used the word "pigs". People, black or white, who go through London calling out "pigs" after policemen do not know what they are talking about. They are absolutely "phoney" and they should be disowned, as I think they are, by their fellow immigrant settlers.
      I am not pessimistic. I do not believe that we are bound to have the same kind of trouble in this country that the United States has had. Our whole social and historical background is entirely different. I am certain that the question which the
      546
      hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) chided my right hon. Friend for not answering—whether or not they go, and however many may stay, what do we with those who stay?—is the real question. I am quite sure that in 10 or 20 years' time, the fact that over the years we have been so anxiously debating how we come to terms with the black minority in this country and the anxiety of those who think that present fears will be justified and grow worse, will seem as paltry and lacking in confidence in the quality of our countrymen as now seems the anxiety which was expressed 70 or 80 years ago about the influx of Jewish people, who have followed the traditional rôle of the Jewish people of first thoroughly upsetting and then enormously stimulating every society which they have graced with their presence.
      9.21 p.m.
      Mr. James Callaghan: I do not necessarily rise to complete the debate—that is not in my power—but I should like to offer some observations to the Committee and to thank the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Ire-monger) for his usual stimulating speech. We always listen to him with great interest. Perhaps some of his own side listen to him with a certain amount of apprehension. In view of the hon. Member's animadversions about the patriots of this country, if I had to describe him in not too offensive words I would say that I regard him as the typical patriotic eccentric. His views are always informed by his love of the country. But they are, if he will allow me to say so, rather like one of those unguided missiles about which we have been hearing so much recently.
      I want to say how much I agree with the hon. Member about Quintin Hogg. I would not necessarily go all the way in the encomium, but on race relations and immigration there is no doubt that Lord Hailsham faced opposition in his own party with a very great deal of courage. Those of us who heard him speak on the subject in the House know that he never shirked the difficult task—and sometimes it can be difficult when one is on the Front Bench—of defending his point of view and expounding it irrespective of the criticism which came from behind him. There were occasions when he had a very difficult time.

      547
      I entirely agree with the hon. Member that Quintin's departure is a loss to the House. He is, apparently, still behaving himself in his normal way in the Upper Chamber. I suppose, however, that I would be out of order in referring to that, and I shall not do so. Nevertheless, I should like to hear what went on in the Cabinet when Lord Jellicoe and Lord Hailsham met each other on the morning after the economic debate. I say no more about that.
      I regret that I did not hear the speech of the Home Secretary. If he would like to get out of order by telling us about the last remark, I am sure that we would be delighted to hear it. The debate started so late that I had to leave before I could hear the right hon. Gentleman, and I apologise to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has, however, kindly given me some notes of what the Home Secretary said, and I am grateful to him.
      I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what I understood him to say was the great exaggeration on the subject of illegal immigration. I also agree with him in his tribute to the immigration service, which does its task with very great skill and in an extremely fair-minded way. We put very great burdens on the immigration service. The Home Secretary proposes to put additional and very difficult burdens upon it if his legislation which has been foreshadowed comes to pass, but, no doubt, we shall discuss that later. On those two points, I am certainly in full agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman said.
      I have attended many of these debates over the years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) said, they have changed their character. There was a time when we used to discuss only aliens. Now we seem to discuss only Commonwealth problems. Both are important.
      Because, like other hon. Members, I shall spend most of my time on the question of Commonwealth immigration, I want to mention the case of Rudi Dutschke. I am forced to do this by the Home Secretary's handling of the case. We shall have to return to the question, no doubt when the tribunal has declared itself, because it is not definitive in this
      548
      matter; it is advisory to the Home Secretary. He will have to take the final decision on Rudi Dutschke, although he has already declared his own view on the matter.
      I should like some guidance from the Minister of State about what will happen if the tribunal reaches a conclusion different from that which the Home Secretary has reached. I should like to know whether the Home Secretary will feel himself bound by the tribunal. I should be glad if I could have an answer on that point. Unless the Home Secretary says, "Well, despite my previous views, I am ready to accept what the tribunal says on this matter, although it is acting only in an advisory capacity", there would seem little point in asking the tribunal to deal with the question. I do not see why we should waste the time of four or five eminent gentlemen if the Home Secretary, irrespective of what they say, intends to adhere to his original conclusion.
      It may be argued that the case is sub judice, and that therefore nothing should be said about it. But it is not sub judice in the sense that the tribunal is an advisory body, and the Committee is surely entitled to make its view clear. I want to make my view clear. I do not know that anything that Rudi Dutschke has said appeals to me. I doubt whether he would agree with me about very much, either. Whatever view I take about him, I am not concerned about his views. There are many other people in this country whose views I do not like and who have just as little title to be here as he has. I am not sure how far the Committee has taken that fact on board.
      There is a section—I believe it is section 8—in the instructions to immigration officers which provides that if a person wishes to come to this country, is of independent means and will make no call upon the services of this country, he may be admitted for a period which can be extended, and extended, and extended, and extended. Many such people living in this country today have been here for a long time, people of independent means, making no call upon our services, people whose views I do not say I find distasteful in a political sense but who in my opinion add no more to the country than does Rudi Dutschke. They are not turned out.

      549
      The Home Secretary has great arbitrary powers in this matter. They are almost dictatorial powers, except that he has to account for himself to the House. I tell him, in no menacing way, that he will have to account for himself to the House on this matter in due course, when the tribunal has given its view, and when I shall certainly want to ask him whether he proposes to use his arbitrary powers in the case of this gentleman, who has made no call upon our services.
      I have refreshed my mind with the facts, and I find that Rudi Dutschke's solicitors undertook that he would seek private medical advice whilst here, and would pay for it. He has not been any charge on our health service. He has lived here quietly, studying, and the Home Secretary will have to be very careful about the way in which he exercises the dictatorial powers with which he has been charged by Parliament.
      Mr. Maudling: This case is the subject of an appeal, and because of that I have scrupulously avoided putting my side of the case. The right hon. Gentleman is putting his side of a case that is the subject of an appeal.
      Mr. Callaghan: That is the right hon. Gentleman's own opinion. If he chooses not to put his own side he cannot complain if others want to know the reason for it. In my view, he has taken refuge behind the reference of this case to the appeal tribunal. He should have given us his reasons for the decision that he has taken. I hope he is not suggesting that I am doing anything improper in expressing my view about the manner in which he should conduct the inquisition into this gentleman's case.
      Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept that from my predecessor. I took a decision in this case which I think was right, the gentleman concerned then appealed, and I was advised that once an appeal had been lodged it was wrong for me to discuss in public the merits of a particular issue, and I do not intend to do so.
      Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman quite misunderstands his position. Of course he is entitled to discuss his own decision on this, and to give his reasons. He should already have given his reasons on a matter of this sort. It was he who took the preliminary decision that the
      550
      man should leave the country. If he was questioned on that he should have given his reasons at that stage for requiring the man to leave the country, instead of taking refuge in Section 9(1) of the Immigration Appeals Act.
      I am not prejudging the results. I cannot do so because I do not know the facts. Only the Home Secretary knows what security considerations are involved since 18th June. I certainly know what considerations were involved before 18th June, but I have no knowledge of any since then. I do not know and cannot say what evidence he has that the rest of the House of Commons does not have on this matter, but if it is shown that no security considerations are involved, the right hon. Gentleman will have to give a very full account of himself and not take refuge behind the appeals procedure because he does not like the views or opinions of the man concerned. I hope he will do so. On the basis of information and evidence that I have seen about this man, irrespective of the man's views, the Home Secretary is behaving and has behaved in a way that has not been applied to a great many other persons of independent means living in this country and admitted under my aegis, my predecessor's aegis or even his aegis. That is all I want to say at the moment, but we will return to it later.
      Mr. Maudling: Once again, I think this is a very unfair use of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman must know very well that this is an important case. I had to reach a decision, and I reached a serious decision, but once it went to appeal I have been inhibited. No one else has been inhibited. Everyone else has been talking about it. I do not intend to put my case until I am told that it is proper to do so. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge and responsibility as previous Home Secretary, should indulge in these tactics.
      Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Callaghan: It is absurd for the Home Secretary to take this view. He knows as well as I do that not even the comforting cheers of the claque behind him will convince people about this. He took a decision, and he was entitled to say, and should have said, at the time of taking the decision what were the reasons for his decision. He did not have to, but

      551
      if he is challenged he should do so, and he should have been prepared to do so. There is nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from giving those reasons at this time. He cannot now shout "Unfair" as a means of protecting himself and say that it is an unfair use of the House of Commons. It is a perfectly proper use of the House of Commons, and he knows it. I shall insist and I do insist that we shall need a very full explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Maudling: You will get it!
      Mr. Callaghan: Why did we not have it in the first place before Mr. Dutschke appealed? The right hon. Gentleman was questioned about it then. He gave no answer. He merely said "I have reached my decision".
      Mr. Mandling: I will, with great pleasure, provide a full explanation to the House of Commons when the matter is no longer sub judice.
      Mr. Callaghan: The matter is not sub judice now. The matter has gone to a strictly advisory body. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has interrupted me on three or four occasions, perhaps he will kindly answer my question, which is intended as a perfectly straight one. Will he accept the decision of the advisory committee? I will willingly give way to allow him to answer. [Interruption.]
      Are we not to have an answer? What does this mean? Does it mean that if the advisory committee agrees with him the right hon. Gentleman will go on, but that if it disagrees with him he will still hold himself free to eject this man?
      The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): What about the Boundaries Commission?
      Mr. Callaghan: I assure the Under-Secretary that the Home Secretary does not need his assistance. Indeed, I doubt whether he welcomes it, such as it is.
      The Home Secretary is putting himself in a difficult position if he is unwilling to answer this straight question. After all, he referred to this matter to the advisory committee. What was the point in doing that if he does not intend to accept that body's decision? It is, in my view, incumbent on him, if he dis-
      552
      closes evidence—he may have different evidence; it is not open to the rest of us—to this distinguished body of people and they decide that in their view this man should not go, to explain what justification he would then have for saying, "Nevertheless, I insist on his going".
      Does the right hon. Gentleman have any such justification now? The refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to answer my straightforward question follows the pattern of his previous conduct in this case. He bought a little cheap popularity with the Wolverhampton, South-West hon. Members of the House of Commons on a political basis—[Interruption.] That is what he tried to do. He has since been trying to justify it by going further and further down the slope away from the way in which any Home Secretary should behave on an issue of this kind.
      Like the right hon. Gentleman, I know the antecedents of this case. I do not know what has happened since 18th June, but even if this man were the worst man in the world, he should still be entitled to have the normal standards applied to him. The right hon. Gentleman has not applied them in this case, and I promise him that I shall return to this subject later, when we have the view of the tribunal and when the Home Secretary intervenes in a lordly way and explains what has happened since 18th June to make him take his present view and why he has refused to give a straight answer to my question about whether or not he will accept the view of the advisory committee. He should have thought about this when he first referred the matter to that body. He is now on extremely weak ground.
      Mr. Iremonger: It would be helpful to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman would qualify this point: either the process to which the question has been referred is a judicial one or it is not. Does the right hon. Gentleman see this as being a judicial process?
      Mr. Callaghan: That is a difficult question to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am not sure exactly what the words "judicial process" mean in this connection, but these are certainly not judicial proceedings. This is an advisory body, and no more than that. To that extent, therefore, the matter is not sub judice, and for this reason anybody is perfectly entitled to express his view on the matter.

      553
      Had I been out of order, I have no doubt that the Chair would have called me to order, because the Chair is always careful on issues of this kind. I do not wish to involve the Chair, except to the extent that I would have been called to order had I referred to any matters to which I should not have referred.
      It will be the Home Secretary who in the last resort will take the decision, and that is why this is not a judicial point. He has said, in effect, "I will seek somebody else's advice." When that advice is finally given to him he will have to account to us, to the House of Commons, for his conclusion. By refusing to answer my question about whether or not he will accept the advisory committee's decision he is saying that he intends to reserve to himself, irrespective of what the advisory committee says, the decision in this matter.
      I ought perhaps to move to the question of Commonwealth immigration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite may indicate their impatience but, as I pointed out earlier, when some of them may not have been here, these debates always used to be wholly about aliens and it is only in recent years that we have decided to make them wholly about immigrants. Nevertheless, we are including both Acts in our discussion this evening.
      It is most difficult for a man to get repatriation even if he wants it. I have constituents desperately anxious to go back to the West Indies, where they wish to rejoin their children. I have asked for help on their behalf from the Supplementary Benefits Commission without any possibility of success at all. I saw these people at my interviews only last Saturday morning. Repatriation is most difficult even when people like this want to go back.
      The reply I have had, and I am sure that it is in accordance with the rules laid down by the Government, "Agreed that the man is unemployed and cannot possibly find his fare: nevertheless he could probably get employment again and may do in the months to come, so we cannot agree to repatriate him." That is the simple answer I have had. Whether it makes sense or not, hon. Members must decide for themselves.
      554
      What is the purpose of the Government's new legislation? I have heard two glosses put on it this afternoon. I was told that this was to be a liberal Measure, but are the Government trying to make it easier for people to come here or are they trying to make it more difficult for them? Which leg are they standing on?
      I can understand their deciding before the election what they should say in order to get elected. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell} gave them a very considerable tawdry advantage in that matter for which they have never adequately repaid him. There is no doubt that he had a tremendous impact in the Midlands, and I think that he influenced a good many people, as his Sancho Panza sitting beside him said—[Interruption.] The pronunciation may not be very good, but if the right hon. Gentleman is Don Quixote what can his hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) be? The right hon. Gentleman has been tilting at windmills for years, and is still tilting at them. I would not care to say who the Rosinante is—perhaps the Prime Minister.
      Mr. Powell: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me now directly, I take the opportunity to say that just now he has treated this Chamber to the dirtiest performance that has been seen here for many years.
      Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, a very good judge of that. I would certainly accept that, coming from him, because no one knows better than he how to dish it out in a dirty way. But if he thinks that it is a dirty performance to stand up for the rights of a foreigner living here, who is extremely unpopular with 90 per cent. of the people, including most of his own back benchers—if he thinks that is dirty, I am willing to accept it. I do not claim any great heroism in this, but it is important that we should be able to speak up for people who are unpopular, and whose views are unpopular, when the whole weight of the State is being directed against them. If that is dirty, I accept the charge. I will return to the right hon. Gentleman later. As I was saying, the Tory Party owes the right hon. Gentleman a rather squalid debt,

      555
      which it has failed to repay, for what he did.
      But it is important that we should be clear about the purpose of the Government's policy. There are coming in at this moment only some 4,000 voucher holders a year, as I understand. Will fewer be coming in under the new policy, or will there be the same number, or will more be coming in? What is the purpose? What the Measure will undoubtedly do will be to create a vast bureaucratic machine. It will undoubtedly increase the number of civil servants. It will undoubtedly increase the task of the police in these matters, and it will undoubtedly make heavy calls on the immigration service. We are therefore entitled to know what all this bureaucratic structure is being erected for. I ask, but I think that I know. As the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, it is to satisfy the Tory Government's electoral pledge.
      This is a gimmick. It is deceiving people in Britain, because it pretends that when this legislation has been passed there will be a substantial curtailment of the number of people coming here. Is not that what it is about? Is not that the lesson which was preached on the doorsteps by Conservative canvassers throughout the country for months before the General Election? Of course it is.
      I say now, as I said in July when we debated this issue, that I doubt whether the passage of this legislation will make any difference to the numbers entering Britain. I ask the Minister of State to give us his estimate of the reduction in the number coming to Britain as a result of the passage of this legislation.
      It is commonly believed, and certainly sedulously spread by Conservative propagandists, that the great number of coloured people who came to this country came during the period of the Labour Government. I do not know whether it is a matter of congratulation, but it would be as well to put the figures on record. In fact, the great bulk of immigration of coloured people came not during the lifetime of the Labour Government but during the lifetime of the Conservative Government. Taking figures of immigration into Britain since records have been kept, I estimate that whilst the Conservative Party was in power well over 600,000 people came to Britain from the
      556
      Commonwealth. During the Labour Party's period of office I estimate the figure at about 280,000—certainly less than half.
      I do not know that I would bother to make this point, because I do not know that there should be much of a competition about it, if only hon. Members opposite would stop their canvassers from sedulously spreading these profound untruths throughout the country. Therefore, I put the figures on record. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who discuss these things will no doubt want to get it right when they are discussing the matter with their constituents in the future.
      We know that this will create a vast bureaucratic machine. We know that it will not save anybody coming into Britain. The numbers coming here will be just as great as they have been in the past. What, then, is its purpose; and why is the legislation being delayed? Is its introduction being delayed because—I would hope this is not the case—the Government want to put it first to the Commonwealth? I ask the Minister of State quite directly what consultations are taking place with the Commonwealth. Have proposals gone to the Commonwealth? Have they been communicated to the Commonwealth and what response has there been to the proposals that the Government wish to put into force?
      Always, one of the issues which were very much in the minds of those concerned with this was the impact on the Commonwealth. Since the Government blundered into their South African arms misfortunes as a result of a quick decision taken after the General Election, they must be more sensitive to the impact of Commonwealth opinion. I therefore ask the Minister of State to tell us whether consultations are taking place. If so, may we know what form they are taking and what response they are getting? If consultations are not taking place, I would certainly regard it as a grave dereliction of the Government's responsibility.
      If consultations are not taking place, is it the Prime Minister's intention to discuss these issues at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at Singapore, because this will alter the whole basis of citizenship in the Commonwealth? It is a very drastic step that is being taken.

      557
      I always try to argue as straightforwardly on these issues as I can. I want to make it quite clear that I can see the case for an amalgamation of legislation on these issues provided that it is not to be against the background of trying to create a different kind of citizenship and in relation to cutting down numbers. On immigration grounds we know that that argument is unfounded.
      I have always said—I have no desire to retreat now that I am in opposition—that there is a case for considering this. However, in considering it, it would be foolishness in the extreme to change the basis of Commonwealth citizenship without putting the proposals first to the Commonwealth Governments, getting their reactions, having a discussion on the matter at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at Singapore, and then returning here and saying, "The Commonwealth understands the proposals we are making. It has objections on this, that and the other. We think that we can meet certain objections but we think that the other objections are unfounded". To proceed upon any other basis would be to bring upon the Government a storm as great as the South African arms storm. I say this to them in advance, not in any spirit of good will, not because I care about them, but because I do care about unnecessary rows between Commonwealth Governments and the Government who represent the United Kingdom for the time being. I press very strongly indeed that this should be put to the Commonwealth Governments.
      Indeed, I would sum up what I have to say about this in the words—I cannot better them—of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), in an article in, I believe, the Daily Telegraph of 11th August, writing about this legislation. He represents my view exactly. He said:
      "In sum, the plan for a small number of immigrants will be administratively costly, probably ineffective and certainly damaging to race relations."
      I could not make a better epitome of it myself.
      That is the legislation which we shall have to face and for which, no doubt, hon. Members opposite will be voting. It will have no impact on numbers, which is their prime concern. It can have a potentially damaging impact on the Commonwealth. It can have, I agree with the
      558
      right hon. Member for Ashford, a damaging effect on race relations in this country.
      Another question that we think the Government ought to be ready to answer now—though I doubt that they are, in the light of other experiences tonight—is whether they have a view about the Irish and the immigration of the Irish. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West expressed his view clearly, that the Irish should be excluded—a very popular view.
      Mr. Powell: Excluded?
      Mr. Callaghan: Yes. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that. I understood him to say that he thought the Irish should be put on the same basis as aliens in the matter of immigration. Is that not so?
      Mr. Powell: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman should not paraphrase it with the word "excluded".
      Mr. Callaghan: I see. If the objection is to the word "excluded", I readily accept that. He said that they should be treated on the same basis as aliens, which means a substantial curtailment in their numbers—a very popular view among many people in this country. It is said that the right hon. Gentleman always picks upon unpopular views, but do not let anybody be deceived. He is at the head of the popular gang. There are a lot of people who support him on this. Here again, I think we are entitled to ask the Minister of State whether the Government have reached any conclusions about the Irish.
      Mr. Maudling: If the right hon. Gentleman had been here earlier he would have heard.
      Mr. Callaghan: I beg the right hon Gentleman's pardon. I apologise for that. That must have been a point in the debate that was not included on the note which was handed to me. I will leave the point immediately. I do not know in what way the right hon. Gentleman made it clear, but I will pass on, and I beg his pardon.
      We must he in a limbo until this new legislation arrives. I have expressed my view that it is unlikely to meet the expectations that hon. Gentlemen put before their constituents when they were

      559
      seeking election. I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to agree that the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration might have hammered out these proposals. This is one of the reasons why I originally proposed them and why Lord Hailsham, as he now is, accepted them. We hoped that controversial issues of this sort could go to that Select Committee which was working without regard to party, so that we could get a consensus view. I understand that the Home Secretary—I hope this has been correctly reported to me—turned down that proposition.
      The right hon. Gentleman also turned down the proposition that there should be a White Paper setting out proposals for discussion before they reached this House. It looks as if we are to be faced with the Bill and that we shall have to fight it, although I hope there will be a number of points upon which we can agree, and certainly we shall try to agree on as much as we can. There will not be opposition for the sake of it.
      I turn lastly to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough and by the hon. Member for Ilford, North. It is not a question which I expect the Minister necessarily to answer, but it is a question for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who, as I have said before, has the ear of the country—although not as much as he did, I am glad to say. The first wave of hysteria has passed over. He has never really caught another issue that managed to sway the people quite as much as that, and no doubt that is why he returns to it time after time.
      The right hon. Gentleman still has never faced this question to the full extent. I do not know what proportion of the populations of Birmingham or Cardiff will be coloured in 20 or 30 years' time. What I do know is that they will be people born here, who will have been living here, but who will be of different colour. He has always failed to make clear, and he was asked again tonight, what his attitude is to those people of different colour. There are 1 million-plus, and there will be more, as he constantly tells us. Does he think that his attitude is helping? Does he care? Yes, I give him credit for that. I assume
      560
      that he cares, whether or not his attitude is helping. Does he accept—I can see no other alternatives—that these people will continue to live here? Does he intend forcibly to repatriate them? Or will they be sterilised so that they do not have black babies? Is that the end of it? He really must accept, some time or other, that there will be 1 million-plus living here.
      Mr. Powell: A million?
      Mr. Callaghan: Is it more?
      Mr. Powell: Where has the right hon. Gentleman been all these years, not to say all these hours, that he talks about 1 million? What is the matter with him tonight?
      Mr. Callaghan: It is many more. In that case, the question becomes even more pertinent. That is what I was trying to lure the right hon. Gentleman into saying. If there are 2 million, 3 million or 4 million, whatever figure he puts on it—there is no exact number, and everybody knows that—if it is more, then he has a double responsibility in this issue. He knows it, and he knows that that is the weakness in his case, and he has never faced it.
      The right hon. Gentleman is an honourable man. I do not wish to be personally offensive to him, I promise him that. I have too much respect for his intellect and his capacity to see these things. But does he not realise—I say this as seriously and meaningfully to him as he has said things to us—that the creation of the kind of atmosphere which he has created—he says, "I am only representing what people feel in this country; I have been their voice"—could in the end lead to the excesses—I hardly like to utter the words—the disasters we saw in Nazi Germany before the war? It could do that. If the good sense of the House and of our people did not resist the logical conclusions of the fears he is expressing, we could find ourselves fighting the battles of the 'thirties all over again. I hope and believe that if that happened the right hon. Gentleman would be on our side. But he would have created the mischief as a result of his own speeches.
      I beg the right hon. Gentleman to recognise once and for all that whoever had the responsibility, whether his own

      561
      Government or my Government, or whoever it was, the people are here, they are not going home, and it is our job to ensure that they live here, not only for their sakes but for our sakes, in conditions in which peace and tranquillity can be assured, and in which we say, "Here is this new problem of these millions of coloured people living among us, and we have to ensure for ourselves and our children that we all live together peacefully."
      We shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in due course, I want to make that clear. It has been a worthwhile debate, and I am grateful to the Committee and particularly the Government benches, for the way in which they have listened.
      9.59 p.m.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I take it, Sir Robert, that it will be your intention in a minute or so to interrupt our proceedings so that a business Motion may be put. It is not my intention, as it was not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), to cut the debate short at this stage. I imagine that the House will accept the Motion that the rule be suspended so that it will then be open to other hon. Members who have not yet succeeded in doing so to catch the eye of the Chair and continue the debate.
      It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Clegg.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
  Mr. Sharples: Those hon. Members who have been here and have listened to the debate throughout will know that it
  562
  has been constructive and that the element of political controversy along party lines has not been apparent. At least, that was so until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East, who had not been here for much of the time, made a most extraordinary party political speech, for reasons which, I suppose, must be apparent only to him. The whole content and nature of his speech was completely out of context in relation to the remainder of the debate, and that will be recognised not only on this side but on his own side as well among those of his hon. Friends who have been here and have heard the speeches.
  The debate has had three main themes. First, though this has not taken most of the attention, the Committee has discussed the situation existing under the law as it stands at present. That is what the debate really ought to have been about, because we are not discussing future legislation. We are discussing an expiring law which must be renewed, if only for a comparatively short time.
  The second main theme of the debate has been the situation of United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa. The third theme has been, so to speak, a preliminary Second Reading debate upon a Bill which has not yet been presented to Parliament.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred in opening to the broad principles of that Bill and to the proposals which we put forward at the time of the general election. I have listened, as my right hon. Friend will have listened, to the various views advanced about the broad principles of the Bill, but it is not my intention tonight to go further into the arguments which will be considered at the proper time, that is, when the Bill comes up for Second Reading.
  I come now to some of the specific points raised by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides. The right hon. Gentleman for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) spoke of the valuable work done by the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. I congratulate both the right hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) on the very useful paper produced under the auspices of the Runnymede Trust. It is a most valuable document, which deserves careful study. It

  563
  will be of great assistance to those wishing to study further not only the work of the Select Committee but the very valuable evidence which was presented to it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), who has apologised to me because he has had to leave the Chamber, referred to the work of the police in immigration control and the matters which they must follow up in connection with immigrants already here. I was very glad that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the work of the police in his constituency. I know that they have a very difficult time. My hon. Friend raised the question of the use of the police in making inquiries of immigrant sponsors. Evidence was presented to the Select Committee on this matter. There are very real difficulties in finding other agencies to make the inquiries. It has been suggested that the work should be undertaken by local authorities, but there are great difficulties about this. Apart from the attitude of the local authorities there are legal complications.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who, unlike his right hon. Friend, made a constructive and thoughtful speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery), referred to the question of illegal immigration and the evasion of controls. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary very rightly said that it would be absolutely wrong to overestimate the picture. He referred to certain figures which have been bandied about without, so far as I know, any basis. None the less, the whole Committee will agree that it is essential that we should deal effectively with illegal immigration and the evasion of immigration control. The police are reviewing their arrangements for doing this.
  We are well aware that we should also look further afield and, besides tightening up the controls here, do what we can to stop illegal immigrants from setting out for these shores. This will involve approaches to a number of countries and those approaches are taking place.
  We are also improving our arrangements to deal with evasion by persons admitted legally who attempt to stay
  564
  here in breach of their conditions. For example, there has been quite a lot of Press publicity about charter flight passengers. Special steps are now taken to check up on visitors who arrive on charter flights but fail to embark on the return flight. A special record is made of their names and arrangements are made to, follow this up as quickly as possible, if necessary through the police.
  We are also taking steps to verify the bona fides of prospective Commonwealth students, for whom the best guarantee of admission is always an entry certificate. As an aid to getting rid of those who overstay their allotted time, deportation provisions are now included in the Immigration Appeals Act, 1969.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill that those who trade on immigrants by bringing them here illegally, often at considerable cost to the immigrant who does not know what he is paying for, should be treated with the utmost severity of the law.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) raised the question of doctors, as he did in the article which he wrote in the Daily Telegraph and which I read with great interest yesterday. The position with regard to doctors is quite interesting. In 1967, a total of 2,031 B vouchers were issued for doctors and in 1968 the figure was 3,082. In July 1969 a limit on B vouchers for doctors of 2,000 per year was imposed by the last Government. Then in November, 1969, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), then Secretary of State for Social Services, introduced new conditions for doctors wanting to practise in this country.
  Under this scheme they had to have an attachment or produce evidence of a certain degree of competence before they were allowed to practise here. As a result of the introduction of these conditions there was and there is a pool of doctors requiring places under the attachment scheme. The policy has been under both Governments to give the places which are available for attachments to those who are already here. The result is that few places are now available for those wishing to come here to practise as doctors because the first priority in the attachment scheme, as I have said, is given to those already here.

