Sitting of 4 August 1972

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

COMPANIES (FLOATING CHARGES AND RECEIVERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

NORTHERN IRELAND (FINANCE)
11.7 a.m.
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move,
That the Finance (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1100), dated 26th July, 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.
The House will be aware that parity in taxation is a major principle governing the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Northern Ireland Exchequers, and the main purpose of this order is to effect changes in Northern Ireland transferred taxes which have already been enacted for Great Britain in the Finance Act, 1972. These concern estate duty, stamp duty, motor vehicle licence duty, selective employment tax and general betting duties. As the House knows, these have already been considered in great detail during the passage of the Finance Act, 1972.
The most important of the parity changes were proposed in the White Paper "Northern Ireland: Financial Arrangements and Legislation", which
1112
was presented to Parliament on 5th June, 1972. Hon. Members will recall that there was a debate in which this matter was referred to in some detail by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 12th June. I think that I can confine myself to going through the order. The parity changes provide, with estate duty, for an increase in the exemption limit for estate duty from £12,500 to £15,000 and for a new scale of rates. In addition, property left to a surviving spouse up to a sum of £15,000, to charities up to £50,000 and to certain bodies concerned with preservation of the national heritage, including the Ulster Museum and the Ulster Folk Museum, is to be left out of account for the purposes of estate duty. As in Great Britain, these changes take effect from 21st March.
Under stamp duty, there is provision to increase to £10,000 and £15,000 respectively the limits for exemption from transfer duty and the reduced rate of transfer duty on transfers of property other than stocks and shares. The provisions concerning motor vehicles are necessary because of the introduction of car tax and value added tax and to amend the provisions exempting from licence duty vehicles used by certain classes of disabled persons to take account of revised arrangements for grant aiding the provision of such vehicles. There is also the provision to increase from 8 hundredweight to 10 hundredweight the weight limit for exemption from duty of invalid carriages.
The abolition of selective employment tax in the Finance Act, 1972, applied to the whole of the United Kingdom but the provisions for refund of SET are contained in Northern Ireland legislation. We therefore need to provide separately in the order for winding up the system of refunds by setting time limits of three months and six months respectively for Northern Ireland employers to apply for registration and submit claims for refunds.
In Part VI the order provides for general betting duty on on-course bets to be reduced from 5 per cent. to 4 per cent. The only point I ought to mention to the House in relation to the changes arising out of the Finance Act, 1972, in which we follow wholly the British pattern on this occasion, is that the order

1113
contains in Article 17 provisions to allow, with effect from 31st July, for the range of selective employment tax refunds to be extended for employers in Northern Ireland. This relief was part of the package of measures to assist the Northern Ireland economy announced by my right hon. Friend on 27th July.
Apart from that, there are provisions for making minor amendments of Northern Ireland legislation on estate duty and stamp duty which have already been enacted for Great Britain in previous Finance Acts. There are also administrative provisions relating to the Civil Contingencies Fund and the Road Fund. If the House would like, I can deal with this in a little more detail. I have covered the matters dealt with by the British financial legislation and I am not sure that there is any need for me to spell out in any detail any other matters unless hon. Members would like me to do so.
Article 20 seeks to increase from £1 million to £10 million the amount by which the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund may be temporarily increased in an emergency. The existing limit on a temporary increase was fixed at £1 million in 1950, since when there has been a more than ten-fold increase in the Supply Estimates.
Apart from that, there is a special reason why, in present circumstances, we need the additional flexibility which would be afforded by power to increase the Civil Contingencies Fund. The difficult situation in Northern Ireland can impose large and unexpected increases in expenditure and further increases may arise from new policies which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may adopt. A concrete example of this problem about which the House would be anxious to have no difficulty is the Vote for compensation on which expenditure is running well ahead of the estimate, partly because of the recent increase in the total of damage and partly because of a deliberate policy of speeding up the payment of compensation wherever possible.
I hope that we shall be able to make the payment of compensation even faster because I have had many representations from hon. Members and others in Northern Ireland that it is essential. I am sure that the House would not want
1114
any legislative bar to stop us from doing that. That is why it has been thought right to propose in Article 20 that the figure of £10 million should be substituted for £1 million.
I have not taken up much time because this order follows what has happened in the rest of the United Kingdom and it has been debated at considerable length in the House during the discussions on the Finance Act. The House will appreciate that the question of finance legislation is urgent in Northern Ireland, just as it is in England. I therefore hope that the House, before it rises, will feel able to pass the order, which gives final approval to the financial measures proposed in Northern Ireland this summer but which need the approval of this House and another place.
11.12 a.m.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I, too, wish to be brief, but there are a number of general points which should he aired, particularly as there is to be a great deal of discussion in the approaching weeks about the political future of Northern Ireland. While there is a great deal of discussion about the form of government in Northern Ireland, there seems to be little thought about the question of financing in Northern Ireland. I do not think that even some prominent politicians in the North of Ireland have looked very carefully at the figures, and it would therefore be as well if, however briefly, we aired the matter today.
The order is based on the Government of Ireland Act. The question of the share of the reserve taxes—income tax, corporation tax, purchase tax, and so on—is determined at Westminster. I presume that what we are talking about are the transferred taxes, those which were under the control of Stormont—betting duties, motor vehicle duties and some aspects of selective employment tax, although when I first looked at the figures I assumed that the question of selective employment tax would be dealt with at Westminster.
In dealing with the order which raises the revenue, we should look at the figures in Cmnd. 4998—"Northern Ireland Financial Arrangements and Legislation". This shows the very small amount of revenue with which we are concerned in this order. The total revenue in the

1115
Budget Estimate of 1972–73 is nearly £442 million. The figure under the transferred tax revenue is £37 million. Thus about £40 million is in effect the budget of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Craig, in the North of Ireland, talks about UDI for Northern Ireland. Perhaps it is possible, but there would have to be a fairy godmother somewhere before it could happen in view of the figures. If people, having taken account of the figures, want UDI, then so be it. But, in terms of the standard of living in the North of Ireland, there would be a very great change—
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that no large section of the community in Northern Ireland advocates UDI and that it is total balderdash in view of the figures? Northern Ireland can survive as an economic entity only as part and parcel of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Rees: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He can be firm about the views of politicians in Northern Ireland in a way in which perhaps I cannot. I referred to the figures in order to show the weakness of the argument about UDI. One of the basic reasons why politicians in the South are not very eager to take over the North is that they have had 50 years of government and they understand the figures. There would be a real problem for anybody running the North, in view of the figures.
Perhaps the Minister would help us on one point. The estimate of transferred tax revenue in the order is £37 million. Underneath it refers to transferred non-tax revenue of £48 million. The fact that the non-tax revenue which is transferred is greater than the tax revenue needs explanation. I am sure that there is a simple answer to it but it has escaped me.
I turn to the question of procedure. We run into trouble every time we have an order arising out of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act of a few months ago. When one considers that we are to have a Northern Ireland budget debate in the space of 1½ hours on a Friday morning, it makes one think. It may be that by this time next year the constitutional proposals and the
1116
changes which we want to see made in the North will be in effect. On the other hand, it may not be, and it is on this that I should like to say a few words.
We are thinking in terms of having a Committee which will consider orders before they come to the Floor of the House—something like the debate we had last week, but not in the House.
Mr. Speakers: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he said a moment ago that the debate could continue for 1½hours. In fact, it could go on until half-past five.
Mr. Rees: I was rather afraid of that, Mr. Speaker. I know that you must remind me of it, but I am sorry that you did.
I hope that if we are in a similar situation next year, discussions on Northern Ireland finance can be hooked on to the discussions on the Finance Bill. The debates on the Finance Bill in the House and in Committee upstairs attract Members who are expert and interested in financial affairs and it would be a good thing if the question of Northern Ireland finance could be dealt with by the Finance Bill procedure. It would not prevent Northern Ireland Members from contributing to the discussions. Indeed, all of us who have responsibility for Northern Ireland affairs would have to be involved. So I put the point to the Minister and I hope he thinks that it can be considered.
When one looks to the discussions of the next few weeks—I hope they will be quick—when the political discussions are taking place, having looked at some of the Stormont discussions—and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is a Member of the Stormont Parliament and will have participated in debates there—I would ask this question. Was there enough detailed investigation in Stormont? When we have new procedures we ought to look at the procedures of the new constitution of the North to make sure that there is enough detailed investigation, and procedure for it.
It may be that to call this sum of money, in the context of £400 million, a Budget is a delusion of grandeur. It may be that while "Budget" is an appropriate expression in relation to this on one side of the water, it is not on the other, and if

1117
there is to be a Greater London Council approach it could well be that new procedures more appropriate to the needs of Northern Ireland finance need to be evolved.
There are one or two other general points. The Minister has inherited a Budget procedure from Stormont. I ask the Minister this, in the spirit of trying to see what we can do in the context of Northern Ireland in the new constitution. What was the purpose of the Northern Ireland Budget? Was it to talk in terms purely Gladstonian—to raise revenue and to make sure the revenue would be above expenditure and would break even, and that if there should be a surplus it should be small and only to take into account contingencies—a Budget which there has not been in this country since 1947 when the Keynesian analysis came into budgetary policy with an above the line surplus and that sort of thing, and we got involved in terms of inflation and deflation? Is this what was—and is —involved in the Budget of Northern Ireland?
That leads me to the next question. What is the function of the Joint Exchequer Board where the Northern Ireland Government are involved with the Treasury? I understand that it determines the amount of reserve revenue and that it looks at the cost of reserve services attributable to Northern Ireland, which, I presume, is deducted before payments are made, and it looks at the amount of the imperial contribution and other questions.
It is important that we get clear what the function of the Northern Ireland Budget is, given this small sum, because this is important for the weeks ahead. The Minister has explained and has therefore pre-empted detailed questions about estate duty, SET, betting duty and the abolition of the road fund. He has told us they are exactly the same as those at Westminster. It makes one wonder, when one has a separate Budget, because they are exactly the same thing, according to the Minister, and that reinforces the question I ask. What was the purpose of the Budget in Northern Ireland, if that is the case, except from the accountability point of view?
1118
The Minister mentioned the Civil Contingencies Fund. He explained that it is out of this sum—and it is growing—that compensation is paid to people whose homes are bombed. I put a point of which one of my hon. Friends reminds me—about the Co-op in Belfast, which seems to be a favourite target, having been blown up, particularly with the bad bombing of a few months ago. I take it simply as an example; I am not picking it out as being different, for other people with other premises suffer in the same manner. The question is, are they to get compensation quickly enough to get on with rebuilding?
Would the Minister consider one other question put to me recently about these small sums of compensation which are paid to people? Sometimes, as a result of searches by troops, when they come in, doors are broken. I take that as an example of damage which may be done. People are, quite naturally, antagonised by this sort of thing. I think we would all be if the Salvation Army came into our homes, let alone any other, whatever its purpose might be. Is there not some way of speeding up payments so that people do not have to wait for months to get the smallest repairs done?
Surely this could be done with the normal Finance Bill procedure. There are many more questions about which Members, from Northern Ireland in particular, are concerned on the Civil Contingencies Fund side. I have raised only one or two detailed points. My general purpose is simply to raise the issue that in the weeks ahead—I hope no more than that—as the political parties and the Secretary of State and his Ministers are discussing the future of Northern Ireland they will be coming to on the financial side. The point is that if the political side is got wrong, that will be very bad; but if we get the right sort of constitution and the wrong financial backing, then, given the problems of Northern Ireland, that will be serious indeed, and I hope that the Minister can give us some general indications in that regard.
11.25 a.m.
Mr. Rafton Pounder: First of all I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House and the Minister for having been a few minutes late this morning, and I apologise in advance

1119
should anything I shall say have already been covered by what has already been said.
At the outset let me welcome the contents of this order. Indeed, I go further and take this opportunity of expressing appreciation and gratitude for the very generous financial and economic assistance which has been given to Northern Ireland in recent weeks and months. With the economy as it is at the present time, this assistance is not only very urgently needed but most gratefully received and appreciated.
I would make one or two general comments on what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, talking rather generally about this order, before I come down to details and specific points contained therein.
When one looks at the somewhat small section of the transferred taxes in relation to the total expenditure of Northern Ireland, one realises that it is a very small figure—the sum of £30 million-odd has been mentioned—but one finds that they are becoming more and more identical with similar taxation on this side of the Irish Sea and that we are in fact talking in the order in terms of legislation here and the Finance Bill passed by this House a few weeks ago.
I certainly welcome the opportunity which this order gives us to look, for the very first time, I think, at what would have been the Finance Bill at Stormont had there been a Northern Ireland Parliament in existence. Following the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South, I accept his argument that were it necessary next year—obviously I hope that it will not be—to have a Finance Bill and a Finance Bill vis-à-vis Stormont, one could consider the two together, because one sees from the order and the taxation changes contained in it that these provisions are almost identical to those which were included in the Finance Bill which this House has passed.
I think that there are, perhaps, two weaknesses in particular which this order reveals. First, if there are to be two or more regional assemblies in the United Kingdom, it is all-important that regional fiscal differentials be considered. I hold very strongly the view that any regional assembly, be it at Stormont or in Scotland, Wales or wherever, should
1120
be vested with some powers of fiscal differentiation where that would be appropriate, and it seems to be a little unfortunate, to say the least of it, to find oneself, as one does in the case of this order, in a situation where one is rubber stamping parallel or identical legislation. Worse still, had there been a Stormont, and had there, therefore, been a Northern Ireland Finance Bill as such, one would have seen Stormont spending its time enacting legislation which had already gone through this House. If one is to have a credible regional policy—and I for one have a passionate belief in it—there should be regional fiscal policies and differentials. That leads one to this thought: what about some form of regional taxation or, if necessary, negative regional taxation?
In this order one of the few differentials that existed has disappeared. It was normal practice in Stormont Finance Bills for changes in estate duty to come into effect from the date of the Stormont Budget, which is normally six to eight weeks subsequent to the Budget statement in this House. In the order the effective date for estate duty changes is the date of the Budget statement in the House and not the date of the presentation of the White Paper which was the Northern Ireland Budget this year. That change of date, which makes sense to me, further underscores the virtually identical nature of the Northern Ireland finances with those of the rest of the Kingdom.
Obviously, the increase in estate duty exemption level is welcome. According to the 1970–71 returns of estate duty, there were 7,290 estates in Northern Ireland under a net capital value of £15,000, which is the new exemption limit, and only 391 estates above the £15,000 figure. Therefore, the increase in the exemption to £15,000 will be very beneficial to farms and medium-sized family businesses in Northern Ireland. Anyone who is familiar with Northern Ireland will know the overwhelming extent to which farming and small family businesses dominate the economic life of the Province.
I notice that a substantial part of the order—Articles 6 to 12 inclusive—deals with the exemption from duty of
"Objects of national, scientific, historic or artistic interest."

1121
I do not recall similar provisions being included in this year's Westminster Finance Bill. I wonder whether Northern Ireland is being streamlined into previous British enactments or whether I missed the provision in this year's Finance Bill.
I am glad that there has been no change in relation to gifts inter vivos in Northern Ireland. That is one differential between the rules of this country and Northern Ireland that I hope will not be tampered with. I also note that the Road Fund is being wound up. Why is that being done, particularly at this time?
I respectfully make certain suggestions on Schedule 1. It appears to have been drafted much too narrowly. The Schedule lists the recipient bodies which can receive gifts free from estate duty. Only two recipient bodies are specifically named, the Ulster Museum and the Ulster Folk Museum. The second of those is inaccurately described. I am under the impression that it has changed its title to the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum.
There follows a general description of recipient bodies exempt from estate duty categorised under three broad headings. I wonder whether three organisations which come immediately to mind are covered by these general labels and descriptions and, if not, why not? I am thinking of the Armagh Observatory, which I understand periodically receives gifts, the Scotch-Irish Trust of Ulster, which has undertaken the useful renovation of some historical cottages, particularly in the West of the Province, and the Linen Hall Library in Belfast, which has the best collection of Belfast material anywhere in the United Kingdom and has been the recipient of many gifts in wills over the years. I hope that those three organisations are included under the three general descriptive categories contained in the Schedule. I should think that the Linen Hall Library has as good a case for exemption as the Ulster Museum.
Article 12 deals with the reduction of stamp duty on conveyances and leases. This provision is very welcome, and I hope that it will provide a stimulus to the property market which, particularly in Belfast, has been going through a lean period in recent times. I know that some houses have sold well and quickly but,
1122
generally speaking, prices have been depressed and the market has been sluggish. I hope that this small incentive will produce a fillip to the market.
The order contains no reference to value added tax. Does this mean that Northern Ireland will automatically follow suit, or will there be regional variations as there were with selective employment tax and selective employment payments? One case which comes to mind is the repair and maintenance of property about which there has been some correspondence recently, and papers have been sent to the Northern Ireland Office on the subject. I share the view that, until the Rent Restriction Acts in Northern Ireland are brought into line with those in the rest of the Kingdom, value added tax should not be levied on the cost of repairs and maintenance of property.
Speaking purely for myself, because I think that some of my hon. Friends do not agree with me, I am not the slightest bit sorry to see under Article 16(5) the termination next year of selective employment payments. That was a blunt instrument by which to give assistance. While undoubtedly it has been beneficial to some firms, to others it has been a bonus which has cushioned them from facing the realities of commercial life. By all means let assistance be given to firms which may be in temporary difficulties and which have reasonable long-term viability prospects but, speaking as an accountant who has seen SEP being treated in certain accounts as a below-the-line bonus to profits, I cannot help feeling that the Northern Ireland Government of the day was being overgenerous. SET and SEP were twin non-senses, and I am glad to see that they are both returned to the limbo from which they emerged six or seven years ago. Permanent interment in a mausoleum of fiscal folly is the fate they deserve.
With those few remarks I welcome the order.
11.37 a.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) Today the House is considering something of vital importance to the well being of Northern Ireland, that is to say, the financial arrangements between this House and Northern Ireland. I hope the Minister when he replies will deal with

1123
the questions which have been put to him, especially those which have been put by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees).
For far too long the financial arrangements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain have not been thoroughly scrutinised. As a Member of the Stormont Parliament my view is that the Budget statement made by the Minister of Finance in Stormont was to a large measure a rubber-stamping of what took place in this House. It was certainly not looked upon as a matter of great importance because the former Prime Minister, Mr. Terence O'Neill, on one Budget day went to a horse show. He did not think it important to take his seat on the Cabinet Bench when the Budget statement was being made.
The Minister in his reply will perhaps comment upon the fiscal powers which the Minister of Finance in Stormont had. I suspect that he had no powers whatsoever, or that any little power he might have had was in minor matters which enabled him to make variations but no substantial changes.
I wish to take up a point which was made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South. I emphasise that both Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland depend for their economic survival on Great Britain. Therefore, we see the reason for the Southern Ireland Government wishing to follow Great Britain's entry into the Common Market. Since Ireland as a whole depends on the prosperity of Great Britain, it follows that no part of Ireland can be prosperous if there is adversity and poverty on this side of the Irish Sea.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that anybody who puts forward the proposal that Northern Ireland can survive economically by going it alone should, to use an Ulsterism, have his head examined. There is no future for Northern Ireland in my opinion unless the link between Northern Ireland and this country is maintained. The maintenance of that link affects the political, economic and social future of the people of Northern Ireland, and this matter should be emphasised.
The House must not look on Northern Ireland as a Cinderella and should not
1124
regard any expenditure in Northern Ireland as a form of charity. Since Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, it has a right to look to this House for its support in its days of difficulty and adversity. This House has looked to other parts of the United Kingdom in its times of adversity and under its regional policies has been prepared to give help to areas which need it.
I associate myself with the comment by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) that the people of Northern Ireland should be grateful for the financial support which they have been given by Her Majesty's Government, especially at this time of deep adversity in the face of attacks by subversive elements, mainly by the IRA and its wings, against the economy of Northern Ireland. Vicious attacks have been made on factories as well as on businesses. Attacks have also taken place in local areas in which great efforts had been made to get factories built and people to occupy them. It is a comment on the folly and madness of the IRA that it should set its hand to destroy those very factories and businesses which help to forward the best interests of all sections of the Northern Ireland community. This is what has happened.
I welcome the Minister's statement about the payment of compensation. It is not necessarily the large businesses that suffer most, because they have considerable assets and are able more or less to manage. Although I advocate immediate payment to large businesses as to anybody else, I wish to emphasise the difficulties of people in small businesses who have suffered a great deal. I can give an example in the Sandy Row area which suffered badly from bombing. The people who owned houses which were bombed were responsible for repairing them, and when the work was done many house-repairing agencies in Northern Ireland and Belfast demanded immediate payment. Those ordinary working-class people were not in a position to make immediate payment. Therefore they were not able to get the work done, and many of these houses are still in a bad state of repair.
I should like to impress upon the Minister the needs of those people. This is a vital matter and I would ask him

1125
to take a careful and close look at it. These people have suffered in their homes and are continuing to suffer because they are not in a position to say, "We can pay the bill, so go ahead and repair our house." It is essential that payments should be made quickly. There was a recent announcement that 70 per cent.— I am not quite sure of the percentage figure, but it was certainly a large one—was to be paid almost immediately when claims were passed. Could the Minister say how many firms have benefited by these payments? I made representations in the case of a business in York Street, a case in which I have taken a personal interest, where as yet no payment has been made. The proprietor of the business is in difficulty in re-establishing his business and in seeking to rehabilitate himself in the business life of the community.
I should like to mention the subject of value added tax which is not mentioned in the order but is relevant to this discussion. In any future governmental set-up in Northern Ireland will the fiscal arrangements made under VAT be similar to the arrangements for SET? Will it be controlled absolutely and totally from this country, or from Northern Ireland?
I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, South that in certain circumstances there is an argument for a variation in VAT in Northern Ireland. The basic industry in Northern Ireland is agriculture and the farmers of Northern Ireland face great difficulties since they depend largely on imported feeding-stuffs. If these feeding-stuffs are to be subject to VAT to the extent that is envisaged, the farming community will suffer in great measure; as we go into the Common Market, they will find themselves more and more on the periphery of the whole set-up. I hope that the Minister will give this matter his careful attention.
Another matter which is of great importance to anybody concerned with politics in Northern Ireland is the accountability of the various departments over expenditure matters. As the House knows, there is now no Public Accounts Committee in Northern Ireland. The accounts of the Stormont Administration for the previous year are not scrutinised and the Comptroller and Auditor-
1126
General has no committee to report to. He cannot call the attention of elected representatives to any matters which he feels needs careful and close scrutiny. I press the Minister to do something about that matter in this House. If this House is asked to pass legislation which seeks to raise money, surely it has the responsibility to see how the money is spent.
Article 19, in Part VII of the order, says that it shall be the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor-General
"to certify and report on any accounts so transmitted to him".
Therefore, his responsibility is set out in the order. But to whom is he to report and what public representatives will have the opportunity to question the various departments on the way in which money is spent? This is an important matter. The Departments of Stormont have been let off the hook and there is no scrutiny whatever of public accounts even in respect of the previous year of administration.
The questions asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, South are very important. The financial arrangements between Northern Ireland and this country need to be looked into, and I think that the best solution to the problem would be to have one Budget for the whole country, giving hon. Members of this House, especially those from Northern Ireland, an opportunity to debate fully those aspects of the Finance Bill affecting the people of Northern Ireland. That would be a most suitable arrangement. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance has simply been the agent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. From the Dispatch Box at Stormont he has merely parrotted matters already agreed in this House. Therefore the best arrangement would be to see that Northern Ireland is really treated as part of the United Kingdom and that one Budget should be applicable to the whole country.
11.50 a.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I too want to record my appreciation of the generous financial aid that Her Majesty's Government have given to our stricken Province. It is sad to contemplate that the millions of £s which have been and will be poured into Northern Ireland are the result of the policy of

1127
devastation pursued by the IRA which hopes to bomb Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. However the IRA has not destroyed the spirit of the Ulster people and, thanks to the financial support of this House, it will not destroy the economic life of the community.
It must not be forgotten, however, that if the Westminster Government had distributed financial aid to Northern Ireland in those terrible years between the wars when the Province suffered more harshly than any other part of the United Kingdom from the depression, the slums which deface Northern Ireland today would not exist. It is worth repeating that in some areas Protestants and Roman Catholics alike have to live in housing which is a disgrace to our Province.
At that time, unfortunately, the Westminster Government did not pour money into the Province, and I feel that if in those years Ulster Unionist Members had fought more fiercely on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland we should not be in the terrible situation that we have to endure today.
Article 20 of the Finance order deals with the Civil Contingencies Fund. As the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, that is the fund out of which compensation is paid to people whose premises are bombed. I too ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to speed up the system whereby payments are made for repairs. I know of many cases in Belfast where people have not been given money for repairs to their houses necessitated by bomb attacks some considerable time ago.
I feel that help should also be given to those who have been forced out of their homes. I know of a family in Alliance Avenue, Belfast, whose home was destroyed as a result of a car bomb. They went to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. They were offered a house in Castlereagh. When they got to the house, they found it occupied by squatters. They went back to the housing executive where they were told that they could not be helped any more. That is a disgraceful state of affairs.
We have heard a great deal about the emigration of Roman Catholic families from the Lenadoon Estate in Belfast. The IRA claimed that it had to defend
1128
these people against the actions of the British Army. However, we all know that the British Army was there to defend all the people and to protect them from intimidation. That flight was stage managed. However, there was nothing stage-managed about the flight of Protestants who were intimidated in the same area. Some of them fled to my constituency.
I mention this because it is a very important matter affecting the housing executive. No publicity was given to their flight. They were intimidated out of their homes in the Suffolk area of Dunmurry. Their children were spat upon in the streets by Republican supporters, their wives were abused, and they had to leave to seek safety. When they told the Housing Executive about it the reply was that they could not be helped with new homes immediately.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is going rather wide of the order. This is purely a financial order. The hon. Gentleman must stick fairly strictly to the order.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the order there are references to the Civil Contingencies Fund from which, I understand, compensation is to be paid. I seek your ruling. Is not it in order for an hon. Member to discuss how this money should be spent when it is raised? I think that that is the kernel of the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) is discussing.
Mr. Speaker: There is considerable force in what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has just said. However I did not recognise that portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) as being related to the point just raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
Mr. Kilfedder: It is my fault, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately I have to preface my point by describing what has happened in order that I might discuss the possibility of compensation for these people. I hope that I might be allowed to continue for one minute more to elaborate the point, If I see signs that you are becoming irritable, I shall know that I have to stop.

1129
I know that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) agrees with what I am about to say. These people went to the housing executive. They were told that they could not be helped. On a Monday evening about three weeks ago they decided suddenly to leave their homes. The very next morning there were Republican supporters outside their homes brandishing rent books issued by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's area manager of the estate, a Mr. Jarvis. How he issued those books I do not know. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive cannot have known that the occupiers of those houses intended to leave them that day. The new books could not have been issued legally. However, the people left their homes. Some had to leave their belongings behind. Will the Government help these people by giving them some compensation?
Mr. A. W. Stallard: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that these houses had been rightfully allocated to those who brandished rent books?
Mr. Kilfedder: That is a point that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister of State will pursue. However, in view of Mr. Speaker's intervention just now, I do not wish to pursue it too far. It is obvious that Mr. Jarvis could not have issued these books legally. What is more, one of the rent collectors, a Mrs. Maddon, went to one of these Protestant homes saying that she had been allocated it and that the Protestant family had to leave. I should like to know whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State condones a situation of that kind and, if so, whether he will compensate people for what they have lost.
Mr. Stanley Orme: This problem of compensation is vital, and I am sure that the Minister of State has taken it on board. However, I am equally sure that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) is not trying to mislead the House by saying that there are fake applications and that intimidation is stage managed only on one side whereas on the other side people are genuinely intimidated. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there are problems on both sides. I hope that he will acknowledge them.
Mr. Kilfedder: I certainly agree that in one case in my constituency in an area which is not normally troubled a Roman Catholic family was intimidated out of their home. I publicly denounced that action at the time. But I am talking about the wholesale flight of Protestant tenants from the Twinbrook Estate in Suffolk.
Another important point concerns value added tax. This will cause additional hardship to farmers in Northern Ireland who spend considerable sums on the purchase of feeding-stuffs. However, they are not the only people who will suffer from the imposition of VAT. For example, in my constituency there is the world famous firm of horticulturists, seedsmen and nurserymen, Dicksons of Hawlmark, which has pointed out to me the grave difficulties which VAT will impose on the trade. I have had no satisfaction from the Treasury in response to the representations which I have made. I hope my hon. Friend will look into the difficulties which VAT will cause in Northern Ireland. Certainly there is a case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) said, for making a distinction in the Province.
12.1 p.m.
Mr. Channon: The debate on the order has ranged a bit wide. I am not sure that I am wholly competent to deal with all the points raised by hon. Members. Indeed, I shall have difficulty in answering some of them. However, I will examine all the points which have been raised. If I cannot answer them now, I will do my best to provide some form of answer to hon. Members at a later date.
First, I should like to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) as they are fresh in my mind. I am sure we all agree about the need to speed up compensation. We are doing our utmost to speed up the payment of compensation to those who have lost or suffered damage to property because of bombings. I accept the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about the need to try to help the small businesses which often receive appalling blows because of bombings.
I think it would be unwise of me to be drawn into the housing question this morning. The Civil Contingencies Fund

1131
does not deal with the points my hon. Friend has in mind. I will examine what my hon. Friend said, although I cannot make any comment about the matter today.
The value added tax is a reserved, not a transferred matter. Therefore, it is entirely for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, it has already been debated considerably in this House. Naturally, I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the remarks which have been made by hon. Members in dealing with the effects of value added tax in Northern Ireland. Though I cannot say I necessarily agree with what has been said, I will ensure my right hon. Friend is made aware of the views expressed by hon. Members aboue value added tax.
My right hon. Friend and I are grateful for what hon. Members have said about the financial support which Northern Ireland has received and will continue to receive from Her Majesty's Government. We all know of the enormous problems which will have to be tackled by economic and financial measures, and I know that both sides are determined to go on helping as much as possible. It was gratifying to hear from hon. Members their appreciation and gratitude which I will draw to my right hon. Friend's attention.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North, referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General. This is an important matter which my right hon. Friend is presently examining to try to evolve a satisfactory procedure so that the accounts of the Northern Ireland Departments can continue to be properly scrutinised by the Comptroller and Auditor General and to ensure adequate public control over their functions. I take note of the importance of what the hon. Gentleman said in that regard. I hope it will be possible to devise a satisfactory way of dealing with this difficult matter in the present situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) and the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) raised the whole question of the financial arrangements between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I agree that this matter will have to be examined. Indeed, the whole struc-
1132
ture of the constitutional position in Northern Ireland is continually under scrutiny. I note the views expressed particularly by the hon. Member for Leeds, South on how we should deal with financial business in Northern Ireland in the event of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act being extended for a further year, should this House be prepared to grant such an extension I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the Budget and the financial effects and whether the matter could be dealt with in a United Kingdom Finance Bill. I am not sure whether that would meet with approval in all quarters in Northern Ireland, but it is a suggestion which is worth examining. It would enable Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to deal with the matter during the debates on the Finance Bill, and those who have a particular interest in financial matters in other parts of the United Kingdom would be able to scrutinise the effects in Northern Ireland as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South referred to estate duties. Estate duty provisions regarding objects of national, scientific, historic or artistic interest were dealt in a Great Britain Finance Act some years ago. This provision is designed for Northern Ireland to catch up on that aspect which had not previously been dealt with by Northern Ireland Finance Bills. The establishment of the Ulster Museum has focused more attention in Northern Ireland on objects of this kind, and it is right that there should be parity of estate duty treatment for those articles in future. The three bodies named for estate duty exemption were the obvious ones at the time. I will examine what my hon. Friend said about the Armagh Observatory and other bodies to see whether it will be possible to include them within the scope of some future Finance Bill or order to be put before the House.
My hon. Friend was right to raise the question of the abolition of the Road Fund. It is a slight anomaly that it still exists in Northern Ireland. With the reorganisation of local government, the Road Fund fulfils no useful purpose, because all the functions relating to roads are transferred to the central government structure. Therefore, there is no need for the Road Fund which, in the past, was used mainly for grant aiding local

1133
authority expenditure on roads. That will no longer be necessary. That is why the Road Fund has been abolished in the order.
The question of compensation for the Belfast Co-op has been raised by hon. Members. I understand that the Belfast Co-op has already received a substantial payment. I do not know whether there are any other claims outstanding. Naturally, we shall proceed as fast as possible with all claims.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South referred to the Joint Exchequer Board. I understand the Joint Exchequer Board determines the proper Northern Ireland share of reserve taxes which are mainly Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise taxes.
Regarding the functions of the Northern Ireland Budget, I cannot pretend to have studied all the Northern Ireland Budgets which have taken place in the last few years, but they presented the estimated receipts and expenditures of the Northern Ireland Exchequer. The Northern Ireland Parliament could announce changes in so far as they lay within its powers to do so. As the House knows, the Northern Ireland Parliament had certain duties in that regard because so many of the taxes were reserved rather than transferred matters.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the financial procedures and the need to look at them. I note, too, his wisewords about the importance of United Kingdom money to the whole future of Northern Ireland, and he was right to draw the attention of the House to the figure of £400 million in total, and the £37 million transferred revenue. The sum of £48 million in transferred revenue consists largely of receipts of interest on loans made to local authorities and similar bodies. That is largely the explanation of the transfer of the non-tax revenue.
Mr. Rees: I wonder whether I may put in the form of a question something which I ought to have raised earlier, because it fits in to this part of the Minister's reply. In looking through the order, and in trying to break down the moneys that are raised in Northern Ireland, and transferred revenues, the question that comes to mind relates to gun licences.
1134
Gun licensing is determined by the Northern Ireland Parliament, but perhaps I may put one suggestion to the hon. Gentleman. I do not, of course, expect a reply straight away, and perhaps it is even unfair to spring this question on him now. Nevertheless, whether the revenue is determined by the Northern Ireland Parliament or by the Imperial Parliament, would it not be a good idea to call in all licences, revoke them and issue fresh licences so that we know who legitimately has a gun? Doing that would clear the air and we should make certain why those who had gun licences had them. It would make clear those who had guns which were not licensed. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would at least consider that.
Mr. Channon: Naturally I shall consider anything which the hon. Gentleman suggests and discuss it with my right hon. Friend. The question having been sprung on me without notice, perhaps I may tell the House the position as I understand it. The charge for a firearm certificate is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government and Parliament. As I say, if I am wrong I shall get in touch with the hon. Gentleman and let him know the correct situation. I shall consider what he said about gun licences, but I think that it would be out of order to go into the merits of recalling gun licences and re-issuing them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Prime Minister, referred to this issue yesterday, and naturally what the hon. Gentleman said will be carefully noted.
Rev. Ian Paisley: In my speech I raised the question of compensation for the loss of private homes by working class people. My hon. Friend has not commented on that.
Mr. Channon: If I understood my hon. Friend aright, he was saying that there should be speedy compensation for small businesses in particular because these were often the ones which, in proportion, suffered the greatest loss as they had no great financial resources behind them. He was also saying that there should be speedy compensation for those whose houses were damaged by terrorist bombs or some other ghastly activity. I accept the importance of what my hon. Friend said. We are trying to do all that

1135
We can to speed up the grant of compensation, but I shall look into the question again. The payment of compensation is important, but there are difficulties, and we shall try to cut as much red tape as we can.
Mr. Stallard: It is my understanding that it is possible to have four or five guns on one licence, provided they are of different calibres. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to take that fact into consideration when he discusses the matter with his right hon. Friend? If it is possible for that to be done, it means that if, say, 105,000 licences are issued, there could be between 500,000 or 600,000 guns in private hands.
Mr. Channon: I could not answer that question off the cuff, but I shall examine what the hon. Gentleman said and discover the correct position. I note in relation to today's debate that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to increase the amount of money available to the revenue by making each weapon subject to a licence which requires a fee. In view of his anxiety to protect the revenue, I shall examine what he said.
I hope that the House will feel able to pass this order which is of fundamental importance to Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Finance (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1100), dated 26th July, 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (ELECTORAL LAW)
12.15 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move,
That the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th July, be approved.
On Monday we had a full and wide-ranging debate on the general subject of electoral law in Northern Ireland, and in those circumstances I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to go again into detail on all the matters that were debated then. I think it is fair to say that Monday's debate showed that
1136
certain issues were non-controversial. One of these was the establishment of an independent centralised electoral office under a Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.
I accept, of course, that far more controversial and important is the proposal that the elections this year for Northern Ireland's restructured form of local government is to be conducted in accordance with the principle of proportional representation. Although there was not unanimity about this—there were the dissenting voices of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) and others—I think it is fair to say that the majority of the House was in favour of this experiment.
In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West cast doubts on whether this procedure was to be for one occasion only, I must re-emphasise that that is the position. If the House accepts the order, the procedure to be adopted will be for this one occasion only. If Parliament wishes to go further in the future, that will be a matter for decision. The House may or may not wish to go further, but no one is pre-judging the issue today. The procedure in the order will be adopted this autumn only.
I should like to confine myself very briefly—I made far too long a speech on Monday, but it was not altogether my fault—to two important points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and others. Most of the points raised were dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in winding up the debate. If any matters have not been dealt with at the conclusion of today's debate I shall get in touch with hon. Members about them.
The provisions contained in the order are extremely urgent. If the House accepts that there must be local elections in Northern Ireland, and if it accepts that they must be conducted on the basis of proportional representation—the single transferable vote, if I may refer to it as such in the absence of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English)—it must be plain at the start that we must provide as soon as possible and practicable the enabling legislative power to

1137
enable the elections to be held. The councils for which the elections are to be held have been established by the provisions of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 and were created as a major part of the previous Northern Ireland Government's planned reconstructed system of local government, which the majority of the House thought to be appropriate and suitable.
The timetable is extremely tight. These are exceptional circumstances. We live in exceptional times in Northern Ireland. I accept that there are legislative and other inconveniences because of the way that our business is being conducted at the moment, but I fear that these are inevitable under the wholly extraordinary circumstances which prevail in Northern Ireland.
I have carefully considered the views expressed during Monday's debate. The hon. Member for Leeds, South drew attention to the provisions in Article 4(12)(b) which deals with by-elections. This provision envisages that, to deal with the situation which may—and indeed probably will—arise after the new councils are elected and during their statutory period of office when a casual vacancy arises and a by-election is necessary, the Secretary of State will be empowered to provide by regulations that each candidate elected at this year's local election, as one of the members for a district electoral area, will be elected to a specific single ward which, with other single wards, has been grouped to form the electoral area.
The purpose of this administrative ward unit allocation to individual elected council members was that if an individual member ceased, through death, illness or for other electoral reasons, to be a member of his district council the resultant vacancy would be filled as for the ordinary type of single-member ward election procedure and system by holding an election for the one seat. Such an election would be based on the majority system vote as in the rest of the United Kingdom and not on the single transferable vote system.
Rev. Ian Paisley Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) rose—
Mr. Channon: Before I give way to the hon. Member perhaps he will let me finish outlining the position as the order is at present drafted. I am trying
1138
to say how I am taking account of the views expressed in Monday's debate.
The possibility of casual vacancies occurring amongst the elected councillors of any of the new district councils during their life period is a difficult problem which must be faced. There is no easy answer. The decision to conduct elections in accordance with the principles of the single transferable vote increases the complexity of such a problem and makes it essential and more difficult to find an acceptable and a practical solution for filling such casual vacancies. When there is a by-election and there is only a single member to be elected for an area the principles of proportional representation are not applicable and such an election can only really be held, with some difficulty, using the single majority vote system.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: What about the next man on the list?
Mr. Channon: As the right hon. Gentleman says, we could take the next person down on the list, but this is open to serious objections also. It is a possibility—[Interruption.]—it is quite a common one, if I may be allowed to proceed amongst the general exchange of views now going on.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State thought it preferable, rather than adopt that procedure which would be open to considerable objections in Northern Ireland, that each member returned to a district council should be allocated a designated ward so that if a member should retire the by-election would be concerned with a casual local election contest for a single seat. That was the proposal as outlined in the draft order. It was hoped that newly-elected council members would be in a position to determine amicably amongst themselves the administrative designation of wards to each individual member for casual vacancy purposes.
If difficulty arose the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland would determine the poll in accordance with rules of such allocation as might be laid down for these particular procedures. Of course, there are a number of alternative solutions to what, we would all agree, is a difficult problem. As the right hon. Gentleman said there are a number of

1139
systems. The next person down the list could be elected but even if the retiring member had represented and had been elected by a minority interest, the resultant by-election held on the basis of the original multi-member electoral area would give the political party holding the majority of seats an additional seat. This happens in countries using the proportional representation methods, but it would be wholly unsatisfactory in Northern Irish conditions.
Equally it also could be submitted that where the members of an elected body have been elected for a particular electoral area and by a method of voting, then it is wrong to consider, during the life period of such a council, electing other members to fill casual vacancies. There might be a system where there were no by-elections at all.
Another suggested alternative might he that the unsuccessful candidates at the first election this year, should be graded, in descending order, on the basis of the total votes each had then received. Any casual vacancy arising would then be filled by electing the first such "reserve" candidates and so on down the list. Yet a further alternative could be to provide that the political party to which the retiring candidate belonged would have the right to nominate his successor to be elected to the council for that electoral area. Another possibility might be to provide internal by-elections held amongst the councillors themselves.
Some of the solutions are bad, some are good and some are in between. I am seeking only to show how difficult and complex the matter is. But as I sensed the mood of the House on Monday it was not happy with the proposals in the draft order. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State therefore considers that the method of filling casual vacancies requires further expert study in some considerable depth. It is a matter which he feels could be referred to the Electoral Advisory Commission on Northern Ireland electoral matters which is shortly to be established for their urgent consideration and recommendation. The Commission will comprise distinguished citizens of Northern Ireland and I will ensure that the chairman is asked to give this matter priority. Consequently I can give the House an undertaking that no
1140
action will now be taken to include any provisions on this subject in the rules for the conduct of these 1972 elections. The problem will be referred to the Advisory Commission and naturally my right hon. Friend will wish to consider carefully the points of view they express on this issue.
The other very important point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South related to the provisions of Article 4 as to the necessary proposed grouping of the new prescribed single ward unit into suitably sized district electoral areas in each district council. The hon. Member pointed out that no provison had been made to provide that the designating Regulations were to be subject to consideration and approval of Parliament. I well understand that point of view and would like to meet it as far as I can, bearing in mind both the urgency of the situation and the need to ensure that these first local elections are held before the end of this year, as they must be by statute. The House will realise that to enable these 1972 elections to be held it is essential that this grouping of wards into suitable proportional representation electoral areas should be proceeded with at the greatest possible speed.
The ward units, which in the envisaged grouping will form the proportional representation district electoral areas are the already approved wards which have been most carefully drawn by the independent Local Government Boundary Commissioner, after public provisional proposals as to their boundaries, public hearings, revision hearings to deal with and determine objectives to the original provisional proposals. These final proposals, approved by my right hon. Friend, have been laid before this Parliament. With few exceptions these final proposals have met with general approval from the public and the majority of all political opinion in Northern Ireland. I would emphasise that the proposed grouping of these wards into suitable and equitable district electoral areas for this 1972 election in no way whatsoever interferes with the boundaries of any designated ward or district boundary and I see no reason why such grouping should prove to be, in any way, contentious but in Northern Ireland one can never be sure.
Rev. Ian Paisley: In the debate it was mentioned that there might be the possibility of having a group including urban