  565
  In the first nine months of 1970, a total of 317 vouchers were issued to doctors and it is unlikely that the total for the year will exceed 600.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) suggested that there had been some friction between the British and Indian Governments about the position of United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa. I assure him that this is not so. The 1968 agreement with India is working well and since that agreement thousands of people from East Africa—United Kingdom passport holders—have been admitted to India, and we are very grateful to the Indian Government for the attitude they are taking to this matter.
  Mr. Steel: The point I was making was that I understood that there were some applications from among that number then to come to this country under the agreement we made with the Government of India. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many of them have applied and how many have been given permission to come from India? I think that this is where the friction has arisen.
  Mr. Sharples: I am unable to give those figures, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no friction between the British and Indian Governments on this matter.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked for figures about those in East Africa who are wanting to come here. The authorised intake at present is 1,500 heads of families each year, or 6,000 including dependants. We and the previous Government have admitted more than 15,000 since the 1968 Act came into force and more than 50,000—and this is a figure which needs to be borne in mind—since the beginning of 1965. That includes those who came here before the restrictions under the 1968 Act came into force.
  The estimated figure which I have been given of those United Kingdom passport holders who are still in East Africa varies between 150,000 and 200,000, but we do not know how many of those will wish eventually to come here. There are at present nearly 9,000 heads of households, mostly in Kenya and Uganda, in the voucher queue and this means, taking into account the families who go with them, that there are at present some
  566
  30,000 people waiting to come here. It is a fact that the queue for vouchers is substantially greater now than it was a year ago. In this connection I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend said about the future. As the House knows, we are reviewing the situation.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles also referred to the European Commission on Human Rights at Strasbourg. What has happened is not exactly as he put it. The Commission decided to admit for further consideration, on their legal and factual merits, applications by a number of United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa who alleged that their treatment under the 1968 Act constituted a violation of certain articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. I must emphasise that holding a case to be admissible, as the European Commission has, does not prejudge the factual decision on its merits. The Commission is still a long way from such a decision and it should not be assumed that its decision will necessarily go one way or the other.
  Persons from East Africa are admitted on a quota, including dependants, of some 6,000 a year, and here I should like to refer particularly to queue jumpers. They are people who come here and who jump the queue illegally and then complain that they are not allowed to bring their families with them. This is not a situation of our making. If a queue jumper tries to beat the queue he deprives another man, who may legitimately be waiting for a voucher, of the chance of coming here and bringing his family with him, and this is something which should be recognised.
  Mr. Steel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept what I and others have said about the destitution which queue waiters are suffering in East Africa? Does he accept that it is not their fault and that they are the victims of the actions of the two Governments concerned?
  Mr. Sharpies: Certainly I do. We must recognise that there is destitution among certain people in this community. But this has been brought about by a racial policy which would be deplored in this country and which is practised by certain East African Governments.

  567
  I now turn to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He has produced a projection of the speech that he made in this debate last year and has carried forward the projection of his assessment of future population statistics. No one would wish to minimise the work and research that he must have put into the preparation of those figures and estimates. I would certainly not argue figures or projections with him this evening.
  My own inclination is to treat all projections, whether official or unofficial and however carefully prepared—there have been projections by a number of different bodies—with some doubt. I have looked back at the questions and the answers on this subject over recent years, and I find that both have varied. One of the difficulties is the number of different starting points. There is the basic data from which any examination must start. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said that the accounting system was deficient. I would not disagree, but so are the assumptions upon which calculations of future trends can be made.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred to his assessment last year of the situation in Birmingham as a grotesque underestimate. That illustrated the difficulties that he may have had in making his assessment on the basis of the data and the assumptions available to us today. He referred to the interesting paper produced by Mr. Clifford Thomas, but he again said that the assumptions which square with the facts at present may not be relevant to a future situation—and there is the real difficulty of the assumptions from which we start.
  On the data, we may be helped when we have the results of the 1971 census. For the first time this will include information on the country of birth of a person's parents. The assumptions, however, involve so many imponderables that I doubt whether we shall ever get full agreement on them. But there are certain facts which are quite clear, and it is on these that we should concentrate.
  Mr. Bidwell: The hon. Gentleman will agree that there will be in that census no reference to colour of skin, and that it would be quite wrong to do so. There-
  568
  fore, people who tried to calculate on this basis will be in serious difficulties.
  Mr. Sharples: I understand that there will be reference to the country of birth, of a person's parents.
  There are some facts which we must face for the future. First, whatever we may do about limitation of entry or, more important, restriction of the rate of permanent settlement, we shall have for the future a much larger element of the population who are coloured than we had before the 1950s. What is important is the relationship which we established—the descendants of those who have lived in this country for generations—with those who have arrived here and the descendants of those who have arrived here in recent years.
  We talk a great deal about the immigrant population, but the fact which we must face is that the children of those who came here as immigrants may be coloured, but they were born here, brought up here and they go to school here, and they will not only expect, but have the right to expect equal opportunities in work, housing and everything else with their white compatriots. The generation of people born here, whether of coloured or white parents, are British by birth in every sense of the word.
  Those who seek to exploit the differece, whether they be black or white, do no service to those whose interests they purport to represent. For the future, our policy for the control of entry will be changed. The restriction on settlement will be very much tougher than it was in the past. At the same time, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stressed, our obligation to those who are already here remains the same. Our obligation to those already born or yet to be born, no matter the colour of their parents, is perfectly clear. It is an obligation which we in the Conservative Party intend to fulfil.
  Mr. Callaghan: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with the question of Commonwealth consultation? Are the Government's proposals being put forward for consultation to Commonwealth Governments, or will they be put to the Prime Ministers' Conference in Singapore?
  Mr. Sharples: We shall be able to discuss that matter when the Bill is

  569
  presented to Parliament. I have nothing to say on it at present.
  Mr. Callaghan: Does that mean that no consultation is going on? Will not the Government learn the lesson of the South African arms fiasco?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I said at the beginning of the debate, our purpose was to sound out ideas at this stage in the life of the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. David Waddington: I do not propose to reopen the debate on immigration. I merely say en passant that I have sat here since four o'clock this afternoon, and it is a great pity if back-bench Members, although theoretically they are allowed to continue the debate almost indefinitely, are put in such a position that if they spoke they would be speaking too late to expect a reply from a Minister.
  I wish to deal with a matter which hon. Members may not have noticed. Clause 1 is divided into two parts. We are not only renewing the laws concerning the control of Commonwealth immigration and immigration by aliens but extending a very important part of the Licensing Act, 1964.
  Mr. Callaghan: I agree with the hon. Member's sentiments, but I hope that there is no misapprehension about this matter. If the Minister intends to reply to the hon. Gentleman on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, the hon. Member is entitled to put any question that he wishes to put. I do not think that he is under any disadvantage.
  Mr. Waddington: The matter is better left. I do not wish to repeat the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. But when the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) breezes into the Chamber at a very late stage, not having heard much of the debate, and speaks and then, as is customary, the Government spokesman replies immediately afterwards, it is not a very opportune moment for another back-bench Member—the last back-bench
  570
  Member wishing to speak—to try to reopen the debate.
  10.30 p.m.
  The matter which I wanted to raise relates to subsection (2), which has the effect of extending for yet another year that part of the Licensing Act which created licensing planning committees in licensing planning areas. I would not expect my hon. Friend the Minister, at this late hour and without notice, to reply here and now to the questions which I am posing, but it seems to me to be somewhat extraordinary that we should have spent all day debating immigration, that the same thing happened last year and the year before, and that nobody has ever thought of raising the question of whether licensing planning committees any longer serve a useful purpose.
  It is, unfortunately, a fact of political life that we set up these bodies and then we perpetuate their existence year after year, entirely forgetting the purpose of their existence, and we continue to perpetuate them. I hope that, in any event, before next year I will hear from the Government, first, how many of these licensing planning areas are left, whether the Government think that these licensing planning committees any longer serve a useful purpose and how long the Government intend that they should remain.
  I remind the Committee once more that these licensing planning committees were set up in areas which had suffered extensive war damage, so that the functions of licensing justices and local planning authorities should be co-ordinated. It seems rather strange that 25 years after the event these bodies are still in existence.
  Mr. Sharples: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) has raised this matter. He is absolutely right to raise it at this stage. I think I am right in saying that had he attempted to raise it on the Amendment which has just been withdrawn, he would have been out of order. My hon. Friend is quite correct in seeking to raise the matter in debating the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
  The position is that there are now 17 licensing planning areas—London, Birmingham, Bristol, Canterbury, Coventry, East Ham, West Ham, Gosport, Grimsby,

  571
  Kingston upon Hull, Manchester, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Southampton, Sunderland and Swansea. Of the 33 areas that were originally constituted, licensing planning in 15 of them was ended between 1955 and 1963 and in a further area—South Shields—in April this year.
  The Ramsay Willis Committee was set up in April, 1964, and was asked to report upon whether there was a continuing need for licensing planning machinery in the areas concerned. The Report of the Committee was published as a White Paper on 13th July, 1965. Its main recommendation was for licensing planning to continue in a modified form, which would be voluntary in principle but mandatory in certain circumstances. It would involve consultation between licensing justices and the local planning authority and could be applied to any area of development.
  All the authorities have recently been asked whether they wish to continue. I understand that the vast majority—except one, South Shields, which has been abolished—have all said that they wish
  572
  to do so. It is our intention to take note of what my hon. Friend has said and to give further consideration to the matter.
  Mr. Callaghan: Without depriving the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) of his morals—and I accept what he says; it is miserable to sit here from 4 o'clock until half-past ten—I am sorry to say to him that the subject was raised last year also and that a reply was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan).
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer; and of the Independent Television Authority, Cable and Wireless Ltd., and Horserace Totalisator Board, and to examine such activities of the Bank of England as are not—

  (i) activities in the formulation and execution of monetary and financial policy, including responsibilities for the management of the gilt-edged, money and foreign exchange markets;

  (ii) activities, as agents of the Treasury, in managing the Exchange Equalisation Account and administering Exchange Control; or

  (iii) activities as a banker to other banks and private customers.

  Ordered,
  That Mr. John Biffen, Mr. William Clark, Mr. David Crouch, Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mr. Dormand, Mr. Peter Emery, Mr. John Golding, Mr. Green, Mr. Alec Jones, Sir Donald Kaberry, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. J. T. Price, Mr. David Stoddart and Mr Tugendhat be Members of the Committee:
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purpose of particular enquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.
  Ordered,
  That five be the Quorum.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committtees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to report to the Committee from time to time; and to adjourn from place to place.
  Ordered,
  That three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to report from time to time any Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees.—[Mr Fortescue.]

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Science and Technology and to report thereon from time to time.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Bob Brown, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. David Ginsberg, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Sir Harry Legge-Bourke, Mr. Ian Lloyd, Mr. Airey Neave, Mr. John Osborn, Mr. Arthur Palmer, Mr. Keith Stainton, Mr. Gavin Strang, Dr. Tom Stuttaford. Mr. Tebbit and Mr. Kenneth Warren be Members of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order, and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time.
  Ordered,
  That five be the Quorum
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report to the Committee from time to time, and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order.
  Ordered,
  That three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to appoint persons with technical or scientific knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Fortescuel]

  NORTH HUMBERSIDE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: I wish to speak tonight about the worsening economic conditions on the north bank of the Humber, including, of course, the city of Kingston upon Hull. I wish to put a number of questions to the Minister in the hope that he can give me some detailed answers if he cannot exactly fill me with hope for the future.
  In 1926 I was on a coalfield and I saw the sad conditions that existed then, and I have known them since. I can understand why the North-East is a special development area. Now I am in Hull, which to me has always been the third port. It is not merely a first-class port with a deep water channel, facing the Continent; it has always been a city with important industries—chemicals, food processing, engineering, electrical and metal goods, timber, deep sea fishing, and so on.
  There is a curious dichotomy about Hull. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will enlarge upon this. At the moment the port, if not booming, is certainly doing well; indeed, if we take the passengers coming in on our ferry services to Gothenburg, Rotterdam and Hamburg, the number has risen from a few thousand some years ago to about 160,000 today. So the port is doing well. The dockers are working well. We have a record which can compare with that of any other first-class port.
  Since 1964 I have been a constant advocate of the need to safeguard the future of the city. Since 1966 there has been a watershed in our unemployment figures. They have worsened. This is possibly the fourth debate in the last six years upon Hull. It shows the constant anxiety that has existed as our unemployment figures have mounted. I have attacked my Government in the past for procrastination, because in Hull we never seem to have jam today; it is always jam tomorrow. A Minister of my party came to Hull and talked about the Humber bridge. Even if the bridge is built the estuary will divide and disunite the two
  576
  banks. There will be no direct way south for Hull, and the south bank, which is booming today with natural gas, oil and other developments will be detached from what we believe to be the capital city of the region.
  The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) at a certain conference spoke about a magnificent new city with a population of 750,000. I wonder when we shall get that. This is in the future, but we have to do something now, if only to sustain and accelerate our economy in the 1970's. There have been feasibility studies which concluded that Humberside had a magnificent potential and could become a national growth area in the 1980's, but the final decision is deferred until 1972. The Labour Government gave us the go-ahead with the Humber bridge. We are still waiting for this Government to be solid and clear in this matter, and I hope the Minister will say something about this.
  The unemployment figures are the highest since 1948. They have been steadily worsening since 1966. The outward migration is masking the significance of our surplus of males. It is the younger workers, the non-manual workers and skilled workers who are leaving us. As in all ports, our dock labour force is falling. So until 1975 the outlook for male employment is bleak.
  We have been given intermediate area status. What benefit from this measure is now being felt? We shall perhaps not get the full benefit until the mid 1970's when the bridge is completed.
  Will the Minister say something about the east-west road network, the M.18 which I hope will overcome the notorious bottleneck at Thorne, go through Cowick and link with the M.62 to give us a highway west. This will make us less isolated and give opportunity for expansion.
  Our local industries are diverse, and this produces difficulties. About 32 per cent. have less than 20 workers. Our local factories are too small and cannot afford the cost of personnel and planning officers.
  I will say a word about the benefits we get and ask the Minister how they affect us. With our new status we shall get 25 per cent., and in special cases 35 per cent., towards the cost of factory building. T. J. Smith & Nephew, the famous pharmaceutical firm, and Birds Eye, the

  577
  famous food firm, are expanding in East Hull. There is to be a new estate to the South, which I understand from the local newspaper will provide 7,000 jobs. What jobs will they be? Will the Minister suggest where we might look for expansion, investment and development to provide these thousands of jobs which are hopefully looked for by the city council and the city industrialists?
  We have a Government training centre. How many people, male and female, are passing through this centre? In other words, what results are seeping through? How many jobs are in the pipeline? May we please be given some job figures? On many occasions I have asked for information about job opportunities, but we are still in the dark. The same applies to my questions about industrial development certificates. May we be given some information?
  What view do the Government take of the Yorkshire and Humberside area for the future, and particularly in the coming year? There is much anxiety among Yorkshire hon. Members about this. We met last week, since when we have tabled an Early Day Motion urging that these intermediate areas be given full development area status. A civic deputation met the Minister recently. I was a member of it, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We got a somewhat dusty answer from the hon. Gentleman and our trade union colleagues left in quite a dudgeon. Has the Minister anything more optimistic to tell us now?
  Are any firms expanding into this area? Has he been given notice of this? Should we start training our young people ahead of demand for any special skills that these firms might require? Do the Government intend to reshape the economy in this area, because the situation is getting worse? I trust I have asked enough of the sort of questions to make the Minister realise that we must be told what thoughts the Government have for solving some of the problems of this area.
  I was disturbed to read some comments in yesterday's Guardian under the heading "Where they may look vainly to Whitehall". The article referred to North Yorkshire, Humberside, the East Midlands and other depressed areas which were, it said, worsening compared with
  578
  the West Midlands and the South-East. The article began:
  "The full details of the Government's policy to combat inflation have yet to emerge, but whatever the outcome, the prospects for the already depressed regions of the country are grim".
  Whereas in Yorkshire and Humberside we were about 1 per cent. over the national average of unemployment, we are now running at 2·6 per cent. and going up. Does the Minister think that this worsening situation is a short-term problem or—to quote a famous leader of his party, "a little local difficulty"—or is it the beginning of a longer cycle?
  There is a considerable surplus of male labour north of the Humber which is concealed only by the outward migration of which I have spoken. All the business people and all the citizens of the area are anxious for us to halt this decline, with Government help if we can get it. However, we are worried by Tory philosophy, since hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that industry will expand in, and be attracted to, only those places where there are good prospects of immediate profits. It is more important now to think in terms of the varieties of special assistance which the Government can give to the intermediate areas.
  Good communications are important to us because of our comparative isolation. I have spoken of the M18 and M62, and I come to the Humber Bridge. May we be given some definite information about this tonight? According to a Written Answer given today the cost would be £20 million. I know that the Government are in touch with the board in Hull, which wrote to the Minister on 16th November about financing the bridge. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall have from this Goverment the same backing that we had from the last. In the form of a loan at rates obviously cheaper than could be obtained from the outside money market? This information would help us greatly, and give us more heart on Humberside.
  On the air services side, with the assistance of the Minister of Defence we are doing much better than we had expected. While recognising the difficulties, can the Minister help us in regard to the hours of operation of the aerodrome? I understand from my council colleagues

  579
  that we are being charged for the full service by the R.A.F. personnel. This may be merely an accounting procedure, but we are not in return getting full time help from the personnel.
  In Cmnd. 4506 the Government tell us that they wish to move offices out of London. The Giro has gone to Bootle, the Mint has gone to Wales and I understand that the computer service has gone to Bradford. Will the Minister consider moving the headquarters of the White Fish Authority to Hull, which we consider to be a most excellent spot for it? Again, such action as this would give our people heart, some confidence in our long-term future and a feeling that the Government believe in us.
  As the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) will tell him, we have in this area amenities second to none, with the chalk wolds behind us and the North Sea on our flank, with beaches and sands. We have many amenities which places that have been helped by the Government do not possess. So do not let us have the old tale about the North being unfashionable and people not liking to visit it. They do like it when they know about it. I might say that if a better image were given to us by the B.B.C. and the London newspapers we would find less opposition than we sometimes encounter.
  We have had a feasibility study. We are told that, with our estuary looking towards Europe, our geopolitical position will be of immense service to us in the event of our entering the Common Market.
  When will the Government choose the location for the Maritime Industrial Development Area? We claim that on the Humber we have better facilities than anywhere else for this unit. According to an accurate survey, we have about 140,000 acres of land on both banks suitable for either industrial or residential development. I urge the Minister to compare what we can offer with what can be offered by the Tees or any other estuary. I hope, Common Market or none, we shall soon have a decision.
  Let no one say that there is any lack of self-help. We have had a malaise in the past, but we now have the North
  580
  Humberside Development Association, on whose steering committee my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East serves. That committee has produced what I believe to be a most helpful document about the future. I should like to see both banks fully developed. But let us now, with the aid of the Development Association, and with or without the aid of the B.B.C., scotch the idea that Hull is
  "… a flat lonely city that no one knows."
  That is how the Observer referred to us not long ago. Hull is a city of parks and flowers. They will find water and ships within 200 yards of the Guildhall, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). We have enormous potential for development. No other area has such an extent of good flat land. I ask the Minister to give us some details and facts to help us.
  10.50 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): May I say at the outset that I am slightly glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) did not seek to intervene, because, had he done so, it would have left me no time to reply to the many points which have been raised. I am acutely aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter, too.
  I was very pleased to receive a delegation from Hull in the earlier part of the Autumn. I am the first to admit that the situation in Hull is not as healthy and as happy as either side of the House or any Government would like it to be. I am therefore glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has raised this subject tonight. Nothing but good can come from trying to pin point the causes of the trouble and explaining how the Government see the problems facing Hull.
  In June 1968 the unemployment percentage was 3·3–4·6 per cent. among males. By this year the latest figure was 4·3 per cent.–6 per cent. among males. There has been a steadily worensing situation in Hull since 1966, for which this Government are not to blame. It is a situation which we found on taking office. There is no doubt that the economic measures taken by the Labour

  581
  Government have not succeeded in bringing prosperity to places like Hull or, for that matter, to many of the development areas either. It is therefore clear that the policies hitherto pursued would not be appropriate to meet the problem in the future.
  Indeed, the general suggestion that more and more money is the answer can no longer be sustained after the experience which places like Hull have suffered. There is no doubt that the best cure for all the problems of the development areas would be a reflation of the economy, but it is clearly impossible, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, in the present situation of wage explosion, which would make it incredibly reckless to reflate the economy wildly, especially at a time like this when wages are rising much faster than ever before.
  It is a curious point, but one which must be made, that one of the obstacles which stands in the way of the regions is the wage inflation which is preventing the Government from taking the action which would reactivate the economy and make a great difference to places like Hull.
  I am glad to agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that the port of Hull is doing very well, despite the fact that it has lost some trade to the other side of the river. We believe that it has great prospects if we join the Common Market and that its North European and Scandinavian trade will continue to expand.
  I was next asked about the dispersal of Government offices. We announced in the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Central Government that we intend to continue the policy of dispersing Government offices from London. A new study is about to be undertaken to determine what further work can be located out of London, and this study will have regard, not only to efficiency and economy, but also to regional considerations. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on the claims of any particular place. As to the White Fish Authority, we have no plans for relocating its headquarters in Hull.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about development area status for Hull. I think we must allow the intermediate area status, which Hull has, to have a
  582
  little more time to show what it can do. We supported intermediate areas on this side of the House and the inclusion of Hull in one of the intermediate areas, and the period since the announcement, which I think is a more important date than the coming into force of legislation, has been about a year and a half.
  During the year 1969, 1,000 new jobs were provided under i.d.c.s. in Kingston upon Hull, and during the first 10 months as opposed to 12 months in 1970 the number has risen to 1,500. This is a considerable improved rate of striking in what I might call a less happy year for the generation of mobile industry. So one can assume that the benefits of an intermediate area are having some effect.
  I will give a few examples of recent development in North Humberside. Capper Pass have set up an ore smelter which is estimated to provide eventually 250 extra jobs. B.P. Chemical have sought an i.d.c. for 90,000 square feet and a further i.d.c. for 35,000 square feet this year. There is also the development of J. M. Fenner & Co. Ltd., Belmont Caravan Co. Ltd. and Ace Caravan Co. Ltd. all of which are swelling the new jobs which will be available in the area.
  To give another statistic, in the last 1½ years since intermediate status was announced for Hull, there have been 84 applications for building grants which are expected to provide a further 2,000 jobs. We must, however, keep this in perspective. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that although his problem is one which causes great concern, in Clydeside there are 37,000 unemployed and on Tyneside there are 17,000 unemployed. The dimension of these problems is so much more serious than that of Hull that it would not be right at this stage to give development area status to Hull, thereby detracting from the advantages which are available in the development areas relative to other parts of the country.
  I should like briefly to try to answer the hon. Gentleman's points about communications. I think he could overdo this point about isolation and remoteness. Certainly the communications to Hull are not good, but of course when it is properly connected to the road network it will be much nearer the centre and the heart of the country than many places which are further afield. Links

  583
  to the M62, the A1 and to the M18, and finally on to the M1 should all be complete by the middle of the 1970s and these east-west communications will, I believe, make a very great difference to the advantages and the attractiveness of Hull. The fact that the roads have started and that a date is in prospect for their completion will cause firms to begin to think about Hull. It is in my own limited experience remarkable how the mere fact that a road starts attracts industry. Whether or not it is finished, it is the failure to announce a starting date which so often delays firms' intentions to move.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the Humber Bridge. To be twitted by him for not having got this started is a little hard. I remember the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) announcing at the North Hull by-election in 1966 that the bridge was about to be started. But it has not materialised yet. The hon. Gentleman will know that four years have gone by without any action being taken by his own Government.
  Mr. Peter Shore: May I intervene?
  Mr. Ridley: No, the right hon. Gentleman may not.
  Mr. Shore: I want to correct that misstatement.
  Mr. Ridley: The last Government did not promise financial assistance for the bridge. They merely said, on 30th April, 1969:
  "Like other major estuarial crossings, the bridge will be financed by loan, and tolled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1969; Vol. 782, C. 1439.]
  That is my right hon. Friend's position. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the question of when the bridge will be completed and what the present situation is, he must ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, who, as he knows, is having further discussions with the local authorities about the financing of the bridge. I cannot say more about the bridge itself than that.
  Overall, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the situation in Hull. I should like to have been able to answer all his questions, but it is not possible in 10 minutes. We believe that the present status of intermediate area is the right status for Hull. There is no intention to change that, and the attractions which it offers are, in our opinion, beginning to bring some new industry to the town. I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to wish Hull good fortune and as much development as can be got there in the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
  Northern Region (Infrastructure)
  Northern Region (Infrastructure)
  Urban Motorways
  Urban Motorways
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  A41 Bypass
  A41 Bypass
  Planning Authorities (Compensation)
  Planning Authorities (Compensation)
  Housing Programme (Portsmouth)
  Housing Programme (Portsmouth)
  A30, Devon
  A30, Devon
  Rate Increases
  Rate Increases
  Statutory Authorities (Legislative Exemptions)
  Statutory Authorities (Legislative Exemptions)
  Rugby Portland Cement Company (Quarry Extension)
  Rugby Portland Cement Company (Quarry Extension)
  Allotments
  Allotments
  Coke Oven Effluent (Discharge)
  Coke Oven Effluent (Discharge)
  London (Flood Defences)
  London (Flood Defences)
  Northern Region (Winter Works Programme)
  Northern Region (Winter Works Programme)
  Local Government (Reform)
  Local Government (Reform)
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Swimming Baths, Oldham
  Swimming Baths, Oldham
  A1 (Street Lights)
  A1 (Street Lights)
  Town and Country Planning Act, 1968
  Town and Country Planning Act, 1968
  Tyneside Sewage Disposal Scheme
  Tyneside Sewage Disposal Scheme
  Local Authorities' Finance
  Local Authorities' Finance
  Local Authority Employees
  Local Authority Employees
  South Coast Motorway
  South Coast Motorway
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Road Construction (Compensation)
  Road Construction (Compensation)
  Independent Television Authority (Office Development)
  Independent Television Authority (Office Development)
  A1 (Darrington Crossroads)
  A1 (Darrington Crossroads)
  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Thamesmead (Public Inquiry)
  Thamesmead (Public Inquiry)
  Out-of-Town Retail Developments
  Out-of-Town Retail Developments
  Tenants (Harassment)
  Tenants (Harassment)
  Reclamation Scheme, West Riding
  Reclamation Scheme, West Riding
  Chester Ring Road
  Chester Ring Road
  Public Health Act, 1936 (Amendment)
  Public Health Act, 1936 (Amendment)
ENVIRONMENT
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Dereliction
  Dereliction
  Green Belt, South Bedfordshire
  Green Belt, South Bedfordshire
  Bogus Health Inspectors
  Bogus Health Inspectors
  Land Use
  Land Use
  Nuisance (Legislation)
  Nuisance (Legislation)
HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION
  Party Walls
  Party Walls
  Rents
  Rents
  Old Houses, Lambeth
  Old Houses, Lambeth
  House Purchase Loans (Isle of Wight)
  House Purchase Loans (Isle of Wight)
  New Town Houses (Sales)
  New Town Houses (Sales)
  Housing Supply
  Housing Supply
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Rent Acts
  Rent Acts
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Accommodation)
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Accommodation)
  Labour-only Sub-contracting
  Labour-only Sub-contracting
  Manchester Corporation (Tenders)
  Manchester Corporation (Tenders)
  Housing Programme, Ealing
  Housing Programme, Ealing
  Newcastle-under-Lyme Council Tenants
  Newcastle-under-Lyme Council Tenants
  Tenants (Harassment)
  Tenants (Harassment)
  Demolished Houses, Oldham (Compensation)
  Demolished Houses, Oldham (Compensation)
  Caravan Residents (Assistance)
  Caravan Residents (Assistance)
  Newham
  Newham
  Housing (London Boroughs)
  Housing (London Boroughs)
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Rent Rebate Scheme, Birmingham
  Rent Rebate Scheme, Birmingham
  Park House, Market Harborough
  Park House, Market Harborough
  Sub-Standard Houses, Oldham
  Sub-Standard Houses, Oldham
TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  British Railways (Manufacturing Powers)
  British Railways (Manufacturing Powers)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Tracked Hovercraft
  Tracked Hovercraft
  Nationalised Transport Industry (Losses)
  Nationalised Transport Industry (Losses)
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Goods Transport (Drivers' Hours)
  Goods Transport (Drivers' Hours)
  British Railways (Late Trains)
  British Railways (Late Trains)
  Port Development Schemes (Bristol Channel)
  Port Development Schemes (Bristol Channel)
  National Ports Council
  National Ports Council
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Vehicles (Parking at Night)
  Vehicles (Parking at Night)
  British Rail (Employees)
  British Rail (Employees)
  Ports (Expenditure)
  Ports (Expenditure)
  Port Talbot
  Port Talbot
  Schoolchildren (Road Casualties)
  Schoolchildren (Road Casualties)
  A36, Hampshire
  A36, Hampshire
  Automobile Insurance Card
  Automobile Insurance Card
  Drugs and Driving
  Drugs and Driving
  Motor-cycle Passenger Insurance
  Motor-cycle Passenger Insurance
  Quantity Licensing
  Quantity Licensing
  High-Speed Passenger Train
  High-Speed Passenger Train
  Merchant Airship Cargo Satellite System
  Merchant Airship Cargo Satellite System
  Unremunerative Railway Lines, Wales
  Unremunerative Railway Lines, Wales
  Cyclists (Accidents)
  Cyclists (Accidents)
  Unremunerative Railway Passenger Services
  Unremunerative Railway Passenger Services
SCOTLAND
  School Books (Cost)
  School Books (Cost)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Fishermen (Training)
  Fishermen (Training)
  Employment
  Employment
  Primary Schools (Expenditure)
  Primary Schools (Expenditure)
  Pupil/Teacher Ratios
  Pupil/Teacher Ratios
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Fee-paying Schools
  Fee-paying Schools
  Teacher Training Colleges (Graduates)
  Teacher Training Colleges (Graduates)
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Fines (Recovery)
  Fines (Recovery)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Turnhouse Airport
  Turnhouse Airport
  Abortion Clinics (Touting)
  Abortion Clinics (Touting)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Siting)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Siting)
  Government-owned Factories, Carmarthenshire
  Government-owned Factories, Carmarthenshire
  Special Development Areas (Investment Inducements)
  Special Development Areas (Investment Inducements)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Dover Strait (Shipping)
  Dover Strait (Shipping)
  Holland-Martin Report
  Holland-Martin Report
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Advance Factories, Wales
  Advance Factories, Wales
WALES
  Port Talbot Hospital
  Port Talbot Hospital
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Road Programme
  Road Programme
  Rural Primary Schools (Closure)
  Rural Primary Schools (Closure)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
  Farm Animals Welfare Advisory Committee
  Farm Animals Welfare Advisory Committee
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
CIVIL SERVICE
  Nationalised Industries (Chairmen's Salaries)
  Nationalised Industries (Chairmen's Salaries)
DEFENCE
  Sidewhiskers
  Sidewhiskers
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Huddersfield Polytechnic
  Huddersfield Polytechnic
  Conisbrough Northcliffe County High School
  Conisbrough Northcliffe County High School
  Continental Shelf
  Continental Shelf
  Manganese Nodules
  Manganese Nodules
  Ocean Exploration
  Ocean Exploration
  Teachers and Pupils, Ashton
  Teachers and Pupils, Ashton
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Arts Expenditure)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Arts Expenditure)
  Art Galleries and Museums (Charges)
  Art Galleries and Museums (Charges)
EMPLOYMENT
  Fishermen and Seamen (Banff)
  Fishermen and Seamen (Banff)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Harassment of Tenants
  Harassment of Tenants
  Justices of the Peace
  Justices of the Peace
  Departmental Correspondence (Delay)
  Departmental Correspondence (Delay)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members (Salaries and Working Conditions)
  Members (Salaries and Working Conditions)
  Former Prime Ministers, Lord Chancellors and Members (Pensions)
  Former Prime Ministers, Lord Chancellors and Members (Pensions)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Postage Stamps
  Postage Stamps
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Houses of Parliament (Mass X-ray Unit)
  Houses of Parliament (Mass X-ray Unit)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Wage-Stop
  Wage-Stop
  General Medical Practitioners, Doncaster
  General Medical Practitioners, Doncaster
  Hospital Maternity Beds, Doncaster
  Hospital Maternity Beds, Doncaster
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  Building Society Investments (Non-residents)
  Building Society Investments (Non-residents)

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH
Cyril, Lord Bishop of Peterborough—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

RACIAL HARMONY YEAR
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will associate the United Kingdom with the recommendation of the General Assembly of the United Nations that 1971 should be declared a year against racism, and whether they will initiate a conference of organisations concerned with this issue to prepare a campaign of education and activity.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are already associated with this Year, which will be known in the United Kingdom as International Year for Racial Harmony. We do not think it is necessary to initiate a conference because the Community Relations Commission is already in consultation with the appropriate organisations.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate that reply and I thank the noble Baroness for it. May I ask this further question? In view of the fact that we are in a very transitional stage—of great dangers but also of great hopes—will Her Majesty's Government encourage the Community Relations Commission to call the widest possible conference of
118
organisations so that a really dramatic impulse can be made to this effort during the year?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the Community Relations Commission have already established an advisory council on education and have also set up a working party to consider the best means of carrying out International Year for Racial Harmony.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords did the Assembly of the United Nations really use the word "racism"? If so, why did it indulge in such repulsive illiteracy?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is perfectly true that the United Nations General Assembly did put forward a resolution which called for an International Year for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination. The reason why this language was used is beyond me.

DUTCH ELM DISEASE
2.37 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider giving financial aid through local councils to assist individuals to cut down and remove elm trees seriously affected by the Dutch elm disease.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, there are no specific statutory powers for giving assistance in such cases. Under Section 6 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963, a local authority may incur expenditure up to a specified limit for a purpose which in their opinion is in the interests of their area or its inhabitants and which does not fall within a field in which they are otherwise empowered to spend money. Whether this power could properly be used for these purposes would be a matter for the local authority to decide.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I thank the

119
Minister for his reply. Does he appreciate that the present
outbreak of Dutch elm disease is considered by the research department of the Forestry Commission as the most serious that this country has ever experienced? Did the Minister read the article in the Field on this subject on October 29, when it was stated that possibly every elm tree in this country could be affected by this outbreak?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I appreciate the seriousness of the outbreak, but the fact is that many trees recover from the disease. Wholesale compulsory felling of diseased trees would wipe out many trees
which could be saved. The Forestry Commission have recommended the felling of the most badly affected trees, those trees which are already dead or have half their crown killed, which should give a measure of control.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one further supplementary question? In their leaflet No. 78, the Forestry Commission's first recommendation is that seriously affected trees should be cut down. Does the noble Lord appreciate the tremendous potential danger to the public from these diseased elm trees? The article in the Field, to which I have already referred, drew attention to the case of a small girl who was killed by a limb falling from one of these diseased elm trees.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, there are always these sad cases resulting from falling timber. Local authorities are the first to point out the danger
which exists when the trees are near the roadside. This disease is serious, but there is no need for extreme pessimism which would suggest that the elm is threatened with extinction. The elm has survived other severe attacks in the past.

SKER HOUSE, GLAMORGAN
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider urgently the
120
situation of Sker House, Glamorgan, and its neighbouring land, beach and dunes with the object of safeguarding the environment, preserving this ancient and historic house and retaining its surroundings in their natural beauty.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, this is a matter within the competence of the local planning authority, and Her Majesty's Government do not propose to intervene.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that only last month the Government produced a White Paper (Cmnd. 4506) the effect of which is that, except in Scotland and Wales where the Scottish and Welsh Offices will continue to play the major part, the new Department of the Environment will be responsible for the whole range of functions affecting people living in the environment? Is this not the case here? May I also ask whether the noble Lord is aware that this house is probably the oldest continuously inhabited house in Wales, having been lived in since the 12th century? Does he also realise that this whole matter of the environment in this particular area is causing great concern in South Wales?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am well aware of all the points made by the noble Lord, and of the special historical reasons for being careful about what happens to this house. But so is the Glamorgan County Council, which is the planning authority, and the Government have every confidence in the Council's ability to safeguard the environment in this case.

MEMOIRS OF MINISTERS AND GOVERNMENT SERVANTS
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they approve of any arrangement whereby Ministers, or Crown or Government servants, when still in office, enter into remunerative contracts for their memoirs to be published shortly after their relinquishment of office; and, if not, what they propose to do about it.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, there are well-established conventions in this field, and their application in any individual case is mainly a matter of good taste and good judgment. Their voluntary acceptance by all concerned is more likely to be effective in preserving them than any arbitrary rule.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I appreciate that reply. May I ask, nevertheless, whether the Government, who are after all, as I understand it, anxious to make a fresh start in many fields, would consider a system whereby all Ministers and civil servants should sign a paper in which they would bind themselves not to publish any memoirs or diaries based on their official activities, for a period of years after their relinquishing office, such period to be fixed after discussion in Parliament? Do not the Government think that that would be a sensible thing to do?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should be perfectly prepared to give careful consideration to the noble Lord's carefully prepared supplementary.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he would make representations to his colleagues in the Cabinet, asking them not to prepare individual memoirs but to collaborate in order to produce a joint memoir? This would avoid indulging in reflections upon each other and also avoid contradictions, as, for example, when the noble Earl himself the other day declared that there was no need for panic about the economic situation but at the same time the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke in the gravest tones about the economic situation. How do we avoid these contradictions?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord has, as always, not only illuminated but lightened the scene.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I hope he does not do anything, because I am looking forward to the memoirs of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, about the machinations to get us into the Common Market?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, what happens, unfortunately, will be in the Government.

POST OFFICE CORPORATION: CHAIRMANSHIP
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question, of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the dismissal of the Chairman of the Board of the Post Office Corporation.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Windlesham will answer this Question at a suitable moment after 3.30 o'clock.

ARMED FORCES: RELEASE RIGHTS OF YOUNG SERVICEMEN
2.45 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, with permission, I should like to make a Statement about the Report of Lord Donaldson's Committee on Boy Entrants and Young Servicemen. The Report has now been published as Command 4509, and copies are available in the Printed Paper Office. The Government are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and his colleagues for their very valuable review of a complex and difficult subject.
The Committee accept that the need for adequate defence forces demands a system of binding engagements. They also acknowledge the opportunities to leave that already exist for those who, for various reasons change their mind about a Service career. At present, about 12,000 boys and adults are allowed to leave prematurely each year. Nevertheless, the Committee conclude that all who join the Services before the age 17½, whether on boys' or adult engagements, should be allowed to change the terms of their engagements when they reach the age of majority.
They recommend that most boy entrants should have the right at the age of 18 to confirm their original engagements or to reduce them to three years. But they recognise that this would not give the Services a fair return for apprentices who need two or more years training. They therefore recommend that these

123
long-term apprentices should have three options at the age of 18—to confirm their original engagements, to complete their training and then give five years' productive service, or to leave forthwith in mid-training.
We have had to consider these recommendations against the background of the extremely serious manpower situation which we found when we took office, and we have had to weigh carefully the consequences of any relaxation of the present engagement structure for the maintenance of the strength and efficiency of the Forces. We have concluded that, on balance, it would be right to accept Lord Donaldson's main recommendations, with one modification.
While we appreciate the motives of the Committee in differentiating between apprentices undergoing long training and the majority, on balance we have concluded that in fairness we ought to treat boys in both groups alike. In some cases they live, work and train side by side. They would find it hard to understand why, when they reached 18, some could leave at once and others only in three years' time.
In order to put the two groups on a much more equal footing, we have decided to introduce a scheme under which everyone who joins before the age of 17½ will have the opportunity at 18 of confirming his original engagement or choosing to leave three years after his 18th birthday or completion of training, whichever is the later, There will be no option to leave at 18 for the small group of apprentices who undergo long training but equally they will not be required to serve for as long as five years after the completion of their training.
Although the Committee's recommendations were framed in relation to the raising of the school-leaving age, which will occur in 1972–73, the Government have decided to introduce the new arrangement on April 1, 1971. It will apply not only to those who join thereafter but also to those already serving who are still under 18.
The Government have accepted all the other recommendations of the Committee, except that which recommended that the size of the Defence Budget should be adjusted to take account of the social and economic value to the nation of the
124
training of boys. We regard this recommendation as impractical.
The Committee recognised that implementation might have to be phased. Because of the Navy's manpower shortages, this will be necessary in the case of Recommendation 3, that the period of service required before adult naval ratings and Royal Marine other ranks can apply for discharge by purchase should be brought into line with the other Services. However, we intend to make steady progress year by year, so that by 1977, at the latest, the Royal Navy will be in line with the other two Services.
My Lords, I am very conscious of the risks in our decision for the manning of the Services. I believe, however, that we have struck a reasonable balance between the need, which we accept, for some liberalisation of the present arrangements, and the need to provide adequate defence forces. I should like, if I may, to draw attention to the tribute which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has paid to many aspects of Service life and training. In his own words,
"… the Services provide a form of education and training available equally to the less privileged, which is not provided elsewhere and which is of the highest value to the individuals and the country."
I am confident that with this relaxation of the engagement rules, and with the new impetus of the present Government's defence policy, increasing numbers of boys will avail themselves of these opportunities.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his clear reading of the Statement, bearing in mind that he has only just flown back from—I am never sure whether it is Singapore, Washington or somewhere else, just before lunch, and he has made a speech in between times. I think he is doing very well.
This is an important Statement and an important Report. Although it has not been possible to study the Report, it is obvious that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his very high-powered Committee, which included a number of names from the Services, like Sir Desmond Dreyer and others, have gone thoroughly into a problem that used to cause some anxiety in the previous Government, and certainly among a number of noble Lords, including in particular

125
my noble friend Lord Brockway, in this House. It is not for me to criticise the Government's decision, because the previous Government were awaiting the Donaldson Report. It appears to me, subject to the fact that we shall want to study this Report, that the Government have acted not without some courage in this matter. I have no doubt that the noble Lord received advice from some people that to go even any way down this road would be disastrous. It is difficult to judge that until it is tested in practice.
I think this represents a real advance in dealing with a matter which offended, I think, the consciences of all liberal people in this country, in which I particularly include the noble Lord himself. We shall want to look at this matter. While acknowledging that the Government have already accepted many of the recommendations of the Donaldson Committee, we shall certainly want to consider whether the period of three years is really necessary. I understand that in the Royal Marines, for instance, people go after one year. It may be that the Royal Marines can do what other people cannot do. We shall want to look at this subject and we may want to debate it. But in giving this welcome, I must say that what is proposed represents an advance, and I would echo what the noble Lord said at the end of his Statement as to the excellent quality of this training. It is superb training and the results are very good. It is a natural thing that young men of a certain age—and they all get married remarkably young—will want to dash out into "civvy" street, and with a certain delay they might not want to rush quite so vigorously. The question is whether it should be a three-year wait or something less. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): The noble Lord is rambling.
LORD SHACKLETON: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will contain himself at this moment, because we are discussing an important matter and we really do not want lots of interruptions from him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would merely say to the noble Lord that I thought towards the end he was beginning to ramble.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to welcome very much this Report. It is a most welcome change from the policy of the last Government, who appeared to be prepared to accept that something which they officially said was morally wrong could be politically right—something which the Liberals have never believed. My welcome must include one reservation and one question. The reservation is that I think it is a great pity that the difference between apprentices and non-apprentices has not been evened up by giving non-apprentices the right to leave at 18. It is not the apprentices who find themselves unhappy, in a sense; it is often the non-apprentices. They are the people who are quite literally "doing their nuts"—if I may use that expression—at just about that age of 18 or 19. I think it would have been a great advance if they could have been given the option to leave at 18, as was recommended.
The question I want to ask is this. I understand the problems about phasing out the naval arrangements to make them fit in with the Army and Air Force, but I should like to ask whether, if Service recruitment improves, as it may well do as a result of this training, the rate of phasing could be re-examined.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I just answer the two noble Lords who have spoken, before the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, intervenes? I should like to thank both noble Lords for the way they have received this Statement. I know well that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has the future and interests of the Services at heart, and this came through in what he said to-day. I should just like to say this about the composition of the Committee, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. The noble Lord drew attention to the fact that Admiral Dreyer, for example, was on the Committee. But this was not a Committee composed purely of people from the Ministry of Defence: there were eight independent members on it. It was by no means a Committee which was, so to speak, an inbred Committee from the Ministry of Defence.
I agree with the noble Lord that this was a difficult decision to take, and of course there were differences of opinion about it. But I think one can argue—and I hope this is right—that by doing what

127
we are doing we may encourage more boys to join rather than fewer boys. Certainly this is something that we must hope, because, as I have said to your Lordships on a number of occasions, I am seriously worried about the manpower position in the Services. I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. It is not for me to stick up for noble Lords opposite, but I would say that, after all, they appointed the Donaldson Committee, and for all I know, if they had had the opportunity they would have come to exactly the same conclusion that the Government have.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has got the point about the apprentices quite right. The point is that Lord Donaldson said that apprentices, because of their long-term apprenticeships, should have the opportunity of leaving at the age of 18, but not others who are not apprentices and who should be required to serve for a further three years. I think we felt that this was a distinction which would prove difficult to justify and might lead to trouble, and that it would be better to put everybody on the same footing. There are, of course, arguments both ways, but this is the conclusion to which we came. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked me whether, if Service recruitment got better, and particularly in the Royal Navy, we could speed up the process of getting the Navy into line with the other Services. Of course that is so, and we shall do that as quickly as we can.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I think I did get the point, and I am sorry if I was not lucid in my intervention. I was merely making the point that if the two groups should be brought into line, as I agree they should be, it was the non-apprentices who should be brought into line with the proposals for the apprentices, and not the other way round.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, as one who took some initiative in raising this issue in the House, may I first thank the noble Lord for his Statement? As a Back-Bencher I must put my comments in the form of questions. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that those of us who have given evidence to the Donaldson Committee are tremendously
128
appreciative of the way in which they have considered these questions? Is it not clear that that Committee, representing both the Defence Departments and others, have reached a compromise on this matter? May I ask the noble Lord whether he will enable us to debate this issue, because obviously it is impossible to deal with it by question and answer.
One question I would put immediately is this. Did I hear the noble Lord correctly that it would be 1977 before these recommendations would be applied to boys serving in the Navy? Is he aware that I have had in my hands over 300 letters from boys serving who wish to have an opportunity to get out of the Services? The vast majority of those letters came from boys who are now in the Navy. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will reconsider this extraordinary decision: that boys who are contracted to serve for 15 years at the age of 15, should have to wait for seven years before they have an opportunity of leaving.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sure it is my fault, but that is not what I was trying to say. The boys in all three Services will have the same opportunities after April, 1971. I was saying that recommendation No. 3—and perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough, when he has an opportunity, to look at the Report, which is quite long—suggests that the three Services' practice should be brought into line as regards the period of service required before adult Naval ratings can apply for a discharge. It is a different period of time in the Navy from the other two Services, but because of the manpower situation one cannot do this at once; it will take some time to bring the Navy into line. I hope that the Navy will be in the same state as the other two Services before 1977, but I cannot guarantee it.
With regard to the noble Lord's other questions, I am most grateful for the way that he has responded to this Statement. I know what an interest he has taken in this matter, and I should be happy to have a debate. No doubt my noble friend the Chief Whip will bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the training of

129
these apprentices involves considerable expense which the nation has to provide? May I also ask him whether he is aware that those of us who have been involved in this controversy for many years are pleased that the grievances ventilated during those years are now about to be removed? We welcome the recommendations. For myself, I welcome also the modification which the noble Lord mentioned: that there is to be no differentiation as between trade apprentices and the others. But I would ask: is there to be any reserve liability for these boys? In view of the expenditure involved, and the need for manpower in the Services, for the purpose of our security we require reserves. This is an opportunity to place upon those who have been serving and have gained at the nation's expense, a reserve liability.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's last question, we are looking into this matter. I cannot make a Statement to-day, but this subject is being examined. I share his view that it must be examined carefully. I agree with him about the apprentices, and it would be wrong to treat them differently from the others, in view not only of the training that they have been given but also of the importance all three Services—and in particular the Royal Air Force—must attach to apprentices.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, the Leader of the House whether it is within the procedure of this House for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to get up and say that a member of our Party is "flannelling"? I thought that the procedure of this House was for the Leader of the House to guide the business. May I say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in a friendly way, that his conduct in the past three weeks is oppressing us here, and probably in the near future we will move a vote of censure on him?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I apologise if I have caused the noble Lord any offence at all? It seemed to me that as the noble Lord who leads the Opposition was referring to me I was entitled to explain myself. I meant him no offence.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue this matter now.
130
I am sure that the noble Earl the Leader of the House is as embarrassed as we are by this. I am bound to say that I find some of this quite intolerable. I will leave it there at the moment. I do not know how long we can put up with it.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we have had an interesting run on his Statement, but it might be worth while to consider having a debate on an Unstarred Question, because some interesting suggestions have come from my noble friend Lord Shinwell and others. It might be well worth while to explore this matter further. I think the noble Lord can be pleased at the reaction to his Statement.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should be very happy with that, because this is an important subject. Inevitably, as one does not want to make a Statement too long, there are a number of other recommendations in the Donaldson Report to which I have not drawn the attention of the House. I have referred to only the more important recommendations, and I should be very happy with the noble Lord's suggestion.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, that he might follow his Leader's advice and leave the matter there. I wish, myself, that the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, had not made the remarks which he made just at the end of his speech; but I personally prefer to leave it there for the time being.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if the noble Earl is going to start debating it by disagreeing with me, I must take exception. We will say no more at this moment, but will consider in private how we deal with the situation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say at once that I am extremely sorry if I have caused any offence to the noble Lord who leads the Opposition, and I hope for that reason that he will leave matters exactly as they are. I have known him for many years; he has been a colleague of mine in both Houses; I have the greatest respect for him, and I should be extremely sorry to think that I had caused him personal pain or public offence.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

PRIVATE BUSINESS STANDING ORDERS
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should like briefly to explain the purpose of the proposed Amendments to Private Business Standing Order No. 216. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that on November 5 the House debated and agreed to the Report of the Select Committee on Proceedings in relation to Special Orders. On that occasion I said that in due course I would move Amendments giving effect to the recommendations contained in the Report. It is those Amendments to Standing Order No. 216, consequential on the recommendations in the Report, that I am now proposing to the House. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I move these three Amendments en bloc. My Lords, I beg to move:
Moved, That the following Amendments be made to Private Business Standing Order No. 216:—
Leave out from the beginning of line 57 to "and" in line 66 and insert:

"(a) whether they have any doubt that the Order is infra vices;

(b) whether there is any other matter in the Order or in the enactment under which the Order is made to which they think it expedient to call the attention of the House.".

Line 111, leave out "(7) In the case of every Special Order".
Line 112, leave out "the Order" and insert "an Order such as is referred to in paragraph (3)(b) above".—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Orders amended accordingly.

THE SEABED: WORLD OCEAN REGIME PROPOSAL
3.9 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH rose to move, That in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the seabed, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, should be administered as a common heritage of mankind, and a world ocean régime should be created to that end through an international convention. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, noble Lords will have noticed that there are two Motions on the Order Paper, one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and one standing in my own name. I suggest—and I have Lord Kennet's agreement to this—that it will probably be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if one debate takes place on both Motions.
In introducing the Motion standing in my own name on the Order Paper, I should remind your Lordships that the seabeds are the only parts of the surface of the earth—and very sizeable parts—which lack an agreed form of jurisdiction. Now that they are open to the exploitation of resources whose value is still largely unknown but may prove to be very considerable, this, in the absence of an agreed régime, adds a potential threat to an "uncontrolled, unrestrained Klondyke over five-sevenths of the earth's surface", as Mr. Peter Archer said in another place in July, 1968, and, in consequence, inevitably a potential threat to international peace and understanding. It also offers, on the other hand, a potential opportunity for a new move for co-operation by the peoples of the world.
The United Nations' Seabed Committee, after months of difficult and arduous work, have reached an agreement on what the issues are and this has perhaps been sufficient to maintain confidence that eventually a treaty will be signed, even though no agreement has yet taken place and it may be some time before this can be secured. There is still room for assessment of the proposals which have been made, and room for fresh initiatives, and I am therefore glad that we are being given the opportunity to discuss this matter again in this House. The last occasion was July 2, 1969, in a debate initiated by the noble and learned Lord,

133
Lord Wilberforce—and I am delighted that he is taking part in the debate this afternoon.
As this debate has drawn nearer, I must confess that I have become increasingly conscious of the complexities and the difficulties involved. I am therefore all the more thankful to see the list of those who have put down their name to speak in this debate, for they will bring to our consideration a range of knowledge and authority greater than I possess. I am especially glad that the noble Earl the Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal, Lord Jellicoe, will reply on behalf of the Government, for, in addition to personal reasons, his doing so underlines the significance which Her Majesty's Government give to this subject.
There might be some who would claim that the ocean deeps had better be left undisturbed as the home of the mythological Leviathan,
"a seven-headed monster, a slippery, twisting creature, dangerous to rouse and futile to seek to tame."
But Leviathan's territory was probed for the first time in a systematic way nearly a hundred years ago by the voyage of the "Challenger" of 1873 to 1876. One of the most interesting discoveries of this epic circumnavigation of the globe was the recovery of black hydrous nodules of manganese oxide from the floors of all three oceans. Exploration of the ocean deeps has continued and has been particularly active since the war. The desire to exploit whatever wealth can be wrested from or under the seabeds has followed not unnaturally in its wake. Yet we are left without any agreed system of jurisdiction, other than the 1958 Geneva Convention of the Continental Shelf, which grants to the coastal States the administration of the off-shore area to the depth of 200 metres or beyond that limit where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources. As there appears to be no limit to the exploitation of the natural resources, this open-ended concept would eventually carry the authority of the coastal States to halfway lines in the great oceans, which is manifestly absurd.
The question arises as to whether authority of coastal States can be redefined by a criterion more limited than that of exploitability, and, if so, what that
134
criterion should be. Some States have tabled proposals for a régime beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and have suggested where those limits should be drawn. Others are making independent claims to suit their own circumstances without seeking common agreement. The present state of affairs, therefore, is not only complex but also confused. And as there is so much at stake the plea for an international convention would seem to be both necessary and urgent. If it be asked, "How urgent?" one must surely admit of immediate urgency so far as oil drilling beyond the Continental Shelf is concerned, while to judge by the account of Deep Sea Ventures in the October issue of Ocean Industry, which starts with the sentence, "The nodules are coming up the pipe", we have the aims set out for a project which by 1974 would, it is estimated, be capable of dredging from a depth of up to 18,000 feet 1 million tons of these nodules a year for processing; the minerals competing in world markets by the following year, 1975, with minerals dug from the ground by conventional mining operations. How this would affect the disparity between developed and underdeveloped countries I would not indicate and do not know.
I should like to start by urging upon your Lordships the widely known proposition given by Ambassador Pardo of Malta, in 1968, against the background of three dangers arising from the exploitation of the ocean deeps: first, the threat by military installations on or above the ocean floors—and the recent news reported in The Times on November 18 concerning the treaty to ban nuclear weapons from the seabed gives some encouragement, even though it still begs many questions; secondly, the increased threat to the pollution of the seas, when already the oceans are being treated increasingly as a dumping ground, and thirdly, a threat that the exploitation of the seabeds would widen the gap between developed and undeveloped countries.
Let me remind your Lordships of the principles enunciated by Ambassador Pardo. He writes:
"to declare the deep ocean floor be conserved as the common heritage of mankind … through a treaty embodying the following principles: that the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction

"(a) be conserved against appropriation by nations or their nationals so that the deep ocean floor should not be allowed to become

135
a stage for competing claims of national sovereignty;

"(b) be explored in a manner consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter in the United Nations;

"(c) be exploited economically or made use of with the aim of safeguarding the interests of mankind;

"(d) be conserved exclusively for peaceful purposes in perpetuity."