1141
wards and rural wards. Under such an arrangement those members elected in urban wards would have a higher percentage of the vote than the rural members. Therefore, would it not be possible under the proportional representation system and also in the seven-ward constituency that the urban vote would be so heavy that there would be no one to represent the rural district? I pointed out in the debate that Rathlin Island was one such area in my constituency which should be considered alone as a separate ward with a very small population.
Mr. Channon: There are greater experts in this matter than I in the House. I would have thought that the whole arrangement of the single transferable vote provided that the proportion of members was right and that where the seven-member areas and seven districts were grouped together the single transferable vote system would achieve a situation in which the result suggested by the hon. Member would be very unlikely to happen.
I suppose the hon. Member is envisaging a situation in which two strands of political opinion would be equitably represented according to the single transferable vote pattern but a circumstance can be found in which nevertheless all the members for the area might come from the urban rather than the rural part, even though that might accurately reflect political representation in the electoral area as a whole. That is a possibility, but it emphasises what I said earlier that although there is no real reason why the grouping should be contentious, it may be. I shall say a word about that in a moment.
I draw the attention of the House to the procedural provisions of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of article 4. These already require the Chief Electoral Officer to publish his provisional proposals as to suggested grouping of wards. These proposals will be available publicly throughout Northern Ireland and a minimum period of at least 28 days will be allowed for persons who wish to submit thereon their observations, objections and counterproposals, all of which will be most carefully considered before any final recommendations are made and the grouped electoral areas are prescribed by my right hon. Friend by way of regulations.
1142
In view of the opinions expressed by hon. Members in Monday's debate, I have arranged that when the Chief Electoral Officer makes his provisional grouping proposals, hon. Members will receive, for their information and consideration, a copy of these detailed proposals. This will then permit any comments by any hon. Member to be brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will consider them and bring them to the attention of the Chief Electoral Officer. Under paragraph 6 of Article 4, my right hon. Friend will ultimately prescribe the district electoral areas for each local government district when the final proposals are made. The views of hon. Members will be carefully considered.
I have noted the point about the siting of polling stations for election purposes. This is very important. A new comprehensive polling station scheme will be produced at an early date by the Chief Electoral Officer. It will be produced initially in provisional draft form so that it may be considered by all interested parties who may then, if necessary, make their views, observations and objections, etc, known to the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer designate, with whom I have discussed this matter, is fully aware of the many problems involved and the need to provide for adequate and suitably sited polling stations easily accessible, so far as is possible, to all sections of the public. He would be at this stage pleased to receive informed suggestions as to the siting of polling stations in any particular area.
The rules for the conduct of these 1972 local elections and the count will be prescribed by my right hon. Friend as soon as possible. These rules will be procedural in character and, I hope, will not be in any way contentious. However, hon. Members know that in a first election of this type counting procedures and methods to be used are of great importance. My right hon. Friend considers that the method of counting known as the "senatorial counting rules" is the fairest way to proceed. I can let hon. Members have detailed information about it, although we discussed it on Monday.
An election of this kind, and especially the efficient and speedy conduct of the count, can produce many administrative

1143
problems. Arrangements are being made for the holding of comprehensive staff training instructional courses for the staff who will be responsible to the Chief Electoral Officer for the organisation and conduct of the count.
Arrangements have also been made for the preparation and publication, again at an early date, of a re-arranged edition of the current 1972 Northern Ireland Electoral Register, on which these local elections will be conducted. This rearranged register will be published on a ward and district council basis and, I hope, will be helpful to the public and the candidates. Additionally, in view of the reorganised local government areas and the creation of district electoral areas, arrangements will be made for the issue to all registered electors of an electoral information card giving details of the person's registration, register number, ward, district council area and the polling station in the district electoral area in which the elector should cast his vote.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Very good.
Mr. Channon: It is also the intention as soon as possible to issue to every household in Northern Ireland a detailed and clear guide to the basic principle of PR and to follow that up with an intensive graphic public information educational campaign using the mass media.
In debate some hon. Members said that they would have preferred the life period of a council to remain, as existing, at three years rather than be extended to four years as now proposed. The four-year period was a recommendation made by the Macrory Committee on Local Government and I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the provision of a four-year period is presently being considered in relation to local government in Great Britain.
This order is designed to meet the pressing needs of the present period of changes in Northern Ireland's affairs. It provides for some important measures including the provision experimentally for this 1972 election only of its conduct on a single transferable vote basis. I have done my best to meet as many of the points as I could that were raised in the debate on Monday. I hope that the House, having had that full debate, will now allow the order to go forward.
12.36 p.m.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: As the Minister said, we debated the order at some length on Monday. We have been able to ask for rather more time than the normal one and a half hours for debating an order and we have done so because of the PR form of the order, the single transferable vote. Perhaps in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) I may call it PR, although pedantically that is not correct. We agree with the principle of PR in this instance and with what the Government are doing, and of course it is not our intention to vote against the order this morning.
By the detailed way in which he has explained how he is to give information to the electorate of Northern Ireland, the Minister has clearly shown that he listened attentively to Monday's debate. He said that on the thorny question of byelections and the various methods to be used he intends to get the opinion of the Electoral Advisory Commission, and we are glad about that. Of course the elections are for this year and of course one hopes that there will not be too many byelections too soon. I assume—perhaps we may be told—that it would need only a simple amendment to the rules to be issued by the Chief Electoral Officer to bring in that scheme and that the process will not be long and involved.
There are a number of important matters in the order which I should have liked to mention, but I will not repeat what I said in our debate on Monday, and I should like to concentrate on article 4 and the procedure. The hon. Gentleman said that he would send details of the Chief Electoral Officer's proposals to hon. Members who were interested. He will recall that I asked for a Statutory Instrument under the affirmative or negative procedure on the ground that when one was arranging areas and methods of election, in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, it was important that the proposals should be debatable in the House of Commons. However, the Minister explained that at this first time round that would not be possible because of the time involved. I hope that he will bear in mind that the next time round, when we are making permanent arrangements—this order is just for the one election—we shall need to look far more

1145
carefully at a Statutory Instrument for making arrangements although I accept that we do not yet know how this system of election will work in the context of Northern Ireland.
I thought that the Minister entered into the spirit of our suggestions on Monday, but I am not happy about his sending proposals only to interested Members. I should like to make a counter proposal and first to explain it. A number of documents are laid before the House of Commons. A House of Commons Paper has printed on the front page the words "House of Commons Paper" and I gather that that is because it has to be provided by Statute. Other documents are presented by the Secretary of State concerned and they have a Command number. Whichever way is used, the paper is presented to the House of Commons as a whole, and that is to the advantage of all Members and not just small groups who may be interested.
The only difference from the Minister's point of view is that of expense. But there is another factor. A Command Paper is studied by the media and thus arouses interest among a wider community, but a document which is sent only to those who are interested does not command that wider audience.
There is also a matter of principle. Last year I was considering Government working in the public sector and I was reading reports about well-nigh every nationalised industry, public corporation and a wide variety of organisations of which then I knew nothing, or if I did, which I had not regarded as being part of the public sector, which is much larger than most people realise. I found that some had a Command number, some had a House of Commons Paper number and some were not laid before the House of Commons. No wonder it had not come my way, although we get the pink order form in the Vote Office and can see what is available. When an important document is given to a Secretary of State then, as a matter of principle, it should he laid before the House of Commons.
The order deals with elections in a part of the United Kingdom which is troubled, to put it euphemistically. We are concerned to try to achieve a democratic life in the face of bombing. Consequently we have this order, concentrate
1146
a lot of parliamentary time on it and consider proportional representation.
According to the Secretary of State, we shall be faced with a similar matter which the House will have to consider, namely a plebiscite. I shall not go into whether that is desirable. I am trying to concentrate on the method of dealing with it. I accept that a plebiscite will require a Westminster Act of Parliament. I was courteously informed by the Minister that a plebiscite is not a matter which is reserved to the Northern Ireland Parliament. Methods of elections are reserved for the Northern Ireland Parliament, but a plebiscite will require the consideration of this Parliament. When that question arises questions similar to those which arise from this order will have to be discussed, such as the location of polling booths, the grouping of areas, the problem of rural and urban areas, the percentage of the people voting in those areas, and the question which was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) a short while ago.
It is vital that we put our minds to the questions which will arise. I have always argued that on a large-scale vote there can be only one question with a simple answer of "yes" or "no". But is that desirable? We shall have to look at the areas, at how the votes are to be collected and, in considering the plebiscite, how the votes are counted and the functions of the parties. If we are to consider a plebiscite, it is important to get the principle right in this order or in any Measure concerning the Northern Ireland Parliament whose powers have been taken over by this House. The Chief Electoral Officer is working to that end, and will be publishing his proposals. We are arguing that they should be laid on the Table as a Command Paper. If we get the principle right now, we shall get it right when we come to the wider issue of the plebiscite. We want to get the principle right now in dealing with the methods of election in the North of Ireland, and a document should be laid before the House of Commons which can be looked at and can be aired.
We have not had last Monday's HANSARD for reasons which everybody knows. Consequently I was not able to check—I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State dealt with this point—on the question of excess of votes and

1147
the method of counting them. It may well have been dealt with on Monday. It is true that something was said about the matter. As I say, I was hoping to read HANSARD but it has not been possible for me to do so. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us the Government's intentions on that matter.
The hon. Gentleman has dealt with the areas and byelections which will be looked at by the Commission. Ballot papers are vitally important, and I am astonished when I hear how other people vote in other parts of the world. There are vote machines in the United States to deal with long ballot papers, and one is on somebody or other's "ticket". We are not used to that. We are used to going to the booth with the name of one man or woman in mind and putting a cross against that name on the paper. The last Administration made a change in that ballot papers now include the name of the candidates political party. I hope that the Chief Electoral Officer will think carefully about the arrangements for ballot papers, and have them arranged horizontally under the names of the political parties.
I looked in the Library to see what I had said on Monday about ballot papers and my remarks look as though they were most rude to the Chief Electoral Officer. They certainly were not meant to be. When I made the aside that somebody from Her Majesty's Stationery Office would be able to look, it appears as though it was meant to be rude, but it was not.
We support the order and we hope that it will allow moderate parties to come to the fore in this year's local elections. It may not come to much the first time round, given the strong feelings which prevail in Northern Ireland, but eventually I hope that that will be the result. We support the order because ultimately we want to see a democratic society developing in Northern Ireland.
12.49 p.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: It was a fortunate coincidence that the general debate on electoral law took place last Monday after the Army had taken action by moving into the Bogside, the Creggan and other no-go areas. It looked as though a new phase was begin-
1148
ning in Ulster's history, when people might be able to lead an ordinary life, go about their business and hold elections without fear of intimidation.
In the midst of bombing, murders and other acts of Republican terrorism, which are wantonly waged against decent people in Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic—and it is worth mentioning that such terrorism affects both sections of the community, it is salutary to remember that the present war of devastation developed from the so-called Civil Rights movement—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ronald Russell): Order. This comment is getting rather beyond electoral law. The hon. Member must not stray too far from the order.
Mr. Kilfedder: I sometimes err, but, subject to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that I am entitled, when discussing electoral law, to deal with the background.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is right that the background to the holding of the proposed elections should be considered. When the hon. Member for Leeds. South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) introduced the matter of the plebiscite, of which there is no mention in the order, he did so because of the background of the situation in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is all right. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be going into the history.
Mr. Kilfedder: I call it background, but background and history are much the same. It is worth remembering that the present war of devastation developed from the so-called Civil Rights movement which demanded initially, "One man, one vote". We heard incessantly that once that reform had been granted, the people of Northern Ireland could live in peace with one another. I well remember—and still sadly reflect—that the excuse then for demonstration and violence and conflict with the police was the fact that local government elections were conducted on a restricted franchise which had long been abolished in the rest of the United Kingdom. From everywhere came the cry that the Ulster local government elections should be brought into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

1149
The Stormont Government introduced what was popularly known as "One man, one vote" and at the same time local government was reshaped, certain central services being transferred to central bodies. Those bodies would come under the supervision of Stormont. We are entitled to ask whether those radical reforms brought the clamour and the violence in Northern Ireland to an end. We known that they did not. Like some evil monster, the deliberately misnamed Civil Rights movement, made up of members of the IRA, Communists and anarchists, fed and grew on the news media, particularly on the biased BBC reporting of the Ulster situation. As soon as a lie could be fabricated or wild allegation made, it was broadcast.
So today, after hundreds of lives have been lost and people maimed, and millions of pounds worth of damage caused, Ulster is still being forced, without any reference to the electorate, to go through various contortions in an attempt to appease, without any realisation yet by the Government that appeasement only feeds the flames of terrorism and insurrection. Local government elections are being forced on Northern Ireland while Stormont, which was to be the hub of the new local government system, is suspended. Proportional representation is to be used for the local government elections, making Ulster different—and that is deeply regretted—from the rest of the United Kingdom. That was the complaint in the first place—that there was a difference in the franchise.
I have an open mind on proportional representation, but we ought to face the fact that there are minority problems in Britain, too, for instance, coloured people who should, perhaps, be entitled to the benefits of proportional representation. I wonder how many coloured people have been elected councillors in Britain. I believe there are few in relation to their number.
Would this Government and the Labour Party pledge themselves to introduce proportional representation in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is certainly out of order.
Mr. Kilfedder: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I urge the Government
1150
to delay the local government elections until after a decision has been made about Stormont. That Parliament has been suspended for a year and it is unlikely that it will be restored at the end of the year, if indeed we ever see the old Stormont Parliament return. It is ridiculous to go ahead with local government elections until a decision has been made about Stormont, and acted upon, because Stormont was meant to be the vital heart of the new local government structure.
It is to be regretted that it is not possible to move amendments to this order. All that we can do is to examine the provisions in detail, and even that does not give much satisfaction because all we have from my hon. Friend is a statement that what we say will be carefully considered. I listened to what he said about the filling of casual vacancies, and I welcome his statement that the Government are looking for a satisfactory method. I do not accept the view of the Leader of the Liberal Party who, much to my surprise, was here today, although very briefly. He said that casual vacancies should be filled by the next man down the list. That would produce an extraordinary situation because, moving it outside the context of Northern Ireland, if that is possible, if there were three Conservatives elected for three seats and the fourth man was a Labour candidate, it would be ridiculous, if when one of the Conservative members died, the next man down, a Socialist, should be put on to the council. This would be wrong, and I hope that my hon. Friend will come up with a more sensible suggestion.
The Secretary of State has chosen to experiment with proportional representation and it is right to display caution, because there are so many variations. The method proposed, the single transferable vote, is alleged to be mathematically more equitable. Every method of voting has its defects and disadvantages, and proportional representation is no different from existing methods in this respect. The single transferable vote system for electoral areas returning from four to eight members could hardly be bettered as a mathematically accurate system of representation. However, it has its dangers and it is no use trying to

1151
cover them up. It is far better to investigate them fully.
The most obvious danger is the loss of the close relationship between the councillor and the local elector. At present the councillor gets to know the people and the people know to whom to go for help and advice on local matters. The very fact that the Chief Electoral Officer selects the ward which the successful candidates are expected to represent means that there is no meaningful association between a councillor and a ward. Under the single-member system, people knew for whom they were voting and who their local councillors were likely to be. The people know the candidates in the ward and because of that a good candidate has a better chance of success in an election for that neighbourhood because electors can evaluate his worth. However in the multiple-member electoral area the same candidate would be virtually unknown in many of the wards. This means that a good local candidate could lose out to a candidate with a publicity machine or party organisation behind him.
The advocates of proportional representation allege that it favours the moderates as against the extremists. I have seen no evidence of this in the Republic of Eire. The system throws up able men such as Conor Cruise O'Brien and Garrett Fitzgerald. It also produces notorious anti-Semitics such as Steve Coughlin, a Labour Member of the Dublin Dail; and IRA apologists such as Doctor David Thornley. There are dangers in this system of proportional representation.
There are administrative difficulties as well. The plebiscite and local government elections will place a tremendous strain on local authority staff, who will have to be trained to carry out proportional representation elections. What arrangements have been made to train them? The Government would certainly need to start now on that job. Moreover, these radical changes are coming at the worst possible time, when the whole system of local government is being restructured. It would be unfortunate if the sheer volume and pressure of work on local authority staff resulted in the elections being a fiasco. This could come about if the staff were unable to cope with all the election complications as well
1152
as their other work. Perhaps my hon. Friend will say whether there have been consultations with the National Association of Local Government Officers about this matter.
Proportional representation on the single transferable vote system was introduced in the United States for the same reason as the Government are introducing it in Northern Ireland, namely, with the intention of giving greater representation to minority groups. But the experiment in the United States showed that proportional representation did not help the situation; in fact, it made it worse. It was introduced widely in the municipalities in the United States in the late 1930s, but it did not work. It produced a large number of racial and sectarian candidates who were elected to the local city councils. New York City abandoned the system of proportional representation, followed closely by Chicago and other cities throughout the United States.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Mayor Daley.
Mr. Kilfedder: Yes, but I should be in trouble with you Mr. Speaker, if I were to talk about Mayor Daley.
The only American city which clings to the proportional representation system is Cincinnatti and four or five municipalities in Massachusetts.
That was the end of the great American experiment in proportional representation. It gave representation to the minorities but not to the minorities whom the liberal-minded people had hoped would be represented. It gave representation to racialists and extreme ethnic groups—we hear about the Poles, Czechs, Irish and Italians in various American cities—but it did not produce, unfortunately, a consensus of like-minded people across the racial divide. That is what worries me.
I fear that proportional representation will not help the Ulster situation, and that is unfortunate since we are all, even in the midst of the campaign of terror, looking forward to a happy future for Northern Ireland.
1.3 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not propose to detain the House long because we have been over this ground previously, when I had the opportunity of making a contribution. However, I am interested in

1153
some of the matters mentioned by the Minister. I am sure that we are all delighted that he is to have a second look at the by-election procedure, but I do not think he took my point, and I wish to stress it because it is a constituency matter.
There is one island in Northern Ireland—Rathlin—which has people who have votes living on it. It is to the north of North Antrim. It is famous because it was there that the Scottish nationalist movement had its first impetus when King Robert the Bruce saw a spider and went back to Scotland to conquer the English invader and to declare Scotland to be a separate kingdom. I do not propose to discuss the merits or demerits of Scottish nationalism because I should be called to order if I did.
Under the ward system in the new Moyle local government district, Rathlin island was to be a separate ward. While the population of Rathlin island would not justify it, the special circumstances of the island fully justify it. If there were seven wards in the Moyle area, or even four or five, linked together, Rathlin island would come into one of the amalgamations. If a person stood for election in that area, what opportunity would the people in Rathlin have of electing a representative?
I always thought that the Liberal Party was the champion of proportional representation, but its members are conspicuous by their absence in these debates. The Leader of the Liberal Party stated, with pontifical power, that what we on this side of the House said was a lot of nonsense. I contend, and I defy anyone to refute it, that Rathlin island would have a fair chance of getting a representative on the council under the proposed system of proportional representation. Is the Minister prepared to make a distinction for Rathlin island and to allow its people, not to be in a group but to come within a separate ward? They are entitled to that as they are a special case.
The Minister made a very interesting point about by-elections. He said that the Chief Electoral Officer or the people responsible for the amalgamation of wards might decide which ward should be vacant in the event of the death of a councillor. When the councils are elected,
1154
why cannot their members make an agreement among themselves about which areas they should represent? Then when a death occurred there would he no trouble. This would get over the valid point made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) when we last debated this matter and by myself—that there was a tendency to destroy the relationship between the electors and an individual under the proportional representation system.
Can the Minister give us more information about the Electoral Advisory Committee? How many members will be on it? Who will be the members? Will the local political parties in Northern Ireland have the opportunity of putting their point of view to the committee about the matters which it should discuss?
I am delighted that the poll card system is to be introduced. This will be a great advance in election procedure in Northern Ireland. On behalf of every member of the electorate, I welcome the fact that they are to receive an official card from the electoral officer in their district stating the date of the election, where they should vote and their number on the register. This will be a great help to people.
1.8 p.m.
Mr. Rafton Pounder: I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for saying that he will reconsider the by-election procedures. As they stood, and as they came to light last Monday, they were the height of nonsense. I am glad that they are to be re-examined. I echo the sentiment of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the elected representatives should work out among themselves which ward they would be attached to. Councillors in the Belfast Corporation decide among themselves who will serve on which committee. I see no reason why a similar principle cannot be implemented in this case, without leaving it to the Chief Electoral Officer to decide.
I can understand the concern about and importance of the design of the ballot paper and putting down the names either alphabetically or grouped according to parties. One idea which I should like to mention is this—I do not know whether it makes sense, but I mention it for what it is worth. I understand that it is operated in elections in Cleveland,

1155
Ohio. In each ward the ballot paper is different. If we started with candidate A in one ward, we would start with the next candidate down in the next ward so that there would be no benefit in people having their names automatically in a high position on the ballot paper.
It is well known in this country that there is advantage if one's name is either top or bottom of the ballot paper and that if it is sandwiched in the middle one loses out. The system in that American city is that in each ward the paper alternates so that if there are 10 polling stations and 10 candidates everybody in the same ward at some stage will come to the top of the paper. This may be something which could be considered. I do not know. I throw the thought out for what it is worth.
1.10 p.m.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful for the reception which this order has on the whole received in the House today, though I note the objections of my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) to the whole principle and idea of the single transferable vote.
I am a little confused about the situation about by-elections because both my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) have suggested what I had thought was the original intention of the Government, that, if possible, the members themselves should amicably decide which part of the area they should represent, and that only if agreement could not be reached should the Chief Electoral Officer be called in to determine what would be the fairest solution.
Having been so severely criticised about this on Monday and having withdrawn it, I am in the difficulty of being pressed to introduce it again when I have withdrawn it under pressure from my hon. Friends. Nevertheless, it would be wise that this matter be considered by the Electoral Advisory Commission.
Invitations to this Commission are now going out. I think it will be a fairly small body, about 10 in number. I cannot now say who its members will be, because the invitations are now going out, but in due course I could be in touch with my hon. Friend about that matter.
1156
I will, of course, also draw to the attention of the Chief Electoral Officer designate—although I need hardly do so because he will read the report of this debate—the concern expressed by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about the arrangement of ballot papers—their design, and all those other matters. I cannot send every hon. Member a real ballot paper, because I do not know what the nominations will be, but if I can arrange such a thing I will send hon. Members a sample ballot paper, if the Chief Electoral Officer designate is able to arrange that. I have already discussed this matter with the Chief Electoral Officer designate. I have seen a sample paper for a fictitious election which might occur, but with a not very large number of candidates. I may be able to construct one with a larger number of candidates and in a larger area, and will show it to hon. Members who have expressed a particular interest in this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North asked about training. Of course there will have to be extensive training of staff in this business. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an important matter that they should be well trained in order to be able to conduct the count and the election efficiently.
As regards the question about Rathlin Island, I understand the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North made about that. I am not sure whether I can meet him about it, but I will discuss the matter with the Chief Electoral Officer designate and draw his attention to my hon. Friend's point. When he sees the proposals he will be able to make what representations he sees fit at that time.
As to the other question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South, he was quite right in saying that it will be a quite simple counting under the rules required for by-elections if agreement can be reached. I hope that these can be determined and the rules made before the local elections themselves, because that would meet any difficulties which might occur shortly afterwards.
As to the question of counting, I said briefly that this would be under the

1157
senatorial counting scheme. I will briefly give an explanation, as the hon. Gentleman wished to know exactly how it would work. The senatorial counting scheme is probably the best way of dealing with the actual counting of the votes. The rules allow all of a candidate's votes to be transferred to the other candidates, and each vote then has a proportionate percentage vote value below the unit of one. This obviates the complaint arising in the standard rule count where the transferred votes are each worth one unit but only a proportion of the total votes are transferred and the numbers concerned in the actual transfer are simply chosen by the returning officer.
This may be a somewhat inexact explanation, and I am not sure that I have explained it as clearly as I should, but if the hon. Gentleman has any queries I can send him an extremely learned thesis on the matter which I have had some difficulty in understanding myself but which, I am sure, will be crystal clear to his sharp and intuitive mind.
As to the publishing of a Command Paper, I will look at this again. There are considerable difficulties. It would entail double printing, printing in London as well as Belfast, and that might cause some delay. I will undertake to make sure that hon. Members will have given to them the grouping proposals, so that they can make their representations. I will look at the matter again, but I cannot give any commitment because it has been considered before and it is a complicated matter and may be too difficult to achieve, but if it can be done I will try to see that it is done. It is difficult, but if I cannot meet them on that I will make sure hon. Members have at the earliest possible date copies of the proposals, and they will be able to make representations.
I think that this experiment will be extremely interesting and, indeed, an extremely important one. I hope that after the elections people will feel the experiment to have been a success, but no one can tell. It will be for the people of Northern Ireland to make the important decision which they will have to make at
1158
that particular time. None of us knows what the decision will be, but I think it is common ground in this House that they should be given such an opportunity to make a decision about local government elections in the not too distant future. I hope the experiment with PR, included as part of the order, will prove to be successful.
I commend it to the House, and I hope that, in view of the urgent need to pass this order, so that arrangements for local elections can be made, hon. Members will agree to pass it today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th July, be approved.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (SALARY)
Resolved,
[Queen's Recommendation, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
That the yearly rate of the salary payable to the Parliamentary Commissioner under section 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 be increased from £14,000 to £15,750, and the date from which this resolution is to take effect be 1st January, 1972.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL (SALARY)
Resolved,
[Queen's Recommendation, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
That the rate of the salary which may be granted to the Comptroller and Auditor General under section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1957 be increased from £14,000 to £15,750 per annum and the date from which, under subsection (3) of that section, the person now holding that office is entitled to a salary at the said increased rate be 1st January, 1972.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

REDPATH DORMAN LONG LTD. (GREENWICH)
1.19 p.m.
Mr. Guy Barnett: The matter which I wish to raise this afternoon, that of the redundancies which are threatened at Messrs. Redpath Dorman Long Ltd. in my constituency, may seem a small matter, and compared to the massive redundancies which have been announced in the steel industry in Scotland, and the redundancies which have already taken place and are threatened in the North East and Tees-side, the spectacle of some 90 redundancies which are threatened in a part of the British Steel Corporation in South-East London may seem relatively unimportant. Yet I should like to make it clear that it has very wide implications both for London as a whole and for South-East London and the constituency of Greenwich, which I represent.
For the convenience of the Minister I will relate the story as it is known to me. Early last month the management of the Redpath Dorman Long East Greenwich works, which is a subsidiary of the British Steel Corporation, saw the shop stewards and sent a letter to all employees, a copy of which I have here. It says:
"Preliminary estimates indicate that total reduction in manning will be about 90 people of which between 60 and 70 will be in the works and between 20 and 30 staff. In addition, nine or 10 people will be invited to transfer to Scunthorpe."
This letter caused a widespread shock, perfectly naturally in the works itself, but also in the whole of the Greenwich area amongst people who have been concerned about the number of redundancies which have occurred in the area in the last few years.
Shortly after the redundancies were announced, the South-East London Industrial Consultative Group, of which I am a vice-chairman, received a deputation from the employees. As a result, the chairman and secretary of the group and I went to see the management and had a very useful discussion. We were informed that the redundancies were necessary because of the falling demand for the products of the company and of the Constructional Engineering Division of the British Steel Corporation.
1160
Clearly, I am in no position to make an informed judgment on the management decisions which have been taken, but that is not to say that others are not making judgments about them, and a good deal of speculation is going on amongst the employees of the factory. There are suspicions within the firm that the redundancies are associated with the Government's decision to convert the Constructional Engineering Division into a separate company with the possibility of attracting private capital, and that the reason for restructuring the division is to make the undertaking sufficiently profitable to attract that capital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), when he used to speak from the Opposition Front Bench on steel matters, warned the Government of this likely outcome when these proposals were announced by the Secretary of State in June, 1971. What is undeniable and what is spelt out in the Annual Report of the British Steel Corporation for 1971–72 is the consequence for this division of Government economic policy. I quote from page 30 of that report:
"By the end of the year the Division's structural steelwork order book had fallen to a level where there were problems in maintaining adequate loading on all the fabricating shops. Significant improvement depends on a return to a normal level of industrial investment in the United Kingdom and on the Division's success in capturing a share of the major new market for North Sea oil production platforms in the face of strong competition from the United States and from Europe. The division has the necessary skills and resources and is developing a facility at Methil in Fife for the construction of these platforms."
Ultimately the British Steel Corporation has stood to lose as a consequence of the Government's failure to expand employment and production. Inevitably, an industry that is involved in capital production is bound to suffer seriously. Negotiations are going on between management and men, and I am unqualified to comment on these. It would be improper for me to attempt to do so, except perhaps to say two things.
The first concerns the suddeness with which the redundancies were announced and the complete lack of consultation before they were announced. I have here a letter from someone employed in the

1161
factory, not a constituent of mine, which reads as follows:
"We feel very bitter about the way the management annouced the redundancies without any previous consultation with the unions. They must have planned it a long time ago. I feel especially grieved, as a member of the Labour Party, that this can happen in a nationalised industry. It seems to be a case of speculators investing. They simply inform the workers that they propose to close down half of the yard and lay off 50 per cent. of the labour force. This was completely unexpected as, although we have not been very busy, the management had indicated that there was plenty of work in hand."
It would have been wise to give plenty of advance warning and to make it perfectly clear from the start that the unions would be fully consulted about decisions that were being taken and about the way in which the redundancies were to be conducted.
My second point is that it appears to me as an outsider that during the negotiations the local management does not have authority to make anything but minimal concessions.
I turn to the question why these redundancies are so important for the district as a whole. Political and Economic Planning has recently published a report entitled "What happened to the workers in Woolwich?", which confirms the worst fears that I and other hon. Members representing Greenwich have had about the situation in the borough and in South-East London generally.
Before I refer to the report, I will repeat facts which have been known to us for some time. It has been estimated that in 1951 there were 55,000 jobs in manufacturing industry in the borough of Greenwich. By 1966 the number had decreased to 33,000. The estimate for 1970 is only 22,000. That is an alarming trend by any standards and, if it is allowed to continue at the present rate, I can see the possibility of there being no jobs in manufacturing industry in the borough of Greenwich by the late 1980s. I cannot believe that that is what this Government or any other Government want.
I am not suggesting that anyone in the borough regrets the regional policy of successive Governments which has benefited areas of heavy unemployment. But many people are beginning to feel
1162
that the somewhat blunt instrument that has been used in the past has not brought full benefit to the developing regions of the country and, at the same time, has done serious damage to areas such as South-East London, which are relatively badly affected as a consequence of regional policies. What many of us in South-East London are pleading for is a more sensitive and flexible regional policy which will take into account the special needs of our area.
It is also relevant to talk about the decline of jobs in constructional engineering in London as a whole and about the decline in the number of jobs in this firm. I understand that in the 1920s this works in East Greenwich employed 900 men. In 1945, because of changes in techniques and so on, the number had dropped to between 500 and 600 men. Now the number is about 300. The redundancies which are threatened will bring the number down even further so that there may be only about 200 people employed in the works. It is perfectly natural for the men employed in the factory to wonder where this process will end and to be deeply worried about the future of the works as a whole.
I know that there is the same trend in manufacturing industry generally, and the Government have already shown that they recognise this situation. On 1st August the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox), said,
"The hon. Gentleman can be assured that there is no complacency on our part as regards London or any other part of the country. Overall the situation in London is much better than in the rest of the country, although I admit that manufacturing employment in London is declining. However, opportunities in the service industries are increasing. Some workers are moving out of London. Industrial development certificates are not now required in the South East up to 10,000 sq. ft. Therefore, this should also be an encouragement. If the hon. Gentleman is patient he will find that the situation in London will go on improving, as it has been improving."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1972; Vol. 842, c. 335.]
I am afraid I am not quite so hopeful as the hon. Gentleman who gave that reply. The trends are there in the long term, but in the meantime some action should be taken to stem what looks like the development of a highly critical situation.

1163
I referred earlier to the situation in the constructional engineering industry in London as a whole. I have a list of firms which were operating in the Greater London area in 1948. It contains 21 names of firms that were carrying out constructional engineering work in that area, and includes famous names such as Harland and Wolff, North Woolwich; Dorman Long and Company, Battersea; T. C. Jones, Acton, and so on. I am reliably informed that of those 21 firms only three are now operating in the Greater London area. It is true that there are opportunities for the development of service industries in London, but I should like to know when this trend which I have outlined will be halted. I am keen to see a continuing, expanding and successful manufacturing industry in London, and it is right that we should try to achieve some balance of employment. But if we allow the trend towards service industries to continue, we shall be in danger of throwing away valuable skills which the country possesses.
The PEP survey, which I have already mentioned, refers to redundancies which took place in the years 1968 to 1970 in a number of firms and the report clearly brings out the appalling amount of human misery which resulted from those redundancies. I do not in this debate wish to refer to the misery and unhappiness which has resulted from these redundancies. I wish to concentrate the Government's mind on the question of the skills which are being lost. What is clear from the report is that when people were made redundant from AEI (Woolwich) and other firms, they tended to take less skilled jobs than those which they previously occupied. The report must be studied carefully and acted upon if we are conscious of the need to retain the skills which we possess. There is traditionally an important and successful engineering industry in South-East London which, as the report makes clear, is in danger of disappearing.
Other points which emerge from the report relate to the relative immobility of labour in South-East London because of high transport costs and the difficulties people experience in moving to new homes to make it possible for them to take other jobs. A further point that emerges is that in my constituency and
1164
elsewhere in the borough there are highly skilled men whose jobs are specific to the firms in which they work. I recently spoke to the shop stewards in Redpath Dorman Long and asked whether there were any other jobs in the area of which they knew requiring the same kind of skills as those now possessed by the workers in that firm. Since Redpath Dorman Long is one of the last three firms in London undertaking a constructional engineering work, it was not surprising that the shop stewards said that they saw little or no prospect of being able to use those same skills in London again.
Is the Minister fully aware of the serious unemployment situation in Greenwich? I know that this situation comes as a surprise to many people, but I have figures which give grave cause for concern. I should like first to refer to the ratio of unemployed persons against vacancies. The figures I am using refer to June, 1972. For the United Kingdom the figure is 3·9 per cent.; for the South-East London industrial consultative group area, which covers most of South-East London, 4·6 per cent.; for the GLC as a whole, 1·67 per cent.; for Greenwich—and this relates to the Deptford and Woolwich exchanges—7·06 per cent. There is a serious pocket of unemployment against unfilled vacancies. Again we recognise that there has been a welcome improvement in the unemployment figures in the last few months—nothing like enough, but something for which to be grateful.
I also wish to refer to the percentages showing the decline in the gap between registered unemployed and vacancies from February, 1972 to June, 1972. For the United Kingdom the figure is 64 per cent.; for the South-East London area, 39 per cent.; the GLC area, 43 per cent.; and for the Greenwich area, 27 per cent. This shows that our area has benefited far less than has the GLC area as a whole, and that we certainly have benefited far less than the United Kingdom generally in terms of the improvement in employment which has taken place.
I do not want to detain the House for much longer and I am grateful to the Minister for having listened to me so far. There is, however, one other point I am bound to make. The shop stewards

1165
and the men to whom I have spoken are not asking for sympathy. They do not want it. They speak of the pride which they possess in the firm for which they work and in the work which they have done. I have a letter from the secretary of the shop stewards committee in which he says,
"The part played by the Redpath Greenwich works has been very significant indeed since the end of the first world war. Greenwich was in at the start of the Ford Dagenham complex and has been responsible for the erection of probably 80 per cent. of the Dagenham site which stands today."
Later he says,
"An interesting contract of a small nature but worth relating came about as the result of the fire which occurred in the Ilford shopping centre in the mid-1950s. A fairly large area was destroyed and the sites, when cleared, were of considerable value. Harrison Gibsons, the furniture dealers, decided to rebuild a new and larger reinforced concrete-framed structure while Moultons, a nearby soft goods retailers sold out to another combine who settled for rebuilding with a steel frame. Redpath, Greenwich, secured the Moultons contract. Work on both sites started at the same time and it was clear quite soon that there was a race in progress. Redpath won the race, hands down."
This is the kind of attitude one sees among these men. They are not seeking sympathy but they are proud of the skills they possess and they want this to be recognised outside. One of the disturbing features one finds in talking to men in the trade union branches and in the working men's clubs is the general air of depression in the area as a whole. They are wondering how long manufacturing industry can last in this part of London. I urge the Government to take the situation seriously if they take equally seriously the need to maintain the level of skill and achievement which has characterised British industry. I hope that they will see that urgent and reasonable efforts are made to retain the industry and skill of this working force in South-East London.
1.40 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) on his presentation of this urgent problem and wish to underline a number of his points.
I doubt whether there is a constituency anywhere in Britain which has suffered such a huge amount of redundancy as
1166
that suffered in my constituents over the period since 1951. Two of the greatest redundancies in Britain in this period have been the running-down of the Royal Arsenal, which many years ago gave jobs to more than 40,000 people but which when I became a Member of this House gave jobs to nearly 20,000 men and women, and the closing down of the AEI works, which employed 5,500 people. In addition, there have been many other smaller but extremely damaging redundancies. I endorse emphatically all that my hon. Friend said about the need to pay attention to this area as being one which is no longer as it used to be, a full employment area, but one where there are real problems of unemployment and wasted skills.
I do not oppose, any more than my hon. Friend does, the general principle of regional planning. In fact we were pioneer supporters of the policy. Nor do we stand in the way of technological change. I have never failed to make clear that as technology changes jobs are bound to change. What we are saying is that men in our area have been made redundant over the years, and they have not found new work. As a result their skills have been wasted unnecessarily. We urge the Government to pay very careful attention to this point.
My hon. Friend referred to the valuable and original study by Political and Economic Planning of the redundancy which followed the closing of the AEI works in my constituency. I hope that the Minister can show that he is familiar with this report. It is original, of national importance, and highlights the human problems and the economic waste involved in redundancy on this scale.
May I put this point to the Minister? Is he aware that the Government are not merely discriminating in favour of the development areas. We understand that. In the case of Greenwich they are discriminating against us in a very special way. They are discriminating against us because in the area we have the new town of Thamesmead building and, so far from applying to Thamesmead the employment policies that they apply to new towns in other parts of the country, they are applying to Thamesmead the same extremely restrictive IDC policy that they apply to the fully employed areas of the country. This is an

1167
anomaly. It is wrong. It should not be so.
In one sense we are fortunate in Greenwich. Thamesmead has fallen three years behind schedule. If this new town had kept up to schedule we should have had thousands and thousands of new people resident in Thamesmead for whom no employment was available. Our existing problems would have been greatly worsened had it not been for the many failings, most of them at County Hall, which have held back the proper and timely development of Thamesmead new town.
Therefore there is a special reason for the Minister to look at the unemployment position in my constituency. As my hon. Friend has explained so well, it is not only a crude unemployment problem. There is also the problem of the lack of unfilled vacancies and of ineffective retraining facilities. The queues for the Government training centres in the area are disgraceful. Recently I asked for details of all the waiting lists for Government training centres in the area. They were so long that it was a mockery for me to suggest to some of my young unemployed constituents that they should apply for retraining. There were one or two trades—I remember that hairdressing was one—where it was possible to get a course at a Government training centre within about two months. For the rest it was necessary to wait a year and more
I wish the Government to look carefully at three factors. The first is the need for better retraining facilities in the area. I know that a new training centre is coming. But it is a wider problem than that. The PEP report shows an understanding and knowledge that retraining facilities need improving. The arrangement for encouraging those who are redundant to retrain needs looking at again.
I ask the Government also to look at their employment policy as it relates to this area of London, bearing in mind that we have a new town building and that by the 1980s we shall have 45,000 new residents in Thamesmead.
I ask the Government also to look at their IDC policy for our region. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that the Government have not turned down
1168
applications for IDCs in the area for a long time. But that is not my complaint. I am not complaining that the Government turn down IDC applications when they are made. I am complaining that in their policy, their publicity and their regulations on this point they show such a restrictiveness and such a discouragement to industrialists wishing to set up works in my constituency that they do not even trouble to make applications for IDCs.
It is not altogether surprising. If I were a British industrialist, even more if I were someone from Dusseldorf or Toulon, considering bringing employment to the area I should take one look at the regulations and the official information leaflets issued by the hon. Gentleman's Department and decide that it was not for me, that I was not likely to get any encouragement, that I would not get an IDC, and that it was better not to go there.
The Minister will probably say that perhaps instead these people will go to the development areas. Let him show any evidence for that. I suspect strongly that a number of industrialists who would come to this area if the Government did not choke them off will not go to development areas and in fact will not invest in Britain at all. I am talking now especially of European and American investors.
These are matters which the Government should consider. Their failure to understand the problems in Woolwich is a scandal. They have not yet shown that they understand that there is a problem. I want the Minister to convince us that he understands the problem and that he is taking urgent action to get on top of it.
1.49 p.m.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: It may surprise the Minister that I intervene in a debate of this kind. Before doing so, perhaps I might congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) on initiating it. He raised two points. The first was the general question of employment in the South-East area, and I understand and sympathise with the problems raised by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew).
The second point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich touches on my own interest in the debate

1169
since in my constituency I have one of the plants of Redpath Brown, the firm responsible for my hon. Friend's decision to raise this matter.
I say to both my hon. Friends that I never thought that I should need to sympathise with the unemployment difficulties of two of my colleagues who represent constituencies in what we have always regarded as the prosperous South-East of England. Scotland has had this problem for a very long time. My constituency, along with other parts of Scotland, has one of the highest unemployment levels ever. The Minister will obviously draw his own conclusions why unemployment is now more troublesome in the South-East than in days gone by.
I want to mention two particular points about Redpath Brown which have been troubling me. The plant in my constituency is part of a wider steel making area producing both general and special steels. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich said, for some years we have been concerned about the change in techniques in the constructional engineering industry. In days gone by, much of the product of Redpath Brown and similar companies was used in housing and allied types of development, but that is no longer so to the same extent. It means that there have been quite widespread closures, not only in Scotland, but elsewhere, and this has created a great deal of uncertainty.
I realise that Redpath Brown is part of the British Steel Corporation's wider interests, but I hope the Minister will at some stage take up the whole problem with his right hon. Friends the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Secretary of State for Scotland, make them aware that it is a serious matter for the constructional engineering industry, and see whether in the new techniques which are being advanced for the building of houses, factories, and so on, steel may have some place as in days gone by.
There has been a great deal of uncertainty in steel making and associated trades. There is the prospect of closure of the general steel division of the BSC in my constituency, which might amount to thousands of jobs being lost, and the fear that the same thing could happen in Redpath Brown.
1170
Some weeks ago I was approached by representatives of both employees, on the shop floor and those concerned with administration regarding their whole future which seems to be in jeopardy because of the new financial arrangements which the Government have for the constructional engineering division of the British Steel Corporation. I was given assurances by Lord Melchett on pensions, but he said it was difficult to give any specific guarantees about future employment at Redpath Brown in view of fluctuations in trade.
This is a point of great concern. The area which I represent already has high unemployment and there is now the prospect of massive closures in the steel industry. Therefore, we should like to be assured that the constructional engineering division will be maintained, and if building techniques can be adapted to help the British Steel Corporation, we should be grateful.
1.53 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I am grateful to the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett), Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie)—for his pleasant, but somewhat surprising, intervention—for participating in the debate.
This is an immensely important subject, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich on the way in which he has presented his case. From the start I should like to say that I am very much aware of the problems of South-East London and of the natural disquiet that is felt when there is a loss of employment. Although unemployment in the Greater London travel-to-work area can in no way be compared with other less fortunate parts of the country, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen will appreciate, I recognise that this does not lessen the social impact that job losses have on the individuals concerned. I respect the constituents of the hon. Member for Greenwich who said they did not want sympathy, which I understand, but it is right to say that my sympathies are wholly with those who suffer the consequences of events over which they have little or no control.
One of the main reasons for the number of closures, including that which

1171
we are debating today, has been the need for rationalisation of industry to improve its efficiency. This has affected South-East London particularly because of the nature of its traditional work. In some cases production has been transferred in this process to factories in the assisted areas or, indeed, in overspill towns. This has naturally been welcomed by my Department as according with its aims of providing employment for these priority areas. The House will know from earlier debates on regional matters that we have to take a wide view of issues as they affect the country as a whole but to pay particular regard to those areas with long-established problems.
I recognise that in raising the problem of redundancy at BSC's Greenwich works the hon. Gentleman feels that it is symptomatic of a problem that has been developing over a number of years. For many years there was a strong demand for labour throughout Greater London as a whole. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the statistics. Perhaps I might bring him up to date. The hon. Gentleman referred to the figures for June, 1972. I have the July figures, which are a little more encouraging.
In South-East London the ratio of unemployed to unfilled vacancies was 3·8:1, in contrast with 4·6:1 in June. That 3·8:1 in July contrasted with 3·9:1 for Great Britain as a whole. Though I do not suggest that is the be all and end all, it is a slightly more encouraging trend from which some moderate comfort can be taken.
The Government understand the concern and anxiety aroused by the BSC's decision to make a number of people redundant at its Greenwich works. However, I must emphasise that such decisions on individual works are matters entirely for the Corporation to make, and the Government cannot intervene. Indeed, the Labour Government did not intervene. The British Steel Corporation cannot consider the prospects for a particular plant in isolation. This may give rise to decisions which local interests may question. Sometimes decisions which are difficult in one part of the country are necessary in the interests of the industry as a whole and may be responsible for conserving the employment pattern of
1172
people in more difficult parts of the Kingdom. The Corporation must look to its responsibilities for the industry as a whole in taking its decisions.
I was concerned by what the hon. Member for Greenwich said about consultations with the unions. I understand that these take place, and the general record of the BSC in the way it seeks to minimise suffering by consultation with employees and unions is admirable. However, what the hon. Gentleman said will be noted by the corporation, and I understand that discussions are going on with the union. I do not think that I should like to say any more, save to hope that they will prove to be fruitful.
The Government are not responsible for decisions on individual works, but they do not wish to evade their responsibility for assisting with the social consequences that may arise. The full range of facilities to help men made redundant will be made available, and I can tell the House that a job team from the Department has gone down to Greenwich today to discuss alternative work prospects with the 30 people who have been declared redundant.
The debate has ranged perhaps a little wider than just Greenwich, into South-East London as a whole, and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East in particular criticised the IDC policy. There was strong criticism when we came to office that the IDC policy was too rigid, but a number of things then with which I have been concerned have happened since to ease the situation.
The hon. Gentleman argued for a more relaxed IDC policy, but the policy is operated very much more flexibly than it was two years or even one year ago, and account is taken of local conditions in deciding an application. In the last two years there has been only one IDC refusal, and this hardly suggests an inflexible attitude on the part of my Department.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the true situation is masked. He says that no account is taken of overseas firms, mobile industry, and so on, which are so petrified by the prospects of a fierce IDC policy that they do not pursue it and therefore do not try to go to other parts of the country. I do not have the exact figures, but if the hon. Gentleman

1173
puts down a Question I shall endeavour to answer it. I have, however, looked at the position myself, and I can tell him that as a result of the IDC policy a large number of firms have located themselves in assisted areas.
I should also remind hon. Members from the South East of the pressures that I have to resist and the accusations with which I have to deal from the hon. Member for Rutherglen, and perhaps the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and others, that we are too soft and wishy-washy on IDC policy. I have to maintain a balance.
Mr. Mayhew: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, since the relaxation of IDC policy to which he refers, he has altered the official information and publicity which his Department distributes to industrialists in such a way as to eradicate those phrases which would certainly put off any industrialist, be he British, European or American, from applying for an IDC in the first place?
Only a year ago I recall reading that "new development brought to the area would not be permitted if it led to undue demands for labour". Will the hon. Gentleman assure me either that that phrase no longer exists or, if it does, that he will instantly remove it?
Mr. Grant: The best way that I can answer that is by saying that, in response to requests from industry, in June of last year, I think it was, we published in our official journal, Trade and Industry, various criteria by which we approach IDCs in various parts of the country. It may be that that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. We shall see whether a revised form can be published indicating the changes which have taken place.
South-East London forms part of the GLC travel-to-work area, in which unemployment is at 1·7 per cent. This is considerably better than in most parts of the country, and a great deal better than in the assisted areas where not only is the percentage higher, but alternative job opportunities do not exist. Whatever we publish will have to take account of the different circumstances in different parts of the country. Nevertheless, as in March following our White Paper on regional policy, the raising of the IDC
1174
ceiling to 10,000 sq. ft. in the South-East will help industry to grow and develop.
What is significant in South-East London is the rise in unfilled vacancies, which in July stood at 3,057 compared with 1,812 in January of this year. Furthermore, unfilled vacancies for Greater London as a whole now total 46,186, which is a not-insignificant number and should provide considerable scope for those looking for jobs.
Parts of South-East London are being developed and the decline in manufacturing industry has been accompanied by an expansion of service industry. This is especially true of office employment in Lewisham and Bexley, and a further expansion of office, hotel and other service industry is expected from the development of the riverside area.
There have been complaints—and I think that we have heard some this afternoon—that the growth in service industry will not provide work for those, especially the older workers, who become redundant in manufacturing industry, and there are reports of skilled workers being forced into unskilled work. But in the Government's view this is not borne out by the experience of local employers, who say that they have difficulty in recruiting skilled men. The PEP survey, an interesting document to which reference has been made this afternoon, found that many redundant workers had skills which were specific to the place where they had worked and were in little demand elsewhere in an area where the nature of employment was changing.
But by the very nature of things, we cannot stand still in this respect. As the hon. Member for Woolwich, East recognised, change is taking place all the time. I take the point that more should be done to draw attention to this, and my colleagues in the Department will note what the hon. Member for Woolwich. East said, but the extensive expansion of training facilities will do a great deal to help workers, such as those we are discussng this afternoon, to learn new skills and to earn the consequent rewards that accompany them.
There are 300 additional places at Government training centres at Poplar, Waddon and Medway, all within easy travelling distance of Greenwich, which will become available to them this autumn and the spring of next year. The

1175
area will also benefit substantially from the expansion of training facilities in colleges of further education and employers' establishments. But, having said that, I believe that, consistent with the need to look at the training programme as a whole, the hon. Gentleman is right in stressing the need for greater training facilities as time goes on and as technological changes take place.
I propose to sum up on an optimistic note because it is important that people in the South East, as well as those in Rutherglen and elsewhere, should be optimistic. First, I stress that the IDC policy has been eased, though this is not always entirely recognised by potential developers in the area. This should help to remove one of the major criticisms and enable some useful limited expansion to take place. Where IDCs are required, control will be operated with flexibility. Job vacancies are arising not only in South-East London but in the Greater London area as a whole, and Government training facilities are also being expanded, if not necessarily as much as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) would like. I am advised that the British Steel Corporation is considering alternative uses for the space vacated which we hope will provide new alternative jobs in the future.
Last but by no means least are the Government measures designed to improve, demand, investment and employment as a whole. I do not propose in this short debate to catalogue them all because it would take far too long. The Government's economic measures are of overwhelming importance to the general economic health of the country and, therefore, to South-East London. But in order for us to succeed we must ensure that the opportunities that are presented to us, not only on entry into the Common Market—which is of considerable significance to South-East London and which is only five months away—but also in other overseas markets and in the home markets are grasped quickly.
In their economic programme the Government have set the scene generally for expansion. I believe that South-East London has a most important role to play by reason of its location, history and the type of people who work there, and I believe that the area can look to a very hopeful and prosperous future.

MEMBERS (EXPENSES AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS)
2.12 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I anticipated that the business put down for today might collapse before Four o'clock and I therefore sought an opportunity to raise with the Government questions which they wanted to put before the House but which they withdrew at the last moment because they saw that the business would not go through "on the nod". I refer specifically to the Motions on parliamentary expenses, Motions Nos. 7 and 8 appearing on the Order Paper dated 3rd August. I intend to say a brief word on Motion No. 6, which deals with the financing of foreign language courses which might be undertaken by a Member of Parliament.
That Motion is composed in the following terms, to be moved by the Leader of the House
"That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April, 1972, for the reimbursement to any Member, within a maximum of £60, of two-thirds of the cost of a course of study which he has completed in a European Economic Community language."
In other words if an hon. Member chose to learn, French, German, Italian, Belgian or Dutch, or whatever, so long as it was an EEC language he would get £60 of the taxpayers' money as a contribution towards the cost. Some of us object to that. I want to learn Chinese but I will not get £60. Why should I not learn Chinese? If I do that is a matter for me and not for the taxpayer. If an hon. Member wants to learn German or French that is also a matter for him, not for the taxpayer. I objected to that in principle and put down an Amendment which sought to reduce £60 to £1, to provide that the payment should not relate exclusively to Common Market languages but should apply to any language, and that at the end of the year a list should be published of all hon. Members who had taken advantage of the scheme and the language they had learned.
It is interesting that in this morning's post I, and probably other hon. Members, received a document from Educational Productions and Systems Limited, of Nottinghamshire. I presume that this organisation thought that the Motion

1177
had already been passed. In the document they invite us to learn a foreign language. I need not go through the document which is principally devoted to French. I do not see why, if an hon. Member cannot speak French or German, the French or Germans should not learn to speak English. English is the international language so why not let M. Pompidou have a course in English rather than hon. Members having a course in French?
I ask the Government whether this is the end of the order or whether they intend to pursue it at some future occasion, on a Friday or at two or three in the morning when troublesome characters like myself have gone to bed. I was speaking to one of my hon. Friends about the principle underlying the Motion and he told me that he could not dance. Dancing is a very important social grace. An hon. Member often attends social functions where he is expected to dance with the mayor's wife and with every councillor's wife, and if he cannot dance he has to sit like a wallflower. Why should he not expect the taxpayer to pay him £60 a year to learn to dance, to do not only the old fashioned dance but the jive dancing that is done? Why should not the taxpayer pay for the development of an hon. Member's social graces. That is absurd and the Minister must know it, and I hope that he will see that the order is dropped because of the nonsense that it is.
Motion No. 7 is more important. It is in the name of the Leader of the House and says:
"That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April, 1972, for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by Members in travelling outside their constituencies, both within the United Kingdom and overseas, for the purpose of informing themselves on subjects of relevance to their Parliamentary work."
I suppose that the Motion is in fulfilment of a recommendation in the Boyle Committee's Report. The report devoted quite a lot of time to the matter. Schedule E explains what happens in other countries when elected representatives travel in their own countries and overseas. The list runs from Belgium to New Zealand, but I will quote only one or two examples. In Belguim an MP is entitled to free travel first-class on Belgian railways, buses and trams and on Dover-Ostend
1178
ferries. In Denmark all MPs receive free air travel between home and Copenhagen and free travel within Denmark at all times.
I asked the Library for information about other countries and it produced a great deal of material including an article from the Congressional Quarterly Guide, an American publication for the Congress of 1971, on which the heading is "Travel abroad: junketing". It reveals what happens in America.
In its section on foreign travel the Boyle Committee devoted one paragraph to the suggestion that £20,000 a year should be devoted to subsidising travel overseas for hon. Members and £10,000 a year to subsidising travel within the United Kingdom. The Motion in the name of the Secretary of State did not put a ceiling of £20,000 on the amount. That figure may be in the Minister's brief and I am prepared to bet 100 to I that it is, but I have to go by the Motion, because nobody tells me anything and I have to assume that there is no ceiling.
I have to assume that there would be no method of control. I suggested a constructive Amendment to the original Motion proposing that a committee might be set up if such a scheme were to be operated. I propose that we should have a committee not of the hierarchies of the parties but of the elected back-bench Members, elected by their respective parties, and I think that that was a reasonable proposition.
Motion No. 8 took up that aspect of the matter. Clearly the Secretary of State had had second thoughts, and he proposed that there should be a committee consisting of
"Sir Henry Legge-Bourke, Mr. Robert Mellish, Mr. Douglas Houghton, Mr. Nigel Fisher, Mr. John Hall."
They were to be appointed to administer the reimbursement of expenses incurred by Members in travelling outside their constituencies both within the United Kingdom and overseas for the purpose of informing themselves of subjects of relevance to their parliamentary work.
I do not know how those names were selected. I was not asked to nominate anybody and as far as I know no member of the Parliamentary Labour Party was asked to make a nomination, nor, so far as I know, was any member of the Tory

1179
back benches, except, perhaps, those whose names appeared. There is nothing personal in this. I assure my right hon. Friends who are sitting on the Front Bench looking worried—
Mr. Robert Mellish: I am amused.
Mr. Hamilton: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is amused. I am grateful for any amusement that might be created about this matter in the House. It is not amusing outside. I do not think that the public outside finds it amusing. But be that as it may. I have no personal axe to grind. But this matter is extremely important and the appearance of a Motion of this kind is extremely ill-timed. It appeared on the assumption that it would go through without debate and the fact that the Government have removed it indicates that they do not want a debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker) indicated dissent.
Mr. Hamilton: I see no other reason for dropping it. If that were not the reason, I should like to know what was. I suggested certain Amendments. They are not on the Order Paper and the Parliamentary Secretary need not look for them, for when the Motions were withdrawn, my Amendments fell. However, I should like it to be on the record that I suggested that all those names should be eliminated and that we should have
"Mr. Speaker, the Official Solicitor, and Mr. Maudling".
If that were not acceptable, I suggested as an alternative that I should be in sole control of overseas jaunting by Members of Parliament. A further suggestion was that in view of the obvious sexual discrimination in the composition of the committee—all male—there should be added the names
"Miss Joan Lestor and Miss Janet Fookes".
Those were constructive alternative Amendments that might well have been adopted. However, in view of the Government's withdrawal of their Motion, those Amendments will not now appear. Is that withdrawal permanent—not only the language course proposal but that on foreign travel—or are the Motions merely postponed?
1180
I have a little experience of foreign travel by hon. Members. I was Chairman of the Estimates Committee from 1964 to 1970. Select Committees in general eventually got a sum of money from the Treasury to enable them to travel overseas to see what was happening in their own subjects in other countries. We soon discovered, to my dismay but not to my surprise, that this was being abused, that sub-committees of Select Committees realised that if they got in first, if they had first bite at the cherry, their chance of as overseas tour would be better than that of a committee that delayed its application until six or nine months of the financial year had gone.
I will quote an instance which should be on the record so that the public may know what happened. A sub-committee of the Estimates Committee decided that it wanted to go abroad to see how housing finance was organised in other countries. In the course of evidence given to it by Professor Cullingworth and Professor Donaldson, the chairman asked whether those professors thought it profitable for the sub-committee to go abroad to see how other countries financed public sector housing. The answer was that some interesting experiments were going on in Sweden and Holland.
I was sitting in as an ex-officio member of the sub-committee, being Chairman of the Estimates Committee. I asked whether they knew what was happening in Japan. The two professors smiled and said that there might be interesting developments in Japan and that if the subcommittee wanted an adviser to go with it, they would be glad to oblige.
The sub-committee subsequently came to the full Estimates Committee and got approval to go to Sweden and Holland for a few days. It wanted to go for three or four days, but the whole Estimates Committee, contrary to my advice as chairman, said, "No, you cannot do the job in four days; you must make it a week". I had to go along to the liaison committee, the committee composed of the chairmen of all the Select Committees in the House, and argue the case as directed by the Estimates Committee. It agreed that the visit should take place, and it took place.

1181
Then along came the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee. He said that lie wanted to take his committee to the Woomera rocket range in Australia. I contacted the Ministry of Defence and asked what there was to see in Woomera. They said, "A bloody great range of thousands of miles of desert with a few electrical sockets and plugs at one end to make the wretched things fly". That proposal was turned down by the liaison committee.
However, the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee was not to be deterred. He went back to his own sub-committee, returned to us, and said, "We have reconsidered the position and we still think that we should go to Woomera". I was the only person in the liaison committee who still voted against that proposal. The 1970 election then intervened and the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Science and Technology changed. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) became the chairman, and the members of the Committee went to Woomera.
Last night I had a phone call from the chairman of the sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee. He told me that the sub-committee was currently in Sweden—Sweden seems to have a great attraction. I asked, "What is the subject which the sub-committee is investigating?" He replied, "Employment services." I asked, "What the devil has that got to do with Sweden?" He answered, "Sweden has some interesting developments going on in employment services."
Although we find difficulty in getting a quorum of three to examine witnesses—the Parliamentary Secretary knows how difficult it sometimes is to get a quorum of three or four in such a sub-committee—come a visit overseas and every Member is suddenly available. I am citing these facts from personal experience. Every member of the sub-committee was available to go to Sweden. Two of them came back half-way through this week, but the rest are still there. As there was insufficient money left in the kitty, they had to be at Gatwick Airport at 3.30 in the morning because that was the cheapest possible form of travel. However, they were determined to go, even
1182
if it meant getting to Gatwick at that time.
I shall quote another case. When I was chairman of the Estimates Committee there was a sub-committee investigating the financing of trunk roads. An hon. Member was put on that subcommittee within a few months of becoming a Member. During the first month of his being a member of the sub-committee he said, "We must go to California because there are important developments going on in trunk road financing in San Francisco and Los Angeles." The chairman of the subcommittee came to me, as chairman of the full committee, and asked for my opinion. I said, "You had better not bring that in front of the committee while I am the chairman." The idea was dropped. They never went to Califnoria.
I mention those cases because if the Government Motion, which has now been perhaps temporarily dropped, were to go through, I do not know how it would be administered. It is all very well for the names of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) who is the Chief Whip of the Labour Party, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who is Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher) and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) appearing in Motion No. 8, but I do not know how these people are to ensure that a visit is bona fide. I do not know how they will ensure that a Member is not furthering his business interests. There may be hon. Members who have shareholdings in South African gold mines and who might convince the committee that they want to go to South Africa to study the problem of apartheid. Who is to say what is the primary interest, apartheid, or the gold-mine shares and the gold-mine industry?
It is not right for the party hierarchies to get together and decide to establish this committee. I have great respect and affection for my right hon. Friends the Chief Whip and the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, but if the 69 Labour hon. Members who voted in favour of entering Europe said to the committee, "We want to spend a month in Brussels to see how the Common

1183
Market works", I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey would be objective in assessing the merits of that claim? If there were a counterclaim by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and other hon. Members who are anti-Common Market, and the two claims came together in the same afternoon, I wonder which my right hon. Friend would choose. That is an interesting proposition.
Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend will understand that it was no desire on my part to be on the committee. I have more than enough work to do, and any extra chores thrown on my back are not welcome. However, in the interests of the House I agreed to accept a further responsibility. If it would get my hon. Friend out of any trouble, I should be willing not to be on such a committee. I should be glad if my hon. Friend would take my place.
Mr. Hamilton: I anticipated that offer, and that is why I had an Amendment down to delete my right hon. Friend's name. I knew that he was overworked. I am underworked. Therefore I propose that I should administer the whole scheme myself. I was being helpful and I hope my right hon. Friend appreciates that. His name is there and he obviously agreed that it should be there—maybe he did not. Maybe he was not consulted as one or two other hon. Members were not consulted until they saw their names on the Order Paper.
All I am saying is that it would be an impossible scheme to administer fairly. When I saw it I thought, "I'll start maping out my programme between now and 1975". Bernard Levin rang me up. I said, "I am interested in the geisha girls in Japan. Maybe if we could get some geisha girls here we could solve our prostitution problem. How are genuine Chinese restaurants run? I want to go to China to see how genuine ours are. I want to go to the United States to see how they deal with their race problem, I want to go to Brazil to see how they manage to produce better footballers than we do.
"I want to go to South Africa to see the apartheid thing operating. The Olympic Games will take place this year.
1184
I want to see how our British athletes fare. I believe that facilities for sport here are so inadequate that our athletes will be shown in a very bad light in Munich and I want to see what the reasons are. I want to see the World Cup to see how our footballers compete."
I have a whole itinerary mapped out. I am the blue-eyed boy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby and the Opposition Chief Whip. I am sure that they will give me consent to do these things.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: To bring my hon. Friend back to this projected visit to Japan, I see in The Times yesterday Mr. Bernard Levin says:
"… Mr. Hamilton tells me that if the measure goes through he is himself going to swan off to Tokyo in order to investigate the geisha system at first hand, with a view to recommending its adoption in this country in the hope that it will reduce the incidence of prostitution. Nor, as far as I can see, would there be any way of stopping him from doing precisely that, at public expense."
Has my hon. Friend told Mr. Bernard Levin of his intention to go and has he borne in mind, when Mr. Bernard Levin says that there is nothing to stop him doing so, the nominations of those who would form this committee of scrutiny on these visits, of which my name is one? I can assure him that there is something to stop him and that is me.
Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend is out of date. When I spoke to Mr. Bernard Levin there was no such Motion on the Paper. The only Motion was No. 7 in which there was no mention of a committee. All that it said was that hon. Members would be reimbursed for travel overseas for the purposes of informing themselves on subjects of relevance to their parliamentary work. I think it is relevant to my parliamentary work that I should try to stop prostitution in this country. If I could convince the Leader of the House that the introduction of geisha girls into this country would stop prostitution, it would be a worthwhile visit.
Mr. Michael English: Does my hon. Friend realise that the weakness of his argument is that this was originally suggested by hon. Members on both sides of the House and taken up by the Boyle Committee as

1185
a reason for providing public funds so that hon. Members could go abroad? Is he aware—I am not suggesting that he would accept this—that the alternative is that someone might offer him his expenses if such a person happened to own businesses employing geisha girls in Japan which he might wish to extend to this country, and we all know that the Japanese have a notable ability as exporters? I hope that he realises that I agree with him about the committee, that it should not be a special committee, but a House of Commons Services Committee.
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend should have come in earlier, because I touched on that point before he arrived. I said that this was based on a recommendation of the Boyle Committee and I quoted, not at such a considerable length as I might have done, from Schedule E where it indicated what travel was allowed to Members of Parliament in other countries. I suppose that one of the reasons for the original Motion was precisely that which my hon. Friend suggests, that if hon. Members are not to have these facilities available the temptation is for them to travel overseas by other and less reputable means. This temptation is open to Members and there is no doubt about it.
We had that experience with the Greek colonels. There is, unfortunately, no Member of the Liberal Party here, but I recall that some time ago the Greek colonels' rotten, corrupt, dictatorial regime invited three hon. Members of this House and their wives to swan off to Greece to have a look round. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) and his wife were two of the people who went. Subsequently the hon. Member wrote an article in The Guardian and said that this regime was OK. This is exactly what the Greek colonels wanted, that was why they paid the expenses. This is a more reprehensible way of foreign travel than the Government are suggesting. That is precisely the point my hon. Friend was making. Of course these temptations are placed before Members of Parliament continuously.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Since the article in The Times by Mr. Bernard Levin has been
1186
raised by my hon. Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), may I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not regard this as an appropriate moment, before proceeding in whichever direction his argument takes him, to repudiate the sheer journalistic squalor of the article in which a journalist like Mr. Levin attacks Members of Parliament who may or may not wish to travel abroad on parliamentary duties, whereas Mr. Levin as an employee of newspapers for several years has gone swanning off? He went swanning off all round the world on a trip financed by the Daily Mail, he has just been swanning off to Miami Beach to report, allegedly, the Democratic Convention for The Times.
Would my hon. Friend not further agree, in the repudiation which I trust he will make of Bernard Levin, that Mr. Levin's account of the Democratic Convention was so inaccurate, as was demonstrated in subsequent correspondence in The Times, that if he as a journalist is saying that Members of Parliament must learn the facts not from their own trips but from journalistic reports, they cannot do so if journalists are to be so unreliable as Mr. Levin so continually is?
Mr. Hamilton: I am pretty sure that that intervention will be the subject matter of a subsequent article in The Times by Mr. Levin. He will no doubt defend himself. Of course journalists are subject to the same kind of corrupt practice as Members of Parliament, probably more so. I remember some years ago the Press criticising the subsidising of the Members' refreshment facilities in this House. It was subsequently discovered that the subsidy of the Press Gallery refreshment department was far heavier and the losses far greater than the rest. This is the price we pay for our freedom to say what we like. The Press says what it likes and we will say what we like, and my hon. Friend has said what he likes about Bernard Levin and no doubt Bernard Levin will say what he likes about my hon. Friend. We ought not to be too thin-skinned about this. If Bernard Levin wants to go off to Miami Beach it is his business, but it is our right and my right to say what we like about these proposals, and this is what I am doing.

1187
I come now to a more serious point. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) sitting in his place. I have a great affection and respect for him, although we differ on many important matters. I know that my hon. Friend is angry—and I hope that I am not saying anything which is unfair—that I am raising this subject in this way. He and other Members went to Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland with the agreement of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They were told that they need not pay their bills. [Interruption.] I am not deliberately distorting. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West will correct me if I say anything wrong. I understand that there are bills outstanding in Northern Ireland which were to have been recouped after the Government's Motion had gone through, virtually on the nod. The proposal was to run from 1st April. In other words, there was an element of retrospection in it.
I ask the Minister how my hon. Friend and his colleagues who went to Ireland in good faith are to be recouped. Will it be done out of Government funds? Nobody could say that a visit to Northern Ireland was a jaunt at the moment. I would not go for a substantial fee, let alone just for my expenses. My hon. Friends went in the course of their parliamentary duties to see at first hand what was going on in Northern Ireland. It was right for them to go also to Southern Ireland to ascertain the views of the Southern Irish Government. We have an Amendment down to the proposals to the effect that there might be a case—certainly it would be a stronger case—for free travel in the United Kingdom rather than throughout the world. It is important that the Minister should deal with this point.
Mr. Stanley Orme: I want to make it clear that I am not angry. My parliamentary colleagues and myself went to Belfast and to Derry with the knowledge of the Secretary of State but not with the promise that the bills would be paid. However, it was possible, if the Boyle recommendations had been adopted by the House, that our expenses would be met. My parliamentary colleagues and I make no apology for having gone to Belfast and Derry. We were in considerable physical danger in
1188
the north. In fact, our car was hijacked. Nor is it a jaunt going to Dublin at the moment. We were made no promises about expenses. The fact that the Government are not proceeding with their proposal will have to be re-examined. My parliamentary colleagues and I will have to take responsibility for what has taken place.
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is very fair. I would not impugn his integrity or that of the Members who went with him. But they have a right to insist that the Government foot the bill, because they went to Ireland to do a service to this House and to this country, and they did it with the most honourable motives. I would not have wanted to join them. I am a bit of a coward. I would not put my life in jeopardy by going to Belfast or Dublin in present circumstances. I cast no aspersions on my hon. Friend or on any of his colleagues.
I turn to the other aspect, a related matter, of which I have given the Minister notice, namely, the Report of the Select Committee dealing with Members' interests which was published on 4th December, 1969. It has never been debated. However lukewarm and wishy-washy the recommendations, the 1970 election intervened before the Labour Government had time to implement them. There is no indication that the present Government will implement even the ineffectual recommendations of the Committee, but they might have allowed time for a debate on them. I take this opportunity of initiating a mini-debate on them and of making a major speech.
I took, and still take, the view that there should be a compulsory public register of the financial outside interests of all Members. I wish to quote from the Memorandum which I submitted to the Committee. First, I went through the historical background, saying:
"In a speech made at Liverpool, and reported in The Guardian on 25th March, 1963, Mr. Wilson",
then Leader of the Opposition,
"had said that 'in my view we shall have to introduce legislation requiring lobbies to register and to make a public disclosure of their interests and personnel'."
I went on to say at page 89 of the report:
"That several M.P.s receive payments either in cash or in kind from outside bodies is a

1189
well-known fact. Much information is known and recorded, for instance by Mr. Andrew Roth in his books on the Business Backgrounds of M.P.s."
I give Mr. Roth a free advertisement of his recent work entitled "Lords on the Boards". It is well worth while reading it. It shows how members of the other place have massive outside business interests. If one looks at the records concerning the Burmah Oil incident, which I quoted at length in the House some years ago, one finds that 38 Burmah Oil shareholders voted in the House of Lords to give £60 million of taxpayers' money to their own company because its oil installations in Burma had been blown up to prevent them from falling into Japanese hands during the war. In fact, one of them took his seat that day just to vote his own company £60 million of public money. Mr. Roth's book "Lords on the Boards" is compulsive reading for hon. Members and for the public.
In my Memorandum to the Committee I went on to say:
"Mr. Francis Noel-Baker"—
who used to be a Member of Parliament—
"writing in Parliamentary Affairs (the Journal of the Hansard Society, Vol. XV, 1961–62) on the problem of Business Affiliations of M.P.s referred to the inadequacy of Members' pay and conditions. He went on to say, 'The door in fact, is wide open for a new form of political corruption and there is an uneasy feeling in Parliament and outside that its extent could be much greater than the known or published facts reveal.'".
My own comment was:
"There is much truth in that assertion, as any reading of Mr. Roth's books will indicate."
I went on to quote various other authorities who said that some form of public register should be formulated.
When I gave that evidence in front of the Select Committee it was said, "Oh, it would be too difficult. Wives could hold shares. There could be nominee shareholders"—and the rest. Of course there are difficulties, but so there are with the tax laws. There are all kinds of ways of evading income tax, surtax, death duty; you name it, and it can be evaded. A constant battle goes on between the Treasury and the taxpayer and the accountants, how to get round the tax laws, but that is no reason why we should not have laws of taxation. I
1190
cannot believe that parliamentary draftsmen who can draft a short Bill taking us into such a complex organisation as the EEC cannot devise some method by which the public outside can be made aware of the business interests of Members of this House in outside bodies. It might not be watertight; I do not believe it could be; but that is no reason why we should not try.
Whether we are talking about Members' travel overseas financed by the Government or by foreign Governments or by firms, whether we are talking of Members' outside financial interests, it all boils down eventually to the personal integrity and judgment of the individual Member of Parliament, He, in the end, must decide what is right and what is wrong, what is defensible and what is indefensible, what he will be answerable for to his constituency party and to the public outside, but that is no reason why we should not try to produce a set of ground rules to which he could refer.
There is a good deal of cynicism outside this House about this House. I have said before and I repeat now—and it is no catch phrase—that I believe that this House as a legislature is probably the least corrupt of any in the world, but that is not to say that it is not corrupt, that is not to say that certain hon. Members—I believe a minority of Members—have yielded and are yielding to temptations which are continually put before us week after week. The same applies to local councillors. It spreads through. There is no reason why we should be complacent about it. All I want the Government to do is to have a very good and serious look at these things—in view of recent developments, even more so should they have a look at it. I am glad to have had this opportunity of raising the matter, a matter which the Government, I think, would have preferred not to have been raised.
3.3 p.m.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for having missed the first three minutes of his speech. I did not know he intended to raise this matter until I saw his name go up on the indicator today. Sometimes it happens that when the business of the House for the day is completed a little earlier than expected

1191
an hon. Member who has the good sense to anticipate that fact can grasp his opportunity to raise a matter on the Adjournment, which occurs sooner than was expected. I congratulate the hon. Member at least on exercising initiative on this occasion and taking his opportunity.
However, I must say that I should have like a little more notice of what he intended to say because he has drawn attention to the fact that I was one of the hon. Members who, had the House approved a Motion which contained my name, would have been responsible for administering the fund made available for Members' travel in the United Kingdom and overseas.
I must say that it was not a task which I relished. When I was first asked whether I would consider doing this, I naturally asked how much work it would entail, and I was told, "Very little", but the more I have contemplated it ever since that moment, the more convinced I have become that it would have been an increasingly exacting exercise. The exercise of one's judgment as between one hon. Member's claim and another would be very considerable indeed.
However amusing Mr. Bernard Levin may be on paper—and I hugely enjoy many of the articles he writes—I must confess that I do not think that he is much of a mathematician. If he had got down to the hard tack of dividing £10,000 equitably between 630 Members of Parliament he would have found that it works out at about £16 a head. For £20,000 it is about £32 per head. A sum of £32 does not go very far when one is travelling abroad, and £16 could not be regarded as a lavish additional allowance to enable hon. Members to travel around in this country in the course of their duties as they conceive them to be and to inform themselves on matters concerning or likely to concern the House. What would concern that committee would be to ensure that all hon. Members were being treated equally, and that no one was regarded as privileged in the allocation of the allowances.
It is worth reminding the hon. Member for Fife, West what the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said when the proposals of the Boyle
1192
Committee were first put before the House:
"The Government have responded to a strong expression of view by the Review Body by accepting the proposals, and I think that the House must accept them in toto."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1971; Vol. 828, C. 1143.]
It was on that assumption that the Government put down the Motions on the Order Paper to which exception has been taken by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and others. I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Ham, North is not here today because he is as ardent a protagonist of anti-privilege as is the hon. Member for Fife, West. They both resent what they regard as privilege which could be thought to be unfair. I respect them for holding that view, but I sometimes wonder what privileges they enjoy about which we do not know.
The hon. Member for Fife, West says that he wants all outside interests to be declared and that there is no way at the moment of doing this. Any constituency association is fully entitled to ask its Member what are his outside interests, and, presumably, the local Press and the national newspapers are entitled to publish his answers to such questions. The question arises whether a central register should be kept here of Members' outside interests, but this might have unfortunate results which the hon. Gentleman does not contemplate.
Once a central register is kept, any change in a hon. Member's outside interests would have to be recorded. This might conceivably have unfortunate effects, for example on investments. For an hon. Member to announce publicly that he had changed his investments might have highly undesirable effects.
I entirely agree that an hon. Member who is asked about his outside interests by his constituents should answer straightforwardly, and I would regret it if any hon. Member did not do so. But we must remember that we take pride in calling ourselves "honourable" Members. The basis on which the House has operated down the years, and on which I hope it will always operate, is the assumption that we are all "honourable" Members until it is proved otherwise. We take responsibility for what we say, knowing that we can be cross-questioned

1193
on it in the House, by our constituents, by newspaper men and by any other member of the public. Hon. Members know that when they speak in this House they must bear in mind this responsibility.
I turn to the main burden of the hon. Member's remarks. The question of travel allowances to hon. Members in pursuing what they believe to be a cause which will help them to be able to play their part here more effectively is not an easy one. We must recognise that both Front Benches agreed that the Boyle recommendations must be accepted in toto or not at all.
It is worth quoting these words from the Boyle Report:
"We have regarded this as placing on us an added responsibility to keep our recommendations for increases and improvements to the absolute minimum which we consider to be necessary. It is in our view of the highest importance that these recommendations, both as they affect salaries and allowances, should now be implemented as a whole and in full."
The Government accepted that, as did the Opposition Front Bench. It was on that assumption that the Motions were tabled, and not for some deceitful purpose such as was suggested yesterday in Mr. Bernard Levin's article. It was absolutely in accordance with the decision taken by the House following the recommendation of the Boyle Committee.
I come to the question of administration. The hon. Member for Fife, West asked how on earth those who were to serve on the proposed committee were selected. I cannot say what happened on the Opposition side of the House, but I can gladly tell him what happened on this side. As the House knows, I am chairman of a certain committee concerning the Conservative Party and I was asked whether I would consider this matter with my colleagues. I did so, and I consulted the executive committee, whose purpose is to look into this sort of matter when asked.
We put forward the names of certain hon. Members. One name we put forward was that of the hon. Member for Wycome (Mr. John Hall) who happens to be the Chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and who undertakes an immense amount of work involving foreign travel. He has special knowledge of these matters and of the costs involved and knows the subjects which have to be
1194
discussed from time to time. Our other nominee is my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher), who is particularly interested in Commonwealth affairs and who travels a great deal at his own expense. He, too, has a personal and active knowledge of the likely costs arising from these journeys.
The hon. Member for Fife, West was somewhat naughty in seeking to paint an absurd picture of hon. Members going off to have a jolly good time, dancing with the mayor's wife, and so on. It was all very colourful and not quite as serious as I think it should have been—especially when we realise that this involves taxpayers' money. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is a great champion of ensuring that public money is properly spent, but on this occasion he has painted such an absurd picture that it should be dismissed as not worthy of the occasion.
I do not regard this proposal of the Boyle Committee as anything like its best proposal. I regard it either as much too small, or it is a question whether it ought to be there at all. I am sure that I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that I should not mind if the whole idea were dropped. The more that I look at it, the more complicated administratively I foresee it being.
However, I should not reject it for the reason advanced by the hon. Member for Fife, West. I should reject it because I believe it to be unworkable without being unfair to someone. I should hate to see its administration being unfair. Every hon. Member should be treated equally. However, if we set a limit of £16 for United Kingdom travel and £32 for overseas travel, it becomes ludicrous—
Mr. Mellish: When the names of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House were first mooted for membership of the committee, it was my assumption that at our first meeting we should have to decide our terms of reference. It occurred to me, though this is the first time that I have said so publicly, that the smallness of the fund was such that we might have decided that it was not workable, anyway. However, the important feature of this fund was that whatever sums were granted to any hon. Member, full details would be published, and the whole world would know. In that, I include members of the Press. They

1195
would want to know about these matters, though they have probably left the Press Gallery by now since the more lurid part of this debate is over.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. I hope that he will not assume that, if this committee has to be set up and he and I find ourselves on it, what I have said today is my last word on the subject. Obviously, we should have to get down to working out the modus vivendi of the committee.
I say only that I foresaw deeper and deeper complications ahead of us. That is why I feel that the Government have been wise to withdraw this proposal. Many people will say, "This is one part of the Boyle Report which was a pity. Let us cancel the whole idea and not try again with it." I think that there would be strong support for that point of view from this side of the House.
This assumes, of course, that we are not prepared to say that Members of Parliament shall be provided with adequate allowances on the lines of those of most other Western States. If we do not take that view, we have to think in terms of much bigger sums. If we gave travel facilities in the United Kingdom alone comparable to those enjoyed by the members of legislatures in many advanced States in the world, we should find ourselves running into millions of £s rather than tens of thousands.
After many years of restraint, even taking into account some rise in the cost of living, we know that the fact that we have salaries which are not too much out of line with true costs has not been greeted with wild enthusiasm by the electorate. The country at large underestimates the hours of work put in by hon. Members in this House. The other day I was asked how many hours the parliamentary week involved. I was unable to get the figure below 65. Often it was well about 80 and sometimes above 100 hours a week. That is the sort of time for which a Member of Parliament is involved in work here, in his constituency and connected with work in both.
One piece of work in which hon. Members are involved concerns Select Committees on opposed Private Bills. I no
1196
longer do it to the extent that I used to. There is no extra pay for that. It is usually done in the mornings. The amount of work and background reading often is vast. Members of the Press do not take much notice of such committees. That may be because the matters dealt with are largely of local interest. However, it is very important to the localities and the people concerned. That work is part of the parliamentary life, and the country outside knows little of it.
The hon. Member for Fife, West picked upon one Select Committee of which I was a member. I refer to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. In the course of the Second Reading debate on the Bill dealing with our salaries, I referred to this matter. Apparently the hon. Member for Fife, West was opposed to our going to Woomera. Either the British space programme is important or it is not. If it is important, it is as well for Members of Parliament to be as fully informed as possible before starting to adjudicate on the future of that programme. We could not have produced the report that we in fact produced had we not gone to Woomera. As I said on that occasion, when the work of the Committee in Australia had finished two of us—my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) and I—volunteered to go back via Washington to meet some of the representatives of the country most involved in space in the Western world—the United States.
It might interest the House to he reminded of our itinerary. We left Heathrow for Sydney on a Sunday afternoon, going via Vienna, Cairo, Bahrain, Calcutta and Singapore, putting down only to refuel and go on. It is the wrong way to travel if one wishes comfort.
Within an hour of arriving in Sydney we were off in another aeroplane for Adelaide. Half an hour after arriving at Adelaide we were being interviewed by the Premier of South Australia. We then, at last, managed to get a wash and change for the first time in 36 hours. After a quick lunch we went to the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury. We went back to Adelaide. Next day we left at 6.30 in the morning for Woomera where we spent two days, travelling 100 miles up there in an aircraft built at least 14 years ago. Then

1197
we came back again to Adelaide, went up to Salisbury, spent a whole day there, back to Adelaide, and then over to Canberra. There we not only did work for the Select Committee on Science and Technology, but we met a number of the Clerks of the Parliament there and had an interesting conference. We went back to Sydney the following afternoon, and that was the official end of the Committee's work.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping and I had decided to go on to Washington and come back that way, we had to pay the extra fare, £13, out of our own pockets. If hon. Members wish to go round the world I advise them to take more than 14 days in which to do it. It took me three weeks to get over the visit.
The country does not appreciate that the burden of the work we do for this House is considerable. We are not overpaid for what we try to do. Some hon. Members do more than others. That will always be so. However, we are not overpaid as a Parliament. The proposed allowances were not excessive, but the difficulty of administration would be so great that it is better to drop the whole idea until we can think straight on the whole matter.
3.23 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: I think there are times when, because of events, we tend to make a meal out of something that need not be treated in that way.
Like the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), I should like to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for not being here at the beginning of his speech. However, my hon. Friend will realise that an Adjournment debate is technically one debate and one simply has to watch the board to see when a Member rises if a second Adjournment debate is to take place.
I think my hon. Friend also realises that he puts at least half the hon. Members present on this side of the House in a difficult position regarding the second part of his speech. I will not comment on it for a reason of which he is aware—namely, that we on this side have set up a committee of eight to consider Mem-
1198
bers' outside interests. Two of the members of that committee are my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and myself. Therefore, it is almost impossible for us at this stage, before the committee has met and considered proposals on what it believes should be the situation, to comment on the matter.
Like my hon. Friend, when the Select Committe dealing with Members' Interests was sitting, I put before it a memorandum of evidence and raised the question of a register of Members. I also pointed out some of the difficulties.
My hon. Friend said that in the end it is a question of Members' individual integrity. My hon. Friend is right, but only in the sense that every job we do involves our own individual integrity, whether inside or outside this House. In that sense Members of Parliament are no different from other people, but there is a way in which they are different. My hon. Friend mentioned constituencies and parties. An individual Member's integrity is relevant to his job in the same way as the integrity of any other individual is to his job, but there are people outside the House who are interested in us because they elect us or because they vote for or against us at a General Election or at party meetings when they select candidates. I am sure it will be agreed that it is not only the individual Member's integrity that is involved. What is involved is a sufficient degree of publicity of a Member's actions to enable people outside to make a legitimate choice in deciding whether they wish him to be in the House. In that respect Members are different from many other people. That is as far as I wish to go on that issue.
I should like to take up the other point raised by my hon. Friend. The history of travelling expenses is interesting. I first heard of it from the former Member for Ormskirk, Sir Douglas Glover, who raised it in the House late one night. The hon. Gentleman was often here at all hours of the day or night, very much like the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely, who referred to the hours that Members work. The former Member for Ormskirk raised the question for the most legitimate of reasons. I subsequently learned that he was not the first person in the House to raise the matter,

1199
but he was the first in my recollection as a Member, and he raised it because he wanted to ensure that Members could go about their legitimate duties outside the House without having to be beholden to other people who might have interests—and who better to pay for such things than the country as a whole?
I said earlier that we sometimes make a meal out of something which need not be treated in that way. My father was a railway executive. When he died my mother, as his widow, had a free pass which would take her over any part of the railway system for which he had been an executive. There is nobody in the kingdom who works in industry in any capacity who, when he is sent on a job by the firm for which he works, is not paid for that purpose. There are many people who, like my mother as a widow, have a small fringe benefit of the kind that I have mentioned.
Is it being suggested that Members of Parliament should be worse off than every other person employed in the United Kingdom? When the former Member for Ormskirk raised the matter, I thought that it was an extremely sensible proposal, and when the Boyle Committee met I submitted a memorandum to it. That has not been published because, quite rightly, the committee did not publish any of its evidence. My memorandum included the suggestion that the idea put forward by the former Member for Ormskirk should be adopted and the committee accepted that.
The Government said that they were going to implement the entire Boyle Report. Like the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, I am not sure that the way in which the Boyle Committee put the matter was the best way. I think that it would be simpler to say that we could use our railway warrants which are provided to take us from this place to our constituencies, or the car allowances which are paid to Members who drive cars for the same purpose for travel anywhere in the United Kingdom. That might be a better way of doing it. But the Boyle Committee made its proposal, it was an independent committee, and the Government have said that they intend to implement what the committee recommended.
1200
At no time during any of the discussions do I recollect my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West objecting to what was proposed. I do not recollect his objecting when the former Member for Ormskirk raised it. I do not recollect his objecting during the discussions on the Boyle Report. I do not recollect his objecting even when the Government put down their Motion for debate on the Floor of the House. On the first occasion that the Government Motion was put down and withdrawn my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West was not there. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was present but my other hon. Friend did not seem to be concerned. He may have been concerned, but he did not say so. He has taken an interest in this issue only since more recent events on other issues. I accept that he is a master of the ability to influence public opinion, but on this sort of subject there should be a measure of consistency in view expressed on the Floor of the House. I have always been in favour of a reasonable travelling allowance for hon. Members.
I am concerned that the Government originally withdrew their resolutions in a fit of pique—and I describe it as such because I was present at the time. The Motion embodying the recommendation of the Boyle Committee dealing with travelling expenses was preceded by another Motion which the Boyle Committee had not recommended—that we should give £60 to every hon. Member who wished to attend an EEC language course. There was no requirement that the hon. Member should pass the course or qualify —only that he should attend. My hon. Friend for Ardwick and I objected to that. Some people believe we should not have done so. Since we opposed it, the Government withdrew the second resolution on travelling expenses to which we were not opposed. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) opposed it at the time, but it could have gone through.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West that the method of implementing the Boyle Report is, to say the least, slightly strange in one small respect. I believe that we should have a travel fund and that the amount would have to be worked out.