Some people tend to write off Ambassador Pardo's concept as impracticable. I do not believe this to be true, although it certainly requires amplification and clarification; and I am not pretending that it will be easy to achieve, even then.
When I told one of my theological lecturers in 1931 that I was going to theological college he said, "One foot on earth and one in Heaven, I suppose!" I do not know whether he thought I was about to do the splits, but I should like to think that one could keep both feet together—and this I think is contrary to the views expressed by Mr. Enoch Powell—or perhaps in this case use both legs, the idealistic and the practicable, for swimming out of one's depth and a long way from the shore. Even if the present political organisation of the world casts a heavy shadow upon any desirable solution, a case for endeavouring to define a solution commensurate with the needs of mankind is all the more important. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said in the debate of July a year ago:
"the unique character of this problem gives an opportunity to the world and the common good for a break-through from sectional interests, and it gives us some chance to eliminate the rich-poor gap."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/7/69; col. 652.]
The sectional interests are primarily those represented by different Governments, but there are also those interests which want to make use of the sea for fishing, for mining, for defence purposes, or as a highway, and there is no doubt that an acceptable system of enforceable decision-making on a global scale so as to harmonise all these interests is clearly necessary for ocean space as also for the human race.
To achieve this, the objective of the seabeds being held as "a common heritage of mankind" is, I submit, not only a very imaginative concept but a moral necessity. But the term needs clarification. I understand the phrase "com-
136
mon heritage of mankind" as applied to the seabeds to mean that this area of the world would be administered as an exercise in disinterested trusteeship—and the emphasis must be on the word "disinterested"—with the intention that so far as possible mankind as a whole should reap the benefit. This is not the same as to equate common heritage with common ownership, but rather a means of equitable access, or at least equitable advantage by the peoples of the world, whether they live in coastal States, landlocked States, developed countries or developing countries. This idealistic concept of the common heritage of mankind has been widely adopted: by Her Majesty's Government, by President Nixon, by the Pacem in Maribus Conference in Malta, by the U.N. Seabed Committee, by U Thant and by others. I understand it still has no juridicial meaning and I hope this present debate may indicate the way in which this phrase can be given legal and institutional significance.
Meanwhile there are four enormous question marks over the whole subject. First, what is the area "beyond the limits of national jurisdiction"?—that phrase which settles nothing and is always repeated. As the oil men say, "Where does mankind begin?". Secondly, are the proposals which have been tabled by the United States, the United Kingdom, France and others likely to achieve the aim of benefiting mankind as a whole? Thirdly, can the world ocean régime confine itself only to the administration of the seabed in exclusion from the superjacent waters? Fourthly, can a desirable régime be created by an international convention if the parties taking part in that convention are exclusively representatives of Governments?
As regards the first question, the Nixon proposals recommend that all nations should renounce their national claims beyond a depth of 200 metres and that seaward of this limit the natural resources should be regarded as a common heritage of mankind. But as part of this scheme the coastal nations are to act as trustees for the international community for that part of the seabed within the Continental Margin—that is, the part immediately seaward from the Continental Shelf but very extensive in area. This is likely to be the richest region of the seabed as well as the easiest to exploit.
Unfortunately this proposal recommends that coastal States would receive a share of the international revenues from this zone for which they act as trustees, and also they could impose additional taxes, if these were deemed desirable. I venture to submit, my Lords, that this is not a disinterested trusteeship. Although the trustee will be required to hand over some of the revenues collected for the benefit of mankind, a coastal State will stand to benefit enormously. It would be a robbery from the common heritage of mankind if the proposal for an international trusteeship zone of such a type were accepted as a permanent arrangement, and I believe undesirable as a temporary arrangement.
The proposals by the United Kingdom and France do not, as I understand them, specify the limits of coastal jurisdiction, and I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when he replies to this debate, to say whether or not Her Majesty's Government are in favour of the Nixon international trusteeship zone. Mr. Gallacher, representing the United Kingdom, in his statement to the Committee on the peaceful uses of the seabed, appeared somewhat guarded. He said that the United Kingdom "would be glad to give President Nixon's concept positive consideration". I am not an expert in such matters, but if a layman may venture a view, the most important attribute for a frontier is for it to be clearly and precisely defined, and if it is a question of the limit being fixed either at the top of the Continental Slope—that is to say, at the 200 metres isobar—or at the bottom of it, then the former is preferable, for two reasons. First, it can be more precisely defined, but, more important still, it would not deprive the land-locked or Continental Shelf-locked States of a share in the benefit in what would appear to be potentially the most profitable area of the seabeds beyond the Continental Shelf.
Professor Henkin at Malta asked:
"Why does the coastal State need all the control that this proposal"—
and he was referring to the Nixon proposal—
"gives it? There is no reason why tile interests of the coastal State should prevail over those of the world community any more than those of the technologically advanced nations?".
138
The same viewpoint is expressed in the United Nations Seabed Committee report of August, 1970, where, when advocating international machinery for this area which they suggest should be promoted, they say:
"Irrespective of the geographical location of States, and taking into special consideration the interests and needs of the developing countries".
Meanwhile from South America comes a completely different principle, the claim here being for jurisdiction by the coastal State 200 miles from the shore, including the superjacent waters. Canada, in seeking to preserve the Arctic sea from pollution, claims 100 miles from the coast North of the 60th Parallel. We are now faced with at least five different proposals—five different proposed boundaries where the limits of national jurisdiction are to be set. Can we really not do better than this?
Now I came to the second question, namely, as to how far the régimes proposed by the United Kingdom, the United States and France are likely to achieve the aim of benefiting mankind as a whole. I am sure that other speakers in this debate will wish to discuss these proposals in greater detail. I understand that the régime seeks to extrapolate the grid system which works so well, for example, in the North Sea, to the whole ocean floor, but with this vital difference: instead of the squares or blocks being concessions to non-Governmental operators they will be allotted exclusively to Governments. But at this point I wish to ask a question for clarification by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. In the working paper presented by the United Kingdom Government to the United Nations Seabed Committee in August, 1970, in addition to non-exclusive prospecting licences the exclusive licences would be allocated in blocks, which I take to be essentially similar to the grid system. But Mr. Gallacher in his statement on August 14 to that same committee made it clear that the ideas contained in the United Kingdom paper are intended to be purely exploratory and that they are not to be regarded as those to which the Government would be formally committed. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his reply to a supplementary question by the noble Lord,

139
Lord Brockway, on November 4, indicated that the Government were not committed to a block system. I should be grateful if the noble Earl is in a position to comment further upon this.
The questions which I think need to be asked are these. First, what prevents disputes under such a national system, whether of blocks or of allocation of particular resources in particular areas to national Governments, from becoming international disputes? Does not this system of allocating to national Governments clearly invite national rivalry? Secondly, how do you disentrench Governments from their occupation of blocks or particular licences after the period of the concession is over? And, thirdly, is not the principle of allotting blocks, as indicated in paragraph 8(c) of the United Kingdom Working Paper, rather like a lucky dip, and, as such, if not morally indefensible, at least morally illogical?
The third question which hangs over this whole subject is: Can a world ocean régime confine itself only to the administration of the seabed and exclude the superjacent waters? The Motion that I am putting before your Lordships' House asks that a world ocean régime (these words were very deliberately chosen) should be created, and not a world seabed régime, because the oceans constitute a unified global eco system. The fact that the exploration of the seabed gives rise to the dangers of pollution in the superjacent waters is surely sufficient in itself to show that the sea-beds cannot be considered in isolation. The same argument applies to military factors—indeed, to the policing of any area of the ocean bed. If you are going to drill in a certain area you need to keep out other ships, including fishing vessels. The scientists at Malta emphasised that the ocean environment should be considered as an indivisible ecosystem regardless of political boundaries, and that is implicit in this Motion.
I should like to turn now to the fourth question which is raised by this whole subject; namely, can a desirable régime be created by an international convention if the parties taking part in that convention are exclusively representatives of Governments? The American, British and French proposals all believe that only Governments should be recognised
140
as members of any ocean régime, and they are supported in this by the Russians. This no doubt springs from the belief that Governments can be made accountable. But if Governments, and Governments alone, are made the concessionaires, as proposed under the British and French plans, with the allocation of national blocks or areas to national Governments, including the land-locked ones, then all over the world the oceans will look like the North Sea but with every oil concession boundary turned into a frontier with a potential of international conflict. Are we not in danger of projecting on to the sea the conflicts of the past 7,000 years? Surely it would be better to have no ocean régime than one which could exacerbate human relations for hundreds of years to come.
It is one thing to criticise the propositions of Governments which have taken pains to give flesh to the concept of the "common heritage of mankind" and for the reasons I have tried to give, have, in my view, been only partially successful, without putting forward some suggestions as to how these could be improved upon. I hope some headway may be made with this by those who will be taking
part in the debate this afternoon. For my own part, the kind of régime that I think is called for, if we take everything but the shortest view follows the thinking on the reports and papers from the Pacem in Maribus convocation prepared by Mrs. Elizabeth Borgese, and supported, with modifications, in a subsequent paper by Professor Neil Jacoby, of the University of California.
This starts from the premise that because the oceans constitute a unified global system their problems cannot be resolved by national actions, and that what is required is a supranational or extra-national authority regulating ocean usage and resources in the long-term interests of all mankind. It is, in effect, the establishment of a world government for the ocean deeps. That this would involve difficult problems—scientific, military, legal, political and economic—is undeniable. But to a layman in such matters it would seem that the difficulties are no greater nor less practicable than those encountered by the propositions which place international control on national activity.
These Borgese proposals embody the following concepts. First, that coastal States possess no special or inherent rights in the adjacent oceans and seabeds. Secondly, that the organisation of the ocean régime be built on a model designed to embrace the functions of maintaining peace and order; the enforcement of safety and anti-pollution rules and regulations; the conservation of exhaustible resources; the conduct of scientific research; the issuance of licences and concessions to enterprises for ocean exploration and production activities; the collection of royalties and taxes, and the adjudication of maritime disputes between nations and enterprises. And it should be, at the same time, a model which accords due weight to the interests of all nations and of the scientific and commercial organisations concerned with the seas.
An important feature of the Borgese proposals is that the maritime assembly to which the legislative functions would be entrusted, in addition to including a political chamber appointed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, also provides for three other chambers: one representing mining and mineral interests, a second representing fishing and acquaculture interests, and a third representing scientific interests. The direct representation of bodies, composed of those who have a common interest, experience and expertise in the activities to be controlled by the régime would seem more likely to gain wisely based agreement and judgment than an inter-Governmental body, which is, in the nature of things, less likely to be disinterested.
As regards the finances required, Mrs. Borgese has proposed that a beginning be made by a 1 per cent. ocean voluntary development tax on ocean projects, to cover living and non-living resources, as well as services such as shipping, no matter where production takes place. Such a proposal, I understand, will be introduced in the United Nations Seabed Committee next March, with a view to providing a constructive alternative to the Nixon proposals. As regards the word "tax" in this context, what I understand is envisaged is an obligation to pay, analogous to the 1 per cent. G.N.P. contribution to the developing countries, which is now widely accepted.
It has been suggested that the creation of a separate organisation along the Borgese model would require yet another huge and costly bureaucracy. I would submit that this argument has been greatly exaggerated. In the first place, it will be necessary in any event to set up a separate organisation to establish an ocean régime, whether it is inter-Government controlled or controlled in the way analogous to the Borgese model. In the second place, Mayor Lindsay of New York and President Hambro of the United Nations General Assembly, have recently pointed out that the United Nations annual budget of 167 million dollars is less than that of the New York Fire Department, and indeed the budgets of certain American universities.
Any régime which is adopted, if it is to have regard to the interests of mankind as a whole and to posterity, would need to spend a large, if not a major, part of its revenues during the early years of its existence on scientific research and ecological development aimed at expanding man's knowledge of the oceans and their ecology; on developing methods of controlling pollution; on conserving resources and on reducing costs of producing ocean commodities. An ancillary requirement worthy of a high priority would be the development by the régime of an adequate security force, an ocean guard or a sea guard, capable of enforcing its regulations, detecting violators and bringing them to justice. This inevitably will affect the profitability of an ocean régime and highlights the question of how the observance of the régime's regulations can best be monitored and enforced. Here we are obviously up against one of the biggest problems of all in any form of régime.
All the difficulties which have confronted the United Nations in creating, or failing to create, a United Nations Force in Suez, the Congo, Cyprus and the Middle East, confront the formation of an ocean guard, the main one being where there is no political will by Governments to create it, or maintain it once it has been created.
In Her Majesty's Government's Working Paper on August 4, 1970, the statement is made that the international body might have the right, under clearly

143
defined arrangements, to inspect operations which are being carried out, to satisfy itself that required standards were being observed. But to judge by the experience of the famous international whaling commission, where the factory ships had two inspectors on board, the result does not breed much confidence. The whales have become well nigh extinct. The general ineffectiveness of measures confined to inspection, to detect backsliding or infringement of regulations is pointed up in the case of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in March, 1970, when the State of Louisiana talked of filing a suit against the United States Federal Government for failing to police the area properly. I believe that a monitoring system could well emerge from a series of satellites which Dr. Payne, of the National Space Programme, has recently described on television, for there would appear to be enormous surveillance and monitoring possibilities through satellite systems. But whatever the method of surveillance, this still leaves open the question as to what form of military backing an ocean guard would require. And how would it be composed?
I hope that others speaking in this debate may help provide some answer to these questions. But is it too fanciful to suppose that a "Securicor", or self-help type of enforcement, could lead the way and gain on a wider scale the type of authority which has enabled the International Cable Protection Committee, operated by 21 cable owners, to function effectively since 1950? Enforcement of such a kind is I would submit, much more likely to prove mutually acceptable, and therefore effective, when it is operated not on behalf of a proliferation of national Governments but on behalf of the functional needs of those undertakings which are going to explore and exploit the oceans on behalf of mankind.
My Lords, to summarise, I believe that any world ocean régime must look to the long term, not the short term, future of the human race. That is why I would contend that it should open an avenue to world government. Secondly, its limits should not favour coastal States. Thirdly, the régime beyond the limits of national jurisdiction should embrace the
144
whole ocean eco-system. Fourthly, I fear that the proposals of Her Majesty's Government, France and the United States, while making use of the phrase "the common heritage of mankind" have a long way to go adequately to fulfil this concept, and I suggest that far more serious attention be paid to the principles inherent in the Borgese proposals.
It may be alleged that these do not take adequate account of international or legal precedents, or that they do not give adequate regard to profitability—and here I would say that any régime must make it worth while for companies to operate, where highly sophisticated technical knowledge and expertise are required and costly equipment is involved. But I would simply plead that profitability be matched by, and indeed subject to, the good of mankind as a whole. If the will be present, the Spirit of Man can raise political power to the level of responsible statesmanship and commercial profit to a beneficent stewardship of the God-given resources of the world. I believe that there are opportunities to demonstrate that will in the Motion now before this House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the seabed, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, should be administered as a common heritage of mankind, and a world ocean régime should be created to that end through an international convention.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)

POST OFFICE CORPORATION CHAIRMANSHIP
3.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, with the permission of the House I will now repeat an Answer given in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. It is as follows:
"Having concluded that it is in the best interests of the Post Office and public, I have asked Lord Hall to relinquish his post as Chairman of the Corporation. He has agreed to do so.
"There have been no major disagreements between Lord Hall and myself on matters of policy. Lord Hall

145
is leaving forthwith and will receive compensation for loss of office. Mr. Ryland, Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive of the Post Office, will act as Chairman pending the appointment of a successor to Lord Hall."
My Lords, that completes my right honourable friend's Answer.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for his courtesy in repeating the Statement that has been made in the other place. I shall have some questions to ask him arising out of it, but before I do so I should like, with the leave of the House, to pay a short tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, since one was not contained in the Ministerial Statement. We on this side of the House know the noble Viscount as a friend and as a colleague, and I am sure he is known to noble Lords in all parts of the House as a friend as well.
Since his appointment in May last year Lord Hall has done much to put the Corporation on to a profitable basis, and to raise the morale of the staff. Have Her Majesty's Government seen, for example, this morning that 3,000 Post Office workers are on a token strike? Have the Government considered the effect on morale of this peremptory dismissal? Why, for example, was it announced in the early hours of the morning? Do the Government not consider that this is an affront to Parliament? If there have been no major disagreements over policy, what have the disagreements been about? I should also like to ask for an assurance that the Post Office Act will not be altered to deny to the Corporation the right to manufacture, and to hive-off to private enterprise some of the Corporation's more profitable manufacturing industries.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I also thank the Minister for repeating that very important statement? I was under the impression that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, was doing quite a good job as Chairman of the Post Office, but the impression conveyed by the statement is that Lord Hall is being dismissed for incompetence. If this is so, why is compensation being paid? If it is not for incompetence, and since compensation is being paid, I assume that this is a political dismissal. If it is a political
146
dismissal, and not for incompetence, is not this a very dangerous precedent indeed?
LORD WINIDLESHAM: My Lords, I have been asked a number of questions from the Opposition Front Bench and from the Leader of the Liberal Party. The first question put by 'the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was about the effect on morale. I can only repeat the words of the statement issued last night, that my right honourable friend believes that it is in the best interests of the Post Office to make a change in the chairmanship. The noble Lord asked me about the timing, and why the statement was made late last night. The reason is that a statement had originally been arranged for to-day, but in view of the widespread rumours that were circulating last night it was thought to be in the best interests of all concerned that an immediate announcement should be made. I do not think the question the noble Lord asked me about the Post Office Act arises out of the statement which has been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked about political considerations. There is no question here of political victimisation. I should like to make that quite plain, as will my right honourable friend in another place. We have never regarded Lord Hall as a political figure, or as actuated by political motives, or as having been appointed for political reasons. Compensation is being discussed with him and the terms are still being negotiated.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke of the Minister's opinion. Can he say whether the Minister consulted with the Board prior to this decision being taken? Can he also say whether Lord Hall had lost the confidence of the Board? May I also ask whether there is any truth in the report that Lord Hall had a meeting with the Minister yesterday, lasting I think one hour, during which the noble Viscount asked repeatedly for reasons for this dismissal but was not given one? Will the noble Lord confirm whether or not that is right? In conclusion, may I ask whether, when this statement was issued to the Press last night, there was a Press conference? I suspect that there was, because part of the noble Viscount's statement appears in this morning's newspapers. The noble

147
Lord, Lord Windlesham, will be aware that, side by side with that, there were references to the effect that the noble Viscount did not match up to the job. Would the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, deny that this was given to the Press?—because if it was I think it is one of the most wicked treatments of a very faithful public servant.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I understand that my right honourable friend did not consult the Board. He took this decision on his own responsibility. I understand that the decision has been accepted by the remaining
members of the Board. I am not able to say what took place at the meeting between the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and the Minister yesterday, and I am not able to say what, if anything, was said to the Press.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether a reason was given to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for his dismissal?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am not able to add to my answer.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Disgraceful!
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord on this question of political dismissal? He has vehemently denied that this is a political dismissal, but what is meant by "in the best interests of the Post Office"? Does it mean incompetence?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is the judgment of the Minister that it is in the best interests of the Post Office and the public that a change should be made.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, will my noble friend recognise that the political affiliations of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, have absolutely nothing to do with this case? Also, is it not a fact that any Government, of whatever Party, must have their hands free to appoint, as heads of public corporations, the persons whom they think are most suitable? Finally, is it not a fact that any action which is likely to improve the efficient working of these public corporations is to be welcomed?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords, I am sure that many of your Lordships would agree with that.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that the action which the Minister has taken on this occasion has created within the Post Office a situation where the people engaged in it feel most bitterly? This has been exemplified by the question asked by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. Is the Minister aware that I was deeply shocked, as one who was partly responsible for the appointment of Lord Hall, when I saw the announcement to the effect that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications had brought about the dismissal? And is he further aware that the appointment was for a period of five years and not for eighteen months? Also, is the noble Lord aware that the experience of Lord Hall within the Post Office ranges not from the time when the Board was set up, but from six months prior to that when he was able to meet members of the Post Office Board under ministerial control?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I would not agree with the first statement made by the noble Lord. Secondly, the period of appointment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, as Chairman of the Post Office Corporation is terminable by agreement.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the Post Office has for years been run extremely efficiently by the officials of the Post Office, irrespective of the abilities or deficiencies of the Postmaster General or Assistant Postmaster General of the day? Also, will my noble friend consider asking his right honourable friend whether it would not be best, in the interests of the Post Office of the future to put Mr. Ryland permanently in charge?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think that my right honourable friend will want to take account of that statement which has been made by the noble Lord.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there are any more sackings to take place? Can we know now?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will answer the question which my noble friend Lord Shinwell has put? Further, while associating myself entirely with the statements made by my noble

149
friend Lord Strabolgi, may I ask the Minister whether he really feels that this matter can rest on a statement of the character which he has made this afternoon? Is he aware that in the period since the noble Viscount became Chairman of the Corporation he has, despite many difficulties, won great respect and confidence from Post Office staff? Does the noble Lord and his right honourable friend in another place recognise the importance for the Post Office, and so for the community, of confidence on the part of the staff of the Post Office in the management of the Post Office and in the way in which the management and administration is treated by Her Majesty's Government?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, my Parliamentary experience is so short compared with that of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that I should not dream of trying to identify a question which actually requires an answer and which is seeking information from one which is really a statement of the noble Lord's point of view, but I should have thought that what he has said came in the second category rather than in the first. I have no information that the Minister is considering any further terminations of appointments.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, asked whether the reasons given by the Minister were adequate for the action that he had taken, and whether it would be damaging to the confidence and the morale of the Post Office Corporation. My Lords, it is very easy for Governments to shirk decisions of this kind that they believe to be necessary in the public interest. The Government have a responsibility for appointing the members and the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation, as with other public bodies. My right honourable friend has made it clear that political motivation does not enter into this—I underline that. The reason is that in the Minister's opinion—and he has a responsibility under the Post Office Act—this action is in the best interests of the Post Office and the public.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why?
LORD JANNER: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that in ordinary life in this country an action of this description would not be taken, even by the smallest firm, and that in consequence the action of the Government will be
150
strongly resented throughout the country? Will he please give a satisfactory reason why, at practically a moment's notice, art action of this description was taken?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is not for me to comment on an action that would be taken by private companies or public companies, and I cannot add to the reasons that have been given.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, would the noble Lord confirm an answer which he gave four supplementaries ago, that the terms of the appointment were for five years or terminable by agreement?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, any appointment of this sort is terminable by agreement within the period, and this appointment has been terminated by agreement.
SEVERAL, NOBLE LORDS: By agreement?
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I spoke in this House last week—a week yesterday—I made two particular observations? This was one of them:
"The Tory Party is a class-conscious party …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17/11/70, col. 1040.]
This was the other—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech, speech!
LORD MAELOR: Very well; you will have it.
"The Tory philosophy is based entirely on class distinction …"
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, did not agree with me, so I knew I was right. I contend, Mr. Minister—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech, speech!
LORD MAELOR: Then let me ask the Minister this question. Had this man, Lord Hall, been a coal-owner's son and not a coalminer's son, would he have had the sack? Of course not! And answer Lord Byers, for goodness' sake!
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has not only asked a question but given the answer for me as well; but I can assure him that class consciousness had no part in this.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been widespread public disquiet about the Post Office for many years, and that when a Postmaster-General is appointed he is expected, at any rate by those on these Benches, to govern?
LORD SHINWELL: I am sorry to pursue this matter, but is it not possible that a mistake occurred: that the intention was to sack Lord Robens, and the names got mixed up?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask one further question; that is, how the Minister squares his statement that this appointment was terminated by agreement with the fact that on the news on the radio this morning Lord Hall was reported as saying that he did not agree with the termination and that he was going to consult his lawyers?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Minister has powers under the Post Office Act 1969, Section 6(3) and (4), and Schedule 1, paragraph 5(1). He has not used these powers. The appointment of the noble Lord has been terminated by agreement and compensation is being discussed. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that this is one way in which appointments are terminated. To use powers under Statutes is another.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think we have had a pretty long innings on this.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
EARL JELLICOE: I recognise that this is a contentious decision, but I think it is within our normal practice that we do not turn a statement and the supplementaries following a statement into a debate. If noble Lords opposite wish to debate this question at a later date, of course time will be provided; but we have a great many speakers on our main Motion to-day, and I think it would be in accordance with our normal practice now to proceed with our debate.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong matters, but will the noble Earl the Leader of the House take note that a statement such as this, which merely says that "it is in the best interests" of the Corporation that something
152
should happen, is not dealing fairly with the House?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I of course take note of what the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Opposition has said, and this is a matter which could very well be debated if necessary.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would the noble Earl—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SLATER: No: let us be fair about this. I know too much about this for many noble Lords.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Shame!
LORD SLATER: Never mind about "shame!". I am speaking as one who has had some experience in the Post Office, which other people have not. Would the Minister, in reply to his noble friend Lord Alport, remind him and the Members of this House that there is not only one Deputy Chairman attached to that Board, but that there are two, and that Mr. Whitney Straight, of Rolls Royce, is the second Deputy Chairman? Why should we get a question directed to the Minister to-day suggesting that Mr. Ryland should take over the duties of Lord Hall as Chairman of the Board in view of there being two Deputy Chairmen?
LORD WINDLESHAM: It is very unusual, my Lords, for noble Lords not to take the advice of the Leader of the House, and I do not think that I should add to what I have said.
LORD SLATER: Running away!

THE SEABED: WORLD OCEAN REGIME PROPOSAL
4.8 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, if we may now return to the question of the seabed and to the Motions put down on the Order Paper by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich and by my noble friend Lord Kennet, I should like to say that I am grateful, as I am sure many noble Lords are, to both the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend for putting down these matters for debate to-day. I am particularly grateful

153
to the right reverend Prelate for the forceful and lucid way in which he has presented this problem to us. It is scarcely surprising that, with his distinguished record as a geologist and explorer, he should have these matters at his fingertips; and I am most grateful to him for the way in which he has introduced this subject to us. There are certain things he said with which I find myself unable to agree, but these are largely matters of detail and not of principle.
This subject is of particular interest to me because when the British attitude to this problem was being evolved I was the Minister responsible for these matters at the Foreign Office. Indeed, I well remember that my first contact with this problem was of rather a strange kind. It was early in my Foreign Office life when I went to New York to a meeting of the United Nations. I was then particularly interested in disarmament, and was making my way to a room in the United Nations building where I thought a disarmament committee was going to sit, only to find my way barred by a United Nations guard who said, "You can't go in there. There is a Standing Committee sitting on the seabed." It seemed to me then that this was obviously a matter which needed further investigation.
My Lords, as we have heard from the right reverend Prelate, there are two major proposals which have been put forward in an attempt to solve this matter on an inter-Governmental basis: the British working paper and the United States draft treaty, both of which were tabled at the United Nations in August of this year. The right reverend Prelate also mentioned (and I think it worth mentioning because it does not, for a perfectly good reason, appear in the Motion of my noble friend Lord Kennet) that there is a French working paper as well which follows quite closely the principles included in the British paper. As my noble friend Lord Kennet will be drawing attention to the two existing proposals, the American and the British, I do not propose to deal at any length with either of them in the form in which they exist at the moment. The United States draft treaty is a monumental work which it is going to take many months to study, and I imagine that Her Majesty's Government are still engaged in a close examination of this paper which contains a great number
154
of detailed proposals and is in the form of a draft international instrument and not simply in the form of a paper.
What I should like to do this afternoon, I hope briefly, is to outline the general philosophy which I believe should underlie our approach to this problem. It is from this general philosophy that the British working paper eventually emerged. I think that one would agree at once with the underlying implications of the speech made by the right reverend Prelate, which is that in this as in other fields of international activity it is the jungle of conflicting national interests that lies at the root of many of our troubles; it is not only a matter of the seabed, it is a matter of many other international problems as well. But I think we must accept that this is the kind of world in which we live at present. The nation-State concept is not only with us but is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations; and it seems to me that if we are going to reach any international agreement on this subject then, as on any other, we must take into account national interests and we must be prepared to make concessions and exact conditions about national interests.
Before going into the actual question of how we might approach this problem, may I say that I propose to confine myself to the matter of the seabed. Although I note that in the Motion of the right reverend Prelate he mentions the "ocean régime" and he makes a real point in his suggestion that the waters of the sea and the bed of the ocean are part of one eco-structure, I think that we shall face all manner of difficulties if in this particular debate we try to deal at the same time with the question of the seabed and the question of the ocean surface and the waters of the sea. I have no doubt that the right reverend Prelate will have realised clearly that both the matters to which my noble friend is drawing attention, the United States treaty and the British working paper, deal with the seabed alone and not with what is sometimes called the superjacent waters.
I think that the first requirement—and here I believe that he and I will be at one—is for some kind of international agreement. We must get away from the possibility, or indeed the great danger, of a commercial jungle in exploiting the resources of the seabed. Whether we

155
need one treaty or several treaties, I do not know; and whether, if we need several, they should be arrived at simultaneously or by a progressive series of international instruments, is a matter for further discussion. I think the one thing we can all agree upon is that if we arrive at such an agreement it will be of use only if it is to a very great extent a universal agreement; that is to say, if it is one to which at least the great majority of members of the United Nations are prepared to accede.
If we agree that we need some kind of international instrument or treaty or agreement, the next question is: what should that treaty cover? We can answer this quite simply, leaving aside for the moment the suggestion that we should include the waters of the ocean as well, by saying that what that treaty should cover are the seabed, the ocean floor and the subsoil of the ocean floor. Then we must ask ourselves this question—and it is one that almost answers itself: What in that particular environment are the resources with which we are dealing? I think we can agree—as I say, it is virtually self-evident—that these are largely mineral resources: hydrocarbons, manganese nodules, phosphates and that kind of mineral. And it is perhaps worth making the point now that we should not exaggerate the possible wealth which lies in and on the ocean floor. I have seen some estimates in newspapers and magazines which in my view are wildly exaggerated. It will be a long time before we can get the kind of wealth from the ocean floor that some people think is possible. But this does not alter the fact that we are dealing with substantial potential sources of wealth. We need an international agreement, one that covers the ocean floor and the subsoil; and we need one that deals with the potential production of the mineral wealth of this environment.
Now, my Lords, we come to the most complicated question; namely, what area should this international agreement cover? I agree with the right reverend Prelate when he says that it is most important that when any treaty comes into force there should be no doubt about the area to which it applies. The boundaries must be clearly defined so that there is no doubt or room for argument.
156
There are various possibilities here. As we are going to find ourselves inevitably involved in political arguments about this aspect, whatever may be the economic and technical arguments, it may be as well to be clear about the possibilities; and I think that before doing that we ought to get clear one or two definitions. A part of the earth's crust or surface or rock is
covered by the sea. This is known generally as the Continental Margin. I should like to make the point, before going any further, that it is going to be difficult, without a great deal of argument, to persuade coastal States exactly where their national interest and jurisdiction will end on the Continental Margin.
Before considering this it may be interesting to look at how that Continental Margin, the part of the surface that slopes into the ocean, is divided. It is divided into three main areas. First, there is the Continental Shelf, about which we hear so very much, which is a shallow extension of the land mass that goes down to a depth of nearly 200 metres. That then gives way to the Continental Slope, which is a much steeper descent into the ocean; indeed it goes down to a depth of anything between 1,500 metres and 4,000 metres. Those two, incidentally, the Continental Shelf and the Continental Slope, are, generally speaking, rocky, and similar to the surface of the land mass. The final part of the Continental Margin is the Continental Rise, which is another gentle slope down to the floor of the ocean. This usually is not rocky but consists of sediment swept down from the Continental Shelf and the Continental Slope, and that goes down to depths which average something like 5,000 metres—much deeper, of course, in some places.
Beyond all that there is what we usually think of as the ocean floor—what I think the right reverend Prelate will recognise as the Abyssal Plain. The question is, how much of this Continental Margin, consisting of these three areas, belongs to national jurisdiction, and how much should be available for international exploitation and exploration. Clearly, this is an important question because countries with long coastlines, like our own, for example, have different interests from those with short coastlines or none at all; and as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out (and as many others have

157
pointed it out in the context of this argument) it is quite wrong that landlocked countries should have no interest in, or no benefit from, the resources of the ocean floor.
We have had various attempts to deal with this problem, and it is in some ways analogous to the way in which other problems have been dealt with. If you start off with unilateral claims which become accepted, these claims can be gradually extended, and insidiously extended. In 1945, for example, the United States, I think, was the first to lay claim to the Continental Shelf. This was on the occasion of the Louisiana oil find. Perhaps the most up-to-date and firm guidance that we have on this is the Convention to which the Lord Bishop made reference, the Geneva Convention of 1958, which came into force in 1964. This, as he said, laid it down that the national jurisdiction extended down the Continental Shelf—that is to say, to a depth of roughly 200 metres—but if there were adjacent areas beyond the depth of 200 metres which the coastal country could, technically speaking, exploit, it was entitled to exploit them. But the important matter was that they were to be adjacent to the Continental Shelf and not isolated from it by any distance.
The right reverend Prelate has asked (and I would echo his question, which is also being asked by a great number of people): is this Convention good enough any longer? It has been good enough up to now, I think, because undersea exploration has usually been confined to depths like 200 metres. But we learn from recent publications by the United States National Petroleum Council that even now exploration is possible, and indeed easy, up to a depth of 400 metres. They suggest that within five years this will rise to 500 metres; and they further say that in ten years, if technological development continues on its present graph, underseas exploration of the seabed will be possible, and not too difficult, to a depth of 2,000 metres. It seems, therefore, that the present Geneva Convention is not a good enough basis for the kind of international régime that we are seeking.
We have taken the view—my Party certainly took the view when we were in office, and I think that view has not
158
changed since—that there ought to be a reasonably deep limit to national jurisdiction. We have, for example, certain national interests which I think it right we should take into account in whatever international negotiations we enter into. We have hydro-carbon deposits, for example, round our own land mass on and off the Continental Shelf which we shall want to exploit. But I think that most noble Lords would agree with the right reverend Prelate that we must be prepared to accept that the interests of the international community might, and in many cases will, override our own narrow national interests; and I think that at that stage we must be prepared to concede our national interest to the good of the national community.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned the American idea of a trusteeship zone. This is the basis of the American proposal: that there should be a very narrow area of national jurisdiction on the Continental Shelf, but that between that and the ocean floor there should be a trusteeship zone. I agree with the right reverend Prelate (I think this was his implication) that the objection to this idea is that it would still give too great a power to the coastal State which would be the trustee to decide how that particular zone is to be exploited.
So the first thing to be done, as the right reverend Prelate said—although towards the end of his most interesting speech he made a proposal of a much broader and deeper kind—is that we must negotiate what is the actual area that is to be subject to international jurisdiction. Is it to be a very wide one beyond the Continental Shelf and into the area that has previously been recognised as being one for national jurisdiction? Or is it to be very restricted? Is it, for example, to be outside only the Continental Margin? Is it to cover only the Abyssal Plain, or the ocean floor, as we know it in simpler language? Here I think I would suggest to the noble Earl that the interests of Her Majesty's Government should be as flexible and as open-minded as possible about this and not on any account to let our national interest in terms of exploiting our own hydro-carbon deposits stand in the way of an international agreement, if that is what the majority of the members of the United Nations want.

159
I was interested to see—indeed, the right reverend Prelate mentioned it and quoted part of this statement—that on August 4, 1970, the United Kingdom representative did say that this country would also be prepared to consider the United States' proposal for a shallow limit of national jurisdiction and a trusteeship zone beyond it, if this idea appealed generally to members of the committee. This may be a little speculative, but I think we shall find that the majority of the United Nations will want narrow limits of national jurisdiction, but that they will not want a trusteeship zone. They will want a much wider area of international régime, and I hope that, if they do, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to concede of our own national interest in order to achieve this.
My Lords, the next question we have to ask, when we have decided what area and what resources we are dealing with, is how this international régime is to be organised. I believe—and this I think is where the right reverend Prelate and I may diverge to some extent—that the international body which is set up to carry out this task must be an inter-Governmental body; that it must be part of the United Nations. It must have a board of governors drawn from member States of the United Nations. The idea that this can be done by some kind of world government organisation, although attractive to those who believe that the Nation State concept is obsolescent, is for the moment, I believe, unrealistic; and in this we are faced not only with a long-term problem, as the right reverend Prelate rightly said, but also with an immediate problem. The United Kingdom have put forward a proposal that what we should do is to divide the area which is finally decided as being subject to international régime into blocks; that these blocks should be allocated by a system of quotas, and that the blocks should be allocated to States and not to commercial concerns. The States can then sub-licence, if they wish, to commercial concerns for exploitation, and they can, if they wish, sub-licence to foreign firms, so that this will not militate against the opportunities of developing countries to have some part in the exploitation of the seabed.
Tbere are various problems about this subject, complex problems which obviously have to be faced. There is the question
160
of the size of the block that is to be allocated. It must be large enough to be exploited, but it must be small enough to see that there is a share for everyone. We have to decide what proportion of the block goes to each State. We have to decide about licences. We have suggested that there should be two kinds: one for prospecting, which would be a non-exclusive kind of licence and which would give people the right of exploration over a wide area, and the other would be a development licence, which would be exclusive to the State and the concern that was engaged in the exploitation of the seabed.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords. I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but is not this proposal of national blocks an absolute repudiation of the principle of internationalism, which he has previously urged?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords, I do not think that it is. I was coming to that later, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I deal with it now. It seems to me that in this matter we have to look not only to the immediate future. when only the developed and highly industrialised countries that exist today will be able to exploit the sea bed, but also to 20, 25 or 50 years ahead, when many of the countries we regard as developing may be highly industrialised and may be able and may wish to have their own national slice of ocean floor exploitation. I merely put forward incidentally the idea of blocks to be issued by an international body to the national States as a proposal, not as any kind of clear-cut and finished plan. It is merely one way of doing this and I have no doubt that when my noble friend Lord Brockway comes to speak he will have other ideas to put forward.
I do not agree that the idea of national blocks is in conflict with the idea of an international régime. So long as we live in a world of nation States and a single international body, such as we have to-day in the United Nations, which embodies the concept of the national State, I am afraid that I am at a loss to see how else we are going to split up the resources of the ocean bed. I suppose there is one other way of doing it. All the products of the seabed, all the profits

161
and revenues from the mineral resources of the ocean, should be split up, not equally but by some kind of agreement on a sliding scale, among all the countries of the world, including the developing countries. This is an interesting international concept, but, of course, it would mean in the end that what would happen would be that the industrial countries would do all the exploration and exploiting and the developing countries would simply be on the end of some aid programme, receiving a proportion of the revenues from the industrial countries. I regard that as being far less of an international proposal than the splitting of the ocean bed into national blocks. But perhaps when my noble friend comes to speak, he will give us his views on that.
There are numerous problems. I will not take up any more of your Lordships' time than I need to and would merely mention one to which the right reverend Prelate referred—the question of verification. Under the system I have outlined, which would be an inter-governmental system in which the allocation of blocks would be to States and not to companies, it would be for their control bodies to hold inspections to make sure that the proper operational procedures were being carried out and that the international agreement was being observed; but it would be the States that would be responsible for what was going on.
There was one point about the right reverend Prelate's proposals which, if I understood him aright, would cause me a great deal of concern—that was his suggestion that this should be somehow decided on a pattern of "Securicor", with the firms themselves being responsible for this kind of international policing. If I have misunderstood him, I hope that he will tell me so. If not, I must say that I would regard this as a very dangerous and retrograde step. I believe that in international affairs we must look to Governments and certainly not to commercial and industrial concerns.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in saying what I had suggested. I feel that in respect of the actually interested parties it should be borne in mind that, according to the Borgese proposals, the United Nations is represented. This is not an unimportant factor. Secondly, I would
162
ask: has international peace and agreement been achieved through national agencies?—because it has not. I merely suggest this as a possibility. If we get enough common agreement in what is at stake, the ease with which policing could become feasible is astonishing. Take, for example, the Red Cross.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has underlined what he said and I can only underline what I said. Of course it is true that inter-governmental negotiations have not brought us world peace: it would be foolish to suggest that they have. But I feel the gravest misgivings at the thought that in a matter of this importance we may now be trying, not policing by States and international authority, but self-policing by industrial concerns. To be perfectly frank, this would fill me and a great many of my friends with horror.
May we look for a moment at the Borgese proposals, which the right reverend Prelate has endorsed with such vigour? I had an opportunity of discussing these with Mrs. Borgese when she was in this country recently. Clearly there is a great deal in them which is imaginative and towards which I hope we shall be able to move in time. However, I feel bound to say at this stage that any proposal for an international régime which is based on the concept of a world government is bound to be a very long-term matter indeed. I think that we must still use the tools we have at hand to solve the immediate problem. But let us by no means have too rigid an approach. Let us look ahead for 25, 50 and even 100 years. It may be that in the longer-term context, in the proposals put forward by Mrs. Borgese and argued out in Malta, which have been presented so clearly by the right reverend Prelate to-day, there is a great deal from which we can learn.
Finally, I should like to mention two other important aspects of this problem closely linked with the international régime. One is conservation—that is, preventing the pollution of the ocean floor, and this must clearly be included in any agreement. The second is the question of arms control, the prevention of the sowing of weapons of mass destruction on the ocean floor. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, a draft

163
treaty on this subject is being discussed at the moment in Geneva and in New York. I am sure that he will have noticed, as I have, that as usual the one thing that stands in the way of the successful conclusion of this treaty is the raucous insistence by a number of United Nations countries on their national interests—interests in inspection and in territorial waters. There are some people who are now arguing that their territorial waters should extend for 200 miles into the ocean and even suggest that what goes on underneath those 200 miles is their exclusive concern. It is this over-raucous and exaggerated insistence on national interests that stands in the way of almost any international agreement that is worth having. What we are faced with now is this clear conflict of interest. The industrial countries, especially the coastal States, will not easily give up their national interests. They will not easily give up what they would regard as their territory. They simply say: "This is our territory; it just happens to be under the sea instead of above it." The developing countries are naturally reluctant to see all these mineral resources in the hands of a few.
There is one question that I think must be asked about all this, and it is the question of money. Where is the money coming from? There has been a suggestion that there should be a 1 per cent. levy, as there is for development aid—of course the 1 per cent. for development aid is not really a levy, it is merely a suggested target. That is one way of doing it. But I think it will be difficult to find this money, especially if it is realised that for some time to come the major activities of the coastal States will be on the Continental Shelf, and they will be reluctant to pay out money for the international exploitation of the ocean bed deep down in the Abyssal Plain. I should like simply to say that I think that the ideas so far put forward by the United States, the United Kingdom Government and to some extent, by the French Government are a step forward. But they are only a step forward, and I know that many people would like to see this going much further and much faster. It is not an easy matter.
I am happy to say that since this matter first became one of live concern the
164
United Kingdom Government have taken a lead in trying to find a way through this jungle. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when he comes to reply to the debate, will assure us that we will continue to play a major role, so that we shall ensure—and I think this would be the wish of us all—that the resources of the seabed shall not ever be the subject of a land grab, either by nations, or still less by industrial concerns out for quick private profit, but that for once, at least, we can ensure that the resources of the world are fairly shared among all those who live in it.
4.42 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, there is a great deal that I would endorse in both speeches to which we have listened. The subject that the right reverend Prelate has introduced to-day is as important as it is immense, and I, for one, approach it with a real sense of humility, but at the same time with an open mind. I think I should declare my interest as a director of a company which is interested in the exploration for and the development of mineral resources throughout the world, although what I have to say on the subject is a personal expression of opinion, and, I hope, one that will be generally supported by the Liberal Party itself.
I think it is encouraging in many ways that the undefined area outside territorial waters has at last become a matter of serious international discussion and concern. I think this is an important factor which ought to be recognised. I believe that it is easier to define the problems than to provide an instant, acceptable international solution. But the mere fact that we are examining the problems and debating them in depth is surely right. So often in the past these problems have just been swept aside, and it is important that they should be the subject of discussion. I have no instant solution, but I should like to put forward some considerations which I believe deserve attention.
I propose to cover the limited field of mineral exploration and extraction, but before doing so I should like to mention two urgent matters associated with the ocean, one of which has certainly been touched upon by both the speakers who preceded me. It does not affect directly the seabed, so far as I know, but is the

165
question of the pollution of the oceans themselves. Those who travel by sea, and in some cases by air, can see with their own eyes the vast areas of rubbish and garbage on the ocean surface. This summer several American warships went into one of the prettiest bays in Malta, of all places, and after 48 hours the water was a floating garbage and sewage tip. If this goes into the ocean every day in the deep sea, are we certain that it is destroyed; and are we certain that it is not having a serious effect cumulatively on the ecology of the ocean? It is not just the American warships: it could have been any warships, or any other ships. Do we really know what is happening in the oceans of the world so far as that type of pollution is concerned?
I was interested to see that Commander Cousteau gave a Press conference at the Council of Europe the other day, in which he said:
"A sea polluted throughout its expanses and to its very depth is not a very reassuring picture. Now even the coral reefs are dying."
At this Press conference Commander Cousteau cited alarming statistics to stress how limited our planet's reserves of water are. He first explained that efforts should be concentrated on the sea, since all pollution ended up there: for instance, the lead from our car exhaust fumes—at present the percentage of lead in the top 100 metres of the sea is five times what it was fifty years ago—not to mention petroleum, insecticides, aldrine, D.D T., mercury, cadmium, nickel, iron and so on. This is a problem with which we have to deal, and I do not believe that action on this can await the setting up of a new international agency. This is what worries me. I think this is a very urgent matter indeed, and that it ought to be tackled probably as a separate and urgent problem by the United Nations, and particularly by the major maritime nations of the world within the United Nations.
The second matter I wish to mention is the military use or control of the oceans outside the territorial waters. I believe (I am not certain of this) that this, too, ought to be dealt with as a separate issue. I do not believe that it can be solved by dealing with it on the same basis as the development and control of the seabed. The problems impinge on one another, but I believe that their political solutions ought to be kept
166
separate. I am worried that arguments about military problems will hold up the development of a proper ocean régime which should be getting on with different problems. I think that if you put too many burdens on to such a régime you will find that progress will be extremely slow.
To return to the aspect which primarily interests me, which is the resources of the seabed and the mineral potential, I want to make the following points. I think that, first of all, we should try to get our objectives clear. We must decide whether we want to encourage or discourage exploration and development of the sea. We must decide whether it should be done by extending territorial waters (and I hope we shall not), or by setting upon agreed non-national zone controlled by an international authority. We must decide to whom the benefits, if any, of any exploration and development should accrue. We should decide whether existing ventures, like North Sea gas and oil, Alaska, Venezuela offshore operations and such like, should be brought under the aegis of a new authority or not. I can foresee difficulties there. If a new authority is agreed, we should decide what its functions should be. Should it explore and operate on its own account as a monopoly; should it do so in collaboration with Governments or with national private enterprise organisations, or all three, and have a combination of them; or should it merely lay down the ground rules and act as the policing authority to see that those rules are obeyed? Then, again, as I have said, we have to decide who are to be the beneficiaries of this heritage of mankind and how the benefits are to be assessed and distributed. Those are only some of the deep and important questions which have been posed.
I now turn briefly to some tentative answers. First, whatever is done to explore the seabed, we should make sure that we know what we are doing before it is undertaken. Even the act of exploring can affect the ecology of the area in which we are interested; and if we are serious in regarding this part of the universe as a heritage, then let us treat it as such and prevent random and thoughtless development. I was extremely worried by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that we should split the seabed up into national

167
blocks, because I believe you would get varying standards of performance and standards of ethics in dealing with the problem.
Secondly, we should think carefully whether we need to develop or exploit the mineral occurrences at this point of time. I am not convinced on this; I have an open mind on it. But it is a question that ought to be asked. There may well be a place for exploration to discover what is there, and to find out what we are really dealing with, possibly by the international agency itself, certainly under its supervision. You might let the exploration out to contract.
Do we need to look to the seabed for development at this point of time when so much of the world's land resources are yet undiscovered? Just look at the world's resources as we entered the decade of the 'sixties compared with to-day. The thousands of millions of tons of Western Australian iron ore were then unknown; so was the copper of Papua, New Guinea, Canada and elsewhere. The vast bauxite deposits of Brazil and the nickel deposits in Australia have been discovered in the past ten years. One of the things that worries me about a possible rush to develop the seabed is pollution. If processing of minerals is going to take place at sea—and I assume most of it will, because one is not going to bring everything back to the shore—one must not have an operation which merely tips all the rubbish and waste from the process back into the ocean without realising what effect it is going to have on the ecology. That is why I feel that a good deal of research will be required by the international régime before we rush ahead to development.
Thirdly, if we are to encourage development, ought we not to ensure that it is under an international agency which can command respect, lay down the guidelines and protect society from thoughtless development of the seabed? It is in the interests of the mining and development companies themselves to know where they stand and to know that their competitors will be asked to maintain high standards, too. This, again, is an argument against the national block. I am worried about our varying standards instead of having a very high standard which has to be
168
maintained, supervised and policed by an international authority—
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to explain that in the course of what I hope was a comparatively short exposition—I did not have time to go too deeply into this subject—I intended to convey that in the concept that I have outlined there would be a very comprehensive international inspection system, not only to verify that the rules of the international agreement were being adhered to but to do the very thing that he has asked should be done; that is, to ensure that there is a uniform standard of ethics and operating procedures. I have not time to explain all this. This is contained in the concept of the national block.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I accept that. I am still worried, however, about the possibility of having 40 or 50 different nations operating in different ways without knowing what the effect of each one of those operations is on the totality of the ecological and other problems of the ocean. The ocean is not like land: the water flows, and other things arise. This is a debate which ought to go on. I am not totally convinced that I am right; I am certainly not totally convinced that the noble Lord has a good case. But this is what has to be argued.
Without an international authority I believe you could get one or two highly unsatisfactory situations. You could possibly get both of these in different parts of the world at the same time. You could get unilateral encouragement of development by individual nations within that block giving inducements which would result in haphazard, uncontrolled and socially undesirable developments, like "picking out the eyes" of the minerals, and just taking the best at the lowest cost. There could also be an outbreak of economic nationalism. Economic nationalism, in my view, has been responsible in many ways for the slower development of the underdeveloped countries. There, again, I believe that an international agency could possibly override these particular things. Some form of international authority, and an agreed system of procedure, is essential. The benefit should clearly not be available exclusively to the country which has a territorial limit contiguous with the ocean.

169
I like the idea that there should be an international régime which would share out the benefits in an agreed way; that the underdeveloped nations, whether they have a coastline or not, should be allowed to benefit from this world-international heritage. I believe that mere discussion of this problem at this stage in time will bring a new dimension into international political discussion. For that reason I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for having initiated this debate.
4.55 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we are all grateful for the opportunity which the right reverend Prelate has given us this afternoon to debate an increasingly important and extraordinarily complex subject. I can think of no one in your Lordships' House more eminently qualified than the right reverend Prelate to initiate such a debate. He is not only a distinguished geologist, he is also the former Director of the Scott Polar Institute, and a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
We are all very grateful for the two very informed and eloquent speeches which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I find myself very close to the philosophy which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was expressing. I hope he will not think it unholy of me to suggest this "unholy alliance". I rather suspect that when the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, comes to speak he may dispel any illusion of an "unholy alliance" between the Front Benches on this matter.
I wonder whether I may sketch in the background to the Government's stance on this matter. Your Lordships may recall that, only a couple of weeks ago, in answer to a Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I reaffirmed the support of Her Majesty's Government for the principle that the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction should be subject to an international agreement and regarded as part of the common heritage of mankind. I should like again to reaffirm this, because I believe that on this principle we are all absolutely at one. The United Nations Seabed Committee has long accepted the proposition that there is an area of seabed and ocean floor, and the
170
subsoil thereof, underlying the high seas which lies beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. The necessary corollary to this is the need for some international régime. We all know that there is an enormous variety of opinion as to the precise limits of this régime. Be that as it may, only the most extreme advocate of national sovereignty—and I am not one—would claim that national jurisdiction should extend beyond the Continental Margin, or divide the floors of the deep ocean. Here again, we are all at one.
In any event, Her Majesty's Government believe that if progress in this matter is to be made, it will be the result of a long, hard slog in the United Nations Seabed Committee, of which we are founder members and in which Governments of various political complexions have played a very constructive part. Progress in the Committee has been desperately slow, but it would be wrong to expect a speedy solution to what is an immensely complicated matter. In any event, we have worked, and will continue to work, for progress on three central and connected subjects: first, a definition of the limits to national jurisdiction; second, the adoption of a régime which covers the area beyond national jurisdiction, and third, the creation of suitable arrangements to regulate such a régime. We regard these problems as interrelated—as they clearly are, because States can hardly be expected to agree on an international régime for the seabed in the absence of any idea of the area over which that régime should operate, and vice versa.
The proposals which we have put before the Seabed Committee were worked out towards the end of last year, and presented more formally in August of this year. They do not come down in favour of any particular limit, although we have told the Committee that our preference (and here I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said) is for a reasonably deep limit to national jurisdiction, or a combination of depth and width to give a broad, deep limit. We have until now tended to favour this type of solution as a matter of national interest (we have an undoubted national interest here), and also because we believe that to be realistic an agreement must take due account—I will put it no higher than that—of the interests of

171
coastal States. But, by the same token, we are also prepared to take full account of the views of others, including the proposals which are embodied in the American draft convention. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that at this stage a flexible approach of this kind, in what is an exceedingly difficult matter with an infinite number of national cross-currents, is the only right one.
Our working paper is very much more specific on the question of a régime. The ideas it contains about this proposal are the result of very wide consultations, both nationally and internationally. I would submit that the paper is a constructive and, indeed, important British contribution to the seabed problem; and I think that as such should be very carefully studied, as it has been and will be this afternoon by your Lordships, and in the country at large. But I should like to stress, following what has already been said in this discussion, that this paper is only a working paper. It is not, as I think is almost implied in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, a blueprint for international agreement—though I accept that I have misread the Motion. The American draft convention, on the other hand, is a blueprint. Ours is not; ours is a sketch—a carefully worked out sketch, but a flexible sketch, if that is not a contradiction in terms.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl to say now, in case I forget to say it later, that on the very front page of the American paper there is a note saying, "This is all adjustable and we do not mean, 'Take it or leave it'."
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, I accept that too, my Lords. But, as in the case of limits, we remain open to other proposals for a régime.
In addition to the very detailed proposals which have been tabled by the Americans, I would mention the working paper tabled by the French. Like the British and American papers, the French paper figures as an Annex to the Report of the August session of the Seabed Committee. The similarities between the French paper and the British one are not perhaps entirely coincidental, because they offer evidence of the progress being made towards agreement. They demonstrate
172
another significant point: that on this immensely complex issue there is a very large measure of understanding between the States of Western Europe. Given the common dependence on the oceans of that small chunk of the earth which is represented by the Western extension of Eurasia, this is as it should be.
A cardinal point in the British working paper, the point which I should like to emphasise above all others, is that the seabed régime should be established by means of an international agreement.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I should like to ask this question. At a meeting of the Seabed Committee the British representative said that we were inclined to favour a simpler division between national areas and those subject to the international régime. Can the Minister say what were the simpler arrangements the British Government had in mind when that observation was made?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am afraid that on this matter the noble Lord is better informed than I am, as I do not know the precise context in which that observation was made, More simple than what?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, and it may be out of Order, but as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is going to speak, and as the noble Earl is, by leave of the House, going to reply, would it not be better if this point were answered at a later stage?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord is not at all out of Order and I think that what he suggests is extremely sensible. I will certainly return to that point when I reply.
I should like to say just one thing. Quite deliberately we do not follow the terms of the right reverend Prelate's Motion and refer to the agreement we have in mind as governing a "world ocean régime", which is the phrase in his Motion. We do not use such phraseology because we believe that such a description might suggest that matters such as the freedom of the high seas, which are already regulated by international law, should be reopened. There are also the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has referred. Such