1201
Within the United Kingdom a fund would not be needed because the principles that apply for travel to constituencies could be extended. Obviously this is a difficult matter, but nevertheless there should be a means by which the community as a whole could pay for Members going abroad for what other hon. Members—not those making the trip—would describe as for legitimate parliamentary purposes.
If Members of Parliament go abroad they cannot even claim the cost of the visit for tax purposes if they are paying for it out of their own income. It is not merely a question of paying their own expenses. They are not even allowed to pay for it themselves and then charge an appropriate proportion to tax, as any business man could when travelling abroad for the purpose of his business. If an hon. Member wanted to go to Northern Ireland, Vietnam or anywhere else for parliamentary purposes, the cost of the trip could not be charged to tax, but a business man selling spanners could charge his expenses to tax.
The committee that decides upon the matter should be the broadest possible, and the defect of the particular committee proposed was that it was so small and restricted. I would rather see the Services Committee, which is ultimately responsible for the budget of the House, considering the matter rather than these hon. Members. That is a minor point. The major point is that if we do not provide Members of Parliament with legitimate means of doing the things they feel they must do in the course of their duties, then a minority, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West said, might adopt illegitimate means of doing the same thing.
3.35 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: The House is in some difficulty this afternoon, because the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) related to Motions which were on the Order Paper for today, but which are not now on the Order Paper for today. The Government decided not to move those Motions today, to reconsider the matter and, if they thought fit, to bring them forward on a subsequent occasion. If they are brought
1202
forward on a subsequent occasion, the House will have an opportunity to debate them fully, perhaps in more satisfactory conditions than this afternoon; if they are not brought forward again there is nothing to debate and we are finished with them. So we are in the difficulty that we do not know whether we are debating something tangible. We are certainly debating, at any rate in part, something that is not before the House.
Nevertheless, with his usual ingenuity, my hon. Friend took the opportunity of the collapse of a certain part of the business on account of the withdrawal of these Motions to raise the same matters on the Adjournment—which shows what can be done in the House if one knows one's way about. One thing that will be very noticeable is how hard the House tries for virtue and what a painful way we choose to achieve it—self-examination, self-exposure, self-criticism.
When I was listening to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) defending, rightly, properly and moderately, the prestige, the zeal and the integrity of the House, I wondered how interested the Press was in what he was saying. It was very interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West was saying. He was the man who was good for the headlines, not the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Mellish: Hear, hear.
Mr. Houghton: That is the dilemma that always confronts the House when it begins to debate itself. We have to do it in public and we can be misrepresented. What is discussed here can be grievously distorted for the sake of Press advantage, or publicity, or political prejudice, or whatever it may be. That is sad, but we are a public body doing its work in public and we have to take the consequences.
Nevertheless, these conditions impose upon us all a full sense of responsibility for what we do and what we say, because we can seriously damage the institution of Parliament, unwittingly perhaps, and at this time, when our institutions are under such challenge, the object of much cynicism and derision, we must be careful that we do not damage the whole fabric of our democratic and parliamentary system. What will be put in its

1203
place if this Parliament goes, if this Parliament is regarded as something unworthy and corrupt, cynical in its approach to its duties, striving for its advantage, having private interests, going on bonanza trips all over the world, if this kind of legend is built up about the House, our reputation, our authority and our influence are bound to diminish.
I say to my hon. Friend that he does not choose his language carefully and moderately enough when he is dealing with these delicate matters. I shall not go into many of the topics that he raised. I have great respect for my hon. Friend. He has abundant courage. Sometimes hon. Members who are in a minority but who have courage nevertheless do a service to the public and to Parliament, and I do not deny that. But sometimes in the House we make possible unimpeded progress towards minority rule.
These are the occasions when any hon. Member, even though he represents no one but himself and has the full confidence of his constituents, can in certain circumstances hold up our proceedings here hour by hour throughout the day and night. This is a right that we give in our democratic parliamentary system to hon. Members to have their say without let or hindrance, and the House can scarcely bring proceedings to a close, even if it wants to if the hon. Member concerned is in order and availing himself properly of the time put at our disposal. But all this puts on hon. Members a very grave responsibility about what we do.
The two main issues that have been raised are travel allowances and Members' interests. The subject of Members' interests is by no means new. It has been debated in the past from time to time when disclosures have been made or information has come to light which disturbs the House, and the House then feels that it should examine once again this difficult matter. This occurred during the lifetime of the Labour Government, and a Select Committee was set up presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). It spent a considerable period in close examination of a complex problem, and it produced a report.
It is true that that report was never debated here. Probably it should have
1204
been debated but, unhappily, there are times when the House, roused to indignation or apprehension and in a mood or spirit of moral fervour, says that a Select Committee must be set up, that something must be done to inquire into whatever the subject may be, and that some remedy must be found, but by the time the Select Committee set up to deal with the matter produces its report the House has lost interest in the circumstance of its appointment, and we wait until the next incident occurs.
So it is that we are now all going to the Vote Office for our copies of the 1967 Select Committee's Report to see what was said about a problem which has recently been revived in the House. If we read that report—and I wonder how many hon. and right hon. Members read it then or have refreshed their memories about it since—we appreciate how difficult the problem is. None of us wants to hide matters which are of public interest, and probably many of us would go much further than would members of the public in the disclosure of our affairs in order that the public might see that we were neither corrupt, nor in the pay of other people, nor in circumstances and conditions which would unfit us to represent the public in this House of Commons.
For my own part, I would be prepared for anyone to see my income tax return at any time: they would then see how little I have made out of being in Parliament for the last 22 years. I know that the same applies to many other hon. Members. As I have said, I would be prepared to submit to a degree of inspection of my private affairs which I would not ask private citizens themselves to agree to, but the problem is: what is suitable and proper for disclosure?
I do not want to dwell on these matters, because I am a member of a committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party which has been appointed to take a party look at the subject in order to see whether we can come to any conclusions that we might on a subsequent occasion put before the House. Nevertheless, I need only, in a couple of sentences, ask whether one discloses shareholdings, control of private compies, substantial blocks of shares in public companies, fees paid by outside bodies. Should we know what

1205
the lawyers or the solicitors are earning? We know that certain hon. Members are journalists and we read what they have to say: it would be interesting to know how much they are paid for their work. Are we entitled to know? These are questions we should ask ourselves.
Mr. Mellish: We know how much some people get paid.
Mr. Houghton: Some hon. Members have fairly regular columns in local newspapers. Are they paid for those? Are they in any way beholden to the politics of the newspapers for which they write? All these are important and difficult questions.
I wish to say little more on this matter until the committee that has been appointed has had an opportunity of considering it further, but there is one thing that I can say without fear of contradiction; we all want to do what can properly and fairly be done to assure the public that we are the most incorrupt Parliament in the world. We wish to retain confidence in our capacity to represent the public and to do it without fear or favour, or undue personal interest.
The issue of travel is a new one. It came from the Boyle Committee. It is not without importance. I should mention that another of the dilemmas of those who serve the House is that we are extremely loth to propose anything for our own benefit. Many attempts have been made to deal with the problems of pay and conditions of hon. Members. Select Committees in all sorts of ways have tried to solve this difficult problem.
All that I want to say is that probably as a result of a small Bill that I introduced into the House some time ago our affairs were remitted to a review body for its advice on what should be done in terms of the pay and conditions of Members. That committee was presided over by Lord Boyle of Handsworth, who for many years was a Member of this House. He is now Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University. He was a much respected Member of this House in his time—a man of great public eminence, respected for his integrity, wisdom and judgment.
1206
Lord Boyle was chairman of this committee, and he and the other distinguished members of it voluntarily undertook the task of deciding for us what we felt incapable of deciding for ourselves. Among the Members were Lord Beeching and Sir George Coldstream—a distinguished Permanent Secretary to Lord Chancellors. It was a committee of high quality.
The Government decided—rightly in my view—to accept without amendment the recommendations of the Boyle Committee on pay and conditions of Members of Parliament. That is the only way to do it. If a person puts out his washing because it is too dirty or too difficult for him to wash it himself, he must take it when it comes back from the laundry—and this came back from the laundry and the Government decided to accept it.
One of the recommendations of the committee related to travel within the United Kingdom and overseas. I am sure that this recommendation came from the committee because it received evidence showing, or sought from its own inquiries to find out, how well or ill informed Parliament is on matters which should be within the scope of its attention and expert knowledge. The committee made this modest recommendation —the subject of a Motion on the Order Paper that was withdrawn.
I see that in Mr. Bernard Levin's article in The Times on Thursday—and this is the mischief of the matter, if I may say so to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife—he says:
"Now if you look at the small print in the Boyle Committee Report, a most significant fact emerges. The travelling expenses now incurred by Members of Parliament are, says the Report, generally not even deductible for tax'. That is a fair-sized cat to be let out of a bag only six words long, for if the Members' expenses are not deductible for tax it means that they cannot satisfy the Inland Revenue authorities that the travel is 'wholly and necessarily' for the purpose of their parliamentary work. It is therefore proposed by the Government and Opposition that Members of Parliament, alone among citizens shall not only be permitted to evade the provisions of the Income Tax Acts by paying no tax on the cost of their own private travel; they will actually get the lot back from the public purse."
That is a mischievous distortion of the tax position.
The difficulty about Members of Parliament and their tax expenses is well known.

1207
The Inland Revenue naturally does not allow Members to choose which expenses they like to charge against their assessable income. The Inland Revenue wants to know, "Is this wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of your duties as a Member of Parliament?" It looks for some authority or sanction for the expenditure from such bodies as the House may direct—some authority that these matters are within the scope of legitimate parliamentary expenses. The fact that they are not admissible for tax purposes does not mean that they are not desirable expenses or expenses which will add to the value and knowledge of Members.
The Boyle Committee is trying to provide for expenditure in this direction which would be regarded as desirable when approved by a committee of the whole House. There would be no question of tax admissibility then, because the expenses would be paid out of the fund provided. There is nothing whatever in the point made by Bernard Levin in this context.
I hope that the House will permit me one personal reference. For many years I was the Front Bench spokesman on social security. I then went into the Government as a Cabinet Minister for two and a half years as the co-ordinating Minister for the whole of the social services. Not one penny of public money sent me anywhere in the world to look at the social services. I never had the opportunity of going, and I never asked for it. That is an indicaton of how austere we are in these matters. I am sure this applies to many of my hon. and right hon. Friends. The austerity that underlies all our activities here is unbelievable to members of legislative assemblies elsewhere.
My hon. Friend had a good deal of fun, and this is the danger, When we have fun in this House it can be construed in a way damagng to us all. It is difficult to be facetious in public because it is bound to be misunderstood. Some of the situations and applications for overseas travel which my hon. Friend mentioned are, as he knows, absolute fantasy. He is just enjoying himself. He knows that it was rubbish from beginning to end and yet it is seriously put to this House as a practical dilemma for the
1208
committee of which, were it to be appointed, I and my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip would be members. We would stop my hon. Friend going to Japan to look at the geisha girls, we would stop any hon. Member who wanted to see how our footballers played in the World Cup in Munich or Vienna, or wherever else they play.
No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is not a serious argument, this is not put forward with any sense of responsibility, and I must rebuke my hon. Friend, not because we do not all enjoy these contributions that he makes. Within our own circle we understand it and we understand him. But the Press men have gone. They went after my hon. Friend sat down. We shall see tomorrow what is made of this debate and how much improvement in the public mind comes out of a debate on one of the most difficult and delicate matters confronting parliamentarians.
Both Motions can and probably will come before the House in due course. I hope that I have said enough to warn all right hon. and hon. Members to be careful and not to damage Parliament unnecessarily and wantonly, because this institution is probably the one thing which stands between the public and anarchy. We have a grave responsibility to honour the traditions, rights and powers of Parliament handed down to us over hundreds of years. We must sustain it, foster its reputation and be worthy of it. We must not injure it unless it must be injured in the public interest.
3.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): This is the first day on which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have presided over the House since your appointment on Wednesday. I should like to congratulate you on behalf of the House.
It is a common occurrence for backbench Members to prepare long speeches and to sit through debates without being called and then to go away and persuade themselves that the speeches they did not make were the best. That has happened to me on five occasions this week. I have prepared five speeches to make from this Box but because of business changes I have not made any of them. They are the good ones which got away.

1209
When the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) speaks in the way in which he has spoken today—as a sort of Savanarola of the lowlands—he can, as the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, do a great deal of damage to the concept of parliamentary government in this country. The debate at times denegrated into a dog-eat-dog argument. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) attacking Mr. Bernard Levin. Both those gentlemen are my constituents, so I did not intervene because I would not want to jeopardise their potential support for me at the next election.
I should like to deal first with what the hon. Member for Fife, West said about the language Motion. It was debated late at night on 13th June for about two hours. It was debated thoroughly and there was a vote on it. But it could not be proceeded with because there were not 40 Members in the House. That was why it was tabled again for discussion today.
The hon. Member for Fife, West wanted to know why the Motion was confined to Common Market languages. It seems that he wants to learn Chinese—apparently on his way to Japan. During the debate on the Motion, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said:
"Most of us would agree that, in or out of the Common Market, the future of this country is probably more tied up with Europe than it was a few decades ago. That is probably inevitable. There are European institutions outside the Common Market. It helps hon. Members to do their duty to this House and, therefore, to the country if they are able to participate more freely in these institutions and to talk the languages of other members who join in them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1972; Vol. 838, c. 1463.]
That is a sensible and practical approach. Certain hon. Members who will be participating more in European affairs in future felt that if they did not have the facility of tongue of one of the continental languages they should try to learn it. I should say that I would not have thought very much money would have been spent by the taxpayer on this, because the proposal was to pay only £60 or up to £60, but only if the course were completed. It is the experience, I understand, in language courses that courses are not often completed.
I turn now to the—
It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the blouse lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]
Mr. Baker: I turn now to the more substantive point concerning travel funds. As the House will be aware, the two Motions which were tabled but which have not been proceeded with today arose out of a Boyle recommendation, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby mentioned. It is the only outstanding recommendation of the Boyle Report. Both Front Benches have placed considerable emphasis in the past on accepting such reports in toto. If we ask a body like this to undertake a difficult and embarrassing task, or a task which we find embarrassing, we should accept its report in toto. The particular recommendation was in 42(b):
"An increasing number of Members incur expenses in travelling outside their constituencies, both within the United Kingdom and overseas, to inform themselves on subjects of relevance to their work. These are generally not even deductible for tax. We consider that such travel should be encouraged where it can be shown to be of assistance to Members in carrying out their duties effectively. We have in mind, for example, visits in connection with the sponsoring of a private Bill, to extend a Member's knowledge of an industry which is of special importance in his constituency, and, in the case of Opposition spokesmen, to examine matters of national interest in the sphere for which they are responsible."
I think this indicates that the sort of travel the Boyle Report had in mind was not the sort of jaunts the hon. Member for Fife, West was talking about. The object of that recommendation was not to give the luckiest people the jolliest time. It was to provide a facility which many hon. Member do not have but which would help them with their parliamentary work as Members of this legislative assembly.
I need not remind the House—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) did—that action has been taken on the rest of the Boyle Report, but I should like to emphasise at the outset that the Government regard this as very much a matter for the House, and one in which they would

1211
particularly seek to be guided by the general wishes of Members. This is not a matter for the Government, and the proposal does not emanate from the Government. It is a matter for the House. If the House wants these funds to be set up, set up they will be; if it does not, then nothing will happen.
I was asked whether the decision not to proceed with those Motions today meant that they were going to be dropped for good. That is not the position. They will stand on the Order Paper; they will come up if the House so wishes them to come up. They have been held over today because it became quite clear that there was considerable opposition from certain Members on both sides of the House to these proposals, some to the principle of these proposals, some to the details of these proposals. So it is the Government's intention to proceed with them only if it becomes clear that this is the wish of the House.
The effect of the first Motion, if it had been proceeded with, would have been to set up these two proposed travel funds.
Mr. Mellish: There is one other aspect to the matter of the Motions not being proceeded with today and I think it ought to be made clear otherwise it might be said that the Government or the Opposition were running away from honourable debate. It is known that on the last two Fridays the debates here went on extremely late for a Friday; they were quite exceptionally lengthy. The staff of the House have been acutely embarrassed and, indeed, hurt, and it was felt that to have a third very long Friday in succession was really asking rather too much.
Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting a bit of flesh on the bones of the reasons why we did not proceed with the Motions today.
The first Motion, if it had been proceeded with, would have been to set up two funds. They would have been financed out of public funds, and, as recommended in the Review Body's Report, these annual subscriptions from the Exchequer would have amounted in the first instance to £10,000 for travel within the United Kingdom and to
1212
£20,000 for overseas travel. These proposals were very modest. In comparison with what other legislative assemblies provide it is apparent that far from being over-generous we are being niggardly.
The hon. Member for Fife, West mentioned Belgium, but in France members of the legislative assembly have free travel and subsistence allowances for official journeys both inside and outside France, free first-class rail travel within France at all times, a limited number of tickets for sleepers on trains or air journeys between the capital and their constituencies and a pool of cars available, with chauffeurs, in the Paris area. I should like to hear the hon. Member for Fife, West wax eloquent on that if it were ever suggested. As he will know, junior Ministers in this country do not now have cars allocated to them.
In Germany all deputies receive automatically a travel allowance of £103 a month—£1,200 a year. In Italy Members of Parliament receive free rail travel and free travel on shipping lines subsidised by the State and on motorways administered by IRI. They also have a certain number of free flights between their constituencies and the capital if the distance is in excess of 500 kilometres, and so on.
I should like to dispel the impression, if there is such an impression, that the modest proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, are over-generous; they are not. Indeed, the modesty of the proposals might have created difficulties in administering the funds.
The second Motion that will not be proceeded with today would have set up an all-party committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and the right hon. Member for Sowerby would have been members, together with two senior Members of the House, assisted by a Clerk of the House. It would have been entirely for the committee, within the terms of the Motion, to have decided how the annual amounts were allocated, whether hon. Members should apply before undertaking the journey or afterwards and whether the allowance would be for hotels as well as for travelling. The committee would have decided these things and reported

1213
all their decisions back to the House so that the House, the public and the Press would know exactly who was getting how much for what.
I notice that the hon. Member for Fife, West was prudent enough to suggest that he should be a member of the committee. I was not aware that Savonarola actually suggested that he should preside over the orgies in Florence. None the less, the hon. Gentleman had the prudence to put himself on the committee, and to suggest that an hon. Lady with whom from time to time he pairs should also be on the committee.
In view of the publicity which has been given to these travel allowances I make clear, as was made clear in an intervention by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), that there could have been no question of the pre-allocation of funds for any visits which he or his colleagues may have undertaken to Ireland. The committee, if it had been set up, would have decided this. The committee would have received the application and considered whether it was within the criteria it would have laid down. There can be no question of money having been promised, and no question of the travelling expenses of those visits being paid out of public funds. The Government do not have a kitty for doling out money in this way. That is why the Boyle Committee recommended this system, with the establishment of funds.
I emphasise that the Government regard this as essentially a House matter. I do not wish to suggest that we as a parliamentary assembly need be in any way defensive about these proposals to assist hon. Members in their parliamentary duties. That is all I wish to say on the question of travel funds. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and others will take note of what has been said today. We shall probably return to this matter later in the year. I should now like to turn—
Mr. John Mendelson: Before the hon. Gentleman turns to another matter, will be make sure that when the House returns after the Recess the Motions to which reference has been made and which the Government are not abandoning will be put on for debate at a normal time, namely 3.30 after
1214
Questions? In this way a large number of hon. Members will be present so that we may have a proper impression of hon. Members' opinions, which has not been the case so far.
Mr. Baker: I cannot make those sorts of promises. As the hon. Member knows, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.
The five Members who have been nominated in one of the Motions have borne their potential, though at the moment virtually non-existent, duties very well. I can only say that those five hon. Members who are prepared to undertake the work will have to have broad backs and strong spirits.
I turn to the more substantive point about declaration of Members' interests following the report of the Select Committee in 1969, which has not been debated. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Fife. West has raised this matter. It is right that the House should concern itself with this topic. The public expect us as Members of Parliament so to conduct ourselves in our public and private lives that our conduct is above suspicion. The conduct of men and women in the public eye must not only be honourable but must be seen to be honourable.
The issue is not whether hon. Members should or should not have outside financial interests, but how those interests should be declared and made known to the world. I cannot agree with those who say—the argument has not been advanced today—that MPs should have no outside interests. One of the great strengths of this House is the wide variety of interests and backgrounds. It is a truly microcosm of the nation; our debates are enriched and enlivened by the experience and knowledge which hon. Members derive from their activities outside the House.
I wish to deal with three aspects of Members' financial interests, namely bribery, voting and declaration. The position on bribery has been clear for many years. As far back as 1695 there was a Resolution that condemned the offer and acceptance by MPs of bribes.
"The offer of money or other advantage to a Member of Parliament for the promoting of

1215
any matter whatsoever, pending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime of misdemeanour."
The issue as regards voting is equally clear. No Member of Parliament with a direct pecuniary interest in a question is allowed to vote on it. This derived from a much-quoted and famous ruling by Mr. Speaker Abbott in 1811, who ruled that this interest must be
"a direct pecuniary interest and separately belonging to the person and not in common with the rest of His Majesty's subjects."
If such a matter arose and a Member decided to vote on it, his vote would be disqualified.
I should add that since that ruling there has only been one such disqualification, because it is a very narrow ruling. It occurred in 1892 when the votes of three Members were disallowed because they were shareholders in an East African company which was laying a railway line in East Africa to Lake Victoria.
In the 19th century the House seemed mainly to have been concerned with the question of voting rather than declaration. The emphasis of interest in this century, and particularly in the last few years, has shifted to declarations. The Select Committee was set tin to look into the whole area of Members' interest, but with a particular remit to examing the point of declaration. A practice has grown up—and I call it no more than a practice, because I can find no reference to it in Erskine May—that obliges a Member to declare any direct interest of a financial character before he takes part in a debate. The Committee referred to this as a convention; it is not enshrined in Standing Orders or in the Rules of the House.
Such a declaration is left to the discretion of each Member. As the House knows, it is a relatively frequent occurrence for a Member to start his speech by saying that he has a certain interest in a specific business or company. I remember Iain Macleod prefacing remarks of his when he was shadow Chancellor in general economic debates with the comment that he was a director of Lombard Bainking so that if any question came up about hire-purchase controls, which were of great concern to of Lombard Banking then the House should know that he was a director of
1216
that company, though his direct financial interest in the affairs of that company was of a miniscule nature. None the less, this is an excellent tradition.
The Committee examined something more than this. It considered carefully the publication of a register of the interest of members and making such a register mandatory—not obligatory like the Liberal proposal. It examined the whole range of types of register from the publication of individual Members' tax returns, as the right hon. Member for Sowerby suggested, to the partial disclosure of some interests. The Committee saw two main objections to the suggestion of a register, and it may be of interest if I spell those out, so that hon. Members are aware of them. I will give my views on them later.
The Committee's first objection was that it found it difficult to devise a register which reflected the fullness and extent of an individual Member's interests and was fair as between Members. If it must show consultancies, directorships and commissions, should not shareholdings be shown, or perhaps only significant shareholdings? But, then, what is a significant shareholding? In the case of a barrister, should he declare not only the total level of his fees but the specific amounts of some of the larger ones, together with his clients' names? Should an accountant not only declare his total fees, but the names of his major clients? Should journalistic earnings be shown, not just as one total but as separate totals from each newspaper and each television company? Should the ownership of land be included, or the ownership of important assets such as chattels or antiques? Should family holdings be shown? In some circumstances, would not it be more proper to show not assets but liabilities? It might be more significant if an hon. Member were substantially in debt, and possibly in debt to one person or group, than if he owned a modest holding of some Shell shares.
These are many of the questions that the Select Committee examine. It came to the conclusion that
"… such cumbrous inquisitorial machinery is likely to be evaded by the few Members it is designed to enmesh."
Mr. English: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members have

1217
certain reservations about that Select Committee's report? The hon. Gentleman said, and I agree, that it would be a pity if one excluded from the House all people with outside interests. But in that case the Select Committee could be said to be a Select Committee which excluded all Members of the House with no outside interests.
Mr. Baker: There were several comments upon the findings of the Committee and about its membership. I do not want to get involved in that today. I am dealing now with the general principles behind its report. As I have said, its first objection related to the sheer difficulty of what goes into the register and in what detail.
The second objection was that, although Members of Parliament are figures in the public eye, they also have private lives. It would be most invidious if it were decided that all their personal tax and financial matters were made common knowledge. Such a wide provision would deter many people on both sides wanting to enter or continue as Members of Parliament.
The Committee also examined at length the possibility of dealing specifically with public relations firms either by asking Members to register their connections with such firms, or by geting the firms to publish payments made to any Member of Parliament. These ideas came to grief on the difficulties of defining "public relatons" and the absence of a professional body which could cover the whole field.
Having rejected the idea of a register the Committee concluded that what was needed was a new code of conduct formally embodied in Resolutions of this House.
This code of conduct had only two points. The first was the formalisation of what is, in effect, a custom of the House, that when a Member rises to speak he should declare his interest; and that this practice should be extended to Question Time and to the times when Members write to their colleagues or to Ministers.
The second was that a Member should not "bring forward by speech or questions or advocate in this House or among his fellow Members any Bill, Motion,
1218
matter or cause for a fee, payment, retainer or reward, direct or indirect, which he has received, is receiving, or expects to receive."
This code of conduct raised considerable problems. It has been interpreted that any Member sponsored by a trade union would be debarred from participating in a debate on matters affecting his union or, indeed, on general union legislation. This is one of the difficulties in this matter. If we draw up a proposal which we think is watertight, it will specifically impose upon Mr. Speaker, or whoever is in the Chair, certain rules which he is bound to follow in preventing Members from speaking on certain subjects. Clearly this would have been a great inhibition upon the freedom of debate in the House.
I have gone over the report of the Select Committee in some detail, because I do not want hon. Members to have the impression that this matter has been lightly dealt with by the Government. It is an important matter, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he would be prepared to look at this question again.
Hon. Members must beware of thinking that there is a simple comprehensive and effective solution. I have always believed that frankness in these matters is the best course of action. I have always made my business interests known, as have many hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, I suspect that whatever rules may be devised, we must depend at the end of the road upon the good faith and integrity of individual Members, which is the point my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely so eloquently made.
I should like to take this opportunity to make clear to the House the position of Ministers. Strict rules are laid down about what Ministers may or may not do. I summarise them simply by saying that a Minister has to cease receiving any remuneration from any body, company or organisation. As the House knows, this is strictly observed. In my case, I immediately resigned all my business interests, directorships and consultancy arrangements. In addition, I had to resign the presidency of a semi-charitable housing association, although I had no

1219
financial interest in it or in any of the companies concerned with it. However, it was felt that as a Minister there could be a possible conflict of interest.
The hon. Member for Fife, West has urged us all to be frank. I should like to be frank about the motivation of some people in seeking information of this kind. To be brutally frank, some people are interested in this information out of sheer malicious curiosity. I have always been a little surprised that people seem to be so interested in other people's bank balances. After all, there is much more interesting information about people which, for example, "Who's Who" does not disclose. It is not the custom now to put down whether one is a Protestant, Catholic, Jew, atheist or humanist. Fifty years ago it would have been essential information. Personally, I should find that information infinitely more interesting than knowing what a man earns.
I think that a person's attitude to religious belief and wider metaphysical and philosophical problems of life is more likely to condition his attitude to the problems of today and the causes which he might advocate in this House than the money he has or the salary he earns. The sources of a person's belief and attitude are, I suspect, of more importance than the sources of his wealth.
Finally, I should like to express my profound personal conviction that Members of this Parliament are not in politics for money. I have met no Member of Parliament on either side who has joined this House in order to make money.
I know of several Members on both sides of the House who would be financially very much better off by not being Members. Money is not the spur. I find this one of the most attractive aspects of our political way of life. It is often in marked contrast to the way in which things are done in other countries, and I hope that this debate will not create the impression throughout the country that venality and corruption are characteristic of our public life. They most certainly are not.
4.25 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I apologise to the House for not having been present when the debate started, but
1220
I am anxious to contribute to the discussion as it relates to travelling allowances.
I feel that the proposal to grant travelling allowances to Members is objectionable in principle in that it reflects a change which has been going on for some years in the status of Members. We have all been proud of the independence of Members in the past and perhaps we jealously preserved that independence more than we do nowadays, but the fact is that, with the increasing scope for drawing upon public funds for the purpose of doing our duty and the greater opportunities that we now have to seek information to do our jobs through and with the assistance of public funds, we are getting to the stage at which Members are rapidly becoming like paid civil servants.
The truth is that we are becoming like civil servants with sanctions due, not to the wisdom and the desirability or undesirability on that score of adopting a certain course, but to whether one is eligible for the financial provision to do what one wants to do. In principle it is desirable that all Members should be assisted to do their jobs properly, to have such assistance as they require for that purpose. That is why it is sometimes difficult to argue that we should not be remunerated to a greater extent than we are now. We all know that we are under-remunerated if one looks at it from that point of view.
That is why when Members' salaries were being discussed earlier this Session I was against the increase. It seemed to me that what was required was an increase not in salary but in the provision of additional secretarial, office and research facilities so that the functions of Members could be carried on properly without impinging upon the salary which should be paid only for personal needs.
Unfortunately, in recent years—and particularly in the last few years—there has been a subtle change in the status of Members because of the financial provisions of which we are able to take advantage from time to time. This subtle change in the status and independence of Members has been going on with the connivance of the Government and Opposition Front Benches. I believe that

1221
it is bad in principle, and that any move which may be made to assist us in doing our jobs properly should be specifically in a way which does not destroy our independence.
There are many odd characters in this House, and I say so without claiming to be one myself, but it would be a far poorer place if we did not have them. They are by nature non-conformists. They are by nature not the sort of people who wish to apply and be considered among others for an allocation of time or money to do certain things.
These people, who make up so much of the richness of our parliamentary lives, and contribute inestimably to parliamentary democracy, are those of whom we should be thinking when discussing what
1222
assistance we give to individual Members to do their jobs. It is they who will suffer most if there is any question of imposing regulations and restrictions on the availability of funds to assist Members.
As it is not possible to make travel allowances available to anybody who wishes, there must be some form of regulation, rationing or control of the amount used, and it seems to me that this cannot be realised without discrimination against such odd characters. That would be wholly objectionable, and for that reason I am strongly against the proposal.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  WELSH LANGUAGE
  WELSH LANGUAGE
  MR. JOHN POULSON
  MR. JOHN POULSON
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Meat
  Meat
  BANKRUPTCY
  BANKRUPTCY
DEFENCE
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  No. 767 Phantom Training Squadron
  No. 767 Phantom Training Squadron
  Changing of the Guard Ceremony
  Changing of the Guard Ceremony
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Museums and Galleries (Free Days)
  Museums and Galleries (Free Days)
  School Building (Northamptonshire)
  School Building (Northamptonshire)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
EMPLOYMENT
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
ENVIRONMENT
  Balne Moor, Doncaster (Airport Site)
  Balne Moor, Doncaster (Airport Site)
  Parking (Oxford)
  Parking (Oxford)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Sleeper- cabs)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Sleeper- cabs)
  Railways (Unremunerative Passenger Services)
  Railways (Unremunerative Passenger Services)
  Motorway Hard Shoulders (Vehicle Tests)
  Motorway Hard Shoulders (Vehicle Tests)
  Sewage Sludge (Health Hazard)
  Sewage Sludge (Health Hazard)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Tutankhamun Exhibition
  Tutankhamun Exhibition
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Dover Docks
  Dover Docks
  Litter Act, 1958 (Prosecutions)
  Litter Act, 1958 (Prosecutions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Disabled Persons (Special Expenses)
  Disabled Persons (Special Expenses)
  Banknotes (Forgeries)
  Banknotes (Forgeries)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Disabled Persons (Social Workers)
  Disabled Persons (Social Workers)
  Maintenance Orders (Payment)
  Maintenance Orders (Payment)
  Heart Attacks (Telemetrical Information)
  Heart Attacks (Telemetrical Information)
SCOTLAND
  Crofting
  Crofting
  Heart Attacks (Telemetrical Information)
  Heart Attacks (Telemetrical Information)
  Housing Act, 1971
  Housing Act, 1971
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Concessionary Bus Fares
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Local Employment Act (North-East)
  Local Employment Act (North-East)
  Export Credits Guarantee Department (Reading Office)
  Export Credits Guarantee Department (Reading Office)
  "The Gravenor Family" (Export Licence)
  "The Gravenor Family" (Export Licence)
  Electricity and Gas Meters (Tests)
  Electricity and Gas Meters (Tests)
  Companies (Returns)
  Companies (Returns)
  Shipping and Shipbuilding (Assistance)
  Shipping and Shipbuilding (Assistance)
  Fire Insurance Tariffs
  Fire Insurance Tariffs
WALES
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Hill Farming (Grants)
  Hill Farming (Grants)
  Eisteddfod
  Eisteddfod
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Seiont Estuary (Bridge)
  Seiont Estuary (Bridge)
  Rents
  Rents

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1971 REGULATIONS
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 when the regulations for the implementation of the Immigration Act passed last year are to be published.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, as my honourable friend announced in another place on July 27, it is proposed to bring the remaining provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 into operation on January 1, 1973. The immigration rules and the statutory instruments to be made under the Act and which are to be laid before Parliament will be laid in good time before then.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reply. May I ask if he recollects that when the Bill was passing through this House a promise was given that police control of non-patrial immigrants would not be applied, despite the clause in the Bill? Can the Minister say when the regulation dealing with that matter is likely to be published?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not re-read all the speeches on the Bill made in this House. If there is a regulation to be laid on this matter—and I am not sure of the exact details to be covered by all the regulations—it will be laid in good time so that it may be studied. It will probably not be laid before the House rises; but this may be dealt with in September, or possibly October.

RHODESIA: FUTURE OF TANGWENA CHILDREN
11.8 a.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what information they have about the reported intention of the Rhodesian régime to remove 100 children of the Tangwena tribe from their families on their ancestral lands and place them in institutions.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I understand that the Tangwena children in question have been living away from their families on Nyafaru Farm, which adjoins the ancestral land of the Tangwena tribe, since the first eviction of the tribe in 1969. The Rhodesian authorities appear to have now removed these children from the farm, and placed them in a camp run by the Department of Social Welfare near Salisbury.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is the noble Baroness aware that I put down this Question largely because I am one of the few people who actually stayed in Nyafaru with the Tangwena people? I therefore know how specially close is the link between the mothers and their children, since they watched their huts and crops being burned down and saw their fathers being driven into the mountains by the police with helicopters and dogs. I particularly wanted to stress that aspect. May I ask the noble Baroness to request further information because, in fact, the children had not been separated from their people? May I ask the noble Baroness to check on this matter? The fathers are of course in the mountains, but the children were with their mothers at Nyafaru. Would the noble Baroness also check whether, even under the Smith régime's laws, there is any legal authority for removing these children from their mothers at this particular time?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, my information was, as given in my Answer, that the children were not living with their families. As the noble Baroness will realise, it is very difficult to get exact information. This particular action was, I understand, taken under the Land Tenure Act 1969, under which the area in question was designated European land, and before that under the Land Apportionment Act. What we regret so very much about the failure of the settlement proposals is that_ under them there would have been a Commission on Racial Discrimination to examine this kind of situation.
LORD BARN BY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether she is aware that this group of African individuals are squatters on the North-East boundary of Rhodesia on land that was barren and practically unoccupied? They are well-known in Rhodesia as cattle rustlers, and it is believed that they have been active in assisting the entry of terrorists from across the border into Rhodesia.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords, I was not aware of those facts. But even if that were so, I would regret the separation of children from their families.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, while welcoming the observations of the noble Baroness on this matter, may I ask whether she is aware that many of us in all parts of the House would not wish to be mealy-mouthed about this business? It conjures up visions of what happened at Lidice and Oradour under the Nazis.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Nevertheless, my Lords, we have to recognise that we have little internal power in Rhodesia. This particular matter was personally raised during the negotiations by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, while recognising that it is difficult to have direct conversations with the Rhodesians, may I ask the noble Baroness whether Her Majesty's Government have made any representations to the United Nations ad hoc Corn-
616
mission on Human Rights, which is sitting now in London, and which has discussed this very question?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No. my Lords; we have not. We did of course make representations earlier on, as I described, to the Rhodesian authorities themselves. We felt this might have had more effect.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while it is obvious that the Minister can have no jurisdiction over anything of this character in Rhodesia, does it not show what advantage would come from the establishment of more regular contact?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, so long as the illegal régime is in existence and no settlement proposals have been carried out, I am afraid we cannot have official permanent representation.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I press the Question which has been put by the noble Baroness? In view of the fact that the United Nations' Commission on Human Rights which is dealing with wrongs in Southern Africa is now in London, is it not possible for Her Majesty's Government to make some representations to it on this matter?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I will consider that suggestion, but I know that the Commission on Human Rights deals, not so much with individuals as with persistent violations of human rights on a large scale. Nevertheless, I will look into that point.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I further ask the noble Baroness, who we know has great sympathy about this matter, whether she could perhaps explain to her noble friend and also to the Rhodesian Government that people cannot be described as "squatters" when they have lived in the same place for nearly 300 years?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that this is a dispute which has been going on for four years, which is why we were able to make the personal representations during the settlement proposals.

HEATHROW AIRPORT: PASSENGER FACILITIES
11.15 a.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any proposals for improving the movement of passengers and baggage at Heathrow Airport.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Aerospace announced yesterday that, at the suggestion of the Chairman of the British Airports Authority, and with the ready support of the Chairman of the British Airways Board and the Air Corporations, he has commissioned the Metra Consulting Group to carry out a study at Heathrow Airport with a view to making recommendations aimed at alleviating congestion throughout the 1970's and avoiding unnecessary delays and other sources of irritation to passengers.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, may I first of all ask him just to elaborate on three brief points? Could he give us some information about the Metra Consulting Group? Who are they? What period of time is envisaged for this particular study to be completed? And how are passengers to be consulted?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Metra Consulting Group are management consultants. They were unanimously selected after a competitive interview by a Steering Committee which consisted of B.E.A., B.O.A.C., the Department of Trade and Industry and the Civil Service Department. Their terms of reference and their contract call for a full report before the end of this year, and they anticipate taking random samples of interviews from passengers to ensure that passengers' views are taken into account. If the noble Baroness has any particular points she herself would wish to make, if she would care to let me know I will ensure they are passed on to them.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sure the Minister must
618
know the particular point. But might I ask him whether he recalls that in the letter I gave him last Friday it was stated quite clearly that the British Airports Authority had not been consulted in any way about the proposed withdrawal of check-in facilities at Gloucester Road Terminal; and as the Authority would have to deal with the servicing of passengers at Heathrow consequent upon any such withdrawal can he tell the House whether he thinks this study will perhaps prevent such a lack of co-operation in the future?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not know whether the study will prevent a lack of co-operation in the future, but it will certainly take into account the effects of such a withdrawal.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, might I ask my noble friend (just to show there is support on this side for complaints concerning the operation and inconvenience at London Airport) to draw the Airport Authority's attention to the incredibly long wait that passengers now have to undergo before they get their baggage at London Airport? Have we really to wait until the end of the tourist season, when we have all been inconvenienced and waited endlessly—generally twice as long as one waits at any other international airport in this world?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this is one of the typical points which the management consultants will take into account when they are going to make their report.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am most appreciative of support from all sides of the House, because this is important? Might I ask the Minister whether, as this study is to take into account, I think he mentioned, further irritations to the public, and is concerned with Heathrow, it would not have been better if such a study had been set up in the first place before B.E.A. took this arbitrary decision? Secondly, as this study group is to report before the end of the year, would he find out whether it is possible to delay the decision on the proposed withdrawal of check-in facilities until after that report is published?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I was aware that the noble Baroness was very grateful for all the support she could get from all sides of the House, which seems to be fairly fulsome. I do not know that it is possible to say that this study would have been a good thing to do before B.E.A. took their decision, because it was a decision they were perfectly justified in taking in view of their commercial responsibilities. But I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that in fact the decision to close the check-in facilities will be delayed until after the report is made.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL: ENTRY OF MISS V. D. PATEL
11.19 a.m.
LORD AVEBURY: 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 in what circumstances the immigration authorities at Heathrow Airport attempted to cause Miss Vipha D. Patel to board a Qantas airliner against the wishes of the captain on Sunday, July 23, and what representations concerning this incident have been made by the Australian High Commission to Her Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, Miss Patel, who is a United Kingdom passport holder subject to immigration control, arrived from India for settlement without a special voucher or entry certificate. She was refused admission and sent back to India on July 18, but returned straight away. Arrangements were made for her removal again on July 23. After she had boarded the aircraft, in company with others who had been refused admission on similar grounds, a spokesman for the group informed the commander of the aircraft that they did not wish to travel, whereupon the commander advised them to disembark. Miss Patel was removed from the United Kingdom two days later, again returned on July 26 and was then admitted for three months. No representations have been received from the Australian High Commission.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is this not a vicious and immoral policy, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights which speaks of "inhuman and degrading treatment", such as has been meted out to Miss Patel? Would the noble Viscount agree that many of us consider that such things would not have happened if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, had still been in charge of the Department? May I further ask the noble Viscount whether he agrees with the leading article in this morning's Daily Telegraph—a newspaper not normally unsympathetic to the Government—that this policy is doomed to failure. Will he therefore recommend to his right honourable friend that the number of special vouchers should be increased, so that the five-year waiting period for these people who come from India can be considerably reduced, if not eliminated?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, what my noble friend Lord Windlesham might or might not have done is something on which I really do not think I can comment. The difficulty about this sort of case is that if people will jump the queue they take the place—or they threaten the place—of those who have perfectly honourably and properly applied for entry permits. It is all very well to say that it is uncomfortable for them, but Miss Patel had (and there were others in the same group) no entry permit and no certificate. She said on arrival that she had come for settlement. She must have known that the scheme was in operation and I am not sure that she is entitled to any preference over those who have waited for some time, perfectly properly, in India and in other places for the limited number of vouchers.
As to the number of vouchers, I will certainly pass on what the noble Lord has said. But, as he knows, the number was increased quite recently and the point is that if we increase it beyond a certain amount the number of people arriving will be beyond that which the communities to which they will go can possibly assimilate in a reasonable time and manner. That is why we have to exercise some control over the numbers.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that this queue was created not by the people concerned

621
but by the vicious and immoral Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, which is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, and that a ruling of the European Court may shortly find to this effect, in which case that legislation will have to be repealed? In view of these facts, will the noble Viscount represent most strongly to his right honourable, friend that we should adopt a more liberal policy in future than exists in the case of Miss Patel and many other citizens of the United Kingdom who have been shuffled ceaselessly around the world, in some cases for periods of over a week?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I told the noble Lord the other day what was the situation about the European Commission. There is no final decision at the moment, and I really think it would be unwise to work on the hypothesis of what they might or might not say. As to the rest of what the noble Lord said, I will certainly pass it on but, in the first place, this Government are not responsible for the exact details of the 1968 Act. If it has to be reviewed, then no doubt it will be reviewed. But there are practical difficulties which I have just explained to the noble Lord, about increasing very substantially the numbers of those who come to this country, even if they are United Kingdom passport holders.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the Minister used the phrase that Miss Patel had "returned from India". Can he say whether she had been asked to return by the Indian authorities?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords. She refused to get out and stay in India.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
11.23 a.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to make a short Statement about Parliamentary Papers. I regret to inform your Lordships that there was further unofficial industrial action in the Parliamentary Press last night. As a result, no printing was possible. Copies of the Order Paper, with other essential working Papers, are
622
now available, but limited quantities of Hansard will not be available until about midday. Copies will be placed in the Library. Discussions to resolve the dispute are continuing in accordance with the terms of the Stationery Office agreement with the unions, and normal work has been resumed while these continue.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for making that Statement. Unfortunately, the unofficial action is timed to cause us the maximum difficulty, and it has added to the difficulties and pressures which we are already under as a result of the awful mess created by the Government's timetable for their legislation. We welcome the fact that normal working has been resumed, and hope that a satisfactory settlement will be arrived at and that we shall have no further difficulties.
I should like to end this short comment by saying that the House is grateful to our staff here for the attempts that they have made to supply us with the necessary Order Papers, and to help us with some copies of Hansard for last Monday, and indeed for yesterday.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what has just been said regarding the efforts of the staff here to get us out of this terrible mess. I hope that the dispute will soon be settled, but may I ask what the row is about? Are the printers wanting more pay than other printers or what, generally speaking, is the row about?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think this action is not connected with the difficulties of last week. There was a very small incident which arose around midnight concerning conditions of work; the dispute was not about pay. Since these are delicate areas, I think it would be a mistake for me to enlarge upon it.
I am grateful for the noble Lords' reception of my Statement. I fully recognise the difficulties which are caused to your Lordships. Through the usual channels we are taking action to ensure that those difficulties are minimised to the greatest possible extent. Realising that by making this Statement I was laying myself open to the delicate barbs of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I should like to endorse what he and the noble

623
Lord, Lord Gladwyn, have said about the very great debt which we owe to our staff in these and other matters.
LORD WILLIAMSON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether this action is official or unofficial?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should prefer to keep off the details of this really rather minor incident. I think I shall probably only exacerbate matters if I allow myself to be drawn on this. I hope that the noble Lord will excuse me.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether we are likely in due course to receive a copy of Hansard for last Monday, when we debated the Local Government Bill? This Bill is to be continued next week and there are many of us who are at a great disadvantage through not being able to read the speeches that were made on Monday last.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will certainly make it my job to look into that point straight away. I fully appreciate the point that the noble Lord has put.