173
a description might also be taken to mean that work might be suspended on just those matters which are being dealt with successfully in other forums, such as the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament. Pollution is also being handled in other forums. But, my Lords, that said, we are well to the fore among those advocating that an international convention should be created to ensure the equitable exploration and exploitation of the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
There is one particular point on the British working paper on which I should like to dwell for a moment. It has been suggested—it has again been suggested this afternoon; and I think it was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in a supplementary question recently—that because our paper proposes that the international agreement to be negotiated should provide for the allocation of licences to States we are thereby advocating the creation of parcels of national jurisdiction over the seabed. The right reverend Prelate put a number of fairly searching questions to me in that context, and he was clearly worried about the part which, under our proposals, the nation State, with all its self-regarding preoccupations, would play. I take his point, but I must say that I incline to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I should like the right reverend Prelate, and other noble Lords who feel like this, to ask themselves whether there are not, on reflection, obvious attractions in dealing with States in this context, rather than with bodies which do not have as clearly defined a status in international law. Let them consider, too, the advantages in dealing with nation States rather than with other bodies in terms of the possibilities of arbitration and the settlement of the inevitable disputes which will arise.
There is, I grant, the danger to which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred: that one would get exploitation of quite different varieties in different national blocks according to different standards. This is, I grant, a possibility. But I also should have thought that if we get the right type of international régime there is no reason at all why that régime, that organisation, should not lay down standard criteria and have means of ensuring that those criteria are followed.
174
This is something I should have thought could be worked out.
In this connection, I should like to make a further point to the right reverend Prelate. It is one which I should like him, and others, to ponder carefully in the rather idealistic frame—I am not quarrelling with it—in which he has so attractively couched his remarks this afternoon; and it is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has already touched on. The techniques and the skills of really deep sea—of deep ocean—exploration and exploitation are at present the possession of a mere handful of advanced nations. Among these the United States at present holds a preeminent position, although the other leading industrialised nations of the world, including those of Western Europe, are playing an active part. If we accept the principle of some form of licensing system—I repeat, if—but at the same time elbow out the nation State, as I think the right reverend Prelate suggests we might do; if, as I take it he suggests, we issue licences direct to commercial operators, or cut out States, then I would suggest there is a real danger of our freezing and fossilising the present position, where the United States and some other advanced industrialised countries are in the van of progress and where the developing countries have hardly got into the act at all.
We should have to do one of two things. Either the international authority would itself have to undertake these operations, or licences would have to be issued to corporations and companies direct. I believe (I may be wrong about this, because I think we should all suspend part of our judgment here) that the former course would be unworkable; and the latter course, by cutting out the States and licensing operators direct, would confer a great and perhaps permanent advantage on the great American companies or the great international corporations, or indeed the great industrial giants which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has the honour to represent.
I would suggest, therefore, to the right reverend Prelate that our proposals have important advantages for the developing countries. Blocks would be reserved for them, and apart from the operator possessing the necessary technical and financial competence there would be no

175
restriction under our proposals which would limit the means by which the State concerned might in fact exploit the areas for which it holds licences, subject of course to agreed criteria. Thus there would be nothing to stop the developing country from issuing sub-licences to foreign companies, provided the international community had no objection, nor from enabling it to exploit the blocks for which it had obtained licences.
My Lords, precisely because we do not think that the balance here should be tilted in favour of the richest or the most technically advanced countries, our proposals limit the number of blocks which any one State may accumulate at any one time. Thus the gambling vision conjured up for us by the right reverend Prelate of Uncle Sam or somebody else, perhaps, sitting beside a vast and unlimited pile of deep ocean chips is not a realistic one—that is to say, if our proposals or something like them are adopted.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl how he is going to ensure that the underdeveloped nations get a fair share of this? I should have thought that the chances of their being given something which might be a bonanza are fairly remote, because one does not know what is happening until one explores. Would it not be much better if they shared in the totality of the royalties and the revenue coming into the international agencies rather than taking a "lucky dip" attitude and getting the wrong part of the ocean?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that is one way, I grant; but it seems to me that it has the disadvantage that there would be very little encouragement or stimulus for them to develop their own skills and techniques in this area.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I think the noble Earl will agree that for many years to come people will be dependent upon American and Western European technology. The point at issue is how the underdeveloped nations can benefit from the totality of the royalties.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, there is a way which I have already suggested: that provided it was acceptable to the international régime the developing country could sub-licence.
LORD BYERS: If it has anything to sub-licence.
EARL JELLICOE: But, my Lords, it has a block and it could sub-licence that block and perhaps bring in some great corporation in partnership. I should have thought that that was a perfectly acceptable and practical approach. I am far from claiming that our scheme, although it has been carefully elaborated, represents perfection. All I would say is that it has not been advanced lightly; it is the result of a great deal of careful consultation and considerable deliberation. It is specifically designed to ensure the equitable distribution of licences and to provide an opportunity for all States to share in the development of the resources of the seabed and not only those who are in the van of progress at the present time.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships for too long, but may I just turn for a moment to the United States draft convention? It is a truly formidable document, and I think it has quite recently been described as something in the way of an intellectual tour de force. It is certainly a massive tour de force, consisting of no less than 78 articles, 5 appendices and the promise of a good deal more to come. For this and other good reasons Her Majesty's Government do not wish at the present time to take up a final decision on the American draft convention. However, we welcomed it when it appeared because we believed it to be an important contribution to the international consideration of seabed problems.
Your Lordships will recognise that the provisions in the draft convention for seabed limits are not those we ourselves originally had in mind. They would reduce the present jurisdiction of coastal States over their Continental Shelves by setting the limit at 200 metres rather than whatever depth beyond that is capable of exploitation, as is the case under the existing Continental Shelf Convention. On the other hand, the draft convention takes account of the interests of coastal States through its provisions for a trusteeship area in which they would enjoy certain privileges by international agreement. I know that those have been criticised in some quarters but, my Lords, we would

177
certainly not wish to rule out this proposal without much further study, because what we are looking for is a solution which will be acceptable to the international community as a whole. All I can say is that I hope—and indeed I expect—that other Governments will be giving the United States proposals the same very careful consideration that we are giving them.
May I just touch on two further matters at this stage? Some noble Lords have already referred to the problem of marine pollution, and I suspect that others will do so in the course of this debate. We are of course going to discuss the problems of pollution next week, but may I just say this? The British working paper comes out squarely in favour of including provisions in any international agreement on the seabed for controlling pollution arising from research, exploration and exploitation, but it does not envisage wider and more comprehensive pollution control measures because we are far from being convinced that this would be the most effective way of solving the problems involved here. I think this is another case where we should be very wise to avoid duplication, because the questions of marine pollution are being handled, and indeed energetically handled, in other international forums like the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. But, my Lords, let me emphasise that we do not wish in any way to hamstring the controls over marine pollution. On the contrary, it is our sole desire that the control system should be made more effective in this area, and I know there is no one more anxious that this should be so than the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who is the new chairman (having inherited this arduous job from me, and before that from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton) of the Advisory Committee on the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil.
I think we can take some real pride in the fact that we have been in the van of the world community in our thinking about and in taking practical steps to deal with this insidious menace of marine pollution—the progressive fouling up of the oceans which are, after all, one of mankind's most precious assets. We intend to continue to make the international running here, although I think we are right in seeking to restrict the
178
functions of the proposed international régime so that they do not overlap or unnecessarily duplicate those being discharged by other international organisations.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to turn for a second to the question of arms control on the seabed. As your Lordships will be aware, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly has recently commended the draft treaty banning the emplacement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction on the seabed outside a 12-mile coastal zone. As my noble friend Lord Lothian said in the First Committee on November 4, this draft treaty is a thoroughly worthwhile and carefully elaborated piece of work which meets the principal needs of all countries.
I should like, if I may, to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for the considerable contribution which he has made in this respect, as in other respects, in the disarmament field. This has been achieved in a remarkable spirit of co-operation which owes much to the negotiating experience of the conference of the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva—the C.C.D. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has just said, we have every reason to hope that the draft treaty will now be endorsed by the General Assembly in plenary session and that it will be open for signature at an early date. I am glad that the United Kingdom, together with the United States and the Soviet Union, will act as a depository Power for the treaty. An important feature of the treaty is that it contains adequate provision for continuing negotiations aimed at forestalling the very real threat of an arms race on the seabed.
I should like to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government, for their part, are prepared to examine on their merits any further proposals which are put forward in the C.C.D., always bearing in mind the essential needs of national security. May I say again that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that this is, in my view, a matter which is best handled quite separately from the seabed affairs that we are discussing this afternoon. The C.C.D. has the experience and competence to deal in the future, as it has done in the past, with arms control and disarmament questions as they affect

179
the seabed, and I think it would be unwise, as it would be unnecessary, to duplicate its work in any other forum.
May I, in conclusion, say this? I shall hope, if I have the leave of the House, to speak shortly at the end of this debate to answer any specific points which may be raised, or some of them. I should like to emphasise one point. I hope that Her Majesty's Government—in fact I know this is so—approach these matters with a due sense of humility, because they are awesome in their extent, and also with a very considerable degree of flexibility. I remember very well our debate on this subject in July, 1969, initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I remember his wise words here: that we should be prudent to try to proceed in this matter step by step. I believe that that step-by-step, pragmatic approach is embodied in the working paper the British delegation has submitted: but let me repeat once again that that working paper is intended to be merely exploratory. I hope that the other countries on the Seabed Committee will explore our ideas, as we intend to continue to explore theirs, and not least the ideas incorporated in the very important American draft convention. My Lords, because this is our approach to this whole matter, we shall give very careful attention indeed to the views expressed in your Lordships' House already this afternoon, and the views which will be expressed during the remainder of our debate.
5.24 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am profoundly grateful to the right reverend Prelate for introducing this Motion, and to my noble friend Lord Kennet for associating with it his Motion so that we can fully debate this issue of great importance. I want to thank the right reverend Prelate also for the terms of his speech, with practically all of which I wholeheartedly agree, and I want to assure him that the "practically" in this case is not a knuckleduster in a velvet glove.
I have plunged so deeply into this subject over the last few years that when I surface on an occasion like this I find myself suffering from intellectual diver's bends. I ought also, like the noble Lord, Lord Byers, to declare an interest. My interest is not in a big international metal
180
concern. My interest is in the proposals for the ocean régime which the right reverend Prelate referred to with approbation, the proposals of Mrs. Elisabeth Mann-Borgese and Dr. Neil Jacoby. They are my eminent colleagues at the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions at Santa Barbara, where I am an Associate Fellow and where we have been working on this issue since pre-Pardo days. I want to express my admiration of Ambassador Pardo who, as spokesman for a nation with a population less than my own native City of Edinburgh, took the initiative at the United Nations and raised this whole matter to the level at which it is being very properly debated.
My main emphasis to-day is on urgency. I am perfectly satisfied that we should, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has said in the past, proceed cautiously. But we must also proceed quickly as well as cautiously. In this case it is not necessary that we should hasten slowly, but that we should go slowly hastily. As I say, my main emphasis is on urgency. I know that an ocean bed régime and talk about the common heritage of mankind may seem remote from the anguished and menacing headlines in our newspapers, but I assure your Lordships that it is a matter fraught with very great dangers, which we have only indicated or touched on so far in this debate.
Time is not on our side. There has been a tendency, even in the United Nations where they have a standing committee, to assume that the exploitation of the mineral wealth of the ocean bed is still a long way off. I can assure your Lordships categorically that this is not so. The right reverend Prelate has already pointed this out. In our discussions at Santa Barbara at the beginning of this year, and again at the Pacem in Maribus discussions in Malta in July, Dr. John Craven said:
"It is technically feasible to put men, material and equipment in the deepest part of the ocean, and it will be feasible at low cost in the near future."
I can tell your Lordships that Dr. Craven speaks from unique experience, because he was the Pentagon's oceanographic expert at the very heart of the Polaris programme. Why does this give him authority in talking about industrialisation of the seabed?

181
When we, the peoples in whose name the Charter of the United Nations was invoked, entered upon our common heritage—which has now been accepted by all nations, including the Soviet Union, because at the recent meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union at The Hague we obtained the consent of the Soviet Union as well to the idea of the common heritage of mankind beyond the limits of national jurisdiction—we found the military already there. I know that in fact we have had these U.S.A. and Soviet Union proposals (now, we hope, being accepted by the General Assembly) disowning any intention, and asking others to do so, too, of emplacing or implanting any nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction on the ocean floor. I hope that other nations will concur.
I welcome this pact for what it says, and for the gesture it represents. But I would point out that it means that we are now dealing with quite a different concept of deep ocean strategy; namely, that fixed nuclear fortresses on the ocean floor are no longer necessary, nor indeed militarily acceptable. With the increased efficiency of aerial and satellite surveillance, and with the target accuracy of nuclear missiles, fixed land bases have become vulnerable.
The answer had to be sought, and the answer that was found was mobility and concealment. The opaque depths of the oceans offered both, and indeed would have obscured even seabed fortresses. But why be restrictive when submarines and other submersibles—including what Mrs. Elizabeth Young called "creepy crawlies"—could change their sites? Nevertheless, this new dimension in strategy required investigation and intensified the research and technology for operating at great depths. When the military services "pick up the tab" and their appropriations take care of research and development costs, the time scale of technical innovation becomes radically and indeed completely different. The spin-off of an "expense no object" military programme becomes the know-how of civilian operations. Some of your Lordships may have noticed how, with the cutback of the outer space programme, the big boys, the really big boys (maybe Lockheed will get into this as well) in the military and industrial complex in the United States
182
are now diversifying from outer space into inner space: into the depths of the ocean.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned Deep Sea Ventures, a United States corporation, which is now recovering metals, in the form of nodules, from the deep ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and is promising its stockholders that it will be dredging up a million tons a year of these nodules by 1974—dredging out our nodules, the common heritage of mankind. I know with certainty that at least one other corporation has the same intention and, what is more, knows precisely where it can go and get them. It can get them from eleven square miles (as Chairman of the Metrication Board, I should not be using that term) in a precise part of the ocean; in fact in an area less than that of Greater London. The corporation knows exactly where to find the metals for which it is looking—and, by golly! I know it will go and get them.
The United States research ship, "Glomar Challenger", has recently drilled into the sea bottom and has, quite incredibly, re-entered; that is to say, she has removed and reinserted the drill in the hole. It is like threading a needle through 16,000 feet of water. To me, it is as great an achievement as the linking up of Gemini in space. It is a remarkable achievement; and it is still only research. I would remind your Lordships that offshore drilling for oil came into its own only after World War II, and now to-day 17 per cent. of all the commercial oil in the world comes from undersea drillings on the Continental Shelf. Therefore, if there are hydrocarbons at the bottom of the real deeps—that is to say, 16,000 feet or 18,000 feet, or, if necessary, 30,000 feet—then we are only looking forward to the time when the example of the "Glomar Challenger" can be carried out on a commercial basis. Technology grows with the research it feeds on.
One other point I should make but shall not dwell upon is that the dredging of Deep Sea Ventures (I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is not here at the moment, but apropos of what he was saying) represents opencast mining of the ocean floor. As one who has lately been doing a close study of what is known of the biological system which extends right down to 36,000 feet, I say that those who

183
are doing it—Deep Sea Ventures, or anybody else—do not know what they are doing, or what the pollution effects will be in the eco-system. I would remind your Lordships that, in the absence of a régime, no-one—nobody—can tell them to stop.
That brings me back to the urgency of the need for an ocean régime, and I do not qualify that. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that in fact what we are thinking of now is a constituted body, something quite different in character from what we have been talking about so far. I say that with all deference to both Front Benches. The common heritage has been acknowledged, but the lawyers cannot agree about the property rights. In the presence of noble and learned Lords I hesitate to throw legal cliches about, but, as I understand it, you can have res nullius, and say that the common heritage belongs to nobody; or you can have res communis, and say that it belongs to everybody. But suppose somebody decides to exploit it, and says that he knows precisely where he is going to get it, and then gets to work on it. Let us suppose he decides to exploit it because it belongs to nobody—it is res nullius. Surely, the moment he does so, and makes it obvious that the stuff is there, then it becomes res communis, when somebody else comes along and says that it belongs to everybody and proceeds to jostle the claimant. What happens then?
If the operator is a national of Nation A, can he claim flag protection? Surely not, because Nation A, like every other United Nations nation, has said that he is exploiting something beyond the limits of national jurisdiction—something which is the common heritage of all mankind. But suppose it gives him flag protection, and the interloper, in his turn, claims flag protection from his Government, Nation B, what happens? Do they shoot it out? Or go further: assume that the developers are a multi-national corporation—that profoundly interesting and still very puzzling subject on which my colleague Neil Jacoby is working in California. I will not go into the nature of the multi-national corporation, because on a subject like this I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Byers, could give us a great deal of insight and information. A multinational
184
corporation consists of many nationalities, bringing capital and expertise, but obscure in their identities by their very diversification, and with no flag of State and surely no flag of convenience, because even Liberia or Panama could not pretend to cover their operations on the ocean bed. In fact, no flag at all.
No one, as things are, can grant them a concession and ensure what the lawyers call their "quiet enjoyment". So how do they protect their claim? They would have their naval "Securicor"; their own private navy; and you would have a return to the mediæval Barons. That, right reverend Prelate, is why I said "practically", and why, on this count at least, I am with my noble friend Lord Chalfont. I do not like it. I know that in the right reverend Prelate's mind it was based on the assumption that an ocean régime existed and had sanctioned the operations, and I know that many worthwhile institutions began that way—such as when the insurance companies originally recruited and financed the fire brigades. But I do not like private constabularies—and I hope your Lordships will agree with me that at least it is worth suspecting them—any more than I trust interested parties doing their own inspection.
Therefore, anything we are talking about must not only include the custodial function; it must also include the inspectorate. There is an old song,
"Who takes care of the caretaker's daughter, When the caretaker's busy taking care."
This, of course, is only another way of saying, as your Lordships would, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Some other system will have to be devised by which an ocean régime can provide some form of collective security and have its own inspectorate. Meanwhile, just as everyone has warned us about what happens in the interim in terms of pollution, we ought to consider also what is happening when people, like squatters, are getting in there in the present situation, with the possibilities attendant on it.
Apropos of multi-national corporations, whose present and future activities I, for one, accept as inevitable, I agree with Elisabeth Mann-Borgese and with the fundamental endorsement of the right reverend Prelate, that a disinterested ocean régime cannot be constituted only

185
by, or for, Governments. I do not say that it will not be constituted through Governments, but it cannot be by or for them. "We, the peoples" cannot, all 3,600,000.000 of us, meet in elected assembly and appoint our own trustees for our common heritage. It will have to be based on an international convention, arrived at through the United Nations, but remembering that the mainland Chinese and others who are not members of the United Nations are also "We, the peoples". It would be unrealistic not to conceive of Governments helping us create the system, but they also, in any performance of the régime, should, as interested parties (because we are discussing to-day national claims as well) have access. But so should others—and this is where I do join with the right reverend Prelate—such as the scientists, seeking knowledge without interference, and individual or multinational corporations, seeking concessions.
That brings me to my last point out of dozens which I should like to raise, including the international trusteeship zone which the Nixon proposal wants to be administered by the coastal State, or the creeping jurisdiction represented by the Continental Shelf, Slope and Rise, to which insufficient attention has been paid so far. On this I agree with the right reverend Prelate. I was disturbed not to get a more clear assurance from the noble Earl the Leader of the House that the Government are not committed to the absurdity of the grid system. I say that without any reservation or qualification whatever. I am surprised that the Government, inheriting from the Foreign Office this idea which has been around a long time, are committing themselves to this system, which is not a lucky dip; it is bingo—to change the right reverend Prelate's metaphor.
I thought I had disposed of this a long time ago by calling it "two acres and a seacow." It is not only absurd; it is positively dangerous. I keep on thinking of the conference of Berlin and the Powers carving up Africa, and, as a sop to a small country, giving the Congo to Leopold II as his own private property. Perhaps we will give away a few areas in order to grab the rest. Imagine a grid, with landlocked Afghanistan given a
186
block at the bottom of the Mariana Trench in the Pacific. All right, my Lords, it could grant a concession to some other country or corporation, but to be realistic it would finish up in an agglomerate with the people who would have grabbed it in the first place grabbing it later. You would finish up with a takeover bid by those capable of taking over. This would be oceanbed colonialism. I know that these are evocative words, which we do not often hear in your Lordships' House, but with this form of exploitation a block would finish up. characteristically, in the hands of those who were the strongest.
We must think of allocating resources not by areas, but by resources. In terms of plotting out the seabed, I must ask: what happens when you get overlapping resources? Who is going to supply what? If you have marked out a lot of little plots and you say, "In this area you can bore for oil" or, "You can go somewhere else for copper manganese nodules", where do you finish up? This does not make any sense, and I am very sorry, because it is obvious that the Government and the Foreign Office have given a lot of thought to this. But so have a lot of other people, too, and this does not measure up to any logical follow-through. The exploitation of these resources is for the benefit of all mankind, including the developing countries.
I would remind your Lordships that these mineral resources are a threat as well as a promise to mankind. Countries are underdeveloped in material terms because their natural resources are not developed. Their minerals are their natural capital on which they hope to base their prosperity. At the moment, they can only hope to mine them or quarry them as the raw materials which they sell cheap, in order to buy dear the production goods which they must import from advanced countries, if they are going to develop their own industry and their own prosperity. Marine minerals could well be in direct competition. The equitable way would be to secure that by rent, royalties or sharing in the profits, substantial funds would be available through an international agency to provide the means by which developing countries could acquire the equipment for their own industries to manufacture from their own natural resources.

187
This is the house that Jack built. You could, in fact, conserve the resources which at the moment are being squandered in many ways, so that with their resources reinforced from the rest of the world they could themselves get into business. I could develop this in great detail. I have taken part in many discussions in all parts of the world when I have heard lip service given, but cynically given, to the idea of the common heritage. I have been waiting for a long time for an imaginative lead, not logic chopping, from my own country, the country of the "Challenger" which started all this a century ago; a maritime country whose traditions can, I hope, make it great enough to be disinterested in the interests of all mankind.
I agree that we have been pretty good. It was once said that we have never put a foot wrong, but we have not put a foot forward. The point is that we have not yet brought to this question the kind of imagination which we must call for from the international lawyers, and from the people who are capable of seeing the enormous possibilities. We need that imagination, because I assure your Lordships that without it we shall be overtaken by events. I ask your Lordships—and this is something which your Lordships' House can do with eminent success—please to consider setting up a Select Committee on this whole matter, because we can bring to this subject the kind of scrutiny and imagination—and I am sure your Lordships have imagination—which will lead to a constructive proposal to back up any advances which this country will want to make.
5.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, because we have been associated in various ways in the past, particularly in the fairly immediate past on the question of metrication. I was very sorry indeed to hear him speak in terms of square miles. He is as aware as I am that even the American documents relating to the seabed refer to 200 metres and certainly make no mention of fathoms or 656 feet.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, the trouble was that though I
188
realised that I was speaking to people who were extremely literate, I was not sure whether they were also numerate.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I accept that from the noble Lord, and I apologise for delaying the House in order to indulge in those little quips with him. I had not really expected to take part in this debate this afternoon, due to some other commitments, and I have done so at very short notice so I have not had very much time to brief myself. What I have to say is therefore, to some extent, somewhat "off the cuff". However, I want to congratulate the right reverend Prelate as well as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for putting down their Motions. I must say that I am tremendously impressed by the immense amount of work which has been done on this subject, not only by the relevant United Nations committees and the organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred, but by many others.
It is not easy to brief oneself fully on this subject in a short space of time. I thought that our last debate in July, 1969, which was initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, was very useful indeed, although in a sense—it may be that I was partly to blame for this—it was two debates in one; one on the Government Report on Marine Science and Technology, regarding the general contribution of this country to oceanology, and the other specifically on the desirability of establishing an international régime. On this occasion it is clear that we should confine our attention mainly, as I understand it, to international aspects of the problem, and these are, I agree, very important. At the same time—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, would have agreed with me on this point had he been here—we should not minimise the value of our own national effort, especially the contribution which British industry and British research establishments can make in instrumentation and equipment to the overall international effort.
My Lords, I do not think we can make an effective contribution to any international régime unless we have a strong national oceanological base in this country, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I believe that as a great maritime nation Britain has as much

189
to contribute as any other country, even if in recent years the efforts of the United States and of France appear to have been greater than our own. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, about the urgency of combating pollution and that this subject should also be dealt with separately from considerations of the sort that we are bearing in mind to-day.
In July last year I discussed what British industry was doing. Many of us had attended the Brighton Exihibition earlier in the year. If it is not thought out of order to-day, I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House may be able to indicate to us—he need do so only briefly—what progress has been made specifically in this country: for example, any recent achievements of the National Institute of Oceanography or the Construction Industry Research Association and also whether there has been any progress in the contracts which were placed with Hawker Siddeley Dynamics, Cammell Laird, Wimpey and possibly others, including the company of which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is a director. I wonder whether the system of development contracts with industry might not be extended further, with a view to providing the right kind of underwater dredgers, submersibles, seabed vehicles, power tools, visual aids and diving equipment, with all their supporting facilities. Personally, with the right reverend Prelate, I am not afraid of disturbing the Leviathan. I think it was generally accepted last year that there was a clear need for a greater involvement of industry in this country, and it was even suggested that it might be desirable to co-opt representatives from industry on to the Committee for Marine Technology. I should be interested to know whether that has now been done.
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe referred last year to the importance of involving universities, too. Again, if this is not irrelevant, I hope my noble friend will be able to tell us whether any progress has been made in these directions, and whether we are to maintain expenditure at the rate of some £l3·4 million, which was the figure mentioned in last year's debate. Although I realise that the rate of growth here, in this research, has been very rapid compared with R. and D. projects in other fields, it is none the less
190
very small compared with United States financial allocations. However, I will not delay your Lordships by discussing in detail our national effort, though I should like to say a few brief words on the main subject of this debate.
Of course, my Lords, we should like to see an international body created, with or without teeth, with or without its international force, or its sea guard. We should like to see an organisation which would administer the seabed, which covers, as we know, 75 per cent. of the surface of the globe. No doubt several of your Lordships in the House to-day would equally like to see an international régime set up which would control all activities on the land surface of the globe, but we know only too well that the United Nations has not yet developed to the point of making this a practical possibility. We do not yet see member nations of the United Nations giving up their sovereignties in the near future and abdicating their responsibilities to international bodies, whether, as I say, with or without teeth. Some people, not only in Britain but also in France, even now still fear what have been described as the "demons of supranationality". Having, therefore, so far failed to achieve an effective world authority on land, can we now achieve it under the seas? I do not doubt the urgency of it.
In our debate last year the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, emphasised that there should be an internationally-administered licensing system to which each State would apply to explore and exploit particular areas. He thought that a good precedent for this, which had proved workable, was the International Telecommunications Union, the I.T.U., which allocates radio frequencies, for which States apply, and which decides between conflicting claims. In replying to the noble Lord I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, then speaking for the Government, made any comments on that specific suggestion; but it seemed to me that it made a great deal of sense. I should like to ask my noble friend whether, in his view, the kind of international authority which was proposed by the United States on August 4 and again on August 7 would have the same kind of licensing powers as the

191
I.T.U. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, may be able to answer that question when he speaks.
I have read the passage on page 3, I think it is, of the statement by Ambassador Phillips concerning the powers and duties of the proposed authority, but I am not clear whether they can be compared with those of the I.T.U. I note that the United Kingdom working paper of August 4, in paragraph 7(a), refers to certain major difficulties. There are going to be many. Clearly the allocation of blocks is going to create great problems. I wonder whether my noble friend could say whether he thinks that some of them may be surmountable. In this House, we should like to have some hope that something will be achieved and that some progress will be made. I wonder whether my noble friend could also say how far he thinks we can now support the American proposals, and how far he thinks we may be able to get agreement, for example, among members of the Commonwealth.
I was interested to note from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, last year that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference was to include a seabed item on its agenda—or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who said this. I have not heard whether any progress was made on this subject, and I should be interested to know from my noble friend what happened and whether this item will also be included in the agenda of the Commonwealth Conference which is to take place next January. No doubt my noble friend will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that the processes of agreement may take many years, as has been the experience in negotiations concerning the Continental Shelf, and particularly the areas which any international régime is to cover. As the right reverend Prelate and other speakers have said, there is no agreement so far on where the limit of national jurisdiction lies. We do not know whether it is going to be 200 metres or whether, in certain cases, Canada's claim of 100 miles may prevail.
I have discussed, with Senator Claiborne Pell in Washington some of these proposals which the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, have raised in their Motions. Only a few
192
weeks ago I took time off rather late at night to discuss these questions with him. I was there on matters concerned with the European Space Conference and the post-Apollo proposals, but I took time off to have a word with Senator Pell, who is, of course, chairman of the Senate sub-committee on these matters and, I think, one of those who led the way in proposing an international convention. I think my noble friend the Leader of the House also has a high opinion of the Senator's efforts in this field. They are as idealistic as those of the right reverend Prelate, and possibly of the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Ritchie-Calder. My Lords, we should respect the idealists; but at the same time we should have no illusions about the difficulties that must inevitably face us in evolving the kind of international régime which most of us have in mind, although there are several variants.
While, therefore, I am not altogether sanguine about the early practicality of concluding an international convention—though I hope I may be wrong—I feel, as I have said, that we must in the meantime make every effort, in this country and if desirable multilaterally, in conjunction with other countries or firms, bilaterally or multilaterally, to produce the necessary advanced equipment which is required for the practical exploration of seabed resources. In our debate last year the question of whether there should not be greater research co-operation and 'industrial co-operation with European countries was raised; and I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that we were working closely with French scientists at the French Oceanographic Centre at Brest. He said that we should no doubt be arranging joint scientific programmes. I should be interested to know from my noble friend Lord Jellicoe—and perhaps he will write to me if he is not able to answer this evening—whether in fact such joint programmes have been arranged.
My Lords, in conclusion, I should like again to thank the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising these matters, and to express the hope that rapid progress will be made and that at least agreement may be reached among the principal sea-going nations of the world. If this could be achieved then, in my view, these nations

193
—and I believe that they can be disinterested—could act as trustees for all the coastal States, and even landlocked States, great and small, and ensure that, in consultation with them they would all receive their equitable share of the revenues which should ultimately accrue. I agree with Lord Ritchie-Calder that there must be no grab; yet there are great complications in reaching an agreement when so many States are at present involved. Therefore if agreement could be reached among the principal nations I believe that more rapid progress might be made.
6.5 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, in adding my thanks to those of other Members of the House to the right reverend Prelate for introducing this Motion and for the way in which he has laid out the work which has been done, I am well aware that a great deal has been said by those who have an expertise in this field which I do not pretend. My own personal acquaintance with the seabed is marginal in the exact sense of that word. I have no technical competence, and what I have to say will necessarily be in one sense at the shallow end, and I reflect that in the stretches of water as limited as those at public baths, most of the noise comes from the shallow end. I do not intend to add to that noise except to offer to my noble friend the right reverend Prelate what I think he would be agreeable to say for himself: that the main value of this debate is to issue a warning which ought to be received with great earnestness and to present a challenge which, formidable as it is, must necessarily sooner or later be faced.
Let me deal with what seems to me to be the main areas in which that warning should be voiced. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that there is a distinguishable difference between the seabed as a subject and pollution of the oceans generally; but if you want to get to the seabed and the ocean is polluted, you must go through the pollution. Furthermore, it disturbs me to encounter the sort of thing that I read about the other day in preparation for this debate; that lying on the seabed of the Baltic are 7,000 tons of arsenic in corroding canisters deposited on that seabed in 1930 and now about to decompose. I
194
am not a scientific expert; I do not know what the effect of releasing 7,000 tons of arsenic will be; but it seems to me a flippant and, it may be, a lethal exercise in indifference. There is no doubt at all from the admonitory words of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that urgency in dealing with pollution is one of the prime causes for taking the subject of this debate with the utmost seriousness. What causes me greater perturbation is that what we know is frightening enough: but what we do not know may be much more so. And in so far as much of what goes on is carried out in secrecy we may be very disturbed, and I hope we shall be.
I fear also the warning which was voiced as to the use already being made (and which will probably be made more extensively in the future) of the ocean bed as some kind of adjunct and auxiliary to the armament programmes and, therefore, the warlike possibilities of a world which is, in conscience, dangerous enough now. I understand, whatever may be the particular prospect of the kind of negotiations now in progress, that there are already plans for the provision of silos or some kind of pens for submarines which have
advanced at least to the stage at which blueprints or first-stage preparations have been made. I am quite sure that in the present state of unrest any access to or availability of military resources which can make use of the seabed will be carried out, unless there are arrangements for cessation of these programmes.
I do not entertain the view that some people hold is reasonable: that we are in less danger, less vulnerable, than we were a few years ago. I think that the situation is still eminently dangerous. But what concerns me most in the matter of warnings is the increased disparity between the "have" and the "have-not" nations. This disparity will tend to become wider if exploitation of the seabed by those in a position to do it further advantages those who have and further disadvantages those who have not. This point has been ventilated this afternoon, and I will not dwell on it further except to remind your Lordships that Brazil is already claiming 300 miles of territory under the sea at her littoral and we have already heard that Canada is making a more modest claim.

195
It is important that any attempt to serve the interests of peace should be designed to meet these dangers as they now exist in the field of international possibilities of warfare, of exploitation and pollution of the seabed, and above all in those residual elements of suspicion, doubt and fear which reside in the disparity that now exists between the "have" and the "have-not" nations. I may say to the right reverend Prelate that these are more than adequate reasons for ventilating this topic; but to leave it there would be abject. What we are concerned about, my Lords, is the possibility of doing something in this field and I believe that there are two areas of possible action-the one more approximate, and perhaps the more possible, and not demanding the kind of imaginative foresight and revolutionary programme that the longer-term project would necessarily entail. It seems to me reasonable to think that, before we have an international body, or a supranational body, capable of regulating all the issues with which we have been concerned to-day, it might be possible to see to it that the problem of pollution for instance, could, by international agreement, at least be regulated and diminished.
My Lords, I rejoice to hear that there are possibilities of getting the seabed agreed as a kind of neutral zone and that the major nations interested in military and naval operations would be prepared to make a concession in this field. That, I think, would immensely alleviate the fears that most people feel. But it is the larger problem, the problem of getting some international régime, or supra-national régime, that has daunted your Lordships in speech after speech, and should daunt the most adventurous. I have looked at the two competitive programmes: the American one, if it is a programme, and the working paper, if it is a programme, or at least a suggestion for further thought; and I am bound to say that, on balance, I feel that the American one may be preferable. I can find no substance, no sympathy, in and for the proposition of blocks under national jurisdiction. This idea seems to me to be a non-starter; and even if it were to start, I believe that it would end in confusion. It is impossible to operate a kind of "gold rush" on the ocean floor.
196
Certainly the suggestion that this could be done by arrangement, it seems to me, burkes the whole issue as to who would be in a position of saying, "I want this block", or, "I want that block"; and the kind of gamble for the whole issue is not, in my judgment, even in the initial stages, a profitable adventure. It would lead, I think, to all kinds of uncontrollable and consequential evils. On the other hand, it is perfectly true to say that the trusteeship proposition put forward by the American proposals carries with it almost the same danger. Trustees have a habit of becoming landlords—or in this case "sealords"—and it does not appear to me to be a reasonable proposition that, under the present state of affairs, those who are now trustees would readily yield up their trusteeship at a suitable date. It has not happened on land, in many cases, and I think it is unlikely to happen in the case of the seabed.
In fact, my Lords, are we not confronted with the supreme problem which now very largely restricts and hampers the United Nations, and which has to be faced? And if it is to be faced, what more
appropriate place in which to face it than the seabed? And what more splendid opportunity for the imagination which we have not hitherto brought to this matter! The real "evil in the hole", the whole problem, rests on the concept of sovereignty; and so long as the Nation States maintain their individual sovereignty I do not think we can have a sufficiently imaginative programme to deal with this new and tremendous opportunity to pass beyond sovereignty to the common weal; to pass out of the narrow, selfish, predatory and violent habits of the Nation States into something more like what I would call the Kingdom of God—what some people call the classless society—but what, in in this particular and limpid Motion, is the common welfare of mankind.
My Lords, I happen to be a Socialist, and I make no bones about it. I shall introduce the word as frequently as I can, because I believe that it is the right word to use. But Socialists have been, hitherto, on the whole, landlubbers, and we have now to become seafarers; and it may well be that we shall do a better job of seafaring than some of us have done in the field of land apportionment and land control.

197
What is beyond all question, is that here is a challenge, in a comparatively new field, which if we face it imaginatively, can have two results. It can enable the United Nations, which now languishes, to acquire new prestige and to be a more genuine bell-wether for that World Government which ultimately must take its place. Secondly, if we are imaginative enough, it can enable us to believe that here is a commonalty, a virtue; here is a riches, here is a wealth—I do not know how great. Some doubts have been cast to-day on the actual extent of the wealth of the seabed. I would not know about that. I am somewhat discomforted to find that plankton is not so commendable a diet as I was inclined to suppose. But, whatever may be the immediate prospects of the discovery and utilisation of the resources of the seabed, I would plead, my Lords, that here is a magnificent opportunity, in our thinking and then perhaps in our actions, to go beyond the whole concept of the Nation State which has hitherto bedevilled, and will continue to bedevil, any attempt finally to solve one of the most difficult, yet one of the most profitable, exercises and adventures to which I think we in this generation are committed.
6.15 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, it is interesting to note how much things have changed since July, 1969, when we last debated this subject. It seems like yesterday, but a great deal has happened. The United Nations Committee on the Seabed has met and has made a good deal of progress. The General Assembly of the United Nations has considered this subject and passed some important resolutions, including the moratorium resolution. We have had the statement of American policy, made by President Nixon in May of this year, and the deposit of the draft United States Treaty in August of this year; and we have the French and British working papers for a régime.
Perhaps just as significant in a different way has been the contribution made by private bodies. There has been the meeting in Malta of the Pacem in Maribus, which was attended by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and others from this country. There was the most significant meeting of the International Law Association in the Hague, in August
198
of this year, at which representatives of many countries, and eminent lawyers, discussed this subject. The prestigious institution of Ditchley Park has held a seminar on this subject, which really shows that it has arrived, and we are full of papers and contribution from all over the world. I myself, if this is progress at all, have become very much less cautious than I was, or am quoted to have been, in July of last year.
It is, perhaps, interesting to ask where we are at this stage. In July of 1969 we were discussing, in quite general terms, the need to have an international régime. People did not then think that it was necessary or that one could be devised, and some of us were putting forward suggestions as to the kind of régime which might be introduced. Some suggestions were made by myself,
and others by other people. Now we have almost an embarrassment of concrete proposals and models and suggestions of every kind. We have the drafts put forward by the United Kingdom working paper; we have the very detailed régime in the form of articles from the International Law Association; we have the United States draft treaty with its 78 articles, even if Article 78 is at present a blank.
My Lords, I do not want to comment on the United States draft treaty at this stage; enough has been said about it. It does not represent even an agreed United States point of view, still less one which has received much support internationally. But I think it would be right here to recognise the great amount of constructive thought and effort which has been put into it. It is largely the work of a very distinguished international lawyer, Professor Louis Sohn, from Harvard, and there is a great deal in it which, whatever may be the fate of other proposals, or that proposal, is certain to find its way into international thinking. And it shows—does it not?—the degree of support in the United States for the principle of an international régime over the deep seabed which would have been quite unthinkable in 1967 before the Pardo proposals. I think we ought to be grateful for it.
My Lords, all this is excellent, and I am certainly with those who approve and would commend and encourage the work of the United Kingdom Government and the merits of the United Kingdom

199
working paper, which is fully up to the standard of its previous contributions. But it is all on one level. It is all on the legal, technical and administrative level. It provides models from which we can choose, with blanks in the most important places and, when we try to fill in the blanks, we find ourselves in difficulty and potential conflict. For example, how far out from the coast is the international régime to start?
The right reverend Prelate has given us the present available alternatives. How big are the blocks to be, if it is to be a block system? Is it practical to carve out blocks at all from the geological point of view? No less an authority than Dean Jacoby, of California, has expressed doubts whether it is possible geologically to carve out blocks. If blocks, what is to be the nature of the title over these blocks, whether States or enterprises? What safeguard is there against the blocks becoming a whole lot of little San Marinos in the middle of the ocean floor? What is to be the nature of the sharing out of the blocks between competitors? What is to be the amount of royalties, and who is to get them? What is to be the enforcement procedure?
We have had several pertinent observations on that subject. Frankly, when we get out of the technical and legal level and into the political discussions, and attempts are made to fill in the details, we find that no progress, or no significant progress, is made. As regards the January meeting of the United Nations Seabed Committee, the right reverend Prelate said that it was sufficient to maintain confidence. That was a charitable observation. But a United Nations authority said with reference to the same meeting, that it showed how not to go about working out an international treaty. Not all nations desire agreement. Some obviously promote disagreement and he did not hesitate to say that the meeting was largely a failure.
The reasons for this, and why we do not get on, are obvious. First, there are the difficulties between the developed and developing countries and within the developing countries themselves. This is
not caused merely by the split between the selfish and the progressive, for commercial self-interest is not a monopoly of
200
the technically advanced countries nor is equitable sharing always the motto of developing States. There are splits both ways. Then you have the odd man out. Take the South American States. At their meeting at Montevideo in May 1970, only this year, they maintained their claim to a limit of 200 miles out from their coasts. At another meeting at Lima in August of this year, attended by 20 Latin American States, they reaffirmed the inherent right of the coastal States to the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the sea adjacent to the coast, and of the seabed and subsoil of the sea in the interests of the development of their economies and to raise the standard of living of their peoples.
We have to recognise that difficulties exist. What about the great unknown, the position of Soviet Russia? They did not turn up at the Pacem in Maribus Conference at all. They sent some representatives to the International Law Association meeting, and their contribution was an interesting but not very reassuring one as to the prospect of agreement. Said one of their professors:
"If we metaphorically regard the world ocean as a gigantic eternal pie, we could easily know that many of those who sit by the edges of this pie have already unilaterally bitten exaggeratedly large pieces of it."
They were certainly reluctant to support any régime of international regulation, and gave as their only constructive suggestion the picturesque one that manganese should be treated rather like mushrooms—anybody who liked could pick them up and convert them from res nullius to res communis.
If that is the position as regards Soviet Russia, what about China? Some speakers referred briefly to that great country. Is it really realistic to contemplate a régime without the participation of these two countries? Then one has the uncertainty with regard to various vital matters, particularly with regard to the limits. The Continental Shelf Convention of 1958 is in existence, but it does not lay down a very precise limit, and in any case is not adhered to by a majority of States. I am afraid that I regard it as rather unrealistic to suppose that this Convention, with its minority support even if buttressed with the judgment of the International Court in the

201
Continental Shelf case, can form a satisfactory consensual basis on which to build. On the other hand, the prospects of a fresh conference on the law of the sea, which is now being mooted by the United Nations, does not arouse much enthusiasm either. I regret being rather pessimistic in this way, but people talk about being realistic when idealistic speeches are made advocating a world régime. We have to be realistic in what is happening under the existing phase of negotiations.
I should now like to work out how we are to get on. Of course, I would respectfully encourage Her Majesty's Government to go on along the lines which they are pursuing. As the noble Earl said, it will be a hard long slog, but I would be glad to encourage them to continue slogging. But if we are going to make a further leap forward, we ought to start, I would suggest, from some statement of priorities. Starting from the bottom of priorities and working up to the top, my order of priorities would be, first of all, defence—for two reasons: first, because the seabed now does not seem to be a practical matter as regards placing nuclear installations on it. As explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, the nuclear Powers have found a better way of doing it. Also, I think that there is a lot to be said for putting defence on one side and leaving it out of this particular matter.
Second from the bottom I would put minerals on the seabed, because they are not at present a significant economic problem. I give one more figure, though so many have been given, an estimate made by a Canadian, which no doubt is not absolutely accurate but approximate enough. If we aim at satisfying 50 per cent. of the free world's demand for cobalt, out of these nodules we need only to harvest an area of about 100 square miles (ten by ten). Assuming we can sell all the cobalt and the incidental manganese, copper and nickel which will be produced, we are going to produce a distributive profit of only something in the order of 40 million dollars. So that the problem of open sea mining is not, at this stage at any rate, a major economic problem.
Next up the scale one comes to hydrocarbons. As the right reverend Prelate
202
said, there is some immediate urgency in relation to drilling outside the Continental Shelf, and I agree with him on that; but I would suggest—and I think he would agree with me—that the urgency lies in the pollution aspect rather than in threats to the sea from the economic aspect. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who has a much greater knowledge of industry than I can claim to have, say that the drilling for hydrocarbons of oil outside the Continental Shelf is at present of economic interest. I am glad to see the noble Lord coming in. Nothing I have said in any way disagrees with what he said.
If oil outside the Continental Shelf is not a prior economic consideration at this time, but is of importance as regards pollution, that brings me to the top priority—by far the top priority in my submission—and that is the pollution aspect. Many noble Lords have spoken about this. First of all, there is the seabed itself. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred to that, and one could dilate on this subject for a long time. He referred to the Baltic, but one can come even closer, to the North Sea. There are vessels under the Norwegian flag now in the North Sea which are employed by enterprises in this country, in Holland and in Germany expressly to dump containers on the floor of the North Sea. There is one ship which dumped between Iceland and Norway 1,000 tons of chemical waste filled with cement. There was the chemist from the German firm of Bayer who said the other day that very large areas of the North Sea bed are virtually covered with drums of chemical waste. And outside the North Sea there is the terrible case of the "Russell Briggs", with its 12,540 rockets of nerve gas, each of which can kill everybody within a quarter of a mile. The seabed is itself the subject of intensive pollution, both near our shores and further out.
But it is not only a problem of the seabed. What I would suggest is the major defect of most of the discussions on the seabed in the United Nations or elsewhere—this is the right reverend Prelate's third point, and a most important one—is that the discussions tend to proceed as if the sea itself were not there. They talk as if you can isolate the seabed and legislate about the seabed without regard to the fact that it is covered by the waters.

203
One finds, indeed, in most of the papers and in most of the draft treaties references to the "freedom of the seas" and to the "conservation of the environment", but these are usually of a very weak and secondary character. What the papers do normally is to start with an assumed right to exploit and then add on to that something to the effect that in doing so you must not interfere with living resources or with the marine environment.
This is one respect in which I must say I find the British working paper is inadequate. In most of it, it sets out its objectives in the form of propositions with the word "should":
"The régime should govern the exploration of the seabed and ocean floor "—
that is paragraph 2—
"and of the subsoil and exploration of the natural resources of this area".
But when it comes on to deal with control of pollution of marine environment it is much weaker. It says:
"… to this end could deal, amongst others, with the following questions: the prevention and control of the pollution of the marine environment resulting from exploitation of its natural resources".
Similarly with all the other proposals, including the Nixon
proposals. I would suggest that it is beginning at entirely the wrong end to say that you may exploit but you must not pollute. It is standing priorities absolutely on their head.
I want to suggest—and this is really the only thing that I want to say and to which I have been leading up—that this problem ought to be regarded, and must be regarded, as essentially, first and last, an environmental problem: and that is the way in which the right reverend Prelate has presented it to us to-day. It is no use talking about the seabed alone without the sea; it is no use talking about nodules when we ought to be talking about life. The facts are all there. We know, even if we are not scientists, that interference with one area—with food supplies; pollutants; disturbances of currents; the injection of heat; seismic disturbances—has rapid effect thousands of miles away. We all know, or we ought to know, that any human activity may, indeed will, disturb to a degree the balance of life in the
204
ocean. Every interference is liable to produce its crown of thorns.
If at present, as I regrettably think is the case, there is something of a legal deadlock in the negotiations, I suggest that the only way to break out of that legal deadlock is through an environmental approach. If you start with an environment, instead of putting the environment last, you are more likely to solve your separate problems than by taking those separate problems in compartments—fisheries, dumping, oil pollution, explosion, placing of arms on the seabed and so on. And I believe that we shall get States—and those States whose agreement we have to get—much more likely to agree. This approach means starting from the principle that it is the duty of man in his own interests to preserve and improve his marine environment, and to establish quite firmly that the ocean régime you are trying to set up is a general purpose régime and not a special purpose régime. It is concerned with all activities within the ocean, whether on the surface, in the water, on the seabed, below the seabed, in the deep sea, within the Continental Margins.
In this conception limits do not matter, and this conception enables you to get rid of and by-pass all the difficulties about limits and jurisdictions. Whatever the area that you are concerned with is, all activities are to be permitted and controlled as a governing principle according to whether they preserve or improve the environment: encouraged if they improve it; permitted subject to strict control if they do not damage it; prohibited, except in very exceptional cases where some really significant general advantage can be shown, where they damage it.
That brings me to the "common heritage of mankind". I used to be sceptical about that expression. I used to think of it, I must say, rather as a United Nations cliché: the sort of words that you would expect to come echoing from the rostrum when a speaker thought it was time for a round of applause or at least a murmur of assent. But I have come to think otherwise, and I have come to think so as a lawyer. I hope that in saying so I shall not be written off as a woolly-minded idealist—though I am quite willing to be ranked as that, too. I now believe that, thinking even in legal

205
terms, this concept is at our present stage in this subject matter the key to advance.
It provides a principle—one might say perhaps a matrix—within which actual practical proposals can be shaped. In relation to the sea it can be given a much more concrete and definite content than in the area in which it was originally applied in open space, because space is far less directly concerned with environment and with life than is the sea. In relation to the sea, you can do what you cannot do in land—and I am meeting a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough—because you have not at present got any sovereignty in the sea and you do not have to worry about the argument as to nations giving up their sovereignty. The whole point is that there is not any sovereignty over the areas of the sea, and therefore you can commit yourself to this much more general approach. And if one fills it out with the thought that all States have this duty to preserve the marine biosphere; that this is not the preserve of coastal States; that a comprehensive régime requires to be set up to cover all resources—fishing, mining and exploration—including the sharing of scientific knowledge; that no individual State or corporation may exploit this environment at the expense of the world community, its owner; that a share in all profits is to go to everybody; that institutions and any legal treaties must reflect this generality instead of being confined in compartments—then I suggest that you have the means to advance.
It has been said that lawyers are lacking in imagination, and that is generally true. It may also be true that our national defect is often to be too empirical, too down to earth and to plan too small. I welcome the right reverend Prelate's approach because it gives us an opportunity to discard those particular weaknesses in relation to this subject. I support him in withholding the merits of the Borgese proposals, not only because of the l per cent. tax, which seems to be a very good idea to start with, but in placing, as it does, the world government of the ocean in individual hands and not in nation States. I hope the Government will recognise the merits of the environmental approach and that they will press on with the efforts which they are making, although I hope that they can recast
206
their paper, perhaps, to alter their priorities. But at the same time I hope that they will direct their efforts towards the protection and improvement of the environment as a whole, particularly the sea environment, and that they will begin right now looking towards the conference on the environment, which, no doubt, will be a critical one, to be held in Stockholm in 1972. My Lords, just because the right reverend Prelate's Motion refers in general terms to a world ocean régime I welcome it enthusiastically, and I hope that your Lordships will do the same.
6.41 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I find it almost embarrassing to be following the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in the speech which he has just delivered, not because of his authority, or because of his knowledge, but because of the quite extraordinary way in which he has embodied immediate political problems with the broad survey of the world which we need at the present time. I hope that during the course of my speech I may be referring to some of the issues which he has raised. I want to say at once how deeply grateful I am personally—and I am sure that is the view of others in the House—for the speech which he has delivered.
That leads me, my Lords, to say something else. Those of us who are Members of this House will look back on the discussion to-day with considerable pride. The debate has been initiated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, and it has been continued throughout the day by speeches which were seeking not to make partisan points, but to reach the truth about this matter, and contribute something to its solution. In a sense, I am a rebel in this House. I would abolish all its legislative powers to-morrow. But, having said that, I recognise that this House is contributing in its debates, to knowledge and ideas which are of great importance to our country. I suggest that out of the kind of discussion that we have had to-day, which has been so constructive, it might be possible—and I put this to the Minister, although I believe my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has already made this suggestion—to have a Select Committee of this House further to examine the whole of this proposal, with a view to putting it forward in an authoritative and constructive way.

207
When we discuss the seabed there are two separate, though co-ordinated, issues. The first is the development of its economic potentialities—so enormous and so hopeful for the world. The second issue is the great danger to the world that the seabed may be used for destruction and war. During our debate to-day, most of the speeches have been related to the former subject; perhaps, before I finish, I may restore the balance a little. I agree with my noble friend (shall I say?) Lord Byers—
LORD BYERS: Thank you.
LORD BROCKWAY: —when he urged that the approach to the economic and military problem should be kept separate. There is a great danger that, if all the controversies of the military situation are brought into this issue, economic development can be retarded. There is also a danger, in view of the détente which is now going on in Europe, and, indeed, between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that economic problems might delay some solution of military problems. Nevertheless, they are interlinked, and there must be co-ordination between them in the solution that we make. Unless we solve the military problem it may destroy all the solutions of our economic, constructive proposals. I sometimes wonder, if this nuclear madness in the world goes on, whether the only safe place in the whole of the earth will not be on the seabed. If we are thinking of the future population of the earth we had better begin to recruit some women to our seabed staffs.
To turn first to the industrial problem, we have had the draft convention by the United States of America, and the working papers of the Governments of the United Kingdom and France. I have read them all. The United States of America has proposed an international régime beyond 200 metres in depth of the coastline of the different countries. I want to recognise that at once as an advance and to express appreciation that President Nixon has declared in favour of this heritage of mankind in the oceans. But when I get to Chapter III of the United States convention, I am disturbed because of a proposal made which repudiates the principle of the oceans as
208
the heritage of mankind. The proposal is made that the coastal nations should act as trustees of the continental regions outside their immediate coasts.
There has been some discussion this afternoon as to what the term "Continental margin" means. From the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, we have heard it said that it means one-fifth of the oceans of the earth. I have seen other estimates, one of which was 23 per cent. of the oceans of the earth. There is not much difference. In both cases it is very great in extent, and not only great in extent, but it is richest in mineral resources and, so far as we know, in the living contribution it could make in fish towards the nutrition of the world.
What does Chapter III propose? It proposes that the coastal nations shall not merely share the revenue which comes from this vast area, but actually have the power to impose taxation upon it. Anyone who reads Chapter III of the convention of the United States can come only to the conclusion that it is a form of ocean colonialism. I hope that it will have the utmost resistance from all of those of us who are thinking in international terms.
Having said that in criticism of the draft convention proposed by the United States, I am going to be even severer upon the Report to the Working Committee of the United Kingdom. I asked the Minister, not only to-day but in a Question previously, what were the British proposals, because at Geneva the British representative indicated that there were differences between the approaches of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. He did not reply, but I recognise that towards the end of his speech he indicated what those differences were. So far as I can judge, both from the speech of my noble friend Lord Chalfont, who was the responsible Minister at that time, and from the speech from the Government Bench to-day, the major difference between the proposals of the United States of America and of the United Kingdom is this. The United Kingdom is proposing that national Governments should have control of regions of the ocean, and that they should have the power within that control to lease exploring and operative rights to industrial companies. My Lords, that is appalling. If one is going to look at the

209
future of the oceans of this earth and think that this nation, that nation and the other nation is to control a particular portion, and that nations are to have the right within that control to lease exploitation to private companies, Then the idea of oceans becoming the region of human heritage absolutely disappears.
I admit that there is something in the argument which was put forward by my noble friend Lord Chalfont: that we have a United Nations and that we have national States. But we must break through that position in the world to-day. If we go on thinking in terms of national States, the world is just doomed to disaster. This area of the oceans of the world, where at the moment there is a vacuum, where we can begin to exert the idea of international control, is the area where we can make a breakthrough. I appeal not only to Her Majesty's Government. I appeal to our own leadership; I appeal to all who have any compassion in the world and want to save the world from war; I appeal to all who are looking forward—not to the past—to begin to endorse this idea.
I turn from that industrial aspect to the military aspect. A treaty has been put forward jointly by the United States of America and the Soviet Union. One first welcomes the fact that the U.S A. and the U.S.S.R. have agreed on a treaty of this kind. It has been
approved by the Political Comittee of the United Nations' General
Assembly, as recently as November 17, by 91 to 2 votes, with only
six abstentions. I believe the noble Lord was correct when he said that he had no doubt that the General Assembly will endorse what the Political Committee have approved. But when we look at this treaty we find inevitably, because of compromises which have to be made in the world to-day, how unsatisfactory it is. I welcome it; it is an advance. But what does it do? It bans the installation of nuclear weapons and other means of destruction beyond 12 miles of the coast—nuclear weapons, not armaments. It is quite clear, therefore, that it is a treaty for denuclearisation rather than a treaty for demilitarisation, but when one begins to look at the problem of war one cannot divide the two.
The discussions in the Political Committee of the United Nations indicated particularly the pressure of the smaller
210
nations on the large Powers to continue discussion for wider disarmament. I was glad to hear from my noble friend to-day that he was in favour of continued discussion to obtain that. I do not want to be cynical, but how many times in the forty years since I was first elected to another place have I heard that statement made! And how many times during that forty years have disillusion and disappointment come! Disarmament conferences have been held at Geneva year after year; millions of words have been spoken, and there has been such little achievement! I am asking Her Majesty's Government not merely to give us an assurance in the House to-day. If denuclearisation is to become demilitarisation, then there must be an aggressive and offensive challenge and courage in appealing on the whole problem of disarmament.
The second point I want to make about this treaty is this: it prohibits installations of nuclear weapons and other means of destruction. It does not prohibit other installations. Let me just give one example. One of the great dangers in the seas to-day is the submarine. This treaty does not prohibit the installation of mines on the seabed to destroy submarines. That is only one instance of many other installations for war purposes which could be made.
Thirdly—and I ask the Minister to look at this because I regard it as probably the most important—the treaty does not prevent movement from installations. I do not pretend to be an authority, but I am told by those who are authorities in this matter that to-day nuclear weapons do not just exist on one installation—and that only is prevented in this treaty—but are on moving platforms and can easily go from one depth to another There is no provision against that technical possibility at all.
Fourthly, this treaty only prevents nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction beyond a 12-mile limit of the coast. But within the 12-mile limits of any country in the world present nuclear weapons and missiles could destroy the earth. Therefore, that limitation is of little value. The fifth point I make is that there is no definition at all of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear, atomic, hydrogen — yes. Biological? Chemical? What are the weapons of