ESSEX RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
SELNEC (MANCHESTER CENTRAL AREA RAILWAY, ETC.) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

INDUSTRY BILL
11.30 a.m.
TILE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The problems of regional imbalance have been the concern of successive Governments in the United King-
624
dom for nearly four decades. Much has been achieved but no solution is yet in sight. In the Government's view additional action is needed to improve both the environment in the less prosperous areas and their industrial structure and to increase employment opportunities.
The Government have been very conscious of the need to improve the total environment of those regions suffering from heavy and persistent unemployment and are determined to see that these areas are better places in which to work. That is why we have taken action in a great many fields to provide help to local authorities in these areas and to stimulate them to further efforts. The Government have encouraged local authorities to expand their programmes for the reclamation of derelict land, for which grants of 85 per cent. are available in development areas and 75 per cent. in intermediate areas and derelict land clearance areas. They have set a 10-year target for the clearance of such land. Last year they initiated a £164 million programme for additional infrastructure expenditure in assisted areas on roads, schools, hospitals and public services. In assisted areas they have made available 75 per cent. house-improvement grants. Earlier this year, under the operation Eyesore scheme, they introduced 85 per cent. grants for environmental improvements with 75 per cent. in intermediate areas and derelict land clearance areas.
In addition, further massive injections of public investment in the environment include £1,300 million over a five-year period on water and sewage and a major effort to clear our rivers and canals of the gross pollution from which too many of them suffer; over £400 million to be spent on main roads in England in the present financial year, 1972–73; and a 3,500 mile strategic network of trunk-ways and motorways is planned for completion by the early 1980's and will include another 1,000 miles of motorway. A further £60 million worth of trunk roads are now being added to the preparation pool. These extensive measures supplement the wide range of aids to encourage investment in the regions which have been built up over the years and they are now being reinforced by the measures in the Industry Bill which is before us to-day.

625
This Bill has three main strands. It provides the legislation required to implement both the proposals for regional development grants and for the extension of selective financial assistance for industry as set out in the White Paper on Industrial and Regional Development, published in March at the time of the Budget, and it makes provision for extending the financial limits for the home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme and for grants for the construction of ships and mobile offshore installations announced in the White Paper. Part IV of the Bill deals with miscellaneous and supplementary matters. When the policy set out in the White Paper was being formulated we started from the fundamental premise that the United Kingdom economy was predominantly a market economy in which particular industries, firms and products grew and declined in accordance with the markets at home and overseas which they could profitably supply. The success of any enterprise must depend on the future market for its products and its ability to supply this competitively.
Within this broad context the Government are responsible for setting a general framework of incentives, opportunities, requirements and restraints for industry. Fiscal incentives are an important feature of these responsibilities and have an important part to play in helping British industry and commerce to improve its technological strength and competitiveness. At the same time, our resources of labour, management and capital need to be sufficiently mobile to adapt to changing market conditions in the United Kingdom, the E.E.C. and the rest of the world. Equally important, full weight has to be given to the importance of reducing regional imbalance, and this involves bringing into use underemployed resources, particularly of manpower, and the strengthening of economic development in the regions as well as a substantial increase in investment. Our measures have been deliberately framed with these objectives in mind.
Part I of the Bill will establish the new system of regional development grants. These will provide the main preference for the regions in our system of investment incentives. They are, therefore, a most important element in our regional strategy. Very broadly, there
626
were two basic approaches we could have adopted. We could have worked out a system which involved meticulous examination of the use to which each particular capital asset was put. But bearing in mind the administrative burden and cost to industry and Government of the old investment grant scheme and the time-scale for approvals, we rejected this approach. Instead, we shall emphasise simplicity, and we recognise that this will mean some rough justice at the margin. Not all complications can be avoided when so much money is at stake, but I feel sure that the House will approve our general intention.
We also had in the forefront of our minds that the new grants should offer a powerful incentive to firms in the assisted areas both to expand and to modernise the facilities they already have. The grants will not, therefore, be tied to the provision of employment as the Local Employment Act building grants had been. This brings in modernisation projects and will, incidentally, make the grants system a good deal simpler. But let me make it clear that the ending of the direct "employment link" does not mean that we attach any less importance to jobs. Quite the contrary. It simply reflects our belief that strengthening the efficiency of existing industry will make more secure the jobs already existing in the assisted areas and modern industry in the assisted areas will be in a much sounder position to expand.
The central feature of the new system is that eligibility for grant will, in general, depend on the assets being used in qualifying premises rather than the particular use made of them. Thus, the key question will be whether the building or the plant and machinery, as the case may be, is on qualifying premises. If it is, then in principle it will be eligible for grant. Qualifying premises are defined in Clause 2 of the Bill as those used wholly or mainly for the activities described in Orders 2 and 20 of the Standard Industrial Classification. The range of activities described in these Orders are listed in Annex A of the White Paper on Industrial and Regional Development; they are broadly manufacturing, mining and construction. Additionally, the grants will cover the processing of scrap and waste materials,

627
the repairing of plant and machinery designed for use in qualifying activities and scientific research and training of staff in qualifying activities.
Ancillary or associated functions which are not expressly mentioned in the qualifying Orders, such as office work, storage or distribution, are not included except where they are conducted on premises which are preponderantly used for manufacturing or other qualifying activities. This should bring in, for example, the works office or canteen on factory premises. Where an ancillary building of this kind is near to the factory, although separated from it by, for example, a road, there is power if the applicant so requests for the building to be treated as part of the factory premises and thereby qualify for grant. The distant office or warehouse will not, however, qualify for grant. Neither will any assets, whether or not used for qualifying activities, on premises where non-qualifying activities preponderate.
The advantage we see from this approach is that it will avoid the need for complicated investigation. With minor exceptions all eligible assets will get grants so long as they are on qualifying premises—or on what will become qualifying premises once the assets have been provided. As I have said, this may result in occasional rough justice at the margin, but it seems to me that this is a price well worth paying in the interests of simplicity of operation. The system will be discretionary, as the investment grant and Local Employment Act building grant systems were, so as to provide the essential flexibility needed to deal with changing circumstances. The White Paper made clear, for example, that it is not our intention to make grants to local authorities, except for new buildings let for use for qualifying purposes, or on individual items of plant and machinery costing less than £100 and individual buildings schemes costing less than £1,000.
The Bill provides that grant may be made to any person incurring approved capital expenditure in the assisted areas. Small firms as well as large will be able to benefit. Nationalised industries with qualifying premises, particularly the National Coal Board and the British
628
Steel Corporation, will qualify. Developers (including local authorities and development corporations) who provide new factories will be eligible for grant on the cost of a building if it is let as a new building to a tenant who will use it as qualifying premises. This represents an important change since developers providing buildings for occupation by others were not eligible for building grants under the Local Employment Act scheme. The payment of grant for factories built for letting should be of special benefit to smaller businesses which are often unable to raise the capital to build or buy their own premises.
Clause 1 provides for a wide range of assets on qualifying premises to be eligible for regional development grants. In development and special development areas they will cover new plant and machinery, buildings, adaptations of existing buildings and other works including mining works. In intermediate areas, and for two years in derelict land clearance areas, grants are available for new buildings, adaptations to buildings and other works, except for mining works. The rate of grant will be 20 per cent., except in special development areas where it will be 22 per cent. These grants will not be deducted from the gross cost of assets for the purpose of calculating tax allowances, so that they will, in effect, be tax free. I think it is just worth looking at the percentage and seeing how this relates to previous incentives. The investment grants, of course, while they were not taxable, were deducted in computing the amount eligible for capital allowances, whereas going right back to the days of investment allowances these were tax deductible and in that way they provided the additional benefit.
Plant and machinery used by the construction industry presents a special difficulty in that commonly it is moved from one building site to another and will not often be located on qualifying premises. We propose to deal with this by paying grant on plant and machinery used by the construction industry anywhere in the development areas. Again because this plant is often moved in and out of the special development areas, we think it makes for better sense and simpler administration for everyone to get grant at the 20 per cent. rate. In working out

629
its investment programmes, it is very important that industry should be aware that—subject of course to the proposals being accepted by Parliament—regional development grants will be available towards expenditure defrayed on or after March 22, 1972. In the case of buildings and qualifying works this is subject to construction beginning after March 21.
In determining the starting date of construction, the Bill proposes that any work on clearing or preparing the site should be ignored. In the case of plant, machinery and mining works, the assets must be provided after March 21. For this purpose, we propose to take the date when plant or machinery is provided as the date it is delivered at qualifying premises. I should perhaps draw attention to the fact that, as is usual in schemes of this kind, Clause 4 of the Bill provides that the making of grant may be subject to appropriate conditions. For example, an appropriate repayment may be required if premises cease to be qualifying, or the asset on which grant is paid is moved from qualifying premises or from a development area as the case may be.
Before leaving Part I, I should like to say a word on timing. We shall not of course be able to give full detailed advice to applicants or deal with applications until we have the necessary powers. But I expect detailed explanatory material and application forms to be available during September and we shall aim to begin making payments as soon as possible after then. In the meantime industrialists should retain all relevant documents so that applications can be verified and processed quickly when the time comes.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill which is concerned with regional selective assistance. The arrangements we propose here differ in three major ways from those on which successive Governments have relied for many years. First, we are extending eligibility for selective assistance to include investments essential for the modernisation of industry. This change reflects the widely held view that, while the totally new project or the expansion of an existing project is important to regional development and the creation of jobs, the strengthening of the industrial base in the assisted areas depends also on modernising those regions. The extension of regional
630
development grants to existing industry is of first importance in this work. But more may be needed in particular cases, and selective assistance will provide an additional stimulus.
Second, whereas the old powers under Section 4 of the Local Employment Act to give assistance to industry were confined to the development and special development areas, this Bill extends them to the intermediate areas.
Third, effective regional regeneration must be organised to take the fullest account of regional needs and make the fullest use of regional experience, knowledge and enthusiasm. We shall, therefore, devolve decision taking on selective assistance as fully as is practicable to the greatly strengthened regional offices of the Department assisted by the new advisory boards and the new regional industrial directors. This approach, combined with our other measures, provides the means by which the assisted areas can be helped and, of prime importance, be enabled to help themselves.
LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the Minister one question on what he has just said? Will there be any inter-relationship between the regional offices and the new Board which is to be set up under the Bill? Will there be any admitted cross-membership or co-ordination, or will the Minister receive quite unco-ordinated advice from both organisations?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I do not think there is any proposal for cross-membership because the local boards will be drawing on those with local experience who are constituted in the areas. They will be commonly served by the work of the industrial development executive teams who will be putting up both the projects and they will therefore be working to the same set of criteria. This is a point on which I am afraid I can give no further help but I shall certainly look at it and provide a further answer.
The basic powers we require to carry through this programme are contained in Clause 7 of the Bill now before the House. The House, and industry, will wish to have a clear view of the assistance which may be provided under this clause. Essentially we will be deploying four

631
weapons. First, loans: these will continue to be available on a substantial scale for projects providing employment. They will also be available for modernisation projects. The terms and conditions will be tailored to suit individual circumstances, but broadly loans for employment-creating projects will be at preferential rates whereas, normally, loans for modernisation will be at commercial rates. Second, as an alternative to loans, and as a new departure, subsidies will be available towards the interest payable on loans obtained from the market. Third, in suitable cases, guarantees designed to aid borrowers to obtain loans from the market for approved projects will also be available. Fourth, removal grants similar to those previously available under the Local Employment Acts, will be on offer to help firms seeking to move an operation lock, stock and barrel from a non-assisted to an assisted area.
We also propose (and really this represents a fifth weapon) to make full use of our powers in the Local Employment Act to provide factory space in the assisted areas. Rents, as in the past, will be based on current market value as assessed by the district valuer, but for projects creating new employment we will be prepared to consider a two-year rent-free period to a new tenant. As the White Paper foreshadowed, we also intend to make greater use of our stock of factories to rehouse existing industry. Clause 13 of the Bill proposes that the Estate Corporations' power to provide advance factories should no longer be tied to the provision of employment and will enable factories to be made available to re-house firms whose present premises are unsuitable for modem production techniques. This should both assist such firms to establish their operations on a sounder basis and will also ensure that maximum use is made of our existing resources.
I must emphasise at this point that we intend to make aid available under Part II of the Bill only for the benefit of firms and projects with sound economic prospects. The new organisation announced in the White Paper is, therefore, being equipped with the expertise needed to assess the merits of applications for selective help. The regional industrial advisory boards and the headquarters
632
Industrial Advisory Board will be made up of experienced men from business and industry who can form judgments on commercial lines. The development unit at headquarters, with staff from a wide range of commercial activities will also play an important role here.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl at this stage to take up the point already mentioned? The noble Earl made it quite clear that these powers will be discretionary, and he has said that judgment will be exercised centrally and locally by separate industrially trained and experienced people as to economic viability and prospects. Clearly those judgments could vary. Two honest and able people can give different answers on the same set of facts. I hope, therefore, that either the noble Earl or the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be able to help us with the obvious and important point of getting the same kind of treatment in the various areas, and getting co-ordination of policy.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I think this is a most important point and it is my understanding that guide lines will be issued: Working from the development unit at the start, a common policy will be evolved and, of course, ultimately will go to the Secretary of State for decision, and it will be subject to Parliamentary control. There is also a provision to the effect that if the advisory board think fit, having been overruled by the Secretary of State, they may give their reasons to Parliament. This leads me on to the way in which we think this might work.
For example, after the development unit has made an intensive study of a particular industry or project it is possible, and it would be our hope, that private sources may be prepared to provide capital on the basis of the study, which otherwise might not be available. The powers to assist industry in the assisted areas in Clause 7 have been drawn widely. I have outlined steps to assist industry in these areas to create employment and expand and modernise their industrial base but there are other situations in which selective assistance may be essential for the economic strength of a region. For example, there may well

633
be projects which, while they have good prospects of long term viability, require a measure of assistance because of their sheer size or the long time they take to come to fruition. In such cases the market normally responds to the lead and is able to provide the major contribution towards the necessary capital.
Secondly, as I have already emphasised, our resources of labour, management and capital need to be adaptable so that they can accommodate changing market conditions in Britain, the E.E.C. and the rest of the world. Industries in this situation sometimes have difficulty in adjusting to rapidly changing market conditions. In some industries a scheme for scrapping excess capacity may be needed, as has happened in the cotton industry. Temporary assistance may then be required to permit the contraction or rationalisation necessary for a new and successful future to be undertaken at a pace which mitigates the social disruption which would otherwise occur.
In such cases, effects and waste of resources are likely to be particularly serious where a substantial proportion of the capacity of the firm or industry concerned is located in the assisted areas. But it may also be serious in other parts of the country; for example, in a locality highly dependent on a single employer when there are poor prospects of finding alternative employment quickly. Thus it may, on occasion, be in the national economic interest to assist industry in the same way outside the assisted areas. Also, where a whole industry requires selective assistance it would be unfair and impracticable to assist the undertakings located within the assisted areas without including those situated elsewhere. But different criteria are needed for such assistance; these are provided for in Clause 8 which deals with assistance in all parts of the country for the purposes listed in Clause 7(2). I must make it plain that we have no intention to supplant or interfere with the normal market sources of finance for industry. We have therefore imposed a statutory requirement that before assistance can be made available in the national interest the necessary funds cannot be provided from any other source.
The powers under Clause 8 are subject to a number of important safeguards to preserve Parliamentary control. They are
634
limited in duration to a period corresponding to the transitional period of our entry to Europe; that is, until the end of 1977. Also, the funds available, including those needed to back guarantees, are limited to £150 million and an Affirmative Resolution in another place will be required when a further tranche of £100 million needs to be made available. Finally, the selective financial assistance which may be paid or undertaken to be paid under Clause 8 in respect of any one project may not exceed £5 million unless there is authorisation by a resolution in another place. Where the limit of £5 million may need to be exceeded because of urgency at a time when it would be impracticable to obtain the approval in another place, as, for example, when Parliament is not sitting, the Secretary of State will be required to lay a Statement concerning the financial assistance before another place and your Lordships' House.
The Bill provides that, with the company's consent, the Secretary of State may take an equity interest in a company where this is agreed to be an essential element in getting a project off the ground. A similar power has existed under the Local Employment Acts for many years. If circumstances arise where the taking of an equity holding would make sense we shall be prepared to consider them subject to the safeguards which the Bill provides. In the first place, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that financial assistance cannot appropriately be provided in any other way. Secondly, he must obtain the consent of the company and where assistance is being given under Clause 8, he may not acquire more than half, by nominal value, of the equity share capital. Where the Secretary of State acquires shares or stock under Part II of the Bill, he will be required to dispose of them as soon as he finds it reasonably practicable to do so. And before disposing of them he will be obliged to consult the company so that their views may be taken into account in relation to the sale.
My Lords, I turn now to Part III of the Bill, comprising Clauses 10, 11 and 12, which provides for two forms of assistance for the shipbuilding industry; namely the provisions of guarantees to finance the construction of ships in the United Kingdom for U.K. shipowners,

635
and a new scheme of construction grants. Clause 10, the home credit scheme, is well known to noble Lords. Its purpose is to provide U.K. shipowners ordering at home access to credit facilities on comparable terms to those available to them abroad. In view of the demise of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, the Bill provides power to enable the scheme to continue, and extends the financial coverage from £700 million to £1,000 million with provision by Order to increase this further up to £1,400 million, subject to approval in another place.
The construction grant schemes provides temporary assistance to the shipbuilding industry in view of its serious and unprecedented financial difficulties. The origin of these difficulties is the intense international competition and the extent of subsidies being granted abroad to its competitors. This led our shipbuilders in the late 'sixties to take fixed-price contracts, many of which are now seen to be unrealistic. Currently there is a low level of ordering. The Government recognise an immediate need to safeguard employment and provide a period of stability for the industry. Ninety per cent. of the employment in the merchant shipbuilding industry is situated in the development areas. There are also thousands of jobs among suppliers dependent upon the shipbuilding industry.
A long-term study of the industry is now being carried out by the Industrial Development Executive in order to allow a strategic plan to be outlined, taking into account likely developments in European policy. The special assistance already announced for Govan Shipbuilders and Cammell Laird is to be provided under Part II of the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that Govan Shipbuilders began trading on July 1 and the Government have undertaken, subject to certain conditions, to provide adequate financial support for the company for a period of five years or until the company has achieved viability, whichever is the less. The company announced on July 18 a £15 million order from Kuwait for cargo vessels.
My Lords, that is a summary of the thinking behind the Bill. It has the several purposes which I have described, all of which are worth while in themselves
636
and of considerable importance to the future of all who live in these islands. It represents a major attack on the problems of regional imbalance which affect the population of half of our country, by providing a new initiative which will stimulate the industrial investment which is so badly needed if we are to keep pace with our competitors and which will assist in promoting industrial efficiency to meet the challenges which lie ahead. The Bill cannot by itself achieve these aims. Their fulfilment will depend upon the efforts of industry, both management and labour, so that steady and more widespread growth in the economy can be achieved. But the measures proposed in the Bill will help provide strong encouragement for industry and help towards the national prosperity that we are all so anxious to see.
These measures must be allowed time to work. They are not short-term palliatives; their success will depend on the consistency of application which the Government intend to operate so that we can strengthen the areas of weakness that have for so long afflicted our industrial performance. With these thoughts I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Limerick.)
12.3 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I find myself in the usual position of offering the thanks of the House to the noble Earl for the manner in which he has discharged his task. I am also in the somewhat unusual but very pleasurable position of welcoming very warmly indeed everything that he has said and the Bill that he has introduced. It will be the purpose of those on these Benches to facilitate its passage in every possible way and as quickly as may be, because of the great need for the assistance which is being provided. I hope I do not make the Government's task the more difficult with their own supporters by giving the Bill this very warm welcome.
This is a very important Bill, and perhaps it is important in two particular respects. First of all, it now puts an end, I hope for all time, to the and argument as to whether or not the major Parties are agreed about the need for Government intervention in the private

637
sector. It was a pointless argument, because everybody knew that, apart from the political embarrassment of admitting the truth, it was no more possible for Tory Governments to avoid intervention in the private sector than it was possible for Socialist Governments to nationalise everything holus-bolus, and to be unwilling to recognise that, for the lifetime of everybody here, we would be dealing with a mixed economy. If, therefore, we can all devote our attentions to improving both sectors and the whole of the economy rather than in having arguments based on philosophy as opposed to the facts of particular situations, I am sure that it will be for the benefit of our country. Therefore, I welcome the Bill on those grounds.
The other important ground on which I welcome it will not perhaps be so acceptable to the Government, but I think it is nevertheless very important in our present situation. That is the complete change of heart which this Bill represents. I shall fill in the detail a little later, and add some of the background which I am sure your Lordships would wish to have but which the noble Earl, in the interests of brevity, omitted to give. I do not know whether any of your Lordships noticed, as I did when we started our Business this morning, that there was a distant sound of bells. I did not know whether it was a Division bell or not, and so I made inquiries through "unusual channels", and found out that it was the perfectly normal and well precedented traditional rejoicing which goes on in Heaven when a sinner repenteth. I was glad of that explanation.
I want now to be very serious, and say that it is very easy for an Opposition to jibe at a Government when they make a complete change of front; it is much more difficult for a Government to change their mind, as they have done. I take off my hat to the Government for having done so, and will support this move in any way I can. I will explain shortly the reasons for doing it to your Lordships, but having those second thoughts brings nothing but credit to those who hold them. It is not absent from my mind that, just as much as the change of heart here will undoubtedly be of assistance in the development areas and to the whole of our economy, so I hope I can perceive distantly a slight change
638
of heart in our industrial relations, and particularly in an Act which governs them, which again is very much overdue, just as this change is overdue, and which again will have a most important effect on our economy and our welfare. We shall be coming back to this matter during the course of next week on the Emergency Regulations. I would be most anxious to say nothing that would in any way make the path of a Government which is having second thoughts the more difficult.
I think that it is necessary to examine for a short time the change that has taken place, and to illustrate my argument I start off with the "bible" for these purposes—that is to say, the Tory Manifesto in the last General Election which said:
"We will repeal the so-called Industrial Expansion Act which gives the Government power to use taxpayers' money to buy its way into private industry."
Indeed, that Act was duly repealed. In fact, it was repealed barely a year ago. The Bill which is now before your Lordships restores not only all but more than all the powers which were in that Act, and I am happy to say in certain important clauses, such as Clause 7, does not hesitate to describe those powers in literally the same language word for word. We welcome that, but it does represent a considerable change.
The other authority I would quote is of course that passage of the speech of the Secretary of State which has become so famous when, on November 4, 1970, at column 1212 he said:
"The vast majority lives and thrives in a bracing climate and not in a soft, sodden morass of subsidised incompetence."
He went on to refer to "lame ducks", and that has come to be known as the "lame-ducks" speech. When introducing this Bill in another place he referred to the theme of "non-culpable decline". The "lame ducks" have given way to "non-culpable decline", and I rejoice that that is so.
The other aspects of the Bill which represent the most welcome change relate to investment grants. Investment grants were changed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the earliest opportunity, I think in November, 1970, on two grounds. Two main criticisms were made. The first was the familiar one

639
which was shared by most opinion on the Benches opposite as I understand it, namely, that the difficulty about investment grants is that they subsidise incompetence—if I may go back to the words I have just quoted. You get your investment grant whether the assets towards which the grant goes turn out to be profitable or unprofitable. If they turn out to be unprofitable then you are using Government money to subsidise incompetence.
That is what is proposed in this Bill, I am happy to say—regional development grants totally irrespective of profits. You get your grant and you try to make a profit. Of course, judgment is used. I referred to that in the interruption which the noble Earl was courteous enough to allow me to make in relation to the prospects of profitability. So there we have seen a major change. The other criticism I mentioned was that proposals in the Bill require a great increase in Civil Service manpower; in fact an increase of 500, as is made clear in the introductory comments to the Bill. Of course you cannot achieve these benefits and see the implementation of your policy unless you have the necessary manpower, so I for one also welcome that.
Finally, I want to refer to the Press comment which was made when the Labour Government introduced the Industrial Expansion Bill which contained the powers which are now restored under this Bill. There were a number of provisions in that Bill, including one to take an equity interest in the private sector, which were roundly condemned by The Times, the Sunday Times, the Financial Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Spectator and the Economist—a pretty good selection of solid journalism. Not only were they roundly condemned by the Press but the C.B.I. broke off negotiations with Her Majesty's Government at that time because of these provisions. It is interesting to recall who was the Director-General of the C.B.I. at that time—no doubt carrying out the policy of his masters and carrying it out with great efficiency—namely, John Davies. I am bound to say to your Lordships that what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus is as nothing to what hap-
640
pened to John on the road to sanity. We welcome it extremely.
My Lords, why has there been this complete change? Because Governments learn, some of them very slowly unfortunately, in the light of hard and harsh events that the sooner they adjust their platform speeches at election time to the needs to govern the country in the interests of the country the better. When that process of learning takes place they are affected in reaching their conclusions by the hard facts, and the hard facts which brought about this change of front are serious unemployment and serious under-investment, in particular serious unemployment clearly demonstrated in the regions to which these proposals are directed.
In the North-West region unemployment has increased in the period of the present Government's tenure of office by 80 per cent.; in the West Midlands it has increased by 100 per cent. It is interesting to observe that the rate of unemployment in the West Midlands to-day—previously one of the busiest areas in the country—is greater than the rate of unemployment in the Welsh development area at the time the Government took over. In Scotland the general rate of unemployment is around 60 per cent., and the job position, which I should like to dwell on for a moment, is that for every job open to a male 18 men are seeking it; for every job open to a skilled engineer in Scotland 29 men are seeking it—I am talking about skilled, not unskilled, labour. For the unskilled the figures run into thousands—thousands seeking every available job, on the basis of comparing the number of unemployed with the vacancies. So it is a very serious situation indeed and I am more than grateful to the Government for taking the massive steps which are proposed here, providing very substantial sums to assist towards reducing unemployment in the areas and increasing economic activity.
The two particular anxieties I have about the provisions, anxieties the remedy for which is careful watching rather than particular changes in the Bill itself, are, first, the scale on which assistance is provided. The powers provided under this Bill are wider than the powers we had in the Industrial Expansion Act: there is more money provided, the criteria are if

641
anything more loose, public and Parliamentary accountability are undoubtedly less and the risks to the public purse are greater. One is very familiar with the fact that a convert is more enthusiastic than one who has always maintained a certain philosophy or a certain religion, and in case there is some of that enthusiasm around I want to make it plain to the Government that, as much as we welcome the provisions, the powers and the general attitude displayed in the Bill, we shall of course feel it our duty to watch their application because of the risks to the public purse involved due to the way in which the Bill has been drawn.
The second anxiety is one which I am sure the noble Earl will particularly easily understand, and I hope that he and his colleagues will take it on board. It is the rather technical point of the relationship with third parties. The Government make it clear that in the private sector they are going to back companies, if necessary up to 49 per cent. of the equity. When a creditor, a supplier, deals with a company which has 49 per cent. of the equity shares held by the Government, it is inclined to rely on that company as much as it would rely on the Government themselves. Indeed, it will do so unless the Government make it absolutely clear that it should not. Problems will inevitably arise where this situation develops—and one speaks not wholly without experience—unless the Government make their position absolutely clear from the word, "Go". There is the good name of the Government, on the one hand, and the reliance which will implicity be put on a company in excess of the strict interpretation of the law, on the other. That is one reason why the relationship with third parties does, I think, cause some anxiety.
The other, again arising out of the provisions of the Bill, is that the noble Earl has said that it will be the Government's practice to give financial help where help could not otherwise be obtained; that is to say, if a particular company goes to its bank and says, "We are in very difficult financial circumstances, and we need some help", and the bank says, "No, we are not going to let you have it". The company might indeed go to a merchant bank, and the merchant bank might make the same answer; or it might go to any other source of finance. The
642
answer would have to be "No" before the Government helped. The noble Earl has made that quite clear, So Government help would be help to a company without funds. Whether it is technically insolvent or not, one cannot say; but what one can say is that it is without necessary funds, otherwise the Government would not be helping. As the noble Earl knows, when a Government intervene in these circumstances they take upon themselves very considerable responsibilities, far in excess of the amount of money put up, unless they take the most minute care to avoid that.
Therefore, these two reasons—(a) the implicit confidence that a supplier, a third party, would have with a 49 per cent. Government-backed purchaser; and (b) the desire of the Government in other cases to help only when that help cannot be obtained elsewhere—will again produce these problems in relation to third parties.
These are not matters, I repeat, on which I am proposing any adjustments to the Bill, or indeed asking for any answer today. What I am asking is that the Government will be good enough to bear these matters in mind, because otherwise (if I may put it in this way) if they do not take the necessary precautions they may be forced off doing what I want them to continue to do; namely, to intervene without getting involved in unnecessary liability. If they plan to intervene in such a way that they find themselves involved in excessive liability, they may draw the conclusion, "Oh, well, we cannot intervene". What I am saying to the Government is, "No; the conclusion is to avoid, by steps in advance, any unwanted liability, but to go on intervening in the interests of increased employment and higher economic activity".
My Lords, I repeat that those are anxieties, and you will have observed that I am not making any detailed suggestions for improvement of the structure of the Bill. I am taking that attitude for two very good reasons: first, because the Bill is in general very acceptable to those of us on these Benches, and, secondly, because there is no time to do anything else—and I take a practical view of life. The Government's programme, as has already been expressed in words which I

643
cannot better, is in such a mess that there is no opportunity to have a real Committee stage on this Bill, to get it back to another place and to get it enacted and implemented as urgently as that needs to be done. One recognises this, and so far as those of us on these Benches are concerned—it is, of course, for other noble Lords to do what they think fit—we wish the Bill to have its speediest possible passage. If there is any need for any change, any revision, in the light of the working of the Act, as it will be, of course the Government will be able at a suitable opportunity, in six months' or a year's time, or whatever it may be, to introduce amending legislation and tack it on to whatever Bill they can find going through the House at the time which has something to do with industry—and I do not suppose that that will be very difficult. Having said that, my Lords, I repeat that we welcome the Bill; we welcome its contents, and we shall facilitate its passage in every way open to us.
12.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am very happy to be able from these Benches also to assure the Government that any help we can give in getting this Bill on the Statute Book promptly will be forthcoming. We believe that this is a very necessary Bill: the more so because the development areas (or the regions, as I think we can call them for short) clearly need help, since the advantage they have so far enjoyed has to some extent been whittled away by the extension of what is called free depreciation over the whole country, and also by the threatened withdrawal of the regional employment premium. I do not know whether there is any hope that there might be a stay of execution, or even perhaps a pardon, in the latter matter because it certainly is a way in which employment can be directly stimulated, and that does not apply to the other methods of support which are put forward in this Bill.
May I now say a word about Part I and the regional development grant? Like the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I welcome the change of heart which the Government have had over this matter. We on these Benches have always felt that a grant was in this context superior
644
to an investment allowance, and we think that the experience has shown that this is the correct view. I should certainly myself like to see—and I believe that this is possible under the Bill, because the Secretary of State has power to add items to the list—the extension of this grant beyond the basic manufacturing industries to service industries. At the outset of his speech the noble Earl made reference to improvements in the environment, and I feel that in many of the areas of which we speak the environment could be substantially improved by the injection of a certain amount of service industry, so that the community would become a more balanced community instead of being a community based entirely on manufacture. As I said, the Secretary of State can vary the qualifying activities under Clause 3(2)(a), and I hope that at some time the possibility of extending the qualifying activities to include some at least of the service industries may be considered. In another place a powerful case was made for the inclusion, for instance, of the tourist industry which has considerable importance already in the South-West and in Cumberland—and, as my noble friend has reminded me, in Wales. I often feel that in the arrangement of industry there are opportunities for tourism that have not been taken in the very beautiful counties of Northumberland and Durham, where the old basic industries have contracted.
I want to say a few words about the noble Earl's remarks on the subject of modernisation. He argued that it was proper for assistance to be offered for modernisation without particular reference to employment possibilities because modernisation was calculated to make employment more secure. I must say, in face of a particular aspect of modernisation which has been very much in our minds during the last few weeks, that that seems rather a broad statement to make—because certainly modernisation in the port transport industry has not made employment more secure; it has made it much less secure. In this context, if I may go ahead for a minute or two, the noble Earl referred to this same matter when speaking of Clause 7. If I understand Clause 7 correctly, it is not possible under it to offer assistance for modernisation unless it is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, "likely to provide,

645
maintain or safeguard employment". So as far as Clause 7 is concerned, I should have thought that the general offer of assistance for modernisation must be qualified by the requirement that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that, in the particular area, it is likely, as the clause says: "to provide, maintain or safeguard employment …".
My Lords, I now turn to Part II of the Bill. Before raising general points I wonder if I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to answer a very simple question. I suspect that I am probably the only person in your Lordships' House who does not know the answer. I think I know it, but I should like to have it spelled out. What, in Clause 7(1)(b) is the meaning of the word "undertakings"? I take it that if there is what I should call an undertaking, a business, which is carried on in all sorts of places all over the country, it is not "wholly or mainly in the assisted areas". But if it decides to set up one installation in one assisted area, then I assume that that single installation would be entitled to get the benefit of the Bill.
The curious thing is that, if that is so, it does not immediately jump to the mind why the words "wholly or mainly" were put in, unless one is considering an installation which physically straddles the boundary between a development area and some other area. If "undertakings" means single undertakings then either they are or they are not in an assisted area and the word "wholly" would have little point. I should be surprised if a company like I.C.I., which has installations all over the country—not necessarily all in the regions—decided to set up a new factory in one of the regions it could not be entitled to this assistance.
To come back to the generality of Part II, like the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I was struck by the immense width and breadth of the assistance under this clause. I was a little concerned as to the control over what happens. The powers of the Secretary of State are very wide. The criteria in Clause 7 (which is the one I have already mentioned and of which the rubric reads: "Selective financial assistance for industry in assisted areas.") is fairly clear, but the criteria in Clause 8, on the other hand, seem to be very broad. The clause speaks
646
of activities "likely to benefit the economy of the United Kingdom" and to be "in the national interest" in the opinion of the Secretary of State. That seems to be an almost subjective test. It rather depends on who is the Secretary of State and whether in his opinion some particular activity is in the national interest.
The effect of Clauses 7 and 8 taken together is undoubtedly to give the Secretary of State and his Department a very large area of patronage. The Secretary of State himself was well aware of this because in the Second Reading debate in another place he said:
"But I am very conscious that access to arbitrary and discriminatory powers constitutes a heavy responsibility, not least to justify to those who might be the victims of such discrimination the methods practised and the decisions reached."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons) 22/5/72; col. 1022.]
My Lords, we are very fortunate in this country in the very high standard of integrity in public life, but we do occasionally hear whispers of things that have not gone quite right. I see behind these two clauses a real danger of excessive pressure which might in some sad instances prove too much. After all, any offer of assistance under these clauses is bound to be in response to an application. The Secretary of State, the Department and the Advisory Board cannot of their own knowledge identify places where help may be needed. Therefore, anybody whose firm has need of help must make an application. I can imagine a situation in which there is a firm which feels that it is in danger of going down. It has a number of employees who would be thrown out of work and it feels that it should go to the Minister to ask. "Can you help me?". But the Minister will see—he can only see—the case as presented to him; and we all know that cases of this kind can be presented in one way and in another way to produce different impressions.
Then, as I understand it, the matter is referred in the first instance to the Advisory Board. They, too (although, as I understand it, they are men of experience) will have some difficulty, I think, in one individual case in assimilating the facts and in putting them into their context in the national scene. Let us suppose that they felt that there was a primary case for giving assistance. There

647
may be two or three other firms in the same position which have not at that stage thought of applying for assistance. Are they going to be, as it were, beaten at the post? It may even be that there is a situation where there is over-production and where (shall I say?) the least efficient firm is the one in danger of going down. If that firm makes out a case for assistance it might be that it is the next least efficient firm that goes down as a result.
I have been wondering how the Minister and his advisers can protect themselves against the sort of pressures that may come upon them and against the possibility of deciding single issues without a full understanding of all the surrounding circumstances. I am sure that I do not want (none of us wants) some elaborate procedure because that slows down the operation of necessary work. But how about a provision—perhaps the noble Lord would like to think of this; I do not expect a reply today—to the effect that before any decision is finally taken publicity is given to the proposal. This would alert other undertakings who might be adversely affected by a decision to support a single firm. It would have the further advantage that it would alert our always vigilant Press and, if there was the least chance of some improper pressure having been brought to bear on civil servants or on Ministers, then the Press would seize on it and show it up. That is something that we hope would never happen, but if it did we would hope that it would be shown up.
I have only one other point to make about the Industrial Development Advisory Board. We read in Clause 9 that there are to be
"not less than six nor more than twelve other members"
besides the chairman, and it shall
"include persons who … have wide experience of … banking, accounting and finance."
There is clearly room for others, and I hope that the Secretary of State will include some other persons. If the Board is to be wholly financially established, it is almost bound to look at projects from a classical financial angle. We do not want the Secretary of State to back only losers; but when the primary object is to promote employment in the short-term, in the hope that a project will
648
eventually become viable, it seems to me that he must expect to have a certain number of losers. This may be necessary in order to effect the object of the Bill of stimulating industries in the regions.
I think it was the noble Earl who said that under Clauses 7 and 8 assistance would be given only to sound commercial projects. But as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, pointed out, assistance is to be given to projects that no one else is prepared to back. While I think that "sound commercial projects" is perhaps a comprehensive term, I feel that a good many of these projects must be at the lower end of the "sound" bracket—if I may put it in that way. So, my Lords, I believe that it would be helpful if the Industrial Development Advisory Board contained not only bankers, financiers and accountants, but also some professional men who might bring an independent view to these matters. When I say "professional men", I am thinking of engineers, lawyers and people with academic qualifications—people who are not up to their eyes in business and who are quite capable of taking a broad view of projects.
I shall not say anything about the shipbuilding proposals, because they are temporary proposals and we shall await with interest the strategic plan which has been promised. I would conclude by saying that, in looking at this legislation we must also look ahead to what it is that we are trying to achieve. Ultimately, the regions must stand on their own feet; I nearly said "on their own two feet" but perhaps that would be plagiarising. We on these Benches have always been in favour of regional authorities with devolved powers, and I hope that that may one day come about. To my mind, it is absolutely vital that all the men and women working in an undertaking helped under this Bill, whether managers, or workers on the shop floor or wherever it may be, put their backs into a project to make it a success. The regions cannot be indefinitely sustained by help from the rest of the country, and if full use is not made of the assistance offered to undertakings by the provisions of this Bill to put themselves on a sound basis so that they may continue to flourish, then indeed the money spent will have been wasted. I should like to refer again very briefly to the service industries,

649
because I believe that if the regions are to become successful growth areas in the country, they must have a balanced community with something in addition to manufacturing industry to support them.
12.46 p.m.
LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I warmly welcome this Bill. I regard it as an important measure. To be frank, its appearance does not surprise me all that much. I always believed that, sooner or later, a measure of this kind would be brought before Parliament; and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that in view of the tightness of the programme we in your Lordships' House had much better speed the progress of this Bill on to the Statute Book as rapidly as possible. But we are certainly in a very different world to-day from the world of the 1930s. I recall being told that it then took three months within the Government machine to get one distressed area scheduled as such. We have certainly progressed a good deal since then.
I feel that the Bill has special significance in the context of the intention to enter the European Economic Community. I was not present for the recent debate, but I find myself very much in sympathy with the line of argument uttered in that debate by the noble Lord, Lord Hale. Like, him, I have always felt that the strongest reason for wishing to join the E.E.C. is a belief in the unity of Europe; a belief that for a number of purposes—cultural, environmental, and military, as well as industrial—we need to get beyond the confines of the nation State. But at the same time—and here again I find myself in great sympathy with what the noble Lord said—my chief anxiety about this decision has always been the fear that membership would result in the rich areas of this country becoming richer and the poor areas becoming poorer; hence the very great importance of this Bill, and I would say of the whole approach to regional policy which we should aim to promote when we become members of the Community.
Before I come on to the detailed provisions of the Bill, I should like to echo the satisfaction expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that in British politics we are now all coming to accept
650
the need for a mixed economy. As the noble Lord knows, I have always shared that view. I should, however, like to say a word in answer to those who still believe that the operation of market forces could offer the whole solution, or, at any rate, by far the greater part of the solution, to regional economic problems. It seems to me that that cannot be true, for two reasons. The first reason is a theoretical one, but it is important. The old doctrine which used to be believed so profoundly in the nineteenth century that, however much richer one country or one region was than another, there was always a pattern of unregulated trade and unregulated economic development in which they could engage to the mutual advantage of both, simply cannot be applied without very considerable amendment to the economic circumstances of to-day.
The regional process is all the time getting more dynamic, and it becomes less and less realistic to regard perfect competition, on which old-fashioned market economics were based, as the norm. But, quite apart from theory, there is the practical point that we have ourselves experienced in Britain since the war, an attempt to try to do without a regional policy and to rely solely on market forces. In the mid-1950s the Government of the day, quite understandably, wanted to encourage economic activity, especially investment, and they allowed the motor industry in this country to expand in the West Midlands virtually as it wished. I was then a West Midlands M.P. as well as a Treasury Minister, and I remember the circumstances well. The policy did not work at all satisfactorily. In a single year we had an increase of 26 per cent. in expenditure on motoring in this country. But the other results were an overheating of the economy, the sudden obsolence of a whole mass of social capital, and the spoiling of what, looking back, was the best chance for a British economic miracle that we had at any time between 1950 and 1970.
I emphasise that it is not only the development areas of this country which need a regional policy; it is the potentially congested areas as well. I am sure that a regional economic policy must be in the interests of the whole nation. I therefore welcome the proposals for regional development grants in Part I of the Bill, and I would venture to say

651
that the amount of the proposed grant is about right. May I suggest one candidate as an addition to the list of eligible assets? I should like to see a specific grant made available for the clearing of eyesores. I have always believed that they rank high in the priorities for assisted capital expenditure. My own criticism of Part I does not relate so much to any specific proposals, which I think are good, but rather to my feeling that we still need rather more of a regional strategy, with certain specific policy objectives.
Let me give a few examples of what I mean. First, I think we need a broader, more articulated, classification of regions in this country. Professor A. J. Brown. our senior Professor of Economics at Leeds, in his Minority Report to the Hunt Report—and that Minority Report is still very much worth reading—argued very ably the case for a fourfold classification of regions of this country: development areas, grey areas, neutral areas and congested areas. He suggested that congested areas should have to pay a congestion tax—a sort of regional employment premium in reverse. I believe that this suggestion for a more sophisticated, a more articulated approach to the regions has much to be said for for it.
Secondly, I would ask just how significant in the Government's mind is to be the role of local initiative. On this point, I found the Second Reading speech of the Secretary of State moderately encouraging. But, if we want to take the role of local initiative in regional policy seriously we must get away from one very peculiar British economic institution. I refer to the very tight central control of social capital expenditure which is imposed by Whitehall. There is no country in the Western World which has such a centralised, detailed control of capital expenditure, extending to items like bridges or to minor capital works for schools. Noble Lords who have ever served as Ministers in spending Departments will know what I mean. I have always believed—and I would like to think that in the Scottish context I have the particular support of Sir Alec Douglas-Home on this—that some relaxation is essential if we are to have a true regional policy in this country.
652
Thirdly, I hope Mr. Chataway—I mention him specifically because I was very lucky to have him as my Parliamentary Secretary for two years—will try to achieve something which no Government since the war have achieved. I hope he will try to marry the housing programme in the regions with the industrial programme. We have always had a programme of advance factories and we have built a considerable number of New Towns. But I can recall the noble Lord, Lord Kahn—I wish he were here—once addressing the Tuesday Club on this subject and pointing out most convincingly that we had never tried to marry the housing programme and the industry programme closely enough.
Fourthly, I suggest that we need, so far as possible, to reconcile three aims: the right to work, the mitigation of the human costs of adaptation, and the economic need to diversify economic activity within each region. I feel that the thinking behind the Bill is stronger on the third of these matters than on the other two. For my own part, given the need for growth in employment in the depressed regions of the United Kingdom over the whole range of both manufacturing and service industries, which are not growth industries themselves, I should like to see direct grants to the regions as a supplement to the regional employment premium, or at any rate as an alternative to it, rather than the phasing out of the REP altogether. I very much agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, had to say about this in his speech just now.
I should like to add one or two specific points about labour and capital markets in the context of regional policy. First, whilst I welcome the geographical mobility grants—they are a valuable provision—I suggest that the public employment service needs to play a greater part in regional industrial policy than it does already. Its role in linking industry with the formal education system really is derisory, as is the use made, at regional and national levels, of the knowledge of local exchange managers. This is a serious matter, involving not just the problems which will arise from the raising of the school leaving age. I wish, by the way, we took more seriously the issue of job opportunities for those

653
school-leavers who are in the relatively low streams. The problem is not confined to immigrants; it is very wide indeed. Again, where are the manpower forecasts oil which the Department started work in 1964 and which I recall the Estimates Committee saw as essential for an effective system of industrial training?
On capital markets, I wonder whether this Bill makes adequate provision for an effective capital market from the point of view of the regions. Whatever the scale of public support through grants, investment allowances and special capital investment, a depressed region needs most of all an increase in the flow of private capital. I must say that I was rather attracted by the speech which Mr. Harold Lever made during the Second Reading debate in another place. He put forward the idea of a regional development bank. As he pointed out, not unfairly, that is just what the Secretary of State, among his many other functions, will be offering under this Bill. We have here a curious reversal of roles. Again, I think back to the 1950s and recall Mr. Wilfred King, who was then editor of the Banker, saying that under Government policy at that time bankers were having to act as planners for a Government who had decided that planning was impossible. Now a major Department of State, a Department traditionally devoted to laissez faire policies is becoming both planner and banker. It is a curious reversal of roles over 17 years. Those are suggestions—I hope considered suggestions—about the labour market and the capital market, and about how they could be helped to work more efficiently from the point of view of the regions.
For a few moments may I now turn to Part II of the Bill, which deals with financial assistance to industry. I wish to comment on what the Secretary of State in his speech called the "mechanism" of this assistance. Part II provides for selective financial assistance not just for the depressed regions but also, in Clause 8, for the general benefit of the United Kingdom economy. I agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken that Clause 8(1) is very widely drawn indeed. I will not read it again because the noble Viscount has just done so. During the Second Reading debate in another place the Secretary of State
654
explained that the mechanism to undertake the selective assistance would be not an external agency like the I.R.C., but would be a part of Government itself. At the same time, the Secretary of State, in carrying out this function, will be advised by an Industrial Development Advisory Board which can request him to lay a Statement before Parliament if he acts contrary to its advice.
This decision to make the Government itself the agency for selective assistance, rather than an outside body like the I.R.C., was politically inevitable. I think also that on balance it was right, even though at the time I regretted the demise of the I.R.C., just as I certainly very much regretted the demise of the Prices and Incomes Board. But I think it was, on balance, right for two reasons: first, the importance of Ministerial accountability for what are large sums, and also the fact that, as the Secretary of State's speech itself showed, many decisions would be bound to be in part political.
I do not think I shall be out of order in your Lordships' House if I paraphrase one part of the Secretary of State's speech which shows exactly this point of how politics and economics are of necessity intertwined in the decisions that will have to be taken. The Secretary of State referred to what he called "difficult and controversial cases where important concerns suffer a severe financial setback". He went on to say in effect: "We must not prop up inefficient management. But where the firm has an important place in our economy we need to be sure that the setback is irreversible. We may want to provide temporary assistance while the situation is being assessed; and anyway"—and this is the important point—"profitability cannot be the only test. We must also bear in mind the employment the industry provides in relation to the future of a particular area."
My Lords, I think that those last words, even though they may cause some slight surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, were realistic. What best to do in the light of all these factors must be a decision of the Secretary of State and ultimately for the Cabinet itself. But in that case—and this is the point to which I am leading—the Secretary of State, as head of a major

655
Department, must exercise a real responsibility, and there must be, I suggest, sufficient expertise in his Department to enable him to assess the advice he receives both from the regional offices and the Industrial Development Advisory Board. I would stress very much the importance not just of the avoidance of corruption and those matters to which the noble Viscount has just referred, but also the importance of sufficient skilled accountants in Government service and, indeed, all the infrastructure of professional advice that the Secretary of State needs. I was myself a member of the Fulton Committee on the Civil Service. We were rather bothered to find at that time that of 25,000 accountants employed in this country only 300 were in Government service—and not very well paid at that. I think the importance of a more professional Civil Service does arise here very strongly and I would hope that the Civil Service College, which I do not think has been sufficiently utilised, will be brought in here also.
May I pick out just one detail that I do not myself like very much: the proposal in Clause 9(4) which lays a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay a Statement before Parliament if there is a disagreement between him and the Board? I do not myself care for laying a statutory duty on a Minister to lay a Statement before Parliament, any more than last night I cared for putting a Select Committee into a Statute. I think it is best that Statements should arise out of the Parliamentary process itself, and if I may say so without being controversial, I see in this subsection a small example of that growing tendency, which I personally regret, of the House of Commons not just to reach out to the Executive and to question it hut to try to confront the Executive. That has been something of a growth in recent years and I think that it is an undesirable tendency.
Lastly, my Lords, let us remember that it remains a puzzle to some other European countries that Britain should have developed an extensive set of fiscal and financial inducements and yet continue to have unemployment and slow growth. I think we must admit that the fault is partly ours. M. Massé, the head of the
656
French Commissariat, once defined planning rather well, in my view, as
"the art of handling short-term fluctuations in such a way as to avoid long-term weaknesses."
This is not an art in which post-war Governments, whatever their political complexion, have conspicuously excelled. But do let us remember also, in the context of this Bill, the very real problems of adaptation in a country like Britain with a long industrial tradition and a radically altered world role. For Heaven's sake let us remember the genuine problems of adaptation which exist to-day in the regions and in industries like the docks, in coalmining, steel, shipbuilding and the railways, where indeed the insecurity of employment lies at the root of our industrial relations problems.
I welcome the recent perceptible movement back towards conciliation and consensus in Government economic policy, as evidenced not least by my right honourable friend Mr. Robert Carr's admirable speech last weekend. But one essential element, I suggest, in any consensus must be the recognition that the human costs of adaptation are bound to be greatly aggravated by an overall level of unemployment higher than it need be. One pre-condition for the success of this important Bill is the recovery and the maintenance of a high level of demand for labour.
1.6 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Earl for the trouble he took to make clear to us in his speech to-day the many angles and provisions of this Bill. At the same time I wish to congratulate him on his good fortune in introducing a Bill with these high aims and massive requirements—a Bill which meets with unqualified approval from the Opposition, and this certainly is justified in the light of all the recommendations which have come from all sides of the House. It is obvious that something of this character is desirable for this country.
My intervention, which will be brief, is motivated by the wish to raise a couple of points which I hope my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn, will be able to comment upon when he comes to reply. I am encouraged by the fact that my noble friend, in moving the Second Read-

657
ing, himself introduced one or two specific instances. Before mentioning these I should like to take the opportunity to make a few general remarks. One point is the massive volume of funds involved in this. One wonders to what extent this fact is contributing, as it must do in part, to the current concern about the increase in the money supply and the upward pressure which it must have on prices in general.
The objects, clearly indicated throughout the speech of my noble friend, are to be labour-intensive rather than capital-intensive; that is to say, motivated by the hope of increasing employment rather than guaranteeing an increase in efficiency. This is, of course, partly an inherited position, because the last Government took action in the same direction, though some of it was less successful. I am prompted to say now that one wonders whether real efficiency was adequately pursued. Were the cost assessments adequately made in the first place and were adequate arrangements made to supervise the efficiency with which the large sums of money were employed?
It is fortunate that in this particular Bill it appears that the provision for expenditure and supervision by Parliament is of a substantial character. But at the same time, no one speaking on this could refrain from looking back at the misfortunes of the vast sums of money already handed out to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and seeing how little good it did. Were they justified? That brings me to the two points that I want particularly to make. I always wonder why such vast sums of money are so readily accorded in the area of shipyards and shipbuilding. Why should the larger amounts not have been channelled into other sections of industry? It suggests that the large units are the ones that are most favoured. That brings me to the second point. There is much written and said about the desirability of consideration for the small business as against the large business. One would think that there may still be a means of including some procedure whereby, provided the aim is to encourage employment, grants in a smaller amount may be channelled through some mechanism, such as the I.C.F.C., which does such a good job in the encouragement of smaller firms in industry.
658
Coming to the particular point on which my noble friend made some comment, it is understood that in the sphere of naval vessels specific grants are given to such ships if they are for foreign accounts. That permits sharper pencilling in the securing of contracts, all doubtless very close cut. But why is it not possible to extend that degree of subvention to naval vessels built for home purposes? That surely would encourage the efficiency of the yards capable of building them, and at the same time is would increase the likelihood of getting more of that character of work from overseas. One cannot help referring to some of the hypocrisy that came from the other side of the House when orders were possible from countries the faces of which the Opposition did not like. They said, "There must be no orders from that side because in the event of our return to power we would stop the supply of spare parts."That is only an instance which one remembers in connection with these points. I hope that my noble friend may be in a position to say something on this matter. For myself, as the first Back-Bench speaker from this side, I should like to give my unqualified support to the aims and scope of this Bill.
1.13 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I cannot but join the ranks of those people who welcome this Bill and, more especially, the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Hands-worth. His brilliant and constructive speech has rendered half of my speech unnecessary, and as time goes on I shall cut it by 50 per cent. I shall not talk about the administration, or about the criteria on the basis of which this Bill will operate. The Bill represents a partial repentance of the Government from one of their major stupidities: the change from a system of grants to tax allowances. It revives, more or less, the I.R.C. and also revives the powers of "Mintec", which were so terribly attacked when they were proposed by the previous Government to enable the Ministry of Technology to give direct help to industry. Thus it is a retreat from an untenable position which we attacked and predicted. If one were to speak less charitably, one might say that Pompidou's poodle has performed a head stand, which is also a notable feat. Even the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor (I am

659
sorry that he is not to speak in this debate, for it would have been amusing, as was his high-spirited buffoonery yesterday) could not hide this fact. The brief of the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, which was a good, if somewhat dreary, Civil Service product, hid it even less.
What is regrettable, but also quite understandable, is that the retreat is on the wrong lines—it is a South Vietnamese retreat. The Government repented only partially, and this performance does not comprise much the most important measure. My noble friend Lord Diamond gave us a number of statistics about the increased unemployment in the regions, but he did not mention the regional employment premium. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, said, this could have been refined. I was never very enthusiastic about the administrative work we had to do owing to the resistance of the Inland Revenue. At any rate, here was something which we had advocated ever since the 1950s and which could bridge the difference—and it is a very important difference—between social and private costs; that is to say, which could make the profit motive act as a good signal to private industry.
If the Government are unwilling to learn from British examples that worked, they ought to pay some attention to Italy in this respect, which adopted such a system for the Mezzogiorno. The following important measures are in force and should be noted by the Government. For small firms up to £1 million capital, there is a grant of 35 per cent. of fixed investment. The rate of interest for a loan is 3 or 4 per cent. for 15 years. Seventy per cent. of the investment of small firms is either outright grant or a heavily subsidised one. On top of that, medium-sized firms get a grant of from 15 to 20 per cent. fixed investment and loans of up to 50 per cent. of total investment. Large firms with fixed assets exceeding £3 million get outright grant of only from 7 to 12 per cent. of fixed investment. They get loans, at very favourable rates of between 30 and 50 per cent. of total investment.
That is not the whole picture. What we want, and w hat they want, is employment, not capital intensive investment. One of the great difficulties about grants
660
is that they attract capital intensive investment where employment ought to be attracted. I recommend this Italian system to noble Lords opposite because Italy has pulled itself up by its bootstraps from a very difficult and disagreeable situation. For the share of present employment which is equal to the total employment as registered by the firm on September 30, 1968, they get 5 per cent. employment premium. This is worked through the social service contribution scheme; the State pays the employer's share of the contribution. A higher percentage, up to 13 per cent., applies for the increase in employment since 1968. And a 17 to 18 per cent. direct subsidy to wages is forthcoming on employment which increases from 1971 onwards; that is to say, any enlargement or any new investment will attract 17 to 18 per cent. subsidy on wages.
It is true of course that the Italian Government are protected against the destructive clauses of the Rome Treaty by a special Protocol which we have not got. I must say I am very doubtful, for instance, that certain parts of this measure will be compatible with the E.E.C. It is no use Ministers saying they are absolutely convinced they are, because they cannot be. The sovereign decision over whether this agrees with the Treaties or not is not in our hands, and therefore any assurances are worthless. That is presumably the reason why the grant is limited mainly to 20 per cent., that being the maximum regional advantage which the E.E.C. have accepted. There is a grant of 22 per cent.—and I suppose the 2 per cent. is like the Czech baby: it is so little that it does not count as a countervention. Perhaps that is the most charitable explanation of that. The time limit set in Clause 8 also is presumably due to the destructive clauses of the Rome Treaty. I wish the Government had looked, and would look, at V.A.T. or at Social Security payments to see whether they could not be analogous to Italy's.
Clause 7 represents a resurgence of the I.R.C. powers. This is the one point on which I would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth. I do not believe that direct governmental power is in any way a substitute for an I.R.C. It would be if we had not vast giant Departments which have been foisted on the British system quite recently

661
and which make an orderly administration quite impossible. The Minister is dead and cannot exert political supervision. Finally, the oddest thing, of course, is that we are now going to subsidise the oil companies. Both the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have from time to time suffered from my furious preoccupation with the oil companies; and my Charles's head bobs up again. Not only are we going to grant them, roughly speaking, 500 per cent. more than the Arabs, but we are now going to subsidise their platforms. Well, the more power to the oil companies! Slowly the Government are forced to adopt all the policies which they condemned in Opposition. I fear that this is often the case with all Governments. I remember myself some cases where we did the same, but the extent to which this Government have been retreating is unparalleled, and the only thing I can say is debuisset pridem.
1.25 p.m.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, I am very pleased to give a welcome to this Bill and recognise it, as we do from these Benches, as a very real attempt to assist growth in the regions and the areas of high unemployment. Various reasons have been given or suggestions have been made for the Government's recent conversion. My own theory is that perhaps the Minister of State sought his inspiration among the Old Testament prophets: Ecclesiastes, Chapter XI, verse 1, would be perhaps a possibility:
"Cast thy bread upon the waters".
I think in all seriousness that this is what this Bill is meant to do; and we welcome it because of that. The Bill could also have been conceived with the regions of Scotland particularly in mind, where there are I believe at this moment approximately 12,000 people looking for every vacancy. It is an incredible figure which I believe comes from the Department of Employment Gazette.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, has made a fine speech leaving little for me to add as the penultimate speaker. But I feel some words could be said about what the noble Earl said at the beginning of his speech when introducing the Bill, concerning infrastructure. It may be relevant at the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind to imagine for a moment how an Indus
662
trialist is going to react to the intentions behind this Bill, if he is sufficiently tempted, as I am sure many will be, to consider setting up a business or new industry in one of the regions designated as a development area. First of all he will, as some have already done in the oil business, have sent executives to make a report on the spot. I have, perhaps like some other noble Lords, been given such assignments in my time: to go to out of the way places and make a report. Often the first problem is to get there, and Scotland is no exception. Let us imagine that a destination North of Edinburgh is involved. How many times does one end up in Glasgow because of crosswinds at Turnhouse? If one is trying to go to Aberdeen, how many times is one told that the plane is full, and one has to wait not for another plane but for another day?
Oil executives seen on the television in these last few weeks have already said that it is becoming difficult, or impossible, to arrive at the place in which they are meant to be carrying out an investigation in order to put capital into an area. They must be very surprised. They might perhaps recognise this situation in places such as Libya or the Arabian Gulf; but I feel the infrastructure must match—and communications are an important part of it—the weight of capital that is going into the area. On arrival at a proposed site the next item is to find suitable housing for the skilled personnel who have to be brought out there. That includes directors. Even if a spanking new advance factory is available for you, more often than not, having spoken to people who invested in Scotland, it is my feeling that housing for key personnel is not accessible, or often not available. There is also the problem of the schooling of executives' children. These are key executives to whom I refer and represent only small numbers. A whole project usually rests on a few key people. As key executives usually have wives and families, if these facilities are not readily accessible then it is more than likely that the proposition begins to look untenable because they will not go to the area.
There are two more important considerations before the grants and cash incentives are looked at. The first is accessibility and the cost of despatch of

663
goods to the markets, be they for export or the home market. For instance, is the road system capable of carrying products quickly and efficiently without long diversions or weight-load restrictions? How far is the nearest railway station or goods siding, if bulk raw materials or finished products have to be handled? In Scotland, regrettably, this may be many miles away. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, regrets, as many of us do, the speed with which he shut down some of the main rail transport arteries, now that minerals represent the future wealth of Scotland. In Australia they are building railways to develop their mineral and oil potential; in Scotland we are told to tear them up.
Finally, and perhaps most important, is the availability of labour and the local wage structure, coupled with the attitude of the local union leaders. All these things are looked at during a first reconnaissance visit before the industrialist gets down to looking at what cash is available on the Bill. The main intention of the Bill is to reduce regional imbalance, and one of the regional imbalances is on weekly wage earnings. According to the abstract on regional statistics there is a major differential in different parts of Britain. For instance, there are variations in South Humberside where the weekly average earnings are £28·3 per week and that varies to £21·9 per week in South-West England and the Border areas of Scotland. Quite often in these peripheral areas the cost of living is actually higher than it is in the city centre, simply because of transport and so on, and this adds materially to the hardships of those working on low incomes.
On reflection I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that it is better not to try to introduce an Amendment to this Bill to rectify the omission in Part I, Clause 4. I hope the Secretary of State will bear in mind these areas where the average weekly earnings are as low as £21·9 a week and that this will encourage him to designate them as special develop-matt areas if he has not already done so. In effect what I am trying to say is that regional development must be integrated regional development if it is to become effective, and Government assistance of a capital nature as envisaged in this Bill will evaporate unless it is
664
directly linked to adequate infrastructure in regions where help is needed.
Turning to Part II of the Bill I should like to take up a point made in another place and underlined to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle. It concerns the Development Board. I question, as Mr. Lever did and as the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, has done, whether a Board of this nature is the right vehicle for fiscal assistance of this mammoth kind. To me, the Board needs to be a board of merchant bankers, and one question which perhaps the noble Earl will be able to answer is the kind of remuneration the experts on such a Board would be able to receive. The kind of work that they have been asked to undertake is that of a merchant bank, which is highly sophisticated, involves immense fiscal planning and the financial assessment of the viability of the projects put forward.
With due respect to Government departments, training of a Government department man, however able, is not likely to be the same as that for a merchant banker. They look at the problems in entirely different ways, and if this Development Board is to do all the things that it is meant to do the people on it must be of the highest calibre. Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill could be the articles of association of a bank rather than from a Minister of the Crown. The intentions and principles behind the Bill are basic banking principles but with one major difference: in order to obtain financial assistance from a bank or the I.C.F.C., which did such great work in this way, cost projections and discounted cash flows are prerequisites over and above the terms of repayment. The criteria are entirely different for the Development Board and the Secretary of State. A non-repayable scheme of this kind to satisfy a Government department does not need any of these business essentials where viability and profitability are essential but a paper that will be acceptable to Government department people and, ultimately, the Minister of State.
Industry is quite used to dealing with bankers, and the company accountant is used to preparing schemes to put before a bank in order to raise funds. I only hope that the industry in this case that we are trying to attract to these areas feels capable of drawing up a paper which

665
will attract the attention of the Minister of State, which will be a different kind of paper. If they are very keen to accept funds of this sort industry may even have to go to a retired civil servant to prepare such a paper because the thinking is different, the training is different and the kind of people with whom they will have to deal is different. I hope that no abuse will remain because of this. I understand from the noble Earl that the nationalised industries will be eligible for grants, and here they may have a slight edge. The nationalised industries are quite familiar with dealing with Government departments and, to put it bluntly, they know how to write a Government memorandum in order to get the right answer. Those in industry are not quite so good at it, but I do not quibble over that.
I should like to make one final point. I think the noble Earl said that the facilities available under this Bill will be available only if the funds cannot be provided from another source. I fully accept the reasoning behind this but I should like to think that some feeling of viability is given to a company before it applies for this job. To me the implication of what the Minister was saying was that if no bank, no finance company or no enlightened individual will finance a company then that company has no future whatsoever. It is wrong to put it quite like that and I hope that I misunderstood the noble Earl.
If the position is such that the company wishes to expand, if the company's borrowing powers are fully extended and the collaterals are not there and the guarantees are not there, then I would agree entirely with the Minister, but if a company is eligible because nobody else would dream of financing it except the Minister of State I begin to have some doubts about the effectiveness of this kind of aid. If that is the case long-term employment will not, naturally, go on. This company will go broke, sooner or later, and the employment and the hopes given to people who are temporarily employed will fade away. I should like to be reassured on this point.
I should also like to welcome Part III of the Bill, which is a real attempt to give British industry an opportunity to take full advantage of the oil companies' activities around our shores. British
666
industry has been complaining that it has not had proper opportunities and that the oil companies have been buying foreign rigs and so on. That is quite true, but this Bill gives them the opportunity to get the expertise to build the foundations of an industry entirely geared for mineral and oil expansion, so it is now up to them to take full advantage of it. I have no doubt that British industry will take up this challenge and the opportunities offered to them by this Bill.
To conclude, the success of any under taking of the types outlined in this Bill must be dependent upon three factors: the first is the capital which is available and attainable through this Bill; the second is management, which can be found, provided it is paid for; the third is communications, which is up to the Government.
1.39 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I should like to start by thanking noble Lords for the welcome they have given to this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said we do not always have the luxury of a complete concensus on Bills before the House, and in regard to some of the Bills that we have had before the House in recent times he and I have had occasion to disagree sharply; but I feel sure that this will not be so on this Bill. Of course he has indicated some of the reasons and I should like to meet some of the points that have been raised. Before doing so, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have spoken for remaining. If I hear rumblings, I shall take it that it is due not to discontent but to the absence of food. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has courteously informed me that he has had to leave for a previous engagement and apologises for not being in his place to hear my reply.
Several noble Lords referred to the Bill as a kind of repentance. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, pointed out that once free depreciation had been extended right over the country, that in itself had removed the differential in favour of the regions and that since we were obviously still anxious to give preference to the regions some other means of doing so had to be found. The obvious way to do it was through grants. I am glad that

667
the general grant system has been welcomed here. My noble friend Lord Boyle of Handsworth, whose speech we so much welcomed and enjoyed, thought the levels were about right, and that view has been shared by the House in general. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that regional development grants were not profit-related. In looking at the assistance that is available in the regions one must look at the whole of the assistance, including the budgetary measures. One will then come to the conclusion that, taken as a whole, the new system of investment incentives is in fact profit-related. For example, for a typical project in a development area, 63 per cent. of the total recoveries—that is, grant and tax savings—will be in the form of tax savings and, therefore, profit-related. This compares with 28 per cent. and 38 per cent. respectively before October, 1970. It is therefore wrong to say that, taken as a whole, the assistance is not profit-related. Then of course the grants are available only in assisted areas: building grants in all of them, and grants for plant and machinery in development and special development areas only.
The second important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was about public accountability. We are well aware of the need for this and, in our view, the degree of accountability will be much greater if a separate organisation is set up to administer the funds available. Ministers will at all times be answerable to Parliament—this, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, in some degree has dangers from the point of view of pressures—but they will be assisted by the Industrial Development Advisory Board; and if, as my noble friend said, the Secretary of State does not take the Board's advice, he must lay a Statement before Parliament, if the Board so requests. Under Clause 16, my right honourable friend will have to make an annual report or reports, and he has given an undertaking that they will include reports from the Industrial Development Advisory Board and the regional industrial advisory boards. All of this will help to protect him from the pressures of one kind or another to which some journalists fear he may be unduly exposed and which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, thought he would have difficulty in resisting. Ministers soon get
668
accustomed to resisting pressures and I would not have rated this particular danger very highly. Moreover, the Secretary of State will have the new development unit to advise him, as the White Paper says:
… on the appraisal and implementation of industrial and development needs."
In addition he will have a Director of Industrial Development, in the person of Mr. Tindale, who was a director and general manager of the I.C.F.C., and industrial directors who are to be appointed for Scotland and Wales, and regional industrial directors for the Northern, the North-Western and the Yorkshire and Humberside regions. This in itself represents a considerable degree of expertise and it also means that there will be a considerable devolution of decision-making on assistance to the regions.
As my noble friend said, guidance will be given from the centre on the way in which discretion is to be exercised in the regions. Senior Department of Trade and Industry officials at head regional offices will be accountable for expenditure in the regions and it is thought that they will be given a ceiling of grant beyond which they cannot act on their own discretion, and that above that they will have to submit proposals to the centre. One must distinguish between two different kinds of case. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was concerned about the possibility of assistance being given to one individual and not to another. He went on to say that the way in which the grant would originate would be through an application on the part of the individual. That is largely so, and it is so at present.
The Local Employment Acts Financial Advisory Committee has for long been examining applications, and I have no doubt that it has taken discounted cash flow and the prospects laid before it into account. In fact, the criticism has been that the procedure has been much too detailed and slow. The fact that to a large extent this can be done in the regions—particularly so far as small industries are concerned; they will of course be just as eligible as large industries—should result in a good deal of saving in time in dealing with applications and also the consideration of them with expertise and much greater local

669
knowledge. I do not foresee the likelihood of a wide disparity between one region and another in the way in which applications are dealt with or approved, for the reasons I have given, because of the accountability of the regions for the way in which they are spending the money and because the Secretary of State will have to account for it at the end of the day. Whenever you give a discretion, of course, you are bound to have minor variations but I would not have thought that there would have been any wide differences in this regard.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, spoke about the relationship to third parties where Government takes an equity interest. I remember the first time that I made a Statement from this Box, and the noble Lord asked his first question, or made his first intervention after coming into this House on exactly this subject. It is one of which we are very conscious, but the fact that the Secretary of State, in taking an equity interest in companies, is taking it with the consent of the company and has also to dispose of the equity interest as soon as may be, will be clearly known to industry, and creditors and customers will realise that the Government are in the firm for a limited period and not for keeps. The point that the noble Lord made is one that will have to be very closely watched at all times, but it is one which is perhaps not quite so serious as he may at first have imagined.
There is also the point that he and other noble Lords made about the availability of finance from Government only where no other source is available. This is to a large extent a question of the time scale. It may very well be that in some cases the firm has sought to get money from the banks and from other financial institutions and has been unable to get assistance. But in the course of so doing if it was indicated that the Government were also to help it may well be that they would agree to cooperate. Indeed, as my noble friend said, the Bill provides for guarantees of private loans; so that is the kind of situation that is envisaged there.
Again, one is very well aware of the danger that for the more risky type of enterprise the private institutions may not be so willing as they are sometimes to put up finance because they think that
670
the Government will have to put it up in the long run in order to safeguard employment. That is a risk, but we envisage that the kind of nexus that we are establishing under the new arrangements between Government and industry through the advisory boards, and through the use of outside people for limited periods within the machinery of Government, will reduce this risk very considerably.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, if that is all that the noble Lord is going to say on that point, will he allow me to say one word by way of the question, "is he aware that?". He has been good enough to describe the risk of losing the capital investment. That is not, and I underline the word "not", my concern at all. If one puts up a certain amount of capital one is aware of the risk of losing it. What the noble Lord is saying is that it may be necessary to put up this money in order to maintain employment: that is to say, in order to keep a company going that would otherwise not keep going. May I just say to the noble Lord that the Companies Act and company practice have very strict provisions about those who insist on a company keeping going, and the provision of a small amount of capital may involve the Government in vast sums of liability in that company far in excess of the capital subscribed, in order to carry out the policy of the Government in maintaining employment. I am only saying that in the hope that he will be good enough to bear it in mind.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, yes, indeed. That is a point which the noble Lord and I have discussed together at one time and another, and it is one that we will certainly bear in mind. The most frequently used form of selective assistance is, in any case, likely to be a loan granted against security, which is another of the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. He was concerned also about the provisions in Clause 7 as to the Secretary of State's power to provide financial assistance where, in his opinion
"the financial assistance is likely to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of the assisted areas".
So far as the safeguarding is concerned, this is a new development but it is in

671
recognition of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, was talking about; namely, the social aspects of the support that needs to be given to the regions. It is also linked with, or at any rate supported by, subsection (2)(f)which gives as one of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1)—
"to encourage arrangements for ensuring that any contraction of an industry proceeds in an orderly way".
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, spoke about the service industries. The Government carefully considered the question of bringing the service industries into the grant system, but we were forced to the conclusion that we should not be justified in doing so for the following reasons: first, that grants would not be a particularly effective way of influencing the location of service activities since the great majority have to be near the people or industries that they serve. In most cases, therefore, the shops, bus depots, branch banks, restaurants, and so on, have to be in the assisted areas to serve the people who are there. But I recognise that there are cases—for example, the head offices of national organisations—where this does not hold good, and we will certainly be on the lookout for some way in which to assist those cases. It might be that they could be assisted under Clause 7. Nevertheless, it is true as a broad generalisation that the extent of these activities in the assisted areas is generally decided by the prosperity of those areas rather than whether or not we make available regional development grants.
The second reason is that to extend the system to the service sector would greatly increase the cost. A measure of this is provided by the fact that the services taken as a whole spend roughly as much on building work as the manufacturing industry. The third reason is that discrimination between different projects on the basis, for example, of the extent to which grants might influence their location, would not be feasible in a scheme of this kind which is designed to operate as simply as possible with a minimum of detailed investigation of individual projects. It would be very difficult to distinguish between one service industry and another. This kind of discrimination is more practicable in relation to the selective assistance which will
672
be available under Clause 7 of the Bill, and it is our intention that selective assistance should be available to service projects in appropriate cases. I have in mind here, for example, projects which are moved from a non-assisted area to an assisted area, or projects which serve a sizeable part of the country and therefore have a genuine choice of locating inside or outside an assisted area.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, raised the question of the environment. May I say that in addition to what my noble friend said at the outset of his speech about the additional money that is being spent—the £164 million programmed for additional infrastructure expenditure in assisted areas on roads, schools, hospitals and public services—the whole concept of the organisation which we are setting up is designed to ensure a much closer liaison at regional level between industrial considerations on the one side and environmental considerations on the other. We have been very conscious of this need. I think perhaps I may say that this works well in Scotland simply because they have an organisation of their own. We hope it will work just as well in other parts of the Kingdom. I hope I have covered most of the points. I should like to say we have taken very careful note of the points the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, made. We shall study these very carefully indeed.
My Lords, I do not think I need presume to criticise anything the noble Lord said; I am not sure he asked me for any particular information on what he said, but there arose from time to time a general point about expertise on the Advisory Board. The Bill merely says, in Clause 9:
"The members of the Board shall include persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have wide experience of … industry, banking, accounting and commerce."
It does not mean that only persons who have wide experience and who have shown capacity in industry, banking, accounting and finance should be included. So the Secretary of State is not limited in his choice; but these are the bases on which this question of organisation is bound principally to work. I need only say that so far as the chairman of LEAFAC was concerned, he was an accountant, and I think one can be sure there will be accountants in this

673
organisation as well. I can assure my noble friend Lord Barnby that small businesses are very much in our minds in setting up this kind of organisation. He also asked about naval shipbuilding. The reason why they are not included in the grants system is, very simply, that they are not in international competition, unlike our shipbuilders in this country. Tenders for building for the Royal Navy go out to firms in this country only and, that being so, there is not the same reason to give them grants. The Ministry of Defence is bound to have a very great interest in its procurement policy in ensuring continuity, and for that reason they most certainly want to see that that capability remains. So I do not think the same kind of arguments for this assistance that applied to the commercial side of shipbuilding apply to the naval supply.
The only other point—I do not want to detain your Lordships longer—was that regarding entry to the European Economic Community. We have been in close touch with the development of the Community regional policy and thinking over a very considerable time, and I am certain the facts that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, produced to the House were well known to Her Majesty's Government. As a result we have no reason to believe there is any conflict between the measures provided for in this Bill and the obligations of membership. It remains our policy to apply a vigorous and effective regional policy and the Bill embodies such a policy; and we have no reason to think it will be in conflict with the obligations we shall be taking upon ourselves when we become members of the E.E.C.
The provisions of Article 92 of the E.E.C. Treaty have been interpreted by resolution of the Council of Ministers in October, 1971. Under this the Community is divided into central and peripheral regions and there is a limit on regional aid of 20 per cent. of the project cost in the central areas in order to prevent bidding up for mobile projects. There is at present no limit on regional aid for peripheral areas though it is intended to establish one in due course. Regional aid must be transparent—that is the word that is used; that is, openly capable of being calculable on a basis
674
which enables it to be related to the capital cost. This is generally acceptable to us. Moreover, Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession provides that the principles concerning regional aid shall apply to us not later than July 1, 1973, though they will be supplementary to take account of the new situation of the Community after enlargement. It will be during the course of the first six months of 1973 that what is meant by central and peripheral areas will be settled in our case.
The importance of the maximum use of the Bill during the period of transition will not have escaped your Lordships' attention. Clause 8 brings this into relief by limiting the powers under that clause to the end of 1977. I welcome very much the resolution that has been shown by this House to-day that all concerned, whether Government, employers or labour, should join together to make the greatest use possible of the facilities of this Bill and to make certain we do achieve a measure of growth which will encourage industries to go to the regions. It has been the experience all along that only in circumstances of national growth are we able to attract new industries to the regions in any substantial degree. But in general the new assistance to be given to the regions should be of great help in reducing the imbalance that has defied the efforts of successive Governments over a long period of years, and I think that I can echo the feelings of the whole House in saying that we wish this Bill well. I am very glad indeed to have received the support for it that we have had from all parts of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ELECTORAL LAW (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
2.9 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM)THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM) rose to move, That the Draft Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on July 18, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order relates mainly to local government elections in Northern

675
Ireland, and except in one or two instances which I shall mention, its main provisions do not affect either Stormont elections or Westminster elections.
The Order has been made necessary by the reorganisation of local government following on the proposals of the Local Government Review Body chaired by Sir Patrick Macrory. In place of the existing local authorties, of which there are 68, there will in future be 26 district councils. Under recent Stormont legislation, the Electoral Law Act 1971, elections for members of these new district councils must take place in the calendar year 1972, and thereafter every four years. This increased life span from three to four years is both in accordance with the recommendations of Macrory, and in line with the provisions of the Local Government Bill now before Parliament.
It had previously been intended that these local government elections should take place in October of this year, but following consultations with a number of groups and interests in Northern Ireland, and with the Opposition at Westminster, the Secretary of State decided that the local government elections this year should be on the basis of proportional representation. Some noble Lords may remember that this was the aim of the Private Member's Bill which was put forward earlier in the Session by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, and was the aim of an earlier Private Member's Bill put forward in the previous Session by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. The Secretary of State emphasised that his decision related to the 1972 elections only, and did not prejudge the methods to be used in subsequent elections in Northern Ireland, whether provincial or local.
Secondly, he made clear that proportional representation had been used in Northern Ireland—unlike the rest of the United Kingdom—in the 1920s, and it seemed to us worth experimenting to see whether it would result in the better representation of minority Parties. There are many people who believe this to be so, and it seemed worth putting it to the test in this particular election later on this year.
The Order before your Lordships to-day therefore differs from the Bill which had been through most of its stages at Stormont before Prorogation,
676
in that Article 4 has been added—that is the Article on page 4 of the draft Order headed, "Special Provisions as to the Local General Elections to be held in 1972". It is this Article that sets out the special provisions which will determine the form of the electoral system to be used in the local elections this year.
Section (2) of Article 4 states that any contested elections in what is described as a "district electoral area" shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote. The single transferable vote method—S.T.V. for short—has been chosen because it is the system which was previously used in Northern Ireland and is currently used in the Republic of Ireland as well as in other parts of the world, and because it enables people to indicate their preferences among candidates standing for Parties other than their own. Moreover, the system is a simple one for the elector to understand, since all he has to do is to indicate on the ballot paper the order of preference for as many candidates as he wishes.
The calculations that follow by the electoral officer are a great deal more complicated. I will spare the House at this stage a detailed explanation of that matter, although I have come prepared and, if necessary, can go through it when I reply to the debate. I should perhaps add that the proposal was made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and by others in this House that the Electoral Law Reform Society might have a contribution to make, and I can say that we are making full use of the expertise of the Society whose officers are helping us in working out the details of the scheme.
One of the consequences of the decision to introduce proportional representation in the 1972 local elections, was the need to form electoral areas which were large enough to enable proportional representation to function effectively. In implementing the Macrory proposal that there should be 26 district councils, the previous Government of Northern Ireland appointed a Boundary Commissioner. A well-known member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, Mr. Frank Harrison, Q.C., who is President of the Lands Tribunal, took on this task, and he recommended what should be the boundaries for the 26 new districts, and for