211
mass destruction which are to be prohibited? Sixthly, there is in this treaty no arrangement for international verification as to whether its provisions are kept. Not only that, but any nation which signs this treaty can withdraw without any requirement for arbitration of the dispute which occurs. When one recognises all this one sees how inadequate even this treaty is.
My Lords, I apologise because I have been speaking long although with deep concern. I will try to be brief in my last point, which in a sense is the most important. The right reverend Prelate was right in including in his Motion reference to oceanic construction, because that is the alternative to the destructive policies about which I have been speaking. I was glad that President Nixon referred to the use of the oceans as a source of food in relation to problems of the developing countries. I believe the oceans are one of the two biggest contributions that can be made to ending world poverty. The other is the deserts. But the constructive value of the oceans, their minerals and their food resources—in the next decade the oceans will be farmed for construction just as much as land is farmed to-day—will depend on how far they are removed from national and private exploitation. They must become quite deliberately an effort by the whole world of production to end the poverty in our midst. I think we shall find that as we concentrate upon this we shall begin to solve the problems of economic rivalry and exploitation, of national rivalry and national exploitation, which are the fundamental problems of the seabed to-day.
7.6 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET had given Notice of a Motion to call attention to recent proposals for an international agreement about the ocean bed, particularly those of the United States dated August 3, 1970, and of the United Kingdom dated August 4, 1970; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the crisis of the environment, by which one means conservation and pollution, can, in all its fields, be overcome only by the enforcement of agreed regulations. We know this on land. The human environment is one seamless whole. Most parts of it are already regulated, or are easily regulable
212
in this respect. Some parts of it are totally unregulated and may prove to be regulable only with very great difficulty. The most obvious such part is the deep ocean and its bed. I take it for granted—indeed, I think all noble Lords take it for granted—that in regulating the extraction of things from the bottom of the sea and in regulating against pollution of the sea above one is doing it for the good of all mankind. Not a voice has been raised against that. This is "We, the peoples"—whether it is res nullius or res communis, it is the same thing. We are all determined that it shall not be unjustly exploited. The question is, how?
Many documents have been mentioned to-day, but one which has not been mentioned is the draft list of principles which may be before the General Assembly at this very moment. In any case it is coming there this week. Those principles are numerous, but they are sensible. I will not detain the House any longer with them, although there are places where I think the wording is obscure and may give rise to dangers later, but I have no doubt those places are just as visible to the Government as they are to me, and if not we can have a word about it later.
There are the proposals of Mrs. Borgese endorsed by the pacem in Maribus conference in Malta, which have been mentioned and praised—and in my view rightly praised—several times in this debate. There is one thing I should like to say in that regard. I cannot recollect who it was, but one noble Lord said that this was world government and therefore it was a good thing; it was one leap into world government on the ocean bed. I am not sure that the proposals would really sustain that interpretation, because they are for a multilateral treaty to be negotiated, signed and ratified by the sovereign States in the usual way. This treaty would then set up a new body, as so many international bodies have been set up in the past. It may be that one could regard it as a step towards world government, but it is not in itself a chunk of world government.
Then we come to the two principal proposals which have been mentioned so often to-day, the American and the British proposals. I think the House now has a clear idea of what is in them, but let me

213
just remind your Lordships in two sentences. The American proposal is to divide the ocean deeps into two parts: the part nearer to the Continental Shelf to be administered by the coastal States as trustee for humanity, and they will pass on a proportion of the royalties to the developing countries through the United Nations machinery. The part beyond that would come immediately under an international régime to be devised. And it is safe to wait for that international régime to be devised because the part beyond cannot be exploited for some years. The American proposals do not specify whether or not at any point the trusteeship area should pass under the direct control of the international régime, thereby eliminating the Trustee State concept which has been so much criticised to-day. If that were part of their proposals, I can see that they would be much more acceptable than if it were not.
Then there is the British proposal which extends the North Sea régime to all the deep sea oceans. There is a three-tier system: the international régime lets off squares to States, and States let off the actual exploration and exploitation rights to contractors, to bodies, personal or collective, of their choice. Both these proposals embody the right principle; that is, the "We, the people "principle, the common property principle. They are means of putting it into force; and you must have a means. I am quite unsure whether even under the American proposal you would not need chequer-board squares. The trustee State would have to let off chequer-board squares to exploiting bodies.
I am going to list some difficulties about the British proposal, though they do not in any way constitute an objection on my part to it. I cannot think of anything better; I have not heard of anybody else thinking of anything better than these two proposals; but there are some bugs to be ironed out. The proposal does not suggest how the chequer-board squares are to be allocated. If it is not to be bingo, it has to be something else. What else? This is difficult. It does not talk very much about the establishment of regulations to be enforced by, as I understand it, the nation State within each square, and particularly it does not talk about how to achieve compatibility
214
of these regulations. Do we have national law of State A applied by the owner of square A, and national law of State B applied in square B? And how do we make sure that they are compatible with the regulations to be adopted by the régime and the regulating body itself.
The British proposal says that the squares need not be the same size for different commodities. Let us look at this in practice and see what it is going to be like. Let us imagine a place on the ocean bed which is a British square for oil purposes and a French square for manganese purposes, and that for the purposes of nickel it belongs to Afghanistan. In that event you will have the British navy enforcing British oil law as made compatible with the régime, the French navy enforcing French manganese law and the Afghan navy (or some other navy because they have no navy) enforcing what is assumed to be Afghan nickel law.
In the superjacent waters you have the nuclear-powered and nuclear rocket submarines of the super-Powers exercising their undoubted right to cruise where they will. There are on the seabed perhaps listening devices, sensors to pick up those submarines, put there by nation States exercising their undoubted right to emplace weapons of less than mass destruction. You also have the navies of the world going to and fro, exercising their undoubted right to verify the fact that weapons of mass destruction have not been emplaced on the seabed, as they are not allowed to be under the treaty of which my noble friend, Lord Brockway, spoke—that is, the treaty equivalent to banning the bolting of aeroplanes to the ground.
Imagine that there is also some natural gas there. It is a very busy scene. The natural gas is coming out into pipelines. Imagine that a pipeline bursts. It has been suggested, with what scientific weight I do not know, but I think with some, that if there is a burst within a big pipeline all the ships within two miles sink because of the bubbles, because a ship is held up by water and if the water is half gas they sink into it. Therefore measures have to be taken to ensure that pipelines do not burst, sinking the warships and merchant ships and verification ships of all the nations going about their

215
legal and proper business. This, of course, means more ships. It is a difficult administrative problem. I hope it can be solved. I do not know how, but I wish the Government good luck in solving it, as I think they must if this proposal is to be maintained as the British proposal.
To turn to the American proposal, the trustee zones are to be large, and this idea is already coming under attack around the world on the ground that it is submarine neo-colonialism. It has been attacked in this House for that reason, and it has been attacked by the developing countries. It is equally fair to say, on the other hand, that it limits the territorial waters. At the moment the coastal States have, under the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention, a right to exploit as far out as they can, and the American proposals would limit that right to the 200-fathom line. It would give coastal States a clear and limited right in a smaller area, whereas at present they have a large and rather indefinite right in a greater area. It certainly contains fewer administrative difficulties than our own proposal, but I believe that it may contain more political difficulties of the nature I have just outlined.
There is another difficulty. Because it is an American proposal, we all start thinking about the Americans themselves as trustees spreading into the Atlantic and the Pacific. We know that an American trustee zone would be administered efficiently, and we also know that British and French zones would be administered efficiently, without corruption. But consider a Mauritanian trusteeship zone—and I take Mauritania as a developing country with a very small population, with no technical resources and very little money. The Mauritanians are not going to be able to police the fact that their leases are being adhered to on the terms under which they are granted. They will have to get someone else to do it. Who? This is another difficulty about the American proposal.
Everybody in this country, and especially I think, by tradition, those represented on these Benches, must be concerned not only that the rule of law be established on the seabed but also that the arrangements made under it achieve social justice for all mankind. But the rule of law depends entirely on
216
enforcement; and enforcement depends in turn upon enforceability. We must, therefore, have an enforceable concept. Let me offer your Lordships a list of principles. It is less extensive than the United Nations list, and I believe it may be clearer than that under debate in the General Assembly at the moment.
I have five principles, or perhaps, to be more exact, four principles plus a rider. First, wealth derived from the seabed is to be justly divided among those now living; this is the apportionment of royalties. Secondly, wealth derived from the seabed is to be justly divided among the generations from now on; this is the conservation of resources. Thirdly, exploitation of the seabed is not to pollute the sea. Fourthly, principles one, two and three are to be enforced, and the peace is to be kept at sea and on the bed of the sea. This fourth principle is no more than a condition of the first three. Fifthly, the rider, present and future arrangements for the non-militarisation or non-nuclearisation of the seabed can most conveniently be verified by the same means as that used to keep the peace at sea and to enforce the exploitation provisions.
The sea and everything below it are really one unit. We have territorial waters; we have contiguous zones; we have high seas; we have a Continental Shelf; we have the proposed American trusteeship zone, and the proposed ocean depths régime. That is political. Physically we distinguish between the Shelf, the Slope, and the Rise; we group them all together and call them "Margin". We have the Abyssal Plain, the Mid-Ocean Ridge, and all the rest of it. But these things have to be dovetailed, and let us look at the degree of success we are achieving, for instance, in dovetailing things at the moment before we get on to the international régime.
Under British law, coal under the Continental Shelf, if it is ever dug up through the seas, or is discovered, is already nationalised. It is there already, pre-nationalised, under the sea. British constables have the same rights and privileges on installations on the Continental Shelf as they have ashore: licensing laws, offences against minors and the rest of it. Under international law, States can set up around installations on their Continental Shelf safety zones, one kilometre across,

217
which passing ships must respect. But under the Seabed Non-Emplacement Treaty anybody has the right to inspect anything anywhere outside the 12-mile limit—and there is plenty of Continental Shelf in the world outside the 12-miles. This is a contradiction.
There is even a contradiction within Continental Shelf law about whether or not countries may carry out research on the Continental Shelves of other countries without the permission of those countries. Natural gas under the North Sea is under Continental Shelf Law, with constables and all the rest of it, until it gets into the pipeline, and then it comes under high seas law. Let us think again about this possiblity of a minor burst in a natural gas pipeline and the problems of bubbles rising and the ships sinking. Is that a matter of Continental Shelf and national law, because the gas was born under national law; or is it a matter of the high seas, and therefore of international law, because at the moment the gas is escaping from a pipeline which uses high seas space?
As a general principle it is easier to invent a régime for the first time, where none exists, than to adapt ancient régimes, where they exist, to modern needs. I am thinking, of course, of the high seas themselves, the superjacent waters which have been lurking in the background of the whole debate. I think we have to take care that the liberty of the seas does not become the licence of the seas. One thinks of recent tanker collisions; one thinks of the great difficulty of relying on even the greatest companies in the world to be sufficiently careful with safety and with pollution—and here I have in mind particularly the extraordinary list of infractions that were made to stick against the Chevron Oil Company in an American court recently.
In modern conditions the freedom of the Queen's highway on land is ensured by voluminous regulation; it is not diminished by it. It may be that in due course the high seas will have to undergo a development somewhat analogous. Freedom to fish in the high seas wherever one pleases is analogous to common land pasturing. When we got beyond common land pasturing and inclosed the commons there was great social injustice, but the production of meat increased. Our present consumption is the higher for our
218
having gone beyond the common land system of agriculture.
All these things have caused the Canadian Government to pass their recent anti-pollution laws. These are the most rigorous that the world has ever seen: they are unprecedented. They are against all that we hold dear as a maritime country, but it behoves us to understand why they have done it. They did it, in their own words, because they failed, during recent meetings of the relevant international body, to get the comity of nations to do something of the same sort internationally. They therefore leapt 200 miles ahead of the pack, set up camp, and said, "Here is what we say. Now let us see who joins us". My Lords, we shall have to see who does join them.
If I understand it aright, the present position of the Canadian Government is that they will not put any of this nationalistic stuff into operation under regulations if they can possibly get an international conference in time, which will give them the protection they need against the pollution of the Arctic, and indeed on their own vertical coasts. They are introducing something of the same sort on their Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Perhaps in time the five principles I have just outlined to your Lordships may come to be found to be applicable to the high seas as well as the seabeds, because "There is meat in them there seas", as well as "Minerals in that there seabed".
The urgency has been stressed, and rightly so. Last year the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution saying that nobody was to exploit beyond the 200 metre limit. That was passed against the united opposition of all the developed countries except Sweden. But the exploitation is now being done, as my noble friend, Lord Ritchie-Calder, reminded us. It was a "Canute" resolution. Wherever you look in the technical literature now you will find technology in bud. Like a wood in early spring, it is hard to tell which tree will flower. There is a haze of green over all underwater technology, and big results will appear. Things will come right in this sphere only if we view this environment as what it is: a series of inter-linked natural systems. The air above, the fresh water flowing in, the sea water, ice, the bed of the sea, the subsoil of the sea, the rife in the sea and on the

219
bottom: it all circulates and it all is intermingled.
How to proceed? One might think of proceeding by one general overall régime, to wrap the whole lot up. But the mind boggles: it would take a thousand years to produce. No single mind would be quick enough to conceive all that is needed. It would be impossibly unwieldy. Or one might continue as we have been doing, by piecemeal agreements on this or that small sector. Here the danger is—and I believe that we are already seeing this danger—that when one small sector is in operation it is found to be incompatible with another small sector in operation. You come round in a circular argument to an all-embracing system.
I think that, on the whole, we shall get nowhere by slavish adherence to customary national vertical rights, or to legalistic horizontal layers of definition. The House will have listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, with great attention, and will have given his words far greater weight than it could possible give mine. If one inclines in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, then one must welcome the proposal of the Counsellor of the United States Mission to the United Nations of November 19 for a general international conference on the law of the sea, meeting during 1972 and 1973, dealing equally with the seabed law, the setting up of an international régime for the exploration and exploitation of the international seabed (subject of to-day's debate), the machinery for this régime, with territorial waters, with conservation and management of the living resources of the high seas, with pollution prevention, and indeed with anything else that the conference itself may find relevant. That is an American ballon d'essai. Anyhow, it is an interesting one.
International lawyers, with the exception of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce—and nobody was ever less legalistic than he was in his approach—may say that this is wrong because there is no consensus, and that there should be a consensus before there is a conference destined to bring forth treaties and conventions. There is nothing like a deadline for a conference to sharpen the mind and to push everybody towards a con-
220
sensus! Such a conference should be dovetailed with the 1972 Human Environment Conference of the United Nations. I hope that the British Government will continue to take a leading part, with the Americans, in the preparation of that conference, and possibly also the sea conference I have just mentioned. There is some hope of Russian agreement, because they have long been pressing for a conference on the law of the seas, but they have not got it; and this could be presented to them as being what they wanted, only better.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one simple question? Does that include the two mighty Asian nations, India and mainland China? Are they invited to this conference, or are they excluded?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, nobody is invited; it is only the faintest hint of a new idea in American policy. I have not the least doubt that if it came about it would be put forward in a United Nations' framework, so that that would cover India all right. As usual one may hope that one could get China into various ad hoc meetings without membership, but membership would be better still. The noble Lord deprived me of a singularly simple peroration which I was about to utter: that it is one world, both humanly and environmentally—a familiar statement of fact—and that our arrangements must express this truth both in the environment and in human organisations.
7.31 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I may speak briefly, by leave of the House, I should like to take up some of the points made. Before doing so, I should like to say—and this is said sincerely—that I think this has been a good debate. To me it has been a very interesting debate and also a useful debate, because a number of ideas have been ventilated and approaches tentatively explored which will be of use to Her Majesty's Government. All I undertake to do is to see that the thoughts which have been deployed in the course of quite a long
discussion are brought to the attention of my colleagues. It has been a debate distinguished by a number of extraordinarily interesting speeches. As

221
usual, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, took us into regions where the imagination tends to boggle. I was deeply interested in the presentation of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in a remarkable winding-up speech; and then we had the pleasure of listening to a really memorable contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce.
I should like to deal briefly with some of the points, because time is getting on. There have been criticisms—fairly put, although sometimes, I think, founded on certain misconceptions—of the United Kingdom's proposals, and I should like to deal with one or two of them. The system of blocks has come in for a good deal of block-busting, if I may make a bad pun. The whole licensing system has been represented as parcelling out packets of national sovereignty, rather analogous to the 19th century land grab in Africa—something which we all wish to avoid in this area, come what may. I believe that those fears, those suspicions, those criticisms are based on a misconception.
The proposed blocks would not be under national sovereignty; they would be areas in which States would, for a limited period, exercise certain limited rights by licence from an international authority. The British working paper envisages that these licences would be equitably distributed. In answer to the question of what is the alternative to bingo, I would say that the alternative is equity, and the whole basis for the equitable allocation—admittedly, it is a rough basis because the British proposals are purely schematic—is of course to be found in paragraph 8 of the British working paper.
There has also been criticism of the enforceability of a scheme, if a scheme were to come into effect based on the British proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, and other noble Lords, said that we shall have entirely different procedures operating in different areas and that this must give rise to every conceivable difficulty. All I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is that paragraph 7(b) of the British working paper makes it clear that the licences would be operated according to agreed standards and safeguards which could be set out in the agreement, and these would need to be
222
complied with. It may then be asked: how do you enforce those agreed standards'? I would remind noble Lords that the British working paper envisages that the rights which States acquire will be clearly defined, and will derive from an international authority.
Many of the definitions have to be worked out, but we believe that as our knowledge expands it will be perfectly possible to devise a workable scheme which will be compatible with other international agreements. It would, of course, be quite unrealistic to suppose that there would not be disagreements. Of course there would be. But paragraph 6(d), if I may refer to the small print, of the British working paper, envisages arrangements for the settlement of disputes, whether between States, or between States and the international authority. A lot will have to be worked out here, but I believe that if a régime along the broad lines envisaged in our working paper were to come into effect, enforcement should not present too great difficulties. But having said that, let me again emphasise that although we believe that our scheme, which is only in outline, affords a practical, pragmatic procedure, one that is perhaps too slow, perhaps too cautious—I accept that it is step by step—we believe that it would be possible, given good will and agreement to make progress reasonably fast.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. I wonder whether he can answer a question about the enforcement which, in my mind at any rate, is the real difficulty? If we take a British square under the British system, would the British Navy in that square be able to enforce a United Nations' or a r—gime regulation, without first passing that into British law? That seems to me the nub of the question.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think should prefer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, to answer that question. May I now turn to the criticisms which have been voiced of the American proposals? I would only repeat again that I believe those proposals, which cover an immense spectrum, are worthy of further study and we shall certainly be giving those proposals further study. They certainly merit it. But having looked at the American proposals

223
I see certain areas, apart from the areas which other noble Lords have pointed out, which create difficulties. There is the criticism of the trusteeship proposals in the intermediate area. I think this is a difficult concept.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who asked me what lay behind the expression used by our representative on August 4, when Mr. Gallagher talked about a simpler division of the seabed between national areas and those subject to the international régime, I have checked on this and his remarks were directed to the American proposal for a trusteeship area. That is, of course, a novel idea and introduces this concept of an intermediate zone where coastal States would have certain entrenched rights by international agreement.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, knows, our working paper does not contain any such idea. and we have felt that it would be administratively simpler and perhaps more effective to have a simple, more clear-cut division between national jurisdiction and the international area. That is what Mr. Gallagher was referring to when he was talking about a simpler division. It was because of the difficulty of defining for oneself this concept of the intermediate trusteeship area. Having said that, I certainly would not wish to rule out this idea and I believe it merits further examination.
I believe that another area of difficulty which merits further
examination is the very complex and elaborate administrative arrangements which are foreseen in the American draft convention. They look very heavy to me, possibly hard to work, but, again, this area will merit further careful examination. The licensing arrangements proposed in the American draft convention allow for, and must depend upon, some system of chequer-board squares, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, quite rightly said. Given the fact that they allow for competitive bidding rather than the United Kingdom approach of allocation to States on a basis of equity, they might be held to be inequitable. But, again, this merits further careful examination, and all I should like to emphasise is that we, for our part, will give the American proposals the careful examination which they most certainly deserve.
224
My Lords, there are, of course, the other, bolder, more imaginative proposals which have been commended to your Lordships—the proposals which are associated with Elizabeth Mann Borghese and with Professor Jacoby—and let me say that I find them very attractive. We all want to do away with wasteful national rivalries; we all want to promote the rule of law, with equity. But I must confess that I am still sceptical about the full Borghese plan, and it would be wrong for me to disguise my scepticism. The socialist "Sea Lords" have argued a powerful case in support of them, but at 7.42 on this particular evening I am not going to be seduced by these particular nautical sirens. I believe, my Lords, that these proposals, taken together, are both unnegotiable and impracticable. That is my view, and I may be wrong; but I say that they are unnegotiable, because I cannot for the life of me see how, in present circumstances, although I would wish it otherwise, certain States (for example, the Soviet Union) would be prepared to submit their sovereignty to the sort of international authority which is proposed in this particular programme. I fear that it is just not "on", and therefore I hold that these proposals, regretfully, are impracticable. The hard fact is that we must work with the world as it is, or the world as it is will work with us; and I do not think that, in the present state of the world in which we live, these proposals are really practicable.
My Lords, I said that I would not detain the House long, and I will not do so. Therefore, if my noble friend Lord Bessborough will forgive me, I will deal only very quickly with some of the points about which he has asked me. I will write to him, and I am able to give him some satisfaction about the progress that has been made under certain of the contracts about which he has asked me. I shall also be able to give him some satisfaction about the progress which has been made in oceanographic cooperation with our European neighbours. But perhaps he could take that on trust for the time being, because I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer.
My Lords, how are we to go on from now? That is the question which other noble Lords have asked, and it is certainly a very difficult one to answer. I found what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, had to say about a

225
broadly based environmental approach very beguiling. I myself believe that we should continue to take the lead, in the international community, in matters of marine pollution. Two important conferences are to be held shortly: a conference under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome in, I think, December; and then the very important Stockholm Conference in 1972, which I hope will allow us to move forward in this whole question of the control, for the betterment of mankind, of the marine environment. But, on the whole, I still believe that, with the exception of those matters of pollution which arise directly from the exploration and exploitation of the ocean bed, it is best to leave that and to pursue a functional approach here, and to pursue these pollution matters in the forums in which they are at present being pursued.
Therefore, my Lords, I feel that in the last resort all we can do is to try to identify those matters which require agreement, and try to give them as much push and as much priority as we can. On the seabed, I suggest that we should continue to give priority to an attempt to get an agreement on limits, an attempt to get agreement on an international régime and an attempt to get an agreement on sensible, workmanlike, international machinery. These are the three subjects which Her Majesty's Government believe need to be considered together.
But, having said that, I must add that I am of course aware that there have been proposals, ventilated very recently in the United Nations, looking forward to the possibility of a wider international conference on these matters. The United States draft resolution to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred is, of course, still being debated, and its terms of reference certainly go rather wider than those which we have advocated. Moreover, the United States draft is not the only draft under consideration. However, our constant aim in the United Nations is to find policies which command general support, and I would certainly not wish to rule out the possibility of our subscribing to a resolution Oil the lines of the American draft.
That said, my Lords, I should like, in conclusion, to turn back to a much more parochial matter. I think that two
226
noble Lords, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and Lord Brockway, suggested that this was perhaps a matter to which your Lordships could continue to make a useful and constructive contribution, possibly by way of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I acknowledge straight away that I think there is a great deal of expertise in your Lordships' House on this matter. There are, as will be appreciated, practical problems involved in that suggestion, but before I sit down I should like to say that I shall be very glad to consider that suggestion with other noble Lords through the usual channels. Perhaps I may leave it there for the time being. Having said that, I would conclude by repeating what I said earlier: that I personally have found this a most useful debate, and I will certainly undertake to see that the suggestions which have been ventilated in what I feel has been a noteworthy discussion are duly and carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government.
7.50 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I undertook the introduction of this debate with very real diffidence and I am most grateful to your Lordships for your indulgence and courtesy, all the more so because I do not find myself able to fly eloquently, as does the noble Lord, Lord Soper, over the ocean deeps, unhampered by notes, as is his custom in debates in this House. But I have been greatly encouraged by the quality and character of the debate which has taken place to-day. I feel with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that it has been constructive, and I am heartened by the way in which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has received it. I feel grateful to one and all who have taken part in this debate; all the more so because they have done so with diffidence on a subject which is immense, and with a lack of dogmatism in the attempt to discuss whether some positive contribution can be made to a matter of consequence to the world now and of greater consequence for the future.
In winding up the debate on Marine Science and Technology in July, 1969, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said that the message which had emerged on the importance of setting up a régime for the seabed could be summed up by three words: urgency, universality

227
and idealism. I should have thought that this debate has endorsed and underlined those words. To these would certainly be added "complexity"; and when a complex problem to which so many solutions have been advanced is coupled with urgency, one is clearly in a difficulty, but a difficulty which will remain capable of resolution only if there is common agreement on the basic principles which are sought not only within this House and in this country but throughout the world.
Is it the national interest of the coastal States or the common heritage of mankind which should prevail? If not the latter, one can only predict an aggravation of international disputes. I believe that the previous Government and the present Government have made a notable contribution. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, opts for a reasonably deep limit to the limits of national jurisdiction; for here I see the common heritage of mankind shrink. Certainly it seems to me that public and private enterprise of different nations collaborate more easily than do their Governments. I am still not convinced by the arguments of the national blocks; but there has been a process of "block-busting" during the course of this debate, and I am encouraged by the noble Earl the Leader of the House when he says that we have not really rightly understood what the Government have in mind here.
Your Lordships would not expect to get much light on matters of enforcement from one speaking from these Benches. Noble Lords, either explicitly or by their silence, have indicated that they have not seen much light on that subject in the speech I made. I should be the first to say that I can speak with no kind of expertise in these matters; but I am still bound to say that if nations are to provide security on present principles of national enforcement, the way in which this is planned will have to be something different from what has hitherto obtained.
The last point I want to make is that I feel that this subject is one of novelty. I
228
hope and believe that novelty has also been a feature of this debate, in the principles presented by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in a very impressive speech which I should myself like to read and digest and certainly do not wish to comment on at this stage. There was novelty also from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in his most moving and impressive speech, first in regard to setting the matter in an environmental context; and this has been repeated by many noble Lords.
I am uneasy lest we do not think of the oceans and regard the seabed in isolation. If we do that there is a terrible danger that the common heritage of mankind will become the Dead Sea. I gained great encouragement from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, when, as I understood him, he said that while he had started with some doubt in his mind as to whether reality could be attached in a legal form to the term "common heritage of mankind", he feels that as it applies to the seas, this can be given a definite legal content. My Lords, I believe that this is an area in which the idealistic concepts which all of us desire can be wedded to practical circumstances, although with great difficulty. I think it is worth recalling the saying that the map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth glancing at. My Lords, with permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

CUMBERLAND RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  NATIONAL CORPORATIONS: FINANCING OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
  NATIONAL CORPORATIONS: FINANCING OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
  COURTESY TITLES OF PEERS' ELDEST SONS
  COURTESY TITLES OF PEERS' ELDEST SONS