677
the wards with in the districts. This was a considerable undertaking of a quasi-judicial nature, in order that local representations could be heard and fully taken into account and it was carried out in a most thorough and independent manner. The Secretary of State and I have already personally thanked Mr. Harrison and his staff for the considerable service which they have rendered to the public in this matter, and I should like to place that on record again to-day.
The Boundary Commissioner has recommended the exact areas to be covered by the new district councils and the boundaries of 526 new wards within the district areas. These would have been small single-member wards to encourage the closest possible contact between the local councillors and the people they were elected to represent. The Secretary of State then considered a number of further local objections, but decided that it was right to accept the Boundary Commissioner's recommendations in full and without amendment. However, in order to obtain the benefits of proportional representation and to allow the system to operate effectively, it is necessary to have larger electoral units than single-seater wards, and this will be done by grouping the new Harrison wards together into clusters of not less than four nor more than eight, and the remaining steps that need to be taken are set out in Article 4, Sections (4), (5) and (6) of the draft Order. As noble Lords will see, these deal with the making and publishing of proposals concerning the grouping of wards by the Chief Electoral Officer, the procedure for handling objections by the Chief Electoral Officer and the submission of proposals to the Secretary of State, and the making of regulations by the Secretary of State.
To summarise my introduction to your Lordships, this part of the Order is concerned merely with the grouping together of these new wards into clusters of between four and eight, the boundaries of which have already, as a result of an extremely thorough process, been set by the Boundary Commissioner whose recommendations we have accepted. It will be seen from what I have said that a considerable amount of work still remains to be done, and as a result the
678
Secretary of State has said that it will be necessary to postpone the elections from October until later in the year. No date has yet been fixed but every effort will be made to complete the remaining stages as quickly as possible.
The other main provision of the Order to which I should draw your Lordships' attention is the creation of a new post of Chief Electoral Officer. This is contained in Article 6 which also sets out the provisions concerning persons appointed to assist the Chief Electoral Officer in the discharge of his duties. The Chief Electoral Officer will be an independent statutory official, in normal circumstances appointed by the Governor of Northern Ireland, who can be removed from office only by the Governor in certain specified circumstances. His responsibilities cover the implementation and administration of the electoral laws of Northern Ireland, the preparation and publication of electoral registers and the conduct of elections. It will be seen from subsection (4), in the middle of page 6 of the Draft Order, that the Chief Electoral Officer's responsibilities extend to Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland as well as to local government elections.
My Lords, the type of independent, centralised electoral machinery which is proposed is, broadly, similar to that which operates satisfactorily in a number of Commonwealth countries. This part of the Order was contained in a Bill which had been considered by the Parliament of Northern Ireland before Prorogation, and had reached Third Reading in the Senate. It was generally regarded as a useful change to make at a time when local government was being reorganised, with the result that some new arrangements would be needed in any event. This brief description covers the main provisions of the Draft Order. It will be seen that the Order is fairly limited in its scope, but we believe these are useful changes to make and that the results of the experiment with P.R. will be watched with considerable interest. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on July 18, be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
2.21 p.m.
LORD SHACICLETON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for a very short and extremely interesting account—and, if I may say so, rather thorough account, considering the short time he took—of an extremely complicated subject. I propose to speak only very briefly, first because there is a further important debate coming on—but that would not stop me if I thought it was right to do otherwise—but also because this Order has not only been through Stormont virtually, although some Amendments have been made since, but it has been debated twice at very great length, the first time on a Supply Day in another place; and it has had a general welcome. It is not amendable; nor would we wish to amend it, although I have one or two queries and one point I should like to make at this moment. I take it that if it proves necessary in the process of the working out of this new and somewhat unfamiliar procedure—which, as the noble Lord made clear, is really going to present electoral officers, candidates and others with a good deal of hard thinking in order to make it work—the Government will not hesitate to come hack with a further Order to amend any aspect.
But the important thing, apart from the many other arrangements, is the introduction of proportional representation, and I should like to say that, not for the first time, my noble friend Lord Brockway can be satisfied with his pioneer efforts in this direction. I find it maddening, after I have been in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Brockway, when I find that he was more right earlier than I was. But I really think that this is a constructive move. Of course, if we had had it earlier, and if we had had it in the elections for Stormont, it is quite possible we should not be in the situation in which we are to-day. It is quite possible, for instance, that Lord O'Neill of the Maine and others—and this is pure speculation—by the use of the single transferable vote might in fact have been strengthened instead of falling. To this extent, proportional representation has an advantage, particularly in a community where there is polarisation; and there is no doubt that Northern Ireland is classically a place where it should be applied. But I must make it clear—and I say so with all
680
respect to the noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, who must also have some satisfaction at this moment—that I am not in favour of its being applied elsewhere. If by any chance we should find ourselves in a situation in which we have regional Parliaments—which heaven forbid!—in this country, then I think that we should again have to think seriously as to whether, for all sorts of reasons, proportional representation would be necessary there. But that is a disaster which I hope is not likely to come. None the less, it may be that I shall find myself wrong again.
It is right to introduce proportional representation in Northern Ireland. As I understand it (I cannot remember whether I heard the noble Lord on this) this particular draft electoral law applies only to the next Elections and a further Order will be necessary at the end of a four-year period (is it?) or a three-year period. Perhaps the noble Lord will deal with this when he comes to reply: it is not a point of great substance. What this Order should do is to give much more of a chance for the moderate Parties—the Northern Ireland Labour Party, the Alliance Party and the Social Democratic and Labour Party—to do well, and tend to weaken the position of those of more extreme views. We shall see. It will be extremely interesting, but I believe that this will be a real contribution towards peaceful development in Northern Ireland.
My Lords, I have one or two further small points to make. First, I think we all find it rather odd that a deposit will be required for local government candidates. My first reaction was that this is the sort of thing that would make it more difficult for new Parties of a sensible kind to emerge, because it would be too costly. But I think I am convinced—and other noble Lords may be interested to hear what the noble Lord has further to say—that this is probably unavoidable in the present circumstances. I hope that at the earliest moment these deposits will be abolished. I understand that within this rather complicated system the proportion of votes that has to be obtained before a deposit is lost is not very great. If the noble Lord could say a word on this aspect it would be helpful.
Finally, I should like just to say this. I am increasingly bothered about the proposal about a plebiscite in Northern

681
Ireland. I know that it is consistent with views expressed by Government, but let me make it clear—particularly in view of the "Hear, hear!" from my noble friend behind me—that I am not in favour of plebiscites or of consultative referenda, though I do not wish to re-introduce that subject here. Also, in the purely Northern Ireland context, the result is foregone. Everybody knows that the majority of the population of Northern Ireland will vote to remain in the United Kingdom. So we shall be no further on in this matter; and I am very much afraid that it may be provocative. Although the noble Lord may feel that he is in honour committed, and the Government are in honour committed (I fully acknowledge that this may be so), to hold a plebiscite, I can see great advantages in at least having the local government elections first and seeing what emerges from them. This will very probably give a much more accurate picture of where the feelings lie than one of these blank plebiscite votes of a kind which are unsatisfactory and which may even be boycotted.
My Lords, having said that, I should like again to echo what the noble Lord has said about Mr. Harrison and the work of those who have been concerned with boundaries. I think it right to pay tribute to those who are not merely talking but actually working hard in the interests of a better and more peaceful Northern Ireland. It may be that we shall be in for more and bitter disappointments, but this at least is a right and a hopeful step. I hope that this will be the last Order that will come to us in this way and that in future we shall have a Select Committee, even if the Government will not agree to our having a Select Committee to examine treaties and legislation emanating from the E.E.C.
2.30 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I rise to give the support of the Liberal Benches to this Instrument and, in particular, to Section (2) of Article 4 which introduces proportional representation with the single transferable vote. I should also like to disabuse your Lordships' minds of any idea that this is a routine Liberal genuflexion to the idol of P.R. In fact, vulnerable though P.R. obviously is to the point of view of any minority Party, the characteristics of P.R. which make it
682
highly acceptable to us make it uniquely necessary in the situation of Northern Ireland. Democracy is not just about majority rule. It is about involving people in the important political decisions which affect their lives. And when you have an electoral system which for 50 long years has left a minority, and a large minority at that, in permanent opposition, you cannot claim that democracy is working. In fact, the electoral system as it is in Northern Ireland has created a sense of impotence in that minority and an impotence accompanied by frustration and rage, the effects of which are now before us.
We believe that in three very important ways proportional representation will help to heal the wounds of Northern Ireland. We believe that in the course of time it will give the minority an opportunity really to take part in the decisions which affect them, so that sense of impotence will be removed. Not less important, we believe that there will now be a choice within Parties and not only a choice between Parties—a choice within Parties which means that a Roman Catholic can vote for a Roman Catholic who is also a trade unionist; or if he wishes, for a Roman Catholic who represents interests other than sectarian interests. This may mean—and what could be more important?—that we could move the political division in Northern Ireland from one which is basically sectarian to a modern division based on the usual interests and attitudes which divide Parties, rather than the sterile division between religious communities that we have to-day.
Further, as the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, suggested, it may well mean that we have the election of more moderate rather than extremist persons to positions of authority. I would echo what the noble Lord said, and if the election of moderates had been possible in Northern Ireland over the last 50 years, as began to take place while proportional representation ruled in Northern Ireland, and as has taken place in the South where there has been proportional representation for many decades, as was confirmed in the election on that very issue in 1968 then behind the very people who have striven to give a moderate leadership to Northern Ireland there would have rallied a large

683
number who have not been able to express themselves through the ballot box, and many people who are dead would be alive today.
2.35 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, my speech will consist only of a few sentences: I just want to welcome this Order. The Minister of State made reference to the fact that this proposal was included in the Bill which I introduced a year ago, when I was opposed by both Front Benches. Perhaps I should welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition generously made reference to that Bill, not only today but before.
I am very glad that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is now fulfilling these responsibilities in Northern Ireland. I do not know anyone on the Government Benches who could contribute towards the terribly difficult situation in Northern Ireland in a more constructive and conciliatory way than he. Let me add that I regret very much the fact that he is not in his old position, because one is having more difficulties today than when he occupied that post. I believe that this Order is a great and constructive contribution towards the policy of a political rather than a military solution in Northern Ireland. But for this proposal to have proportional representation in local government elections, there would have been a great danger that those elections would have been boycotted by the minority. I hope that this Order will mean that such a situation will not arise and that there will not be developments in other directions to prevent the co-operation of the minority when elections take place.
May I say a word in support of what my noble friend Lord Shackleton said regarding the plebiscite? We all take the view that the issue of Northern Ireland and the unity of the whole of Ireland must be matters for consent, but I would add to what has been said a warning that there is a very great danger that unless the situation in other directions creates an atmosphere of co-operation, an early plebiscite might actually intensify the antagonisms because of the campaign which would necessarily occur
684
before it took place. I therefore urge that the Minister should be very careful indeed in any recommendation that this plebiscite should either precede the local elections or follow them immediately. While maintaining the policy that there should be a plebiscite, the Government should wait for a moment when it could take place without an intensification of the confrontation.
2.38 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the three noble Lords who have spoken for the general welcome they have extended to this Order. The question of deposits was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. He is quite correct in saying that deposits do not apply in local government elections in Great Britain, although they apply in Parliamentary elections. The situation in Northern Ireland has been different for many years. The deposit there has been £25 in the case of candidates standing for election to county councils and county borough councils, and £10 for those standing for election to urban and rural district councils. We accept that there is a case for saying the situation in Northern Ireland should be the same as in the remainder of the United Kingdom, but we took the view that in present circumstances it would not be wise to drop the practice of deposits, particularly with the introduction of P.R. This gives rise to a lot of names on the ballot paper, particularly in urban districts such as Belfast. The likelihood is that there will be a very considerable number of names on the ballot paper, so that the full benefits of P.R. may be obtained. Northern Ireland politics being what they are, it would be a simple matter to disrupt the elections completely. Informal groups could put up a whole host of names which would then have to appear on the ballot paper. This small deposit, only £15, is an effective deterrent because if a group of people were disposed to put up say 100 candidates for the purposes of disruption then £15 for each of them would add up. At this particular period of time, it seemed to us right to retain a deposit. However, our minds are in no sense closed for the future.

685
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked what proportion of the votes must be obtained if a candidate is to retain his deposit. I can give him the answer, but it may not mean a good deal to him. It is a quarter of the quota. In order to know how many actual votes are needed you have to know what the quota is. This is a technical matter—and I see the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, nodding her head—
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will be able to explain it to us both afterwards—but may I take it that the quota is something less than the total number of votes cast? "A quarter sounded rather a lot to me, but I take it that a quarter of the quota is a smaller amount.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, need not wait for the noble Baroness to explain it to him, because I can do it now. The quota is very much less than the total number of votes. It is the total number of votes cast, divided by one more than the number of vacant seats, plus one.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. This is a subject that we might next discuss in Committee on the European Communities Bill.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, also asked whether the provisions of the Order applied only to the 1972 local government elections. Article 4, which is the one that concerns proportional representation, indeed applies only to the 1972 elections. Therefore at some time in the four-year life of the new district councils there will need to be further legislation. The third point raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition concerned the plebiscite. This was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. The proposed plebiscite is outside the terms of this draft Order, but I take the point that this debate provides an opportunity
686
for both noble Lords to put their views on record. The Secretary of State discussed the plebiscite during Question Time in another place yesterday, and I do not think it would be right for me to try to add to what he said then.
I was most interested in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, not just on the mechanical workings of proportional representation but on what she sees as the real advantage of more effective representation—that a stronger local democracy should result. What we need to do is to see how this works out in practice. Many people feel as the noble Baroness does, and I have met several groups which have put forward arguments in similar terms in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, there are those who are not so sure that all these benefits will follow on the introduction of proportional representation, even if they hope that they will. There is very little contemporary evidence to go on, and as what there is comes from communities where conditions are very different from those in Northern Ireland, it is of only limited validity. So what we need to do is to see what the results of these local elections are, and then make some assessments for the future.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for his personal tribute. I came back from Belfast this morning. The darkness follows light so quickly that it is extremely difficult for anyone who is close to events to keep a sense of vision. It is most important to do so for many different reasons, particularly where the legislative programme is concerned. This series of Orders in Council are of fundamental structural importance. It is very easy to take our eye off them because of the more urgent pressures of the day-to-day situation. It would not be in the interests of, in this case, the future of local government in Northern Ireland if we were to allow ourselves to do so.
That covers, I think, all the points raised in this short debate. I am grateful for the reaction to this draft Order, and commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RHODESIA: SANCTIONS POLICY
2.46 p.m.
LORD ALPORT LORD ALPORT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether there has been any change in their intention to re-enact the Southern Rhodesian Orders in Council when they expire in November next. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I would not argue in this House or anywhere, that there is any direct parallel between the position in Rhodesia and that in Northern Ireland; yet there was one remark made in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, which seemed to me to have a very considerable bearing upon the present situation in Rhodesia. It is simply this. He regretted, and rightly so, that certain actions which could have been taken months or perhaps years ago, were not taken, because, as he said, if they had been taken some of the problems which we are facing at the present moment might not be so dire and difficult so far as Northern Ireland is concerned.
The reason why I raise the subject at this particular point in the business of your Lordships' House is that this same situation applies to Rhodesia. I do not think it right that we should leave some set of proposals to be on the table indefinitely while a period of reflection continues. I do not think that time is on our side, or on the side of the Rhodesians, at the present moment. I believe that there are certain things which could and should be done now which might help to prevent some of the problems which confront Rhodesia now, and will confront Rhodesia in the future—and not only Rhodesia, but Her Majesty's Government as well.
It is right that we should discuss this matter in your Lordships' House. I am sorry that so little attention has been paid to the problem in another place during these past months. As I said earlier on, I do not think that this is something which can be left to lie. As I understand it, at the present moment the Government's position is that the proposals agreed between Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Mr. Smith, I think last year, are to lie on the table, as the phrase goes, while there is a pause for reflection. I should
688
like to ask my noble friend the Minister of State how long this pause is to last, and who is supposed to do the reflecting? Is it expected that Mr. Smith, after due consideration, will come forward with new proposals which will help to resolve the doubts and difficulties of the situation and the lack of confidence, so far as his intentions are concerned, in the minds of a great majority of the Africans? May I ask whether he is likely to do that when presumably, at the present moment, the proposals which he agreed with Sir Alec Douglas-Home appear to remain the terms upon which the United Kingdom Government would be prepared to reach a settlement with the Rhodesian Front?
The second question that I should like to ask is whether it is the British Government which is to do the reflecting, and what lines are those reflections now taking? What are the possibilities that Her Majesty's Government have in mind? Are they considering abandoning or altering sanctions? Are they hoping that some change in the position in Rhodesia will get them off the difficult horns of the dilemma which they are on at the present moment? Are they working out some new and constructive policy to produce a solution which will be acceptable within the Five Principles and to all people in Rhodesia itself?
I felt—I may, of course, be wrong—that the decision to leave the proposals of last year on the Table indicates an understandable degree of exasperation and frustration on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers. It strikes me now, however, looking back, as being a slightly "governessy" attitude, the sort of thing that might apply to children in nursery days: "If you will not eat what cook has sent up, well, we will just leave it on the nursery table until you do."Your Lordships may remember how one sat there looking at that cold, glutinous mass of rice pudding, wondering whether to eat it and be sick or sit where one was until bedtime came.
There is a tendency—and that is why I take that particular simile—to consider and regard the Africans of Rhodesia as children, and to believe that change will take place and that they will learn with the passage of time as a result of the arguments put forward by the Chiefs, or what-you-will; that they will change their

689
minds because they will realise the wisdom of the British Government and the Rhodesian Front and how important it is to them to take the advantages held out, so it is said, within the proposals that were reached by Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Mr. Smith.
Anybody who knows Rhodesia well, as many of your Lordships do, would know that there was no chance at any time with intimidation, pressure and all the rest of it put right out of the way—of an African majority in the towns, in the urban areas, in the native purchase areas or in the Tribal Trust lands, accepting any agreement which was acceptable to the Rhodesian Front régime. As Bishop Muzorewa has said, the terms which are at the present moment lying on the Table can lie there till doomsday and they will not be acceptable to African opinion in Rhodesia. If there is any illusion in your Lordships' House or in this country that the Chiefs or a small middle class of Africans can be compelled, persuaded or bribed to endorse the agreement, I can assure you that that is not so. Your Lordships will know, I am sure, that it was the deliberate policy of the British South Africa Company, and subsequent Southern Rhodesian Governments, over a long period of time to emasculate the powers of the Chiefs, and they did so extremely effectively. They turned them from their hereditary and traditional role within the tribe into the servants of the Government.
I say nothing against the integrity of the Chiefs. They are men of power, they are men of dignity, and also men of courage. Although they sometimes look narrowly at their own interests, they also reflect the will of the people when it is possible for the people to express that will; not when that will and the views of the people are subject to pressure from the Government and are hidden from the Chiefs. I have seen, when I was for that period in Rhodesia, Chiefs who at one time appeared to be agreeing to something which was in accordance with Government policy, changing their views very quickly indeed when they realised what the real views of their tribal areas were. There is no chance, in my view, of any factor arising which will enable the present proposals which lie on the Table to become acceptable within the Five Principles.
In those circumstances, what then should Her Majesty's Government here do? Should they leave the situation gradually to mature until something happens and which will perhaps make some new development of policy possible? I thought I would bring to your Lordships' attention in connection with this the background, as it was understood in Rhodesia, to the negotiations and to the settlement which we are at the present moment considering. It is contained in an article in the Rhodesian Financial Gazette of April this year. To me it is a most illuminating article. The Rhodesian Financial Gazette represents very closely the point of view of the rank and tile and the influential supporters in industry and agriculture as well on the Rhodesia Front regime. This is the report which it produced on April 14 about the efforts which were being made by the Rhodesian Front spokesmen to explain their attitude to the proposals made by Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Mr. Smith. It says:
"The Government's race policy will not change significantly—whether or not there is a settlement with Britain. This has been made clear by the Prime Minister, Mr. Ian Smith, in the current series of talks he is giving to the Rhodesian Front meetings throughout the country. Mr. Smith's campaign round the country is the third stage in a drive by the Front to convince members that the party has no intention of changing its basic policies—despite what opposition parties claim."
It goes on:
"At its series of meetings the Rhodesian Front has been stressing that while it will implement the proposals, it will do so in a 'Rhodesian spirit', which probably bears little resemblance to the 'spirit' envisaged by Whitehall."
It is against that sort of background that the proposals which form the basis of the settlement at the present moment lie on the Table. I suggest to your Lordships, and I ask the Government whether they will not agree, that the fact that those proposals remain current is a continuing obstacle to any new initiative, whether it be in Rhodesia or here in the United Kingdom. I should like to suggest to them that the time has now come to remove them, and to say quite categorically that the proposals which were proved by the Pearce Commission to be unacceptable under the Fifth Principle are now no longer a basis for settlement with the Rhodesian Government.
At the same time I believe they should do two other things as well: they should make it clear that in any further discussions it is essential that Bishop Muzorewa personally, and a representative of the organisation over which he presides, should be parties to those discussions. I can only give your Lordships my own personal evidence in this connection. When I had the opportunity of meeting and speaking to the Bishop here not many months ago I felt quite clear that if it had been possible for the late Sir Edgar Whitehead and Mr. Duncan Sandys to be negotiating with him at the head of the African Nationalist Party there would have been not only a chance of reaching a settlement but also a settlement which would be sustained and supported by the African opinion behind that leadership.
One must not forget that one of the great trials and tribulations, indeed one of the tragedies of Rhodesia is the way in which African Nationalist leadership has been forced always towards the Left as a result of the lack of any co-operation, any "give", so to speak, by European public opinion. Joshua Nkomo during the early days used to speak of himself as a Rhodesian, and there was a chance then that there would be an agreement which would be acceptable both to black and to white and might provide a stable solution for Rhodesia, but he fell under many influences which I regard as being tragic from his point of view and against the interests of African security in Rhodesia as well as himself. But he was largely impelled in that direction because of the lack of sympathy and support and obvious intention eventually to find some compromise on the part of the leadership within the European community. It would be a tragedy if Bishop Muzorewa were forced into exactly the same position. He is a man of quite different character and background from Joshua Nkomo, but we know what it is like to be an African leader subjected to pressures of all sorts. One must stand up for things that are not easily congenial to one or have behind one a wild and irresponsible group which is too easily identified in newspapers and by European opinion, as the real core of African political opinion. That is why I say that
692
time is not on our side. It is not on the side of the moderates who remain in Rhodesia or on the side of the Europeans there. I therefore urge Her Majesty's Government to do everything in their power to strengthen moderate opinion, both European and particularly African, at this time.
This brings me to the question of sanctions, to which my Question is directly related. I have all along taken the view, certainly after their failure during, the first few months to bring a solution to the Rhodesian problem, that sanctions must fail because they are clumsy, a blunt instrument of policy, passive in their form, negative and all-embracing. Like the rain, they fall on the just and unjust alike—on men like Mr. Chinamano and Mr. Todd, who have suffered imprisonment on account of their political views, and on our interests, in exactly the same way as they fall on the leading members of the Rhodesian Front and most anti-British elements that exist in Rhodesia.
If sanctions are to be effective they must, if possible, be made positive, dynamic and discriminating, and I have a suggestion which may or may not be practicable. We read in the newspapers recently that the Burley part of the tobacco industry was suffering and might collapse. I do not have the newspaper cutting with me from which to quote and I apologise in advance if my figures are wrong, but the principle remains the same. I understand that the Burley tobacco crop in Rhodesia is manufactured to the tune of 80 per cent. by Africans. If that is the case, then it should be possible to distinguish in our sanctions policy between African-produced tobacco—for example, Burley tobacco—and the ordinary high-grade tobacco produced for the most part by European farmers. Is it possible to distinguish between tobacco grown on estates which give special advantages for African advancement—for example, special rates of wages and better conditions—and those which do not? Might it be possible by this means to encourage the attitude of mind among both Europeans and Africans that it is in their interests to be on the side of constitutional and racial progress and harmony, rather than on the side of punishing the whole population alike?
In the case of education, we know very well that the majority of African schooling is still, certainly in large measure, under the control and management of the missionary societies. In my view, sanctions should not apply against African education. I agree with the British Council of Churches that there should be some means by which money from this and from other countries is made available for the advancement of African education regardless of sanctions, and made available in such a way as to ensure that it is applied to African education and not diverted to other means.
My Lords, there are many other ways in which what I frankly mean to be discrimination within sanctions could be achieved, to the encouragement of those who have suffered most as the result of the but against those who have been the perpetrators of it. My Question is to ask the Government what their policy is with regard to sanctions. I have tried to put forward an idea which I hope may be of some value and may be considered.
Behind the situation in Rhodesia there is a continuing and increasingly tense security problem. I said earlier that time was a factor. And time is indeed a factor in this. One knows very well that increasing resources of Rhodesia are being devoted to the defence and security forces. One knows the development that is taking place in the situation in Portuguese East Africa. One knows the continuing and increasing influence of the Chinese penetration of Eastern Africa. It is a theme which I developed in your Lordships' House on a previous occasion, and I will not do so again. All I would say is that I do not believe it is enough in circumstances like these to leave a set of proposals which have no chance of success on the table for a period of reflection. This is a particular point in time when a new initiative is due from Her Majesty's Government and should be taken without delay.
3.7 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I find it somewhat difficult to follow my noble friend Lord Alport, for he has made a speech which I did not think he would make. But may I say that it seemed to me that what the noble Lord was trying
694
to convey to your Lordships was that the proposals which remain on the table are not really acceptable to the Africans. We know that at the moment they have rejected them, but he overlooked the fact that over the last six years there have been talks about talks. There have been meetings on the "Fearless" and the "Tiger", and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has carried out extensive negotiations of a secret nature with the Smith Government. He came back here and reported very fully, in the debates which we had on the Pearce Commission proposals, on the result of those talks. Incidentally, I do not think that the noble Lord. Lord Alport, took part in that debate.
My Lords, there are, I am afraid, other reasons why I cannot entirely go along with my noble friend in the speech he has just made, much as I respect his great experience in Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I believe that he was there as High Commissioner from 1961 to 1963. As I see it, this is not November and something may well happen in Rhodesia between now and that month. It will then be—in November—the duty of Her Majesty's Government to state the reasons whether they consider it necessary to continue with sanctions in the absence of any agreement which might eventuate in the period up to November. I, for one, shall listen very carefully to what Her Majesty's Government say in November, and shall then vote according to my conscience.
I have always disliked sanctions, but at the same time I have always said that I did not know what any self-respecting Government could have done in 1966, in a dispute between Her Majesty's Government and the Rhodesian Government at that time, but impose sanctions. Those are the facts, my Lords. It is not for me, as I see it, to go into the merits of that dispute, but I think I know enough to appreciate that in 1966 when sanctions were imposed, no Government at Westminster, of whatever complexion, could have washed their hands of the whole business. If they had done so, I am quite sure they would have lost all credibility anywhere in the world.
Dealing with the morality of the case, I dislike sanctions, and I would agree with noble Lords that it seems futile to continue with sanctions when others

695
break them. It seems futile for this country to go it alone—
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment? I did not say that I regarded it as futile to continue with sanctions when others broke them. What I said was that I thought sanctions should be made discriminating between those who support, broadly speaking, the illegal regime and those who are opposed to it, and particularly between the European and African.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I was not quoting him; I was quoting the opinions of other noble Lords, who have spoken in previous debates, on the futility of sanctions. I was not necessarily referring to what my noble friend said just now. My Lords, I dislike sanctions and I agree with my noble friend that it seems futile for us to continue with them when others break them. It seems futile for this country to go it alone. Sanctions were supposed to be effective "in a matter of weeks": we have had them for six years. It has cost this country in lost trade something in the region of £48 million which we can ill afford. Sanctions have hit the African in Rhodesia harder than they have hit the White Rhodesians. The Africans for whom we have, or ought to have, responsibilities continue to be hit. The Rhodesian African continues to find it increasingly difficult to find employment in Rhodesia. We have to face all this. Are we not near the position at present when this policy is almost virtually at an end?
As regards the morality of our actions, can any one country point a finger at us about international morality when they have honoured sanctions in the breach? There may be some noble Lords who feel that, unless some agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the parties in Rhodesia is reached by November, sanctions must continue. I can conceive that the Government view—although I obviously do not know what the Government's view may be—that to drop sanctions would offend members of the Commonwealth. In that event it seems to me that it would probably be in order for my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to go to the United Nations and say
696
that we have played our part for six years, that we have virtually imposed sanctions alone, and ask why we should continue.
In spite of the vehement speeches made on occasion by leaders of the coloured Commonwealth, sometimes in racial tones, we hear very much less of this of late. I suggest that the heady effects of independence are passing and giving way to an awareness of the heavy responsibilities of independence in the running of one's own Government. I do not think therefore, for the reasons I have given, that the Commonwealth would necessarily condemn us universally if sanctions were withdrawn. In the final analysis this is a matter which will have to be settled between White Rhodesians and African Rhodesian, in Rhodesia. Failure is far too awful to contemplate.
My Lords, I hope that in the speeches that follow that no hard words about Mr. Smith and his de facto Government will fall from the lips of noble Lords, for I have this to say to Mr. Smith—and I quote from a paragraph in Lord Goodman's speech in the debate on the Pearce Commission's Report [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21/6/72, col. 267]. Referring to Mr. Smith, Lord Goodman said this:
"First of all, it is great nonsense to say that he will"—
referring to Mr. Smith—
"achieve nothing by talking to the Africans, because all they want is a change of the terms. He would achieve miracles by talking to the Africans if he merely discussed the terms with them. No great revision of these terms would be necessary to achieve a settlement with a large number of moderate Africans, and the noble and learned Lord Lord Gardiner, has rightly put his finger on a change of attitude on the part of Africans that has appeared over recent months and in the last year or so. It would not be necessary for Mr. Smith to revolutionise these proposals in order to secure more than a modicum of acceptance by the Africans throughout the country. What he would have to do is to show that he rated them as human beings; that he, too, regarded them as worthy of the self-respect of which, by the answer they have now given, they show they regard themselves as worthy".
In conclusion, it is my hope that before November Mr. Smith will act on this proposal. If he does, and if this unhappy business is settled—and there is nobody else at present in Rhodesia who can do it but Mr. Smith—then I think countless millions of people everywhere would show their gratitude at what had been achieved.
3.17 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I like to maintain the courtesies of this House. Therefore, may I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, that I have listened to his speech with, I think, understanding, and if I do not immediately make reference to it it is only because later on I hope to do so. I have looked forward to this debate with a strange eagerness. I have done so because I have wanted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, would say. He has almost unique experience of Rhodesia. I remember one occasion after he had served there when he went to examine whether there was a possibility of a settlement, and he came back with proposals. On that occasion I did not think that those proposals went far enough, but I was very careful indeed in the speech which I made not to seek to spoil them because, all through these tragic years in Rhodesia, I have been much more concerned to bring about a settlement than to be engaged in controversy on one side or another. I have not been disappointed by the speech which the noble Lord has made. I might almost say that he has now reached a stage where he is more pro-African than I am. In view of the kind of conflicts which we had in another place, that is a quite extraordinary development.
I hate the idea of just saying, "I told you so"; but I should like the Minister in approaching this problem, to remember the speeches which were delivered in this House when first the proposals for a settlement were made. Some of us then warned the Government that those proposals would never be acceptable to the African people, and we then warned the Government that they would find, at the end of any fair estimate of the opinion of the people of Rhodesia as a whole, that those terms would be rejected. My Lords, that has happened. I want very strongly to support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that it is now a mistake to think that we are in a situation of pause and calm in which we can reflect over months. Anyone who is in contact with the situation in Rhodesia knows that there is not now that situation of pause and of calm. One knows that instead, unless action is taken, the extremes in Rhodesia will become emphasised. You now have on the African side, in the African National
698
Council, a moderate and a constructive and conciliatory leadership. Let nothing be done in response and that leadership will become more extreme. You have on the European side the inevitable reaction to the rejection of the settlement proposals, the more extreme elements on the Rhodesian Front becoming more assertive and demanding. Let this period of pause and inaction go on and you will have the extremes on both sides in Rhodesia becoming stronger.
My Lords, let us just look at what has happened in Rhodesia since the settlement terms were rejected. There has been this appalling tragedy at Tangwena about which the noble Baroness spoke at Question Time. This is the quite incredible situation where for centuries African people who have been at home in their areas are flying out because the area is declared to be white territory.
There is this isolation of the children from their parents, from the comfort and happiness and care which were given to them on the farms and the Government stepping in and taking them away to what they call ironically a "welfare institution". This is the kind of outrage which, if it had been committed by a Hitler or a Stalin, the Whole House would have condemned.
Let me just say that the warning which the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, gave about hoping that nothing would be said against Mr. Smith did not apply to me. I do not believe in these attacks on individuals; it is policy which is the important thing. But let me say that the action of the Administration in Rhodesia in seeking to use the Chiefs, who are their salaried officials, in order to break down African opposition among the tribes and sabotage the views of the opposition of the African population about the Pearce Commission, is another indication of the worse situation that there is in Rhodesia now. Then there is the decision of the Administration in Rhodesia that the African National Council shall not be allowed to hold any meetings in the tribal area.
There is the threat to the leaders of the African National Council, and the fact that some of them have had to flee for safety outside Rhodesia. There is the continued house arrest of the ex-Prime Minister of Rhodesia, Mr. Garfield Todd

699
—and one is glad to have welcomed his daughter here. But there is not just that. There is the fact that (what is it?) for eight years now the leaders of the African movements have been kept in detention. I remember speaking with Joshua Nkomo ten years ago in London, and I suggested that within five years he would be Prime Minister of Rhodesia. He objected; he said he would be Prime Minister in one year—and he has been eight years in detention. These are scandals which a democratic country like ours ought not to tolerate for one moment.
My Lords, the Question is about sanctions. Let me again say that I hate the whole method of the penalties which are being imposed, and I hate the method of sanctions. But in the circumstances of the last years—and now—what could possibly have been done when you had in Rhodesia a Government which defied British influence, declared its independence and became a rebel Government? What else could you do? The noble Lord, Lord Gridley—and it is here that I am able to make a reference to his speech which I think anyone should make when following another speaker—said there was a danger of our becoming isolated. There was that danger just a few weeks ago. I think the tendency now is in the opposite direction.
We have had a meeting of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee. That meeting, representing all the countries of the Commonwealth, quite unanimously declared in favour of much stronger sanctions. They made four proposals. These included the proposal that any Governments or any industrial companies which broke sanctions should suffer penalties. It was only by the influence of the British representative on that Committee that those proposals were not sent immediately to the United Nations under the British influence it was agreed that they should be referred to the separate Governments for consideration. I am going to ask the noble Baroness when she replies to say—I put this as a Question earlier on and she indicated that a reply would be available later—whether Her Majesty's Government have now come to conclusions about the decisions which were reached by the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee.
700
Every country in the Commonwealth is now in favour of much stronger sanctions than have been pursued before.
But there is not merely that, my Lords. Last week there was a meeting of the Security Council. This is a report which appeared in The Times on July 29:
"The United Nations Security Council called today on all states with economic and other relations with Rhodesia to end such relations immediately'.
"It demanded that all member states should scrupulously carry out their obligations to enforce economic sanctions against Rhodesia. All the members voted for today's resolution except the United States."
Therefore the tendency now is not what it was a few weeks ago: that this country can become isolated. The tendency now is in the other direction, in favour of stronger measures.
I was most interested in the noble Lord's suggestion that there should be some discrimination about sanctions. I should like to think that it was possible. I doubt very much whether 80 per cent. of the tobacco industry is under the control of Africans. I think that 80 per cent. or more is produced by the Africans; but I doubt very much whether 80 per cent. of the control of that industry is not in the hands of great plantations which are European-owned and European-dominated. I find it extraordinarily difficult, and I should like to explore the idea, to see how you could apply sanctions to Rhodesia and discriminate on the basis of production between Europeans and Africans. I think that on education the noble Lord made a practical point. I should like to support him in urging on the Government that, despite the fact that the settlement has been rejected, the British Government should maintain their offer to make a substantial contribution towards the education of Africans in Rhodesia. I think that would be a practical point.
I want to end on a constructive note, because we are all wrong if we are thinking only in terms of penalties. I suggest that if any settlement of the problem is to be found, it must be found not just in an exchange of views between our Government and the Smith Administration. If we accept the Fifth Principle, that the whole people must support any settlement, the logic is that the whole people should be consulted in making

701
that settlement. That is logical. At present, we have in the leadership of the African National Council in Rhodesia moderation and construction. I wonder how many Members of this House read the quite extraordinary report of the speech which Bishop Muzorewa, the head of the African National Council, made in the European area. This was a meeting which was quite extraordinary for Rhodesia. It was attended by 900 people, the majority of whom were Europeans. They gave emphatic support to the views which the Bishop expressed. May I just read a little of that report:
"Bishop Muzorewa said a high percentage of Rhodesians were Christians, and among Africans there was ' a deep aversion to violence … and a desire to solve differences, no matter how great, through consultation rather than by bloodshed'.
"There were virtually no tribal conflicts in Rhodesia, and the whites were not mainly settlers, but citizens by birth or otherwise'.
"He continued: 'No sane, responsible leader would want to expel its citizens. Democratic rule will also provide for the protection of the minority and their property'."
That is the spirit in which we shall find a solution and a settlement of this Rhodesian problem.
I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to recognise that the settlement proposals are now absolutely obsolete. There is not the least hope that you can go back to them and get agreement upon them. You must now look forward, and if you are looking forward you must bring representatives of the African as well as of the Administration into consultation. This proposal of a constitutional conference, which will represent the Europeans, the African and the British Government, to work out a settlement of this problem is now the only constructive solution. I beg Her Majesty's Government not just to put it into the background but to recognise that unless they proceed with this constructive idea the situation in Rhodesia will get worse, and the tragedy of actual racial conflict may occur if we are inactive.
3.36 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, this debate has so far taken on a wider scope than the Unstarred Question would suggest. First, I want to comment on something which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, about the unanimity of the Commonwealth in
702
asking for the intensification of sanctions. He will remember that on July 13 he had down a Question asking what was to be done to tighten up sanctions, and I asked a supplementary question of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who was replying for the Government, I asked:
"Can my noble friend tell the House which members of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee have themselves been trading with Rhodesia?".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13/7/72; col. 355.]
The answer that I got was that the noble Marquess did not know. But he took note of my remarks. Later on, the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, asked this supplementary question:
"My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? Is it not true that in some cases where members of the Commonwealth break sanctions it is because they have to do so in order to live at all?"—[col. 355.]
My Lords, the inference of that is that sanctions are being broken by the very people who are asking for them to be extended. All this sanctions business is surrounded by such an atmosphere of humbug and hypocrisy that it is almost unbelievable.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? It is quite clear to what my noble friend Lady Gaitskell was referring. She was not referring to the Commonwealth at large which, as everyone knows, is in favour of keeping sanctions. My noble friend was referring simply to Zambia, and it would be quite impossible for Zambia to live without using Rhodesian electricity and importing some food. That was allowed by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations.
Loan GRIMSTON or WESTBURY: My Lords, I can only quote what the noble Baroness said. She said:
"Is it not true that in some cases…"
not "in a case". She said "in some cases", and from that I assume that she was referring to more than one country.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Two cases in one country, my Lords.
LORD GRIMSTON or WESTBURY: Anyway, my Lords, as I was saying, the working of sanctions is surrounded by a fog of humbug and hypocrisy. To ask for them to be intensified is simply to ask for the fog to be made worse.

703
I must say that I never thought I should hear my noble friend Lord Alport actually ask for the reduction of sanctions. I thought he was going to ask for them to be strengthened, and I must say that I was almost flabbergasted when I heard him suggest that sanctions should be reduced. That is in fact what he has asked for. One has not had time to think very deeply on his proposal when he asks for sanctions to be made discriminatory. My first reaction to that is that, in view of the way in which sanctions have operated so far, it would seem absolutely impossible to make them discriminatory. One would get into a worse mix-up than one is in at present.
Let us take a look at what is happening. The sanctions have been breached in many directions. The original reason for their introduction, which is never quoted now, is the reason for keeping them on. Every other reason is given. For instance, take the Beira Patrol. It is said that if that is taken off we shall let the Russians in. It is no longer being imposed to keep out oil: everybody knows that it is not doing so. When the Secretary of State visited Salisbury I suppose that his own aeroplane had to be refuelled with petrol brought in in defiance of sanctions. On one hand the Beira Patrol is being maintained, and on the other hand petrol which is known to have been brought in against sanctions is being accepted. That is one absurd thing.
Then there is the question of America and chrome. The American Administration wanted the chrome embargo put on again, but Congress would not have it; so America is openly evading sanctions. As we know, many countries actually in the Commonwealth are breaking the sanctions. With all that going on, to suppose that one could introduce a viable system of discriminatory sanctions is being, to put it mildly, altogether too optimistic. One suggestion which shows some thinking in the right direction from my point of view is that it is high time sanctions were reduced. I would go so far as to say that the time has arrived, with the mess that sanctions are in, when they should be removed altogether. It is not very honourable for Her Majesty's Government to be a party to maintaining a policy which is in ribbons in every
704
other direction. I should like the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, when she replies to this debate, to make it clear that after November—and of course the Government are committed to keeping sanctions till then; the Orders are there—the Government should not be committed to the present situation, first because of the new demands which have been introduced, and secondly because of the shambles which the sanctions policy is now in.
3.42 p.m.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, I should like to express my disagreement with those of my noble friends who have stated in the past their belief that the Fifth Principle of Sir Alec Douglas-Home's Five Principles should be scrapped and that the proposed settlement with Rhodesia should be implemented without the agreement of the African majority. The people who have expressed that view have not been very vocal in this debate but they certainly have been on previous occasions, and perhaps they will speak later. It is a fairly widespread view among noble Lords, and it needs correction.
Many of your Lordships will have seen a recent B.B.C. television series on the British Empire. Indeed those programmes were the subject of a debate initiated in this House by my noble friend Lord Ferrier. Unlike the producer of the series, I do not believe that British colonial rule consisted only of beatings, executions and oppression in one form or another. On the contrary, when the time comes for a full and fair assessment of our colonial record I think we shall emerge with considerable credit. Not the least creditable of our achievements was that we sought, and were largely successful, to bring forward to independence all the subject peoples for whom we were responsible. In some cases it may be that independence was granted too soon and that the people were not ready for it; but I think this was forced upon us by the circumstances.
Leaving aside the rather special case of our North American colonies on the Eastern seaboard of the United States, there have been only two exceptions to our practice of granting independence to the majority in colonial territories. The first was South Africa; and there, after

705
one of the most generous examples of peace that have ever been made between victor and vanquished, we handed over full power to the white minority. In due course our trust was betrayed, with consequences for the African and coloured inhabitants of that country of which we are all aware. There were terrible and humiliating consequences, and they are still with us to-day. The second exception is of course Rhodesia, where independence has been seized illegally by the white minority Government. It is probably unfair to attribute blame to the Liberal Government in 1910 which handed over power to the white minority in South Africa, because it was difficult then to foresee what would happen and it may be that no other course was open to them. But let us at least not make the same mistake again. Let us ensure that this time in the case of Rhodesia we do not hand over power to the minority.
I have not myself been a consistent supporter of Her Majesty's Government's Rhodesia policy and, notwitstanding the brilliant advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I did not vote in favour of the settlement, because although it was superficially attractive there was no satisfactory guarantee that it would be honestly implemented by future Rhodesian Governments. I did not vote against the settlement because the Africans were given the right of veto. They have now exercised that right—wisely, in my opinion—and, equally wisely, the Government have accepted that the settlement cannot be implemented and have said that a pause is now necessary for reflection.
My noble friend Lord Alport said that the settlement proposals were still on the Table and that this was not sufficient; but I feel that the pause means, in effect, that there must be some movement by the white Rhodesians towards the views of the African majority and, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said and as my noble friend Lord Alport also said, this must mean taking into consultation on future developments the African Nationalist leaders: otherwise you are not going to get any advance. In the meanwhile sanctions are continuing and I do not see what more can be expected of the Government in the present circum-
706
stances. It is regrettable that we have not achieved a settlement; but it is surely better to have no settlement than to have one made on dishonourable terms, as would be the case if it were made without the consent of the Africans. That is why I personally regard the Fifth Principle as so vitally important and why I could not support the Government were the Fifth Principle to be jettisoned. I do not think for a moment that the Government are jettisoning it.
On the matter of sanctions, it seems to me that the Government cannot commit themselves at this stage. My noble friend Lord Alport suggested, if I understood him correctly, that sanctions should be strengthened. Perhaps he did not mean that they should be strengthened; he certainly suggested that they should be made discriminatory in order not to hurt those people who are trying to help. No doubt the noble Baroness will say whether she thinks this is possible. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that in practice it would be very difficult to carry out that suggestion. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, also said that the Commonwealth countries were all in favour of the strengthening of sanctions. This is true. I am sure it is true that Zambia are breaking the sanctions only because they have no alternative. It is not only the Commonwealth countries who are affected and concerned in trading with Rhodesia. The United States, Japan, some of our E.F.T.A. partners and E.E.C. countries are also affected. We have to face the fact that if sufficient countries ignore sanctions—and I do not say that point has been reached, but it may be reached—sanctions could become a farce and we should have to review our position.
I believe that the general policy of Her Majesty's Government at the present time is correct; I hope that they will continue on these lines and I interpret the phrase "the settlement lying on the Table" as meaning that any movement will have to come from the white Rhodesian side, and in any future negotiations Bishop Muzorewa, and his African colleagues, will have to be taken into consultation.
3.53 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I am afraid that I hold lax views on morality

707
in politics in that I have always agreed with Lord Carteret who in the eighteenth century, when writing instructions to one of our Ambassadors, said:
"It shall be your duty to jumble out something that will be of interest to our country."
National security and national welfare are always the two things which must come foremost in any discussion of foreign policy or international relations. These are essential. I sometimes dissent from my friends when they urge that this country should take a particularly strong line because they disapprove the conduct and policy of our allies or other countries with which we may not be closely connected. I dissent because invariably it is not possible for this country to dispose of its resources in pursuit of what one might call strictly moral aims. Sometimes one has to make distinctions and one has to make compromises.
For instance, although I think that the Vietnam War began in folly, and is continuing as an evil war involving the methods which are waged by our American allies, I have often dissented from those who think that our Government—whether the present or the previous Government—should have taken some special measures to indicate to our American allies how detestable they thought their policies were. It is much more our duty to act in those concerns in foreign affairs in which we personally can have some concrete influence. It is much more important that this country should devote its attentions to Northern Ireland than to Vietnam.
However, when it comes to the Rhodesian problem we have to recognise that, for better or worse, although we have little power in the matter, it is, at any rate for this decade, an issue in which we must take into account the moral problems. We have little power to do good—and perhaps I here dissent a little from what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said when he called for particular action to be taken by the Government to bring the Africans into consultation in Rhodesia. I do not see how we have the power to do this. But, having said that, let it be remembered that we have a special relationship with Rhodesia. We cannot avoid the fact that it was once a part of the Commonwealth and
708
that the Rhodesians are still de jure subjects of the Crown.
Again, I disagree with African opinion which thought that the British had a duty to mount an armed force to overwhelm the Smith régime when it declared unilateral independence. I must say, as an old member of the Joint Planning and Intelligence Staff in the War Cabinet during the War, that I would have hesitated to advise any general to mount such an operation. I believe that had such an operation been mounted it would have ended in a situation such as that seen in the years from 1776 to 1778 in North America. Nevertheless, the fact that we do not have this power greatly to influence what goes on in Rhodesia does not to my mind at this moment absolve us from pursuing the policy which we have had to pursue since the Declaration of Independence by Mr. Smith.
The British Government nailed their colours to certain principles. It was not only the British Government of the time which did that; it was the Opposition which has become the British Government to-day. It would be regarded as a great betrayal of the principles we have stood for publicly if we now, at this moment, abolished sanctions. I share all the doubts which noble Lords have expressed about the validity of sanctions. I fully understand that the time may come when, from sheer weariness, from the sheer absurdity of the situation, with all other countries in the world trading with Rhodesia, we think it right to abandon our stand. But that time has certainly not yet come. It would be a great mistake if we fell out of step with other nations in the Commonwealth.
In this decade this issue has become something of a moral crusade among the younger members of our society. It is strongly felt to be one of the issues on which we can declare, at some cost to ourselves, our concern with the black populations in the world in their underdeveloped countries. This, it may be said, is mere sentimentalism. Yet there should be in each decade some issues which stir the sentiments not only of the young but of many civilised people. Surely the feeling that in the world to-day there is a horrible disadvantage attaching to countries in Africa—in fact,

709
to black peoples all over the world—is a motivating force, one of the factors which stimulate and excite the imagination of many people to-day.
I think we should lose faith as a Government if at this moment we changed our stand. That is the only reason why I felt obliged to speak to-day. I think the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, about some way of modifying sanctions should be studied. I share the scepticism expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that one can have, as it were, a two-tier sanctions policy, but nevertheless let it be studied. I am very glad to have heard the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, with all his experience, opened this debate, and I should like to associate myself with another noble Lord, Lord Vernon, who I believe shares some of my own diffidence about speaking on this subject and whose remarks I took particularly to heart.
4.1 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, before saying what I wish to say, I should like to express my great admiration and respect for the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I say that now because what I am going to say does not entirely coincide with—in fact, it differs quite widely from—the aspect which he has painted. I rise to make a brief contribution to this debate, because I view with increasing distaste the policy of sanctions. The habit of preaching to other countries is certainly an easy exercise. Perhaps the world would be a better place if members of the United Nations decided to set a good example, instead of their present attitude of preaching. Charity is not the only virtue which should begin at home.
One cannot abolish the cultural immaturity of another race by their premature promotion to a dominant position. Ideally, the Government of a country should, as I see it, be the product of a system that is likely to place government in the hands of those competent to manage and use it wisely. The Rhodesians of European origin did not take another nation's country. They have spent generations in building a new country whose growth has attracted other settlers of African origin, with African standards of life and thought. Suddenly to pretend that they are all of equal status, differing only in colour, and that they can therefore
710
be treated as one nation would mean, in short, the handing over of the present controlling minority to an immature majority with a totally different culture and outlook on life. One look at Africa teaches one that the prematurely independent countries in Africa are positive emblems of immaturity.
With those few general remarks I want now to come to this Question and to sanctions, with particular reference to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and to recent statements in the Press that the Rhodesians of European origin seem to get an unsympathetic attitude from some of the Press. I gather from the Press that the British Government have joined with other members of the United Nations in urging the continuance, and still more the stiffening, of sanctions against Rhodesia. Surely we should reflect on what we are doing. Sanctions spell attempted economic murder. This is one of the aspects of war. May I ask whether the attempt to strangle a nation with an economic rope is any less ruthlessly uncivilised than strangling an individual with a rope of hemp? Furthermore, is not this policy senseless because it is unlikely to breed success? It will result in the poisoning of our future relationship with both races in a country whose friendship is of great importance to us geographically, industrially and in many other ways. It will even prejudice the livelihood of the coloured Africans whose welfare it professes to promote.
Do we so blatantly adhere to the time-honoured principle that the way to treat a dissenter is first to knock him down and then to lead him up to grace? Is not the scheme agreed between Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Mr. Smith the only visible and viable hope of gaining time—this is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Alport—for an ultimately amicable solution of a problem which inevitably defies any immediate final settlement? I am not blind to the immense difficulties of the Rhodesian situation, but I am sure that time and a continuously flexible approach is the only road to hope in solving a problem so intrinsically difficult. The dream that one can achieve peace and plenty through the medium of economic blackmail, in which we are engaged, can only end in a

711
nightmare. Sanctions should be abandoned by the British Government at once. It was, and is, a totally unworthy policy. The position was summed up long ago by one of our greatest poets:
"'Tis not in mortals to command success—But we'll do more, Sempronius,
We'll deserve it."
4.10 p.m.
LORD GREENWAY: My Lords, I wish at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for raising this Question. He was the High Commissioner when I was last in Rhodesia, which was at the time of my father's death. I am an Indian and I was naturalised in 1947. My mother and father are both buried in Salisbury, Rhodesia. I will not ask the noble Baroness to answer that conundrum. I simply state the facts.
My Lords, I shall intervene for only a very few moments. Unlike many of your Lordships I have not been to Rhodesia since the days of U.D.I. However, until my father died in Salisbury in 1962 I visited Rhodesia nearly every other year from 1950 for at least six weeks at a time. I was in Rhodesia during those years of the "Capricorn Africa" idea, the Central African Federation scheme. It was then that I got to know the Rhodesias and Nyasaland and their peoples very well—whether I was in Fort Victoria or Zimbabwe in the South or Kitwe up in the Copper Belt, which is now Zambia, Bulawayo or Chirundi Bridge which is the great bridge across the Zambesi and its great escarpment.
I must put forward the great case for the valuable efforts of the Europeans in that part of the world during those years. I was present when Kariba started and later when the Cofferdam was flooded and burst. I was there when the last brick was put on the dam, and I remember that last night when I was there with my wife and the cheerful Italians who built that great project. What a wonderful job they did! Later, I was in Kitwe, which is now Zambia, when the great electricity network of Union Miniére, which went down from Elizabethville on the Congo, was linked up straight through the Rhodesias and down to Johannesburg. Finally, my Lords, the great potential that was starting during those years from 1950 up to 1960 I sincerely hope is still going
712
strong, and I hope for the day when sanctions will end.
4.12 p.m.
LORD CAMOYS: My Lords, I should like very much to support my noble friend who has just spoken. I have three points to make about sanctions. I am very much opposed to sanctions: first, on moral grounds; secondly, because the people in Rhodesia who are likely to be hurt most are the coloured people: and, thirdly, because I believe that you cannot sit on either side of an Iron Curtain or brick wall and get anywhere. One of the best ways to solve your problems and settle your differences is by the intercourse of trade.
4.14 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, regretfully I must start with an apology to your Lordships that, owing to an engagement which is unfortunately compelling, I must leave your Lordships' House at half-past four and this debate has come on rather later than I had reason to anticipate. I feel that perhaps too little attention has been paid to the basic legal justification for sanctions; namely, that, as I understand it, the United Nations Charter requires that the offending State shall have committed or intends to commit an act prejudicial to international security. The extension of that argument to U.D.I. strained the credulity of at least some of us and to-day it is even more difficult to believe as a justification. Most people—certainly I, for one—had no sympathy whatever with the action of Rhodesia in its U.D.I., nor do I attempt to justify it now. But, in so far as the general acceptance of the policy of mandatory sanctions by this country is concerned, I feel that its object was mainly penal in the hope of punishing Rhodesia for an act which we all deplore.
In the light of experience that objective has singularly failed. It has, admittedly to a small extent, affected the Rhodesian economy by a restriction of foreign resources. Its chief effect, however, has undoubtedly been to hurt the African through unemployment and a lowering of what I would say was the standard of growth of the economy of Rhodesia as a whole. My own experience of that country is now six or seven years out of date, but I think my noble friend Lord

713
Alport would expect me, in view of what he knows of my previous association, to make some comment on the suggestion he made with regard to tobacco.
My Lords, this is an entirely novel suggestion. My first reaction was, I think, the one which was voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway; namely, that this is terribly difficult in principle and, not only in principle, but in practice, too, because it envisages tagging the tobacco that would come on the auction market with not only the origin but also with what I would call the racial persuasion and the political affiliations of the grower who sent it. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, pointed out, the great majority of people interested in that crop, whether sold by Europeans or Africans, are the Africans themselves: it is the Africans themselves who are mainly responsible for growing it. Therefore I would not myself see any prospect of help to the general situation arising from such a suggestion.
As regards future general policy I feel that to continue sanctions simply by renewing them for another year could be capable of considerable misunderstanding, not only here but in Rhodesia itself. I strongly believe that the proposals, which were not, unfortunately, accepted, would have worked to the great benefit of the country as a whole, but undoubtedly to the benefit of the Africans in Rhodesia. While it may well be that the noble Baroness who will reply will refer again to the necessity for time for reflection—the Foreign Secretary referred to this and I believe the noble Baroness also referred to it in your Lordships' House on a previous occasion—and granted that time for reflection is required (a time that goes beyond November) I would put in a plea for consideration that the terms of the extension of that time, if such be necessary, be on what I might call a temporary basis and definitely not an undertaking to maintain sanctions for another full year, which I would seriously regret.
4.19 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name down to speak in this debate but I have been sitting as an arbitrator to-day and I had not anticipated I would be able to be in your Lordships' House. I have on
714
a number of occasions expressed my views about Rhodesia and I have no intention of repeating them to-day. I want first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for having put the Question down so that noble Lords may see whether the Government have now a Rhodesian policy and, if so, what it is.
As to sanctions, while deeply respecting the sincerity of all those who have expressed opinions, I regard with some scepticism pleas by white people that we should give up sanctions in the interests of black people whom they are harming so much; I think the black people are the best judges of what is in their own interests. Secondly, I believe that sanctions, and sanctions alone, have brought Mr. Smith three times to the conference table and will do so again. In any case I could not myself regard with favour any suggestion that we should flagrantly disregard a unanimous Resolution of the Security Council.
I look forward to hearing—I hope we shall the views of my noble friend Lord Caradon, and those others whose names are on the list of speakers, and to hearing what the Government have to say, particularly as to the actions of our own representative on the Sanctions Committee.
4.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, when I came into your Lordships' House this morning I did not really intend to stay for this debate, but after I heard the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, I felt that I must express from these Benches, thinly occupied though they are on this Friday afternoon, how warmly I support what the noble Lord said and the way in which he put his Question. I have no doubt that the Smith/Douglas-Home proposals should not be lying on any table; they have been rejected and there is, as the noble Lord said, no chance that they are going to be accepted by the African population. There is no point in their lying on the Table. Of course we can go on considering and reflecting, whether they are on the Table or not.
The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, quoted what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said in his speech in this House and the advice he gave to Mr. Smith. All I would say is that if Mr. Smith had taken the noble Lord's advice then undoubtedly the

715
position would be very different to-day. If he takes that advice between now and November the position will be different in November, but at the present time there seems to be no sign that he is going to do so. In those circumstances I was not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, was getting at.
As regards sanctions, I liked very much the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that one might be able to introduce some kind of discrimination so that they would not hurt where we do not want them to hurt. But I am afraid I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that I do not feel that that is practicable. It would be interesting if the noble Baroness who is to reply were able to say that she thought something could be done in the context of making our contribution to African education—the contribution that was promised as part of the deal which is now not coming off. This would be a splendid thing. What I do not know is whether, if a contribution is made, there is any means of ensuring, once the funds have reached Rhodesia, that they will be used for that purpose. It might be that there will be some possibility there.
On sanctions generally I found myself completely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Annan. It seems to me that this is the only way in which we can make an international protest, whether it is effective or not, whether it hurts us, or whether it hurts someone else. We cannot go marching down the street with banners or go lobbying people: the only way we can make a protest is by taking this sort of action. Personally, I believe that the great majority of people feel that this is a case where a protest must be made and where it would be right to continue it. I shall quite understand, of course, if the noble Baroness says that November is early enough to decide what the next action is to be.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, suggested—and I found myself agreeing with him—that it is perhaps for Britain, as the father figure or perhaps I should say the mother figure in this issue, to initiate the next round of discussions. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said, this must be discussion at one and the same time with
716
Mr. Smith and with the representatives of the Africans. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that we have no power to do that. He may well be right, but I wonder whether we could not put ourselves into the position of inviting Mr. Smith and the representatives of the Africans to come to London for a conference. If Mr. Smith says that the Africans cannot come because he will not let them out, that is the end of it; but we shall have done the best we can to get the conference with Mr. Smith and the African leaders. I rose only to assure the noble Lord, Lord Alport, of the support that we on these Benches feel for the attitude he has taken.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, my reason for suggesting that Mr. Smith might follow the proposals which lay on the table was that it seemed to me that these were proposals which had been achieved after about six years of work to try to get somebody to the table. Although the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said they were not the best he would like, they had been accepted by the British Government and might have been the basis on which agreement could be established with the Africans, even if some modifications were required. It seems to me a complete negation of the situation not to do something about those proposals which lie there now.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I follow what the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said. I think there has been a great deal of confusion here and it goes a long way back. Your Lordships' House, I think I am right in saying, approved the proposals by a substantial majority; but many of us who voted for the proposals voted for them because they included the clause that they had to be agreed by the Africans. Many of us believed that they would not be agreed by the Africans: because they gave the Africans the opportunity of agreeing we supported them! The Africans having rejected them, I regarded the proposals as dead, but no doubt the noble Lord will take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said.
4.27 p.m.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, I apologise for not having put down my name to speak. I have only recently returned from Africa, where I find North of the

717
Zambesi an almost universal view among the Africans I was able to consult in four separate countries. They have no doubts. As I have listened to this debate I have had three recollections in my mind. At one time I had the distinction of being a fellow member with the noble Baronesss who is to reply of the British delegation to the United Nations. At that time I resigned from my position because the Government of that day refused to accept the recommendation that African leaders should be brought into consultation. That was many years ago. My second recollection, when I was on the other side of the House, was coming back from New York to urge that the decision of this House to refuse to grant approval for the sanctions which had been agreed in New York should be reversed. I well remember coming back, and we achieved our purpose at that time. The third recollection I have is when I had the honour of presenting in the Security Council the resolution which secured the unanimous vote of the Council for mandatory sanctions against the illegal regime in Rhodesia.
I said then, and it was said by the previous Government, that the Government accepted primary responsibility for what took place in Rhodesia, a British Colony. We have claimed that responsibility. We have never sought to shake it from us. If we attempted to run away from that responsibility now, as we sometimes hear it suggested we should, then I believe we should rightly be condemned internationally by the whole range of countries represented at the United Nations. It is not for me, at this stage of the debate, to refer to the speeches made throughout the afternoon—it would be very wrong to try to do so, tempted though I may be—except to say, if I may, with very great respect, that I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, with admiration for his courage and his constructive approach. I think that his voice in this matter, both in Africa and elsewhere, carries very great weight, and I am glad to pay my tribute to the lead he gives us.
We come then to the question of British interests. Certainly we must consider the matter from the point of view of British interest, and we have two clear alternatives. The first alternative is the policy of mounting pressure on the white
718
minority régimes of Southern Africa; mounting pressure—political, economic and other pressures—for what purpose? Mounting pressure in order to achieve the purpose of African consultation, of African participation, in the government of their own countries. We ask no more; nor do they. It is not for us to decide exactly the programmes and methods, but it is for us to require—and I believe we have an absolute right to require—that the great majorities, the African majorities South of the Zambesi, should be consulted about their own future and should be enabled to take a full part in the government of their own countries. That is all they ask and that is all we ask, and that is what the mounting pressure is for: to achieve African consultation, to achieve African participation.
The alternative—and we have had ample warning of it in this House this afternoon—is diminishing pressure. Does anyone imagine that the Government of South Africa or the illegal régime in Rhodesia will, in regard to Rhodesia or Namibia, or South Africa itself—or, for that matter, the Portuguese Government in regard to the Portuguese territories—reverse their policies if we remove the pressure? Do they imagine that kind words will lead to a change in their policies? I say this with absolute certainty: that if we remove the pressure, if we merely rely on their own good will, then we shall be perpetuating the cruel policies which are condemned—yes, condemned—on both sides of the House. Therefore, we have a clear choice, and I think we want a clear answer. I greatly hope that the noble Baroness, who has established in this House over a number of years, and particularly recently, such an outstanding reputation, will give us the answer that the policy of this Government is considered, is persistent, is consistent; that the policy of this Government is mounting pressure to achieve justice for the African populations South of the Zambesi.
4.33 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I, too, must apologise for not having put my name down to speak in this debate, but I was not certain that I could be here. I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I should first of all like to direct attention to my noble friend's

719
Question. My noble friend asks Her Majesty's Government
"… whether there has been any change in their intention to re-enact the Southern Rhodesian Orders …"
So far as I know, they have never expressed any intention to re-enact them in November. In another place, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that it was necessary to have a time for reflection, and that he believed that that time might extend beyond November. He said:
"… today we are keeping the status quo, and it could go on beyond November …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 15/6/72, col. 1763.]
There was no undertaking that it would; no declaration of intention that it would. My right honourable friend Mr. Richard Wood, who wound up that debate for the Government in another place, said this:
"The question has been raised whether sanctions will be renewed in November when the present order lapses.… I see no reason or need to pronounce finally today on a matter which has no relevance until November ".—[col. 1869.]
I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister of State will not feel obliged to go beyond what my right honourable friends said in the House of Commons.
It seems to me, listening to this debate, that there have been two illusions floating about in the air. One illusion is that Rhodesia is not an independent State but a State dependent upon us. Rhodesia is an independent State and the fact that we do not recognise its independence does not make it any less of an independent State; the fact that sanctions are being exerted against Rhodesia does not lessen its independence, any more than sanctions against Italy lessened Italian independence in 1935. That is one illusion, that Rhodesia is not an independent State. In fact, we have very little power to affect developments there, and such power as we have, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Annan indicated, is power for harm rather than power for good.
The other illusion is that sanctions are not stiff enough. The problem is not that sanctions are not stiff enough, but that they are not being observed. Are we really to suppose that the positive, dynamic and discriminatory sanctions suggested by my noble friend are more
720
likely to be observed than the present ones? Surely, they are much less likely to be observed for it could be far more difficult to police them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, whose sincerity in these matters we all respect, but whose policy has been conspicuous by its failure over the past nearly seven years, told us that three times sanctions have brought Mr. Smith to the negotiating table and that they would bring him a fourth time. I would quote against the noble and learned Lord the opinion of another noble and learned Lord, the present Lord Chancellor, who said only a few months ago:
"All the evidence seems to show that as each successive set of negotiations has taken place they have successively disclosed a less favourable negotiating position."
That, my Lords, is a less favourable position for us. I can see no reason why, even if the continuation of sanctions brings Mr. Smith to the negotiating table again, that process will not continue. It will again be a case of the Sybilline Books, and we shall not get as much then as we shall have had now.
When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, I could not help wondering whether sometimes in the still watches of the night he ever wondered about the morality of the United Nations' action in these matters. He is well aware that the late Dean Acheson, a great friend of this country, a great friend of international action and one of the founders of the United Nations, described the mandatory sanctions as "bare-faced aggression". I must say that when we hear the United Nations saying that Rhodesia was a threat to world peace, I can think of only one parallel and that is an exact parallel—when Herr Hitler said that Dr. Benes and Jan Masaryk were a threat to world peace in 1938.
The noble Baroness who is to reply and who, I have no doubt, will do so with her usual charm and intellectual distinction, took me to task in our last debate. She semed to think that I wish to appease Mr. Smith. I would ask her this question. In what sense can a country with a population of 50 million and more, with great industrial power, and still with some considerable military force, be said to appease a population of a quarter of a million whites in Rhodesia? The question of appeasement does not arise there. But what we have been

721
doing is appeasing the Afro-Asian lobby in the United Nations; appeasing members of the Commonwealth who do not seem to wish us particularly well but who are still incapable of doing us any particular harm. There is where the charge of appeasement lies and I hope that the noble Baroness will say a word about that.
My Lords, I have great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Vernon. As he knows, I did not agree with what he said about the Fifth Principle. I think that the Fifth Principle is inoperative, but I do not think that in the light of everything that has been said we can conceivably accept the present settlement as conditions are to-day, or in any foreseeable future. I think that would be completely wrong. I agree with a great deal that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said about morality in politics. I agree with him also, in spite of his view that politics was not the field for the display of moral gestures, that we have a special obligation to the peoples of Rhodesia which is and which must be recognised as a moral obligation. One of the worst aspects, as it seems to me, of continuing the campaign of sanctions is that, knowing we are powerless and that we cannot influence events in Rhodesia by continuing sanctions, we give the Africans the entirely deceptive delusion that somehow we are going to make things better for them through sanctions when I think that most of us know that we are not.
My Lords, there is just one more thing that I want to say and I thank your Lordships for your patience at this hour. I will quote from a greater authority than I.
"If sanctions succeed in bringing about a change of political orientation in Rhodesia, the way to a settlement, an honourable and generous settlement, is possible between the two countries.… If, however, sanctions were to fail as a result of the demonstrable failure of other countries, members of the United Nations, to fulfil their obligations, it would still be possible to reach a settlement. We should be able to go to the United States and say that, although we have carried out our undertaking under the United Nations Resolution in the letter and in the spirit, others had failed to do so. We could present them with the evidence of this failure. We should then be justified, among reasonable people, in feeling ourselves free to negotiate in those circumstances the best possible settlement of this dispute."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 18/6/1968; c. 554–5.]
722
I do not know to what extent my noble friend Lord Alport has changed his views in the last four years, but that seems to me to be the wisest thing I have ever heard him say on the Rhodesian problem.
I would ask the Government to consider seriously whether the time has not come when those conditions adumbrated by my noble friend four years ago have in fact been realised, and whether it would not be more honourable and for the betterment of Rhodesians of all colours and shades, as well as for our reputation, to approach the United Nations and say, as the noble Lord suggested, "We have done our best and we can do no more." That would be honourable and intelligible. It would cause a lot of anger, but we should have to face the music. In any case, we shall have to face it one day. I suggest that the sooner we face it, the happier place Rhodesia and Southern Africa will be.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord who has just spoken will allow me to say that I do not in any way detract from the views which I expressed on that occasion. The difference of opinion between him and me is that sanctions have failed. Certainly they have not succeeded in doing what they were originally intended to do, but no one should underestimate the impact they have made, and are making, on Rhodesia.
4.47 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, perhaps I should reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and tell him that I am against appeasement of evil in whatever size, shape or form it appears. For that matter, when the whole of the Western world and a good deal of the rest of the world were appeasing Hitler he was numerically far below the forces which eventually overcome him. I do not think that numbers have anything to do with the matter. The question is one of principle, and the principle of sanctions Governments of both Parties have thought to be the right thing in this quite horrible problem. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, can take care of himself only too well; but the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, as to whether the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, slept easily at night when he thought about sanctions was adequately summed

723
up in your Lordships' House when we last voted on the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, when he was defeated so conspicuously.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for giving us the opportunity to have this very fascinating debate. It is extraordinary that at this hour on a Friday, after a peculiarly hard week, there should be so many of your Lordships still here and, all out of place and so on, getting up to speak. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, succeeded in astonishing everybody, especially perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury. I should like particularly to endorse what he said about Bishop Muzorewa. There is no question but that he is a most formidable man of great moderation, of Gandhian views on anti-violence; and there is no doubt at all that we must encourage him in every possible way. We must encourage the Rhodesians themselves to have talks with a man of such stature and moderation. I am particularly glad that my noble friend Lord Brockway mentioned that really remarkable meeting with the Europeans in Salisbury. It had never happened before. There were 900 Europeans inside the hall and hundreds outside because they could not get in. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, who is to reply to this debate, will agree that we must do everything in our power to urge the Smith régime to have talks with this man.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, will not expect me to endorse his remarks about Mr. Joshua Nkomo and, by implication, the other nationalist leaders, such as the Reverend Mr. Ndabaningdhi Sithole. If the Smith regime gets more extreme, there is no question but that Mr. Smith himself may probably have to go; and if they get even more extreme then one does not know whether a moderate like the Bishop can keep the power and influence which he has undoubtedly at the moment with the African people.
The suggestions of the noble Lord about sanctions were extraordinarily interesting. He is absolutely right when he says that the rain falls on the just and the unjust, and I wondered whether he remembered a poem of my youth which ran like this—
724
"The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella.
It raineth more upon the just
Because the unjust has the just's umbrella."
I think in this case, although I could not resist quoting the poem, it is not really apposite, because the unjust are the whites and there is no doubt at all that sanctions are hurting the Europeans more than the Africans. That is one of the reasons why, fascinating though his suggestion was, I do not think there is much hope of its succeeding. For instance, I cannot imagine the Government allowing the very, very scarce railway rollingstock (which we know to be in dreadfully short supply) to be used specifically to take the African tobacco to the ports for export, or giving them special drying facilities, and so on. I just cannot see that happening.
When so many noble Lords have said that sanctions are not succeeding, I find it very difficult to understand how they can close their eyes to their success. Of course we know that businessmen all over the world have been trying to erode them. The Gnomes of Zurich, who charge tremendous rates, have done the same and even the United States Government to their eternal shame, have broken the chrome sanction. But there is no doubt that Smith's economy is in desperate straits, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has lust said. We will not go over all the arguments again, but what really matters is that the keeping on of sanctions has prevented Mr. Smith getting one of the main things he wants, which is white immigration.
Let no-one on the other side of the House think that we on these Benches feel any sense of glory or triumph about the imposition of sanctions. Rhodesia is a most lovely country, and it is an absolute tragedy that the situation should be as it is. There was an article in the Rhodesian Herald the other day which said that the young people are trying to leave the country; that they can see no future for themselves, no future jobs; they see no culture and they see no political future. This is because it is a country which is trying to turn the clock back and to exist on social, political and economic injustice. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, these are the very things in which the young take

725
tremendous and, indeed, overwhelming interest. It is a tragedy that the situation should be as it is. But the curious thing is—and here I would certainly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alport—that there are quite a few benefits coming to the Africans out of the sanctions policy. For instance, because the Rhodesians cannot import consumer goods they are having to start industries of their own. This has led to a quite remarkable increase in the employment of semi-skilled Africans. Because white immigration is not materialising, Rhodesia has been forced to employ Africans where that would never have been dreamed of before. Four or five years ago when I was last there, it would have been quite unthinkable to have an African teller in a bank or to have an African behind the counter in a post office, dealing with blacks and whites equally at the same guichets. Friends from Rhodesia tell me that this is what is now happening; this is because of the sanctions that have been kept on and because of the economic situation which has followed. There are even more subtle effects. Since they cannot export these consumer goods, for the first time they are welcoming the Africans as customers.
For those who do not know Rhodesia it will seem unbelievable that when I was last there, which as I have said was about five years ago, on one occasion I went shopping with a very senior nursing sister. She was a night superintendent in the largest hospital in Harari and had hundreds of lives for which she was responsible every day of her life. She and I went to a shop, but she had to wait outside because she was black. This sort of thing is now changing because of the economic situation and because of the pressure which Rhodesia has felt from the outside. Nobody likes to feel isolated in the way that they do. There is no question that sanctions have made an enormous difference in this way. As my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner said, one always is suspicious when the white people call for sanctions to be lifted because they are hurting the African people. Africans have not asked us to lift the sanctions. On the contrary, it is the Africans in Rhodesia as well as—as my noble friend Lord Caradon
726
pointed out—Africans outside Rhodesia who have urged us to retain sanctions.
The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, asked, "Why should be go it alone?" My Lords, we have done so before, but on that occasion we had the whole Commonwealth behind us. If we lifted sanctions on this occasion we should have the Commonwealth not behind us but against us. I am quite clear in my mind that the Government know this as well as we do. I have great faith, unlike what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said, that when the noble Baroness comes to reply she will fulfil what the Government have so far promised to do. In our last debate they accepted our Amendment, they accepted the point to make sanctions more effective in order to create an atmosphere for constructive discussion in Rhodesia. The noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack said, referring to sanctions:
"… they have been imposed by a vote of the Security Council, under Chapter VII of the Charter. What would be the effect of our unilaterally removing them? Certainly it would be serious, both in its repercussions on the future of the United Nations Organisation and upon our own interests. I earnestly say to my noble friends that, whatever may be the value of such a course, it is not one that we should embark upon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/6/72, col. 360.]
I lay great faith in the words of the noble and learned Lord and of the noble Baroness opposite.
The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said that nobody should say anything against Mr. Smith and his régime; but it is very difficult not to mention one or two things. I will not go into this aspect in any detail. My noble friend Lord Brockway referred further to the peoples of Tangwena, and we were discussing this subject this morning. I know how difficult it is to discuss this matter by question and answer, and I know how difficult it is for the noble Baroness to obtain information. I should like to assure her that, quite apart from the unbelievable cruelty of taking these children away from their mothers, these children have already been deprived. They have already lost their fathers; they had to watch their homes being burnt and see the cattle taken away and the crops burnt. Their own school was destroyed by the Government of Rhodesia. These children were taken from the sanctuary of legal guardianship

727
at Nyafaru with some of their mothers and relatives, to what I now find is described as an encampment outside Salisbury. The Government of Rhodesia, and the Smith régime, say, "Come and fetch your children". This involves 200 miles of travelling for these poor tribesmen, and they know perfectly well that if they do go to fetch their children they will be arrested.
My Lords, these children are being treated as hostages. It is very difficult to forgive something of that kind. And, of course, the Tangwena are not the only people forced to move; hundreds of thousands of Africans have been uprooted. I can give your Lordships so many examples: the Weya Reserve, the Mutema Reserve, the Mutambara Reserve—one could go on for ever. I will not do that, but the Tangwena are not atypical. They are just an example of why sanctions must be retained, so that the Africans do not lose their faith in us. They still look to us; and so does the world.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether any progress has been made (I asked her last time we spoke about this subject) in discussions with our colleagues at the United Nations on strengthening sanctions in the ways we suggested—perhaps by inspectors at ports or a permanent secretariat or something of that kind. I am quite sure that this Government will keep their word about retaining sanctions. Unfortunately, the speeches which noble Lords opposite make, calling for the removal of sanctions, echo around the world. The Press of the world nobly supports those who call for economic measures which will benefit big business, the international combines, and all the rest. Those of us who call for responsibility and morality are considered more boring. Perhaps we are though mynoble friend Lord Annan is never boring. But those will be the people who are reported. We have a great prestige throughout the world, because of the success of the Pearce Commission and the way its work was carried out. As a result, we are trusted in a way in which we had not been trusted before. We must not throw away this trust that we now have. People in the Commonwealth, people in the Third World and people in Europe, at this moment particularly,
728
must still believe that Britain honours her obligations; that Britain stands by the United Nations, and that we still deeply care for the people who are in our trust.
5.2 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I also should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Alport on having raised a debate on a Friday afternoon in which he has had no fewer than 16 speakers. He is much to be congratulated. But of course he was raising what the noble Baroness described as "this quite horrible problem"—the problem of Rhodesia, of sanctions, of how and when we are to obtain a settlement. When Lord Alport began his speech he said that time is not on our side. I must say I agree with him on that. He also asked: How long is this pause going to continue? It is only two months since we had the Report of the Pearce Commission and, as my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in another place on June 15, sanctions will be continued while we allow time for further reflection in Rhodesia. He made it perfectly clear that the time required would involve renewal in November of Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965.
We do not rule out some further initiative coming from this country. But we think that at present the best hope lies through consultation, if possible, and discussion between all Rhodesians themselves. I say "all Rhodesians" because I prefer saying that to "all races in Rhodesia". This is the whole point of this period of reflection which must give enough time; and while that is taking place we must in this country keep the status quo, which includes the continuation of sanctions. I suggest to my noble friends who are unhappy about sanctions that surely the one thing we should not begrudge those who are striving for some kind of conciliation and compromise in Rhodesia is time.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, said that the settlement proposals, while lying on the Table, were an obstacle and that they should be withdrawn, but I would put it to him that they could very well be the basis for consultation, which is what is beginning to happen now. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, and my noble friend

729
spoke in particular about Bishop Muzorewa, who I understand has had a remarkable series of informal meetings with all the Rhodesians he has so far managed to contact. By doing that I think he is trying to strengthen moderate opinion throughout his country and to endeavour to explain what are the objects of the A.N.C.
My noble friend said that he was in favour of sanctions, but asked whether they could somehow be made more discriminating. This point was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, by my noble friend Lord Vernon, by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, and also by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. They all, one after the other, thought that it would not really be possible to have this kind of discrimination, and that it would be very difficult to do. My noble friend Lord Gridley suggested that a lot might happen between August and November. That is perfectly true. We wish that a lot will happen, but at the moment we do not foresee that it will. He also expressed the view that sanctions are hitting the Africans harder than the Europeans, but, as the noble Baroness pointed out, while that may be true in some sense they have also brought certain benefits in that they have brought about greater employment through the creation of new industries.
My noble friend Lord Gridley said that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has said that if sanctions are shown to be, as one noble Lord has described them, a "farce"—and I think this was particularly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Coleraine—then we will go openly to Parliament and to the United Nations and explain why. In the meantime, I think it is worth pointing out that if we are to have any influence in a country where we really have very little power on the ground, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out, then we have only one lever and that is sanctions. It is sanctions which have created great difficulties for Rhodesia from the point of view of investment.
None of us likes to see this happen to a people who, while many of them may now be second or third generation, were originally of British stock. But the fact remains that, however successful Rhodesia has been in getting around
730
some of the trading sanctions, there is no doubt that the importance of London as an international money market, and the reluctance of entrepreneurs to risk their money in a country whose long-term future remains in doubt, have meant that the Rhodesians have found it extremely difficult to get foreign capital. It is really because of the acute balance-of-payments situation that the problem in Rhodesia has grown so much, and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner rightly said, it is this perhaps more than anything else which brought Mr. Smith to the negotiating table.
Some noble Lords asked: if we are to have sanctions, can we not make them more effective? I was asked what was being done about this point. When the Security Council discussed this matter on July 28, the United Kingdom delegate, together with all the other delegates, voted in favour of a resolution; and our representative, Sir Colin Crowe, said that it was not enough for the Security Council to pass resolutions. What counted was for sanctions to be carried out; and not merely by this country, he said. He quoted the Statement by the Secretary of State in another place on June 9 about the evasion of sanctions and said that we would not wish to single out particular Governments for blame but that it was necessary to keep up the pressure on the Rhodesian régime by applying sanctions. In the United Nations Sanctions Committee we urged that the recommendations of that Committee should be sent to all member Governments for careful study. This was accepted by all concerned, and this in fact is what is happening.
Several noble Lords—notably my noble friend who opened the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies—spoke about the problem (or should I call it the opportunity?) of education. Under the settlement proposals we would have given a quite considerable sum to help with African education. But the fact remains that even under the sanctions legislation we can allow, for example, the transfer of funds to Rhodesia for the missionary societies for their schools there. In the 12 months ended June, 1972, £122,000 has been sent for capital projects, and £54,500 for running expenses in the

731
schools they control. We ourselves contribute on a considerable scale to the Special Commonwealth Educational Programme for Rhodesian Asians, and those still living in Rhodesia are also eligible for the Fellowship Plan which provides for post-graduate studies in research. Britain is still the largest contributor to these Commonwealth programmes and has at a cost of £430,000 made 270 of the 400 awards granted since 1966.
Since our last debate on the Pearce Report, on June 21, there have been several calls to Her Majesty's Government to consider whether we could give any further assistance for Rhodesian African education and we are considering carefully and in detail how we could contribute something further, something which would be a humanitarian exception under the sanctions legislation. I am not in a position this afternoon to say exactly what this would be, except to say that I believe that we shall be able to do it despite the fact that we have returned to the status quo, including sanctions.
My noble friend Lord Vernon felt that the trouble with the settlement proposals was that there was no guarantee that they would be carried out. That is perfectly true. There can never be any guarantee in any country, but the fact remains—I said this in our last debate—that a hopeful sign in the Pearce Report was that, on the one hand, as far as one could understand it, those who expressed a view among the Africans were not asking for immediate majority rule now while, on the other, the Rhodesian authorities were accepting that there should be majority rule, even if the timescale was subject to different interpretation by different people. In that way, therefore, I think that maybe there is a possibility that moderate elements in Rhodesia might come together.
It was interesting to try to sum up how many noble Lords who had spoken were for and how many were against sanctions. Roughly speaking, there was a fair division between the two, and I think that those who spoke against sanctions really genuinely felt that they were not the way by which we could influence moderate opinion in Rhodesia. I think they felt that they might unite Rhodesians among themselves to overcome external pressure and that it might make for a
732
better climate of opinion if sanctions were removed. But, my Lords, as we have so little power, I suggest that until there is a real movement within Rhodesia itself, among those who live there and those who will have to live there in the future, I do not think we can do anything but carry on with the situation as it is.
I should just like in ending to assure the House that we are very well aware of our responsibilities in this matter, even though at this moment we stress the need for action by Rhodesians themselves. We are still very much concerned that a solution should be found on the basis of the Five Principles and we watch very carefully and get a certain amount of news about developments in Salisbury and elsewhere, since the Pearce Report. There have been certain actions which we do not think are at all helpful towards moderate opinion, and we hope very much that these will be reconsidered. But there have also been real signs that there is a search for a settlement, and we hope and believe that everything which has been said in this House will be carefully studied, because, whether those who have spoken are for or against sanctions, we are united in this House in wanting to see an honourable end to this terrible problem within Rhodesia.
5.17 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords. I deferred until this moment participating in this discussion, because I waited to see its course and, particularly, to listen to the noble Baroness. In this House, Unstarred Questions customarily deal with a cause or a subject and are not a straight Question. The words on the Order Paper suggested a straight Question which could equally well have been put down as a Starred Question. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, whose eloquence and clarity of expression we always so much enjoy—though we frequently disagree with his views—to-day took a line entirely different from what, as my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury said, could have been expected. The line which he took was so novel, arresting and suggestive that its effect was completely to destroy sanctions. It was the best reasoning we have had in this House for discontinuing sanctions. I have consistently opposed sanctions

733
over these several years. I will make no attempt to repeat what I have said on those occasions, but I want to associate myself entirely with what was said by my noble friend Lord Coleraine.
Coming to the noble Baroness's speech, which I particularly wished to hear, she had a very difficult case. The expressions of opinion in the House have been such as to make her course a difficult one, particularly in view of the fact that her words as a Minister will be closely followed, but I am more encouraged than I was disappointed. To begin with I felt disappointment, but the puzzle is, how long is the period of reflection to be? The noble Lord, Lord Alport, particularly stressed that point. How long is it to be? The Minister says it is to be long enough to enable all shades of opinion in Africa to get together. That may be years. I believe that there is a strong swing of opinion of Members of your Lordships' House against sanctions; it is certainly overwhelming in the country, and so it is that we are puzzled and regret that the noble Baroness was not able to say something of encouragement that sanctions might come off before the date in November which has been mentioned.
Well, my Lords, the actual position in Rhodesia is that very good settlement terms were offered to the country after sincere, delicate and painstaking negotiations between the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister of Rhodesia. It is regrettable. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, recommended that the terms should be accepted. He recommended them strongly. Surely they would have benefited the Africans in Rhodesia very much now. But how can they? Of course the Pearce inquiry made a return on, I think, 6 per cent. of the population: 6 per cent—what a derisory amount! My Lords, should we be expected to make a settlement in Northern Ireland based on 6 per cent. of the population—humbug! nonsense! We should not. There are three and a half million Africans in the tribal trust lands. Go over the country; see them living in the kraals—how can you test that opinion? The situation is one which in that particular phase does not bear water.
In our discussion on the Pearce Report much play was made of the indifferent attitude of the Rhodesian Government
734
towards the matter. I remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, particularly emphasised that. What had the Smith Government done? But supposing an active, aggressive campaign of pressurising African opinion had been embarked upon by the Rhodesian Government from the moment a decision to have the Pearce Commission was announced, what a denial and denunciation would have taken place in this House trying to affect African opinion! There have been repeated criticisms of that kind. The Rhodesian Government took the right course of neutrality. Sanctions have not succeeded. What was their aim?—to destroy the Rhodesian Government, which means the economy of Rhodesia. If they had done so, what would have been the result? We should either have an influenced puppet Communist Government such as we have in other places in Central Africa, or we should have thrown Rhodesia right into association with South Africa. That is not what is wanted. To return to sanctions, surely these were inherited. Why is it not possible for the Government to say forthwith, as has been said by one of my noble friends behind me, "We have played our part. We have applied the necessary sanctions. Nobody else has done the same." Go to Rhodesia, and you will know that they are being broken by every other country. Why should we be the scapegoat for the world? On that point I cannot do better than quote from a letter I recently received from a very eminent general who was high in the information services during the war.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but are we not getting into some difficulty? This is an Unstarred Question. The noble Lord who asked the Question has no right of reply, but other Members can speak, and at the end of the debate the Minister replies. The Minister has replied, and I would respectfully suggest that we are getting into some difficulty if other noble Lords are going to start the debate all over again.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I must deny what the noble and learned Lord has said, because the discussion—it was not a debate—has ranged very wide. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Caradon,

735
sitting behind the noble himself ranged widely. Others did the same.
LORD GARDINER: But the Minister has now replied.
LORD BARNBY: I have given way once. I was on the point of quoting a letter.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has raised a point of order. I understand that the usual form is that the Minister replies to the Question, and that is the end of the debate. But, as I understand it, it is not out of order, though it is unusual, for other noble Lords to speak afterwards. Of course the Minister has no further right of reply, and so this is by way of a comment. I believe there is nothing in Standing Orders against this.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I say, as one who took part in this controversy some years ago, that I think what has just been said is quite right?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I was about to quote, with the permission of the House, from a letter received from an eminent general who was high in the information services during the war:
"It is a long time since we suffered such a national humiliation as when Wilson took this matter, an internal one if ever there was one, to the United Nations"
I dispute that sanctions are valid under the Charter. We have discussed this. They are only valid by usage, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said. I have not the Hansard with me, but I can turn it up. They are valid on usage, not on the terms of the Charter.
So far as the United Nations are concerned, it is a conspiracy of blackmail by a certain proportion of the numerous nonwhites in the United Nations to try to threaten us with a loss of trade if we do anything which would be a commonsense thing to do with regard to Rhodesia. The sensible thing would be to resume contacts. I appeal for us to resume contact; to hold people at a distance is not the way to make progress. Discuss matters face to face. That is the only way to settlement in human affairs. I appreciate what the noble Baroness was able to say but I regret that she could not go further. She will surely carry away an
736
impression that there is widespread concern about the further continuance of sanctions. It is in that vein that I hope she will understand the debate that has taken place to-day.

GAS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUSPROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
  FISH CATCHES
  FISH CATCHES